Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Leafs sign Nick Robertson (1 year, $875k)

ULF_55

ULF_55

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
87,703
19,565
Mountain Standard Ti
Visit site
Robertson has one very good tool (shot), and one okay tool (skating).
(People are going to say it is a great shot, but there is enough evidence to say it is good, not great. Maybe it was great in junior, but this isn't junior.)

He's small and isn't a small strong guy. Being small doesn't make you weak, being big doesn't make you strong, but he isn't strong. Same size as Marchand, but not even close to being as effective physically.

Toronto is a fishbowl, he needs to be in some non-hockey market that isn't looking to win every game.

I think a team like Chicago, which at times is a fishbowl but right now is just another NHL team, would be a good option. That is a team not expecting to win anything, it is just a team waiting for Bedard to become the next star.
 

LeafParade

Registered User
Jun 27, 2019
1,358
1,412
ULF_55 said:
Robertson has one very good tool (shot), and one okay tool (skating).
(People are going to say it is a great shot, but there is enough evidence to say it is good, not great. Maybe it was great in junior, but this isn't junior.)

He's small and isn't a small strong guy. Being small doesn't make you weak, being big doesn't make you strong, but he isn't strong. Same size as Marchand, but not even close to being as effective physically.

Toronto is a fishbowl, he needs to be in some non-hockey market that isn't looking to win every game.

I think a team like Chicago, which at times is a fishbowl but right now is just another NHL team, would be a good option. That is a team not expecting to win anything, it is just a team waiting for Bedard to become the next star.
Click to expand...
I like Buffalo in a deal for Tuch at 50% retention.:D
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ULF_55
Stephen

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
81,951
59,994
ULF_55 said:
Robertson has one very good tool (shot), and one okay tool (skating).
(People are going to say it is a great shot, but there is enough evidence to say it is good, not great. Maybe it was great in junior, but this isn't junior.)

He's small and isn't a small strong guy. Being small doesn't make you weak, being big doesn't make you strong, but he isn't strong. Same size as Marchand, but not even close to being as effective physically.

Toronto is a fishbowl, he needs to be in some non-hockey market that isn't looking to win every game.

I think a team like Chicago, which at times is a fishbowl but right now is just another NHL team, would be a good option. That is a team not expecting to win anything, it is just a team waiting for Bedard to become the next star.
Click to expand...

Nick Robertson's potential is always floated out there as this big reason to hold onto him, but if one were to actually put a benchmark on what he could be come, what is it really?

Tyler Ennis level forward who can score 15-20 goals a half dozen or so times?

Steve Sullivan who will haunt this franchise for a dozen years as a max. 30 plus goal, 60 plus point guy?
 

notbias

Registered User
Feb 16, 2017
12,191
10,109
ULF_55 said:
Robertson has one very good tool (shot), and one okay tool (skating).
(People are going to say it is a great shot, but there is enough evidence to say it is good, not great. Maybe it was great in junior, but this isn't junior.)

He's small and isn't a small strong guy. Being small doesn't make you weak, being big doesn't make you strong, but he isn't strong. Same size as Marchand, but not even close to being as effective physically.

Toronto is a fishbowl, he needs to be in some non-hockey market that isn't looking to win every game.

I think a team like Chicago, which at times is a fishbowl but right now is just another NHL team, would be a good option. That is a team not expecting to win anything, it is just a team waiting for Bedard to become the next star.
Click to expand...

How are you measuring his shot being only good?

Show the evidence that you say there is.

I'd be curious to see who else only has a good shot that many consider to have a great one.

Stephen said:
Nick Robertson's potential is always floated out there as this big reason to hold onto him, but if one were to actually put a benchmark on what he could be come, what is it really?

Tyler Ennis level forward who can score 15-20 goals a half dozen or so times?

Steve Sullivan who will haunt this franchise for a dozen years as a max. 30 plus goal, 60 plus point guy?
Click to expand...

He had a 20-goal pace playing with plugs and limited ice time last year, I don't know if he is a 60 point guy, but I can see him flirting with a 30 goal season here and there.

Anyone who wants to keep him is usually advocating for a real shot with consistent ice time and decent linemates, not the low skilled players he normally gets.

We lack depth scoring every single year, and people want to give up on young potential so we can keep 4th liners who can't score.
 
Stephen

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
81,951
59,994
notbias said:
How are you measuring his shot being only good?
Click to expand...

Can't speak for Ulf, but I can see what he means when he downrates Robertson's shot. It's a great shot from a mechanical point of view and you don't expect that force from a body like that... but he has problems finding the time and space to release it. Which makes it a weapon he can't use efficiently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usernamezrhardtodo

notbias

Registered User
Feb 16, 2017
12,191
10,109
Stephen said:
Can't speak for Ulf, but I can see what he means when he downrates Robertson's shot. It's a great shot from a mechanical point of view and you don't expect that force from a body like that... but he has problems finding the time and space to release it. Which makes it a weapon he can't use efficiently.
Click to expand...

So in fact, the shot is great, but his positioning is bad, so the shot is great...

I'm not saying he is great right now, but seems weird to try to downgrade his shot.
 
ULF_55

ULF_55

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
87,703
19,565
Mountain Standard Ti
Visit site
notbias said:
How are you measuring his shot being only good?

Show the evidence that you say there is.

I'd be curious to see who else only has a good shot that many consider to have a great one.
Click to expand...
Achievement not activity.

Knowing how to score, rather than just how to shoot.
You can remove those that hardly score and hardly shoot but his competition is from the players who score not the players who play an all around game, or are limited tool players like Reaves.

1733590020412.png
 

notbias

Registered User
Feb 16, 2017
12,191
10,109
ULF_55 said:
No marner has a game, and a full toolbox.

Robertson doesn't.
Click to expand...

Look at goals above expected or something, shooting percentage is useless and you are already making excuses for the analysis.
 
Stephen

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
81,951
59,994
notbias said:
So in fact, the shot is great, but his positioning is bad, so the shot is great...

I'm not saying he is great right now, but seems weird to try to downgrade his shot.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd say his shot is great but he's held back by being a low IQ player with poor situational awareness, weak on his feet so he can't shoot while being defended, and lacks separation speed to create some openings and angles for himself.

I don't think he's a good player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supermann_98 and usernamezrhardtodo

notbias

Registered User
Feb 16, 2017
12,191
10,109
Stephen said:
Personally, I'd say his shot is great but he's held back by being a low IQ player with poor situational awareness, weak on his feet so he can't shoot while being defended, and lacks separation speed to create some openings and angles for himself.

I don't think he's a good player.
Click to expand...

That's fine, so his shot is great, that is what we are discussing.

ULF_55 said:
No excuses necessary.

His results are there to see.

No special stats are greater than success.
Click to expand...

We are discussing his shot, I guess we agree his shot is great since you are changing the subject.
 
Stephen

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
81,951
59,994
notbias said:
That's fine, so his shot is great, that is what we are discussing.



We are discussing his shot, I guess we agree his shot is great since you are changing the subject.
Click to expand...

I don't think we need a multi page debate over a turn of phrase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kurtz
ULF_55

ULF_55

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
87,703
19,565
Mountain Standard Ti
Visit site
Stephen said:
Personally, I'd say his shot is great but he's held back by being a low IQ player with poor situational awareness, weak on his feet so he can't shoot while being defended, and lacks separation speed to create some openings and angles for himself.

I don't think he's a good player.
Click to expand...

I thought his shot into top corner 5 inch space was great. But I've seen that shot before, I've seen Nylander and Matthews hit those. We've seen other players around the league hit those. But those players score without those shots as well.

I suppose if you rate his shot when it works, and ignore the shots that don't you can say he has a great shot. But wouldn't that apply to most players?
 
  • Like
Reactions: usernamezrhardtodo and Kurtz

LeafParade

Registered User
Jun 27, 2019
1,358
1,412
I am most annoyed that management did not move him when they had a chance. If you just forecast what was in the pipeline, it was obvious he was going to become expendable.

I wanted to deal him before the start of the year. Minten, Grebenkin, Cowan... he was not going to last past this year anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supermann_98 and ULF_55
Stephen

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
81,951
59,994
ULF_55 said:
I thought his shot into top corner 5 inch space was great. But I've seen that shot before, I've seen Nylander and Matthews hit those. We've seen other players around the league hit those. But those players score without those shots as well.

I suppose if you rate his shot when it works, and ignore the shots that don't you can say he has a great shot. But wouldn't that apply to most players?
Click to expand...

I'd say the problem with Robertson is he doesn't have a balanced mix of tools, and the one great tool he has (shot) can be neutralized by all the other stuff that are weaknesses in his game.

Separation speed sucks so he doesn't get to where he wants to go to quick enough, doesn't read the play that well so he doesn't go where ought to go because he's locked in tunnel vision mode, is weak on his feet so he gets knocked off.

The other comment that came up on radio this week is, maybe Robertson doesn't get top 6 opportunities because top 6 players don't like playing with him. He doesn't share the puck well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usernamezrhardtodo and Kurtz
Stephen

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
81,951
59,994
LeafParade said:
I am most annoyed that management did not move him when they had a chance. If you just forecast what was in the pipeline, it was obvious he was going to become expendable.

I wanted to deal him before the start of the year. Minten, Grebenkin, Cowan... he was not going to last past this year anyways.
Click to expand...

I think the writing was on the wall when he pulled his trade request as an RFA and wouldn't sign in the summer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeafParade
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X