Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Ah, its the guy he plays with argument.
Peeke lovers could probably say the same.
-
Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates, this is just a temporary look. We will continue to work on clearing up these issues for the next few days and restore the site to it's more familiar look, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into. Thanks for your patience and understanding.
Player Discussion Mason Lohrei
- Thread starter Gee Wally
- Start date
Ah, its the guy he plays with argument.
Peeke lovers could probably say the same.
MarchysNoseKnows
Big Hat No Cattle
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
- Messages
- 10,138
- Likes
- 20,413
Don’t the guys he plays with directly influence his plus/minus, since that’s how you measure players?
D is a pair
mjhfb
Easier from up here
It think that's a problem, similar to the forward lines - there just hasn't been any pairings that everyone can agree are great and want to leave alone. A good game here, a stretch there, but not much chemistry overall. Like the forwards.
mar2kbos
Registered User
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2017
- Messages
- 7,394
- Likes
- 8,720
He needed more time in Providence. His defense game is inexperienced. He has a forwards mindset, and they are allowed to make mistakes for risks because defense can cover for them. When you are one of the last guys back flipping it out is the safest smartest play. That’s when the forward mind comes out in Lorhei when he tries risky moves at the wrong times. A couple of years in Providence drilling defense in him would have helped.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,817
- Likes
- 25,503
It's been musical chairs all season trying to find lines/pairings that work. Far cry from the Claude Julien days when it was the same lines/pairings night after night.
BiteThisBurrows
Registered User
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,377
- Likes
- 3,000
Well when you are winning you leave it the same and if you're losing you tinker. Julien was winning.
Problem with Lohrei is he's the only D man who is actually an offensive threat and so with such an anemic offense you kind of have to play him to try to generate something and so D mistakes will happen. It's a Catch 22.
Problem with Lohrei is he's the only D man who is actually an offensive threat and so with such an anemic offense you kind of have to play him to try to generate something and so D mistakes will happen. It's a Catch 22.
PlayMakers
Registered User
They may be starting to view Peeke as their #2RD. Last night, in what was a big game for Boston, Carlo played 16 minutes while Peeke played 18.
Or maybe they're seeing what life would look like without Carlo?
Yes, but given Lohrei is -16 and no other Bruins defender is worse than -4, I think any of his D partners could comfortably point in his direction and say "Mason buddy, the problem is you". Not that they would of course, and of course it's not that simple and none of the others are blameless either, far from it. But it's very safe to say that right now he's the worst defender in his own end on the team. Which, as I've said up thread, is not me writing him off or thinking the Bs shouldn't persevere with him. It's just acknowledging current reality.
That said, the team's play as a whole is definitely relevant. If the Bruins could score and win more it'd be easier to cover defensive lapses, if the rest of the team played better defensively Lohrei would get exposed less, if the whole team was playing better and with more confidence it would pick Mason up with it and he'd almost certainly also be performing better. That's usually how it is with kids and depth players - they rise and fall with the stars and the team as a whole. It's probably also largely why Lohrei at least looked better in the back end of last season compared to now.
I was going to try to dig a little more into how Lohrei's being used within games, but the Natural Stat Trick website is down so we'll leave that alone. Anyway, basically they're trying to give him a lot of offensive zone draws but otherwise not sheltering him much. He's seeing solid minutes, many against quality opposition, and, like the others, doing the rounds in terms of partners. It's a heavy workload for a kid who's still learning. For all the faults I think we've seen enough to warrant sticking with him and hoping that upside fully materializes. But equally I don't think he's untouchable - if the right deal came along that included him, I'd consider it.
Last edited:
If it's anything I suspect more the latter. For all that Carlo has been disappointing this season, Peeke while a little more reliable this year hasn't exactly been starring either. But even that aside, on pure ability and whatever his flaws Carlo is twice the player Peeke is. There's no way IMO you'd ever consider swapping them in terms of their position and seniority long-term.
He's very tradeable though, and there's a very strong case that he should be traded, not that this is the thread for it. So yeah, if there's anything to that, I'm leaning that way.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,817
- Likes
- 25,503
It's worth exploring. We poke fun at the Leafs all the time for running it back with the Core 4 over and over but they've been trying to win with McAvoy-Carlo as RD 1/2 now for 8 years now.
Clearly Carlo is one of the more marketable players on the roster given his pedigree/experience/age/contract status.
Sometimes I wonder if they would be better off with a more well-rounded player behind McAvoy on RD, someone to better share the overall load. Maybe you'd get more out of McAvoy that way, reduce his minutes a little bit and get more out of the minutes he does play. When I saw Rasmus Andersson was available earlier today I thought about a Andersson-Carlo swap but Calgary probably wouldn't be interested in that.
No doubt Carlo and Peeke both bring similar elements and lack some of the same elements to their games. Are they redundant even if Carlo is the better player.
PlayMakers
Registered User
I was thinking about a different RD too, but I was thinking more along the lines of what or who is the best partner for Lindholm. Hampus played his best hockey with Clifton as his RD, but that could have also been because they were used differently. Lindholm-Carlo is usually their shut down pair. They get buried with all the Dzone starts.
I wonder if that's one of the reasons McAvoy is struggling a bit this year, without Lindholm he's getting more of those starts and it's a shift in thinking. He got beat for a goal against the Islanders because he left the zone early and when we turned it over he was out of position.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Thank you so much.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Lohrei is a -16, Peeke -4.
It would seem that when not paired together, Lohrei is hurting his partners much more than Peeke is his.
Zadorov +7, McAvoy +2, Oesterle even, Carlo -1, Wotherspoon -2. Everyone must be dreading having to be paired with Lohrei.
And yes, I like to use plus/minus as a major factor when comparing players on the same team.
MarchysNoseKnows
Big Hat No Cattle
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
- Messages
- 10,138
- Likes
- 20,413
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Come on then, if you know better then refute the argument. If we accept as a starting point that yes, plus/minus needs to be analysed in context and like every other stat it's a guide only, then even allowing for that, why, with particular regard to Lohrei and his performance comparable to his teammates, is it a) totally irrelevant; and/or b) flat out misleading?
If you want to dismiss it, fine, but on what grounds?
Over the volcano
Registered User
How many of the team's dozen or so empty net goals allowed was Lorhei on the ice for? Pretty sure took -2 on empty net goals in their last two games alone.
How many do you think Peeke was on the ice for?
+/- is dumb
Last edited:
BigGoalBrad
Registered User
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Messages
- 10,983
- Likes
- 3,701
Carlo is a fraud and isn't better than the guys in Providence this year. I'd move him just for cap space.
But guys like him that are the right age with all that experience do have value. It's a shame Sweeney has let his tank it was clear the first couple games he didn't stay in shape this off-season and his minds somewhere else.
mjhfb
Easier from up here
Go ahead and laugh but if they continue to struggle on the PP later this month I'd consider trying Pasta in the bumper and Lohrei on the right wall instead of Marchand, move Marchand to the left, Brazeau screening/tipping and Hampus when better on the point.
BruinDust
Registered User
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,817
- Likes
- 25,503
I wanted to trade Carlo for Erik Karlsson two summers ago.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
I will concede, empty net goals should not count for plus/minus.
wintersej
Registered User
Is it just me or does he feel more effective when you just let him be a rover?
I don’t mind the mistakes from offensive aggression. Forwards should know how to rotate. Where he really really struggles is in coverage in his own zone.
I don’t mind the mistakes from offensive aggression. Forwards should know how to rotate. Where he really really struggles is in coverage in his own zone.
mjhfb
Easier from up here
Lohrei was always pretty much a rover, and good at it. Maybe the Bruins should go back to their old Torpedo system and make him a halfback.
BigGoalBrad
Registered User
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Messages
- 10,983
- Likes
- 3,701
Something tells me McAvoy would be better if there's a RD with skill as the #2 to push him and not a plug like Carlo.
It's just so maddening that every middle roster player is kept here way too long to the point they regress to being almost unplayable.
Lohrei is never going to be elite and we have expensive LD in place. He was good last playoffs so I can be patient but I don't think he ever will put up a ton of offense. It's basically another gryzluk just bigger but worse defensively.
LD options in the system are NHL capable Spoon and Oesterly. RD not really unless Callahan has made a jump. Mitchell stinks.
