Player Discussion Nick Suzuki Part 11

[The Gr8 Dane]

Carrying around the dead carcass of Cole Caufield all year , at least Slaf is helping him out ! What a duo!

 

[Mrb1p]

Carrying around the dead carcass of Cole Caufield all year , at least Slaf is helping him out ! What a duo!

And Matheson, plus Anderson for a good portion of the year.

Hes not getting under 90 with a better supporting cast.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

And Matheson, plus Anderson for a good portion of the year.


Hes not getting under 90 with a better supporting cast.

Nobody disagrees that a better team helps your points but that doesn’t mean he was playing like a solid number one. He’d do it in stretches, he’d show he could do it but then he’d drop off.

 

[Mrb1p]

Nobody disagrees that a better team helps your points but that doesn’t mean he was playing like a solid number one. He’d do it in stretches, he’d show he could do it but then he’d drop off.

No, what you interpret as "drop off" is lack of support. He had the same thing early in the year, the only thing is he's had a lucky streak to counter-balance that portion of his season and the explosion of Slafgoatski. He carried RHP and Anderson for half a season to a 66 points season, Im not sure you can find 5 post lock-out player who've had similar success with that type of player. RHP and Anderson are both at best 4th liners.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No, what you interpret as "drop off" is lack of support.

Sorry no. We already saw that wasn't the case. He started the year killer and then dropped off. It was not a lack of support. And we saw that pattern with him throughout.

He had the same thing early in the year, the only thing is he's had a lucky streak to counter-balance that portion of his season and the explosion of Slafgoatski. He carried RHP and Anderson for half a season to a 66 points season, Im not sure you can find 5 post lock-out player who've had similar success with that type of player. RHP and Anderson are both at best 4th liners.

He was pacing for 60 something points miday through this year as well. He took off in the 2nd half. And in February he was one of the best players in the league. Again, some puck luck for sure but his play was so much better regardless. Even when his linemates didn't show up, he was still productive. He definitely took a step forward this year, it wasn't just by virtue of teammates.

 

[Rapala]

So we have one guy who's career shooting percentage is 13.8%.
We have another guy who's career shooting percentage is 11.2%
Both are benefiting from having another line mate who can find them with the puck.
One is constantly putting himself into prime scoring areas while being selective with his shot.
The other is taking more shots from the periphery many of them ill advised.
I wonder what the end results will be.

Meanwhile we are asked to believe that the one guy who has scored multiple times with bullet like precision is lucky.

Alrighty then.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Meanwhile we are asked to believe that the one guy who has scored multiple times with bullet like precision is lucky.

Alrighty then.

I love the way you totally skip what I said and come back with this stupid one liner.

Go away with this.

ANY player who scores at 31 percent is lucky. At 20 percent he'd be lucky. That doesn't mean he's not playing well. It also doesn't mean I didn't say he was playing well.

And yes, any player who puts up 300 shots and shoots at 7.4 percent is absurdly unlucky.

 

[Rapala]

I love the way you totally skip what I said and come back with this stupid one liner.

Go away with this.

ANY player who scores at 31 percent is lucky. At 20 percent he'd be lucky. That doesn't mean he's not playing well. It also doesn't mean I didn't say he was playing well.

And yes, any player who puts up 300 shots and shoots at 7.4 percent is absurdly unlucky.

I'd be wise to skip a lot of what you've said in this thread.
Get out with your lucky and start to admit he's good much much better than you give him credit for.
The one LUCKY goal he scored recently got called back for a high stick.
Say he's got a hot hand but Nick Suzuki does not and never has scored many lucky goals.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I'd be wise to skip a lot of what you've said in this thread.
Get out with your lucky and start to admit he's good much much better than you give him credit for.

It's pretty clear you either can't read or are willfully distorting what I wrote.

"He was pacing for 60 something points miday through this year as well. He took off in the 2nd half. And in February he was one of the best players in the league. Again, some puck luck for sure but his play was so much better regardless. Even when his linemates didn't show up, he was still productive. He definitely took a step forward this year, it wasn't just by virtue of teammates."

You ignore the post and zoom in on "puck luck" as though that's all I said. Ridiculous. As I wrote and I'll put it in big letters for you to read:

Again, some puck luck for sure but his play was so much better regardless. Even when his linemates didn't show up, he was still productive. He definitely took a step forward this year, it wasn't just by virtue of teammates.

As for the puck luck part - yeah there is puck luck for sure. But that doesn't take away from his strong play. But he's definitely had some luck.

From Jan 25 to March 30th his shooting percentage is 31 percent. To put that in perspective, if CC had that this year he'd be pacing for 95 goals!

 

[Rapala]

It's pretty clear you either can't read or are willfully distorting what I wrote.

He was pacing for 60 something points miday through this year as well. He took off in the 2nd half. And in February he was one of the best players in the league. Again, some puck luck for sure but his play was so much better regardless. Even when his linemates didn't show up, he was still productive. He definitely took a step forward this year, it wasn't just by virtue of teammates.

You ignore the post and zoom in on "puck luck" as though that's all I said. Ridiculous. As I wrote and I'll put it in big letters for you to read:

Again, some puck luck for sure but his play was so much better regardless. Even when his linemates didn't show up, he was still productive. He definitely took a step forward this year, it wasn't just by virtue of teammates.

As for the puck luck part - yeah there is puck luck for sure. But that doesn't take away from his strong play. But he's definitely had some luck.

From Jan 25 to March 30th his shooting percentage is 31 percent. To put that in perspective, if CC had that this year he'd have 95 goals!

On pace means jack shit it always has only you don't get it.
Stop trying to incorporate meaningless minutia into your argument it's useless.
What pace was Conner McJesus on after twenty games.
48 goals in 82 games means nothing when in 5 years from now if we look at the stats and there is not a 48 goal season to be found.
The minute you concede that a young Suzuki has had a plate full of stuff to deal with while growing into the best player he can be.
That he's been our most consistent player since day one despite the normal ups and downs that being on a shitty team brings with it.
And that maybe just maybe he was a number one caliber center all along but is still learning his trade.
Maybe then I'll lend credence to what you say but you never will.
You'll just continue contort and wriggle and never concede no matter what.
You do it to everyone who takes you to task.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

On pace means jack shit it always has only you don't get it.

Dude, how do you not understand this?

We're looking at a player who had a much stronger 2nd half than the first. You don't need to look at pace, you can look at results.

The only reason I showed you the pace was so you'd understand that his 31 percent shooting percentage is crazy. That's where the pace example comes in (CC would have 95 goals at 31 percent which shows you how crazy it is.) But again, that doesn't mean he isn't playing a lot better... he is. But he had some luck in there as well.

We're not looking at pace here. We're looking at actuals. What Suzuki ACTUALLY did. He was way better in the 2nd half but he had some puck luck as well. Both things can be true.

You're also proving my point - Suzuki has become a sacred cow. Say anything remotely critical and people freak out.

 

[Rapala]

Dude, how do you not understand this?

We're looking at a player who had a much stronger 2nd half than the first. You don't need to look at pace, you can look at results.

The only reason I showed you the pace was so you'd understand that his 31 percent shooting percentage is crazy. That's where the pace example comes in (CC would have 95 goals at 31 percent which shows you how crazy it is.) But again, that doesn't mean he isn't playing a lot better... he is. But he had some luck in there as well.

We're not looking at pace here. We're looking at actuals. What Suzuki ACTUALLY did. He was way better in the 2nd half but he had some puck luck as well. Both things can be true.

Dude you are getting into an uproar and losing your mind over a very brief succinct and factual post.
Suzuki is better because he's changed the way he is playing his game.
He stopped deferring to everyone and started shooting more.
In the meantime shooting percentage means nothing to me it will go up and it will go down.
Claiming puck luck is a joke when nothing but skill has been on display.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Dude you are getting into an uproar and losing your mind over a very brief succinct and factual post.

You have things backwards.

You jumped into a conversation that had nothing to do with you. You accused me of downplaying him when it was clear I was doing the opposite. Then when I showed you this (in big bold letters) you instead doubled down.

Don't jump into conversations if you don't understand what's being said. Moreover, if you're not able to handle any kind of criticism of this guy then stick to this forum only and start ignoring posters who have different opinions.

Suzuki is better because he's changed the way he is playing his game.
He stopped deferring to everyone and started shooting more.
In the meantime shooting percentage means nothing to me it will go up and it will go down.
Claiming puck luck is a joke when nothing but skill was on display.

I didn't claim puck luck. I just wrote you out the quote again. I put it in big letters for you to read. But it seems you can't process it.

I don't know why...

I'll paraphrase my posts out again. Read it slowly.

I think Nick Suzuki took a big step forward this year. I think he went from borderline number one to average number one. His play in the second half was great.

Now... brace yourself for this part. Maybe you want to skip this paragraph... He also had some puck luck. From Jan 25th onward he's shooting at 31 percent. That's an insane number. Sorry if it hurt you to read that, but it's true.

Okay ready? You can start reading again.

The puck luck part doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. On the year it's high but not crazy overall. In the 2nd half of this year he took a huge step forward and has played the best hockey of his career. His play in the second half has been spectacular. Even when his teammates don't show up he has and that includes almost all the games even when he hasn't gotten points. He leveled up and I think it will continue into next year.

 

[Rapala]

He also had some puck luck. From Jan 25th onward he's shooting at 31 percent. That's an insane number. Sorry if it hurt you to read that, but it's true.

This is exactly what I won't skip.
I did attribute the term lucky to you but it was actually another poster who used it so for that I apologize.
But the use of the term puck luck had absolutely nothing to do with his insane shooting percentage.
One goal ended up going in off his skates as he pivoted and only because of his positioning. It was actually a thing of beauty.
Pucks weren't hitting him and trickling in. He was not scoring David Savardian stanchion goals. For the most part he was firing darts with deadly accuracy.
Or he was one timing from spots we've been used to seeing Caufield score from. Was that puck luck? seriously.
So no it didn't hurt me it's just grossly inaccurate.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

This is exactly what I won't skip.
I did attribute the term lucky to you but it was actually another poster who used it so for that I apologize.
But the use of the term puck luck had absolutely nothing to do with his insane shooting percentage.
One goal ended up going in off his skates as he pivoted and only because of his positioning. It was actually a thing of beauty.
Pucks weren't hitting him and trickling in. He was not scoring David Savardian stanchion goals. For the most part he was firing darts with deadly accuracy.
Or he was one timing from spots we've been used to seeing Caufield score from. Was that puck luck? seriously.
So no it didn't hurt me it's just grossly inaccurate.

31 percent means 1 out of 3 shots are going in. There’s some luck to that man. As far as I know no player in history has had a shooting percentage that high over a full season with like 200 shots.

I looked up some all time greats. The best I saw over a career was 20 percent- Mike Bossy. I found a few freakish years from Lemieux and Gretz but even they never finished with a 30 percent year.

A really awesome year would be 20 percent. Nick is at 18 for the year so overall - as I said - it doesn’t matter. But there’s no doubt that he had some puck luck in the second half. A third of your pucks going in is insane. But that’s okay, it’s the ebb and flow. And it doesn’t take away from how he played.

 

[Rapala]

31 percent means 1 out of 3 shots are going in. There’s some luck to that man. As far as I know no player in history has had a shooting percentage that high over a full season with like 200 shots.

I looked up some all time greats. The best I saw over a career was 20 percent- Mike Bossy. I found a few freakish years from Lemieux and Gretz but even they never finished with a 30 percent year.

A really awesome year would be 20 percent. Nick is at 18 for the year so overall - as I said - it doesn’t matter. But there’s no doubt that he had some puck luck in the second half. A third of your pucks going in is insane. But that’s okay, it’s the ebb and flow. And it doesn’t take away from how he played.

How is any of this relevant to Nick Suzuki?
We all know his shooting percentage will return to normal as will Caufield's hopefully.
Once again you've cherry picked a small segment of games in a career now spanning 5 seasons.
If we look at the noted goalscorers over the years do you not think we will find similar segments where the shooting % is through the roof?
Yet when looking at their careers how many people actually remember or even care?
Was Mike Bossy's goal scoring ability attributed to puck luck?
Suzuki scored 26 goals last season and 30 goals so far this season you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here attributing his scoring to puck luck.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

How is any of this relevant to Nick Suzuki?

 

[Rapala]

View attachment 844953

Awesome rebuttal!

 

[Sorinth]

Incredibly we may end the season with only 4 players having over 30 points.
It's very hard to imagine us having a PPG player under those circumstances.

I think there are 4 or 5 teams with three 30 goal scorers never mind points.

Ouch

Technically we are already at 5 since Monahan hit 30 points while he was with us.

In any case only having two 20+ goal scorers is probably the underlying issue, can't get assists without someone actually scoring a goal.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Awesome rebuttal!

Rebut what?

I just finished telling you how great I thought he’s been and you’re hellbent on saying I’m downplaying him.

All you’ve done is prove my point. Some of you guys can’t take anything even remotely suggestive of criticism on him.

You jumped into a conversation that didn’t include you. Mistook me for another poster. I patiently took you through the part you took as criticism and explained that in the grand scheme of things wasn’t a big deal and you still come back with “what does this have to do with Suzuki?” I mean what the f***????

Next time you jump into a conversation, know what the hell you’re talking about.

 

[Rapala]

Rebut what?

I just finished telling you how great I thought he’s been and you’re hellbent on saying I’m downplaying him.

All you’ve done is prove my point. Some of you guys can’t take anything even remotely suggestive of criticism on him.

You jumped into a conversation that didn’t include you. Mistook me for another poster. I patiently took you through the part you took as criticism and explained that in the grand scheme of things wasn’t a big deal and you still come back with “what does this have to do with Suzuki?” I mean what the f***???

Please just get over yourself. If you post stuff I don't agree with I will comment.
It doesn't matter who you are corresponding with.
Anyways my views on your position are well known and they haven't changed.
You keep repeating the same shit I just won't agree with.
I think you are and have been way off the mark in this thread and are continually bifurcating because you know it.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Please just get over yourself. If you post stuff I don't agree with I will comment.

Great. That’s what a message board is all about.

But at least know what you’re talking about. And at least don’t attribute agenda when there is none.

 

[Bouboumaster]

The best Habs in the past two decades (aside of Price)

 

[Rapala]

Finally some puck luck for Suzuki.

 

[danisonfire]

Up to 71 points for our FIRST LINE CENTER named Nick Suzuki