Player Discussion Nick Suzuki Part 11

[Estimated_Prophet]

If he played like a real number one, it wouldn’t matter what team he’s on.

Look at how he started the year… like a boss. Started pacing at 42-94. Awesome. Then he tanked.

His linemate - who people claimed was dependent on him - continued to score.

So - NO there’s no excuse. Either you’re a number one or you’re not. Maybe he will be. But he has to prove it. He’s got Caufield on his wing. That alone should yield tons of assists. He’s not out there with nothing.

He’s shown he can do it in stretches. He needs to do it consistently. Stop making excuses.

I don't buy that at all, if Caufield stays healthy and Montreal has a decent PP his numbers would be very good. It also just isn't true about not mattering which team you are on. Playing with the lead is proven to increase a team's scoring and this team struggled mightily to keep the puck out of their net. Playing from behind where the opposition did not need to take any chances is always a tougher position from which to produce offensive numbers Suzuki was severely hampered by having the worst 1st line wingers in the NHL for almost half of the season and dcorps that struggled to move the puck up to the forwards due to a combination of injuries and inexperience. Comparing him to other players in much better situations is simply wrong.

We have all watched him play and produce like a good 1C for stretches and I suspect his consistency and production will rise with the tide as this team grows.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Name a few "number one" C's last year that had as little roster support as Suzuki has last year...

Top 6 fwds
Top 4 D's

Context matters.

He had a winger who paced for 47 goals. That same winger continued to score after Nick dropped off a cliff.

Stop with the excuses.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I don't buy that at all,

I don’t care.

Nick has shown he can do it in stretches. Needs to do it a full year. Until he does, he’s a really good 2nd line center.

The guy from last year’s first 20 games needs to show up for a full 82.

 

[Heffyhoof]

He had a winger who paced for 47 goals. That same winger continued to score after Nick dropped off a cliff.

Stop with the excuses.

Sorry, you're being insanely disingenuous. Mentioning he played with a winger who paced for 47 goals but casually omitting the fact that winger played only 46 games is skewing facts to make a point.

 

[Miller Time]

He had a winger who paced for 47 goals. That same winger continued to score after Nick dropped off a cliff.

Stop with the excuses.

"Paced for"... Actual = 46 games & 26 goals.

McDavid, then who? Players, coaches, execs vote for NHL's top centers

The Oilers captain is a clear-cut No. 1 -- and then the debates begin. Here are the top 10 pivots in the league right now.

www.espn.com

Take a moment to check the goal totals for top 6 forwards playing with the C's on this list... We can ignore the D performances for now.

Stop with the ignoring reality.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Sorry, you're being insanely disingenuous. Mentioning he played with a winger who paced for 47 goals but casually omitting the fact that winger played only 46 games is skewing facts to make a point.

It would be if Nick’s production dropped when CC went out of the lineup. That’s not what happened. He tanked before CC went down. And while that was going on CC was scoring about a third of our goals.

He had a winger who was producing and he stopped producing himself. He needs to find the consistency if he wants to be called a number one. Especially if he’s got a guy like CC in his line.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

"Paced for"... Actual = 46 games & 26 goals.

McDavid, then who? Players, coaches, execs vote for NHL's top centers

The Oilers captain is a clear-cut No. 1 -- and then the debates begin. Here are the top 10 pivots in the league right now.

www.espn.com

Take a moment to check the goal totals for top 6 forwards playing with the C's on this list... We can ignore the D performances for now.

Stop with the ignoring reality.

See the post I just responded to.

There’s no excuse.

 

[Miller Time]

See the post I just responded to.

There’s no excuse.

Sure, when one lives in a fantasy world absent facts, context, reality lol

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Sure, when one lives in a fantasy world absent facts, context, reality lol

Explain the drop before Caufield went down. Please give me the context/excuse for this.

It was the same with Koivu. People tried to make him into something he wasn’t.

One last time - he might be a number one. But he has to PROVE IT. And he hasn’t done that yet.

And btw if he doesn’t, thats okay too. Still a good smart player. I just hate seeing guys get cast in chairs they don’t belong.

 

[Heffyhoof]

It would be if Nick’s production dropped when CC went out of the lineup. That’s not what happened. He tanked before CC went down. And while that was going on CC was scoring about a third of our goals.

He had a winger who was producing and he stopped producing himself. He needs to find the consistency if he wants to be called a number one. Especially if he’s got a guy like CC in his line.

I do agree that Suzuki needs more consistency to take it to the next level, but the argument isn't aided by using a goal pace that's higher than the number of games his winger played. It isn't out of the realm of probability to assume he hits near 80 points if that winger isn't injured for half the season, regardless of his seeming once a year large cold streak.

IMO, to ask Suzuki to be more consistent is akin to asking him to be a top 15 center. Not an unreasonable ask for a team hoping for the cup, but maybe unreasonable to ask of this specific player.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Explain the drop before Caufield went down. Please give me the context/excuse for this.

It was the same with Koivu. People tried to make him into something he wasn’t.

One last time - he might be a number one. But he has to PROVE IT. And he hasn’t done that yet.

And btw if he doesn’t, thats okay too. Still a good smart player. I just hate seeing guys get cast in chairs they don’t belong.

The excuses as has been previously mentioned is a pitiful PP, weak team and at times mediocre goaltending.

 

[Miller Time]

I don't buy that at all, if Caufield stays healthy and Montreal has a decent PP his numbers would be very good. It also just isn't true about not mattering which team you are on. Playing with the lead is proven to increase a team's scoring and this team struggled mightily to keep the puck out of their net. Playing from behind where the opposition did not need to take any chances is always a tougher position from which to produce offensive numbersSuzuki was severely hampered by having the worst 1st line wingers in the NHL for almost half of the season and dcorps that struggled to move the puck up to the forwards due to a combination of injuries and inexperience. Comparing him to other players in much better situations is simply wrong.

We have all watched him play and produce like a good 1C for stretches and I suspect his consistency and production will rise with the tide as this team grows.

It's about as obvious as can be.

Some posters just don't seem to get that a team sport is not the same as an individual sport or an Eastport edition.

Suzuki will need to stay healthy and make the most of the improving roster around him... That's a given... But to look at last season with tunnel vision focused solely on the point stat line as a barometer to evaluate his play and his relative ability to be a #1C is.... Silly.

If anything, that he did what he did production -wise, while playing 82 games and not showing any signs of frustration or disengagement, should give great confidence about what he can do when the supporting cast isn't a band aid brigade

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I don’t care.

Nick has shown he can do it in stretches. Needs to do it a full year. Until he does, he’s a really good 2nd line center.

The guy from last year’s first 20 games needs to show up for a full 82.

Fair enough, but there is no doubt that he has the ability as it is clear as day. I agree of course that he has to show it consistently as 1C's are about results and they do need to come at some point.

 

[Miller Time]

Explain the drop before Caufield went down. Please give me the context/excuse for this.

It was the same with Koivu. People tried to make him into something he wasn’t.

One last time - he might be a number one. But he has to PROVE IT. And he hasn’t done that yet.

And btw if he doesn’t, thats okay too. Still a good smart player. I just hate seeing guys get cast in chairs they don’t belong.

You are far too obsessed with Caufield... What about the other 36 games?
Are you suggesting they are playing doubles ?


Funny you reference Koivu... Major knee injury. Cancer. Bottom of the league top 6/top 4 lineup for most of his 20's.

Your assessments seem to ignore context. All I can offer is that individual performances in a team sport like hockey don't occur in a vacuum. You can't just look at the stat line to evaluate capacity or competency.

Koivu, for most of his career, was one of the best C's in international hockey... On a team that had talent around him, he excelled as a #1C despite the injury & cancer impacts....

Context. Matters. No matter how much you choose to ignore it.

 

[CHfan1]

Explain the drop before Caufield went down. Please give me the context/excuse for this.

It was the same with Koivu. People tried to make him into something he wasn’t.

One last time - he might be a number one. But he has to PROVE IT. And he hasn’t done that yet.

And btw if he doesn’t, thats okay too. Still a good smart player. I just hate seeing guys get cast in chairs they don’t belong.

I agree he has to be more consistent and has a ways to go to show he can be a #1 centre on a contending team.

As for the drop in production, I wonder how much Monahan being out played a part. Their centre depth really took a hit when that happened and teams really only had to take away one line. The 1st 25 games with Monahan in the lineup the Habs had 2.92 goals for per game, the next 26 (up until the all-star break) - 2.19 goals per game.

Suzuki in those 1st 25 games - 14 goals, 28 points. The next 26 games - 2 goals, 12 points.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You are far too obsessed with Caufield... What about the other 36 games?
Are you suggesting they are playing doubles ?

Im saying there’s no excuse for Suzuki. You keep trying to say he had nobody. Yes he did.

It would be one thing if Nicks production dropped after CC went down but that’s not the case.

Funny you reference Koivu... Major knee injury. Cancer. Bottom of the league top 6/top 4 lineup for most of his 20's.

Great.

He was never really a number one center either. Maybe if he hadn’t had a knee injury… but he did.

Your assessments seem to ignore context. All I can offer is that individual performances in a team sport like hockey don't occur in a vacuum. You can't just look at the stat line to evaluate capacity or competency.

Koivu, for most of his career, was one of the best C's in international hockey... On a team that had talent around him, he excelled as a #1C despite the injury & cancer impacts....

Context. Matters. No matter how much you choose to ignore it.

Put it in whatever context you want. He stopped producing while his winger continued to put the puck in the net.

I’ll hope for the best. The guy who started at a 41/94? THAT guy was a number one. Hopefully he shows up for a full year next season.

If not, no worries. We’ve got a solid number two.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Is it that much better than Plek/Koivu?

Don’t think so. Saku Is the best in the group imo.

 

[Miller Time]

Im saying there’s no excuse for Suzuki. You keep trying to say he had nobody. Yes he did.

I guess we have different standards.

I view hockey as a team sport and evaluate individual performances in that context. No player can therefore be assessed without considering the team he played with.... Never thought that was controversial nor difficult to understand

It would be one thing if Nicks production dropped after CC went down but that’s not the case.

Again, it's not doubles tennis. You keep referencing this singular data point, I get it... I just don't agree that it infers the relevance you believe it does.

Performance evaluation, at least effective ones, aren't so easily reduced.

Great.

He was never really a number one center either. Maybe if he hadn’t had a knee injury… but he did.

Put it in whatever context you want. He stopped producing while his winger continued to put the puck in the net.


I’ll hope for the best. The guy who started at a 41/94? THAT guy was a number one. Hopefully he shows up for a full year next season.

If not, no worries. We’ve got a solid number two.

I get it .. you like simplistic stat lines as a proxy for framing "#1C"...

I think a #1C is about relative performance impact, not just a particular stat line output ...

Agree to disagree.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I do agree that Suzuki needs more consistency to take it to the next level, but the argument isn't aided by using a goal pace that's higher than the number of games his winger played. It isn't out of the realm of probability to assume he hits near 80 points if that winger isn't injured for half the season, regardless of his seeming once a year large cold streak.

IMO, to ask Suzuki to be more consistent is akin to asking him to be a top 15 center. Not an unreasonable ask for a team hoping for the cup, but maybe unreasonable to ask of this specific player.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think he can hit 80 either. But he has to actually do it.

The talent is there… he needs to find the consistency.

 

[The Great Weal]

Sorry, you're being insanely disingenuous. Mentioning he played with a winger who paced for 47 goals but casually omitting the fact that winger played only 46 games is skewing facts to make a point.

Not to mention that it's just flat out wrong.

From Dec 1 2022 to January 19 2023 (last game for Caufield):

Caufield had 15 points in 24 games (14 goals)
Suzuki had 13 points in 24 games (4 goals)
Dach had 12 points in 24 games (4 goals)

Ya Suzuki was clearly the only one who fell off a cliff while his linemates were killing it.

Let's cherry pick so that it's Suzuki's worst stretch to Caufield's injury (from December 10-Jan 19):
Caufield had 12 points in 20 games (11 goals)
Dach had 10 points in 20 games (4 goals)
Suzuki had 8 points in 20 games (2 goals)

So CLEARLY it was a team issue and not only a Suzuki issue. He had 29 points in 36 games after the Caufield injury which is a 66 point pace, exactly what he ended up with.

Funny how the first 26 games where Suzuki scored 5 more points than Caufield gets ignored but the 20 game stretch where Caufield had 4 more points is "proof that Suzuki fell off a cliff since his linemates kept producing".

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I guess we have different standards.

I view hockey as a team sport and evaluate individual performances in that context. No player can therefore be assessed without considering the team he played with.... Never thought that was controversial nor difficult to understand



Again, it's not doubles tennis. You keep referencing this singular data point, I get it... I just don't agree that it infers the relevance you believe it does.

Performance evaluation, at least effective ones, aren't so easily reduced.



I get it .. you like simplistic stat lines as a proxy for framing "#1C"...

I think a #1C is about relative performance impact, not just a particular stat line output ...

Agree to disagree.

Patrice Bergeron was a legit number one before he started putting up big offensive seasons. He’d dominate on both sides of the ice, great numbers, won Selkes…. Legit number one.

Koivu? No.

I’m sorry man, but he was far more well suited to the second. He was put in the wrong chair because we didn’t have anyone else. Hab fans massively overrate him.

As for Suzuki, it’s more than just the final stat line. It’s the inconsistency in his play. That’s what separates him from the number ones. And until he finds it, he’s not going to be considered as a number one anywhere but by Montreal fans.

Talent is there. But he has to prove it. He hasn’t done it yet. For decades we’ve tried to pass off guys who aren’t suited for their roles as number ones. It doesn’t do them or us any good. There’s nothing wrong with being a number two center. And so far, that’s what Suzuki has shown himself to be. Hopefully he takes the next step. If not, no worries…

 

[SlafySZN]

Not to mention that it's just flat out wrong.

From Dec 1 2022 to January 19 2023 (last game for Caufield):

Caufield had 15 points in 24 games (14 goals)
Suzuki had 13 points in 24 games (4 goals)
Dach had 12 points in 24 games (4 goals)

Ya Suzuki was clearly the only one who fell off a cliff while his linemates were killing it.

Let's cherry pick so that it's Suzuki's worst stretch to Caufield's injury (from December 10-Jan 19):
Caufield had 12 points in 20 games (11 goals)
Dach had 10 points in 20 games (4 goals)
Suzuki had 8 points in 20 games (2 goals)

So CLEARLY it was a team issue and not only a Suzuki issue. He had 29 points in 36 games after the Caufield injury which is a 66 point pace, exactly what he ended up with.

Funny how the first 26 games where Suzuki scored 5 more points than Caufield gets ignored but the 20 game stretch where Caufield had 4 more points is "proof that Suzuki fell off a cliff since his linemates kept producing".

Suzuki was a ghost at times in december and january, it’s ok to say it. Not just the points but his play in general.

 

[danisonfire]

To everyone slagging Suzuki for "not being talented enough":

Nick Suzuki - 63 Points
Kirby Dach - 38 Points
Cole Caufield - 36 Points
Mike Hoffman - 34 Points
Mike Matheson - 33 Points
Josh Anderson - 32 Points

This list is pathetic (injuries forgiven). These were the only players on our entire team over 30 points last year.

Suzuki still put up 66 points and set a career high for points. Leading your team in scoring by 28 points in the NHL is insane when the spread is 63 to 38. What do you expect from him; to start picking up extra points by firing pucks off teammates shin pads?

Our Power-play was working at 16.03% and we only scored 227 goals total. Only 17 of his points came on the Power-play.

73% of his points were scored at ES or on the PK (3 short handed goals). Did you seriously expect him to put up 85 points with this crap?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Suzuki was a ghost at times in december and january, it’s ok to say it. Not just the points but his play in general.

He was brutal.

Monahan went down and he forgot how to play hockey. I don’t know why people can’t acknowledge this.

To everyone slagging Suzuki for "not being talented enough":

Nick Suzuki - 63 Points
Kirby Dach - 38 Points
Cole Caufield - 36 Points
Mike Hoffman - 34 Points
Mike Matheson - 33 Points
Josh Anderson - 32 Points

This list is pathetic (injuries forgiven). These were the only players on our entire team over 30 points last year.

Suzuki still put up 63 points and set a career high for points. Leading your team in scoring by 25 points in the NHL is insane when the spread is 63 to 38. What do you expect from him; to start picking up extra points by firing pucks off teammates shin pads?

Our Power-play was working at 16.03% and we only scored 227 goals total. Only 17 of his points came on the Power-play.

73% of his points were scored at ES or on the PK (3 short handed goals). Did you seriously expect him to put up 85 points with this crap?

I don’t expect him to turn into a zombie because f***ing Sean Monahan goes down.

Again, it would be one thing if he tanked after CC went out of the lineup. But that wasn’t the case. He tanked well beforehand.

 

[danisonfire]

I don’t expect him to turn into a zombie because f***ing Sean Monahan goes down.

I mean when I can dedicate ALL FOUR LINES AND ALL D pairings to shutting him down what is he going to do about it alone? Who else were they going to target?

Instead of having to worry about two or three lines to match, the other teams had to worry about one and a half players total.

He still put up a career high in points with 73% of his production off the PP and had boarderline zero help the second half of the year. All players go through slumps. He set a career high.