Player Discussion Nick Suzuki Part 11

[Lafleurs Guy]

Best skater.

Again, better to read & reply to what's actually posted than to argue for the sake of arguing

I read it. And it’s important to distinguish between the two. Price was by far our best player and the prime reason for our advancement. The argument I made earlier was that we wouldn’t win a cup with Nick as our best player. And I think that holds true. Was Suzuki our best skater? Debateable.

And your responses are becoming short and personal. It’s clear you’re upset and this isn’t going to go anywhere.

Have a great day my friend.

 

[Miller Time]

I’ve made substantive arguments. You don’t agree. And that’s cool. But I’ve shown you the basis for my opinion.

No. The disagreement on things is completely separate from the avoidance and disingenuous replies that your posts in this thread keep getting called out for.

Opinions stated as fact is the problem, especially when they are soundly rebutted & then goalpost shifting is offered up in response

Suzuki is a #1C in the NHL...
Suzuki is not the reason the Habs have been a bad team recently...
Suzuki's production is no more the product of playing with CC than vice versa...

You've argued against each of these points and offered nothing credible to support the arguments you've made, mor respond to the evidence provided that refutes your (bad) take.

To je to

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No. The disagreement on things is completely separate from the avoidance and disingenuous replies that your posts in this thread keep getting called out for.

Opinions stated as fact is the problem, especially when they are soundly rebutted & then goalpost shifting is offered up in response

Suzuki is a #1C in the NHL...
Suzuki is not the reason the Habs have been a bad team recently...
Suzuki's production is no more the product of playing with CC than vice versa...

You've argued against each of these points and offered nothing credible to support the arguments you've made, mor respond to the evidence provided that refutes your (bad) take.

To je to

I haven’t ever said he was the reason we sucked. Nor do I believe this. I said that if he’s your best player you aren’t going anywhere.

Two very different things.

And no, I don’t think he’s a true number one. Not yet anyway. Sorry to have upset you.

 

[Miller Time]

I read it. And it’s important to distinguish between the two. Price was by far our best player and the prime reason for our advancement. The argument I made earlier was that we wouldn’t win a cup with Nick as our best player. And I think that holds true. Was Suzuki our best skater? Debateable.

And your responses are becoming short and personal. It’s clear you’re upset and this isn’t going to go anywhere.

Have a great day my friend.

Yes, Price was, by a wide margin, our best player.

Suzuki was our best skater, not as clear cut, but neither Weber nor Toffoli offer a stronger case.

The argument you made was clear, and weak. It was rebutted. You ignored & shifted the argument in response.

The brevity of my responses is to keep things clear for you, nothing more.

Hope you don't take any of this personally. A bad take is a bad take, having it called out as such in a message board is nothing to get upset about indeed!

Cheers

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yes, Price was, by a wide margin, our best player.

Suzuki was our best skater, not as clear cut, but neither Weber nor Toffoli offer a stronger case.

The argument you made was clear, and weak. It was rebutted. You ignored & shifted the argument in response.

The brevity of my responses is to keep things clear for you, nothing more.

Hope you don't take any of this personally. A bad take is a bad take, having it called out as such in a message board is nothing to get upset about indeed!

Cheers

Nothing I said has been rebutted.

If he’s your best player. You’re not going to win anything. That doesn’t mean it’s his fault we were a last place team though…

 

[Miller Time]

He’s far from dominant. He’s a solid player who plays a complete game and we’re over relying on him to be something he isn’t. He’s our most complete player - yes. But that’s why we’ve finished near the bottom of the standings the past couple of years.

Again, maybe he breaks out. If he does - great different story.

I haven’t ever said he was the reason we sucked. Nor do I believe this. I said that if he’s your best player you aren’t going anywhere.

Two very different things.

And no, I don’t think he’s a true number one. Not yet anyway. Sorry to have upset you.

" But that IS WHY..."

Perhaps you didn't mean what you wrote

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

" But that IS WHY..."

Perhaps you didn't mean what you wrote

Perhaps you haven’t read the several posts afterwards.

I mean seriously man… you really think I blame him for our sorry state? I’ve credited him with bringing our guys along? You’re talking like I hate the guy.

 

[danisonfire]

Your posts are laughable. Yes, Suzuki Is why we suck. Not everyone around him.

Without Suzuki our leading scorer has 38 points last year. I can name almost the entire lineup at fault before him.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Without Suzuki our leading scorer has 38 points last year. I can name almost the entire lineup at fault before him.

For the record, NOBODY is saying he's "at fault" for anything.

 

[Miller Time]

Perhaps you haven’t read the several posts afterwards.

Or, perhaps I replied to your post, and you proceeded to pivot your argument to avoid the rebuttal?

What seems clear is you picked a very weak take to attach to, and rather than simply own it, clarify, and move on, you're trying to put lipstick on the pig.

I think the other clear thing is that Suzuki is the best C we've had in-house since the brief prime Saku period. If he doesn't suffer career altering injury or a decade of MB style roster mismanagement, we should enjoy a ppg 2-way 1C through most of his career, and some further fun playoff rides.
Can we win without adding a better C to the roster? I think so.

Can we win with the AHL caliber roster we iced many nights last season? Not even if you swapped Suzuki for McDavid (who has yet to reach a finals despite some solid roster pieces around him).

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Or, perhaps I replied to your post, and you proceeded to pivot your argument to avoid the rebuttal?

No. I'd never "blame" Suzuki for a bad lineup. Why would I?

What seems clear is you picked a very weak take to attach to, and rather than simply own it, clarify, and move on, you're trying to put lipstick on the pig.

No my point hasn't changed. My point was that he's not productive enough to LEAD a team anywhere. It's not his fault that he's on a crappy team but we'll need better players if we want to win something. People keep saying he's our best - okay, but what does that mean if we're coming in last place? Not much.

I do think he can be a valuable piece of a winner. I think he's the right choice for captain (and can lead from that perspective) and he's been overly relied on. I wouldn't suggest we ditch him. But I definitely think we have to stay open for a better center. Maybe Dach steps up. Maybe it's a 1A, 1B... that might work. Maybe Suzuki takes the next step. But now, all things considered, I'd feel a lot better with a better number one.

I think the other clear thing is that Suzuki is the best C we've had in-house since the brief prime Saku period. If he doesn't suffer career altering injury or a decade of MB style roster mismanagement, we should enjoy a ppg 2-way 1C through most of his career, and some further fun playoff rides.
Can we win without adding a better C to the roster? I think so.

Can we win with the AHL caliber roster we iced many nights last season? Not even if you swapped Suzuki for McDavid (who has yet to reach a finals despite some solid roster pieces around him).

I think he's the best we've had since Saku as well. But who else is there to compare to? It's not saying much. That's been our problem for a long time. Even Saku wasn't really a good number one.

Let's say for the sake of argument that he was our best skater in the playoffs. (He was indeed our highest scorer.) He paced for what would be a 59 point 82 season. He was our BEST scorer? You're not going to win that way. Even with a Carey Price, you're putting so much on your goalie.

Now, fairness to him... he was 21. He played as well as we could've asked and he played well. He's improving and he'll get better. But it shows you how Mission Impossible it was for us to get to the final let alone win it. And now we don't have Carey Price anymore. We don't have the advantage in net that we always did. So we're going to have to match up a lot more on center to go anywhere.

Nobody will match McDavid. There will always be a gap for any team. But how big that gap is will determine how successful you'll be. If you're not facing McDavid, you'll be facing a Mackinnon. Yes, we have a great blueline coming and we've got some wingers coming with potential. But if we want to win a cup, we're going to need to load up big time. I don't think another Carey Price is coming. We're going to have to be a lot better up front going forward.

 

[Scriptor]

Or, perhaps I replied to your post, and you proceeded to pivot your argument to avoid the rebuttal?

What seems clear is you picked a very weak take to attach to, and rather than simply own it, clarify, and move on, you're trying to put lipstick on the pig.

I think the other clear thing is that Suzuki is the best C we've had in-house since the brief prime Saku period. If he doesn't suffer career altering injury or a decade of MB style roster mismanagement, we should enjoy a ppg 2-way 1C through most of his career, and some further fun playoff rides.
Can we win without adding a better C to the roster? I think so.

Can we win with the AHL caliber roster we iced many nights last season? Not even if you swapped Suzuki for McDavid (who has yet to reach a finals despite some solid roster pieces around him).

Or, perhaps I replied to your post, and you proceeded to pivot your argument to avoid the rebuttal?

What seems clear is you picked a very weak take to attach to, and rather than simply own it, clarify, and move on, you're trying to put lipstick on the pig.

I think the other clear thing is that Suzuki is the best C we've had in-house since the brief prime Saku period. If he doesn't suffer career altering injury or a decade of MB style roster mismanagement, we should enjoy a ppg 2-way 1C through most of his career, and some further fun playoff rides.
Can we win without adding a better C to the roster? I think so.

Can we win with the AHL caliber roster we iced many nights last season? Not even if you swapped Suzuki for McDavid (who has yet to reach a finals despite some solid roster pieces around him).

Don't know how Doubled that quote, but I've read other posters willing to fukc that lipsticked pig.

There's still a prevailing desire to get the next McDavid (who knows how many years before the stars align for the HABS)...

 

[Scriptor]

No. I'd never "blame" Suzuki for a bad lineup. Why would I?

No my point hasn't changed. My point was that he's not productive enough to LEAD a team anywhere. It's not his fault that he's on a crappy team but we'll need better players if we want to win something. People keep saying he's our best - okay, but what does that mean if we're coming in last place? Not much.

I do think he can be a valuable piece of a winner. I think he's the right choice for captain (and can lead from that perspective) and he's been overly relied on. I wouldn't suggest we ditch him. But I definitely think we have to stay open for a better center. Maybe Dach steps up. Maybe it's a 1A, 1B... that might work. Maybe Suzuki takes the next step. But now, all things considered, I'd feel a lot better with a better number one.

I think he's the best we've had since Saku as well. But who else is there to compare to? It's not saying much. That's been our problem for a long time. Even Saku wasn't really a good number one.

Let's say for the sake of argument that he was our best skater in the playoffs. (He was indeed our highest scorer.) He paced for what would be a 59 point 82 season. He was our BEST scorer? You're not going to win that way. Even with a Carey Price, you're putting so much on your goalie.

Now, fairness to him... he was 21. He played as well as we could've asked and he played well. He's improving and he'll get better. But it shows you how Mission Impossible it was for us to get to the final let alone win it. And now we don't have Carey Price anymore. We don't have the advantage in net that we always did. So we're going to have to match up a lot more on center to go anywhere.

Nobody will match McDavid. There will always be a gap for any team. But how big that gap is will determine how successful you'll be. If you're not facing McDavid, you'll be facing a Mackinnon. Yes, we have a great blueline coming and we've got some wingers coming with potential. But if we want to win a cup, we're going to need to load up big time. I don't think another Carey Price is coming. We're going to have to be a lot better up front going forward.

No my point hasn't changed.

You have been moving goal posts and arguing two things:

1) Suzuki is not productive enough too lead a team anywhere.

2) Suzuki will never be productive enough to lead a team anywhere because, putting aside any context and refusing to clearly and consistently define when Suzuki would be considered good enough to lead a team anywhere (first a PPG C, then the 90-point C you expected him to become, finally, a 100-point C like the other top Cs he will compete with).

Just answer realistically to what to would take forSuzuki's production level to be for you to consider him good enough to be our #1C, instead of, hedging your bets.

Set a realistic milestone from which you can eat crow when he gets there.

Or, state it needs to be 90-100+ points so we see clearly the lack of serious in your entire long and drawn out series of posts.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No my point hasn't changed.

You have been moving goal posts and arguing two things:

1) Suzuki is not productive enough too lead a team anywhere.

2) Suzuki will never be productive enough to lead a team anywhere because, putting aside any context and refusing to clearly and consistently define when Suzuki would be considered good enough to lead a team anywhere (first a PPG C, then the 90-point C you expected him to become, finally, a 100-point C like the other top Cs he will compete with).

Just answer realistically to what to would take forSuzuki's production level to be for you to consider him good enough to be our #1C, instead of, hedging your bets.

Set a realistic milestone from which you can eat crow when he gets there.

Or, state it needs to be 90-100+ points so we see clearly the lack of serious in your entire long and drawn out series of posts.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. I haven't changed my opinion either.

I didn't say he'd "never" be productive enough to lead us there. I said I don't believe he'll be. Two different things. He could absolutely prove me wrong on this. But as of today, I don't believe he will.

Now, maybe he puts up 80+ points next year. If he does, I'll revise my opinion on him. But as of now, today.... I don't think he's going to be good enough to lead us to a cup. I think we'll either need a better center or - perhaps Dach becomes as good and it's a 1A, 1B. Depending on how good they are that might work.

I'd feel good if he were around an 80 point player. To me, that's a solid number one. If he's a 70 point guy and Dach can be around that, then I'd say we're okay.

I'm not moving goalposts or dodging anything. I simply don't share your opinion on how good this guy is.

 

[Scriptor]

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. I haven't changed my opinion either.

I didn't say he'd "never" be productive enough to lead us there. I said I don't believe he'll be. Two different things. He could absolutely prove me wrong on this. But as of today, I don't believe he will.

Now, maybe he puts up 80+ points next year. If he does, I'll revise my opinion on him. But as of now, today.... I don't think he's going to be good enough to lead us to a cup. I think we'll either need a better center or - perhaps Dach becomes as good and it's a 1A, 1B. Depending on how good they are that might work.

I'd feel good if he were around an 80 point player. To me, that's a solid number one. If he's a 70 point guy and Dach can be around that, then I'd say we're okay.

I'm not moving goalposts or dodging anything. I simply don't share your opinion on how good this guy is.

That's clear. Thanks.

I agree wholeheartedly, by the way. 80+ POINTS, or two 70+ POINT Cs to compensate for not having an 80+ POINT #1C.

That sounds both realistic and reasonable.

You don't think Suzuki will become an 80+ point producer and I think there is still some runway left for him to get there and lead the way since the team is not remotely mature to be considered a Cup contender to begin with.

I'm, of course, more confident of the two 70-point C option with Suzuki and Dach once the wingers that we currently have in the system are fully mature and so are the D prospects rearing their heads; Guhle, Xhekaj, Hutson, Mailloux, Engstrom, Harris, Barron...

 

[danisonfire]

That's clear. Thanks.

I agree wholeheartedly, by the way. 80+ POINTS, or two 70+ POINT Cs to compensate for not having an 80+ POINT #1C.

That sounds both realistic and reasonable.

You don't think Suzuki will become an 80+ point producer and I think there is still some runway left for him to get there and lead the way since the team is not remotely mature to be considered a Cup contender to begin with.

I'm, of course, more confident of the two 70-point C option with Suzuki and Dach once the wingers that we currently have in the system are fully mature and so are the D prospects rearing their heads; Guhle, Xhekaj, Hutson, Mailloux, Engstrom, Harris, Barron...

Now find one 80 point player (ranked first on his team) who has the second highest scorer at 38 points or less. Points just don't work like that. You need other people to produce to rack up points.

Even with this, he was only 10 points away from having twice as many points as the second highest point producer. He is that guy. The rest of the guys (minus the obvious injuries) need to step up.

If everyone on my line is scoring I look great. When my team has several lines like that it puts me in better situations.

 

[Sorinth]

Irrelevant to this thread.

How is it irrelevant when your complaints are he's not good enough to be the best forward on a cup winning team. If you already believe Caufield is better, then we don't need him to be our best forward so your criticisms are what's irrelevant.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

That's clear. Thanks.

I agree wholeheartedly, by the way. 80+ POINTS, or two 70+ POINT Cs to compensate for not having an 80+ POINT #1C.

That sounds both realistic and reasonable.

You don't think Suzuki will become an 80+ point producer and I think there is still some runway left for him to get there and lead the way since the team is not remotely mature to be considered a Cup contender to begin with.

I'm, of course, more confident of the two 70-point C option with Suzuki and Dach once the wingers that we currently have in the system are fully mature and so are the D prospects rearing their heads; Guhle, Xhekaj, Hutson, Mailloux, Engstrom, Harris, Barron...

I didn’t say there wasn’t runway. Of course there is. I’m just not convinced he’ll get there.

 

[Naslundforever]

Suzuki is scoring 80 this year and flirting with 100 in 2-3 years.. Also someone get the image of that poor pig getting molested out of my mind somehow.

 

[Ozmodiar]

Now find one 80 point player (ranked first on his team) who has the second highest scorer at 38 points or less. Points just don't work like that. You need other people to produce to rack up points.

Even with this, he was only 10 points away from having twice as many points as the second highest point producer. He is that guy. The rest of the guys (minus the obvious injuries) need to step up.

If everyone on my line is scoring I look great. When my team has several lines like that it puts me in better situations.

Yeah, it’s remarkable that he was able to improve his productivity last season when the top point producing winger had 36 points.

Not to mention how heavily they relied on him in all situations … plus the added responsibility of the captaincy.

We’ll have a better idea of his ceiling after they add a top line winger (could be Dach) and see what we can get from CC over a full season.

 

[Naslundforever]

Yeah, it’s remarkable that he was able to improve his productivity last season when the top point producing winger had 36 points.

Not to mention how heavily they relied on him in all situations … plus the added responsibility of the captaincy.

We’ll have a better idea of his ceiling after they add a top line winger (could be Dach) and see what we can get from CC over a full season.

If the only thing that improves is the powerplay from 16% to league average, that’s like 10 more goals, half of which I would expect him to get touches on. And that’s without getting more pp than last year (they were bottom 10 there) + a healthy Caufield. That alone takes him in the 65-70pt range, probably in the 70’s.


Another 10 pts on the year from there sounds more than possible for 80 already.

 

[Scriptor]

I didn’t say there wasn’t runway. Of course there is. I’m just not convinced he’ll get there.

That's precisely what I said before saying I believed he had runway left to get there. Either you believe or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Suzuki is scoring 80 this year and flirting with 100 in 2-3 years.. Also someone get the image of that poor pig getting molested out of my mind somehow.

Why? Looks cute with the lipstick.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I read it. And it’s important to distinguish between the two. Price was by far our best player and the prime reason for our advancement. The argument I made earlier was that we wouldn’t win a cup with Nick as our best player. And I think that holds true. Was Suzuki our best skater? Debateable.

And your responses are becoming short and personal. It’s clear you’re upset and this isn’t going to go anywhere.

Have a great day my friend.

You’ve made an absurd claim that is completely unproven and to be honest, completely unprovable. If we don’t win a cup, you’ll say, see, I told you so, if we do and we acquired someone better than Nick you will say see, I told you so, but there is literally no way to know what is true.

 

[Naslundforever]

That's precisely what I said before saying I believed he had runway left to get there. Either you believe or you don't. You can't have it both ways.


Why? Looks cute with the lipstick.

Ok then… well at least let us know when you’re done with it (oh god I just wrote that)…

On subject I’d add a real scoring 2nd line would take much coverage off Suzuki. Kid’s had all the odds stacked against him so far and has had winter slumps to show for it imo. Not worried he’s the guy, the rest of the team has been barely that (an nhl team).

 

[lamp9post]

I haven’t ever said he was the reason we sucked. Nor do I believe this. I said that if he’s your best player you aren’t going anywhere.

Two very different things.

And no, I don’t think he’s a true number one. Not yet anyway. Sorry to have upset you.

I'm not sure why so many are confused or take issue with your stance on this. I agree with you. It's not impossible for the team to win with Suzuki as their best player, I just wouldn't bet on it. Just like I wouldn't have bet on St. Louis winning the cup with Ryan O'Reilly as their best player. It could happen, but the odds would be better if we had more dominant players leading the charge. If you look at Stanley Cup winners, aside from some rare exceptions it usually boils down to your top-5 players being better than the opposition's top-5 players. Suzuki can be ONE of those top-5 players, but in an ideal world more of a #3-5 than a #1-2.