Player Discussion Nick Suzuki Part 11

[Redux91]

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.

 

[Skip Bayless]

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.

I think he's flirting with 100 this year.

It's inevitable since Caufield will complete his first 70 goals season.

 

[Tyson]

I think he's flirting with 100 this year.

It's inevitable since Caufield will complete his first 70 goals season.

The comedians are out in force today

 

[Scriptor]

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.

No kidding.

My runway leads us a few years from now, when the younger players like Slafkovsky, Newhook, Roy, Heineman, etc., have gained pro experience and matured to a level where they can contribute meaningfully in the NHL.

It also includes a developed D-Corps that will have a greater offensive impact, at least for the transition game that can help the forwards produce more goals.

I expect Suzuki, at that point needs be an 80-point C. Otherwise, I'm certain he'll somewhere between 70 and 80 points and would be banking on Dach becoming a 70-point C himself, or very near to that.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

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.

I thought I was pretty clear. He has runway to prove me wrong. I don’t think he will. We will see.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

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.

????

You can have superstars and not win. All the more reason to build the best team you can.

I have no idea what ‘unproven’ thing you’re talking about.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

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.

I don’t either.

It’s not like I think he sucks. I just think we’ll need a stronger number one if we want to win something. I’m not sure why this has so many people freaked out.

 

[The Great Weal]

I don't know if Suzuki will score 80 points this year, but I do know that in his 2 playoffs appearances thus far, he has outplayed the other team's best center in every series or at the very least most of them.

 

[Scriptor]

I don’t either.

It’s not like I think he sucks. I just think we’ll need a stronger number one if we want to win something. I’m not sure why this has so many people freaked out.

Clearly, he didn't understand your initial take which wasn't, it's not impossible to win with Suzuki as your best player -- Just wouldn't bet on it -- but rather, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to win with Suzuki as your best player.

Hard to agree with someone who sides with you, but clearly sides with a position you didn't take.

It's like this recipe sites where the reviews go, "Loved your recipe, but I added garlic, made cream sauce, instead of a marinara sauce and used shrimp instead of the chicken. Keep up the good work!"

Of course, as someone who doesn't move the goalposts, you then switched to, "If Suzuki becomes a 70 point C and so does Dach, in a 1A, 1B situation, then we're okay."

Does that notching anything, or are we using semantics to argue it isn't the same thing because Dach would be just as good as Suzuki and Suzuki wouldn't be the best player, per se?

 

[Scriptor]

I don't know if Suzuki will score 80 points this year, but I do know that in his 2 playoffs appearances thus far, he has outplayed the other team's best center in every series or at the very least most of them.

Suzuki has been able to raise his level of play in the playoffs which above all, is what I want from my #1C.

Of course, you can step-in and make the spurious argument that a 4th line C playing like a 3rd line C in the playoffs won't get you anywhere, like LG had made earlier, when comparing Suzuki's improving production to that of a 4th liner who just became a better 4th liner not altering the team's chances of winning a Cup,

However, if, more probable, the .80 PPG Suzuki becomes a .90 PPG Center this season, and still raises his level of play in the next playoffs he plays, he'll be leading the team in the postseason like a genuine #1C.

 

[Rapala]

Nick Suzuki "I definitely played injured" If we look back far enough in this thread someone and I won't say who doubted this.

 

[Redux91]

Nick Suzuki "I definitely played injured" If we look back far enough in this thread someone and I won't say who doubted this.

It was even mentioned by the press a bunch of times Suzuki was dealing with a specific nagging injury at some point in the season as well
I wouldn't doubt it coincided with his minor slump last year

 

[Rapala]

It was even mentioned by the press a bunch of times Suzuki was dealing with a specific nagging injury at some point in the season as well
I wouldn't doubt it coincided with his minor slump last year

It did and it was obvious.

 

[Kaladin]

I don't know if Suzuki will score 80 points this year, but I do know that in his 2 playoffs appearances thus far, he has outplayed the other team's best center in every series or at the very least most of them.

It helps when the other team's best center is facing Carey Price and Suzuki isn't lol.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

It was even mentioned by the press a bunch of times Suzuki was dealing with a specific nagging injury at some point in the season as well
I wouldn't doubt it coincided with his minor slump last year

I don't think so. It coincides perfectly with Monahan going down. That seems like a more logical explanation.

 

[The Great Weal]

It helps when the other team's best center is facing Carey Price and Suzuki isn't lol.

Carter Hart, Connor Hellebyuck, and Andrei Vasilevski were excellent agains us

 

[danisonfire]

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.

I did the math in a few different threads.

If our powerplay was league average we would have scored around 18 more goals. Even if he is in on 8 of those goals, that puts him up to 74 points. If our power-play is near the top of the league like it was with Markov, He would easily push 85-90.

- The best PP last year scored 89 PP goals.
- Vancouver scored 62 PP goals.
- Montreal scored 38 PP goals (Suzuki was involved in 44.74% of them)

 

[BehindTheTimes]

????

You can have superstars and not win. All the more reason to build the best team you can.

I have no idea what ‘unproven’ thing you’re talking about.

You’re all over the place. You said we can’t win with Suzuki as our best player. Try to keep track of your own arguments.

You also said, he’s our best player and that’s why we haven’t been good. If these are statements you don’t mean then perhaps you shouldn’t make them.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

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.

Sounds like you said exactly this. 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.

Your words are there and they are self explanatory. It’s not that our 2nd best player had 38 points as to why we were in the bottom of the standings it’s because Nick Suzuki is our best. Lolol.

If you can’t see the agenda you’re pushing I can’t help you. You’re also wrong on almost everything you’ve said. None of it can ever be proven, so it’s just a bunch of bullshit you’ve been spewing.

 

[Rapala]

I did the math in a few different threads.

If our powerplay was league average we would have scored around 18 more goals. Even if he is in on 8 of those goals, that puts him up to 74 points. If our power-play is near the top of the league like it was with Markov, He would easily push 85-90.

- The best PP last year scored 89 PP goals.
- Vancouver scored 62 PP goals.
- Montreal scored 38 PP goals (Suzuki was involved in 44.74% of them)

I think a number of us tried to put up realistic formulas to demonstrate how unlikely it would be that any of our players could put up a PPG season on a team scoring 232 goals. We all know we don't have a Connor McDavid or a Sydney Crosby type player on this team. However it is evident that a healthy team with a better puck moving structure and PP will certainly push a number of our players towards that level.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You’re all over the place. You said we can’t win with Suzuki as our best player. Try to keep track of your own arguments.

I’ve been consistent as the day is long.

You also said, he’s our best player and that’s why we haven’t been good.

I didn’t say this at all.

If these are statements you don’t mean then perhaps you shouldn’t make them.

I didn’t.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Sounds like you said exactly this. 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.

Your words are there and they are self explanatory. It’s not that our 2nd best player had 38 points as to why we were in the bottom of the standings it’s because Nick Suzuki is our best. Lolol.

If you can’t see the agenda you’re pushing I can’t help you. You’re also wrong on almost everything you’ve said. None of it can ever be proven, so it’s just a bunch of bullshit you’ve been spewing.

I’m not going to chase my tail as you distort what I’ve said.

 

[Scriptor]

I don't think so. It coincides perfectly with Monahan going down. That seems like a more logical explanation.

A combination of both seems like the most rational explanation, actually, not an either or scenario.

There isn doubt that Monahan going down contributed to a minor slump.There is also no doubt an injury would contribute. Both together, we have a winner!

 

[Kaladin]

Carter Hart, Connor Hellebyuck, and Andrei Vasilevski were excellent agains us

I mean were they excellent or do we just not have players that are all that good offensively? Chicken and egg when it comes to the Habs. For example. if you check Carter hart's save % vs us that year and compare it to his save % against his next opponent (NYI) it's a large difference. Regardless, none of those guys were at Price's god mode level during the run to the final I think you'd admit that.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

A combination of both seems like the most rational explanation, actually, not another or scenario.

There isn doubt that Monahan going down contributed to a minor slump.There is also no doubt an injury would contribute. Both together, we have a winner!

Monahan went down and Nick’s numbers went with it. Up until then he was killing it.

Maybe some of that early season was lucky, if I remember correctly his shooting percentage (and the whole team’s) was a little high at the time and it’s the ebbs and flows otlf the year. So maybe a dropoff was inevitable. 42 goals and 94 points is hard to sustain. But he really went invisible.

I don’t think an injury happens right at that time. It’s a lot more likely that he had to make adjustments and couldn’t. What worries me is how far he fell for that time period while Caufield was still here. I’d expect the dropoff after that’s understandable. It’s that month + where he goes away that just makes me wonder about him.

Again, he could come back next year and kill it. 80 points is doable. But I just don’t have the faith in him that I once did.