Player Discussion: Patrik Laine IVever: a new hope? (Laine out of PAP, trade request still stands)

[BB88]

I also suggest moving Laine and Gaudreau in different lines. Yes, I may be opposed that the lines won't be as dangerous this way, but in the case of one outstanding one, opponents can deploy forchecking on the defenders. Besides, we don't currently have a center like Lindholm who is very underrated. But there is one more problem. Roslovic. Laine is perfect with Jenner, a center who can play without the puck, quality defense would be more ideal to Gaudreau. For me, the options are Voracek -- Jenner -- Laine, Gaudreau -- Sillinger -- Nyquist lines. But in that case, Jack would play third line with Texier and one of the Foudy/Johnson/Danforth/Marchenko/Chinakhov five. I don't know if he'd like it.

Every good team needs to have a strenght.

Your could be one of the most dangerous offensive duos in the league without sacrifing the secondary scoring so why not use it?

Marchand- Bergeron duo is the biggest reason why Boston has been able to be in the mix for the Cup the last 10 years and still have a shot even after losing talent yearly.

Every good team needs strenghts and would be the wrong decision in my mind to not use yours.

Gaudreau- Laine is pretty much match made in heaven and Gaudreau has shown he has the ability to score 90, 100 or 115 points in a season, use it and win games

 

[Halberdier]

Every good team needs to have a strenght.

Your could be one of the most dangerous offensive duos in the league without sacrifing the secondary scoring so why not use it?

Marchand- Bergeron duo is the biggest reason why Boston has been able to be in the mix for the Cup the last 10 years and still have a shot even after losing talent yearly.

Every good team needs strenghts and would be the wrong decision in my mind to not use yours.

Gaudreau- Laine is pretty much match made in heaven and Gaudreau has shown he has the ability to score 90, 100 or 115 points in a season, use it and win games

Spot on.

Now, if CBJ had Crosby & Malkin or Marner & Matthews (oops!) to spread the top end talent for more than one line, then do so. But currently that's not the case and nothing complinents en elite talent like an another elite talent playing the same line.

 

[Halberdier]

I understand having more goals than the other team means you win the game, and that is the goal. (pun intended)

The thing we disagree on, is the breakdown of the amount of focus needed to be spread out across the offensive and defensive sides of game, that you have to play in the NHL, in order for that to actually happen on a consistent enough basis to actually reach any sort of team oriented goal.

I think we mostly disagree on your straw man arguments like that funny one you threw at me, a stone hands defensive defenceman obsessed with "not losing your own game" (ie. not allowing more [or actually any] goals against than your line scores when on ice). Your strawman? 'I am only interested on goals Laine scores, not goals against'. Rubbish, but nothing new.

 

[VT]

O.K. if we want Gaudreau and Laine together, also Roslovic in TOP 6, the roster could be:

Gaudreau -- Jenner -- Laine
Texier -- Roslovic -- Voracek
Johnson -- Sillinger -- Nyquist
Robinson -- Kuraly -- Foudy

Later Sillinger and Jenner could exchange.

 

[VT]

Spot on.

Now, if CBJ had Crosby & Malkin or Marner & Matthews (oops!) to spread the top end talent for more than one line, then do so. But currently that's not the case and nothing complinents en elite talent like an another elite talent playing the same line.

Crosby and Malkin are centers and played in different lines. Krejci, Lucic, Horton, Chára, Thomas were there:

Boston Bruins 2010-2011 - Roster, Stats & more

Boston Bruins - NHL - hockey team page with roster, stats, transactions at eliteprospects.com

www.eliteprospects.com

Toronto: Matthews and Marner, Nylander and Tavares. Btw Matthews and Tavares are centers.

 

[Halberdier]

O.K. if we want Gaudreau and Laine together, also Roslovic in TOP 6, the roster could be:

Gaudreau -- Jenner -- Laine
Texier -- Roslovic -- Voracek
Johnson -- Sillinger -- Nyquist
Robinson -- Kuraly -- Foudy

Later Sillinger and Jenner could exchange.

I think with that TOP-9, it doesn't matter if your line is called 2nd or 3rd line. While your lines are good, I would love to see Voracek with one of Sillinger, Johnson or even with both of these.

And I really need to see that Johnny-KJ-Laine line (also Sillinger, maybe Texier as a center) tried at some point, which should also be considered as a spreading the talent or experience. That way there could be 2 experienced NHLers on each line with one "apprentice".

 

[Ippenator]

O.K. if we want Gaudreau and Laine together, also Roslovic in TOP 6, the roster could be:

Gaudreau -- Jenner -- Laine
Texier -- Roslovic -- Voracek
Johnson -- Sillinger -- Nyquist
Robinson -- Kuraly -- Foudy

Later Sillinger and Jenner could exchange.

I think these lines could really work well. At least I would like to see something like this tried for the minimum of 10 games to see if they could work. Of course if they wouldn’t after all work, then changed to something else. But I don’t believe in the constant blender of changing lines every single game, unless there are injury problems or other kinds of force majeur-situations.

 

[Halberdier]

Crosby and Malkin are centers and played in different lines. Krejci, Lucic, Horton, Chára, Thomas were there:

Boston Bruins 2010-2011 - Roster, Stats & more

Boston Bruins - NHL - hockey team page with roster, stats, transactions at eliteprospects.com

www.eliteprospects.com

Toronto: Matthews and Marner, Nylander and Tavares. Btw Matthews and Tavares are centers.

I know, I know.

But CBJ just doesn't have similar situation and even Toronto is playing Matthews with Marner even though they could spread the talent (and be less dangerous doing that so it's not advisable). On CBJ Marner would likely be a 1C, but on stacked TML he is obviously playing as a winger as he has done on his adult career.

 

[Xoggz22]

Quite frankly, what I said was twisted into something more.

Some of you guys seem to think the team would be “successful” if they were 1st in goals forward and last in goals against.

I also stand by what I said. There is a small contingent who stand by the idea that more offense either is or can be the answer. “Suggested”, “implied”, “infer”, I don’t know. What I do know is that if the CBJ lead the league in goals this upcoming year, it would be considered a “successful season”, no matter what to some people. Some people are content with the play from last year, when the team was WAY closer to last in GA than they were to the top in GF.

That’s the point. The focus on scoring more goals. My HYPOTHETICAL/made up idea of a team both having the highest GF and GA in the league has what odds of happening?? f***ing zero?? If anybody can find a comparable season, please.



Found 1

I will only say from my perspective there are many ways to measure growth and success. I don't think it is a singular notion. If the goal was to have the most goals in the league and they accomplished that... then I would absolutely say it was a successful season. However, we all know that the ultimate goal is to win the Stanley Cup. If doing that occurs by scoring the most goals in the NHL, yup, success. If doing that means a top 5 pick, nope, not success. Ultimate success is winning the Cup but that typically doesn't happen "over night' and this team is building (hopefully) towards that. Success for this team will be defined differently (this year). For me, it's more wins, fewer losses and making the playoffs to get experience.

But, I think you may possibly be making an absolute by trying to put an individual point into a multi requirement setting. I personally don't see any posters on here that would say scoring the most goals in the NHL would equate to a successful season as a single measure. I do, however, see people (including myself) that would find that to be entertaining and awesome but I'm a wins/losses guy so for me it's about the total product on the ice and in the standings.

I won't say that winning the Cup is the only way to show a successful season (others do and that's OK with me) but that is the ultimate goal. I think a realist would start to point to where the team improves and show those successes as building towards winning the cup. This year that's making the playoffs. I think this team should be in a position to do that but there is so much growth that still needs to happen that it's on the start.

 

[majormajor]

or #2 I would put it as a lack of accountability. Knowing the way Larsen played I can't imagine he just says "don't worry about playing D".
I think it's the fact that quite a few of the players just are more interested in the offensive zone, and they choose not to listen to the coach.

I think the defensive struggles mostly come from

#1 very young inexperienced team (should pose a thought for those that want to shed veterans)

#2 Jarmo stocked up on players that were already noted for being bad defensively elsewhere (Bean, Boqvist, Laine, Roslovic, Domi, etc...)

#3 We went from an idiot-proof layered defensive system to an unforgiving man on man system where one mistake leads to a total breakdown.

 

[VT]

I think with that TOP-9, it doesn't matter if your line is called 2nd or 3rd line. While your lines are good, I would love to see Voracek with one of Sillinger, Johnson or even with both of these.

And I really need to see that Johnny-KJ-Laine line (also Sillinger, maybe Texier as a center) tried at some point, which should also be considered as a spreading the talent or experience. That way there could be 2 experienced NHLers on each line with one "apprentice".

Voracek is a playmaker like Johnson. I think if Johnson in the roster, better for him to start with Nyquist who is two-way player with very good play without the puck and for/backchecking.
Btw, this also applies to Johnson with Gaudreau and Laine. Who will play around the boards, in the front of the net, defense? Laine because he's big?

 

[Halberdier]

I think the defensive struggles mostly come from

#1 very young inexperienced team (should pose a thought for those that want to shed veterans)

#2 Jarmo stocked up on players that were already noted for being bad defensively elsewhere (Bean, Boqvist, Laine, Roslovic, Domi, etc...)

#3 We went from an idiot-proof layered defensive system to an unforgiving man on man system where one mistake leads to a total breakdown.

Nothing wrong on your reasoning except than every three forward you listed happened to be the only guys ~net neutral last season, so definitely they weren't defensive problem last season. Also even Bean and Boqvist weren't that bad in actual results, see below:

(5-on-5, at least 500 min TOI):

 

[Halberdier]

Voracek is a playmaker like Johnson. I think if Johnson in the roster, better for him to start with Nyquist who is two-way player with very good play without the puck and for/backchecking.
Btw, this also applies to Johnson with Gaudreau and Laine. Who will play around the boards, in the front of the net, defense? Laine because he's big?

Sometimes dump & chase isn't avoidable, but I'd love to see Gaudreau & Laine playing mostly with puck and less near the boards. They certainly have the skill & speed for that. Gaudreau-KJ-Laine (maybe 1 year from now) could be a CBJ version of Niederreiter-Aho-Teräväinen. Laine alone is stronger than those 3 combined if it comes to that, and on that Carolina line there is zero "Jenner" on ice:

 

[cslebn]

I think the defensive struggles mostly come from

#1 very young inexperienced team (should pose a thought for those that want to shed veterans)

#2 Jarmo stocked up on players that were already noted for being bad defensively elsewhere (Bean, Boqvist, Laine, Roslovic, Domi, etc...)

#3 We went from an idiot-proof layered defensive system to an unforgiving man on man system where one mistake leads to a total breakdown.

And boy did we see #3 a lot

 

[VT]

Niekedy sa nedá vyhnúť dump & chase, ale rád by som videl Gaudreaua a Lainea hrať väčšinou s pukom a menej pri hracej ploche. Určite na to majú schopnosti a rýchlosť. Gaudreau-KJ-Laine (možno o 1 rok) by mohla byť CBJ verzia Niederreiter-Aho-Teräväinen. Laine sám je silnejší ako tí traja dokopy, ak na to príde, a na tej čiare Caroliny je na ľade nula "Jenner":

Bad comparing. Niederreiter is a power-forward. Aho a speed, two-way center with excellent acceleration and hockey IQ. Do you really think Laine can be a power-forward like Niederreiter? Besides look how Palat -- Stamkos -- Kucherov played without the puck, in their DZ. And when I think of the Gaudreau/Johnson/Laine triplets in our DZ. Simply. Either Laine will be a power-forward with excellent defense, forchecking (it can be, btw) and play without the puck in the next seaso or .... I don't think about it (if they play together, of course).

 

[majormajor]

Nothing wrong on your reasoning except than every three forward you listed happened to be the only guys ~net neutral last season, so definitely they weren't defensive problem last season. Also even Bean and Boqvist weren't that bad in actual results, see below:

(5-on-5, at least 500 min TOI):

You're using net results to discuss defense, which I see as a common mistake. Use defensive results.

And we've already been over this but xGA better predicts GA than past GA does. The only player of that five with a non-terrible xGA is Jack Roslovic.

 

[majormajor]

Sometimes dump & chase isn't avoidable, but I'd love to see Gaudreau & Laine playing mostly with puck and less near the boards. They certainly have the skill & speed for that. Gaudreau-KJ-Laine (maybe 1 year from now) could be a CBJ version of Niederreiter-Aho-Teräväinen. Laine alone is stronger than those 3 combined if it comes to that, and on that Carolina line there is zero "Jenner" on ice:

All of the Canes lines in the Brind'Amour Era play a very high proportion of dump and chase. They are like the opposite of rush- happy Larsen Era Jackets.

 

[Halberdier]

Bad comparing. Niederreiter is a power-forward. Aho a speed, two-way center with excellent acceleration and hockey IQ. Do you really think Laine can be a power-forward like Niederreiter? Besides look how Palat -- Stamkos -- Kucherov played without the puck, in their DZ. And when I think of the Gaudreau/Johnson/Laine triplets in our DZ. Simply. Either Laine will be a power-forward with excellent defense, forchecking (it can be, btw) and play without the puck in the next seaso or .... I don't think about it (if they play together, of course).

Then use Svetchnikov-Aho-Teräväinen.

None of those are your go-to board play warriors, but instead they are excellent using all the space and time middle of the ice.

Don't go too far with the analogy. I am not saying Gaudreau-KJ-Laine would be identical to Svetchnikov-Aho-Teräväinen for instance. But they share a lot of similar qualities and would be able to find their ways to win their game, even if pretty anti-torts manner.

Ps. one playmaker is hardly enough for an elite line. Great lines have at least two. Even McDavid has Draisaitl (not always). Last season eg. Laine did benefit a lot of playmaking skills of Voracek who did benefit a lot of playmaking skills of Laine. Abovementioned Carolina line #37-#20-#86 has whopping 3 guys perfectly capable of good-to-elite playmaking, just like #13-#19-#29 would have.

All of the Canes lines in the Brind'Amour Era play a very high proportion of dump and chase. They are like the opposite of rush- happy Larsen Era Jackets.

Yet with Aho-lines they manage to find space from the middle of the ice and don't need to spend all their time hugging the boards. They are pretty effective on rush.

 

[Halberdier]

You're using net results to discuss defense, which I see as a common mistake. Use defensive results.

You need to win your game. It has been the subject on this thread for some time (even if it should be Laine).

Yes, you could also use GA/60. But since CBJ was losing, it's better to see who were on the ice when the team was losing and who were on the ice when the team was not losing. Turns out the 5 names on your list weren't on ice when the team was losing.

Also what's the point if you allow only 1.00 goals against per 60, if your team scores 0.00 goals for per 60? You are rapidly losing your games at that rate. You are sacrificing everything for defense, and even that is not fantastic.

And we've already been over this but xGA better predicts GA than past GA does. The only player of that five with a non-terrible xGA is Jack Roslovic.

On average virtual stats may be better at predicting the real results, but when we have the real results, it's a bit counter productive to use virtual stats instead. Virtual stats are not the results. They are a good tool, but nowhere a perfect one. They always miss "100% sure goals" and "99% sure goals, that got saved by last moment backcheck". Quantity over quality.

 

[majormajor]

You need to win your game. It has been the subject on this thread for some time (even if it should be Laine).

Yes, you could also use GA/60. But since CBJ was losing, it's better to see who were on the ice when the team was losing and who were on the ice when the team was not losing. Turns out the 5 names on your list weren't on ice when the team was losing.

Also what's the point if you allow only 1.00 goals against per 60, if your team scores 0.00 goals for per 60? You are rapidly losing your games at that rate. You are sacrificing everything for defense, and even that is not fantastic.

On average virtual stats may be better at predicting the real results, but when we have the real results, it's a bit counter productive to use virtual stats instead. Virtual stats are not the results. They are a good tool, but nowhere a perfect one. They always miss "100% sure goals" and "99% sure goals, that got saved by last moment backcheck". Quantity over quality.

Someone who is on the ice for 6 GF and 4 GA every game is surely a great player and should be brought up in that context. You can't say that they're great defensively though, even with a 60% GF% ratio. They'd actually be the worst defensive player in the NHL.

 

[Halberdier]

Someone who is on the ice for 6 GF and 4 GA every game is surely a great player and should be brought up in that context. You can't say that they're great defensively though, even with a 60% GF% ratio. They'd actually be the worst defensive player in the NHL.

That's right, but such extreme differences aren't to be seen on that list, and since those GA/60 etc. stats weren't available, I hand picked the numbers and calculated GA/60 for Laine and for his closest TOP-6 substitute winger with least common ice time and highly praised defensive game, Bjorkstrand.

Laine 3.1 GA/60 (3.1 GF/60)
Bjork 3.4 GA/60 (2.2 GF/60)

I only guess that the 5 names on your list weren't not among the worst even according to GA/60.

 

[Marioesque]

Someone who is on the ice for 6 GF and 4 GA every game is surely a great player and should be brought up in that context. You can't say that they're great defensively though, even with a 60% GF% ratio. They'd actually be the worst defensive player in the NHL.

But they would still be the most valuable player, affecting every games score by two goals to the positive.

 

[majormajor]

That's right, but such extreme differences aren't to be seen on that list, and since those GA/60 etc. stats weren't available, I hand picked the numbers and calculated GA/60 for Laine and for his closest TOP-6 substitute winger with least common ice time and highly praised defensive game, Bjorkstrand.

Laine 3.1 GA/60 (3.1 GF/60)
Bjork 3.4 GA/60 (2.2 GF/60)

I only guess that the 5 names on your list weren't not among the worst even according to GA/60.

Just use naturalstattrick yourself. You're already calculating stuff yourself, you can't say it is too complicated to use.

@Marioesque that's like saying Phillippe Danault is a great offensive player if he is on for 2 goals for and none against in the span of twenty games. Nonsense.

 

[VT]

Then use Svetchnikov-Aho-Teräväinen.

None of those are your go-to board play warriors, but instead they are excellent using all the space and time middle of the ice.

Don't go too far with the analogy. I am not saying Gaudreau-KJ-Laine would be identical to Svetchnikov-Aho-Teräväinen for instance. But they share a lot of similar qualities and would be able to find their ways to win their game, even if pretty anti-torts manner.

Ps. one playmaker is hardly enough for an elite line. Great lines have at least two. Even McDavid has Draisaitl (not always). Last season eg. Laine did benefit a lot of playmaking skills of Voracek who did benefit a lot of playmaking skills of Laine. Abovementioned Carolina line #37-#20-#86 has whopping 3 guys perfectly capable of good-to-elite playmaking, just like #13-#19-#29 would have.


Yet with Aho-lines they manage to find space from the middle of the ice and don't need to spend all their time hugging the boards. They are pretty effective on rush.

But even Svechnikov -- Aho -- Teravainen isn't ideal for comparing too. Svechnikov can play hard, Aho - we know him. And now. Gaudreau is a playmaker. His strenghts are passes, skill, skating but not defense, play without the puck. Next, Johnson. His strenght is playmaking, skill but again, not playing without the puck. Laine. His strenghts are shooting, passes (very underrated in it) but not defense, play without the puck. Although he could be a very good forchecker, using his long stick. Continue. Carolina's defense: Jaccob Slavin, Brett Pesce, Brady Skjei. Our defense: Zach Werenski, Vladislav Gavrikov and young boys.
Also Brind'amour could change players, for example Svechnikov -- Aho -- Nečas, Teravainen -- Trochek -- Jarvis or other combination. Besides Canes had the excellent third line: Niederreiter -- J. Staal -- Fast.
Simply, Carolina was a speed team with excellent forchecking everywhere on the ice, playing in the high tempo but it didn't too much creative. That's why it lost Rangers and could Bruins too. Our first line would be creative but hockey isn't only about play with the puck.

 

[Marioesque]

@Marioesque that's like saying Phillippe Danault is a great offensive player if he is on for 2 goals for and none against in the span of twenty games. Nonsense.

Why twenty games, where did that come from now?