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

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Why twenty games, where did that come from now?

It’s a lot of games in which to have only scored 2 goals. It’s a “for-instance.”

 

[VT]

Btw, while I`m looking, except Aho Carolina didn`t have creative forwards who could decide the game either an excellent pass or a goal, Svechnikov, Teräväinen are very good players, but they didn't know it. Trocheck and Nečas used their speed on the forechecking/backchecking, but again, same thing, lacked creativity. In PO you have to take advantage of your moments, not just fly on the ice like a stampeding polar bear. That's why it's advantageous for us to have creative players, scorers. But we can't go to the opposite extreme, putting them together. Btw, if I were to make a Carolina-style lineup, it could be:

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

 

[Vapaatunnus]

Scoring goals is “the hardest thing to do” because most other teams, the BEST teams, are FOCUSING on defense just as much as offense.

NO, I’m not saying focusing MORE on defense or considering that as MORE important, but, GOOD teams see them as EQUAL in importance. Some of you guys seem to think the team would be “successful” if they were 1st in goals forward and last in goals against. Sometimes the issue isn’t about “drive”, look at players like Voracek and Sillinger, their issue on defense aren’t about “drive”, just actual lack of defensive awareness.

That said, the question about “drive” IS there “throughout” the lineup. From Werenski/Laine to Roslovic/Boqvist. I have no opinion on Gaudreau, or if similar complaints from CGY fans are prevalent or justified.

As good as Gaudreau/Laine/Werenski are, this team is nowhere near as deep skill/roster wise, in comparison to the current top teams in the NHL and past GREAT(safe is death and Duchene/Panarin teams) CBJ teams. The point is they ARE NOT in the position to simply “outscore” teams. Maybe in 2-3 years, maybe not.

You guys blow by the concept or thinking of how much offense actually results FROM good defense. The past mindset/motto of “Safe is Death”, wasn’t describing just an overly offensive mindset/idea. It had to do with an ATTACK strategy from BOTH the offense and the defense.

We don’t have the team defense or mobile enough defensemen to play an aggressive attacking style defense, so instead we are left with this half commitment 5 man rotation thing, that seemingly only about 1/3 of the team can adapt to and be effective with.

Again, the problem with the CBJ isn’t them scoring goals. I see all this FOCUS on how many points Laine/Gaudreau put up, and no questions on any possible changes in their game or on the improvements of the team that is needed, and the impact that will have on the SUCCESS of THE TEAM.

At least I have said all the time that one big issue is getting puck out of own zone. That caused lots of goals last year so in that part I totally agree.

 

[Halberdier]

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.

You are abusing my analogy.

My point with that analogy was that you can find ways to win with skinny, highly talented and speedy guys that are not monsters at the boards (like 37-20-86 proves us). But you keep pushing the boundaries of analogy. Analogies aren't meant for that.

If I sometimes walk like a turtle, it doesn't mean I lay eggs and have a heavy shell on my back.

 

[Halberdier]

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

Silly me, I missed the dropdown menu that was indeed there even on a mobile.

Like I expected, those 5 you listed weren't among the worst ones even on GA/60, but instead near the top (which was really even for most of the CBJ last season) except Boqvist who was 3rd last.

@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.

I don't think he did wrote what you think he did. Please re-read:

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

 

[Halberdier]

It’s a lot of games in which to have only scored 2 goals. It’s a “for-instance.”

The original argument was about +2 goals for per game, which would be +40 -0 on 20 game period if 0 scored against which in turn would be a NHL record I guess.

If someone has +2 -0 games for 20 games stretch, that's beyond awesome stretch of games. Or the league is not NHL.

Edit: Phillip Danault was roughly +0.15 goals net positive per game last season (only 5-on-5). That's good. Nothing to write songs about, but that's good. If he had +2.00 instead, that would be 12 times better (or 13 times of the 0.15), and pretty insane. @majormajor @Marioesque

 

[VT]

You are abusing my analogy.

My point with that analogy was that you can find ways to win with skinny, highly talented and speedy guys that are not monsters at the boards (like 37-20-86 proves us). But you keep pushing the boundaries of analogy. Analogies aren't meant for that.

If I sometimes walk like a turtle, it doesn't mean I lay eggs and have a heavy shell on my back.

I don't abuse. It's just that players differ not only in height/weight, but also in hockey style. And I don't see any player like Aho in the Gaudreau -- Johnson -- Laine line, on the contrary, two typologically identical players (Gaudreau/Johnson). But I think Kent would be better than Texier or Roslovic. The first is ideal with vertical players, the second with a playyer who knows to play in defense, without the puck and a playmaker. Remember the Nyquist -- Roslovic -- Voracek line.

 

[Halberdier]

I don't abuse. It's just that players differ not only in height/weight, but also in hockey style. And I don't see any player like Aho in the Gaudreau -- Johnson -- Laine line, on the contrary, two typologically identical players (Gaudreau/Johnson). But I think Kent would be better than Texier or Roslovic. The first is ideal with vertical players, the second with a playyer who knows to play in defense, without the puck and a playmaker. Remember the Nyquist -- Roslovic -- Voracek line.

No, you abuse the analogy and don't even get that.

I didn't claim Johnson is a 2-way center like Aho, and yet you are comparing them.

No, no and no.

I used the line *only* to prove that speedy, talented, skinny guys might form an effective line even if none of them was a monster near the boards. NOTHING OTHER. So forget Carolina, forget 37-20-86.

They are very highly talented and they will find ways to be effective.

Also the Jets 27-55-29 line on 16-17 was not having anyone like Aho, and they had zero (then) defensively praised guy to play with them. Guess what? They were really effective and winning. And please, don't dig deeper on that analogy either, because that's not the point with analogies.

The bottom line is that you might have a highly offensive minded, speedy, talented line that is effective in terms of winning even if they aren't really good at boards and even if their game is more about rush than cycle. <- the ONE AND ONLY point with 37-20-86 & 27-55-29 analogies.

 

[VT]

No, you abuse the analogy and don't even get that.

I didn't claim Johnson is a 2-way center like Aho, and yet you are comparing them.

No, no and no.

I used the line *only* to prove that speedy, talented, skinny guys might form an effective line even if none of them was a monster near the boards. NOTHING OTHER. So forget Carolina, forget 37-20-86.

They are very highly talented and they will find ways to be effective.

Also the Jets 27-55-29 line on 16-17 was not having anyone like Aho, and they had zero (then) defensively praised guy to play with them. Guess what? They were really effective and winning. And please, don't dig deeper on that analogy either, because that's not the point with analogies.

The bottom line is that you might have a highly offensive minded, speedy, talented line that is effective in terms of winning even if they aren't really good at boards and even if their game is more about rush than cycle. <- the ONE AND ONLY point with 37-20-86 & 27-55-29 analogies.

If you want to make an analogy, you also have to look at the type of players, their play. Otherwise, it sounds pretty strange. And it doesn't help to say that you wanted to show how low, fast players can play. Apropo, neither Niederreiter nor Svechnikov are small players. Well, Laine and Johnson aren't fast. More accurately, they didn't have ideal acceleration. So, again, a missed shot.
About the Ehlers -- Scheifele -- Laine line, was that a joke? Ehlers has unreal speed, excellent transition, can work in the dirty areas very well. Scheifele can play hard, which is helped by his height/weight, in dirty the areas too.
And now, find me a player in the Gaudreau -- Johnson -- Laine line who can play there? Only if Laine. And now - the Svechnikov -- Aho -- Teräväinen: Svechnikov and Aho. The Niederreiter -- Aho -- Teräväinen line: Niederreiter and Aho.
So I repeat, you are giving the wrong examples. Btw, if Laine changes his system of play, that is, playing hard yet successful forechecking in every game, using his long stick more and also his physique when holding the stick, around the boards, carrying the puck (with his shot, no one asks him to stand in front of the net), and eventually started moving his feet more on defense, even not only Brind'Amour but also Torts would have let him play with two playmakers. And he can do all this, he just rarely does it all at once.

 

[Halberdier]

If you want to make an analogy, you also have to look at the type of players, their play. Otherwise, it sounds pretty strange. And it doesn't help to say that you wanted to show how low, fast players can play. Apropo, neither Niederreiter nor Svechnikov are low players. Well, Laine and Johnson aren't fast. More accurately, they didn't have ideal acceleration. So, again, a missed shot.
About the Ehlers -- Scheifele -- Laine line, was that a joke? Ehlers has unreal speed, excellent transition. Scheifele can play hard, which is helped by his height/weight.

No, if I make an analogy that compares 1, 2 or 3 things to prove a point, that doesn't warrant abusing the analogy (fallacy called false analogy) to compare 3 other things between these two.

Also I was talking about 16-17 27-55-29, which you seem to know nothing about. And particularly that (at the time) no-one of those were considered defensively good, which was my point I was particular about.

Now seriously.

And PS. Laine happens to be fast, esp. on rush that was the point. His acceleration is not the best, but it was not relevant on the subject. Yes I know, he is huge and his cadence is very low, which fools many people to think he is not fast, and yet he is faster than most in CBJ for example. Not Robinson-fast, not Ehlers-fast but still fast.

 

[VT]

No, if I make an analogy that compares 1, 2 or 3 things to prove a point, that doesn't warrant abusing the analogy (fallacy called false analogy) to compare 3 other things between these two.

Also I was talking about 16-17 27-55-29, which you seem to know nothing about. And particularly that (at the time) no-one of those were considered defensively good, which was my point I was particular about.

Now seriously.

View attachment 574156
And PS. Laine happens to be fast, esp. on rush that was the point. His acceleration is not the best, but it was not relevant on the subject. Yes I know, he is huge and his cadence is very low, which fools many people to think he is not fast, and yet he is faster than most in CBJ for example. Not Robinson-fast, not Ehlers-fast but still fast.

If I take away that I explained where Laine has problem (acceleration), you still haven't explained why you are comparing completely typologically different lines.

I know they weren't defensively good, but you probably didn't understand that Scheifele and Ehlers work in the dirty areas, and very well at that, the ability to cover a goalie's view. If I understood correctly, Laine also defended for Scheifele. But count how many pucks they won, which the line had more opportunities to score.

Unless, of course, you think at least one of the Gaudreau/Johnson will do it (if Laine plays with them, he would have to do it).

In short. If we want Gaudreau and Laine (if they play together) to play to their strengths, they should have a player with them who plays good defense, without the puck, works in the dirty areas. In my opinion, Sillinger could be that guy later.

 

[stevo61]

Im just ready for hockey to start as this thread hurts my brain. Either they load up Gaudreau with Laine and hopefully watch the magic happen or they put Laine with Voracek and create matchup nightmares for other teams.
Im sure theyll try Laine and Gaudreau and on paper it looks good but we'll see what happens on the ice. Voracek is a pretty damn good plan B

 

[majormajor]

Im just ready for hockey to start as this thread hurts my brain. Either they load up Gaudreau with Laine and hopefully watch the magic happen or they put Laine with Voracek and create matchup nightmares for other teams.
Im sure theyll try Laine and Gaudreau and on paper it looks good but we'll see what happens on the ice. Voracek is a pretty damn good plan B

I think if we get Gaudreau and Laine rolling 100% then that is a "matchup nightmare" no matter who is defending. I tend to think that matchup talk is overrated in the regular season anyways, you rarely see tight line matching.

 

[majormajor]

The original argument was about +2 goals for per game, which would be +40 -0 on 20 game period if 0 scored against which in turn would be a NHL record I guess.

If someone has +2 -0 games for 20 games stretch, that's beyond awesome stretch of games. Or the league is not NHL.

Edit: Phillip Danault was roughly +0.15 goals net positive per game last season (only 5-on-5). That's good. Nothing to write songs about, but that's good. If he had +2.00 instead, that would be 12 times better (or 13 times of the 0.15), and pretty insane. @majormajor @Marioesque

I don't know how to explain it any better, it is a simple concept. Let me make it more extreme and see if you get it.

Say a player scores 10000 goals in a season and allows 5000. That is the greatest player of all time, and also the worst defensive player of all time.

GA is a defensive stat and GF% is an overall stat. Sometimes people use GF% to talk about defensive ability, that is an analytical mistake. The player in the above example has a great GF% but is probably not playing defense and might even be firing pucks into their own net to get numbers that high.

 

[Marioesque]

I don't know how to explain it any better, it is a simple concept. Let me make it more extreme and see if you get it.

Say a player scores 10000 goals in a season and allows 5000. That is the greatest player of all time, and also the worst defensive player of all time.

GA is a defensive stat and GF% is an overall stat. Sometimes people use GF% to talk about defensive ability, that is an analytical mistake. The player in the above example has a great GF% but is probably not playing defense and might even be firing pucks into their own net to get numbers that high.

Overall impact is what matters though. You can break down the weaknesses of players and focus on them or you can look at the overall impact to the end result of the game. For me the overall impact matters, not if some stat is looking wonky. Nobody would care about the defensive metrics of a +5000 player, they would run in panic because the aliens are here.

 

[majormajor]

Overall impact is what matters though. You can break down the weaknesses of players and focus on them or you can look at the overall impact to the end result of the game. For me the overall impact matters, not if some stat is looking wonky. Nobody would care about the defensive metrics of a +5000 player, they would run in panic because the aliens are here.

I agree. But if someone tells me that the alien is a great defensive player because of his 67% GF%, that's where I'll disagree. Use GA for defense not GF%.

 

[Marioesque]

I agree. But if someone tells me that the alien is a great defensive player because of his 67% GF%, that's where I'll disagree. Use GA for defense not GF%.

I would use both to get an accurate picture of the overall impact.

 

[Halberdier]

I don't know how to explain it any better, it is a simple concept. Let me make it more extreme and see if you get it.

Say a player scores 10000 goals in a season and allows 5000. That is the greatest player of all time, and also the worst defensive player of all time.

GA is a defensive stat and GF% is an overall stat. Sometimes people use GF% to talk about defensive ability, that is an analytical mistake. The player in the above example has a great GF% but is probably not playing defense and might even be firing pucks into their own net to get numbers that high.

Agreed. Though I can't see anyone disagreeing with you on this. Marioesque wrote something about +6 -4 per game guy being a MVP, not being defensively good.

Though you should say the guy that stays positive is defensively good *enough*, as he can carry his own weight with his offence and not allowing even more goals against.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

Have we started to talk an extension with him? We only have four years to lock something down.

 

[AndBoomGoesTheCannon]

Have we started to talk an extension with him? We only have four years to lock something down.

Probably gonna have to start looking into trades. Can’t let him walk to UFA for nothing.

 

[Youngguns1380]

Im just ready for hockey to start as this thread hurts my brain. Either they load up Gaudreau with Laine and hopefully watch the magic happen or they put Laine with Voracek and create matchup nightmares for other teams.
Im sure theyll try Laine and Gaudreau and on paper it looks good but we'll see what happens on the ice. Voracek is a pretty damn good plan B

I am so ready for hockey to start. I feel like some these discussions are like getting poked in the eyes - three stooges style.

I am now hearing some CBJ fans recommending to start DBB between Laine and Gudreau . As well as some other gems.

 

[Dumais]

Probably gonna have to start looking into trades. Can’t let him walk to UFA for nothing.

By the time his next contract rolls around, he will be way out of our league.

Between the points he racks up and the kids needing re-signed...even with Voracek contract coming off...no way he takes less than 11-12m next contract. Yeah, no...he's gone in 3 years.

 

[Halberdier]

By the time his next contract rolls around, he will be way out of our league.

Between the points he racks up and the kids needing re-signed...even with Voracek contract coming off...no way he takes less than 11-12m next contract. Yeah, no...he's gone in 3 years.

If his play warrants 11-12M (and the cap goes up), I can't see a reason why CBJ would not pay him that.

 

[BB88]

By the time his next contract rolls around, he will be way out of our league.

Between the points he racks up and the kids needing re-signed...even with Voracek contract coming off...no way he takes less than 11-12m next contract. Yeah, no...he's gone in 3 years.

The cap should be in a very different place in 4 years time

 

[koteka]

The cap should be in a very different place in 4 years time

That is a dangerous assumption to make. Let’s say we are at the beginning of an 18 month recession which hits the next two hockey seasons and the cap stays flat for another 2 years. Then maybe it goes up a million each year for the following two years. The Canadian tv deal expires in 4 years, so maybe in 5 years you get a bump in the cap, but I’d be conservative for the next 4 seasons.