Agreed. I remember during our BB years having guys like Bones and Palmieri on the 4th line made us pretty dang deep
Player Discussion Sam Colangelo
- Thread starter Ducks DVM
- Start date
Agreed. I remember during our BB years having guys like Bones and Palmieri on the 4th line made us pretty dang deep
I guess it depends on one's vision of what a 4th line should look like...I would want one that is big, physical, defensively tough, and relentless on the forecheck. Scoring is a bonus but not what I'm looking for. I just don't think Colangelo is that type of player...as I've said before, he's a scorer with a scorer's mentality. Why try to make a 4th liner out of him?
I want a 4th line that's better than the other team's 4th line at scoring goals. Colangelo seems like he can help with that.
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
I bet that's what Cronin was thinking with putting the Gulls best goal scorer when he was brought up to be on the fourth line. Turns out Colangelo only scores with offensively talented players.
Nesterenko, otoh, is a player that fits the 4th line role and can chip in goals.
Nesterenko: 20 games, 4g + 2a
Lundy: 79 games, 4g + 11a
Harkins: 62 games, 2g + 4a
Johnston: 43 games, 1g + 3a
MMC
Global Moderator
Penciling Colangelo into next season’s top 9 is really not a good idea if PV is serious about wanting to make the playoffs next year
2faded
Registered User
I think he has way higher upside than a 4th liner and he's already shown it. He can be the glue guy on a skill line. Forechecking, going to the net, screening the goalie with enough hands to tip pucks in. Good shot. Goal scorer. Good size.
MMC
Global Moderator
Not sure what more he can do to prove he deserves a shot in the top 9 that doesn't require more ice time in the NHL.
PPG in the AHL with over .5 goals per game.
10 goals in 35 games in the NHL playing only 12 minutes a game.
Next year is his age 24/D+6. IDK what else you want out of him that would make you think he is ready.
PPG in the AHL with over .5 goals per game.
10 goals in 35 games in the NHL playing only 12 minutes a game.
Next year is his age 24/D+6. IDK what else you want out of him that would make you think he is ready.
AngelDuck
MacT
- Jun 16, 2012
- 23,333
- 20,236
The ducks are in a bit of a pickle with him, which is a good thing organizationally.
I agree with the above that there’s not much more he could realistically do to earn a spot in the top 9.
I just don’t know how throwing him on the 4th line with Washe, Gaucher, etc helps him develop the goal scoring we need him to develop.
But at the same time, we should be looking for scoring help outside of the org. Tough one
It once again leads me back to my thesis that Zegras or Strome has to go
I agree with the above that there’s not much more he could realistically do to earn a spot in the top 9.
I just don’t know how throwing him on the 4th line with Washe, Gaucher, etc helps him develop the goal scoring we need him to develop.
But at the same time, we should be looking for scoring help outside of the org. Tough one
It once again leads me back to my thesis that Zegras or Strome has to go
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
I'd be okay with Sam on the 4th line if we add depth to the top of the lineup, so that he can still play with some talent on his line. And I'd want him to get some PP time. I don't want him with Leason and Lundy, I'd rather he overcook in SD and wait for an injury to fill in higher in the lineup in that case.
Colangelo looks like a bottom 6 player to me, which I think is fantastic. The Ducks need good scorers in their bottom 6. But he's not better than Terry. And we've been talking already since the season ended about upgrading the top 6, because if Colangelo is your 2nd best RW, that's probably not great. I'm happy to be proven wrong on that, but I don't think it's a wise strategy to rely on. Eventually Sennecke projects to surpass him as well.
For me, putting him on the 4th line is not an insult to Colangelo. It's a sign that we're finally ready to have an actually good 4th line.
For me, putting him on the 4th line is not an insult to Colangelo. It's a sign that we're finally ready to have an actually good 4th line.
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
He'd also be a really good depth player because he could fill in on higher lines when injuries strike.
I feel like people are selling him short. 10 goals in 35 NHL games at 12 minutes a night is a pretty high scoring rate. The highest G/60 on the team.
Even if he regresses by 35% with more minutes he will still be higher then Terry, Leo, and Z.
He is the ideal 3rd liner assuming this can translate into a reliable 20-30 goal scorer with more minutes.
Even if he regresses by 35% with more minutes he will still be higher then Terry, Leo, and Z.
He is the ideal 3rd liner assuming this can translate into a reliable 20-30 goal scorer with more minutes.
That was based on a super high shooting percentage (24%). Bring the shooting percentage down to a more reasonable level, and he projects more as a 15-goal guy with the possibility of hitting low 20s if everything goes right and he puts up a monster season. By the eye test, I didn't see anything that looks like an everyday top 6 player. He was decent at most things, but his passing and vision weren't quite up to a top 6 level.
I agree with the sentiment that he's great to have in your bottom 6 as a talented goal scorer but he can move up the lineup if you need him to. I don't think that wastes his abilities at all. I would love not to cringe every time the 4th line is on the ice as I have done basically for the last 15 years.
I get that, which is why I assume regression. But getting up to 16 minutes a game, and actually getting better since it isnt his rookie year should also be taken into account.
I'm not saying he is a sure thing, but whats the point in trying to get top 6 players in the second round if you're never going to give them a shot in the NHL? Like I genuinely don't know what else people want out of him.
People want to offersheet Mavrik Bourque when Colangelo was basically the same player this year. Both PPG in the AHL, then played at a 30 point pace in the NHL with limited minutes. Except Bourque was PPG in the AHL playing with a much better team and Stankoven on his line.
I want him to score 15-20 goals in a bottom 6 role. Not all guys can handle higher minutes and larger roles on a regular basis. Colangelo strikes me as a guy who's a huge asset if he's scoring goals playing 12 - 14 minutes a night and miscast if he's consistently playing alongside your best players 16 - 18 minutes a night against the other team's best defenses. I think he CAN play there if you need him, but I think the team isn't serious about competing if that's the plan.
I guess my question would be - we've seen him score consistently in a bit of a sheltered role. Why change what worked this year?
Deuce22
Registered User
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
Plus, on this team playing in the bottom six means potentially playing with Mac and Z. Not exactly exile.
Colangelo's game has been improving rapidly for two straight years now going back to his last year of college. It's almost like some people don't think he can continue to improve. 6'2" right-shot goal scoring power winger is his upside if the Ducks let him continue to develop in a scoring role...and that could be realized much sooner than later at his current rate of development.
I guess I just want to know what the plan is from the people who think Colangelo in the bottom 6 is a crime against hockey. To be honest, as excited as I am that Colangelo produced so much last year, I don't think he has a ton of projection left. Most forwards are done developing by 24. He seems like a late bloomer, so there's a chance he's got some upside remaining, but that's nice to get as a bonus, maybe not as great to plan for. But even if he does take another step I don't see him lower in the lineup as a problem.
I think most agree that our top 6 need to improve. I, as well as many others I've seen on this board, think that will need to come from outside the organization. Terry has obviously earned a spot in the top 6. The most likely spot for the upgrade, then, is RW1 alongside Leo and Cutter, demoting Killorn (ignoring, for a minute, whether or not that will actually happen). Do we want to hand that spot to Colangelo right now rather than pursuing an upgrade? Does Colangelo bring enough on the defensive side of the puck to handle that role?
Longer term, what's the plan for Sennecke? He certainly needs to put in his time and earn it, but the idea is for him to be a top 9 RW within the next few seasons.
I guess I'm unsure why people are so upset about having a scoring RW in the bottom 6 or even, perish the thought, on the 4th line. That's the kind of depth successful teams need, especially ones who don't have multiple game-breaking players. If we go into next season with Colangelo penciled into a top 6 RW role, that means Verbeek didn't add any talent from outside the organization at forward. And maybe that's ok, but it's a big risk. We saw how it went this season.
Ideally, I'd like to see this at RW:
Next season: [Player X], Terry, Colangelo, Killorn/???
Long-term: Sennecke, [Player X], Terry, Colangelo
If Player X is not acquired, then I have no problem sticking Colangelo in there and seeing what happens. I'd rather see him up top than Killorn. But I'm skeptical that it's a long-term solution or that it will lead to great things next season. Colangelo is a solid player. But I don't see him getting to a place where he makes our top 6 much better than other teams' top 6.
I think most agree that our top 6 need to improve. I, as well as many others I've seen on this board, think that will need to come from outside the organization. Terry has obviously earned a spot in the top 6. The most likely spot for the upgrade, then, is RW1 alongside Leo and Cutter, demoting Killorn (ignoring, for a minute, whether or not that will actually happen). Do we want to hand that spot to Colangelo right now rather than pursuing an upgrade? Does Colangelo bring enough on the defensive side of the puck to handle that role?
Longer term, what's the plan for Sennecke? He certainly needs to put in his time and earn it, but the idea is for him to be a top 9 RW within the next few seasons.
I guess I'm unsure why people are so upset about having a scoring RW in the bottom 6 or even, perish the thought, on the 4th line. That's the kind of depth successful teams need, especially ones who don't have multiple game-breaking players. If we go into next season with Colangelo penciled into a top 6 RW role, that means Verbeek didn't add any talent from outside the organization at forward. And maybe that's ok, but it's a big risk. We saw how it went this season.
Ideally, I'd like to see this at RW:
Next season: [Player X], Terry, Colangelo, Killorn/???
Long-term: Sennecke, [Player X], Terry, Colangelo
If Player X is not acquired, then I have no problem sticking Colangelo in there and seeing what happens. I'd rather see him up top than Killorn. But I'm skeptical that it's a long-term solution or that it will lead to great things next season. Colangelo is a solid player. But I don't see him getting to a place where he makes our top 6 much better than other teams' top 6.
anezthes
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2014
- 4,407
- 4,061
Cutter – Leo – TT / ?
Z – McT – TT / ?
Killer – ? – Cola
Frank – ? – Strome
Two faceoff specialists and one scoring forward.
Or, you put Z in the middle and find some wingers.
Cutter – Leo – TT / ?
Killer / ? – McT – TT / ?
Killer / ? – Z – Cola
Frank – ? – Strome
Z – McT – TT / ?
Killer – ? – Cola
Frank – ? – Strome
Two faceoff specialists and one scoring forward.
Or, you put Z in the middle and find some wingers.
Cutter – Leo – TT / ?
Killer / ? – McT – TT / ?
Killer / ? – Z – Cola
Frank – ? – Strome
Im not so worried about this bottom 6, middle 6 debate. Kid showed he can score and be physical. We are talking the difference of essentially special teams time. Its not like 20 years ago when your 1st line played 15 minutes more than your 4th line. Top 3 lines are all within a couple of minutes of ice time difference. Its situational at best.
The question shouldn't be which line or how much ice time, the question should be which line mates have the chemistry to perform the task they are assigned. Dont force guys onto a line they dont mesh with.
Its the same reason I have no problem with Killer. He plays a bit more defensive and net front. Put him on a line, any line, that his skills help to round out the line.
We need more scoring, so go find that guy. If he pushes Colangelo down the lineup, so be it. But kid showed he can also be thrown in there and score. If he ends up on the 3rd line with Mac, awesome. If there is a newly constructed 4th line of young energetic guys who can also score and hes on it, thats cool too. Hell, this was his first season and I doubt we saw the best of him. I seriously doubt he will end up being a top line/PP guy, but if this is his floor, he can play anywhere in the lineup and thats a great thing to have.
The question shouldn't be which line or how much ice time, the question should be which line mates have the chemistry to perform the task they are assigned. Dont force guys onto a line they dont mesh with.
Its the same reason I have no problem with Killer. He plays a bit more defensive and net front. Put him on a line, any line, that his skills help to round out the line.
We need more scoring, so go find that guy. If he pushes Colangelo down the lineup, so be it. But kid showed he can also be thrown in there and score. If he ends up on the 3rd line with Mac, awesome. If there is a newly constructed 4th line of young energetic guys who can also score and hes on it, thats cool too. Hell, this was his first season and I doubt we saw the best of him. I seriously doubt he will end up being a top line/PP guy, but if this is his floor, he can play anywhere in the lineup and thats a great thing to have.
Firequacker
used wall of text! It's not very effective...
- Jun 3, 2022
- 263
- 1,084
It seems like there have been two different discussions going on, one of which is top six vs bottom six and the other of which is top nine vs fourth line, and then those are getting conflated a little bit.
Having Colangelo on the third line is a completely reasonable start. If he proves he's really good enough to oust a top six guy, awesome! The team can deal with that situation when it happens, it shouldn't be the expectation out of the gate. He can be a Third Line Guy™, that's fine. It's not like we're running a traditional third line here (hard to imagine that changing under a new coach given the roster construction).
He shouldn't be on the fourth line, he's not the "utility liner with offensive upside" guy. He's a goal scorer.
Having Colangelo on the third line is a completely reasonable start. If he proves he's really good enough to oust a top six guy, awesome! The team can deal with that situation when it happens, it shouldn't be the expectation out of the gate. He can be a Third Line Guy™, that's fine. It's not like we're running a traditional third line here (hard to imagine that changing under a new coach given the roster construction).
He shouldn't be on the fourth line, he's not the "utility liner with offensive upside" guy. He's a goal scorer.
