The Jarmo Report (card)
- Thread starter Fred Glover
- Start date
- Status
There is just too much wrong with this post to really comment too much on.
Isn't the oldest guy on this list 23 and 2 of them haven't played 20 games combined in the NHL.
I'm really happy you've decided you are the elite talent evaluator. The reality is you have no more idea of their true ceiling than the poster you quoted. There is a lot of time line potential in there, and yes, there is some borderline elite level potential. With your obvious disdain for our players and prospects, I'm trying to figure out why you bother to follow us.
Cowumbus
Registered User
The team sucks, year after year we have the next good prospect, or a "bright" future ahead of us. I'm sorry if after 15 years of losing I am upset. I'm so tired of hearing player X COULD BE a great player. I want someone to actually be a great player.
Crede777
Deputized
- Dec 16, 2009
- 14,844
- 4,561
Of the GM, sure. I don't think it's fair that it's directed at me (I've suffered just as long as everyone else).
That is fine. My problem with this statement is that the players we have now, if you have watched them play, aren't like the players we have had in the past. The guys in the past didn't have it mentally or work ethic wise, IMO to ever reach their potential. Most of them had the talent. I just see a completely different type of work ethic and mentality in the young players we have now. Not to mention, almost all of them have won somewhere and haven't been brought to the NHL until they were ready. The players and situations are just so different. I get being frustrated. It is just SO ANNOYING having to hear about it in every thread on this board by the same few posters. You know what I am frustrated about? The constant negativity by certain posters.
The Jackets in the past have had plenty of promising young players. Some broke through, some busted, the team still sucked, hopes were dashed. But that talent that folks are remembering is in reality spread out over a decade plus. You remember that time when the Jackets were simultaneously considered a top prospects team and a top team in terms of young roster talent? Yeah that never happened, until now.
Pick a year. You look at any glimpse in time and it's not more than half as deep in game breaking talent, compared to what we have now.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
Bergeron is a consistent 60 point scorer who is a 3 time Selke winner.
Kreji is a 5 time 60 point scorer who hit 73 once.
Lucic is a consistent 55 point scorer.
I'd use Marchand instead of Horton. Marchand is a consistent 50 point scorer.
Lucic and Marchand are tough customers as well.
Saad, Bjorkstrand and Wennberg are soft as butter. Dubois won't be.
The 3 Bruins who played a season in the AHL had these point totals in their first AHL seasons: Kreji (74), Bergeron(61) and Marchand (59). Bjrokstrand had 29 in 51 games-which works out to less than 50 for a full AHL season.
Dubois is a wild card. No one knows what he'll do. Bjorkstrand is probably a long shot to be as effective overall as any of these 4 Bruins. Saad has an outside chance to match Bergeron in terms of points, but not as an overall player. Wennberg will have to improve a great deal to be mentioned in the same class as any of these 4 Bruins. He does not have Bergeron potential. Unless Dubois turns out to be something special, the aggregrate contributions of the four CBJ players you've cited is very unlikely to match the four Bruins whom I listed. Even if Dubois turns out to be a top 20 NHL player, total productivity probably won't match up.
There's no multiple Selke winner in the bunch and the collective toughness-a part of the Bruins identity (model)-of the four CBJ doesn't match Marchand's alone.
The Bruins were 8th in goals scored and 3rd in goals against in their Stanley Cup season. The CBJ were 17th and 29th respectively last season-it's quite a stretch to see them matching the Bruins collective offensive and defensive effectiveness.
Stop reaching so much major major. You're gonna hurt your back
Last edited:
Agreed. I'm just pointing out that certain guys we have had in the past didn't have "it". I feel like a lot of the guys we have now do have "it".
Bergeron is a consistent 60 point scorer who is a 3 time Selke winner.
Kreji is a 5 time 60 point scorer who hit 73 once.
Lucic is a consistent 55 point scorer.
I'd use Marchand instead of Horton. Marchand is a consistent 50 point scorer.
Lucic and Marchand are tough customers as well.
Saad, Bjorkstrand and Wennberg are soft as butter. Dubois won't be.
The 3 Bruins who played a season in the AHL had these point totals in their first AHL seasons: Kreji (74), Bergeron(61) and Marchand (59). Bjrokstrand had 29 in 51 games-which works out to less than 50 for a full AHL season.
Dubois is a wild card. No one knows what he'll do. Bjorkstrand is probably a long shot to be as effective overall as any of these 4 Bruins. Saad has an outside chance to match Bergeron in terms of points, but not as an overall player. Wennberg will have to improve a great deal to be mentioned in the same class as any of these 4 Bruins. He does not have Bergeron potential. Unless Dubois turns out to be something special, the aggregrate contributions of the four CBJ players you've cited is very unlikely to match the four Bruins whom I listed. Even if Dubois turns out to be a top 20 NHL player, total productivity probably won't match up.
There's no multiple Selke winner in the bunch and the collective toughness-a part of the Bruins identity (model)-of the four CBJ doesn't match Marchand's alone.
The Bruins were 8th in goals scored and 3rd in goals against in their Stanley Cup season. The CBJ were 17th and 29th respectively last season-it's quite a stretch to see them matching the Bruins collective offensive and defensive effectiveness.
Stop reaching so much major major. You're gonna hurt your back
How do you know (for the entire post, but especially the bolded part)? You have NO CLUE where these players will be in a year, let alone 3-4 years. We get it. You think the jackets suck. No need to state your opinions as facts to get that point across.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
No need to counter what I said
Bjorkstrand, Saad, and Wennberg are soft. Deal with it. Who's the Selke candidate in the group?
My contention was that we're probably not that far off from the 2011 Bruins offensively. So I'm just going to ignore the objections that have nothing to do with scoring.
Bergeron is a consistent 60 point scorer who is a 3 time Selke winner.
If by "consistent 60 point scorer" you mean "not a consistent 60 point scorer", then yes he's a "consistent 60 point scorer. He's scored 60 pts in 3 of his last 8 seasons.
Kreji is a 5 time 60 point scorer who hit 73 once.
That Krejci is future Wennberg.
Lucic is a consistent 55 point scorer.
Do you try and do this all from memory? Because it's all wrong. Lucic has 4 out of 9 seasons with 55 or more pts.
I'd use Marchand instead of Horton. Marchand is a consistent 50 point scorer.
Maybe you were looking in the PIMS category
The 3 Bruins who played a season in the AHL had these point totals in their first AHL seasons: Kreji (74), Bergeron(61) and Marchand (59). Bjrokstrand had 29 in 51 games-which works out to less than 50 for a full AHL season.
I'm guessing no one told you, but Bjorkstrand was just named playoff MVP. Bergeron's year was the lockout year (after his NHL rookie year). Krejci had a great AHL year in his draft + 3 season. I'd check Wennberg's AHL stats in his draft + 3 season to compare, but HE'S ALREADY IN THE NHL. Wennberg also scored at a better pace in his draft + 3 season (this past year) than Krejci did until his draft + 5 year.
Dubois is a wild card. No one knows what he'll do.
Never said otherwise. He could top out at 35 pts or 80. I said halfway between, where his comparable players are, and I'm comfortable with that.
Saad has an outside chance to match Bergeron in terms of points.
I'm saying he can score four more points than what he just did (to match Bergeron). That's not an outside chance for a 23 year old.
Wennberg will have to improve a great deal to be mentioned in the same class as any of these 4 Bruins.
The pace Wennberg scored at from mid-November on is the same pts Bergeron scored, in his prime, the year he won the cup.
The Bruins were 8th in goals scored and 3rd in goals against in their Stanley Cup season. The CBJ were 17th and 29th respectively last season-it's quite a stretch to see them matching the Bruins collective offensive and defensive effectiveness.
8th in goals is a stretch? I'd take that as an even bet. It's 10 more goals than the Jackets scored in the injury season.
No need to counter what I said
Bjorkstrand, Saad, and Wennberg are soft. Deal with it. Who's the Selke candidate in the group?
I make no claims about Jackets future Selke nominations, but they didn't give Pavel Datsyuk and Jere Lehtinen 3 Selke's each for their hitting prowess.
No need to counter what I said
Bjorkstrand, Saad, and Wennberg are soft. Deal with it. Who's the Selke candidate in the group?
How would I know. Unlike you, I'm not going to say what a player can or can not be when they have barely played in the NHL. Also, i don't know what to say if you think those players are soft. you aren't soft just because you don't skate around trying to hit everyone. According to you, every skill player is soft.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
How would I know. Unlike you, I'm not going to say what a player can or can not be when they have barely played in the NHL. Also, i don't know what to say if you think those players are soft. you aren't soft just because you don't skate around trying to hit everyone. According to you, every skill player is soft.
OK....as long as you say so.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
Originally Posted by Cyclones Rock View Post
Bergeron is a consistent 60 point scorer who is a 3 time Selke winner.
If by "consistent 60 point scorer" you mean "not a consistent 60 point scorer", then yes he's a "consistent 60 point scorer. He's scored 60 pts in 3 of his last 8 seasons.He's scored 358 points in his last 6 full seasons-59.8 per year average. That's a consistent 60 point scorer.
Really? He's scored 281 points in the past 5 non lockout years. 56.2 points per season. He had 55 last season.
The 3 Bruins who played a season in the AHL had these point totals in their first AHL seasons: Kreji (74), Bergeron(61) and Marchand (59). Bjrokstrand had 29 in 51 games-which works out to less than 50 for a full AHL season.
All of the Bruins had very, very highly productive first AHL seasons which is a good predictor of NHL success. In case nobody told you that.
What a ridiculous cherry pick
Bergeron is a consistent 60 point scorer who is a 3 time Selke winner.
If by "consistent 60 point scorer" you mean "not a consistent 60 point scorer", then yes he's a "consistent 60 point scorer. He's scored 60 pts in 3 of his last 8 seasons.He's scored 358 points in his last 6 full seasons-59.8 per year average. That's a consistent 60 point scorer.
Really? He's scored 281 points in the past 5 non lockout years. 56.2 points per season. He had 55 last season.
251 points in last 5 non lockout years. 50.2 points per season. And yes, I am sensing a trend. Your inability to acknowledge simple facts
The 3 Bruins who played a season in the AHL had these point totals in their first AHL seasons: Kreji (74), Bergeron(61) and Marchand (59). Bjrokstrand had 29 in 51 games-which works out to less than 50 for a full AHL season.
All of the Bruins had very, very highly productive first AHL seasons which is a good predictor of NHL success. In case nobody told you that.
What a ridiculous cherry pick
This conversation has greatly humbled me on the power of the english language to convey ideas through simple words.
I think we have a different way of defining "consistent". I would say, and most people would say, that consistency implies uniformity, not an average.
And if Krejci took until age 23 to surpass Wennberg's production as a 21 year old, then you would say that is also predictive? It's hard to discount our players by comparison if they are already scoring well at the NHL level at the same age that the Bruins were scoring in the AHL.
If I'm told that a 21 year old is very far away from hitting a certain point level, and I respond that he was just at said pace over the last 5 months, I'm pretty confident that I'm not the one with egg on my face.
I think we have a different way of defining "consistent". I would say, and most people would say, that consistency implies uniformity, not an average.
And if Krejci took until age 23 to surpass Wennberg's production as a 21 year old, then you would say that is also predictive? It's hard to discount our players by comparison if they are already scoring well at the NHL level at the same age that the Bruins were scoring in the AHL.
What a ridiculous cherry pick
If I'm told that a 21 year old is very far away from hitting a certain point level, and I respond that he was just at said pace over the last 5 months, I'm pretty confident that I'm not the one with egg on my face.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
It's still a cherry pick. Wennberg had 40 points for the season. Krecji has had over 60 points in 5 of his last 6 full seasons-he's had 60 or more in each of his last 4 full seasons. It's absurd to mention these two players in the same breath.
My goodness. Are you seriously comparing what two players are doing who aren't close to each other in age? I didn't think your logic could get worse, but it did.
Player A had 27 points in the NHL by the time he was 21 years old (22 at the end of the season).
Player B had 60 points in the NHL by the time he was 21 years old.
Who would you predict to be the better player?
A "consistent 60 pt scorer" typically means a guy who scores 60 or more pts every year, maybe excepting a bad year or two if you're the generous type.
Look, if Wennberg being ahead of where Krejci was at his age is just meaningless to you, and age is not a relevant factor in discussions about the future, we are not going to be able to have a conversation about future production, on this topic or any other that involves future production.
Here's an age-performance chart I copied in from some random webpage. It's just the average forwards career, charted over time. Some peak earlier, some later, but this is the average, and it is very relevant to our discussion.
Table 2: Age-Performance Relationships for NHL Forwards
Age (Pts per 82 games)
19 13.3
20 23.8
21 28.8
22 32.5
23 36.2
24 39.4
25 40.0
26 40.1
27 41.6
28 41.9
29 41.6
30 39.8
31 39.1
32 36.9
33 35.7
34 34.0
35 30.6
36 26.9
37 25.5
38 20.5
39 15.7
40 13.5
If Wennberg follows the average curve from here on, he has his best years at around 69 points per 82 games. Math: 41.6/28.8*40*(82/69). This is the same player who you say is absurd to mention in the same breath as Krejci, the same player who has outproduced Krejci to this point in his career.
And no, none of this is based on his splits within the year (the supposed cherrypick), it doesn't omit the fact that Wennberg scored 1 point in his first 15 games. If you omit that, Wennberg peaks at 85 pts, which is unreasonably high.
A more careful approach would be to separate ice time effects from scoring rate effects - might get to that later.
Look, if Wennberg being ahead of where Krejci was at his age is just meaningless to you, and age is not a relevant factor in discussions about the future, we are not going to be able to have a conversation about future production, on this topic or any other that involves future production.
Here's an age-performance chart I copied in from some random webpage. It's just the average forwards career, charted over time. Some peak earlier, some later, but this is the average, and it is very relevant to our discussion.
Table 2: Age-Performance Relationships for NHL Forwards
Age (Pts per 82 games)
19 13.3
20 23.8
21 28.8
22 32.5
23 36.2
24 39.4
25 40.0
26 40.1
27 41.6
28 41.9
29 41.6
30 39.8
31 39.1
32 36.9
33 35.7
34 34.0
35 30.6
36 26.9
37 25.5
38 20.5
39 15.7
40 13.5
If Wennberg follows the average curve from here on, he has his best years at around 69 points per 82 games. Math: 41.6/28.8*40*(82/69). This is the same player who you say is absurd to mention in the same breath as Krejci, the same player who has outproduced Krejci to this point in his career.
And no, none of this is based on his splits within the year (the supposed cherrypick), it doesn't omit the fact that Wennberg scored 1 point in his first 15 games. If you omit that, Wennberg peaks at 85 pts, which is unreasonably high.
A more careful approach would be to separate ice time effects from scoring rate effects - might get to that later.
Dr. Fire
What, me worry?
I am really sort of confused on this "toughness" argument. Saying that Wenny, Saad, and Bjork are soft is quite puzzling to me.
In my book, there are two different types of toughness. Those two being mental toughness, and physical toughness. You can have one or the other, or both. Someone like Jenner would be both. Someone like Wenny might be mentally tough, but not physically tough. Someone who is mentally tough might be the kind of guy that is able to play at a higher level, say, in the play-offs.
What I am trying to get at is that being mentally tough is probably much better then being physically tough. A skill player, such as Zetterberg, is way more valuable for his mental toughness, and has never been a liability for lacking more physical toughness. As a matter of fact, the entire successful Redwings team of the recent past was never considered a physically tough team, but you can not say that they were not mentally tough.
Mental toughness would be hard to quantify, whereas physical toughness can be seen in someone playing that way.
I guess what I am trying to say is that not playing as physical as someone else doesn't mean that you won't have the success that the physical player had. Maybe it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Then again, maybe I am full of ****!
In my book, there are two different types of toughness. Those two being mental toughness, and physical toughness. You can have one or the other, or both. Someone like Jenner would be both. Someone like Wenny might be mentally tough, but not physically tough. Someone who is mentally tough might be the kind of guy that is able to play at a higher level, say, in the play-offs.
What I am trying to get at is that being mentally tough is probably much better then being physically tough. A skill player, such as Zetterberg, is way more valuable for his mental toughness, and has never been a liability for lacking more physical toughness. As a matter of fact, the entire successful Redwings team of the recent past was never considered a physically tough team, but you can not say that they were not mentally tough.
Mental toughness would be hard to quantify, whereas physical toughness can be seen in someone playing that way.
I guess what I am trying to say is that not playing as physical as someone else doesn't mean that you won't have the success that the physical player had. Maybe it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Then again, maybe I am full of ****!
Dr. Fire
What, me worry?
Oops! Maybe he is pretty tough.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/freder...pic-qualifer-for-denmark-video-201614317.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/freder...pic-qualifer-for-denmark-video-201614317.html
I am really sort of confused on this "toughness" argument. Saying that Wenny, Saad, and Bjork are soft is quite puzzling to me.
In my book, there are two different types of toughness. Those two being mental toughness, and physical toughness. You can have one or the other, or both. Someone like Jenner would be both. Someone like Wenny might be mentally tough, but not physically tough. Someone who is mentally tough might be the kind of guy that is able to play at a higher level, say, in the play-offs.
What I am trying to get at is that being mentally tough is probably much better then being physically tough. A skill player, such as Zetterberg, is way more valuable for his mental toughness, and has never been a liability for lacking more physical toughness. As a matter of fact, the entire successful Redwings team of the recent past was never considered a physically tough team, but you can not say that they were not mentally tough.
Mental toughness would be hard to quantify, whereas physical toughness can be seen in someone playing that way.
I guess what I am trying to say is that not playing as physical as someone else doesn't mean that you won't have the success that the physical player had. Maybe it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Then again, maybe I am full of ****!
On top of that, not playing tough doesn't mean you are physically soft. It just means you don't play that style. One, because you probably aren't built for it. Two, because you play a skilled game and don't rely on being "tough" to get the job done.
- Status
