As far as the GM, I don't have a problem with his policy so far. Everyone liked our D going into the season so people can't flip flop now and whine about Despres, etc. not getting enough games. Plus we had a full D corps of NHLers and Despres and company got playing time when guys were hurt, so I don't know where the *****ing is coming from.
As far as the forwards, Vitale got his chance and Park produced better than any other 4th liner we had. He signs guys like that because there simply wasn't anyone better for that role. Vitale, Asham, Park, and now to a lesser extent Adams, were all better role players than anyone below them on the totem pole when the season started.
I'll say this again about Tangradi (and he's in part a metaphor here): One thing the Pens desperately needed in the series against Philly was the type of player (PF, PP net presence) that Tangradi projects to be. Whether he'll be that or not isn't what I'm arguing. That Bylsma never really threw him into the deep end sink or swim style is my problem, because not doing that ever during the regular season meant it wasn't an option for the post-season.
I'll say this again about Tangradi (and he's in part a metaphor here): One thing the Pens desperately needed in the series against Philly was the type of player (PF, PP net presence) that Tangradi projects to be. Whether he'll be that or not isn't what I'm arguing. That Bylsma never really threw him into the deep end sink or swim style is my problem, because not doing that ever during the regular season meant it wasn't an option for the post-season.
so by thrown into the deep end, are you suggesting he should have been given a full-time position in the top 6 just to see what happens? Or like, 3rd or 4th line regular shifts with some powerplay time? Because one of those makes a lot more sense than the other.
so by thrown into the deep end, are you suggesting he should have been given a full-time position in the top 6 just to see what happens? Or like, 3rd or 4th line regular shifts with some powerplay time? Because one of those makes a lot more sense than the other.
Should have had the first from the beginning of the season, for a long time, to give him a chance at getting used to it at a time of the season where you can afford it.
End of season/playoff.... obviously you we are talking time according to merit when the lights are on.
But that's water under the bridge - going forward it is all about having our coach understand that while 'earning minutes' is a nice guideline, you need to have different criteria for developing a budding top9/top6 PF and managing the ice-time of veteran players.
Should have had the first from the beginning of the season, for a long time, to give him a chance at getting used to it at a time of the season where you can afford it.
End of season/playoff.... obviously you we are talking time according to merit when the lights are on.
But that's water under the bridge - going forward it is all about having our coach understand that while 'earning minutes' is a nice guideline, you need to have different criteria for developing a budding top9/top6 PF and managing the ice-time of veteran players.
I disagree completely. Some shifts with the top guys sure. Not top line ice time. 3rd and 4th line time is enough to get his feet wet. As he improves he can force his way up the lines.
Would you want him starting this coming season in the top 6?
I disagree completely. Some shifts with the top guys sure. Not top line ice time. 3rd and 4th line time is enough to get his feet wet. As he improves he can force his way up the lines.
When we have all our three C's available, it is meaningless talking about bottom 6 time, IMO. Tangradi playing with Staal and Kennedy, or Staal and Cooke... or Staal and Dupuis..... fine, excellent. Those would be lines where he'd get to use his skills and strengths down low, while also being forced to play disciplined hockey.
The problem is if Tangradi is supposed to show that he merits time on a scoring line playing with Adams and the likes on the 4th, which was what was most often the case - irrespective of us having injuries or not.
Further, 'Some shifts' with the top6 should then genuinely be some shifts ie. plural and hopefully consecutive, because being out there with good players for 30 seconds a game plus 2nd unit PP time is not going to get anyone into a rhythm. Less so when as soon as things aren't going your teams way, you're made to ride pine while your shifts are given to Adams and other 'dependable' veterans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla
Would you want him starting this coming season in the top 6?
Depends what our roster is otherwise like, of course.
But if we don't have a top6 that is obviously full of top6 talent:
Kunitz Sid X
X Malkin Neal
...sure, I would rather Tangradi starts there than for instance Dupuis or Sullivan. Because we know there's a limit to their efficiency there, and we know they will never develop into very good options. Nor will they add any new dimensions to those lines. Tangradi likely cannot be a great option there for some time still, but he does offer some qualities that are needed on those lines and he CAN develop into a type of player who we'd obviously like for such a role - like a Clowe for instance.
The point is again that it is dumb not to invest in development when you have the time/opportunity to. More so as you must develop prospects to be successful in a cap-league. We seem able to do so on D, but as regards forwards we just don't. Defenders of course have more ice-time in general and their pairings aren't switched around as much, so it is easier to get comfortable, and as most our top picks of latter years have been defenders, you expect that many of them are more ready as a matter of pedigree.
Either way, it is the same in any kind of team-sport or company. Unless you invest time/resources into development, you only develop the ones who would have been developed anyway by virtue of their innate skill and abilities.
When we have all our three C's available, it is meaningless talking about bottom 6 time, IMO. Tangradi playing with Staal and Kennedy, or Staal and Cooke... or Staal and Dupuis..... fine, excellent. Those would be lines where he'd get to use his skills and strengths down low, while also being forced to play disciplined hockey.
The problem is if Tangradi is supposed to show that he merits time on a scoring line playing with Adams and the likes on the 4th, which was what was most often the case - irrespective of us having injuries or not.
Further, 'Some shifts' with the top6 should then genuinely be some shifts ie. plural and hopefully consecutive, because being out there with good players for 30 seconds a game plus 2nd unit PP time is not going to get anyone into a rhythm. Less so when as soon as things aren't going your teams way, you're made to ride pine while your shifts are given to Adams and other 'dependable' veterans.
Depends what our roster is otherwise like, of course.
But if we don't have a top6 that is obviously full of top6 talent:
Kunitz Sid X
X Malkin Neal
...sure, I would rather Tangradi starts there than for instance Dupuis or Sullivan. Because we know there's a limit to their efficiency there, and we know they will never develop into very good options. Nor will they add any new dimensions to those lines. Tangradi likely cannot be a great option there for some time still, but he does offer some qualities that are needed on those lines and he CAN develop into a type of player who we'd obviously like for such a role - like a Clowe for instance.
The point is again that it is dumb not to invest in development when you have the time/opportunity to. More so as you must develop prospects to be successful in a cap-league. We seem able to do so on D, but as regards forwards we just don't. Defenders of course have more ice-time in general and their pairings aren't switched around as much, so it is easier to get comfortable, and as most our top picks of latter years have been defenders, you expect that many of them are more ready as a matter of pedigree.
Either way, it is the same in any kind of team-sport or company. Unless you invest time/resources into development, you only develop the ones who would have been developed anyway by virtue of their innate skill and abilities.
Clowe is an example that always comes up in these threads. He is also an example of a guy being developed slowly with around 10 minutes of ice a game for about 50-60 games before moving up the line-up about half way through his 2nd season. That time-table will change, but in general that's how I would deal with Tangradi. I wouldn't throw him in the deep end.
Clowe is an example that always comes up in these threads. He is also an example of a guy being developed slowly with around 10 minutes of ice a game for about 50-60 games before moving up the line-up about half way through his 2nd season. That time-table will change, but in general that's how I would deal with Tangradi. I wouldn't throw him in the deep end.
Yet it was consistent time with quality players on their third line (Pavelski and Mike Grier/Bernier in Clowe's sophomore year 06-07, if memory serves). A situation far removed from Tangradi being evaluated on his scoring prowess playing with our 4th line grinders while coming in and out of the lineup.
Again, if you are hung up on top6/bottom6 - by all means give Tangradi a role on Staal's line. I just don't think it makes more sense to play Cooke (for instance) on the second line.... or Kennedy if he doesn't get Bylsma's trust at all in a top6 capacity.
Might as well give Tangradi a chance of proving himself in the kind of role he should eventually come to own (at least to start the season where we can afford to experiment), rather than promoting someone doing great on the third above their station where they will arguably never do well enough to satisfy anyone - least of all anyone here. Unless Dupuis can actually replicate his stellar past season (something I truly doubt), the same goes for him.
Yet it was consistent time with quality players on their third line (Pavelski and Mike Grier/Bernier in Clowe's sophomore year 06-07, if memory serves). A situation far removed from Tangradi being evaluated on his scoring prowess playing with our 4th line grinders while coming in and out of the lineup.
Again, if you are hung up on top6/bottom6 - by all means give Tangradi a role on Staal's line. I just don't think it makes more sense to play Cooke (for instance) on the second line.... or Kennedy if he doesn't get Bylsma's trust at all in a top6 capacity.
Might as well give Tangradi a chance of proving himself in the kind of role he should eventually come to own (at least to start the season where we can afford to experiment), rather than promoting someone doing great on the third above their station where they will arguably never do well enough to satisfy anyone - least of all anyone here. Unless Dupuis can actually replicate his stellar past season (something I truly doubt), the same goes for him.
I am pretty sure we agree for the most part. I'm not happy with how Tangradi was handled this year.
And I agree it doesn't make sense to play Cooke on the 2nd line over Tangradi, but Dupuis absolutely and TK probably. Though I am in the camp that believes we need to sign at least one forward to replace Sullivan and would really prefer two. By the end of the year hopefully Tangradi would be moved up, but I don't like just giving the spot to him. If he earns it at camp, give it to him there.
I am pretty sure we agree for the most part. I'm not happy with how Tangradi was handled this year.
And I agree it doesn't make sense to play Cooke on the 2nd line over Tangradi, but Dupuis absolutely and TK probably. Though I am in the camp that believes we need to sign at least one forward to replace Sullivan and would really prefer two. By the end of the year hopefully Tangradi would be moved up, but I don't like just giving the spot to him. If he earns it at camp, give it to him there.
See and there's the catch. He earned more ice time this year, and didn't get it. I agree with your premise, but when it's put into action the way they handled him in the past makes me wary.
See and there's the catch. He earned more ice time this year, and didn't get it. I agree with your premise, but when it's put into action the way they handled him in the past makes me wary.
I completely agree. This is what I hope happens; not necessarily what I expect
See and there's the catch. He earned more ice time this year, and didn't get it. I agree with your premise, but when it's put into action the way they handled him in the past makes me wary.
And who's ice time is getting cut in the top 9? I don't understand, and what do you mean "earned" more ice time? He had some nice shifts? I still honestly don't know what people are seeing. How would you rate him in a Pens uniform so far? A "C" maybe? I still don't see him scoring many points, even 40 on a top line. That may come in time, but I have no clue as to why people are so anxious for him to play more. They've handled him like a middling prospect, which is what he is.
And who's ice time is getting cut in the top 9? I don't understand, and what do you mean "earned" more ice time? He had some nice shifts? I still honestly don't know what people are seeing. How would you rate him in a Pens uniform so far? A "C" maybe? I still don't see him scoring many points, even 40 on a top line. That may come in time, but I have no clue as to why people are so anxious for him to play more. They've handled him like a middling prospect, which is what he is.
he deserved a regular shift on the 4th line. he didn't even get that. Particularly while we had injuries I would have liked to see him get a bit more of a chance. When the team was healthy he was a 4th liner at best but there were points in the season where he could have played a bit more.
he deserved a regular shift on the 4th line. he didn't even get that. Particularly while we had injuries I would have liked to see him get a bit more of a chance. When the team was healthy he was a 4th liner at best but there were points in the season where he could have played a bit more.
Maybe, I think you could be splitting hairs though. Adams kills penalties as much as everyone doesn't care for him, myself included. You've got Staal, Cooke, Dupuis, and Kunitz if you must on the PK, then you've got 4th liners. If a PKer is hurt or in the box you must have 4 guys that can do it and (right or wrong) they never use Geno and almost never use Sid. Asham is a physical presence that makes sense in the lineup when healthy. Park was experienced, could skate, and produced very well for his role. Everyone likes Vitale, so who sits? Also, at what point in the season was it blatantly clear that Tangradi should've had a regular spot? There really wasn't one for me.
Maybe, I think you could be splitting hairs though. Adams kills penalties as much as everyone doesn't care for him, myself included. You've got Staal, Cooke, Dupuis, and Kunitz if you must on the PK, then you've got 4th liners. If a PKer is hurt or in the box you must have 4 guys that can do it and (right or wrong) they never use Geno and almost never use Sid. Asham is a physical presence that makes sense in the lineup when healthy. Park was experienced, could skate, and produced very well for his role. Everyone likes Vitale, so who sits? Also, at what point in the season was it blatantly clear that Tangradi should've had a regular spot? There really wasn't one for me.
with his waiver status coming up I think we should have tried to fit him in somewhere near the Cal O'Reilly era.
Maybe, I think you could be splitting hairs though. Adams kills penalties as much as everyone doesn't care for him, myself included. You've got Staal, Cooke, Dupuis, and Kunitz if you must on the PK, then you've got 4th liners. If a PKer is hurt or in the box you must have 4 guys that can do it and (right or wrong) they never use Geno and almost never use Sid. Asham is a physical presence that makes sense in the lineup when healthy. Park was experienced, could skate, and produced very well for his role. Everyone likes Vitale, so who sits? Also, at what point in the season was it blatantly clear that Tangradi should've had a regular spot? There really wasn't one for me.
That's because you don't care for him based on your posts. I'm not going to re-hash the work MrBurgundy did with regards to his ice time, but he rarely got an opportunity with consistent ice time. He would go many periods of 10-15 minutes without a shift.
He should have had 8-10 min ES ice time and 1-2 min PP depending on how many opportunities were there. He rarely got that. Now we are entering a season where he can't be sent down without being waived and we still don't know what he is capable of.
That's because you don't care for him based on your posts. I'm not going to re-hash the work MrBurgundy did with regards to his ice time, but he rarely got an opportunity with consistent ice time. He would go many periods of 10-15 minutes without a shift.
He should have had 8-10 min ES ice time and 1-2 min PP depending on how many opportunities were there. He rarely got that. Now we are entering a season where he can't be sent down without being waived and we still don't know what he is capable of.
I agree with that when he was in he should've gotten the same time anyone else would've gotten in the role he was in. He was the only player I can recall that when he was dressed had a big lack of consistency coming over the boards.
I agree with that when he was in he should've gotten the same time anyone else would've gotten in the role he was in. He was the only player I can recall that when he was dressed had a big lack of consistency coming over the boards.
It is the chicken or the egg argument... Is he inconsistent because he had such sporadic ice time or vice versa?
Again, I made the point about King. He was a middling prospect like you labeled Tangradi... He didn't even break a dozen goals in the A after 50 games, but the Kings gave him a real shot and it paid off for them. King was far from impressive when I saw him in the A, and his production was below Tangradi. So he didn't exactly force his way onto the roster. He just happened to be a big guy with some skill and the Kings needed more size... So they made room for him.
I've made the point before, many times, but you have to make room for young players at some point. If they get a real shot and show nothing, then at least you can move on.
Do you honestly believe the Pens would of fared worse in the reg season if Tangradi was a regular on the 4th line instead of Adams, Park or Asham?
It is the chicken or the egg argument... Is he inconsistent because he had such sporadic ice time or vice versa?
Again, I made the point about King. He was a middling prospect like you labeled Tangradi... He didn't even break a dozen goals in the A after 50 games, but the Kings gave him a real shot and it paid off for them. King was far from impressive when I saw him in the A, and his production was below Tangradi. So he didn't exactly force his way onto the roster. He just happened to be a big guy with some skill and the Kings needed more size... So they made room for him.
I've made the point before, many times, but you have to make room for young players at some point. If they get a real shot and show nothing, then at least you can move on.
Do you honestly believe the Pens would of fared worse in the reg season if Tangradi was a regular on the 4th line instead of Adams, Park or Asham?
I don't know that they would've fared worse, I just didn't really see the impetus for doing it at any point. Tangradi's not a bad prospect I just didn't think he really did anything to blow anyone's skirt up at the NHL level. At the same time as you say, would it have made much difference if he played 40-50 games this year? Probably not, I just don't really see the hurry so I'm fine with where we're at with him. You're right, you have to **** or get off the pot at some point I just didn't think we were there yet this past season.
I don't know that they would've fared worse, I just didn't really see the impetus for doing it at any point. Tangradi's not a bad prospect I just didn't think he really did anything to blow anyone's skirt up at the NHL level. At the same time as you say, would it have made much difference if he played 40-50 games this year? Probably not, I just don't really see the hurry so I'm fine with where we're at with him. You're right, you have to **** or get off the pot at some point I just didn't think we were there yet this past season.
My point is, it would be nice to know if he has the potential to help this team or if he is A fodder. They would of had a good idea if DB had let him just play.
Maybe he could of laid the foundation for playing in the top 9, or top 6 next season. But now we are all still arguing if he is a good prospect or a career AHLer.
If Tangradi is good enough he'll force his way into the lineup, one way or another. Every other Pens prospect currently on the team has.
I agree with this. If you're good enough, you'll make it, if not, you won't. Martin St. Louis was burried in the minors until he finally got his chance. Alex Daigle got chance after chance after chance and it amounted to no a whole lot.
That said, I hope Tangradi plays a regular shift on the 4th line next year and can work is way up from there. I see him as a 3rd liner in the future who can be useful on the pp.
If Tangradi is good enough he'll force his way into the lineup, one way or another. Every other Pens prospect currently on the team has.
I guess that has ultimately been my point and why I think the criticism on DB as been unwarranted. Finally, he is starting to force his way into this line-up. The one time I felt he had forced them to keep him in and they did not was Game 6. Although, that is NOT to the reason we lost the series.
