The problem is not the roster. There are plenty of teams above us on that list that have much poorer scoring depth. Sure we could use a scoring third liner but anyone that thinks that is miraculously going to solve all of our problems is going to be sadly dissapointed. We have plenty of talent on the roster, and a relatively good mix of skillsets, they are simply being misused and totally lacking confidence.
Well-said.
The evidence, both statistical and "eye test" heavily points to this. I won't go so far as to say they are being improperly misued or that it is due to confidence, but it is due to some non talent-related issue.
Wingels is a black hole now, but when he is playing to expectations he isn't. Which, of course, is a problem with the current lineup. Who can be trusted?
My lines:
Galiardi-Thornton-Sheppard
A line that can dominate on the cycle. Galiardi is not ideal, but there is nowhere else to place him. Hopefully he can live up to his potential; he also provides the line with speed.
Havlat-Marleau-Wingels
Generally speedy line. Can dominate on the transition as well as find success in multiple ways.
Clowe-Gomez-Pavelski
Shades of Wellwood-Pavelski. Clowe provides the size...this line should be able to dominate the cycle in soft minutes. Gomez needs to live up to historical performances.
Handzus-Desjardins-Burish
Defensively competent line; two guys with wheels.
I will admit that part of the reason Sheppard is on the first line is to reward him. He's been the one "surprising" forward this year.
You will bench Couture??
__________________
What?! Look, he thinks he's people!
Ok that's fine. I certainly was not saying you never deal someone from your core just that you don't do it every year or two if your team core is indeed competing, which we have been doing since the last lockout. So atleast we agree there. I also agree the core right now is not doing well and moving one of them could indeed bring possible new life to our team.
Move Murray and clowe this year right now if possible, see what pieces you get and how they gel, drop tmac during this time too, see if some new legs along with a new scheme gets anything going and if not take a really hard long look during the offseason at everyone else and decide if they truly fit any more.
Historically, the winning hand changes one core player. Usually it is to add a core (top 5) player while only trading from the secondary core (top 10) or less. Essentially adding to the team's total skill. I use two definitions for core. Top ten skaters or Top five players. Top five may or may not include the goalie and must include at least one dman and two forwards.
I think VP&GM is referring to this observation which I have posted here repeatedly.
Burns and Havlat were our lastest core changes - Burns is on IR and Havlat is slumping so we're just not getting production from them right now.
I really with DW would have signed a UFA or 2 this past summer.
I think that is where our opinions differ fundamentally. You think Clowe and Havlat playing poorly is why the team is struggling. I think because the team is struggling, Clowe and Havlat (and everyone else) are performing poorly. Find the reason the team is broken (coaching imo) and automatically the other problems will fix themselves.
Wingels is a black hole now, but when he is playing to expectations he isn't. Which, of course, is a problem with the current lineup. Who can be trusted?
My lines:
Sheppard-Thornton-Couture
A line that can dominate on the cycle. A bit of a wild card in Sheppard...
Havlat-Marleau-Wingels
Generally speedy line. Can dominate on the transition as well as find success in multiple ways.
Clowe-Gomez-Pavelski
Shades of Wellwood-Pavelski. Clowe provides the size...this line should be able to dominate the cycle in soft minutes. Gomez needs to live up to historical performances. If he doesn't, move Couture to his spot, Gomez to the fourth line, and Galiardi up to the first line...though this is obviously less ideal considering Galiardi's play(but not potential!).
Galiardi-Desjardins-Burish
Defensively competent line. Every member has above average speed and physicality.
I will admit that part of the reason Sheppard is on the first line is to reward him. He's been the one "surprising" forward this year.
I like this idea (of course including Couture), play to your strength at center. Minus Gomez and Desjardins though.
Wingels is a black hole now, but when he is playing to expectations he isn't. Which, of course, is a problem with the current lineup. considering Galiardi's play(but not potential!).
No he will still be a black hole. He has never been a goal scorer and has shown nothing to even allude to some hidden potential to do so. I really think people are having Torrey Mitchell syndrome with wingels. Show me any point in wingels pro or minor career where he was a successful scoring forward.
Now I'm not sure what you think his "playing to potential" is, I am curious though.
Historically, the winning hand changes one core player. Usually it is to add a core (top 5) player while only trading from the secondary core (top 10) or less. Essentially adding to the team's total skill. I use two definitions for core. Top ten skaters or Top five players. Top five may or may not include the goalie and must include at least one dman and two forwards.
I think VP&GM is referring to this observation which I have posted here repeatedly.
Just curious what part of LA's core was moved last year? I can't remember who it was, maybe JJ? I know they added to the core with Carter/Richards but I can't remember if JJ was moved last year and if you considered him a core player.
I'm all for getting better by trading, I was just a little confused on what amount of movement vp was really referring to. It seems the teams that are most active with trading their core tend to go nowhere, and teams like sj and Det who have made only minor tweaks to their true core have been perennial contenders.
In other words I think I'm just trying to say making moves simply to make them when a core is doing well does not mean a better team. I'm not saying our core is that right now, and it is time to atleast move some of the dead weight now and more in the offseason if our poor play continues the rest of the year.
No he will still be a black hole. He has never been a goal scorer and has shown nothing to even allude to some hidden potential to do so. I really think people are having Torrey Mitchell syndrome with wingels. Show me any point in wingels pro or minor career where he was a successful scoring forward.
Now I'm not sure what you think his "playing to potential" is, I am curious though.
Well, firstly, look at his shot. Very hard, fairly accurate. That is a very nice shot.
Secondly, he was doing quite well in the AHL last year. He was nearly at a 40 goal pace IIRC....
Well, firstly, look at his shot. Very hard, fairly accurate. That is a very nice shot.
Secondly, he was doing quite well in the AHL last year. He was nearly at a 40 goal pace IIRC....
In 2011-12 in the AHL he had 13 - 8 -21 in 29GP.
He is also a young and still developing player. He has played with inconsistent line mates since his time in the NHL too, or at the very least, deployed in times where offense wasn't a priority.
I'd take Wingels of Galiardi or Gomez is most situations
Well, firstly, look at his shot. Very hard, fairly accurate. That is a very nice shot.
Secondly, he was doing quite well in the AHL last year. He was nearly at a 40 goal pace IIRC....
Do you think he will be a top six player? And how many points do think a top six player "should" atleast get?
I'll accept he was doing pretty hot last year in the ahl, I'll disagree with his shot as so far from the games this year I've seen very few times he got robbed of a goal, or even hit a post or something.
I'll also point out that last year in the ahl is far and away the outlier in his playing career. I guess it could mean he's on the uptick, it could be just a small sample size of good luck.
I think he will be a great third liner for us, while also being able to slot into our top six for small stretches to add some speed/hitting when needed. I guess at this point only time will tell.
Do you think he will be a top six player? And how many points do think a top six player "should" atleast get?
I'll accept he was doing pretty hot last year in the ahl, I'll disagree with his shot as so far from the games this year I've seen very few times he got robbed of a goal, or even hit a post or something.
I'll also point out that last year in the ahl is far and away the outlier in his playing career. I guess it could mean he's on the uptick, it could be just a small sample size of good luck.
I think he will be a great third liner for us, while also being able to slot into our top six for small stretches to add some speed/hitting when needed. I guess at this point only time will tell.
I think he has an outside shot at becoming a 2nd liner. He looks very similar to Pavelski at the same experience point. Joe Pavelski also did not have the most impressive statlines before coming to San Jose.
I think he will be a very good third liner who can fill in on the second lines, and can be a top-six player given the right linemates. He's never going to carry a line, but he can be a good complimentary player.
A second-liner isn't about points. It is about contributions...though there are probably few forwards who are "second liners" who cannot get at least 40 points on the year.
I think he has an outside shot at becoming a 2nd liner. He looks very similar to Pavelski at the same experience point. Joe Pavelski also did not have the most impressive statlines before coming to San Jose.
I think he will be a very good third liner who can fill in on the second lines, and can be a top-six player given the right linemates. He's never going to carry a line, but he can be a good complimentary player.
A second-liner isn't about points. It is about contributions...though there are probably few forwards who are "second liners" who cannot get at least 40 points on the year.
Ok then we both see the same potential so no argument from me. I just get the feeling that some people really expect top line production from the kid at some point which is crazy to me.
Ps. Not arguing but just pointing out, pavs was ppg every year in juniors before coming to the sharks, something that can't be said about wingels, so pavs did show scoring ability if his physical deficiencies did not stop him in the NHL.
He looks very similar to Pavelski at the same experience point. Joe Pavelski also did not have the most impressive statlines before coming to San Jose.
I gotta agree with WTF on this one. Pavs has had great numbers throughout his career.
* Over a point per game in both the regular season and playoffs in his first USHL year.
* Just under a ppg in the regular season and over a ppg in the playoffs his 2nd USHL year.
* Over a ppg in both years of NCAA at University of Wisconsin.
* 26 points in his only 16 AHL games
* 28 points in 46 games his first partial NHL year
* 40 points his first full NHL year
* 50+ points the next 2 NHL years
* 60+ points his last 2 NHL years
I gotta agree with WTF on this one. Pavs has had great numbers throughout his career.
* Over a point per game in both the regular season and playoffs in his first USHL year.
* Just under a ppg in the regular season and over a ppg in the playoffs his 2nd USHL year.
* Over a ppg in both years of NCAA at University of Wisconsin.
* 26 points in his only 16 AHL games
* 28 points in 46 games his first partial NHL year
* 40 points his first full NHL year
* 50+ points the next 2 NHL years
* 60+ points his last 2 NHL years
Yeah, that is what I get for relying on my memory. I had remembered his NCAA career as much less impressed...and for some reason I thought he had gone 8+8 his first year in Worcester
Yeah, that is what I get for relying on my memory. I had remembered his NCAA career as much less impressed...and for some reason I thought he had gone 8+8 his first year in Worcester
That's OK. It's not nearly as embarrassing (in hindsight) of thinking his first partial season was a flash in the pan and that Mitchell was going to be the better player.
Gotta say, the Cole for Ryder trade has me baffled. But hopefully it eliminates Cole as a target for DW.
I can understand it, but no desire for either one. Ryder is essentially Nils Ekman, with a little less skating ability but better hands. He's a one-zone player.
Erik Cole is a good player, but his better days are behind him. His decline has not been as prounced as a player like Clowe since Cole can skate...
I'll accept he was doing pretty hot last year in the ahl, I'll disagree with his shot as so far from the games this year I've seen very few times he got robbed of a goal, or even hit a post or something.
Niemi said last year that wingles had the hardest shot on the team.
And the year before, Niemi said Mayers had the hardest shot on the team.
My comment was in relation to the guy who said he didn't have a good shot. I'd say when lets it go he's far above average as far as velocity. Still working on his aim though...
I would hope that we can agree that wingles has more upside than mayers.
I just get the feeling that some people really expect top line production from the kid at some point which is crazy to me. 
