Around the NHL: 2024-2025 Season

[bob_sauve28]

On 2/7/2025 at 4:29 PM, freester said:

Cozens is a slightly better Girgensons. 

 

[Doohicksie]

On 2/9/2025 at 4:34 PM, bob_sauve28 said:

 

 

 

 

[pi2000]

Zegmus!

[Pimlach]

The BN had something about Vegas being interested in Alex Tuch.  

Hope Adams does not bite on more picks and prospects.  Our top 6 needs more vets, not less.  

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

The BN had something about Vegas being interested in Alex Tuch.  

Hope Adams does not bite on more picks and prospects.  Our top 6 needs more vets, not less.  

Tuck, Krebs, and Kulich for Eichel.

 

Git er done!

[Pimlach]

7 minutes ago, Weave said:

Tuck, Krebs, and Kulich for Eichel.

 

Git er done!

We can throw in a 2nd rounder for a sweetener if needed. 

[Porous Five Hole]

5 hours ago, Weave said:

Tuck, Krebs, and Kulich for Eichel.

 

Git er done!

When I was filled with hopium two years ago, I said that both teams could still win that trade even though Vegas won the Cup. I was wrong.  

[Rasmus_]

Zemgus!   I miss Girgensons.  However, I'm glad he's in a better situation.  The guy gave his entire soul for this team.

[SabresBillsFan]

On 2/11/2025 at 7:03 PM, Porous Five Hole said:

When I was filled with hopium two years ago, I said that both teams could still win that trade even though Vegas won the Cup. I was wrong.  

Eichel took his game to a different level because of the three head coaches we have here in Vegas. 

[inkman]

26 minutes ago, SabresBillsFan said:

Eichel took his game to a different level because of the three head coaches we have here in Vegas. 

Eichel has always been a great talent. Coaching didn’t make him great. 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, SabresBillsFan said:

Eichel took his game to a different level because of the three head coaches we have here in Vegas. 

I would suggest it was also by being surrounded by leaders like Stone and a strong culture valuing hard work. The bar was raised and he realized (as a more mature individual) that he had to elevate to it. Being the golden boy or diva wasn't going to cut it there. 

[Doohicksie]

18 hours ago, inkman said:

Eichel has always been a great talent. Coaching didn’t make him great. 

Lack of coaching made him lazy in Buffalo.

[SwampD]

3 hours ago, Doohicksie said:

Lack of coaching made him lazy in Buffalo.

He wasn't lazy in buffalo.

[Doohicksie]

23 minutes ago, SwampD said:

He wasn't lazy in buffalo.

There were whole threads about it.

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, Doohicksie said:

There were whole threads about it.

Not ALL the time, but there have been lazy moments from pretty much every star player we've had over the last 13 plus years. In hindsight can you blame them? They all had why bother moments I think. Thompson's had some this year. Cozens might be having one the whole season. 

[SwampD]

8 hours ago, Doohicksie said:

There were whole threads about it.

I know. They were wrong and I never bought it (I should probably go back and look to make sure that that is true before someone finds a "gotcha" for me 😂.) Because he generates so much power with his strides, it looked like he wasn't skating hard, but he was. His defense was pretty darn good, as well, even then.

[EM88]

On 2/17/2025 at 7:46 PM, PerreaultForever said:

Not ALL the time, but there have been lazy moments from pretty much every star player we've had over the last 13 plus years. In hindsight can you blame them? They all had why bother moments I think. Thompson's had some this year. Cozens might be having one the whole season. 

I agree.

The truth to me is that Jack Eichel is a better player overall in Vegas than he was in Buffalo.  Some of the reason for that may be coaching, it may be the position he was put in. Most of it is that he had a little growing up to do, like many young players. The organization and fan base lifted him up as a chosen one, so he did not have as much incentive on his own to do that growing up.  I put that a little on him, a tad bit on the coaching, but mostly in the entire organization at a management level.

Edited Wednesday at 06:18 PM by EM88

[Mr Peabody]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/he-needs-to-be-one-of-the-drivers-golden-knights-cassidy-calls-out-eichels-play/

Maturity, coaching and teammates all elevated Jack’s play.  As good as he was here, his D was no where near what it is today.  His play in the Four Nations validates the  generational moniker he was labeled / cursed with.  He’s worth the price of admission .  The wife and I bought those “I’m just here to see Jack” T shirts although in full disclosure we bought them right before our trip to see our grandson Jack. 

Edited Wednesday at 07:12 PM by Mr Peabody

[triumph_communes]

Eichel has benefitted from being able to sit behind Stone.  Just like Reinhart has been able to sit behind Tkachuk. Neither of them can lead, doesn’t mean they aren’t good players, they just aren’t leaders. 

[Mr. Allen]

56 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

Eichel has benefitted from being able to sit behind Stone.  Just like Reinhart has been able to sit behind Tkachuk. Neither of them can lead, doesn’t mean they aren’t good players, they just aren’t leaders. 

Gee.  If only we had a great leader that Eichel could’ve sat behind while in Buffalo…. 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, EM88 said:

I agree.

The truth to me is that Jack Eichel is a better player overall in Vegas than he was in Buffalo.  Some of the reason for that may be coaching, it may be the position he was put in. Most of it is that he had a little growing up to do, like many young players. The organization and fan base lifted him up as a chosen one, so he did not have as much incentive on his own to do that growing up.  I put that a little on him, a tad bit on the coaching, but mostly in the entire organization at a management level.

That's part of the problem with tanking isn't it? You are left inserting these young guys into an empty void rather than a strong culture. They come in and are given the leadership role and they've gone through life always being the star and the diva even and only the ones with extremely solid character can navigate that properly. The rest have to grow up first. 

I still believe it might have gone better if we'd named ROR captain instead of Eichel and had him as the cultural center but you can't change the past. Team did not learn the lesson as there's still a lack of veteran leadership and it's unlikely to change until these guys age into it. 

[EM88]

48 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's part of the problem with tanking isn't it? You are left inserting these young guys into an empty void rather than a strong culture. They come in and are given the leadership role and they've gone through life always being the star and the diva even and only the ones with extremely solid character can navigate that properly. The rest have to grow up first. 

I still believe it might have gone better if we'd named ROR captain instead of Eichel and had him as the cultural center but you can't change the past. 

I was thinking of writing a response to this, central to what could have been different if they did name O'Reilly captain, but as I sat down to type it out, it just became too depressing.

[thewookie1]

Tanking can work, however you can’t let it become a multi year deal. Tim Murray screwed the pooch when he tanked two consecutive seasons while destroying all means of connection between eras. 
 

Toronto got lucky, they became injury riddled and got to pick 1st in 2016 and without actively looking to tank got what they wanted.

We never had such “luck” as we always were a mediocre to good team after 07 to which Tim Murray in his quest for McDavid deflated the balloon with a few good stabs to the fabric. He created a situation that has been nigh impossible to escape, mercenaries come here for quick stops, we never have enough of a viable veteran presence that could still legitimately keep rookies in their place. Plus he brought in a known locker room cancer and a goalie with concussion issues. 

On a another note

Why on Hockey Reference do both Quinn and Cozens have solid analytics in relative Corsi and Fenwick ?

[EM88]

55 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

On a another note

Why on Hockey Reference do both Quinn and Cozens have solid analytics in relative Corsi and Fenwick ?

Everywhere I look shows their numbers are not solid at all, but awful.

This year when they play together, 5 on 5, their Corsi  percentage, comparing corsi for vs corsi against (a number better than 50 is positive) and those 2 together are at 46.4. The rest of the team without either of them on the ice is 50.48.

When I look up Fenwick percentage, I see them at 44.4. The rest of the team without them is 50.48.

I personally consider Goals for percentage  the single most telling of the advanced analytics. Cozens and Quinn together are at  39.13, just awful. The rest of the team when neither of them is on the ice actually have good numbers, playoff-level team numbers at 54.73.

Expected goal percentage the 2 of them together are at 41.95. The rest of the team without either of them on the ice is at 48.46.

High danger chances, high danger goals, the list goes on and on, they drag the entire team down considerably. The Sabres are a much better team in almost every analytical category, harder to play against, overall out-play their opponents,  and they are actually a positive team in terms of goal differential when those 2 are not on the ice.

Edited Thursday at 12:13 AM by EM88

[sabremike]