|
Post by sandogbrewin on Jul 23, 2021 23:41:02 GMT
Ok BH you think Beecher is done. I'm going to watch to see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Jul 23, 2021 23:48:17 GMT
As far as thinking about Fletchers question it sucks thinking about life without Bergeron and Krejci. Its probably gonna be a rough ride. I know it's been a while but somehow, it still doesn't seem that long ago, as the Bruins ascended up the Cup mountain, that they had enviable depth, strength and quality down the middle with Krejci, the number one C between Lucic and Horton, followed by Bergeron, flanked by Recchi/Seguin and Marchand. Chris Kelly had Ryder and Peverley on his wings, right? Then, Danny Paille and the Merlots. A lot is riding on these two young'uns. If they can't cut it, it'll be another Simon and Garfunkel lyric that'll come into play: "Hello, darkness, my old friend."
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Jul 24, 2021 3:50:12 GMT
I didn't think you would get it about eventual great players being horrible in there 1st callup. Still need to see Beecher with NHL talent. Plenty of great CHL and NCAA kids have crapped out. I like the pick of Beecher then I still like the player now. No idea when he makes it. Or how about just good NHL players? You might recall I was high on Malcolm Subban. And how did his first outting go? Changing your mind is legal in this country. Beecher was a reasonable pick at the time. I've changed my mind since then. You need to see Beecher against NHL talent? He's not lighting it up against college talent, so he's going to be better against NHL players? Not now, not today. He's got to recover from surgery first. And then the smart and conservative thing to do would be to send him back to college and get his game back. Then we see, if he's not improved in college then he's not going to somehow improve against professionals. BadHab, he's played 16 NCAA games in the past 18 months or so, through screwy Covid times, and he's a had shoulder surgery during that period. For his shortened sophomore season, he played on a historically loaded Michigan team up front, featuring two other centers who just went #2 and #5 overall in the NHL draft. He's had very limited opportunity so far at the NCAA level. He's still only 20 years old, and every scout projected him to need some years of development before being NHL ready. Let's give him a chance. Don't worry about those short season, small sample stats, on a Michigan team that has 5 NHL-drafted centermen to share ice time.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Jul 24, 2021 3:57:51 GMT
Or how about just good NHL players? You might recall I was high on Malcolm Subban. And how did his first outting go? Changing your mind is legal in this country. Beecher was a reasonable pick at the time. I've changed my mind since then. You need to see Beecher against NHL talent? He's not lighting it up against college talent, so he's going to be better against NHL players? Not now, not today. He's got to recover from surgery first. And then the smart and conservative thing to do would be to send him back to college and get his game back. Then we see, if he's not improved in college then he's not going to somehow improve against professionals. BadHab, he's played 16 NCAA games in the past 18 months or so, through screwy Covid times, and he's a had shoulder surgery during that period. For his shortened sophomore season, he played on a historically loaded Michigan team up front, featuring two other centers who just went #2 and #5 overall in the NHL draft. He's had very limited opportunity so far at the NCAA level. He's still only 20 years old, and every scout projected him to need some years of development before being NHL ready. Let's give him a chance. Don't worry about those short season, small sample stats, on a Michigan team that has 5 NHL-drafted centermen to share ice time. I'm not sold on him now, that might change later. Given he's on a stacked team, that inflates his numbers, not the other way around. Having said that, this is a conversation for after when he recovers from shoulder surgery.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Jul 24, 2021 12:20:36 GMT
No offense to anyone but when Bergeron was 18 I saw the talent. My daughter is the only witness. When I saw Krejci come up from Providence, I though he was very noticeable. Studnika was raw two years ago but I could see flashes of excellent play. Last year, no. So yeah, Studnicka is going to have an opportunity. DS should not wait though. Ryan Johansen's stats to pay ratio is not desireable, but Nashville would to dump his contract. Let them eat 3m four 4 years. Cash deal, since it is mighty fine in today's conversations. He is 28 and could easiely fill in the second line center positon. There are options. If the Bs wait for Studs then it is a rebuild. Then it is time to unloaded some other players for Cap space and draft picks. No offense to you, but I was at that dev camp and I saw the talent, too. I've taken all kinds of shit for picking out the talent at dev camps (and non talents) - but the truth is EVERYONE can see it. It's not that me or Isla are some kind of hockey genius picking these guys out at camp, it is blatant, it is OBVIOUS. They stand out. They look different. They are smoother on their skates - even Lucic where everyone said he was a bad skater, didn't look that way in camp. Donato and Heinon, same for them, they were having a blast at camp and scoring goals. Seriously, anyone who's had reasonable time watching hockey can EASILY see the talent out there. I saw Pasta at camp and I thought "meh". 2 days later people said he was on fire at camp. I took shit. Then come to find out his equipment was lost on the plane over. He had borrowed everything, even borrowed skates. And I said oh - that's why he looked crappy at camp. And I took shit for that, people were saying I was making up excuses. If you even played the sport and had to use someone else's skates or even the first time in new skates, you're fucked. Anyways. At camp you can easily see who has the goods to make the jump. My "no offense" comment was made to strenght my point in stating Stundnika and Beecher are not talented enough to assume the 2nd line center position. This is also based on my view Coyle is neither. I do appreciate anyone who watches a game live over a TV camera person's angle. I am the first to admit I have not seen enough live games. I appreciate your input on the draft. You basically safe me alot of time looking at the picks. I really liked the you tube posting on Fabain Lysell on the Draft 2021.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Jul 24, 2021 17:27:58 GMT
BadHab, he's played 16 NCAA games in the past 18 months or so, through screwy Covid times, and he's a had shoulder surgery during that period. For his shortened sophomore season, he played on a historically loaded Michigan team up front, featuring two other centers who just went #2 and #5 overall in the NHL draft. He's had very limited opportunity so far at the NCAA level. He's still only 20 years old, and every scout projected him to need some years of development before being NHL ready. Let's give him a chance. Don't worry about those short season, small sample stats, on a Michigan team that has 5 NHL-drafted centermen to share ice time. I'm not sold on him now, that might change later. Given he's on a stacked team, that inflates his numbers, not the other way around. Having said that, this is a conversation for after when he recovers from shoulder surgery. Respectfully, I strongly disagree with this statement^. That just isn't true, in Beecher's scenario. Granted, if you have great wingers and/or d-men you get to play with, obviously that helps. A good team around you means more possession, more offensive zone faceoffs, and maybe more scoring. But look at the scenario at Michigan, specifically. The depth at center (Beecher's position) was absolutely absurd. Absurd. Michigan's best three offensive players were star freshmen centers. Two of them were drafted in the top 5 overall last night. The other one led them in scoring. That doesn't help Beecher's numbers - it hurts them. It keeps him off the ice. It keeps him off the PP. It keeps him from playing with the best wingers. That's the problem with NCAA stats, as a metric of his growth/development. If Beecher went to Michigan Tech, instead of U. of Michigan, he's the #1 center in all situations. He's gets loads of ice time, offensive zone faceoffs, tons of PP time, and plays with the best wingers. I bet his numbers would be much better, if he chose an average NCAA team. But at Michigan, he's playing against the best in the world at practice every day too. So it's a trade off. Judging his numbers misses a lot here.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Jul 25, 2021 22:06:28 GMT
Ok BH you think Beecher is done. I'm going to watch to see what happens. No. I think maybe done. I'm thinking *maybe* done, and best case about 50 NHL games. But I'm just trying to predict the weather. And the the right answer is "watch to see what happens". We might have a sunny day and that would be a good thing, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Jul 25, 2021 22:27:00 GMT
I'm not sold on him now, that might change later. Given he's on a stacked team, that inflates his numbers, not the other way around. Having said that, this is a conversation for after when he recovers from shoulder surgery. Respectfully, I strongly disagree with this statement^. That just isn't true, in Beecher's scenario. Granted, if you have great wingers and/or d-men you get to play with, obviously that helps. A good team around you means more possession, more offensive zone faceoffs, and maybe more scoring. But look at the scenario at Michigan, specifically. The depth at center (Beecher's position) was absolutely absurd. Absurd. Michigan's best three offensive players were star freshmen centers. Two of them were drafted in the top 5 overall last night. The other one led them in scoring. That doesn't help Beecher's numbers - it hurts them. It keeps him off the ice. It keeps him off the PP. It keeps him from playing with the best wingers. That's the problem with NCAA stats, as a metric of his growth/development. If Beecher went to Michigan Tech, instead of U. of Michigan, he's the #1 center in all situations. He's gets loads of ice time, offensive zone faceoffs, tons of PP time, and plays with the best wingers. I bet his numbers would be much better, if he chose an average NCAA team. But at Michigan, he's playing against the best in the world at practice every day too. So it's a trade off. Judging his numbers misses a lot here. Guilty as charged. The one thing I always look for is improvement, of course this could mean more points, but it could also be a better plus minus. Previous to college I saw him improve his numbers on the US national team, let's just look at his final year. He went from +12 to +15 in less games. My math might be fucked up, but I saw .63 pts per game to .74 - which I think it just freakin outstanding. Then in college his scoring stayed pretty much exactly the same and his plus minus got worse, from a +7 to a +4. So I'm not comparing John Beecher to his team mates, I'm comparing John Beecher to himself. I said pretty much the same thing to SanDog as the following. Is he done? I don't think so, but maybe. Could the shoulder injury have hampered his production? Maybe. After he heals up, could he be born again hard? Maybe Could the shoulder injury not quite end his career, but end his growth as a player? Maybe. So which way is the wind blowing today? To me the outlook appears to a rainy gloomy day, could it end up being a sunny day? Maybe. I'm a glass half empty kind of person for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Jul 25, 2021 23:02:26 GMT
Respectfully, I strongly disagree with this statement^. That just isn't true, in Beecher's scenario. Granted, if you have great wingers and/or d-men you get to play with, obviously that helps. A good team around you means more possession, more offensive zone faceoffs, and maybe more scoring. But look at the scenario at Michigan, specifically. The depth at center (Beecher's position) was absolutely absurd. Absurd. Michigan's best three offensive players were star freshmen centers. Two of them were drafted in the top 5 overall last night. The other one led them in scoring. That doesn't help Beecher's numbers - it hurts them. It keeps him off the ice. It keeps him off the PP. It keeps him from playing with the best wingers. That's the problem with NCAA stats, as a metric of his growth/development. If Beecher went to Michigan Tech, instead of U. of Michigan, he's the #1 center in all situations. He's gets loads of ice time, offensive zone faceoffs, tons of PP time, and plays with the best wingers. I bet his numbers would be much better, if he chose an average NCAA team. But at Michigan, he's playing against the best in the world at practice every day too. So it's a trade off. Judging his numbers misses a lot here. Guilty as charged. The one thing I always look for is improvement, of course this could mean more points, but it could also be a better plus minus. Previous to college I saw him improve his numbers on the US national team, let's just look at his final year. He went from +12 to +15 in less games. My math might be fucked up, but I saw .63 pts per game to .74 - which I think it just freakin outstanding. Then in college his scoring stayed pretty much exactly the same and his plus minus got worse, from a +7 to a +4. So I'm not comparing John Beecher to his team mates, I'm comparing John Beecher to himself. I said pretty much the same thing to SanDog as the following. Is he done? I don't think so, but maybe. Could the shoulder injury have hampered his production? Maybe. After he heals up, could he be born again hard? Maybe Could the shoulder injury not quite end his career, but end his growth as a player? Maybe. So which way is the wind blowing today? To me the outlook appears to a rainy gloomy day, could it end up being a sunny day? Maybe. I'm a glass half empty kind of person for the most part. Yeah, well the safe money bet on a #29 draft pick is 50-ish NHL games, so you're not exactly sticking your neck out. My point is that if you thought he was a good prospect on draft day, there really is no good reason to change your assessment now. Especially given that he was always a 3-year project type, not an NHL-ready scenario. I just don't think that comparing minor statistical differences in points or plus/minus from one year to another tells you much of anything. Tons of variables there and some basic random margin of error even if all variables were equal. Add Covid, injuries, and a historically deep roster into the mix and the variables are enough to almost throw out the data (again, I don't think I've ever never seen an NCAA team with 5 drafted centerman on it). I believe it was Martin St. Louis who had 25 less points at U. of Vermont as a senior than as a junior. I wonder if people worried that he was getting worse and/or less palatable as a prospect.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Jul 25, 2021 23:46:07 GMT
Guilty as charged. The one thing I always look for is improvement, of course this could mean more points, but it could also be a better plus minus. Previous to college I saw him improve his numbers on the US national team, let's just look at his final year. He went from +12 to +15 in less games. My math might be fucked up, but I saw .63 pts per game to .74 - which I think it just freakin outstanding. Then in college his scoring stayed pretty much exactly the same and his plus minus got worse, from a +7 to a +4. So I'm not comparing John Beecher to his team mates, I'm comparing John Beecher to himself. I said pretty much the same thing to SanDog as the following. Is he done? I don't think so, but maybe. Could the shoulder injury have hampered his production? Maybe. After he heals up, could he be born again hard? Maybe Could the shoulder injury not quite end his career, but end his growth as a player? Maybe. So which way is the wind blowing today? To me the outlook appears to a rainy gloomy day, could it end up being a sunny day? Maybe. I'm a glass half empty kind of person for the most part. Yeah, well the safe money bet on a #29 draft pick is 50-ish NHL games, so you're not exactly sticking your neck out. My point is that if you thought he was a good prospect on draft day, there really is no good reason to change your assessment now. Especially given that he was always a 3-year project type, not an NHL-ready scenario. I just don't think that comparing minor statistical differences in points or plus/minus from one year to another tells you much of anything. Tons of variables there and some basic random margin of error even if all variables were equal. Add Covid, injuries, and a historically deep roster into the mix and the variables are enough to almost throw out the data (again, I don't think I've ever never seen an NCAA team with 5 drafted centerman on it). I believe it was Martin St. Louis who had 25 less points at U. of Vermont as a senior than as a junior. I wonder if people worried that he was getting worse and/or less palatable as a prospect. re: Marty St. Louis, yes, jr year 85 pts, senior year 60 pts. So what happened? First thing I look at is the team. Jr. year, his team had 149 goals, he had 29 goals - he led the team. 4 or 5 guys in double digit goals. Sr. year, his team had 125 goals, he had 24 goals - he led the team that year, too, and in fact he led his team in scoring every year. And only 3 guys in double digit goals. So I would say that people didn't look at his numbers carefully enough and they held his size against him, plus it looks like no one wanted to draft anyone from that team, well, only one drafted - some flunky goalie Thomas or somebody... I think today the school and the players get a closer look. As for Beecher, 98 goals his frosh year and 91 his soph year, so I don't see that number as a reason. I wonder if U of Michigan would be over the cap in the NHL?
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Jul 25, 2021 23:48:25 GMT
Guilty as charged. The one thing I always look for is improvement, of course this could mean more points, but it could also be a better plus minus. Previous to college I saw him improve his numbers on the US national team, let's just look at his final year. He went from +12 to +15 in less games. My math might be fucked up, but I saw .63 pts per game to .74 - which I think it just freakin outstanding. Then in college his scoring stayed pretty much exactly the same and his plus minus got worse, from a +7 to a +4. So I'm not comparing John Beecher to his team mates, I'm comparing John Beecher to himself. I said pretty much the same thing to SanDog as the following. Is he done? I don't think so, but maybe. Could the shoulder injury have hampered his production? Maybe. After he heals up, could he be born again hard? Maybe Could the shoulder injury not quite end his career, but end his growth as a player? Maybe. So which way is the wind blowing today? To me the outlook appears to a rainy gloomy day, could it end up being a sunny day? Maybe. I'm a glass half empty kind of person for the most part. Yeah, well the safe money bet on a #29 draft pick is 50-ish NHL games, so you're not exactly sticking your neck out. My point is that if you thought he was a good prospect on draft day, there really is no good reason to change your assessment now. Especially given that he was always a 3-year project type, not an NHL-ready scenario. I just don't think that comparing minor statistical differences in points or plus/minus from one year to another tells you much of anything. Tons of variables there and some basic random margin of error even if all variables were equal. Add Covid, injuries, and a historically deep roster into the mix and the variables are enough to almost throw out the data (again, I don't think I've ever never seen an NCAA team with 5 drafted centerman on it). I believe it was Martin St. Louis who had 25 less points at U. of Vermont as a senior than as a junior. I wonder if people worried that he was getting worse and/or less palatable as a prospect. "Yeah, well the safe money bet on a #29 draft pick is 50-ish NHL games, so you're not exactly sticking your neck out." Also because the typical trajectory is a meteor up to their ceiling and there it stays. Awesome if that ceiling is the NHL, not so much if that ceiling is in the WHL.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Jul 26, 2021 11:38:05 GMT
Ok BH you think Beecher is done. I'm going to watch to see what happens. No. I think maybe done. I'm thinking *maybe* done, and best case about 50 NHL games.But I'm just trying to predict the weather.And the the right answer is "watch to see what happens".We might have a sunny day and that would be a good thing, but I'm not getting my hopes up. And you are basing this on a small amount of games during covid. That had a shoulder surgery.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Jul 26, 2021 12:09:41 GMT
The 2017 draft by the Bs did not get high marks ie. a "C" by Hags. Today Swayman would make the draft class grade much higher. Urho and Studs were also in the draft. Beecher is 20 years of age, as was mentioned above an injury, covid influenced year with a simple development delay is enough to pause evaluation. In a couple years proper assessment can be made. Right now Studnika is what was expected, third line center possibly second. Beecher has barely scratched the surface to be evaluated.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jul 26, 2021 13:00:45 GMT
The 2017 draft by the Bs did not get high marks ie. a "C" by Hags. Today Swayman would make the draft class grade much higher. Urho and Studs were also in the draft. Beecher is 20 years of age, as was mentioned above an injury, covid influenced year with a simple development delay is enough to pause evaluation. In a couple years proper assessment can be made. Right now Studnika is what was expected, third line center possibly second. Beecher has barely scratched the surface to be evaluated. Did you say Haggs gave it a "C"? Or is Hags a different fellow? If its the aforementioned Haggs, then that would explain quite alot.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Jul 26, 2021 13:31:05 GMT
No. I think maybe done. I'm thinking *maybe* done, and best case about 50 NHL games.But I'm just trying to predict the weather.And the the right answer is "watch to see what happens".We might have a sunny day and that would be a good thing, but I'm not getting my hopes up. And you are basing this on a small amount of games during covid. That had a shoulder surgery. Sure. It's about 2 or 3 years too early to make judgements. Either way. My guess now is my guess now.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Jul 26, 2021 14:06:09 GMT
Respectfully, I strongly disagree with this statement^. That just isn't true, in Beecher's scenario. Granted, if you have great wingers and/or d-men you get to play with, obviously that helps. A good team around you means more possession, more offensive zone faceoffs, and maybe more scoring. But look at the scenario at Michigan, specifically. The depth at center (Beecher's position) was absolutely absurd. Absurd. Michigan's best three offensive players were star freshmen centers. Two of them were drafted in the top 5 overall last night. The other one led them in scoring. That doesn't help Beecher's numbers - it hurts them. It keeps him off the ice. It keeps him off the PP. It keeps him from playing with the best wingers. That's the problem with NCAA stats, as a metric of his growth/development. If Beecher went to Michigan Tech, instead of U. of Michigan, he's the #1 center in all situations. He's gets loads of ice time, offensive zone faceoffs, tons of PP time, and plays with the best wingers. I bet his numbers would be much better, if he chose an average NCAA team. But at Michigan, he's playing against the best in the world at practice every day too. So it's a trade off. Judging his numbers misses a lot here. Guilty as charged. The one thing I always look for is improvement, of course this could mean more points, but it could also be a better plus minus. Previous to college I saw him improve his numbers on the US national team, let's just look at his final year. He went from +12 to +15 in less games. My math might be fucked up, but I saw .63 pts per game to .74 - which I think it just freakin outstanding. Then in college his scoring stayed pretty much exactly the same and his plus minus got worse, from a +7 to a +4. So I'm not comparing John Beecher to his team mates, I'm comparing John Beecher to himself. I said pretty much the same thing to SanDog as the following. Is he done? I don't think so, but maybe. Could the shoulder injury have hampered his production? Maybe. After he heals up, could he be born again hard? Maybe Could the shoulder injury not quite end his career, but end his growth as a player? Maybe. So which way is the wind blowing today? To me the outlook appears to a rainy gloomy day, could it end up being a sunny day? Maybe. I'm a glass half empty kind of person for the most part. I think the thing that worries me with Beecher is that he's not developing his weaknesses as hoped in college. He's got all the size and speed you could ask for so we're not worried about him losing time with his skating coach or working out in the weight room. The hope for him in the NCAA route is that he'd have time to develop his offensive game. Meaning, get more comfortable with the puck on his stick, gain poise to make better plays, learn how to use that size and speed combo to create offense for himself and his line mates. However, what we are seeing is more of the same --- a guy with plus physical tools but lacking the offensive skill and IQ to really fulfill his potential. When we drafted him, people used the depth of the USDP that year as an excuse as to why he was only a bottom 6 center amongst his peers. Now in college, again, the excuse is that his teem is so stacked that of course he's not putting up more points. However, that to me is a faulty way of thinking of it. He plays behind those other Michigan guys because he's not as good of a player as they are. Does that mean he sucks? No. But it does mean that two years after his draft, he wasn't good enough to crack the top 6 on his college team, and he's getting beat out by other players that are younger than he is. Sure those guys are great players and that's a testament to their play, but it's also an sign of Beecher's lack of development since he was drafted. We hoped his offense would blossom with a few more years of development and it hasn't. It's kind of that simple. Doesn't mean he won't ever play a game in the NHL, but it does signal that he's likely not going to be the top 6 center we need. Right now, his ceiling is probably somewhere short of Charlie Coyle --- another guy with high end physical gifts but somewhat limited offensive upside. I go back to the Freddy comparison. Freddy was actually projected out the gate to be a bottom 6 type of guy due to limited offensive instincts. However Freddy put up ppg in the NCAA. Beecher has a long way to go to even match Freddy's college career, never mind develop to the point of centering a 2nd or 3rd line in the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Jul 26, 2021 15:15:32 GMT
The 2017 draft by the Bs did not get high marks ie. a "C" by Hags. Today Swayman would make the draft class grade much higher. Urho and Studs were also in the draft. Beecher is 20 years of age, as was mentioned above an injury, covid influenced year with a simple development delay is enough to pause evaluation. In a couple years proper assessment can be made. Right now Studnika is what was expected, third line center possibly second. Beecher has barely scratched the surface to be evaluated. Did you say Haggs gave it a "C"? Or is Hags a different fellow? If its the aforementioned Haggs, then that would explain quite alot. Did not know there were two Hags, I am quoting of the fat one in 2017. The odd thing on draft evaluations is how smaht the pundits project themselves onto the reading social media outlets. Pronman gave the Bs a high grade after Lysell then inexpiicitly gave them a lower grade after the draft. Why? He said the overall picks were not great after Harrison. I went what? Not too many 4th picks onward make the NHL. Media spin. I will not evaluate Beecher until he is 23 or something. Swayman should be why. I quickly looked up Pronman's grading of the 2017 draft in 2019. Look he was changing his mind. Let us not judge Beecher quite yet. BOSTON BRUINS Grade: B-minus 2017 Grade: C-minus The Bruins’ top two picks both look promising in defenseman Urho Vaakanainen and center Jack Studnicka. Both project to be full-time NHLers, and with the way Studnicka has looked as a pro, he could be a really quality pro. Scouts are optimistic about goalie Jeremy Swayman. I’m 50-50 on him but he’s got a decent chance to be a player. Defenseman Victor Berglund in Sweden has some talent and is putting up numbers versus men but has serious limitations, too. Cedric Pare is expected to be a top free agent target this spring, but he’s not included in this since he’s not part of an NHL organization.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Nov 23, 2023 15:18:37 GMT
As far as thinking about Fletchers question it sucks thinking about life without Bergeron and Krejci. Its probably gonna be a rough ride. Beecher at 91% dzone starts.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Nov 23, 2023 19:08:12 GMT
I love this subject. When Savard/Bergeron were the top 2 centers, Krejci was in a perfect spot to succeed as the 3rd line center, and ultimately be able to step up to number 2 due to the position he was put in. He had times where he played with wingers like Ryder, Seguin, Marchand and Peverley. Seemless transition for him to move up and I believe he actually led the league in scoring come playoff time. I don't like when they call up a guy they drafted to be a top 6 forward and put him on the 4th line with grinders when they've played top line their whole careers with skill players. Your now asking someone to play in the hardest league in the world and change their game. Most will fail to develop. This a a post from 2 years ago, and frankly it's relevant today. It's really true...That's what I love about Monty, he is putting Poitras with DeBrusk and sometimes letting him get a shift with even Marchie...why not? Look, talented young players need talented veteran players to play with...great post, kelvana, even if it's from 2 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Nov 23, 2023 19:08:41 GMT
Ok BH you think Beecher is done. I'm going to watch to see what happens. another profetic post from san.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Nov 27, 2023 22:02:55 GMT
Ok BH you think Beecher is done. I'm going to watch to see what happens. How did it all turn out, uncle San?!?!
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Nov 28, 2023 0:14:35 GMT
Ok BH you think Beecher is done. I'm going to watch to see what happens. another profetic post from san. Senyshyn I said wait n see as well. BH was right about that one. It's nice overall that Beecher is working out so far.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Jan 5, 2024 16:03:49 GMT
Beecher it seems has fallen on hard times in Monty's mind...used less and less.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Jan 5, 2024 17:18:49 GMT
Beecher it seems has fallen on hard times in Monty's mind...used less and less. Late in games ? I expect that. Merkulov was auditioning at center as well. No way Georgi or Steen were playing better. And I would say those two weighed the 4th line down.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Jan 5, 2024 22:52:50 GMT
This all comes down to Beecher's ability to get better at this point. He's made the NHL to the tune of 35 games under his belt now. What's next? Can he get better, and is it going to happen under Monty. I sure hope so.
Stats are gonna be a lousy way to evaluate this guy, because of the way they use him. Low minutes, on checking lines, and exclusively D-zone starts. Nobody would have good numbers with his assignments, so you really need to watch him to get a sense of how useful he is. He has some similarities to Frederic as a rookie, and you hope he improves his game the way Frederic has.
|
|