^I would say that a significant increase in PP time per game on the first unit is probably the best way for him to score goals, as a net front presence. But I'm not even sure I
want him in that role, to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yourbestfriend
So the alternative is to look at single stats in a vacuum? All i'm saying is that you can't take a look at a single stat to gauge how well or poorly a player will do.
|
Literally the opposite. I said exactly the opposite of "look at stats in a vacuum". I asked you why you think he's going to score at the rate you seem to think he'll score. Give me some reason for thinking that.
Quote:
|
As for Ferland, he's going to score more because he's going to be playing with better players....pretty simple right?
|
You don't just put a guy on a line with good players and suddenly more goals happen. If more goals happen, it's either because he's now getting more shots, or more of his shots are going in the net. There's only two options here.
If you think more of his shots are going to go in, why? He was already at a ridiculous shooting rate last year, higher than Monahan's, and only scored 15 goals. Now you say you think he'll score 20+. Do you think he's a better shooter than Monahan, and likely to get even better, up into Marchand or Stamkos territory? Because if so, I do not share your opinion of Ferland's offensive talent. I think he's maybe a slightly above average shooter if he avoids trying to shoot from distance and focuses on banging in loose pucks, but maybe I've missed something.
Do you think he's going get to shoot far more often than last year? First, do you
want him to be the guy on that line taking shots, as opposed to Gaudreau or Monahan? Second, if you do and you think he'll be able to up his shot count, by how much? Even assuming his shooting percentage stays static (which for the above reasons seems unlikely), his shot rate per game would need to go up a huge amount year over year. What makes you think that will happen?
Seriously, this actually requires at least some reasoning. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just asking what your basis is for believing what you say you believe.