The Legend of Sam Bennett

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm loving the salty tears from fans that are having a difficult time accepting the Flames mismanaged Bennett. He's clicking with Huberdeau which is exactly what he's supposed to do and he adds an element of physicality to that line that not all players can bring.

Yikes ... that's sounding a little close to cheering for the Flames to lose a trade so you can enjoy other people's disappointment.

From a guy that was firmly in the middle on Bennett ... hopeful at all times, but seeing the player and the team playing a role in the guy not getting to where he was supposed to be I'm happy for him.

But the sample size and the on ice shooting percentage are way to high to call this the new Bennett.

We will see.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Are we going to have to dig up the stats again showing how ineffective Bennett was when he lined up with Gaudreau and Monahan?

How many ganes in a row did he get with them? Did he get pp, pk time as well?

Coach Q said he hit a home run with Bennett, put him out there in all situations and he is thriving with it. Kind of like Sutter is doing with Kylington. Kylington seemed largely unwanted and useless until Sutter came along.Maybe these 2 Cup winning coaches know something about how to utilize and get the most out of skilled players?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Coach

It is? Is there a source for this thought? My understanding is that he wasn't available when Peters was hired, so not considered. And then yeah when Peters got the boot, they could have brought him in, and then again could have when giving Ward the full duty before firing him months later. We needed Darryl right after Gulutzan threw his stick like an idiot.



I don't think this is necessarily true. I think it's possible neither Darryl or Tre WANTED to trade Bennett. It was a tough position to be in to roll the dice again on him next season, or try and get something valuable for him while they could. We could all project that Sam could do well with Sutter, but it was a big risk to lose out on his return.

The source is apparent statements by players and actual statements by Treliving. Something like “we approached him but the timing wasn’t right for him”.

[SuperMatt18]

I am firmly in the camp that we misused Bennett at times here, and that he should have gotten more of a shot at center ice with better wingers.

But that doesn't change the fact that it was probably the right time to move him still, and that the return was fine considering what he had proven in Flames colors.

He wasnt going to be protected in the expansion draft, he was a pending RFA, and he had asked for the trade.

The mistakes were made earlier in his development and its sad he didnt get more time here with a real coach, but unfortunately it was already too late and it was the right move for him to give him a fresh start.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

How many ganes in a row did he get with them? Did he get pp, pk time as well?

Coach Q said he hit a home run with Bennett, put him out there in all situations and he is thriving with it. Kind of like Sutter is doing with Kylington. Kylington seemed largely unwanted and useless until Sutter came along.Maybe these 2 Cup winning coaches know something about how to utilize and get the most out of skilled players?

I’d hold my judgement on Kylington until Sutter plays him a lot in the regular season. A lot of games where he got a bunch of ice time was without Hanifin in the lineup (not last night of course) and he’s the closest to Hanifin in skill set.

I keep mentioning this - sure lots of people wanted Bennett in the top line. But a lot also wanted him at centre and that couldn’t happen. Plus Lindholm fit in so well that it was impossible to dislodge him.

Bennett needed not only more minutes, but also a player pretty exactly like Huberdeau, which the Flames lack.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yikes ... that's sounding a little close to cheering for the Flames to lose a trade so you can enjoy other people's disappointment.

From a guy that was firmly in the middle on Bennett ... hopeful at all times, but seeing the player and the team playing a role in the guy not getting to where he was supposed to be I'm happy for him.

But the sample size and the on ice shooting percentage are way to high to call this the new Bennett.

We will see.

Yeah, and literally nobody is expecting him to maintain the 1.5 point per game pace. Everybody knows that is not sustainable.

That’d put him among the top 3 players in the entire league!

There is a massive gap between ‘this guy could do more with consistent quality linemates, and playing time’, which is the simple case most people tried to make, and ‘the new Bennett will produce at the same rate as the 10 game sample size in Fla’


This thread makes me chuckle.

Micheal Ferland is beloved and a shining example of a guy who “stepped up and grabbed his opportunity”. It was a valuable asset that was lost in the trade to Carolina. He was well liked here.

Career high 41 points. 71 percent of his time with 13 and 23. Of his 35 ES points, 27 were with both 13 and 23, and 4 more were with either one.

That’s a middle 6 grinding winger playing top line minutes with one of the most creative offensive players in the game. That was his career high, at his peak in terms of player age. He does that here, and he is beloved

Bennett meanwhile is a ‘boat anchor’ that some people here really seem to hate. That is bizarre. Not like he dragged Huberdeau down. (Small sample size, though, eh? Still lots of time). Did you see what Ritchie did to 13 and 23? Zero goals for the line in 135 minutes, and 5 against. *That* is a boat anchor

I’m glad to see him get the opportunity and hope he makes the most of it

We will see, indeed

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yikes ... that's sounding a little close to cheering for the Flames to lose a trade so you can enjoy other people's disappointment.

The trade is immaterial to my feelings on Bennett and how he was mismanaged. Not sure how you could come to the conclusion that I cheered for the Flames to lose a trade. I do however enjoy seeing posters resorting to mental gymnastics to try and discredit Bennett because they can't accept that the guy is a good player and simply wasn't developed properly by the Flames.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The trade is immaterial to my feelings on Bennett and how he was mismanaged. Not sure how you could come to the conclusion that I cheered for the Flames to lose a trade. I do however enjoy seeing posters resorting to mental gymnastics to try and discredit Bennett because they can't accept that the guy is a good player and simply wasn't developed properly by the Flames.

People respond as they do because the situation was not anywhere near as simple as you make it seem. Yes, the Flames bear some blame for their handling of Bennett. And yes, Bennett bears blame for how disappointing he was in Calgary.

[SuperMatt18]

And sometimes players just change teams and find a linemate they click with. Flames misused Bennett, but one of the big things that held him back in Calgary was that he never really did click with Tkachuk or Gaudreau.

Looking at 18-19 to 20-21:

Bennett+Gaudreau:

TOI: 200:36
Corsi For: 46.8% (Gaudreau was 52.5% without Bennett)
xGF: 44.1% (Gaudreau was 53.0% without Bennett)
GF%: 46.2% (Gaudreau was 54.2% without Bennett)

Bennett+Tkachuk:

TOI: 306:09
Corsi For: 53.2% (Tkachuk 55.3% without Bennett)
xGF: 52.4% (Tkachuk was 53.9% without Bennett)
GF%: 46.4% (Tkachuk was 54.8% without Bennett) )

The ice time was limited, and granted he barely got time with them where he was the center and was being played out of position on the wing, but really he just wasn't that effective when played with our top two forwards, whatever the reason was. And the unfortunate part for Bennett was that our top 6 didn't really improve when he was brought up, but our bottom 6 would get worse. So he was used in way to help try and provide some depth into our bottom 6.

And even if you just compare Gaudreau+Bennett in 20-21 to Huberdeau+Bennett in 20-21.

Gaudreau+Bennett:

TOI: 110:04
CF%: 47.8%
xGF%: 48.9%
GF%: 50% (4 GF / 4 GA)

Huberdeau+Bennett:

TOI: 106:16
CF%: 67.2%
xGF%: 73.6%
GF%: 90.9% (9 GF / 1 GA)

Just instant chemistry with Huberdeau, and honestly probably a bit of a wake up call and something to prove for Sam after he was traded.

And sometimes that just happens and chemistry can just happen immediately. Conroy with Iginla is a perfect example. It's frustrating, and it sucks when you are on the end of the team trading the player but it happens.

The key with Sam will be to keep it up this year. Last year in Florida he was found money for them and he didn't really have a lot of expectations while being give immediate opportunity. But now this year he has a big new contract, and the team has a lot of expectations on him. And for Sam when he's tries to do too much, that tends to be when he struggles, so will be interesting to see how he starts the year. That play where he bumped Vasy the other night against Tampa, and the two fights, to me that reminded me a lot of "Trying to do too much" Bennett.

[Hot_Flatus]

Sam Bennett was also riding at ridiculous PDO of 112.3 on 62% OZ starts for those 10 games in Florida. I can back this up by watching some of the highlights at the time where certainly a number of his goals/points were nothing more than dumb luck bounces and cashing in on playing with incredible play driving players.

Don't be fooled into thinking Bennett was sniping or hanging onto pucks to create time and space. He's the same player he was here taking dumb penalties and operating a step behind the play, just playing with players that are far superior to anyone in a Flames jersey. It goes to show even more how much a team needs true star power and play driving centers in this league when they can quite literally polish a turd like that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Sam Bennett was also riding at ridiculous PDO of 112.3 on 62% OZ starts for those 10 games in Florida. I can back this up by watching some of the highlights at the time where certainly a number of his goals/points were nothing more than dumb luck bounces and cashing in on playing with incredible play driving players.

Don't be fooled into thinking Bennett was sniping or hanging onto pucks to create time and space. He's the same player he was here taking dumb penalties and operating a step behind the play, just playing with players that are far superior to anyone in a Flames jersey. It goes to show even more how much a team needs true star power and play driving centers in this league when they can quite literally polish a turd like that.

Bennett has always done best when shoving in rebounds created by net rushers. That was never Johnny or Monahan

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The trade is immaterial to my feelings on Bennett and how he was mismanaged. Not sure how you could come to the conclusion that I cheered for the Flames to lose a trade. I do however enjoy seeing posters resorting to mental gymnastics to try and discredit Bennett because they can't accept that the guy is a good player and simply wasn't developed properly by the Flames.

Whatever you say ...

I'm loving the salty tears from fans that are having a difficult time accepting the Flames mismanaged Bennett.

You're enjoying fans of a hockey team wanting to believe that their team did the best they could with a player that didn't pan out the way they hoped and moved him for what looks like a decent return.

They're fans! Of course they would want to believe the team is in the right and they made a good transaction.

Bennett played a role in his inability to click in Calgary, the % split can be debated until the cow's come home.

But why would you put yourself in such a negative angle on a topic that is far from decided to the point you're enjoying the salty tears of others?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

And sometimes players just change teams and find a linemate they click with. Flames misused Bennett, but one of the big things that held him back in Calgary was that he never really did click with Tkachuk or Gaudreau.

Looking at 18-19 to 20-21:

Bennett+Gaudreau:

TOI: 200:36
Corsi For: 46.8% (Gaudreau was 52.5% without Bennett)
xGF: 44.1% (Gaudreau was 53.0% without Bennett)
GF%: 46.2% (Gaudreau was 54.2% without Bennett)

Bennett+Tkachuk:

TOI: 306:09
Corsi For: 53.2% (Tkachuk 55.3% without Bennett)
xGF: 52.4% (Tkachuk was 53.9% without Bennett)
GF%: 46.4% (Tkachuk was 54.8% without Bennett) )

The ice time was limited, and granted he barely got time with them where he was the center and was being played out of position on the wing, but really he just wasn't that effective when played with our top two forwards, whatever the reason was. And the unfortunate part for Bennett was that our top 6 didn't really improve when he was brought up, but our bottom 6 would get worse. So he was used in way to help try and provide some depth into our bottom 6.

And even if you just compare Gaudreau+Bennett in 20-21 to Huberdeau+Bennett in 20-21.

Gaudreau+Bennett:

TOI: 110:04
CF%: 47.8%
xGF%: 48.9%
GF%: 50% (4 GF / 4 GA)

Huberdeau+Bennett:

TOI: 106:16
CF%: 67.2%
xGF%: 73.6%
GF%: 90.9% (9 GF / 1 GA)

Just instant chemistry with Huberdeau, and honestly probably a bit of a wake up call and something to prove for Sam after he was traded.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Bennett at RW is not Bennett at C. Heck, Dillon Dube at RW is not Dillon Dube at C. Mikael Backlund at RW is not Backlund at C, remember how bad he looked with Johnny and Monny?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Whatever you say ...



You're enjoying fans of a hockey team wanting to believe that their team did the best they could with a player that didn't pan out the way they hoped and moved him for what looks like a decent return.

They're fans! Of course they would want to believe the team is in the right and they made a good transaction.

Bennett played a role in his inability to click in Calgary, the % split can be debated until the cow's come home.

But why would you put yourself in such a negative angle on a topic that is far from decided to the point you're enjoying the salty tears of others?

My angle is negative? Is this what you call a positive post in regards to Bennett?

Stop bumping this thread. His stats are almost entirely the result of playing with Huberdeau.

It's not a negative angle at all. I'm just defending the player. You keep bringing up the trade. I have no issue at all with the trade return as a 2nd round talent and 2nd round pick is solid for the player given what the Flames turned him into.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

How many ganes in a row did he get with them? Did he get pp, pk time as well?

Coach Q said he hit a home run with Bennett, put him out there in all situations and he is thriving with it. Kind of like Sutter is doing with Kylington. Kylington seemed largely unwanted and useless until Sutter came along.Maybe these 2 Cup winning coaches know something about how to utilize and get the most out of skilled players?

Sutter was one of the coaches that didn’t use Kylington. Last year.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

My angle is negative? Is this what you call a positive post in regards to Bennett?



It's not a negative angle at all. I'm just defending the player. You keep bringing up the trade. I have no issue at all with the trade return as a 2nd round talent and 2nd round pick is solid for the player given what the Flames turned him into.

You make a quick conclusion that the science is in on something that is very much up for debate and then enjoy the salty tears of fans that want to believe the player was to blame and that the Flames did their best to maximize the asset.

yeah that's pretty negative.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yikes ... that's sounding a little close to cheering for the Flames to lose a trade so you can enjoy other people's disappointment.

From a guy that was firmly in the middle on Bennett ... hopeful at all times, but seeing the player and the team playing a role in the guy not getting to where he was supposed to be I'm happy for him.

But the sample size and the on ice shooting percentage are way to high to call this the new Bennett.

We will see.

It's a pretty regular stance by some posters here, regularly stating how low their expectations are (which is fine, nothing wrong with that), but then making sure they are coming out after the fact and reminding the forum that this is how they thought at the time things would turn out.

An odd desire to be right on the internet and a relishing in debating other posters who viewed things from a more positive light after the fact.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

My angle is negative? Is this what you call a positive post in regards to Bennett?



It's not a negative angle at all. I'm just defending the player. You keep bringing up the trade. I have no issue at all with the trade return as a 2nd round talent and 2nd round pick is solid for the player given what the Flames turned him into.

You are defending the player by disparaging the organization, and by extension posters who are still hesitant to form concrete opinions about Sam Bennett's recent level of play. There are certainly valid complaints to be had, but given the tone of the last few months it should come as no surprise to see that there are more than a few posters here who are becoming weary of the incessant whining about every little thing the team does, and the constant reminders of all of it's supposed past errors. Pining about irreversible things that happened in the distant past is pointless, unproductive and tiresome.

So, yeah. There are plenty of times when "defending the player" can come across as quite negative.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You make a quick conclusion that the science is in on something that is very much up for debate and then enjoy the salty tears of fans that want to believe the player was to blame and that the Flames did their best to maximize the asset.

yeah that's pretty negative.

Funny you mention science. The scientific method involves hypothesizing something to be true, implementing the conditions, and then observing the evidence

The general case being made was that people think the player would improve given consistent time, in his natural position, with quality linemates.

This happened and the evidence to date has turned out to be overwhelmingly in favour of that case

It’s “very much up for debate” as long as there is a tomorrow where he can still turn back in to a pumpkin

It’s happening everywhere in the world. Feelings over evidence. Vaccine effectiveness is debatable for some. Both sides, many sides

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You make a quick conclusion that the science is in on something that is very much up for debate and then enjoy the salty tears of fans that want to believe the player was to blame and that the Flames did their best to maximize the asset.

yeah that's pretty negative.

You call it what you want. I'm not going go out of my way to discredit a former player in an attempt to put my team in a better light. It's up to the team to put themselves in a better light as I'm not on the Flames payroll and owe them nothing.