Sam Bennett Value: Have the Flames held on TOO long? OR is he awesome?

[Bingo]

Man you guys can be drama queens ...

Wondering if a top four pick should have been traded earlier is a perfectly rational question. It's asset management 101.

I wouldn't have done it. I haven't given up hope, but what kind of pollyanna site are we hoping for if the suggestion of something negative needs to be off the main page?

I saw an interesting tidbit on Bennett that was positive, and this was the most recent and most fitting Bennett topic to put it in.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Just such bad takes by Hot Flatus in this thread. Some people are so blinded by their disappointment about Bennett you can tell they aren’t able to objectively evaluate him or his game. I mean going on and on and on about how weak he is? Were you watching the past 3 years? This isn’t Kristian Huselius. Bennett is strong on the puck and along the boards.

Hot Flatus’s take is so far from reality it’s embarrassingly laughable. This thread is embarrassing and brutal. The thread title is a joke and the OP is a hater. It’s really one of the worst threads that has persisted for most of the last year. I can’t believe Bingo bumped it again after finally falling off the first few pages.

Die in a fire is how I feel about this thread.

We all know you're still high on Bennett, but the reality is lots of people aren't and quite frankly I think most of the concerns are legitimate. The truth is probably that Bennett isn't as bad as some people think, but he's certainly not above criticism.

I agree with Bingo. I think the question asked in this title is perfectly valid. It's hilarious that we write off Puljujarvi so often in the E = NG thread but as soon as someone questions Bennett his (dwindling) supporters come out to suggest that those who doubt him have awful takes, don't watch hockey, are stupid etc...

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I agree with Bingo. I think the question asked in this title is perfectly valid. It's hilarious that we write off Puljujarvi so often in the E = NG thread but as soon as someone questions Bennett his (dwindling) supporters come out to suggest that those who doubt him have awful takes, don't watch hockey, are stupid etc...

This is fair but it is frustrating when some people talk about the great upside of Foo and Jankowski and then write off Bennett who is 2 years younger than those players.

The curse of being a top 5 pick. If you are not a star by 21 you are a bust.

[shadowlord]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Well, it's certainly true that Bennett has shown absolutely no improvement under Peters so far. I suppose one could quibble about sample size, but that would just be silly.

Look on the bright side -- so far Brouwer hasn't gotten any worse under Peters either.

[RichKlit]

I think it’s more that he’s regressed or at the very least stagnated so far in his career especially due to draft status and we don’t need to rehash the same old tired arguments(poor teammates, poor coaching etc)whatever can be said has been said. There’s nothing wrong with the thread or title it’s a legitimate topic/concern?

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

This is fair but it is frustrating when some people talk about the great upside of Foo and Jankowski and then write off Bennett who is 2 years younger than those players.

The curse of being a top 5 pick. If you are not a star by 21 you are a bust.

It's not just age but also NHL games played. Once you've crossed the 200 mark it's harder to talk about untapped potential

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

This is fair but it is frustrating when some people talk about the great upside of Foo and Jankowski and then write off Bennett who is 2 years younger than those players.

The curse of being a top 5 pick. If you are not a star by 21 you are a bust.

It's true the term bust probably gets thrown around too often/early. I don't think any NHL regular is necessarily a bust, provided they fill a valuable role.

If Bennett can become a competent 3C, that wouldn't be so bad. Look at Ryan Strome - drafted 5th overall, similar junior numbers, better offensive numbers than Bennett to-date, but Bennett plays a tougher game. People think Strome didn't live up to expectations but not many people are calling him a bust. If Bennett ends up like Strome, would people be happy?

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Just such bad takes by Hot Flatus in this thread. Some people are so blinded by their disappointment about Bennett you can tell they aren’t able to objectively evaluate him or his game. I mean going on and on and on about how weak he is? Were you watching the past 3 years? This isn’t Kristian Huselius. Bennett is strong on the puck and along the boards.

Hot Flatus’s take is so far from reality it’s embarrassingly laughable. This thread is embarrassing and brutal. The thread title is a joke and the OP is a hater. It’s really one of the worst threads that has persisted for most of the last year. I can’t believe Bingo bumped it again after finally falling off the first few pages.

Die in a fire is how I feel about this thread.

For you to sit here and claim Bennett is something that he's not while contributing nothing but incredibly meek statements such as "terrible take" this and "terrible take that" speaks volumes to your ability to formulate an opinion of any kind. Of course I'm disappointed in Bennett, in the way the team forced him to play up the middle for too long and for how he's not improved physically as of yet.

It's not all roses and bunnies so let's talk about it like adults and if it actually bothers you so much to read why come into the thread? I wish I could have this much time on my hands to jump into threads I despise and do nothing but complain, attempt (poorly at that) to put others down and derail any discussion that might take place to push my own distorted agenda.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

It's true the term bust probably gets thrown around too often/early. I don't think any NHL regular is necessarily a bust, provided they fill a valuable role.

If Bennett can become a competent 3C, that wouldn't be so bad. Look at Ryan Strome - drafted 5th overall, similar junior numbers, better offensive numbers than Bennett to-date, but Bennett plays a tougher game. People think Strome didn't live up to expectations but not many people are calling him a bust. If Bennett ends up like Strome, would people be happy?

I honestly believe Bennett plays tough enough, he just needs more muscle to take his game to the next level. Classic case of a man in a boys body right now and assuming he is putting in the work this offseason, we could see a big jump in his play if he's suddenly able to fight through more checks and give himself more time and space to create.

If not, I suspect we won't see a huge change this season other than a slight uptick related to a rise in SH% and a better all around team around him.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

This is fair but it is frustrating when some people talk about the great upside of Foo and Jankowski and then write off Bennett who is 2 years younger than those players.

The curse of being a top 5 pick. If you are not a star by 21 you are a bust.

I agree, but at the same time if you're a top 5 pick as opposed to a 23 year old college UFA you should and will be held to a higher standard. Might not be fair in some cases, but that's reality.

I also think the upward trajectory helps those two, whereas Bennett has statistically regressed each year. So while Bennett has probably shown more at the NHL level than either of those two have I can see why some people might be more hopeful about Janko/Foo than they are with Bennett. Again, probably not fair, but I can see why that may be.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wondering if a top four pick should have been traded earlier is a perfectly rational question. It's asset management 101.

I wouldn't have done it. I haven't given up hope, but what kind of pollyanna site are we hoping for if the suggestion of something negative needs to be off the main page?

Depends how early you ask the question. Giving up on youngsters too early is a sign of impatience and shows a complete lack of understanding about how long it takes some players to develop. Just because a guy goes top 5-10 does not mean they have to be a star within 3 years or they've busted. That kind of thinking is very far from rational IMO. Giving up on players too early is something bad organizations do. Sure if you can truly recognize your player isn't trending towards being an NHLer and can recoup good value then that would be an astute move. See David Rundblad being traded for a 1st. But for many reasons Bennett does not resemble a guy like Rundblad.

It's not that the thread is negative. It's that this discussion is a horse that has been beaten to death, buried, dragged out of the ground and beaten some more, decomposed, beaten some more. People are literally just rehashing the same opposing viewpoints over and over and over and over again. 57 pages and most of the relevant points were probably discussed in the first 2-3 pages. I'm sick of the discussion. I guess some aren't. That's fine I can just not click on this thread anymore. We really don't have anything new to add IMO until we see Bennett under a different coach in an important year with different linemates.

Sorry for being a drama queen I guess?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I agree with Bingo. I think the question asked in this title is perfectly valid. It's hilarious that we write off Puljujarvi so often in the E = NG thread but as soon as someone questions Bennett his (dwindling) supporters come out to suggest that those who doubt him have awful takes, don't watch hockey, are stupid etc...

I think anybody writing off Puljujarvi at this point is off their rocker too. But trying to argue against E=NG thinking isn't usually well taken on this site so I don't usually put much effort into it. I think there's a good chance Puljujarvi develops into a solid NHLer or perhaps even a star still. I think a lot of people underestimate how long it takes young players to peak from the time they are drafted. Scouts talk about judging a draft properly about 5-6 years after the draft. Any earlier than that is usually extremely premature. But most people don't have the patience to wait 5-6 years to see how a young player matures and develops. Especially if they start in the NHL at age 18. Growing pains are inevitable for a lot of players even high picks. Guys like Monahan and Tkachuk truly are the exceptions.

Heck a certain chunk of people on this site thought Jankowski was a complete bust a year or two after being drafted. That's how much patience some people have. It's just frustrating the despite endless examples of players maturing in their early to mid 20's that people are still willing to call a 21 or 22 year old a bust and write off their chances of drastic improvement. I think a lot of that talk in this thread is embarrassing. But w/e

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I agree, but at the same time if you're a top 5 pick as opposed to a 23 year old college UFA you should and will be held to a higher standard. Might not be fair in some cases, but that's reality.

I also think the upward trajectory helps those two, whereas Bennett has statistically regressed each year. So while Bennett has probably shown more at the NHL level than either of those two have I can see why some people might be more hopeful about Janko/Foo than they are with Bennett. Again, probably not fair, but I can see why that may be.

That is a true point expectations for top 5 picks is immense and they are all good expected to make the league at 18 and contributre immediately. The Flames have 5 players drafted in the top 6 in the last 5 years. All of Lindholm, Monahan, Bennett, Hanifin, Tkachuk all made the league in their first year (Bennett did play some junior).

The one thing that gives me hope on Bennett is the new coach. Personally I thought Bennett looked pretty solid as a 19 year old rookie. He out scored Monahan in points as a rookie but he was very streaky. The 2 years he regressed were under an awful coach.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Depends how early you ask the question. Giving up on youngsters too early is a sign of impatience and shows a complete lack of understanding about how long it takes some players to develop. Just because a guy goes top 5-10 does not mean they have to be a star within 3 years or they've busted. That kind of thinking is very far from rational IMO. Giving up on players too early is something bad organizations do. Sure if you can truly recognize your player isn't trending towards being an NHLer and can recoup good value then that would be an astute move. See David Rundblad being traded for a 1st. But for many reasons Bennett does not resemble a guy like Rundblad.

It's not that the thread is negative. It's that this discussion is a horse that has been beaten to death, buried, dragged out of the ground and beaten some more, decomposed, beaten some more. People are literally just rehashing the same opposing viewpoints over and over and over and over again. 57 pages and most of the relevant points were probably discussed in the first 2-3 pages. I'm sick of the discussion. I guess some aren't. That's fine I can just not click on this thread anymore. We really don't have anything new to add IMO until we see Bennett under a different coach in an important year with different linemates.

Sorry for being a drama queen I guess?

Look I agree with you. I bumped it with positive information. I think those that a) give up too early are doomed for failure as organizations and b) if you evaluate players based on how you got them you miss the big picture.

Bennett at 4th overall is irrelevant. He is what he is. Hanging an anchor around his neck that you don't apply to other young players is terrible asset management.

[Geeoff]

I dunno it's the offseason and we're a few months removed from a bad Bennett penalty, so right now I'm feeling optimistic about Sam again LOL. I'm thinking about how he might play with someone like Frolik or Ryan instead of Brouwer and visions of 40+ points start dancing in my head.

[Nelson]

I don't know if anyone has already posted this so please forgive me if someone already did, but Todd Cordell posted a nice chart a few days ago comparing Bennett's 3 seasons.

G/60

15-16: 0.86
16-17: 0.48
17-18: 0.61

P/60

15-16: 1.67
16-17: 1.21
17-18: 1.41

Shot Attempts/60

15-16: 12.03
16-17: 10.84
17-18: 16.02

Chances/60

15-16: 8.14
16-17: 6.84
17-18: 10.03

Shooting %

15-16: 13.21
16-17: 10.70
17-18: 7.05

On-ice shooting %

15-16: 8.59
16-17: 6.22
17-18: 5.66

This past season, Bennett improved in terms of scoring and assisting on goals from 16-17, but still did not do as well as 15-16. Thus, people assume Bennett did not play well in 17-18.

But it seems like the truth is he may have had absurdly bad luck. His personal shooting percentage and the shooting percentage of his teammates, while he was on the ice, was the lowest of all three seasons in 17-18. Thus, even though Bennett's shot attempts increased by almost 4/60 from 15-16 and his chances increased almost 2/60 from 15-16, Bennett scored and assisted on goals at a much lower rate than 15-16.

I think these numbers suggest there is hope for Bennett. He may never be amazing, but consider the following:

If we assume he would've gotten in on the same percentage of goals he did, he would've scored 31 points in 17-18 with the mean on-ice shooting percentage from his 3 seasons.

However, if we assume he would've gotten in on the same percentage of goals he did, he would've scored 35 points in 17-18 with his teammates shooting the team's average shooting percentage with him on the ice.

Finally, if we assume he would've gotten in one the same percentage of goals he did, he would've scored 42 points in 17-18 with his teammates shooting the league's average shooting percentage with him on the ice.

I don't think we can know what Bennett's on-ice shooting percentage will be in 18-19 because Bennett may be playing with Ryan and Frolik, linemates he has never played with before. However, if Bennett plays with Ryan and Frolik, Bennett's career shooting percentage is 10.1%, Ryan's career shooting percentage is 13.1% and Frolik's career shooting percentage is 7.8%. So maybe Bennett's on-ice shooting percentage could be just below league average at around 9%? In this case, I don't think it is unreasonable Bennett could score 40 points next year.

[FranksandBean]

I don't understand why people keep bringing up his draft position when evaluating a player. That is like dumping you current girlfriend for the girl across the bar you have never talked to, huge out with or even dated just because she look hotter from a distance. If we want to evaluate on this basis that is an evaluation of management not Bennett! His draft position has nothing to do with him and has everything to do with how management saw his upside (no age attached to when he would achieve that, see Jankowski) if you are mad at him not being better than players drafted behind him you need to be mad at management not Bennett, I can’t stress that enough.

[iloveicedhockey]

Is it against rules to change a thread title to something more general? That way perhaps people won't always come into the thread with a preconceived mindset/agenda relating to ditching the lad.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I honestly believe Bennett plays tough enough, he just needs more muscle to take his game to the next level. Classic case of a man in a boys body right now and assuming he is putting in the work this offseason, we could see a big jump in his play if he's suddenly able to fight through more checks and give himself more time and space to create.



If not, I suspect we won't see a huge change this season other than a slight uptick related to a rise in SH% and a better all around team around him.

There are plenty of valid reasons to question Bennett’s potential and his ceiling, but this one strikes me as utterly bizarre. Bennett is a man in a man’s body now. He is 6’1” and 200 lbs. His problems with time and space last year had almost everything to do with poor decision making and very little to do with body strength. I personally think he has a tendency to carry and hold onto the puck too long, and this gets him into trouble. But the skill is most definitely there. If he can relax a little more and stop trying to beat the opposing team all on his own his game will get MUCH better. I think his apparent tendency to overthink would also dramatically improve his shooting percentages, and that single improvement on its own will actually provide the most significant improvement.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think anybody writing off Puljujarvi at this point is off their rocker too. But trying to argue against E=NG thinking isn't usually well taken on this site...

You are probably right, but I will say this: I remain much higher on Bennett than I do on Puljujärvi because of how many positive flashes of skill and instinct we continue to see from Bennett. Since he entered the League, and in all his time in the AHL Puljujärvi just looks lost and bewildered. He consistently looks like he has no clue where to be or what to do, and I have serious doubts that he can be serious and focused enough to overcome that at the NHL level. I think most of Bennett’s issues have to do with overthinking and getting into his own way. Puljujärvi on the other hand does not seem capable at all of thinking the game at a high enough level period.