Flames are committed to keeping Sam Bennett at centre

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're going to need to work on that reading comprehension if you want to graduate highschool.

Nice one. However, I learned sarcasm well before I entered high school.

At the time, it was impossible for the Flames to pick Reinhart. He was selected two spots ahead of Bennett. So why are we comparing the two?

Why aren't we looking at Bennett and feeling good that the Flames didn't pick Dal Colle? Or Virtanen? Or Fleury? Those three guys were picked in the three spots immediately after the fourth overall slot and none of them have made any impact in the NHL.

Bennett has helped the Flames win a playoff series. He scored nearly 20 goals as a rookie. The sophomore slump was bound to affect one of the Flames' rookies at some point, right?

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The biggest reason I see upside is the immaturity in his game; he can't help being 20. He forces it because he so badly wants to make things happen. Lately that is subsiding though and his cycle game with Versteeg is picking up.

I think Gulutzan is doing a very good job of slowly altering both Monahan and Bennett's game into NHL 200 foot center styles and that takes time.

With Bennett playing a little smarter now he's due to have a big game, and when that happens I'll be really curious to see what it does for his confidence.

But forcing it, taking dumb penalties, some of the turnovers all speak to a young guy wanting something so badly that he gets in his own way in my mind.

I think Flames know what they have in Bennett and they know what he is capable of but I think the focus right now is on him being a solid 2 way player like Backlund then in time he will be given longer reins and or linemates to complement his high skill level. I think the same approach is happening with Johnny so, that everything doesn't need to happen right now. Scoring might be slightly secondary, or more by committee per se but I think there is a reason for that.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

People need to stop calling others impatient. Nobody is saying Bennett is a bust and will never be any good. Not one person said that. Just because Bennett is facing criticism, doesn't mean the critics took their ball and went home out of impatience.

Maybe we can be critical AND patiently wait for him to prove his critics wrong.

Come on, where's the fun in that. Wouldn't you rather be able to make huge generalizations about "those posters" in the CP community who know nothing about hockey for having Bennett "written off".

Da Chief is probably the most critical of Bennett and I haven't seen a single post of his writing Bennett off.

No doubt he is saddled with some high expectations, and although he has played quite poorly at times this year, I still see the potential. He's not going to be an elite point producer IMO but that's OK.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Comparisons in Bennett's favor are the following guys who took a while to come into their own:

B. Schenn
S. Couterier
N. Kadri
J. Bailey
M. Granlund
K. Turris


But keep in mind there's also guys like the following:
Hamill
Burmistrov
Hodgson
Da Colle

Schiefle, Carter, Lecavalier are a couple more examples. Vinny did have a good 2nd season but his first 4 overall weren't great

Bennett actually had a good rookie year so to have 1 bad year when your 20 isn't a huge concern. Maybe he isn't Joe Thornton or tarasnko good but it doesn't mean he can't be a top end center. Joe Thornton does have a few good years in his career and is more a franchise center than just a top lin center

[Erick Estrada]

Outside of one line all other forwards are having below average seasons so it's kind of pointless to single out a player in his 2nd season. Gaudreau's season in particular scares me a lot more than Bennett's because the Flames have committed a lot of money to him and he hasn't been very good.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by keenan87

To be fair.. one game shouldn't be the main reason. Eric Nystrom scored 4 goals against the Flames too and he was always a 3rd/4th line player. (Also drafted in the top 10)

True, but Nystrom did it at age 31 in his 7th year in the league, Bennett was 19 and in his rookie season.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Outside of one line all other forwards are having below average seasons so it's kind of pointless to single out a player in his 2nd season. Gaudreau's season in particular scares me a lot more than Bennett's because the Flames have committed a lot of money to him and he hasn't been very good.

Yeah same feeling here. I just keep telling myself he missed all of training camp with a new coach/system, he's was getting hacked to death before inevitably having his finger broken and he has been stuck with Chaisson as his RW for the majority of the season. Treliving really has some work to do to acquire a legit top line RW.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

People need to stop calling others impatient. Nobody is saying Bennett is a bust and will never be any good. Not one person said that. Just because Bennett is facing criticism, doesn't mean the critics took their ball and went home out of impatience.

Maybe we can be critical AND patiently wait for him to prove his critics wrong.

When players suck, they get rightfully called on. Sam in particular seems to have a small 'anti' following on here. I see the same handful of people disparaging his performance and his career trajectory every time discussion around him pops up.

Certainly most posters here seem to be taking the unsatisfied but patient route - I believe CP pretty much consensus called it when he was healthy scratched for the first time in his career. But it's posts like the ones listed below that has everyone preaching patience in his development.

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Forget points from all these players. If you honestly think Bennett has played remotely well at anytime this season then you're lying to yourself. 20 year old yada yada yada excuses...this is a league where every year younger guys are coming in playing well, he is expected to do the same, now would be the time to start.

I sure as hell hope he can figure it out otherwise what a wasted pick.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Bennett might have a home on the Flames roster for the next 15 years as a key contributing bottom 6 centre, but I don't think we're ever going to see him be the top 6 point producer/goal scorer many expected when he was drafted.

Step right up one and all, we're accepting applications for the "Where ru Chris O'Sullivan" position for Sam Bennett.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

People need to stop calling others impatient. Nobody is saying Bennett is a bust and will never be any good. Not one person said that. Just because Bennett is facing criticism, doesn't mean the critics took their ball and went home out of impatience.

Flash Walken said in another thread Bennett won't be a top six player and should be traded. So before you start to lecture people about what has and hasn't been said, you should take some time to read.

There's a select group of people on this particular topic / player devoid of context and impatient. They also seem to coincidentally be the most vocal and smug about it.

It's possible to be critical without a foreboding tone, which seems to be happening more and more.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

2005-06 was Staal's 21-yeaar-old season. His birthday is 29 October. Sam Bennet's 21-year-old season is 2017-18. He will not turn 21 until June.

Semantics. He started the season as a 20 year old, exactly as I said and how many many many people differentiate between "seasons." Otherwise players like Staal and Monahan never had their "18 year old season" despite both playing right after being drafted.

On October 5, 2005 the Hurricanes played the Lightning and Staal was 20 years old at the time. That season he put up 100 points. Due to the lockout it was his second season in the league.

The poster I was responding to said that Staal didn't break out until he was 22. Which was certainly not true.


I have no idea how it relates to Bennett, other than being an extremely poor comparison to make when using Staal as a comparable player.

[Erick Estrada]

I guess the question now is where Jankowski is going to slot in if they keep Bennett at center? I know it's not going to be popular but if there's an elusive scoring RW available I would look hard at acquiring him even if the cost is Backlund who will never be worth more in a trade than he will this offseason.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Semantics. He started the season as a 20 year old, exactly as I said and how many many many people differentiate between "seasons." Otherwise players like Staal and Monahan never had their "18 year old season" despite both playing right after being drafted.

No, it absolutely is not "semantics." When people speak about a player's age in a particular season, it is always relative to where their birthday occurs within the year. Usually this number is determined by the age of a player when the calendar turns to a new year. It is a big deal, because for anyone under 21- or 22-years-old the difference a year makes is a huge deal.

It is true that Staal, Monahan, as well as Leon Draisatl, Auston Matthews, and a host of other NHL players never played their "18-year-old seasons" in the NHL, because they were already 19-years-old for the balance of their first NHL seasons. This would also include Sam Bennett, who was 19-years-old for the duration of his rookie season (as defined by the NHL's rules for Calder Trophy eligibility).

On October 5, 2005 the Hurricanes played the Lightning and Staal was 20 years old at the time. That season he put up 100 points. Due to the lockout it was his second season in the league.

But it was his third professional season of hockey, and at the beginning of this season he had already played a full three seasons in a Major Juniour hockey league prior to the beginning of his professional career. Staal at the start of the 2005 season had accumulated 205 games of experience in the OHL + 169 games of professional hockey. At the beginning of his 20-year-old season, Sam Bennett was 7 mos and 29 days younger than Staal was at the start of the 2005-06 season, and he had played in only 143 OHL games + 89 games at the professional level. If you honestly believe that this chasm in experience and age makes no difference, then I do not know what else to say.

The poster I was responding to said that Staal didn't break out until he was 22. Which was certainly not true.

You are right, that was incorrect. But it is disingenuous of you to insinuate that Staal's 2005-06 season is his best comparable to Sam Bennett's 2016-17 season. It is not. The better comparison is between Staal's 2004-05 AHL season and Bennett's current season by virtue of both relative age and experience. Next year will be Bennett's 21-year-old season and a better comparable to Staal's 2005-06 season in which he played as a 21-year-old.

I have no idea how it relates to Bennett, other than being an extremely poor comparison to make when using Staal as a comparable player.

I don't think there is any problem with using Staal's career trajectory as a viable comparison to Bennett's so long as we maintain an accurate perspective of where that comparison begins and ends. Hopefully, this post has helped you to see that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I guess the question now is where Jankowski is going to slot in if they keep Bennett at center?...

Fortunately, this is not a question that needs to be answered in the short term. It could be another two years before we know, and if between Bennett and Jankowski one of them is deemed to be a better fit on the wing then I have no problem with that. But I think it is smart for the Flames to try to develop them both at centre. The last iteration of Canada's championship Olympic team featured seven centres, and the latest World Cup winners comprised eleven. If there are two players on a line who can play centre that is a good thing.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No, it absolutely is not "semantics." When people speak about a player's age in a particular season, it is always relative to where their birthday occurs within the year. Usually this number is determined by the age of a player when the calendar turns to a new year.

No it is certainly not "usually." Far more websites will list it at the start of the season, which matches up with draft years. Hockey-reference uses the arbitrary February 1st date. In any case, it doesn't matter because Staal was 20 to start the 2005-2006 season, like I said, and this is fact, to avoid any such confusion. Arguing otherwise, against facts, you're right is not semantics but I threw you a bone because it didn't matter. Call it his 20 year old season or 21 year old season, just be clear like I was and it's fine.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are right, that was incorrect. But it is disingenuous of you to insinuate that Staal's 2005-06 season is his best comparable to Sam Bennett's 2016-17 season. It is not. The better comparison is between Staal's 2004-05 AHL season and Bennett's current season by virtue of both relative age and experience. Next year will be Bennett's 21-year-old season and a better comparable to Staal's 2005-06 season in which he played as a 21-year-old.

I never insinuated anything. I said that Staal was 20 to start the year in which he scored 100 points. The poster said Staal was 22 by the time he brokeout. Jesus.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think there is any problem with using Staal's career trajectory as a viable comparison to Bennett's so long as we maintain an accurate perspective of where that comparison begins and ends. Hopefully, this post has helped you to see that.

Lol. Way to be a jerk.

It's a terrible comparison in any regard. If you want to use his age on January 1st, then we are trying to compare 77 points in the buffed up AHL to this season? What's the point of that. That season had many many players who would otherwise being playing in the NHL. By 19...or sorry, 20, Staal was already leading his professional team (the highest level of professional he could play) in scoring.

The poster's original argument was Staal took time to break out. It was his second season in the NHL that he broke the 100 point barrier. He was not a late bloomer. I mean, might as well of said it took Selanne a couple years to adjust to the North American league...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

...It's a terrible comparison in any regard. If you want to use his age on January 1st, then we are trying to compare 77 points in the buffed up AHL to this season? What's the point of that. That season had many many players who would otherwise being playing in the NHL. By 19...or sorry, 20, Staal was already leading his professional team (the highest level of professional he could play) in scoring.

It is not a terrible comparison to make because of the many factors that affect every NHL player's development (so long as we understand what is being compared). I maintain that if one chooses to draw comparisons between these two players then the best way to do so is based on their relative age and professional experience as I have done. The point here being that based on Staal's career trajectory it is not unreasonable to expect a break out from Bennett next year when he is relatively closer in age and experience to where Staal was in 2005-06 than he is now.

The poster's original argument was Staal took time to break out. It was his second season in the NHL that he broke the 100 point barrier. He was not a late bloomer. I mean, might as well of said it took Selanne a couple years to adjust to the North American league...

I don't really care what the original poster claimed, and I don't believe that any poster in this thread has suggested that either Staal or Bennett is a "late bloomer." (On the contrary, the point of Mister Joji's post was to show that there is "a long list of top quality centers that needed a few years before reaching their full potential.") Staal did not reach his full potential until after at least three years of professional hockey as a 21-year-old. Bennett likewise also has not yet reached his full potential as a 20-year-old with little more than 1.5 seasons of professional hockey experience. Do you disagree?

[savardandjokinen]

Main thing is, guys like Tarasenko, Thornton, Getzlaf etc are/were franchise players. I don't expect Bennett to reach that, and we already have Johnny Gaudreau. If Bennett can develop into a perennial 60-65 point player behind Monahan I'm happy.

Secondly, if we want to win a Stanley cup, and our second line centre is Sam Bennett, we can look at the 2012 and 2014 kings. Their second line centre was Jeff Carter.

Drafted by the flyers in 2003 (best draft so you could standardize it) 11th overall and in his second season he had 37 points in 62 games. He was 21 years old.

Not the exact same as Bennett's situation, but a similar comparison that makes me believe as I have all along is that we have to be patient, and if he's still not doing much in his fourth season, you make a decision.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Staal did not reach his full potential until after at least three years of professional hockey as a 21-year-old.

Staal's best season statistically was his third season professionally. Not after. In his third season professionally (second season in the NHL due to the lockout) he lead his team by 25 points in the regular season and lead the entire league in playoff scoring. I would have a hard time hearing any argument that suggests it took him more than three years to reach his potential.

I mean there's a lot of actual players that took years to develop. I understand the argument, and don't disagree with the overall premise. Staal is just pretty much the antithesis to it though.

He came into the league on an extremely bad team directly after being drafted. He was an 18 year old (to start...) where holding and grabbing was the norm and his points weren't high but no one on his team was. The leading scorer for the Hurricanes was 45 points. It wasn't a shame to put up 31 points directly after being drafted. His very next season with the Hurricanes he won the Cup, lead the league in playoff scoring and broke 100 points. He's not quite on the same trajectory as Bennett....

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

...He came into the league on an extremely bad team directly after being drafted. He was an 18 year old (to start...) where holding and grabbing was the norm and his points weren't high but no one on his team was. The leading scorer for the Hurricanes was 45 points. It wasn't a shame to put up 31 points directly after being drafted. His very next season with the Hurricanes he won the Cup, lead the league in playoff scoring and broke 100 points. He's not quite on the same trajectory as Bennett....

Of course. But I don't believe the point of Mister Joji's post was to suggest that Bennett could score 100 points next season. The point was that Steal realized a dramatic improvement from his second to his third professional season. Yes, it was his second NHL season, but this point detracts from the fact that he played a full season of professional hockey the previous year. Of course, circumstances prevent us from knowing how Staal might have looked playing a full season in the NHL in 2004-05 at around the same age that Bennett is today. But in the light of what we do know, I would argue that it is not unreasonable to expect a lot more from Bennett next year, when he will be closer to the same age that Steal was when he scored 100 points.

[Oling_Roachinen]

The point was that there were a number of players who weren't impact players at 20 years old. Something I think we can all agree on.

However, in 2005-2006, Staal had 22 points in 11 games by his 21st birthday. He's a pretty poor argument to include on that list. He was an impact player at 20. Not to mention the entire point he was making, and I was correcting, was Staal broke out at 22 which you agree is wrong.

There's probably about 9051518 players we could use as an example of players who weren't good at 20. Let's just not use Staal and we can all agree. The guy was a stud at 20.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

No it is certainly not "usually." Far more websites will list it at the start of the season, which matches up with draft years. Hockey-reference uses the arbitrary February 1st date. In any case, it doesn't matter because Staal was 20 to start the 2005-2006 season, like I said, and this is fact, to avoid any such confusion. Arguing otherwise, against facts, you're right is not semantics but I threw you a bone because it didn't matter. Call it his 20 year old season or 21 year old season, just be clear like I was and it's fine.





I never insinuated anything. I said that Staal was 20 to start the year in which he scored 100 points. The poster said Staal was 22 by the time he brokeout. Jesus.





Lol. Way to be a jerk.



It's a terrible comparison in any regard. If you want to use his age on January 1st, then we are trying to compare 77 points in the buffed up AHL to this season? What's the point of that. That season had many many players who would otherwise being playing in the NHL. By 19...or sorry, 20, Staal was already leading his professional team (the highest level of professional he could play) in scoring.



The poster's original argument was Staal took time to break out. It was his second season in the NHL that he broke the 100 point barrier. He was not a late bloomer. I mean, might as well of said it took Selanne a couple years to adjust to the North American league...

Let's see. Born in 1984, scored 100 points at the end of the 2005/06 season. 2006 - 1984 = 22. Yep, the math checks out.