Sam Bennett Value: Have the Flames held on TOO long? OR is he awesome? - Page 64 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

CaptainYooh · 08-13-2018, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, but if Peters decides he wants Lindholm playing with Gaudreau and Monahan, his PK time will dry right up.

Why would he want to play Lindholm on the first line, when there's Neal?

Bingo · 08-13-2018, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Why would he want to play Lindholm on the first line, when there's Neal?

Neal has played with second line guys for the past two seasons (Vegas, Nashville). I wouldn't be shocked in the least to see him line up with Backlund and Tkachuk

Enoch Root · 08-13-2018, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Why would he want to play Lindholm on the first line, when there's Neal?

Well, in a recent interview, he actually stated that he prefers the idea of Lindholm on Monahan's line over Neal. However, it is a long season and there will be plenty of opportunities for both.

Oling_Roachinen · 08-13-2018, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Why would he want to play Lindholm on the first line, when there's Neal?

Spread out scoring? Chemistry? There's certainly a lot of justification.

But still, if that ends up being the case. 14:30 minutes EV, 2:30 minutes PP, 1:30 SH is about what Lindholm would see.

CaptainYooh · 08-13-2018, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo

Neal has played with second line guys for the past two seasons (Vegas, Nashville). I wouldn't be shocked in the least to see him line up with Backlund and Tkachuk

True, but that's because there were better RW players for the first line on both teams. In our case, there are not. This was mentioned in a different thread, but Lindholm said it himself that he prefers playing center, not the RW, and that he didn't like being floated on and off by Peters.

Added: To be fair, I'd love it if Lindholm actually earns the first-liner RW position adding to our RW depth, because we already have enough depth at centre. I am just confused by his own statement conflicting with everyone's belief he's actually gonna play first-line RW.

Oling_Roachinen · 08-13-2018, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I am just confused by his own statement conflicting with everyone's belief he's actually gonna play first-line RW.

https://twitter.com/EricFrancis/stat...01752532377600

Quote:

Bill Peters says Lindholm is penciled in on the top line w Gaudreau and Monahan already and will take draws on his strong side. Said he spoke to him but kept it short as Lindholm was attending Sweden’s World Cup game when the call came.

Cause of quotes like that. We'll have to see where the chips fall, but when the coach has suggested he'll be playing with Gaudreau and Monahan it sticks. Of course this was before the Neal signing.

SeanCharles · 08-13-2018, 01:47 PM

Neal's biggest weakness is his defensive game.

Lindholm's biggest strengths are his defensive game and playmaking ability.

Peters has said that he likes the idea of pairs because then he can play two guys who have good chemistry and usually have a common strength and can have them play with a guy who maybe has a weakness in an area the other two thrive at.

Neal paired with defensive stalwarts in Backlund and Tkachuk would offset his defensive issues. If you load up the top line they may be more prone to defensive gaffes whereas Lindholm is sound defensively AND still has alot of untapped potential you might want to extract by playing him with Johnny and Monny.

AC · 08-13-2018, 01:48 PM

To be fair, Peters said a few things about Brouwer's role with the team too.

CaptainYooh · 08-13-2018, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

...Of course this was before the Neal signing.

Exactly.

Oling_Roachinen · 08-13-2018, 01:56 PM

But during that interview he also said they were going to get powerplay help in UFA. The only UFA signing, outside of Ryan, that would have qualified was Neal. So it's very likely that Peters knew that Neal was a potential and was still talking about Lindholm on the top line, not saying "we'll have to wait and see who we get in UFA before we pencil in the lineup." He clearly will try out a lot of mixes, like Tkachuk on his off-wing on the top line like he said he would try in preseason and likely Neal.

But given that the coach was excited at the prospect of having Lindholm on the right-wing of Monahan and Gaudreau, having fans pencil him in on the top line is pretty understandable.

Oling_Roachinen · 08-13-2018, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AC

To be fair, Peters said a few things about Brouwer's role with the team too.

Yes, and he didn't play him in any other roles.

Gaskal · 08-13-2018, 02:57 PM

I've said it before and still stand by it. I feel the difference between Neal spending more time with 13-23 instead of 19-11 could be something like an extra 5-7 team goals overall. A small number, but still incredibly significant.

I could understand Lindholm being used with Monahan and Gaudreau when protecting a lead and rolling 4 lines, or when having to take a d-zone draw, but absolutely not if you're riding your offensive dynamos hard, giving them the high ground, and double shifting them in hopes of a goal.

Strange Brew · 08-13-2018, 03:03 PM

I still believe there could be a decision to be made between Lindholm and Jankowski as centres. One school of thought would be that you identify your best 3 centres before making out any lines.

TheScorpion · 08-13-2018, 07:58 PM

If he struggles at centre, do you think Bergevin would trade Jonathan Drouin for Bennett and a pick?

Jiri Hrdina · 08-13-2018, 08:26 PM

^Gross

Textcritic · 08-13-2018, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Of course this was before the Neal signing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Exactly.

Peters also confirmed Lindholm’s place on the top line in a radio interview a couple weeks ago—well after the Neal signing.

H2SO4(aq) · 08-13-2018, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If he struggles at centre, do you think Bergevin would trade Jonathan Drouin for Bennett and a pick?

No thanks. Bennett at least brings physicality, something we don’t have much of.

Textcritic · 08-13-2018, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaskal

I've said it before and still stand by it. I feel the difference between Neal spending more time with 13-23 instead of 19-11 could be something like an extra 5-7 team goals overall. A small number, but still incredibly significant.

I could understand Lindholm being used with Monahan and Gaudreau when protecting a lead and rolling 4 lines, or when having to take a d-zone draw, but absolutely not if you're riding your offensive dynamos hard, giving them the high ground, and double shifting them in hopes of a goal.

Neal is going to get plenty of time playing with Gaudreau and Monahan on the powerplay, and late in games when looking for a goal, but I still believe that we will see Lindholm there for most 5v5 situations.

jayswin · 08-13-2018, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If he struggles at centre, do you think Bergevin would trade Jonathan Drouin for Bennett and a pick?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

^Gross

Wait, you weren't saying "gross" to trading Bennett and a pick for Drouin?

Eric Vail · 08-13-2018, 11:26 PM

I am not sure if this thread has anything to do with Sam Bennett anymore, but I was looking at some of the Flames franchise best and worst, inspired from another thread.

I see Bennett is the 2nd worst +/- player in the history of the Flames franchise with a -46. The only Flame worse is Atlanta Flame Jacques Richard with a -59. Third worse is Chris Butler at -42. If Bennett hits his career average of -15, in 2018-19, he'll have the lowest +/- of any player in Flames history at -61.

I know some will say +/- is meaningless, but to have the second lowest number among all the players in 47 years is not very good.

I'm hoping he finds a way to become a plus player.