Official Sam Bennett Discussion Thread

[jjgallow]

On 18/12/2017 at 8:17 PM, The_People1 said:

It's been a remarkable turn around since moving to the wing.  They mentioned in Fan960 that Bennett has something like 10 points in his last 11 games and that's 4th best in the NHL over that span. Simply amazing.

 

Amazing.   I am not convinced that the move to wing, specifically, was what did it as much as new linemates and, of course, magic.

 

In any case, he may very well have  a higher ceiling than any of the Flames player including Gaudreau, while at the same time being one of the riskiest investments out there.   When he scores, he does in bunches, and makes it look easy.   When he doesn't score, he doesn't score in bunches of games.

 

Here's hoping he finds what he needs (and the Flames provide what is needed) for him to reach his potential in this league, which is clearly very high.

[JA_Boomer]

Courtesy of Darren Haynes twitter, I found this rather insightful.

 

A comparison of Flames players at the 214 game mark (Sam Bennett has played 214 games) and their age when they played their 214th game:

 

- Bennett | 38-43-81 | 21 years, 234 days
- Backlund | 29-50-79 | 24 years, 300 days
- Ferland | 39-35-74 | 25 years, 264 days

 

This gave me a bit of context and reminded me that the patience for Bennett to come into his own must continue.

[DirtyDeeds]

8 minutes ago, JA_Boomer said:

Courtesy of Darren Haynes twitter, I found this rather insightful.

 

A comparison of Flames players at the 214 game mark (Sam Bennett has played 214 games) and their age when they played their 214th game:

 

- Bennett | 38-43-81 | 21 years, 234 days
- Backlund | 29-50-79 | 24 years, 300 days
- Ferland | 39-35-74 | 25 years, 264 days

 

This gave me a bit of context and reminded me that the patience for Bennett to come into his own must continue.

Some around here have no patience. They seem to fail to realize that Bennett is just 21 years old, maybe because he has played 3+ years already for the Flames. I wouldn't be trading Bennett for anything less than a premium top line Prospect and a high first round pick,  a quality roster player and even then I would have to give it a lot of thought to let him go.

[redfire11]

Sam is a "crash and bang" the net type of player and most of his goals will come just off the goalie crease. That said; I would like to try a game of

 

Lomberg Bennett Lazar

 

On the 4th line and take the GG leash off.

[travel_dude]

53 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

Some around here have no patience. They seem to fail to realize that Bennett is just 21 years old, maybe because he has played 3+ years already for the Flames. I wouldn't be trading Bennett for anything less than a premium top line Prospect and a high first round pick,  a quality roster player and even then I would have to give it a lot of thought to let him go.

 

The flip side to that is that some first rounder fail to live up to the hype.

On one hand, the only time Bennett has played with real quality linemates for more than a few games is year 1, where he played with Backlund and Frolik.

That's not a slight to Janko, just a general comment about high-impact forwards.

On the other hand, he's taking way too many penalties while not drawing them.  He not scoring and puts the Flames in a bind too often.

 

I waffle a bit on this, but I think first you have to properly evaluate what you have in him by playing him with good players, or bring in a good player to complement him.  When has he ever had a true finisher on his wing or at center?  Never.  He learned the game here as a defensive center or winger.  

 

I would suggest that a swap of him and Tkachuk for a few games would give you a better picture.  Tkachuk can drive any line he plays on.  If you are not going to do that, then you better make a trade to bring in a RW.  Someone who can carry the puck and pass.  Someone who has hands.  

[stubblejumper1]

I don’t understand a couple things:

 

1.  The logic that leads Sam Bennett to automatically revert to taking lazy offensive zone penalties after he goes ~ 10 games without scoring.  

 

2.  The logic that leads the Flames coaching staff to continue to include Sam Bennett’s name in the starting lineup when he continues to take offensive zone penalties game after game. 

 

3.  The logic that lead the Flames to believe that they would get a serviceable powerplay by hiring a special teams coach whose precious team had the worst powerplay in the NHL. 

[JA_Boomer]

13 hours ago, stubblejumper1 said:

I don’t understand a couple things:

 

1.  The logic that leads Sam Bennett to automatically revert to taking lazy offensive zone penalties after he goes ~ 10 games without scoring.  

 

I think the penalties are a factor of Bennett squeezing the stick too hard when he's not producing. He puts extra pressure on himself and "tries harder" when instead he should just be sticking with the program.

[MAC331]

19 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

The flip side to that is that some first rounder fail to live up to the hype.

On one hand, the only time Bennett has played with real quality linemates for more than a few games is year 1, where he played with Backlund and Frolik.

That's not a slight to Janko, just a general comment about high-impact forwards.

On the other hand, he's taking way too many penalties while not drawing them.  He not scoring and puts the Flames in a bind too often.

 

I waffle a bit on this, but I think first you have to properly evaluate what you have in him by playing him with good players, or bring in a good player to complement him.  When has he ever had a true finisher on his wing or at center?  Never.  He learned the game here as a defensive center or winger.  

 

I would suggest that a swap of him and Tkachuk for a few games would give you a better picture.  Tkachuk can drive any line he plays on.  If you are not going to do that, then you better make a trade to bring in a RW.  Someone who can carry the puck and pass.  Someone who has hands.  

You could be right, if the main knock on him is a lack of quality line mates, play him with Backlund and Frolik two of our best. We need some positive progress and results from Bennett otherwise he will become a lost opportunity.

I still think the combo missing is Tkachuk LW with Bennett C but maybe that has to wait until next season.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

I still think the combo missing is Tkachuk LW with Bennett C but maybe that has to wait until next season.

 

Bennett clearly looks better as a LW.  He should just develop there.  He doesn't have the vision to play C.

[JA_Boomer]

8 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Bennett clearly looks better as a LW.  He should just develop there.  He doesn't have the vision to play C.

 

Let him continue to play LW, and you have added injury insurance if one of your top-3 centers goes down. Makes sense to me.

[MAC331]

22 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Bennett clearly looks better as a LW.  He should just develop there.  He doesn't have the vision to play C.

CLEARLY you really think so ? I don't.

[420since1974]

I feel that Bennett can be a productive forward for the Calgary Flames.

IF......

He plays with higher skilled players.

I haven't given up on him at all, who can forget his 4 goal game against Florida?

 

So, my answer is to move him into the Top 6, or improve the 3rd line.

Bennett - Backlund - Tkachuk

? - Jankowski - Frolik

OR

Tkachuk - Backlund - ?

Bennett - Jankowski - Frolik

[Cowtownguy]

22 minutes ago, 420since1974 said:

I feel that Bennett can be a productive forward for the Calgary Flames.

IF......

He plays with higher skilled players.

I haven't given up on him at all, who can forget his 4 goal game against Florida?

 

So, my answer is to move him into the Top 6, or improve the 3rd line.

Bennett - Backlund - Tkachuk

? - Jankowski - Frolik

OR

Tkachuk - Backlund - ?

Bennett - Jankowski - Frolik

That is actually a pretty good idea (Bennett, Backlund, and Tkachuk). There is no reason why the third line needs to have significantly reduced ice time. 

[420since1974]

In the above scenarios, I have Frolik on the 3rd line.

It's not that I don't like him, quite the opposite, I think that Frolik can make any line better.

He was known for that in Winnipeg.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, 420since1974 said:

I feel that Bennett can be a productive forward for the Calgary Flames.

IF......

He plays with higher skilled players.

I haven't given up on him at all, who can forget his 4 goal game against Florida?

 

So, my answer is to move him into the Top 6, or improve the 3rd line.

Bennett - Backlund - Tkachuk

? - Jankowski - Frolik

OR

Tkachuk - Backlund - ?

Bennett - Jankowski - Frolik

 

Ya! Looks good... 

 

Bennett, Backlund, Tkachuk

Mangiapane, Jankowski, Frolik

[The_Tribal Chief]

I like Bennett and it is very Easy to Lose confidence in the Player But imo I feel Benett is Good but has alot To learn and The Nhl is alot to Learn to begin with And some Players take Longer at Benetts Age to Figure it out Then Some others So we can Give up on him But then you go for it and Trade him and then He learns it somewhere Else And your Kicking your Self in The Hash Rate later cause you Didnt have patient's and let him learn it

[travel_dude]

59 minutes ago, The_Snowbear said:

I like Bennett and it is very Easy to Lose confidence in the Player But imo I feel Benett is Good but has alot To learn and The Nhl is alot to Learn to begin with And some Players take Longer at Benetts Age to Figure it out Then Some others So we can Give up on him But then you go for it and Trade him and then He learns it somewhere Else And your Kicking your Self in The Hash Rate later cause you Didnt have patient's and let him learn it

 

Just because a player does well after trading him doesn't mean he would have turned out the same way.

Poor example, but do you think Maroon would have scored 27 goals playing in Anaheim?

 

What you have to say about Bennett is that he's yet to improve.  Sure, he's young, but has he improved any aspect of his game over the years he's been here?  If the answer is no, they maybe he's not the player you expected.  Or he's a top line prospect that needs top minutes and linemates.  He shows flashes of dominance, but then is hardly noticeable for stretches of games. 

One game he plays with Gaudreau and looks good, but follows that with an invisible game.

He showed up for the playoffs last year, but that about it.

 

If the right deal came along, would you worry about what you lost?

Has to be the right deal that isn;t just a short term fix.

 

[robrob74]

10 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Just because a player does well after trading him doesn't mean he would have turned out the same way.

Poor example, but do you think Maroon would have scored 27 goals playing in Anaheim?

 

What you have to say about Bennett is that he's yet to improve.  Sure, he's young, but has he improved any aspect of his game over the years he's been here?  If the answer is no, they maybe he's not the player you expected.  Or he's a top line prospect that needs top minutes and linemates.  He shows flashes of dominance, but then is hardly noticeable for stretches of games. 

One game he plays with Gaudreau and looks good, but follows that with an invisible game.

He showed up for the playoffs last year, but that about it.

 

If the right deal came along, would you worry about what you lost?

Has to be the right deal that isn;t just a short term fix.

 

 

Imagine if they stopped playing Monahan with Gaudreau because of a bad game. I get he has a. Better history than Bennett, but if they decided to overlook him just because of a bad game or two, we’d see a different Monahan.

 

for me it’s circumstances and had Bennett had a Gaudreau full time, he’d maybe not score as much, but we would see different numbers. 

 

Trading Bennett maybe what is best to max his ability. We won’t see it because we can’t give him that extended opportunity another team might be willing to try. Our team is just not willing to. 

[MAC331]

11 hours ago, 420since1974 said:

In the above scenarios, I have Frolik on the 3rd line.

It's not that I don't like him, quite the opposite, I think that Frolik can make any line better.

He was known for that in Winnipeg.

WHAT ? break up the 3M line, you could be run out of town for such a suggestion.

[MAC331]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

Imagine if they stopped playing Monahan with Gaudreau because of a bad game. I get he has a. Better history than Bennett, but if they decided to overlook him just because of a bad game or two, we’d see a different Monahan.

 

for me it’s circumstances and had Bennett had a Gaudreau full time, he’d maybe not score as much, but we would see different numbers. 

 

Trading Bennett maybe what is best to max his ability. We won’t see it because we can’t give him that extended opportunity another team might be willing to try. Our team is just not willing to. 

I have said all along if you want Bennett to resemble Monahan he should have a similar feeder on LW as Gaudreau and that player is Tkachuk IMO. Quit treating Bennett like 3rd line material which is what they have been doing. Unfortunately I think Bennett has been an after thought ever since Tkachuk arrived.

[Cowtownguy]

3 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I have said all along if you want Bennett to resemble Monahan he should have a similar feeder on LW as Gaudreau and that player is Tkachuk IMO. Quit treating Bennett like 3rd line material which is what they have been doing. Unfortunately I think Bennett has been an after thought ever since Tkachuk arrived.

I lean towards keeping Bennett. He has speed, grit, and puck handling abilities. He has been an after thought because of his line mates, but also because he simply plays like a third line player. When Hartley was the coach, the wide open system really worked to his advantage. Feed him the puck as he streaks into the offensive zone, and he is lethal. Other than that, his hockey IQ kind of drops off. In the offensive zone, he really struggles to sustain a cycle. When our dman throws the puck behind the net, more often than not, we lose possession. Time to snag a beer from the fridge. Again, in part, that is because of his line mates, but it is also due to his inability to maintain possession. I would prefer that we ride this out, let him learn more, and hopefully we have a good outcome. At the same time, we need to keep an open mind. As Burke likes to say, even the Great One was traded. TD makes a good point. Do we have some sense that he has improved in various areas of the game? I am not sure what the right answer is to that question at the moment. I would also like to know what the coaches are doing to help him. At one point in time, the Sedins were excellent at cycling. I wonder if Bennett is getting that kind of tutoring.

 

I would argue that Bennett's situation is also difficult because of how this organization has floundered around about the direction of the team. We have Sutter who likes his large, slow, tough players. Then we go all out offensive with Feaster who choses a lot of smaller players as long as they can produce offence. He is coupled with Hartley who enjoys the all out offensive game. Then, we make an about face and hire Treburke and GG. Now, size matters, defensive aspects of the game are more important, and possession is key. I suspect that impacted Bennett's future here. Monahan and Backlund are clearly our two best centres. So, Bennett gets relegated to the third line where he has to learn a system that I suspect is quite unusual and new for him, and he underperforms. Add to the fact that Brouwer just has not worked out.

 

I like 420's suggestion. Before trading him, see if he can gel with Chucky. If not, we might have to trade him. In fact, it might be the right thing to do for him and the organization.

[travel_dude]

I just can't get behind moving Bennett back to center anytime soon.  He hasn't shown enough promise there.

As a winger, he's played like a 3rd liner.  He had one good stretch where he showed chemistry with Frolik and to a lesser extent Backlund, but that was some time ago.

 

If you are going to move Bennett to Backlund's line and move Thachuk to Janko's line, then the minutes need to even out.  Tkachuk drives the play.  He's too forceful to play 15 minutes only.  In that case, the Janko RW'er doesn't matter so much, as the other two will drive the offense.  Just has to be someone that can maintain possession.  Awesome if you can find a finisher  in a trade, but that is less important with Tkachuk there.

 

18-20 minutes:  1st line.  No need to mess with success.

15-17 minutes:  2nd line Bennett-Backlund-Frolik; takes more D-zone starts, but keeps a level of grit.

15-17 minutes:  3rd line of Tkachuk-Janko-Lazar/Hathaway; whichever has the best hands.  Tkachuk can get the cycle going and plant himself in front of the net with Janko getting a shot through.

10 minutes:       4th line of Lomberg-Stajan/Hrivik-Lazar/Hathaway; workhorse line, adds a level of forecheck.

 

I am suggesting this as the alternative to trading Bennett.  His value is only his pedigree.  Will need to consider a trade to bring in a RW, or at least a RHS for the top 9.  

[MAC331]

30 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

I lean towards keeping Bennett. He has speed, grit, and puck handling abilities. He has been an after thought because of his line mates, but also because he simply plays like a third line player. When Hartley was the coach, the wide open system really worked to his advantage. Feed him the puck as he streaks into the offensive zone, and he is lethal. Other than that, his hockey IQ kind of drops off. In the offensive zone, he really struggles to sustain a cycle. When our dman throws the puck behind the net, more often than not, we lose possession. Time to snag a beer from the fridge. Again, in part, that is because of his line mates, but it is also due to his inability to maintain possession. I would prefer that we ride this out, let him learn more, and hopefully we have a good outcome. At the same time, we need to keep an open mind. As Burke likes to say, even the Great One was traded. TD makes a good point. Do we have some sense that he has improved in various areas of the game? I am not sure what the right answer is to that question at the moment. I would also like to know what the coaches are doing to help him. At one point in time, the Sedins were excellent at cycling. I wonder if Bennett is getting that kind of tutoring.

 

I would argue that Bennett's situation is also difficult because of how this organization has floundered around about the direction of the team. We have Sutter who likes his large, slow, tough players. Then we go all out offensive with Feaster who choses a lot of smaller players as long as they can produce offence. He is coupled with Hartley who enjoys the all out offensive game. Then, we make an about face and hire Treburke and GG. Now, size matters, defensive aspects of the game are more important, and possession is key. I suspect that impacted Bennett's future here. Monahan and Backlund are clearly our two best centres. So, Bennett gets relegated to the third line where he has to learn a system that I suspect is quite unusual and new for him, and he underperforms. Add to the fact that Brouwer just has not worked out.

 

I like 420's suggestion. Before trading him, see if he can gel with Chucky. If not, we might have to trade him. In fact, it might be the right thing to do for him and the organization.

I never like getting into past regimes and different styles because the need is to address the one we are working with today. I ask this, if this system works well for results with Gaudreau and Monahan why not Tkachuk and Bennett ? If they want Bennett to be the star player they thought they were drafting then there has to be a higher priority put on developing him. Tkachuk has had 2 season now learning with Backlund and Frolik which has gone well but would now not be a good time to see what he could do with/for Bennett. You could almost put anyone with Backlund and Frolik.

[JA_Boomer]

I would not separate Backlund and Frolik. I still like the idea of forward pairs. We have Johnny-Mony and Backs-Frols. I think the next one will be Tkachuk-Bennett. I think Bennett needs to stay at LW for the rest of this season, barring an injury to our top 3 centers. Unless we trade for a top-9 winger I like:

 

Mangiapane-Backlund-Frolik

Bennett-Jankowski-Tkachuk

 

These lines playing equal minutes. If Mangiapane struggles then put Brouwer in...I guess.

[travel_dude]

37 minutes ago, JA_Boomer said:

I would not separate Backlund and Frolik. I still like the idea of forward pairs. We have Johnny-Mony and Backs-Frols. I think the next one will be Tkachuk-Bennett. I think Bennett needs to stay at LW for the rest of this season, barring an injury to our top 3 centers. Unless we trade for a top-9 winger I like:

 

Mangiapane-Backlund-Frolik

Bennett-Jankowski-Tkachuk

 

These lines playing equal minutes. If Mangiapane struggles then put Brouwer in...I guess.

 

We have one true scoring line.  Many games they are the only line putting up offense or points.  

As Deeds said, Johnny has the same number of points as McJezzub, but plays 3 minutes less per game.  So, no I am nmot cutting the minutes of the top line.  I would consider giving equal minutes to Backlund and Janko's lines if you swapped Bennett with Tkachuk.