2017 development camp

[cross16]

Here is y issue with Bennett and the lack of quality linemates and why I think its a big deal. Not only is it very difficult for all young players to play in the NHL, it's even more difficult when your weakness as a young player isn't being supported. Bennett's elite skill in junior was his one on one ability and his competiveness. Now I want to be clear that I do not think that is a knock on his ability to use his teammates or that he is a selfish player because I don't feel that way. He does use his linemates well, but I also think in order to get to the level you want him to be at he needs to get better in that area. I think you saw early on with Bennett that he would be looking to try and make a play but no one was around to help so he was falling back into the trap of trying to do too much himself. I think there were many nights early on where the chances were there but the goals didn't come and he got very frustrated and I think that's when the Flames made the decision to focus more on the defensive aspect of the game and try to get him to settle down. I think he performed quite well in this area and showed progression so I don't think the term regression should apply at all but ovsiouly you want to see more but alot of that is confidence. I think teammates and having a successful line can do wonders for your confidence. Look at Draisatl who looked awful as a rookie, worse than Bennett, but then gets to play on a successful line, gets some confidence, and you see his game grow. 

 

It's a really hard league for young players to play in as it is, so when you can't handicap a young players weakness you are compounding the problem. MIkael Backlund is one of the smarter players i've seen play in the WHL and look how long and difficult it was for him to adjust to the NHL and excel. Flames need to do a much better job of helping Bennett with his weaknesses instead of expecting a 20 year old kid to carry guys up and down the ice. 

[robrob74]

46 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Except he couldnt go the AHL till this past season, and youre not going to take a guy who spent the better part of 2 seasons with the team, and send him to the AHL. That would be poor management and would lead to a rift forming between the team. Bennett played a key role on this team last season, whether it be pk time or his even strength minutes, he didnt deserve to go down to the AAA. As others have pointed out its not easy for a 20 year old to learn center with crappy wingers, im fine with how the flames have developed him.

 

I am too. 

Just saying that a year development wouldn't have hurt him. I get he would've had to do another year of JR, but they burnt a year so he couldn't. Plus he was probably too good for jr anyway... so you're right.

 

 

but everyone complaining about his game irks me. It's the reason I say if it's so bad, put him back on the wing where he played "better."  But if you want him as a C, live with the growing pains. 

 

I think he was one of the most consistent players. Maybe not offensively, but he brings it almost every night. Once his offensive game comes around, he may be one of our best players. 

[FlameFan4Life]

I know people are probably going to hate this opinion but I really think the team put Bennett in a position that his production would be down purposely. My reason for saying so is by doing this they had lowered his value, which saves them money. I think they plan on trading Backlund at the deadline to recoup a high pick they've traded away recently. At that point we will see Bennett playing at a higher level because the team will have extended him and will want him to produce. They will put him with the best available line mates and allow him to be the player he really is.

[robrob74]

28 minutes ago, FlameFan4Life said:

I know people are probably going to hate this opinion but I really think the team put Bennett in a position that his production would be down purposely. My reason for saying so is by doing this they had lowered his value, which saves them money. I think they plan on trading Backlund at the deadline to recoup a high pick they've traded away recently. At that point we will see Bennett playing at a higher level because the team will have extended him and will want him to produce. They will put him with the best available line mates and allow him to be the player he really is.

 

I see your thinking, but what happens if we are true contenders at the deadline? Leading the division, we may not be in a position to trade away someone we need for a big push in the playoffs.

[AlbertaBoy12]

2 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I see your thinking, but what happens if we are true contenders at the deadline? Leading the division, we may not be in a position to trade away someone we need for a big push in the playoffs.

I dont think we see trading away anyone mid season, unless its prospects to add a player of significance. If anything I think backlund gets signed before the season starts and we might trade him next summer if janko and bennett are ready, if not no harm in waiting longer if necessary.

[Cowtownguy]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

Here is y issue with Bennett and the lack of quality linemates and why I think its a big deal. Not only is it very difficult for all young players to play in the NHL, it's even more difficult when your weakness as a young player isn't being supported. Bennett's elite skill in junior was his one on one ability and his competiveness. Now I want to be clear that I do not think that is a knock on his ability to use his teammates or that he is a selfish player because I don't feel that way. He does use his linemates well, but I also think in order to get to the level you want him to be at he needs to get better in that area. I think you saw early on with Bennett that he would be looking to try and make a play but no one was around to help so he was falling back into the trap of trying to do too much himself. I think there were many nights early on where the chances were there but the goals didn't come and he got very frustrated and I think that's when the Flames made the decision to focus more on the defensive aspect of the game and try to get him to settle down. I think he performed quite well in this area and showed progression so I don't think the term regression should apply at all but ovsiouly you want to see more but alot of that is confidence. I think teammates and having a successful line can do wonders for your confidence. Look at Draisatl who looked awful as a rookie, worse than Bennett, but then gets to play on a successful line, gets some confidence, and you see his game grow. 

 

It's a really hard league for young players to play in as it is, so when you can't handicap a young players weakness you are compounding the problem. MIkael Backlund is one of the smarter players i've seen play in the WHL and look how long and difficult it was for him to adjust to the NHL and excel. Flames need to do a much better job of helping Bennett with his weaknesses instead of expecting a 20 year old kid to carry guys up and down the ice. 

That was a solid post and concise summary of what happened. I hope that the coaching staff were responsible for Backlund's development/adjustments, and that they can do the same for Bennett. For a while there, I thought that the Flames should have just traded Backlund because they were wasting his offensive talent. I figured a team like Montreal would have been good for him. 

 

I have no doubt that Bennett is an elite talent. Although I have been disappointed in his play, I do believe that at some point, he is going to be very valuable to the organization.

[cccsberg]

On 2017-07-17 at 1:22 AM, YounGuns said:

A few thoughts:

 

1)  I agree with Cross (and a few others, including Brad Treliving and Brian Burke) that we really need to have tempered expectations for Foo.  He may not even make the big club - I doubt he makes the big club - so to say he would play well on our first line I think is setting yourselves up for disappointment.  College free agents rarely become NHL players, let alone NHL impact players.  To say a guy should either play on our first line or go to the A...that's asking way too much out of him.  I think if he makes the team this year or any year we should be pleased.  I for one don't think he makes the team this year, and if he does I doubt he is much of a factor on the ice this year.  He might turn into a great player, and I hope I eat these words, but we really need to temper our expectations of this kid.  To put it into perspective: He's no Sam Bennett, and Bennett is struggling to find consistency on our 3rd line.  Bennett was the highest draft pick in our franchise history who just finished his 2nd year in the NHL and he still struggled to be a factor most nights.  You stick Foo on the top line playing against the caliber of players that line has to stack up against, and he'll look like a fish out of water out there and if he doesn't get injured physically his ego and development will be knocked down 10 pegs.  Bennett is awesome, he's going to be awesome, but the reality is he's struggling to find consistency as most young players do.  Foo is still a league or two down from Bennett's skill set.

 

2)  What's with people wanting to break up our 3M line by moving Tkachuk?  That line was the one consistent beacon of light all season, they mesh so well together, and people are slotting in Tkachuk with Bennett or player x, y, z?  I say heck no, the saying "don't fix it if it's not broke" barely does this justice, in the case of the 3M line I would say "if it's working way better than we could have possibly dreamed, why tinker with it?"  The 3M line was one of the best lines in hockey last year.  Don't mess with it.  Let them loose and laugh with glee.

Although I agree with your point 2, the team overall needs to get better and changes are needed to do so.  The better question is what are those changes?  The Backlund-Frolik duo has been good to excellent with "x" on their LW for several years now and likely can continue that next year.  Can Tkachuk be that guy that improves those around him (seemed to be so, even with Backlund) and mesh with, say Bennett to end up overall with a much stronger team?  These are the challenges for BT and GG, and if they fail we can always revert to what worked last year....

[cccsberg]

On 2017-07-17 at 0:51 PM, Fins&FIre15 said:

Not really sure whats with everyone's love affair with Tkachuk and Bennett on the same line. If we had to, I would much rather try him with the top 2 before trying him with Bennett.

 

No reason to break up one of the best lines in hockey yet.

I agree that Tkachuk would be great with Gaudreau and Monahan, but prefer to link him with Bennett so the team has three really strong lines versus one outstanding one.  

[MAC331]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎18 at 0:35 PM, FlameFan4Life said:

I know people are probably going to hate this opinion but I really think the team put Bennett in a position that his production would be down purposely. My reason for saying so is by doing this they had lowered his value, which saves them money. I think they plan on trading Backlund at the deadline to recoup a high pick they've traded away recently. At that point we will see Bennett playing at a higher level because the team will have extended him and will want him to produce. They will put him with the best available line mates and allow him to be the player he really is.

There is no doubt the situation could be perceived this way but I don't believe it to be true. I think with a young growing team you as a coach are dealing with a number of projects on the ice, Priorities get in the way of certain results and you also have to have the talent for the projects. We are by no means a finished product, still seeking that perfect RW for JG and SM. Last season we saw the tutoring of Tkachuk on the MB and MF line. I believe the hope was that Brouwer would be the one to bring Bennett along and maybe he did in some ways but definitely not from an offensive production stand point. If you want star power from Bennett then the quality of line mates has to take precedence and another star with him like Tkachuk. This IMO is the only way our team will elevate its 5 on 5 production by spreading the talent out in the right places.

[MAC331]

10 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Although I agree with your point 2, the team overall needs to get better and changes are needed to do so.  The better question is what are those changes?  The Backlund-Frolik duo has been good to excellent with "x" on their LW for several years now and likely can continue that next year.  Can Tkachuk be that guy that improves those around him (seemed to be so, even with Backlund) and mesh with, say Bennett to end up overall with a much stronger team?  These are the challenges for BT and GG, and if they fail we can always revert to what worked last year....

I wouldn't say the last several years for Backlund but definitely the last 3 seasons for sure, mainly because he has been healthy and on the ice. Part of a successful team is the proper deployment of the talent by the coaching staff. Backlund and Frolik are tenacious with their effort for the puck and keeping the opposition's best line in check, this will always hold down the production level for this line. This is why I advocate removing Tkachuk and adding Versteeg who has the same level of experience as MB and MF and will replace what offense Tkachuk provided on that line. Yes we would be banking on both Tkachuk and Bennett busting out together however I see that as possible and the huge PLUS we will need this season.

[travel_dude]

On 7/17/2017 at 1:22 AM, YounGuns said:

A few thoughts:

 

1)  I agree with Cross (and a few others, including Brad Treliving and Brian Burke) that we really need to have tempered expectations for Foo.  He may not even make the big club - I doubt he makes the big club - so to say he would play well on our first line I think is setting yourselves up for disappointment.  College free agents rarely become NHL players, let alone NHL impact players.  To say a guy should either play on our first line or go to the A...that's asking way too much out of him.  I think if he makes the team this year or any year we should be pleased.  I for one don't think he makes the team this year, and if he does I doubt he is much of a factor on the ice this year.  He might turn into a great player, and I hope I eat these words, but we really need to temper our expectations of this kid.  To put it into perspective: He's no Sam Bennett, and Bennett is struggling to find consistency on our 3rd line.  Bennett was the highest draft pick in our franchise history who just finished his 2nd year in the NHL and he still struggled to be a factor most nights.  You stick Foo on the top line playing against the caliber of players that line has to stack up against, and he'll look like a fish out of water out there and if he doesn't get injured physically his ego and development will be knocked down 10 pegs.  Bennett is awesome, he's going to be awesome, but the reality is he's struggling to find consistency as most young players do.  Foo is still a league or two down from Bennett's skill set.

 

2)  What's with people wanting to break up our 3M line by moving Tkachuk?  That line was the one consistent beacon of light all season, they mesh so well together, and people are slotting in Tkachuk with Bennett or player x, y, z?  I say heck no, the saying "don't fix it if it's not broke" barely does this justice, in the case of the 3M line I would say "if it's working way better than we could have possibly dreamed, why tinker with it?"  The 3M line was one of the best lines in hockey last year.  Don't mess with it.  Let them loose and laugh with glee.

 

Point 1 - There are more than one or two examples of FA college players becoming NHL'ers.  The fact that they are FA has no bearing on their ability.  It a route that some take or other have to take.  It's also quite difficult to compare a CHL player with a college player; the competition and schedules are completely different.  Generally speaking, a college player is in the USHL or USNDP during their draft years.  Compare that to a player usually in the CHL.  Anyway, to the point about Foo, he will be looked upon as a more mature prospect than those recently drafted.  He will make the team based on how he looks in the Young Guns, main camp and any pre-season games he gets.  Anything other than that is a pure guess.  Tkachuk made the team that way.  And then kept his spot.  Foo has to do the same in a lineup with very few natural RW's.  

 

Point 2 - Johnny played with somebody not named Monahan in his first season before he exploded with Monahan and Hudler.  I see no reason why you can't try out Tkachuk on an offense-focused line.  You are looking for the team to make strides, but are unwilling to try to improve the lineup.  I would say that you always have the 3M line as a fallback.  We have improved team defense, so why not help out another line with a guy that can play with/without the puck.   

[conundrumed]

7 hours ago, travel_dude said:

Point 2 - Johnny played with somebody not named Monahan in his first season before he exploded with Monahan and Hudler.  I see no reason why you can't try out Tkachuk on an offense-focused line.  You are looking for the team to make strides, but are unwilling to try to improve the lineup.  I would say that you always have the 3M line as a fallback.  We have improved team defense, so why not help out another line with a guy that can play with/without the puck.   

If you're going to do that, why not keep 3M together and move Bennett to 1st Line W?

Makes more sense to me. Bennett's faster and lends more support to the line's defensive play.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

If you're going to do that, why not keep 3M together and move Bennett to 1st Line W?

Makes more sense to me. Bennett's faster and lends more support to the line's defensive play.

 

Or just move Tkachuk to the top line.  They sure need a defensively aware player.  They got the best starts, but still lost control of the puck quite often, while the 3M line started in the D-zone and ended up in the O-zone most times.  

 

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Or just move Tkachuk to the top line.  They sure need a defensively aware player.  They got the best starts, but still lost control of the puck quite often, while the 3M line started in the D-zone and ended up in the O-zone most times.  

 

*awkward*

That was your 1st argument. I'll leave it at that...

[MAC331]

19 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Point 1 - There are more than one or two examples of FA college players becoming NHL'ers.  The fact that they are FA has no bearing on their ability.  It a route that some take or other have to take.  It's also quite difficult to compare a CHL player with a college player; the competition and schedules are completely different.  Generally speaking, a college player is in the USHL or USNDP during their draft years.  Compare that to a player usually in the CHL.  Anyway, to the point about Foo, he will be looked upon as a more mature prospect than those recently drafted.  He will make the team based on how he looks in the Young Guns, main camp and any pre-season games he gets.  Anything other than that is a pure guess.  Tkachuk made the team that way.  And then kept his spot.  Foo has to do the same in a lineup with very few natural RW's.  

 

Point 2 - Johnny played with somebody not named Monahan in his first season before he exploded with Monahan and Hudler.  I see no reason why you can't try out Tkachuk on an offense-focused line.  You are looking for the team to make strides, but are unwilling to try to improve the lineup.  I would say that you always have the 3M line as a fallback.  We have improved team defense, so why not help out another line with a guy that can play with/without the puck.   

I think people are not taking into account how much better the US University hockey programs have become. Sure players are not going to have the same number of games or reps as players from the CHL, this doesn't equate to less talented. The talent may take longer to show up however making adjustment within a new league is something the all have to face. It becomes all about attitude IMO if you want to make it. Tkachuk is a prime example at 18 was not going to be denied. Can Foo do the same at 23, why not and let's find out.

[travel_dude]

11 hours ago, conundrumed said:

*awkward*

That was your 1st argument. I'll leave it at that...

 

I actually used Gaudreau as an example of trying a player in a different circumstance.  I suggested using Tkachuk on an offensive line, not specifically with Monahan, as in playing on Bennett's wing.  So the 2nd suggestion was different.  My bad for not being clear.

[conundrumed]

I have a feeling they'll move Bennett to wing this year, in contrast to everything the org says about keeping him at C.

1st line? Maybe, it would keep the 3M line together. So much is going to come down to where Jankowski lands.

I wonder if Versteeg-Janksy-Brouwer could be a 3rd line.

Just wondering aloud, as I feel I don't want the same same.

It feels it's been a long time that we've been forcing square pegs into round holes.

Bennett-Mony-JG would definitely give us 3 threats up front and JG wouldn't have to keep trying to force everything by himself.

Both JG and Bennett do that too frequently, and it leads to some vicious turnovers. Maybe they could play off of each other with Mony still being the monster snipe threat in the slot.

The bottom 6 would be a bit of a hodge-podge with trying to place Ferland, Lazar etc. Maybe even Shinkaruk makes some noise, though I'm doubtful as I seriously question his IQ and vision. I wouldn't mind if we could trade a winger or 2 for a bonafide prospect. We have too many that slot as bottom 6 wingers imho.

Just look at CHI will even take a flyer on Bouma. Teams need bottom 6 players, we seem to have an abundance of them.

 

On a side note, how great is it to see Big Ern chilling with the Flames this summer. We need him in the org imho. Fishing with Brouwer and Poirier, not much question our most beleaguered NHLer and prospect. Is it just me, or does Brouwer's build not resemble Kesler's?

I happily give him a pass on last season if he can get focused for the remainder of his contract. Call last year a struggle due to personal upheaval.

I still chuckle thinking of BT's tale about talking to Brouwer's agent last year. "Why don't you talk to him yourself, he is in Calgary building his home".

BT: No actually, I'm serious, just wondering the ask.

Agent: So am I, he is in Calgary right now building his home.

That's a great story, let's see a happy ending. Same with Versteeg, I believe he's a Lethbridge boy. Shocked Edm by signing with us.

We stand behind Poirier, get Hamonic closer to his family, give Stone a 2nd chance. Hamilton saved from Boston.

If there is such a thing as karma police, we should be coming up roses!

[travel_dude]

^^^^

Both Gaudreau's and Bennett's line could stand a player that can keep the puck, provide options to the offensive players, and get it back if they lose it.  Johnny's biggest problem was not having enough options.  So, you are right, he tried to do too much himself.   If he's carrying it in, there needs to be supporting players getting open for a pass.  Or the little chip in from just inside the line.  At least he had Monahan, though.  Bennett had very little to work with.

 

If Bennett goes to the wing, then why not with Backlund.  The only problem I see with that is we either get Stajan as the 3rd line center or we get Lazar.  Gully has said that Lazar may player either the wing or center or both.  Depending on circumstances.

 

Honestly, apart from his salary, the best fit for Brouwer (IMHO) is with Stajan (LW) and Janko (C).  Maybe Versteeg on RW if you are sitting out Stajan.  I do think it's time that we graduate at least one AHL player.  At least one.  Poirier is a feel-good story, and I hope he can get his game back.     

[MAC331]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

^^^^

Both Gaudreau's and Bennett's line could stand a player that can keep the puck, provide options to the offensive players, and get it back if they lose it.  Johnny's biggest problem was not having enough options.  So, you are right, he tried to do too much himself.   If he's carrying it in, there needs to be supporting players getting open for a pass.  Or the little chip in from just inside the line.  At least he had Monahan, though.  Bennett had very little to work with.

 

If Bennett goes to the wing, then why not with Backlund.  The only problem I see with that is we either get Stajan as the 3rd line center or we get Lazar.  Gully has said that Lazar may player either the wing or center or both.  Depending on circumstances.

 

Honestly, apart from his salary, the best fit for Brouwer (IMHO) is with Stajan (LW) and Janko (C).  Maybe Versteeg on RW if you are sitting out Stajan.  I do think it's time that we graduate at least one AHL player.  At least one.  Poirier is a feel-good story, and I hope he can get his game back.     

Sorry conundrum but I will bet my bottom dollar Bennett doesn't move to the wing. if there is a C that goes to the W or the press box it will be Stajan IMO. If Jankowski pushes his way onto the team it will be as a C of the 4th line. They may use that 4th line for all kinds of different scenarios against certain teams but they need to get the top 9 this season. The one player nobody wants to consider for the top line (other than me) is Lazar. I have watched him play and he has good size, is a passer/playmaker, knows where to find space and can score. I would like to see this set tried.

Gaudreau, Monahan, Lazar

Ferland, Backlund, Frolik

Tkachuk, Bennett, Versteeg

Stajan, Jankowski, Brouwer

Gadzic, Hamilton

[cross16]

As much as I am a big proponent of Bennett at center i don't think him going to the wing is that far fetched and in fact its probably what they would do first. Bennett was drafted and thought of as an offensive forward and while you'd love to get that production out of center ice, you aren't likely going to get it if he's playing with Versteeg, Brouwer, Lazar etc. 

The flames need more production 5 on 5 and they need more out of Bennett. Probably the easiest way to do that is to move on on the wing in the top 6. Probably not how they will start but a very possible scenario. 

[MAC331]

15 hours ago, cross16 said:

As much as I am a big proponent of Bennett at center i don't think him going to the wing is that far fetched and in fact its probably what they would do first. Bennett was drafted and thought of as an offensive forward and while you'd love to get that production out of center ice, you aren't likely going to get it if he's playing with Versteeg, Brouwer, Lazar etc. 

The flames need more production 5 on 5 and they need more out of Bennett. Probably the easiest way to do that is to move on on the wing in the top 6. Probably not how they will start but a very possible scenario. 

Interesting you mention the 3 possible RWers but what are your thoughts for what Tkachuk would bring as a line partner ? I look at the possibility of Tkachuk and Bennett starting the season together, we need to find out if this could be something that keeps Bennett a C. He is more valuable to us as a C and if this combo doesn't work GG can consider alternatives.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Interesting you mention the 3 possible RWers but what are your thoughts for what Tkachuk would bring as a line partner ? I look at the possibility of Tkachuk and Bennett starting the season together, we need to find out if this could be something that keeps Bennett a C. He is more valuable to us as a C and if this combo doesn't work GG can consider alternatives.

 

If you are going with Tkachuk-Bennett, then my feeling is that a skill player is the best choice to complement them.  Someone that thinks the game at a high level.  For some reason, Lazar doesn't strike me that way.  I think Lazar would be better suited playing with a distributer.  

 

Here's some crazy talk.  Play Lazar on Backlund's line and Versteeg (or Foo) on Bennett's line.

Frolik-Backlund-Lazar

Tkachuk-Bennett-Versteeg(Foo)

 

Lazar drives to the net and has great setup guys.  He already has 2-way abilities, but he plays with stable, talented guys.  

Bennett gets a crap disturber on one side to draw the defense, while Versteeg is distributing them on the right.  I added Foo in the mix if he is NHL ready, as he seems to me to be a similar player to Versteeg.  

[kehatch]

Another outside the box one that likely won't happen. 

 

Gaudreau-Bennett-Brouwer

• I have always liked the potential match of Gaudrea with Bennett.  In some ways they are redundant.  But I am always a fan of combining skill with skill.  
• Brouwer gives you the net presence.  
• If you want to get Bennett and Brouwer both going this is a good way to do it

Tkachuk-Monahan-Versteeg

• Tkachuk and Versteeg are both play makers and Monahan is the teams best finisher.  

Ferland-Backlund-Frolik

• Backlund and Frolik are obvious.  Ferland is a good 2-way player with finishing ability.  

Hamilton-Stajan-Lazar

• This is a functional fourth line with some bite, energy, and the ability to take d-zone draws when needed

 

This combination gives you a spark plug on each line (Bennett, Tkachuk, Ferland, Hamilton).  it also gives you three solid lines.  

[conundrumed]

In this Calgary Herald interview, GG intends to start Ferland at 1st line RW:

 

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames/qa-flames-coach-glen-gulutzan-excited-by-solid-defence-maturing-forwards

 

To me, it sounds like we're going to stay status quo from last year. It's not really what I want us to do, but I'm not going to pretend I know better than the org, lol.

I'd like us to get creative re Bennett and Jankowski, as I don't think breaking up the 3M line is in the cards.

I would rather get Janksy 12 minutes/gm as a winger vs 6-8 minutes as a 4C.

[travel_dude]

26 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

In this Calgary Herald interview, GG intends to start Ferland at 1st line RW:

 

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hockey/nhl/calgary-flames/qa-flames-coach-glen-gulutzan-excited-by-solid-defence-maturing-forwards

 

To me, it sounds like we're going to stay status quo from last year. It's not really what I want us to do, but I'm not going to pretend I know better than the org, lol.

I'd like us to get creative re Bennett and Jankowski, as I don't think breaking up the 3M line is in the cards.

I would rather get Janksy 12 minutes/gm as a winger vs 6-8 minutes as a 4C.

 

If Janko ends up as the #4C, then he will get more than 8 minutes.  Whether that be on the PK or just the balancing off lines, he should get closer to 12.  Stajan averaged 12 in each of the last 3 seasons.