Tyler Motte | #64 | C/W

[The Lock]

3 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

I'm not looking for bad things. I know every player has flaws, especially the non-elite players.

 

I look for both now and future potential. In Motte's case, I don't particularly see too much upside for the future and obviously I've made it clear how I feel about his current play.

 

And, for what it's worth, today was the first time I looked up his underlying numbers.

So then what exactly are you basing this on then? Anyone can literally look at something and go "I don't think x has future potential". It's certainly an opinion but it doesn't make it an opinion backed by evidence.

 

Anyone can pretend to be an expert, but if your evidence was valid (perhaps if you even actually provided evidence, where is this evidence even?), then you would certainly have more supporters. Not everyone here are just homers. There are a lot of logical people on these boards.

[kanucks25]

58 minutes ago, The Lock said:

So then what exactly are you basing this on then? Anyone can literally look at something and go "I don't think x has future potential". It's certainly an opinion but it doesn't make it an opinion backed by evidence.

 

Anyone can pretend to be an expert, but if your evidence was valid (perhaps if you even actually provided evidence, where is this evidence even?), then you would certainly have more supporters. Not everyone here are just homers. There are a lot of logical people on these boards.

Potential is not something anyone can prove, you're asking me to give you evidence of what's going to happen in the future.

 

All I'm doing is giving my opinion on what I think he will or won't be going forward based on what I've gathered over X years of watching hockey. 

 

It's like when people see Pettersson and claim that he will be even better in a few years once he gains more experience and matures physically and mentally. Nobody has seen the future, but they're making an educated guess based the present mixed with precedence.

 

My argument is that currently, Motte isn't a good player. IMO the numbers I've referenced reflect this. If you believe the numbers don't reflect his actual performance, then we're at an impasse, we can agree to disagree. I also don't believe he'll be much better going forward, but nobody knows for sure, so we can agree to disagree.

[aGENT]

42 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

My argument is that currently, Motte isn't a good player. IMO the numbers I've referenced reflect this.

IMO, you're wrong.

 

These numbers:

 

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

71.3 dZS and 28.7 oZS  with -0.6 G/60

 

Are quite good. Particularly given the conditions/usage/team they're under.

Edited March 14, 2019 by aGENT

[canuck73_3]

3 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

What's Pearson's excuse?  The guy couldn't score with Malkin and Crosby.

 

Remember when you said "I hold anyone's hockey knowledge in very low regard if they can't see the value a player like Gaunce brings to a team".  A few weeks later he was waived, cleared and hasn't been brought back up since.  Stop defending all our trash like some crazed hoarder

He didn't generally play with Crosby, Crosby has mainly played with Rust and Guentzel this season andwhile he never found a groove with the Penguins he improved over his play with the brutal Kings at the start of the season. 

 

It was a simple trade of one player that wasn't finding a fit here for one that wasn't fully finding one there. I see a possible good fit with Person and Jake on a line together. If not he doesn't handicap us in anyway we can not re-sign him or trade him. 

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

IMO, you're wrong.

 

These numbers:

 

 

Are quite good. Particularly given the conditions/usage/team they're under.

We can agree to disagree.

[canuck73_3]

12 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

We can agree to disagree.

You're still wrong wadr

[Kanukfanatic]

8 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

I mean it's possible he improves.

 

But Roussel produced at a high-end 2nd liner level at even-strength while being good defensively, so that's a big jump for Motte.

Roussel is a 3rd liner clearly. If you think he is a high end 2nd liner then your player evaluation is so far off your evaluation of motte does not mean much.

 

Edit: 

Motte is an ok 4th liner and that is it. Roussel, based on points per game like you brought up, is 241st in the league. That means he is a lower level 3rd liner but at least he does bring the annoyance factor. You saying Roussel is a high end 2nd liner is laughable....even though I really like the guy and want him on our 3rd line. 

 

Nice try twisting facts again lol.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Kanukfanatic

[-AJ-]

36 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Roussel is a 3rd liner clearly. If you think he is a high end 2nd liner then your player evaluation is so far off your evaluation of motte does not mean much.

 

Edit: 

Motte is an ok 4th liner and that is it. Roussel, based on points per game like you brought up, is 241st in the league. That means he is a lower level 3rd liner but at least he does bring the annoyance factor. You saying Roussel is a high end 2nd liner is laughable....even though I really like the guy and want him on our 3rd line. 

 

Nice try twisting facts again lol.

I agree, but your stats are a bit skewed, as I suspect you're including defensemen in your points-per-game rankings. Among all forwards with at least 35 games (so players playing at least half the season), he's 178th in points-per-game. Math suggests that there are 186 2nd-line forwards in the league, so that would suggest that he's producing at a low-end 2nd liner level. Even if you lower the restrictions to just 20 games, he falls only down to 182nd.

 

That said, he was still very far from a "high-end 2nd liner", so I agree with that notion and I view Roussel as a high-end 3rd liner, much in the same light I viewed Jannik Hansen for most of his time in Vancouver.

 

I see Motte as a 3rd liner at best and currently floating in between 3rd and 4th line levels.

[Kanukfanatic]

11 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I agree, but your stats are a bit skewed, as I suspect you're including defensemen in your points-per-game rankings. Among all forwards with at least 35 games (so players playing at least half the season), he's 178th in points-per-game. Math suggests that there are 186 2nd-line forwards in the league, so that would suggest that he's producing at a low-end 2nd liner level. Even if you lower the restrictions to just 20 games, he falls only down to 182nd.

 

That said, he was still very far from a "high-end 2nd liner", so I agree with that notion and I view Roussel as a high-end 3rd liner, much in the same light I viewed Jannik Hansen for most of his time in Vancouver.

 

I see Motte as a 3rd liner at best and currently floating in between 3rd and 4th line levels.

Touche.

 

I like numbers....AND I FORGOT THE DAMN DMEN!!!

 

I will go to my room (I don't like making mistakes with numbers lol).

 

Edit: ..but there are only 93 2nd line forwards in the league  

 

hehe. I had to since I got caught with bad mahts....

Edited March 15, 2019 by Kanukfanatic

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Roussel is a 3rd liner clearly. If you think he is a high end 2nd liner then your player evaluation is so far off your evaluation of motte does not mean much.

 

Edit: 

Motte is an ok 4th liner and that is it. Roussel, based on points per game like you brought up, is 241st in the league. That means he is a lower level 3rd liner but at least he does bring the annoyance factor. You saying Roussel is a high end 2nd liner is laughable....even though I really like the guy and want him on our 3rd line. 

 

Nice try twisting facts again lol.

In general I would agree that Roussel is a 3rd liner on a contender.

 

That doesn't change the fact that he had a great year: 94th amongst all forwards in the league in 5-on-5 P/60 (standard minimum 300 TOI).

 

If you consider there are 93 1st liners in the league (31 x 3), then he's at the very top of 2nd liners. In reality, there aren't that many 1st liners in the league, but #94 still puts him at a top-6 level at the very least.

 

You should probably try to fully comprehend what I said before posting; I said "Roussel produced at a high-end 2nd liner level at even-strength while being good defensively" which is a fact. I never said he was a high-end 2nd liner on a contender (mostly because he shouldn't be on a power-play and that would limit his overall point production) but this year he definitely played and produced like one at 5-on-5.

Edited March 15, 2019 by kanucks25

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

You're still wrong wadr

No need to be childish lol, you don't need to win every discussion, especially when it gets to a point where it's impossible to prove yourself right (that Motte would be a valuable player on a good team).

[canuck73_3]

On 3/14/2019 at 7:30 PM, kanucks25 said:

No need to be childish lol, you don't need to win every discussion, especially when it gets to a point where it's impossible to prove yourself right (that Motte would be a valuable player on a good team).

It's not about being childish, you've made a claim with no evidence and were proven wrong with evidence you refuse to acknowledge. Pretty simple, Motte is not a useless player, far from it. And imo he still has some potential so replaceable isn't a fair statement wadr 

Edited August 25, 2019 by canuck73_3

[Kanukfanatic]

55 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

In general I would agree that Roussel is a 3rd liner on a contender.

 

That doesn't change the fact that he had a great year: 94th amongst all forwards in the league in 5-on-5 P/60 (standard minimum 300 TOI).

 

If you consider there are 93 1st liners in the league (31 x 3), then he's at the very top of 2nd liners. In reality, there aren't that many 1st liners in the league, but #94 still puts him at a top-6 level at the very least.

 

You should probably try to fully comprehend what I said before posting; I said "Roussel produced at a high-end 2nd liner level at even-strength while being good defensively" which is a fact. I never said he was a high-end 2nd liner on a contender (mostly because he shouldn't be on a power-play and that would limit his overall point production) but this year he definitely played and produced like one at 5-on-5.

Say whatever you want. Roussel is a 3rd liner. Everyone knows you make up narratives and YOU calling him a HIGH END 2nd liner is made up crap...again.

 

Comprehend numbers before you post.  

 

Edit: it is hilarious how you pick apart stats. You just take one part and try to make an argument. haha nice try to make whatever narrative you want try to fit. Roussel is great as a Canuck. But just like on EVERY team in the NHL...he is a 3rd liner. Take stats class haha..

Edited March 15, 2019 by Kanukfanatic

[Comeback_Kings]

Motte with Pettersson and Boeser because number synergy is a thing :  64 - 40 - 6.

[kanucks25]

22 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Say whatever you want. Roussel is a 3rd liner. Everyone knows you make up narratives and YOU calling him a HIGH END 2nd liner is made up crap...again.

 

Comprehend numbers before you post.  

Again, he produced like a high-end 2nd liner at 5-on-5. The numbers support it, refer to my other posts as to why.

 

There is zero evidence against this claim.

 

I never said he's a high-end 2nd liner on a contender, in general.

 

Those two things are not the same. Again, please comprehend that very easily distinguishable difference.

[Kanukfanatic]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Again, he produced like a high-end 2nd liner at 5-on-5. The numbers support it, refer to my other posts as to why.

 

There is zero evidence against this claim.

 

I never said he's a high-end 2nd liner on a contender, in general.

 

Those two things are not the same. Again, please comprehend that very easily distinguishable difference.

yeah ok pal lol.

 

Roussel is a HIGH END 1st liner due to his "peskiness per 60".  

 

I see how you do that lol. 

 

PS: I love Roussel on this team and what he brings to our 3rd line.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Kanukfanatic

[kanucks25]

43 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

It's not about being childish, you've made a claim with no evidence and we're proven wrong with evidence you refuse to acknowledge. Pretty simple, Motte is not a useless player, far from it. And imo he still has some potential so replaceable isn't a fair statement wadr 

This is how the argument went:

 

Me: look at these numbers, he's at the very bottom of the list out of the 119 players that are deployed similarly to him.

 

You: you can't compare him to other players that play in different roles or on better/other teams.

 

Me: I think his numbers are what they are not because he's on a bad team but because he's a bad player.

 

Now unless we can magically plop him onto a contender right now to see how he fares, we're sort of at an impasse.

 

However you seem very keen on getting in the last word and winning the argument.

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, Kanukfanatic said:

yeah ok pal lol.

 

Roussel is a HIGH END 1st liner due to his "peskiness per 60".  

 

I see how you do that lol. 

 

PS: I love Roussel on this team and what he brings to our 3rd line.

Great rebuttal. Thanks for coming out.

[lmm]

8 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Potential is not something anyone can prove, you're asking me to give you evidence of what's going to happen in the future.

 

All I'm doing is giving my opinion on what I think he will or won't be going forward based on what I've gathered over X years of watching hockey. 

 

It's like when people see Pettersson and claim that he will be even better in a few years once he gains more experience and matures physically and mentally. Nobody has seen the future, but they're making an educated guess based the present mixed with precedence.

 

My argument is that currently, Motte isn't a good player. IMO the numbers I've referenced reflect this. If you believe the numbers don't reflect his actual performance, then we're at an impasse, we can agree to disagree. I also don't believe he'll be much better going forward, but nobody knows for sure, so we can agree to disagree.

Motte reminds me of Jordan Schroeder

[-AJ-]

39 minutes ago, lmm said:

Motte reminds me of Jordan Schroeder

He's a more useful Schroeder. More physical than Schroeder and slightly bigger. At 192 lbs, Motte is actually quite bulky for only being 5'10".