Is Motte becoming a top 6 guy????

[N4ZZY]

6 hours ago, NaveJoseph said:

I don't look at him as top 6, but he is our best bottom 6 forward.

That trade was so worth it.

totally worth it. 

 

[UKNuck96]

1 hour ago, N4ZZY said:

totally worth it. 

 

Re reading the trade thread is hilarious with hindsight 

[UKNuck96]

Go read Here on the trade thread (page 3) and have a guess who was the first person to call out good trade and liking motte

 

@oldnews

[IBatch]

15 hours ago, oldnews said:

I honestly couldn't care less.

"Top 6" / "bottom 6" / "top 4"/ "3rd pairing" are increasingly meaningless terms in the present NHL.

 

The reality is that the young highly talented players -  as expected - are not really close to ready to winning the "possession" game at the NHL level.

So you need a 'bottom 6' that can generate 'territory' - or you're getting killed at the 'top' and 'bottom' ends of your lineup.   Miller was an epic - and as perfect as they come acquisition to fit with this group, so the principal matter was 'solved' imo when they pulled that off.  I'll get to Horvat's line later.

 

Why would you want to take a player with results like this:

 

30.4% ozone starts (only Beagle is lower)

50.0% corsi (6th on the team)

5 goals (tied for 1st), 5pts (5th).

+3 (2nd best on the team).

34 hits - leads the team by a large margin

3.9 on ice goals for per 60, 2.2 against

+1.7 on ice goals per 60 is 3rd best on the team (Virtanen 3.1/0.6 = +2.5, Beagle 4.8/2.7 = +2.1)

 

That incredibly valuable when your bottom six generates outcomes like that.

And further - it takes a ton of pressure off the young players.

 

The idea of moving Motte into the top 6 only makes sense if 1) the top 6 is broken or 2) you are deadset determined to 'reward' him.

 

I'm pretty sure that a coach like Green makes it patently clear to everyone that a player's 'value' is not dictated by semantics ("top 6") or misleading 'rank'.

 

The team needs Motte right where he is - more than they need to take away one of the huge advantages he provides - the ability to turn pucks in the dzone into possession (and faceoffs) in the ozone.  The exception to that - the one idea in this thread that I agree with - is that he could make sense on Horvat's wing - when Horvat is drawn into principally shutdown/matchup duty.  For me that is the worst case scenario for Horvat's line - and is typically dictated by injuries to other centers - and the need to shelter a line centered by Gaudette, at the same time as tiliting the ice for EP's line...  Leave Sutter and Beagle centering the "bottom six" lines - and Horvat's is freed to play in more opportune circumstances - and leave that line as it is.   Additionally - Hoglander is a very adept without the puck - a good young defensive forward for his 'stage' of development, and Pearson is a capable secondary penalty killer - so Horvat's line in matchup is not without capable defensive wingers.

 

"If it aint broke, don't 'fix' it."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best post i've read today so far.   

[GetFocht]

I still think TG should play him in Pearson's spot for a few game with Bo and the Hog.

[Baratheon]

I voted yes as in "time to promote him" (3rd line/more minutes) but no I do not believe he should play on one of the top two lines.

[TheNewGM]

Motte is elite penalty killer, but not a top 6. I bet he would not look as good against top lines from other teams in an offensive role. 5v5

[xereau]

No, he is just becoming an elite bottom 6 guy.

[erkayloomeh]

Its not that people don't believe he can't play top 6, its that they don't want to give him up from the bottom six.

If a top six isn't performing they get dropped so why not promote a guy like Motte.? 

It also speaks to the team about getting rewarded for hard work.

If it doesn't work out you can move him back down. 

 

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, TheNewGM said:

Motte is elite penalty killer, but not a top 6. I bet he would not look as good against top lines from other teams in an offensive role. 5v5

This doesn't make sense wadr.

 

First, it's premature to cap a player's ceiling as you have, particularly a player that works as hard and has such a good skill foundation as Motte.

 

Second, the idea that he wouldn't "look as good" against "top lines" is a contradiction/oblivious to who he already faces night in night out.  Motte is a prinicipal penalty killer - an 'elite' one as you say - which is precisely facing 'top lines' - actually top pp units tend to be better than 'top lines' they are the hybrid of a team's most threatening offensive players.  He plays hard minutes all the time 5 on 5 - as a principal shutdown forward - so the idea '5v5' doesn't hold water either - those are the players he is already counterpunching and producing against - up tilted ice - which when people truly think about it - is production in the hardest of roles for any player.  Some people make the errroneous assumption that Horvat's  is the 'real' matchup line - reductive in more than one sense.  First - Horvat's is a dual role line - second, most/all opponents have a "top 6" - which means Horvat, even strictly in a matchup role, could only handle half the responsibility at best - and in the present NHL, many if not most teams look to have a 3rd scoring/secondary scoring line.

 

If you're going to claim that he wouldn't look as good - imo the inverse is the truth - that if that were the case, it might be a result of not facing an opponent's "top line" - but instead facing an opponents top matchup/shutdown pairings and lines - but again, even that 'idea' has serious limits.   While opposing coaches might tend to matchup particular units - against 'top lines' (assuming that opposing coach is a line matching coach -not all are) - the reality is that the ability to do so is still limited - particularly on the road - and in reality - most players face a range of opponent lines and pairings regardless of the intentions of each coach.  One of the most meaningless - perhaps the most meaningless - and somewhat useless metrics - is the quality of competition metric - which pretends to assess the 'quality' of on ice opponents (and create an aggregate) while employing relatively elementary 'analytics'.   An opponents 'quality' cannot be reduced to goal or shot differentials - it is nowhere near that simple - there are countless factors/elements to the game - and these kind of qoc metrics are hopelessly reductive/oversimplified.   They have very strong production/"possession' biases - and generally result in the sandbagging of primarily defensive role players.

 

Motte faces all kinds of "top lines" as it is - and he does so at a very weighted territorial disadvantage.  Players like that - particularly younger ones - are actually your best bets to uptick - they are the ones whose production is generally deflated by deployment - and whose foundation of a defensive/two way game actually enables their offensive game - because it limits opposition possession.   "Defense wins championships" is a truism in large part because it tends to have more continuity than offense - offense can come and go - true defensive engagement is and should be continuous.  

 

Even if Motte is not (perceived as) a high quality finisher (which would also not necessarily be an accurate assumption) - the possession advantage that high end defense brings is a mitigating/positive factor - and additionally, presumably when a player like him steps up in the lineup, it's alongside linemates whose strengths lean towards the offensive side of the game.   Most people assume that stepping up makes a player 'look better' by virtue of their linemates (that depends, however, on the complete game - the 200ft game - because a highly talented offensive player that doesn't touch the puck enough - is not necesssarily such a (continuous) threat.

 

It doesn't really hold water to assume that a player like Motte cannot emerge as a top 6.  People in this market might remember the trajectories of Burrows, Hansen, Kesler types - who cut their teeth in bottom six roles before rising in the lineup - and whose 'bottom six' production would not appear to indicate a nascent 'top 6'.

 

Those are the players you 'win with' imo.    You can have a pair of Sedins/EP-Boeser and an Ehrhoff/Hughes - and be a bottomfeeder.  Until you fill out your roster with 'quality' players of all types - two way middle six with players like these guys - fourth lines with Malhotra/Beagle types - hard minutes, pk specialists, high end faceoff guys - shutdown D like Tanev, Hamhuis....you're not really a well-balanced team - and not as likely to contend.

 

For me it doesn't matter where Motte plays - because a 'bottom six' can be more valuable than a 'top 6' = a '3rd line' forward can be more valuable than a '2nd line' forward...

Edited January 29, 2021 by oldnews

[DefCon1]

40 minutes ago, erkayloomeh said:

Its not that people don't believe he can't play top 6, its that they don't want to give him up from the bottom six.

If a top six isn't performing they get dropped so why not promote a guy like Motte.? 

It also speaks to the team about getting rewarded for hard work.

If it doesn't work out you can move him back down. 

 

The reason we need him in the bottom 6 is because we need an elite PKer and also someone that is great at forechecking and reliable in the D zone. Plus we have a lot more offensive players that are liable or not good in the D zone than players like Motte which we only have one. Virtanen, Gaudette, Roussell all are bad in the D zone. Sutter is slow but still reliable like Beagle. It basically means that Motte is more vital to the bottom 6 than our top 6. Plus we have more offensively gifted players playing in our top 6.

[DefCon1]

19 minutes ago, oldnews said:

This doesn't make sense wadr.

 

First, it's premature to cap a player's ceiling as you have, particularly a player that works as hard and has such a good skill foundation as Motte.

 

Second, the idea that he wouldn't "look as good" against "top lines" is a contradiction/oblivious to who he already faces night in night out.  Motte is a prinicipal penalty killer - an 'elite' one as you say - which is precisely facing 'top lines' - actually top pp units tend to be better than 'top lines' they are the hybrid of a team's most threatening offensive players.  He plays hard minutes all the time 5 on 5 - as a principal shutdown forward - so the idea '5v5' doesn't hold water either - those are the players he is already counterpunching and producing against - up tilted ice - which when people truly think about it - is production in the hardest of roles for any player.  Some people make the errroneous assumption that Horvat's  is the 'real' matchup line - reductive in more than one sense.  First - Horvat's is a dual role line - second, most/all opponents have a "top 6" - which means Horvat, even strictly in a matchup role, could only handle half the responsibility at best - and in the present NHL, many if not most teams look to have a 3rd scoring/secondary scoring line.

 

If you're going to claim that he wouldn't look as good - imo the inverse is the truth - that if that were the case, it might be a result of not facing an opponent's "top line" - but instead facing an opponents top matchup/shutdown pairings and lines - but again, even that 'idea' has serious limits.   While opposing coaches might tend to matchup particular units - against 'top lines' (assuming that opposing coach is a line matching coach -not all are) - the reality is that the ability to do so is still limited - particularly on the road - and in reality - most players face a range of opponent lines and pairings regardless of the intentions of each coach.  One of the most meaningless - perhaps the most meaningless - and somewhat useless metrics - is the quality of competition metric - which pretends to assess the 'quality' of on ice opponents (and create an aggregate) while employing relatively elementary 'analytics'.   An opponents 'quality' cannot be reduced to goal or shot differentials - it is nowhere near that simple - there are countless factors/elements to the game - and these kind of qoc metrics are hopelessly reductive/oversimplified.   They have very strong production/"possession' biases - and generally result in the sandbagging of primarily defensive role players.

 

Motte faces all kinds of "top lines" as it is - and he does so at a very weighted territorial disadvantage.  Players like that - particularly younger ones - are actually your best bets to uptick - they are the ones whose production is generally deflated by deployment - and whose foundation of a defensive/two way game actually enables their offensive game - because it limits opposition possession.   "Defense wins championships" is a truism in large part because it tends to have more continuity than offense - offense can come and go - true defensive engagement is and should be continuous.  

 

Even if Motte is not (perceived as) a high quality finisher (which would also not necessarily be an accurate assumption) - the possession advantage that high end defense brings is a mitigating/positive factor - and additionally, presumably when a player like him steps up in the lineup, it's alongside linemates whose strengths lean towards the offensive side of the game.   Most people assume that stepping up makes a player 'look better' by virtue of their linemates (that depends, however, on the complete game - the 200ft game - because a highly talented offensive player that doesn't touch the puck enough - is not necesssarily such a (continuous) threat.

 

It doesn't really hold water to assume that a player like Motte cannot emerge as a top 6.  People in this market might remember the trajectories of Burrows, Hansen, Kesler types - who cut their teeth in bottom six roles before rising in the lineup - and whose 'bottom six' production would not appear to indicate a nascent 'top 6'.

 

Those are the players you 'win with' imo.    You can have a pair of Sedins/EP-Boeser and an Ehrhoff/Hughes - and be a bottomfeeder.  Until you fill out your roster with 'quality' players of all types - two way middle six with players like these guys - fourth lines with Malhotra/Beagle types - hard minutes, pk specialists, high end faceoff guys - shutdown D like Tanev, Hamhuis....you're not really a well-balanced team - and not as likely to contend.

 

For me it doesn't matter where Motte plays - because a 'bottom six' can be more valuable than a 'top 6' = a '3rd line' forward can be more valuable than a '2nd line' forward...

True that Motte could become like a Burrows type player but we had better two way players in the bottom 6 back in 2011 like Higgins, Malhotra etc. We cant have Motte in the top 6 now though since our bottom 6 with inconsistent players like Virtanen, Gaudette and Roussell already look terrible. Now imagine taking Motte off and inserting another liability that cant help our weak defense. I also doubt Motte will get a chance in the top 6 in the future due to arrivals of players like Podkolzin, Hoglander etc. 

[oldnews]

54 minutes ago, DefCon1 said:

True that Motte could become like a Burrows type player but we had better two way players in the bottom 6 back in 2011 like Higgins, Malhotra etc. We cant have Motte in the top 6 now though since our bottom 6 with inconsistent players like Virtanen, Gaudette and Roussell already look terrible. Now imagine taking Motte off and inserting another liability that cant help our weak defense. I also doubt Motte will get a chance in the top 6 in the future due to arrivals of players like Podkolzin, Hoglander etc. 

Beagle, Sutter, MacEwen, Virtanen, Roussel are not 'weak' or inconsistent bottom six players.

 

Wadr - it's the top 6 - particularly the top line - and Hughes-  that have been getting beaten up on the defensive side of the game 5on5.  Look at the 5on5 'possession' numbers and the goal differentials and it should be exceedingly clear.

 

Gaudette is not a shutdown forward - that much is true - but with Miller back in the top 6, Horvat on the second, and those two veterans centering the bottom 6 - they don't necessarily need as much 'foundation', as desperately.

 

At the same time - no, the they don't need to move Motte into the top 6 - he's arguably better used and more valuable where he is.

Edited January 29, 2021 by oldnews

[N4ZZY]

11 hours ago, UKNuck96 said:

Re reading the trade thread is hilarious with hindsight 

haha i'm sure it is. 

 

it's why Benning is the GM, and we aren't. Sometimes as a fan we think we know better than the professionals. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't. 

[Boudrias]

On 1/28/2021 at 12:53 PM, oldnews said:

I honestly couldn't care less.

"Top 6" / "bottom 6" / "top 4"/ "3rd pairing" are increasingly meaningless terms in the present NHL.

 

The reality is that the young highly talented players -  as expected - are not really close to ready to winning the "possession" game at the NHL level.

So you need a 'bottom 6' that can generate 'territory' - or you're getting killed at the 'top' and 'bottom' ends of your lineup.   Miller was an epic - and as perfect as they come acquisition to fit with this group, so the principal matter was 'solved' imo when they pulled that off.  I'll get to Horvat's line later.

 

Why would you want to take a player with results like this:

 

30.4% ozone starts (only Beagle is lower)

50.0% corsi (6th on the team)

5 goals (tied for 1st), 5pts (5th).

+3 (2nd best on the team).

34 hits - leads the team by a large margin

3.9 on ice goals for per 60, 2.2 against

+1.7 on ice goals per 60 is 3rd best on the team (Virtanen 3.1/0.6 = +2.5, Beagle 4.8/2.7 = +2.1)

 

That incredibly valuable when your bottom six generates outcomes like that.

And further - it takes a ton of pressure off the young players.

 

The idea of moving Motte into the top 6 only makes sense if 1) the top 6 is broken or 2) you are deadset determined to 'reward' him.

 

I'm pretty sure that a coach like Green makes it patently clear to everyone that a player's 'value' is not dictated by semantics ("top 6") or misleading 'rank'.

 

The team needs Motte right where he is - more than they need to take away one of the huge advantages he provides - the ability to turn pucks in the dzone into possession (and faceoffs) in the ozone.  The exception to that - the one idea in this thread that I agree with - is that he could make sense on Horvat's wing - when Horvat is drawn into principally shutdown/matchup duty.  For me that is the worst case scenario for Horvat's line - and is typically dictated by injuries to other centers - and the need to shelter a line centered by Gaudette, at the same time as tiliting the ice for EP's line...  Leave Sutter and Beagle centering the "bottom six" lines - and Horvat's is freed to play in more opportune circumstances - and leave that line as it is.   Additionally - Hoglander is a very adept without the puck - a good young defensive forward for his 'stage' of development, and Pearson is a capable secondary penalty killer - so Horvat's line in matchup is not without capable defensive wingers.

 

"If it aint broke, don't 'fix' it."

 

 

 

 

 

 

A question might be, where does Motte see himself playing? Does he want a shot at top 6? He was a great scorer in his Hobey Baker run off. Top 6 always pays more money. I highly doubt/hope the coaches know where his head is. Benning has to resign him and it will cost more no matter where he plays. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Boudrias

[BarnBurner]

34 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

A question might be, where does Motte see himself playing? Does he want a shot at top 6? He was a great scorer in his Hobey Baker run off. Top 6 always pays more money. I highly doubt/hope the coaches know where his head is. Benning has to resign him and it will cost more no matter where he plays. 

I think he sees himself as an elite player. His heart and soul is elite, and his skill is way above average. Where he ends up, who knows. But you have to be open to the possibilities, and so do our coaches, management and ownership. Look, if the guy appears out of 'nowhere' and is doing way better than anyone expected, you give the guy the chance. You don't suppress them and hold them back.. Let's see what they got.

[erkayloomeh]

2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

A question might be, where does Motte see himself playing? Does he want a shot at top 6? He was a great scorer in his Hobey Baker run off. Top 6 always pays more money. I highly doubt/hope the coaches know where his head is. Benning has to resign him and it will cost more no matter where he plays. 

Thats a good point.   

If im Motte, and I feel my performance warrants it (and it does) then I want  promoted and have a chance to crack the top 6 and advance my career. 

And really thats what should probably happen. 

I was highly impressed with him in the playoffs. 

I understand the deployment issues but if he were to stay in the top six, we could make a trade with a virtanen type for a top notch bottom sixer 

[gregthehockeynut]

 Motte thrives in part because he gets favorable D matchups at even strength. If he was moved up and faced the

top shutdown D on a regular basis he would not put up these numbers as he has recently. I love the guy but Green

is deploying him where he will succeed.

[N4ZZY]

15 minutes ago, gregthehockeynut said:

 Motte thrives in part because he gets favorable D matchups at even strength. If he was moved up and faced the

top shutdown D on a regular basis he would not put up these numbers as he has recently. I love the guy but Green

is deploying him where he will succeed.

I think this is true. I don't think Motte would succeed in a top six role. He's great at where he's at right now. Might be a decent third liner, but he's a great fourth line guy. 

 

 

[ilduce39]

19 hours ago, UKNuck96 said:

Go read Here on the trade thread (page 3) and have a guess who was the first person to call out good trade and liking motte

 

@oldnews

Wow - didn’t remember people being so down on Motte.  Pretty extreme reaction. 
 

Funny how a lot of that played out.  People were over the moon with guys like Dahlen and Goldobin. 
 

Crapped all over Motte and I remember the CA guys harping on us “throwing away a contract” for signing MacEwen. (for free!). We also signed Chatfield way back around then too, to not very much fanfare.  (Albeit not nearly as obnoxiously negative.)