HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Nashville Predators (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Fan Bio on Dan Hamhuis (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=794731)

Lucbourdon 07-01-2010 10:03 PM

Fan Bio on Dan Hamhuis
 
Hey guys, Canucks fan here.

Can somebody give us a in depth review on dan hamhuis, I know he is a very good hip checker, and a solid top 3 guy, just wondering what kind of things does he bring?, pk?, pp?, hockey sense?, etc.

Just want to know from a Nashville opinion, thanks!

oreilly22 07-01-2010 10:20 PM

Hamhuis can eat up a ton of minutes, and was pretty reliable doing so. We used him heavily on the penalty kill and even strength. He is by nature very quiet. I'll never forget one year with Mason in net he swept the puck right into the back of our own net trying to keep it away from the player he was covering. Mason wasn't expecting this because he received no warning from Hammer. He can be physical, but usually opts for a poke check. Very good character guy too.

triggrman 07-01-2010 10:23 PM

His positives:

Awesome open ice checker and has a killer hipcheck. Plays with an edge at times. Is a good penalty killer doesn't mind blocking shots. Has a good first pass and decent vision. Has no problem with fast forwards and has a very active stick.

Negatives?

Struggles some holding the puck in the offensive zone. Has a tendancy to make bone headed plays with the puck and has struggled with turnovers. Goes through the motions sometimes losing his edge. Can be manhandled in front of the net. Has a bad habit of redirecting the puck onto his own goalie, he's had a few "own goals"

All and all, he's s good number 2 guy or a really good 3 guy.

barrytrotzsneck 07-01-2010 10:36 PM

Good: super nice guy, does a lot in the community. Softspoken and shy, he's not going to disrupt a lockerroom. On most nights, he's solid and steady. Type of guy you don't really notice when he's on--in a good way.

Bad: Struggled with consistency over the past two years. Not much of a communicator, so needs to be paired with someone who can "take charge." Has an infuriating tendency to play the puck rather than body, and as a result, he'll get turned inside out more than you'd like by a forward with decent puck skills. As Trig alluded, he was the worst defenseman in front of hte net in recent memory, with the exception of Greg Zanon. He's more likely to tip a puck into his own goal(after screening his goalie,) or worse yet, get plowed back INTO the goalie than he is clear the crease.

All in all...4.5 seems to be the going rate for second pairing d-men, he's about a million over where I'd put his actual worth, but the Canucks have the money and there were other offers. Take the good with the bad, and on most nights you'll like having him.

clyankees47 07-01-2010 10:53 PM

We all know that Suter and Weber are better d-men offensively and overall compared to Hamhuis. But if we were talking strictly from a defensive standpoint, how would you guys rank Suter, Weber, and Hamhuis?

PredsV82 07-01-2010 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clyankees47 (Post 26687023)
We all know that Suter and Weber are better d-men offensively and overall compared to Hamhuis. But if we were talking strictly from a defensive standpoint, how would you guys rank Suter, Weber, and Hamhuis?

1. Suter
2.Weber
3. Hamhuis

(sorry, but those two are better than hamhuis, both offensively and defensively)

Hammer is solid most of the time but will make you want to scream when he does screw up. If Luongo bails out his occasional mistakes you'll probably not be disappointed, at least not until you need an extra 2 mil to sign someone else and realize its tied up in hamhuis.

i guess the best i can come up with is most nights he wont hurt you, he'll make more "oh, wow" plays than he will "oh crap" plays, and as long as you arent expecting him to be a game changer or that one missing piece that wins it all for you, you probably wont be disappointed

clyankees47 07-01-2010 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PredsV82 (Post 26687516)
1. Suter
2.Weber
3. Hamhuis

(sorry, but those two are better than hamhuis, both offensively and defensively)

Hammer is solid most of the time but will make you want to scream when he does screw up. If Luongo bails out his occasional mistakes you'll probably not be disappointed, at least not until you need an extra 2 mil to sign someone else and realize its tied up in hamhuis.

i guess the best i can come up with is most nights he wont hurt you, he'll make more "oh, wow" plays than he will "oh crap" plays, and as long as you arent expecting him to be a game changer or that one missing piece that wins it all for you, you probably wont be disappointed

Is that gap between Weber and Hamhuis at least close?

Dunzo 07-01-2010 11:27 PM

considering he played almost double the time Weber did on the PK, and his quality of competition was higher than Weber's

I think Trotz at least considered Hamhuis to be better defensively than Weber

definitely a notch below Suter though

Legionnaire11 07-01-2010 11:30 PM

Hamhuis was supposed to be Weber/Suter when he was drafted. And his first couple of seasons when he was paired with Jason York it seemed like he was on his way there. Then he was passed by Weber and Suter and was depended on as more of a defensive d-man.

He can do it all, he just isn't asked to anymore. Does make mistakes, does go into the occasional funk for a few games. Will be interesting to see how he holds up to the scrutiny in Vancouver. He seems more like a small market personality.

Enoch 07-01-2010 11:41 PM

You can try to explain it, but no....Weber and Suter were vastly superior to Hamhuis defensively.

Que Sera Sera 07-02-2010 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clyankees47 (Post 26687766)
Is that gap between Weber and Hamhuis at least close?

Sorry, but no.

predfan24 07-02-2010 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dunzo (Post 26687975)
considering he played almost double the time Weber did on the PK, and his quality of competition was higher than Weber's

I think Trotz at least considered Hamhuis to be better defensively than Weber

definitely a notch below Suter though

I would say no. Yes to Hamhuis being a better PK'er than Weber but the gap isn't that huge. Weber got huge even strength and PP minutes so Trotz has to cut his minutes somewhere. Overall Weber is better than Hamhuis defensively.

I came into this thread expecting to disagree with a lot people but I must admit I think the analysis has been spot on. Another thing to add about Hamhuis is as said before he definitely plays better with a edge. He also is a very cool and calm player and while that is a huge asset sometimes it's a liability when he becomes to complacent or comfortable.

His skating is top notch and no forward dares try to beat him with speed wide along the wall. When they do they get Hammy's patented hipcheck. In fact between Hamhuis and Ballard I think you guys will be seeing plenty of hipchecks.

Lucbourdon 07-02-2010 01:18 AM

who's a more physical player?, weber or hamhuis?

Seth Lake 07-02-2010 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucbourdon (Post 26690550)
who's a more physical player?, weber or hamhuis?

Weber. It's not even close.

Hamhuis simply doesn't compare well to either Weber or Suter. They are both in that No. 1 defenseman echelon and Hamhuis is an excellent No. 3 and above-average No. 2.

triggrman 07-02-2010 07:53 AM

yeah, there's not much Hamhuis does better than either Suter or Weber. I like Hamhuis but he's not in their league.

He might be a better penalty killer than Weber, we don't know. Trotz had to limit his minutes somewhere and it seems the pk is where he does it.

He is not more physical then either really. He's a better open ice hitter than Suter but along the boards and up front Suter wins. Weber is dominating physically, it's not fair to compare Hamhuis with him when that's one of the best parts of Weber's game.

Here's the best I can come up with.

If Weber and Suter are Crosby, you just signed Patrick Kane. Still a good player just not elite.

Enoch 07-02-2010 08:29 AM

Strengths:
- Excellent stick work, able to use his stick to break up many oncoming rushes
- Sound positionally
- Reliable on the penalty kill
- Good first pass
- Above average skater, with smooth strides
- Able to wow you with a big open ice hit or hip-check on the boards
- Willing to protect the net unfortunately see below

Flaws:
- Relies too much on his stick work, rather than physical play
- Lack of creativity and consistency on the powerplay (most of Dan's problems came from misplaying the puck at the blueline on the powerplay).
- Makes poor reads on holding the puck in
- Gets beaten up around the net

All in all, Dan is a solid 2 way defenseman. His biggest strengths are his smarts/positioning/stick-work. His biggest weakness is his inconsistency both offensively and on a game to game basis, as well as his tendency to get beaten by stick-handlers who punish him for trusting to stickwork rather than physical play. He is a hard player to give a scouting report on because for about the first 50 games last year, he was one of the Predator's worst players. When he is playing well, he can be a number 2 defenseman. However, I think he is too inconsistent to be relied upon in this role. Think number 3 d-man, with loads of PK-ability, adequate offense, and good character. He is a good player, but at 4.5 million, he most definitely did not fit into our plans.

TMI 07-02-2010 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrytrotzsneck (Post 26686596)
Good: super nice guy, does a lot in the community. Softspoken and shy, he's not going to disrupt a lockerroom. On most nights, he's solid and steady. Type of guy you don't really notice when he's on--in a good way.

Bad: Struggled with consistency over the past two years. Not much of a communicator, so needs to be paired with someone who can "take charge." Has an infuriating tendency to play the puck rather than body, and as a result, he'll get turned inside out more than you'd like by a forward with decent puck skills. As Trig alluded, he was the worst defenseman in front of hte net in recent memory, with the exception of Greg Zanon. He's more likely to tip a puck into his own goal(after screening his goalie,) or worse yet, get plowed back INTO the goalie than he is clear the crease.

All in all...4.5 seems to be the going rate for second pairing d-men, he's about a million over where I'd put his actual worth, but the Canucks have the money and there were other offers. Take the good with the bad, and on most nights you'll like having him.

This is pretty dead-on. Hamhuis is a very serviceable net protector. He knows where to be, but I think sometimes he is too smart without the necessary confidence. Communication is a factor with Hammer, so keeping a spoken blueliner with him is the best way to keep him at his best.

As far as ranking him with Webs and Sutes... it's Suter and Weber almost neck-and-neck... and then it's Hammer. Not even close. We are a team who builds from the net and out. Take letting Hamhuis go for what it's worth with that in mind.

barrytrotzsneck 07-02-2010 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by triggrman (Post 26693331)
yeah, there's not much Hamhuis does better than either Suter or Weber. I like Hamhuis but he's not in their league.

He might be a better penalty killer than Weber, we don't know. Trotz had to limit his minutes somewhere and it seems the pk is where he does it.

He is not more physical then either really. He's a better open ice hitter than Suter but along the boards and up front Suter wins. Weber is dominating physically, it's not fair to compare Hamhuis with him when that's one of the best parts of Weber's game.

Here's the best I can come up with.

If Weber and Suter are Crosby, you just signed Patrick Kane. Still a good player just not elite.

I think Weber\Suter - Crosby, Hamhuis would be more like a 25 goal scorer. If you'd say Weber\Suter are superstar defensemen, and I'd say they are, comparing Hamhuis to Kane would still put him as a "star" defenseman. I think he's a good to defenseman to very good defenseman, depending on the night, but I'd stop short of calling him a star.

TMI 07-02-2010 08:56 AM

Also a good point raised is Hammer's PK minutes. He got a ton here, especially last season. I feel the only reason for this is Webs and Sutes got so many minutes in ES time.

kakemono 07-02-2010 10:11 AM

I would like to add that it seems Hamhius will play to the level of competition many times.


Also, just make sure he gets to match up with Thorton when you play the Sharks. He seems to ALWAYS get into it with Thorton. In fact, he seems to stir things up only with higher level players - always seems to step it up and get fiesty when he is out there with going against the top level players.

dulzhok 07-02-2010 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdManIn (Post 26693887)
Also a good point raised is Hammer's PK minutes. He got a ton here, especially last season.

It should also be noted that our PK was ranked 28th last year with him leading the way.

I don't think he's anywhere close to a 4.5m defenseman. His best years were with Timonen, which makes life easier.

He'll give you about 10 good hipchecks a year... other than that, he's not physical. Not much of any presence in front of the net. He can move the puck up ice pretty good and has good positioning. He's prone to turnovers and gets beat one-on-one pretty regularly (despite good positioning).

I'm not the biggest fan. If it was me, I'd much rather have Michalek or Volchenkov. Hamhuis may be able to move the puck a little better, but their physical play and reliable defense make them more appealing to me.

TMI 07-02-2010 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dulzhok (Post 26696060)
It should also be noted that our PK was ranked 28th last year with him leading the way.

I don't think he's anywhere close to a 4.5m defenseman. His best years were with Timonen, which makes life easier.

He'll give you about 10 good hipchecks a year... other than that, he's not physical. Not much of any presence in front of the net. He can move the puck up ice pretty good and has good positioning. He's prone to turnovers and gets beat one-on-one pretty regularly (despite good positioning).

I'm not the biggest fan. If it was me, I'd much rather have Michalek or Volchenkov. Hamhuis may be able to move the puck a little better, but their physical play and reliable defense make them more appealing to me.

I won't lie. It's not very often I agree with you. With that said, this is an excellent post. He doesn't use his physicality. Maybe it was a contract year issue, but as far as I'm concerned Hamhuis is a wimp. He can be both great positionally and great physically, but he also seems to limit himself. Athletes are prone to do that, but this is hockey. Not football...

Rakuda 07-02-2010 09:55 PM

Thanks for the info. Nashville fans are knowledgeable and nice... I hope your franchise stays there for a long time. Good luck next season.

Slapshot_11 07-03-2010 06:05 PM

I noticed Hamhuis played more ES and PK then both Suter and Weber in the playoffs.. were they hurt or something or was Hamhuis just playing good?

triggrman 07-03-2010 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slapshot_11 (Post 26730788)
I noticed Hamhuis played more ES and PK then both Suter and Weber in the playoffs.. were they hurt or something or was Hamhuis just playing good?

he generally always played more pk since he spent no or very little time on the powerplay.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.