[projexns]

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

Brouwer would not be a top 6 player here, just because his stats put him in the top 180 players, doesn't make him a top 6 forward on our team. There is more to line structure than points.

Are you only now realizing that this discussion is about valuable components to a line structure, specifically the physical component added to a skill-line to finish checks and wear down defences, win board battles, go to the front of the net, occupy a d-man, screen the goalie, basically do all of the grunt work to create space for the skilled components of the line, and stick up for teammates when needed?

Didn’t all of those players you did a line-by-line comparison with versus Brouwer, a list derived from the the top hitters in the league give you a clue?

At some point production does enter the equation to distinguish degrees of difference between a Callahan, a Brouwer, and an Ott, or what the alternatives to Brouwer are doing in the Blackhawks top six. And from what I see, there aren’t two forwards on this team being more productive with the big four than Brouwer was, and there’s less physicality for opposing defences to worry about.

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

If the team wanted Sharp at C, he would be there, especially this year when we are weak up the middle. I wouldn't mind if he played C, but I wouldn't want Brouwer anchoring that line down like T & K.

This is a really skewed perception. These “anchors” exist throughout the league. The 20 goals and 40 points that Brouwer can provide is ridiculed here. He is a 4th liner. He is not a top-six forward. Blah blah blah.

Last year there were four teams that had only one 20-goal scorer ( Atl, Min, Ott, Phx)
Three teams had only two 20-goal scorers (Edm, Nash, NJ)
Eight teams had only three 20-goal scorers (Ana, Car, Colu, Fla, Mon, Tbay, Van, Wash)
Nine teams had only four 20-goal scorers (Bos, Buff, Cal, Chi, Colo, Dal, det, Pit, Tor)

Top six forwards? 24 teams did not have a 5th or 6th forward that could pot 20 goals, yet you equate 20 goals from Brouwer as that of a 4th-liner.

Last year there was one team that had only one 40-point forward (Ottawa)
Two teams had only three 40-point forwards (Min, NJ)
Seven teams had only four 40-pont forwards (Colo, Edm, Fla, Mon, Nash, Pit, Tor)
13 teams had only five 40-point forwards (Ana, Atl, Car, Chi, Colu, Dal, Det, LA, NYR, Phx, Tbay, Van, Wash)

40 points is not a lot, yet 23 teams could not fill out their top six with that modest level of production. But if it’s from Brouwer, it’s 4th-line production.

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

The numbers are slightly down because Kane is having his worst season since his rookie season, but I'm sure that's because Brouwer isn't there helping him, right?

The comment you are quoting from me says “Any drop in Toews/Kane production is likely to be directly proportional to how much less time they play with Sharp” and this is what you come up with?

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

He didn't strike fear into opponents like say Ott,

Now you made me spit my Fruit Loops all over my computer screen

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

Q tried Campbell on the PP, and Campbell never succeeded, did you watch any of the hockey games when he was here?

You mean the last 30 seconds of a PP that Campbell would get after Toews, Kane and Sharp left the ice ?

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

Why would Q force something like Campbell on the PP

Because he’s been successful at it everywhere he’s played? It’s not like he’s um, just doing OK in Florida, he’s leading NHL defencemen in PP points. Whooops, slight mis-reading of the talent on hand by coach Q.

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

That's funny, Brouwer was playing on our 4th line at times last year, and when the team was fully healthy. He scored 20 goals.

If Q puts Toews on the 4th line does that make Toews a 4th liner or would that be the coach misreading or mishandling his talent?

Side-bar question. There are coaches in this league who get results above and beyond what the talent level would suggest, guys like Tippett, Trotz, Maclean in Ottawa, Hitchcock, etc. Then there are coaches who get less than what the talent on hand would suggest, and guys who are average, no better or worse than the talent they have to work with.

What group would you put Quenneville in ?

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

You're right, let's over pay a guy because he is a top 10 hitter, doesn't bring anything defensively, and disappears offensively for very long stretches....at least while he was here.

I think you’re really having difficulty weighing NHL salaries with NHL production. $2,350,000 was a lot of money 10 years ago, not now.

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

Ott's points per game this season = .526
Brouwers points per game this season (his best year) = .535

They are equal offensively, Ott PK's (better defensively) is tougher, and meaner and is a C.
Both are overpaid about the same.

Ott’s had seasons of 2, 5, 0, 11,19, 22, 12, and 7 goals so far this season. Like I said before, a 29 year-old who had his career year, his statistical anomaly of one 20-goal season, one 40-point season, and now returning to his usual level of production of goals in the low double-digits and point totals somewhere in the 30’s. More of a cheap-shotter and yapper who shies away from the big boys.

And Ott better be good defensively. There’s a reason he’s not a top-six forward. Physical forwards are not always put on scoring lines because of their defence……

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

Neil get's a point every 34.8mins of ice time, Brouwer get's a point every 31mins of ice time. Really not that much difference.

You can’t tell the difference ?

2008-09
Brouwer 69)10-16-26
Neil …....60) 3-7-10

2009-10
Brouwer 78) 22-18-40
Neil…….68)10-12-22

2010-11
Brouwer 79) 17-19-36
Neil ……80) 6-10-16

2011-12
Brouwer 45) 14-10-24
Neil ……39) 7-8-15

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

I can twist that, and say they spent Brouwers money on Carcillo (which was turning out great before the injury) and Carcillo was bringing just as much to the club as Brouwer ever did. Carcillo wouldn't of had 20assists, but was on pace for 26 goals was on pace for 200+ hits, was playing well within our top 6, all for a low cost of 775k.

And this completes your hat-trick of Ott, Neil and Carcillo over Brouwer. Good luck with that moving forward !

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

Here we are again, the team doesn't want Sharp at C.

I’m not concerned with what the ‘Hawks do in the show-business portion of the season, it’s the playoffs that matter. If this is substantially the roster they go with in the playoffs, then the matchups they can get with Toews-Sharp-Bolland down the middle is clearly the way to go.

Originally Posted by Hawkaholic

Look at Vancouver, their shut down C is on their 2nd line, worked well for them last year.

Isn’t Vancouver the worst possible example you could’ve given?
We eliminated them three years ago
We eliminated them two years ago and made Luongo cry.
They went up 3-0 on us with no Bolland in the line-up.
Bolland comes back and we damn near pulled it off.