View Single Post
Old
01-25-2013, 08:03 PM
  #320
unbridledid
Registered User
 
unbridledid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawksfan50 View Post
As long as Crawford is good enough -lets acknowledge ONE bad goal a game he shoulda had + ONE more that we cannot blame him on - you can win MOST games giving up only 2 for sure goals a game given our offense...but to achieve that he must make the KEY saves at the right moment to OFFSET the for certatain at least 2 goals we KNOW he is going to give up at least every game...NOW in games where he gives up more than that -it becomes more problematic for us winning those -still if our vauted offense is as good as we think--then we ought to still will 60% of those games we give up 3 or more ..
So the key to Crawford is him limiting as much as possible games where he gives up more than 2 goals--WE KNOW he just is not going to get that many shutouts (No Halak he...) or 1 goal games (because in addition --there is nearly ALWAYS that 1 bad goal he shoulda had) ,but if that is the worst most of the time-he willbe "good enough" for us to contend for the Cup ..Most nights the Hawks should outshoot the opponents and have over 30 shots --most nights....IF we limit oppsing shots to the 24-26 range --so say 25 on average -it means for 2 goals only a game CC must save at a.920 or better save%...THAT then is the issue --he has never sustained that over a an NHL season nor even a GAA of 2 or less ..his best so far has been 2.30 GA per game in 2010/11(his save % was @.917 that year so .920 is not out of the question;that year he faced an average of 27.105 shots per game)...BUT
that was then-this is now and so IF I'm right on the shots against per game we allow on average this year as being ONLY 25 --THEN even duplicating his .917 save % of 2010/11 results in a GAA of 2.075 per game...

So our TEAM can help him keep it at approx 2 goals or only slightly higher IF he can manage between .917 and .920 save% AND we limit teams to near only 25 shots a game..so far in the 3GP he has started CC is at a .923 save% facing 26 shots per game ...His save% probably adjusts down a bit and our TEAM need to tighten up just a bit to get that to only 25 against a game and voila HE SHOULD be able to give us that 2 goals against or very close to it ONLY per game -but since he gets few shut-outs-that will probably be a steady run of mostly 2 goals given up almost every night ...IT will not be like a Halak with many shutouts then some big blow-outs interspered to inflate the GAA and save % to at least human levels from something superhuman...So CC will instead always be "meh" and just "good enough" but good enough MEANS .917-.920 range and means our TEAM cannot let him face many more shots than 25 or so too often. our TEAM can help him as much as he can help the TEAM --not by any kind of brilliance-but simply by TIMELY key saves to offset the bad goal he always will give up and by having a good enough save% for the ***** he does face .He's not going to give us ELITE .930 + goaltending --but he cannot be at .900-.910 or worse --hemust be a "middle" type GOOD ENOUGH goalie -we need .917-.920 or slightly better from him for the not too burdensome shot load our team will place on him...It is not like he'llbe barraged with 35-40 shots a night like Lehtonen has to try to stop.. ALL we ask of CC is be "good enough" ...

(However it would be NICE if we could develop a young stud goalie who CAN give us elite .930+ saving efficiency --we are not goiing to get that unless we get very lucky -if we continue letting other NHL teams pick off the highest rated goalies with round one or early to mid round two picks--it is not a guarantee their relatively high draftees will turn out as "special" elite NHL goalies--but it ought to up the ante for that possibility over gambling that a 3rd-7th rounder will emerge as such .WE did take Kent Simpson in the 2nd round--but that was late 2nd at #58 (and in any case I did not like the pick before the draft when i saw Simpson whiff on a long 50 footer at the World U-18's that spring prior to that draft -that SHOULD have sent up the red flags on him -BUT we have no control for poor judgement of our scouting staff )...
Most hockey experts do not rate the later round goalie picks we tok for the pipeline (Carruth and MATTSSON) as "elite potential" goalies either -or even If they ever "make it" as even an NHL back-up ...SO we NEED to roll the dice for a change and get a goalie rated as worthy of going as a firstrounder or high second rounder .I have already dismissed the much hyped ZACHARY FUCALE -the #1 rated NA goalie by Centrl Scouting whose save% stats simply do NOT justify his high rating despite the fact he pays on the top team in the Q and faces a relativelyeasy low shot total against per game ....THE 2nd rated NA goalie at mid-term is ERIC COMRIE--now OUT FOR THE SEASON with a hip injury requiring surgery --to be hones he too did not excite me and NOW red flag on that injury and how he might recover or not -well it raises RISK ....That leaves the #3 rated goalie in NA--TRISTAN JARRY 6'2 181 (EDM,WHL) -who has been STELLAR but only played in 18 games as the OILKINGS' back-up to vet stasrter Laurrent Brossoit--nevertheless JARRY has BETTER STATS than BROSSOIT--JARRY has an amazing 5 shut-outs in18GP and a stingy 1.60 GAA and a greast.936 save%..but beyond that -he impressedme in his 16 save no goals given up last half of the game duty for losing TEAM CHERRY at the TOP PROSPECTS GAME...I liked both his hybrid style (not the usual butterfly only cookie-cutter goalie) and more so his ATTITUDE excuding CONFIDENCE he COULD stop pucks very efficiently (some of his save were difficult scoring chances for any goalie to stop) -I THINK (my huinch) he has "IT" -a special quality of both talent focus and attitude that will make him that elsusive "Elite" goalie to covet for the pipeline ... My only question is that as the mid-term #3 rated NA goalie plus asdd in the #1 rated eurogoalie (JUUSE SAROS) and he might (as of now) be thought of as "ONLY"
4th goalie taken and so likely to skip by round one into early to mid round 2 instead..
HOWEVER - maybe by FINAL rankings the scouting orgs (AND mist NHL teams) will ADMIT they had ity wrong at mid-term-- and JARRY could be the 1st or 2nd goalie taken off the board in the draft -in ROUND ONE...if that is the cae -willhe be off the board before the Hawks pick? I would not want to risk that chance-so I would TRAE UP to get him if necessary (we do not have 2nd or 3rd rounders to give as part of the deal in 2013 oicks ,but we could give either other prospects from our pipeline or 2014 picks in some move up package) ...I still must ALSO wait and see how SAROS plays at the World U-18's --maybe he will vault into consideration for the TOP goalie on my list and what ought to be the Hawks target list....The other goalie i have a hunch on is PHILLIPE DESROSIERS
(Rimouski ,QMJHL) -his save% is only .906 BUT he is a late birthdate for the draft (Aug 16th birth date) and I think is now improving a lot -a good mix of technique focus and athleticism 6'1 187 --and he faces more shots a night than Fucale or Jarry do --Fucale a bit over 23 shots a game,Jarry a bit over 24 shots a game ,Desrosiers close to 30 shots a game ...He may not go in round one but maybe erly round two --so IF JARRY and Saros are ff the board when we pick --my next hunch would be totake Desrosiers over Comrie or Fucale (perhaps we trade down into the early 2nd and get him with that pick and pick up another 2nd for the 2014 draft or maybe we trade our first doen a bit to a team with mutiple 2nd rounders this year--if any such oppoutunities exist)?

Anyone we draft in goal will not help us for several yesrs-but it does not mean Stan sould NEVER take a goalie early with a first rounder or early 2nd.At some point you gotta TRY gettingthe higher rated goalies in the top 4 or top 5 list and your scouts need to pick the ONE from that top group who WILL "make it" because proably the other 3or 4 of that top 4 or 5 will fizzle out .but if you do pick the right kid of thsat top rated bunch -you probably have that elusive elite "goalie of the future" teams would love to posess in the pipeline...better than having all the hockey experts tell you your pipeline goaltending iss "meh" ...So at SOME POINT STAN will have to TRY to draft "THE SAVIOUR" in net -maybe it will be the 2013 draft we fINALLY get around to atempting this EARLY instead of putiing it off to LATER in the draft --right now with no 2nds or 3rds anyway -if we do not use our first for a goalie or trade down to early 2nd if our top 2 goalie targets are already off the board -tHEN the earlest we get a crack at a goalie to draft willbe ROUND 4 ---at that late we pray for luck rather than what we coulda shoulda done at an earlier opportunity from the consensus top 4-5 goalies for the draft ..
Of couse with our vaunted scouting staff I have ZERO faiith they will pick the right guy
---but that willbe the fun ---looking back years from the draft to see who got it right --their pick or my hunch to take --providing there was a choice when the pick came up -if my target is off the board already then the only thing they could have done was trade UP -but if they let my trget get away and settle for their pick and my target turns out better- then I will of course haunt them for years over their big mistake. If their target selectedturns out better than mine then i will laud them for their scouting astuteness and admit my error. The fun in these draft scenarios is trying to see WHO is the better judge of talent projection ...THe only time the Hawks and I agreed on a first rounder since 2001 was with TOEWS -it was nice to get on the sae page for a change---and that worked out GREAT ...I got raked for TURRIS over KANe-but i said it would take several years for TURUS to add weight and "arrive" -so Kane got an immediate head start..Kane still may outpoint Turris each year even know going forward--BUT TURRIS now 195 lbs is really emerging well as Ottawa's #2 lione cENTRE and he plays a 200 foot game unlike Kane ..AS long as KAne gives us a good PP we will not complain even if hs +?- and ES game is not some great net benefit --but TURRIS is looking very good now in his 2C role for Ottawa -who knows -maybe we see them play each other in the CUP this year? THEN we'll see which of them is the more valueable playoff guy...

Meanwhile -I cannot let the Hawks vaunted scouting off the hook for passing on Kopitar for Skille (I specifically posted on many websites to AVOID SKILLE and take KOPITAR if he fell to us--when they bypassed him still up on the board for SKILLE --that was a SCREAM moment -I was so mad at them)...
THEN there was the KEVIN HAYES fiasco --he was on most lists only a late 30's pick -instead they take him at #24 -way too early -- I wanted BROCK NELSON who NYI got at #30 that draft after we traded our #30 down for #35 (LUDVIG RENSFELDT) and #58 (KENT SIMPSON) -I had RENSFELDT targeted for #30 --the Hawks of course already let him go out out the system by not signbing him -I think they gave up on him way to early -and SIMSPON I had given up on BEFORE the draft because i saw him whiff at a 60 footer in the Workd U-18's and that told me RED FLAG--AVOID -yet THEY still go ahead and take him....I still say that NELSON and RENSFELDT would be a better draft than K.Hayes and Simpson ---NELSON has 24 pts in 30GP for NYI's AHL team in his first pro year and i think will help NYI as a 2nd line C in future ....K,Hayes is a marginal 4th line C or w -IF he ever makes the Hawks when hhe finishes at BC..... RENSFELDT never got the chance to develop in the NA game in the AHL--IF he ever getys an NHL shot from another team he willneed to develop in Sweden--he is playing with MALMO in the ALLSVENSKAN league this year ...but looking at what he did in the OHL for Sarnia -he was no worse a prospect than many teams signed to further develop in their systems-I fo not know why the Hawjs gave up so early on him...Whatever --they did and now we must get hype on several prospects that really have no real better shot at making it that Rensfeldt had excepot that the Hawks gave them a chance .I am not sayning Rensfeldt would be some big NHl scorer -but maybe with his size and skating could have been a useful 3rd liner .I certainly do not see Kevin Hayes as anything better..
BOTH were late first to mid-30's types and that is usually 2nd line at best,maybe third line more realistic,or probably do not make it or if so marginally a 4th liner --but still you draft a 2nd rounder you usually give him some time in the minors to develop ...to see IF he can achieve te potential you thought when you drafted him..Instead they quit on Rensfeldt IMO too easrly to find out ...no we probably never know..
BUT Simpson loks like meh -as i predicted--and K. hayes is not the star at BC in his Jr, yr thast he should have been for a first rounder..and BROCK NELSON looks like the best of all of them-as I had slotted...SO I do think that draft was a FIASCO as far as they messed up the first 2 rounds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

unbridledid is offline   Reply With Quote