HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

MLD2011 Finals - Eden Hall Warriors vs Regina Capitals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-05-2011, 12:13 PM
  #1
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,924
vCash: 2498
MLD2011 Finals - Eden Hall Warriors vs Regina Capitals

Eden Hall Warriors

GMs: vecens24 & TheDevilMadeMe

Head Coach: Claude Julien
Assistant Coach: John Muckler

Nick Mickoski - Billy McGimsie - Nikolai Drozdetsky
Ulf Dahlen - Mike Ribeiro - Marian Stastny
Sami Kapanen - Steve Sullivan - Roland Pettersson
Dave Tippett - Larry Patey - Randy McKay (A)

Jack Evans - Mike O'Connell
Walt Buswell (C) - Brian Campbell
Christian Ehrhoff - Garth Butcher (A)

Johnny Mowers
Bert Lindsay

Spares = Matt Cooke, Jeff Carter, Paul Martin

PP1: Ulf Dahlen - Billy McGimsie - Nikolai Drozdetsky - Mike O'Connell - Brian Campbell
PP2: Nick Mickoski - Mike Ribeiro - Marian Stastny - Steve Sullivan - Christian Ehrhoff

PK1: Larry Patey - Dave Tippett - Jack Evans - Garth Butcher
PK2: Sami Kapanen - Roland Pettersson - Walt Buswell - Mike O'Connell
PK3: Steve Sullivan - Nick Mickoski - D - D

vs.





Bob Gracie - Jozef Golonka (C) - Tony Gingras
George Richardson - Jozef Stumpel - Grant Warwick
Jan Erixon - Billy Harris (A) - Charlie Tobin
Pat Boutette - Darcy Tucker - Mike Grier

Gordie Roberts (A) - Bob Armstrong
Jack Portland - Barry Gibbs
Gary Sargent - Bingo Kampman

Billy Nicholson
Earl Robertson

coach: Bun Cook
assistant coach: Dick Todd

Spares:

John Mayasich (C/D)
Eric Weinrich (D)
Billy Harris, C

PP1: Warwick-Golonka-Gingras-Sargent-Roberts
PP2: Gracie-Stumpel-Tucker-(Sargent/Gibbs/Tobin)
PK1: Erixon-Harris-Armstrong-Gibbs
PK2: Boutette-Grier-Portland-Roberts
PK3: Tobin-Tucker-Armstrong-Kampman


Last edited by seventieslord: 09-11-2011 at 05:02 PM.
DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:18 PM
  #2
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
I'm going to say now that I think we are more well equipped than mark/Stoneberg's team to take advantage of the lack of elite puckwinners on seventies top 6. Evans and Butcher should wreak havoc on their smaller top 6.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:28 PM
  #3
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
I'm going to say now that I think we are more well equipped than mark/Stoneberg's team to take advantage of the lack of elite puckwinners on seventies top 6. Evans and Butcher should wreak havoc on their smaller top 6.
Don't forget Walt Buswell. He's not a brawler like Evans or Butcher, but he's a rock solid defensive defenseman, and will use his long reach to great effect in shutting down Regina's smaller forwards.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:29 PM
  #4
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,212
vCash: 500
Anyway, good luck seventies. Hope you have the time now to comment about this series.

I know I will.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:51 PM
  #5
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
I'm going to say now that I think we are more well equipped than mark/Stoneberg's team to take advantage of the lack of elite puckwinners on seventies top 6. Evans and Butcher should wreak havoc on their smaller top 6.
I have to agree with this. Halifax did not have a physical enough defense to take advantage of that Regina weakness. I'm still baffled on how a guy drafted in the 8th round is now being voted as a 1st star of these playoffs.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 01:30 PM
  #6
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,212
vCash: 500
Initial impressions.
  1. The biggest advantage that Eden Hall possesses is balance - the team is built to be able to both score and defend at a high level. Regina is a great defensive team, but they lack offensive firepower. If Eden Hall has the lead, Julien can have the team really lock down, secure in the knowledge that Regina doesn't have the offensive game breakers to really break through. Eden Hall, on the other hand, has some serious firepower - which can help if we trail, or help really put the game out of reach if we get a lead of a couple of goals.
  2. Regina has a very weak powerplay, which really makes it a viable strategy for Eden Hall's larger defensemen to freely rough up Regina's smaller forwards.

    a) Defensemen

    Quote:
    there are only a handful of defensemen who could play both PP units in the MLD, and Sargent is one of them. Here are the MLD defensemen with at least 400 GP, who averaged at least 20 adj.PPP/80 games:

    Siltanen 29
    Zidlicky 27
    Berard 26
    Sargent 23
    Malakhov 22
    Ehrhoff 21
    Guevremont 20
    Zalapski 20
    Seems like Sargent is barely better than Ehrhoff on a per-game basis. And Ehrhoff kept up that average over 500 games, while Sargent only played 402, so I think they are basically equals on the powerplay. And of course, Ehrhoff is on Eden hall's second wave of the PP because we believe we have 2 better options in Brian Campbell and Mike O'Donnell. Regina is so dependent on Sargent, that they are forced to play him for the full powerplay.

    Steve Sullivan, who once led the league in SHGs and finished Top 10 three times, will come out on the last shift of the PK to feast on a tired Gary Sargent.

    b) Lack of offense up front also hurts Regina on the PP just like it does at even strength. Darcy Tucker on the PP?
  3. Regina is relying heavily on some injury-prone players here, particularly Gary Sargent and Jan Erixon.

    seventieslord exclusively uses "per game" stats for his injury-prone guys. I prefer to use "per season" stats, but there is nothing inherently wrong with using "per game" stats, so long as you assume the player will be injured for the appropriate amount of time. So let's see how may games we can expect Gary Sargent and Jan Erixon to miss in this series.

    a) Gary Sargent

    Over Sargent's regular season career (75-76 to 82-83), he missed a whopping 38% of the available games, playing only 402 of his team's 640 games over this stretch. To be fair, we should remove his final season, when he was basically hanging on by a thread, but then he only played 384 of his team's 560 games, still missing a solid 31% of his team's regular season games.

    In Gary Sargent's playoff career, he only played in 20 of the 35 games his team was involved in. In other words, he missed 43% of the playoff games his teams played in over his career.

    What does it mean for this series?

    If the series goes 7 games,

    31% missed would be 2.17 games.
    38% missed would be 2.66 games
    43% missed would be 3.01 games

    Conclusion: On average, Gary Sargent can be expected to miss 2-3 games per 7 game series with injury. When Sargent is injured, Regina's powerplay, already fairly weak, because absolutely impotent.


    Note that Eden Hall, by contrast, has 4 strong PP pointment, with Sami Kapanen as a good 5th option in case of injury.

    Seventieslord likes to bring up how much ice time Sargent saw when he actually played, but maybe he would have been able to actually stay healthy if he played fewer minutes?

    b) Jan Erixon

    Over Erixon's regular season career (1983-84 to 1992-93), he missed 31% of his team's regular season games, playing in only 556 of 804 available games.

    In Erixon's playoff career, he did play in 58 of his team's 63 playoff games, a very respectable number.

    Based on Erixon's regular season career, we would expect him to miss an average of 2 games per 7 game series. He generally didn't miss games in the playoffs, however. I'm not sure how to account for that. I definitely don't think he should get full credit for his "per game" regular season accomplishments when he missed so many games.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-05-2011 at 03:18 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 12:09 AM
  #7
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
If you're going to start saying that Sargent is going to miss games, then you better damn well use his points PER GAME, not his absolute point values, to determine his efficacy.

Also, because Claude Julien is your coach, your PP is irrelevant as well. He has a history of having some of the better PP players and doing **** all with them.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 01:00 AM
  #8
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
So I'm going to say now that I think Campbell belongs in the AAA draft.

1 excellent offensive season, 1 good one, 2 decent ones.
PP points among D - 4th in 2008, 16th in 2006 (53% of leader) and 18th in 2009 (62% of the leader)

Decent, but not outstanding on the PP. So many other guys have similar credentials. He's been a liability defensively his entire career, as evidenced by him not getting more than about 17 minutes per game until he hit 27 where, surprise surprise, he came out as an offensive factor. Since he joined Chicago, he's gotten better defensively at the expense of his offense. What do people see in this guy?

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 01:55 AM
  #9
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
So I'm going to say now that I think Campbell belongs in the AAA draft.

1 excellent offensive season, 1 good one, 2 decent ones.
PP points among D - 4th in 2008, 16th in 2006 (53% of leader) and 18th in 2009 (62% of the leader)

Decent, but not outstanding on the PP. So many other guys have similar credentials. He's been a liability defensively his entire career, as evidenced by him not getting more than about 17 minutes per game until he hit 27 where, surprise surprise, he came out as an offensive factor. Since he joined Chicago, he's gotten better defensively at the expense of his offense. What do people see in this guy?
He does have 2 modern top-10s in Norris voting. Considering era, that might be the best Norris record in this series.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 01:59 AM
  #10
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
He does have 2 modern top-10s in Norris voting. Considering era, that might be the best Norris record in this series.
10. Brian Campbell, BUF 42 (0-0-3-4-15)
5. Brian Campbell, S.J. 333 (1-18-16-31-24) <-- mostly fueled by offense

I'm not impressed.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 02:50 AM
  #11
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
10. Brian Campbell, BUF 42 (0-0-3-4-15)
5. Brian Campbell, S.J. 333 (1-18-16-31-24) <-- mostly fueled by offense

I'm not impressed.
Are you impressed with any of the other defensemen in this series?

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 03:08 AM
  #12
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Are you impressed with any of the other defensemen in this series?
Don't know.. but certainly not with Campbell.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 03:28 AM
  #13
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Don't know.. but certainly not with Campbell.
Well, as I said, he might have the best Norris record here. He does have a short peak (4 or 5 years), but so do most of these guys, and his peak is among the very best.

You seem to not be impressed by his 10th in Norris, but he got a very respectable number of votes. 22 of the voters had him on their ballots - that's nothing to ignore or downplay.

Most of the other top-10s in Norris voting here made it there with just a handful of votes.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 03:41 AM
  #14
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Well, as I said, he might have the best Norris record here. He does have a short peak (4 or 5 years), but so do most of these guys, and his peak is among the very best.

You seem to not be impressed by his 10th in Norris, but he got a very respectable number of votes. 22 of the voters had him on their ballots - that's nothing to ignore or downplay.

Most of the other top-10s in Norris voting here made it there with just a handful of votes.
No first or second place votes, only 3 third place votes..

I would say Campbell has had a 2 year peak offensively. The rest of the seasons were "good" (2 directly before and after Chicago got him). After his first nice year in Chicago, he became better defensively at the expense of offense, and before then he was a defensive liability for most of his career (including his one big year). Even in his first year in Chicago, he was only +5, compared to +18 and 28 in the next two.. this seems to coincide with his becoming more reliable defensively, but suffering offensively because of this. He also doesn't PK.. at all. He's had two seasons where he was used on the PK, and that's it. Both times, I believe, he was his team's 4th option on the PK.

Campbell got by because of his offensive talent and speed. He clearly saw limited time until he turned 27, and then when his offensive skills blossomed, he got more playing time (majorly helped along by the fact that Buffalo had no other good scoring options from D, aside from Numminen). He was on his way to another solid, but unspectacular finish in Buffalo in 2008 before he got shipped off to San Jose.. and promptly posted 19 points in 20 games, 12 of them on the PP. He was on pace to finish that year, in Buffalo, in a very similar manner to the way he finished the previous two years.. where he got limited at best consideration for individual accolades. Obviously, San Jose was a much, much better team than Buffalo, especially offensively, so it's no secret that this helped his point totals there. So, in 2008, his offensive output was largely fueled by a completely unsustainable pace (proven by his scoring pace going down substantially in the playoffs that year) set after getting traded to a much better team. 20 games stood between that 5th place Norris finish and a SAST, and a completely unremarkable finish to his season. There's a really strong chance that, if on a better team from the get go, we wouldn't even know who Brian Campbell is, and he'd be taken in the dregs of the AA draft.

Do you REALLY want to rely on a guy who, other than a 20 game stretch in a 626 game career, was never elite at ANYTHING, was almost always a liability defensively, was soft, and only had 2 really noteworthy offensive seasons, both of which coming at a time when he was still poor in his own zone? This guy is AAA material.

EDIT: In fact, in his first good offensive season, he was still only getting 17:43 minutes per game. Buffalo likely increased that to 21:53 the next season out of desperation for offense from a defenseman, hoping to capitalize on his budding talent, yet his point total only went up by 4. In fact, I almost have to wonder how much of his offense really came from his talent alone. He was nothing until 2006, when the Buffalo forwards finally started putting up some good offensive seasons. The production from the forwards continued to increase, and Campbell saw success along with that. To his credit, he was on pace for 54 points in 2008 for Buffalo, so he probably would have garnered some decent individual attention anyways, but the fact still stands that it's not even certain how much his talent alone contributed to his success. Moreover, he's not a very strong ES player.. at all, neither defensively, nor offensively. Every single one of his strong offensive seasons, other than 2007, have been largely fueled by strong PP performances.. and in an all time sense, his PP credentials are decent (decent largely fueled by that 20 game stretch in San Jose, probably mediocre without that), but not great.

In terms of PP defenseman, I put Campbell no better than 3rd on Eden Hall, I think.


Last edited by jarek: 09-06-2011 at 03:51 AM.
jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 04:50 AM
  #15
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,817
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
No first or second place votes, only 3 third place votes..
So nobody thought he was one of the best 2 defensemen in the league. He wasn't top-2, so why would he get top-2 votes?

22 guys thought he was top-5.

Quote:
Do you REALLY want to rely on a guy who, other than a 20 game stretch in a 626 game career, was never elite at ANYTHING, was almost always a liability defensively, was soft, and only had 2 really noteworthy offensive seasons, both of which coming at a time when he was still poor in his own zone? This guy is AAA material.
A 20 games stretch? Give me a break man. He put up 43 points before he landed in San Jose. If he maintained his pace in Buffalo, instead of being traded, he would have scored 14 points in 19 games rather than 19 in 20.




Campbell's 2006 season in Buffalo is pretty wierd. He played about 18 minutes, but the #1 only 22 minutes, and only 2 guys played over 20 minutes. Basically, their minute chart doesn't add up. Either they dressed 7 defensemen on a regular basis, or they used forwards on the blueline on a regular basis. The chart isn't close either - we're talking like 6 minutes per game. Regardless, 2006 was an elite offensive season for Campbell.

Then in 2007, Buffalo was "despirate" to put Campbell as their #1 defenseman. With such a weak squad, it must have been a miracle when they led the league in scoring..... and then won the President's Trophy.... and then made it to the Conference Finals. #1 defenseman on the President's Trophy winners.... that's quite a feather in his cap, isn't it? Finally, he was higher in Norris voting than he was in scoring, so he must have brought some sort of defense or physicality to the table.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 07:50 AM
  #16
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
If you're going to start saying that Sargent is going to miss games, then you better damn well use his points PER GAME, not his absolute point values, to determine his efficacy.
Have you been paying attention to anything at all this MLD? 70s has consistently used Sargent's per game stats in his arguments for him. I'm letting him have his per game stats with the caveat that you can't assume he'll play at his per game rate for every game this series because rarely played all the games in real life.

Edit: That's one of two valid ways to deal with injury prone players, right? (The other is by using their seasonal stats rather than per game stats)

Quote:
Also, because Claude Julien is your coach, your PP is irrelevant as well. He has a history of having some of the better PP players and doing **** all with them.
When Boston actually had good PP players like Savard, Kessel and Wideman in 2008-09, they had the 4th best PP in the NHL.

So I guess your crazy theory that a PP is determined entirely by the coach is just that... crazy.

For the record, John Muckler will be heavily involved in PP strategies (and team strategies in general). As we indicated earlier in the MLD, Julien will be the bench boss during games, but they will be equally involved in implementing strategy between games.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-06-2011 at 06:24 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 07:52 AM
  #17
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Are you impressed with any of the other defensemen in this series?
LOL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Don't know.. but certainly not with Campbell.
It's the MLD. Campbell is one of the best offensive defensemen in the draft. Maybe you should take the time to actually research the other guys before spouting off on one of them in particular.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 08:04 AM
  #18
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post

EDIT: In fact, in his first good offensive season, he was still only getting 17:43 minutes per game. Buffalo likely increased that to 21:53 the next season out of desperation for offense from a defenseman, hoping to capitalize on his budding talent, yet his point total only went up by 4. In fact, I almost have to wonder how much of his offense really came from his talent alone. He was nothing until 2006, when the Buffalo forwards finally started putting up some good offensive seasons. The production from the forwards continued to increase, and Campbell saw success along with that. To his credit, he was on pace for 54 points in 2008 for Buffalo, so he probably would have garnered some decent individual attention anyways, but the fact still stands that it's not even certain how much his talent alone contributed to his success. Moreover, he's not a very strong ES player.. at all, neither defensively, nor offensively. Every single one of his strong offensive seasons, other than 2007, have been largely fueled by strong PP performances.. and in an all time sense, his PP credentials are decent (decent largely fueled by that 20 game stretch in San Jose, probably mediocre without that), but not great.
k.
How is this different from any other defenseman? The guy stopped getting big PP minutes in Chicago, and his overall numbers went down. Again, how is that different from any other defenseman?

Campbell is the perfect example of how what seventieslord said during the assassination thread has a lot of truth to it - a defenseman's overall numbers are largely determined by the amount of PP time he got.

Campbell put up great numbers his first year in Chicago, but then Duncan Keith emerged as a better player, first Keith took over Campbell's role as primary PP QB, then Seabrook replaced Campbell on the first PP unit entirely because of his chemistry with Keith.

Again, how is this different than any other defenseman? Do you think there are MLD-calibre defensemen out there who will score at the same rate whether they are on the PP or not?

Also why on earth are you slagging Campbell for relying on his forwards to put up points - how is that different from any other defenseman in history, MLD or ATD level?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 08:04 AM
  #19
TheJudge
Registered User
 
TheJudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 788
vCash: 500
Hey guys,

Sorry for not voting last round. I had a family emergency; my father-in-law ended up in the hospital (still there). Needless to say I was nowhere near a computer for the past few days.

I'll be following this round though.

TheJudge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 09:57 AM
  #20
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How is this different from any other defenseman? The guy stopped getting big PP minutes in Chicago, and his overall numbers went down. Again, how is that different from any other defenseman?

Campbell is the perfect example of how what seventieslord said during the assassination thread has a lot of truth to it - a defenseman's overall numbers are largely determined by the amount of PP time he got.

Campbell put up great numbers his first year in Chicago, but then Duncan Keith emerged as a better player, first Keith took over Campbell's role as primary PP QB, then Seabrook replaced Campbell on the first PP unit entirely because of his chemistry with Keith.

Again, how is this different than any other defenseman? Do you think there are MLD-calibre defensemen out there who will score at the same rate whether they are on the PP or not?

Also why on earth are you slagging Campbell for relying on his forwards to put up points - how is that different from any other defenseman in history, MLD or ATD level?
Because Campbell is one of the most overrated pieces of **** in the entire league.

You claim Campbell lost PP time to Keith and Seabrook in Chicago. Why is that? According to your bio, they were proud to get an elite PP defenseman, yet he lost time on the first unit to ****ing Seabrook of all people. Why is that?

I noticed that you completely ignored the PK'ing deficiency of Campbell. Why is that?

You also don't seem to be in too much of a hurry to challenge Campbell being soft, or weak defensively. Why is that?

Also, why am I slogging on Campbell? Because he did NOTHING.. NOTHING.. could barely put up 10 points in a season before 2006. Maybe once I see comparisons to the other defensemen in this series, I'll change my mind, but I think he's AAA level. You can't even call him a specialist at what he supposedly specializes at.

Dreakmur: No, he was not a "must have been" anything in 2007. He was what he was. A solid, but unspectacular defenseman playing for the best team in the league at the time. Yet with all those big PP minutes for a team that was finally scoring, he could only put up 4 more points in 4 more minutes played per game. I can concede that he might have been decent enough in his own zone that year, but that doesn't make up for half a career of incompetence. Besides, they probably looked at his shiny plus minus, and were like "ohhh, shiny!". Vanek was plus 47. I watched that team play. They did anything but play defense.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 10:00 AM
  #21
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
BTW, Campbell still led Chicago defensemen in PP TOI/G in 2010, and has 11 points to show for it. If Brian Campbell is one of your 2 best PP defensemen, then you should be just as worried about your own PP defensemen not doing so great.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 10:34 AM
  #22
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,212
vCash: 500
From Brian Campbell's bio:

Brian Campbell is 9th in total points since the last lockout (a sample size of 6 years). He is the only one of the top 16 to not be drafted in the main draft! And it's not a distant 9th either. Lidstrom is far ahead of everyone as expected, but Campbell has 87.4% of second place Visnovsky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Because Campbell is one of the most overrated pieces of **** in the entire league.
So I take it you're not biased on the subject? Heh.
Quote:
You claim Campbell lost PP time to Keith and Seabrook in Chicago. Why is that? According to your bio, they were proud to get an elite PP defenseman, yet he lost time on the first unit to ****ing Seabrook of all people. Why is that?
I already said it was because of Seabrook's chemistry with Keith. Brian Campbell is a left handed shot, just like Duncan Keith. Brent Seabrook is a right handed shot. Most teams prefer to put a righty and a lefty together on the points of the PP, so that both pointmen have favorable shooting angles.

For the record, both of Eden Hall's pairs of PP pointmen feature a LH shot next to a RH shot.

Quote:
I noticed that you completely ignored the PK'ing deficiency of Campbell. Why is that?
Because he's not on our PK. He's our 6th option out there. Unlike Regina, Eden Hall paid careful attention to special teams roles while drafting our defensemen.

Quote:
You also don't seem to be in too much of a hurry to challenge Campbell being soft, or weak defensively. Why is that?
Because pretending a player is something he's not isn't exactly a winning strategy. Campbell is elite offensively for the MLD level and nothing special defensively. I don't think he's necessarily soft - RJ Umberger would certainly disagree - but he's not consistently tough or anything.

Campbell's play in his own zone isn't his strength, but he's far from the worst. He was no specialist - as Dreakmur pointed out, he was the #1 defenseman on Buffalo when they won the President's Trophy. He was also the #3 on Chicago when they won the Stanley Cup.

True defensive liabilities like Housley and early Gonchar get sheltered ice time on good teams. Campbell hasn't been sheltered - this isn't the case of Tomas Kaberle who won a Cup as a bottom pairing defenseman - Campbell had a fairly big role with Chicago.

Quote:
Also, why am I slogging on Campbell? Because he did NOTHING.. NOTHING.. could barely put up 10 points in a season before 2006. Maybe once I see comparisons to the other defensemen in this series, I'll change my mind, but I think he's AAA level. You can't even call him a specialist at what he supposedly specializes at.
9th in scoring since the lockout (despite losing his spot on the top PP for some of those years) isn't doing something?

And again, he led the President's Trophy winner in ice time and was the #3 of a Cup winner in a different season. That's not what I would call a "specialist."

As for your "AAA level" thing, to an extent all the players in MLD2011 are "AAA level" compared to previous drafts. MLD2010 was after a 30 team draft, this one is after a 40 team draft, so the talent pool is much weaker than in MLD2010. Though personally, I think a guy with Campbell's record should have been drafted as a bottom pairing puck mover in a 40 team draft.

Quote:
Dreakmur: No, he was not a "must have been" anything in 2007. He was what he was. A solid, but unspectacular defenseman playing for the best team in the league at the time. Yet with all those big PP minutes for a team that was finally scoring, he could only put up 4 more points in 4 more minutes played per game. I can concede that he might have been decent enough in his own zone that year, but that doesn't make up for half a career of incompetence. Besides, they probably looked at his shiny plus minus, and were like "ohhh, shiny!". Vanek was plus 47. I watched that team play. They did anything but play defense.
Half a career of incompetence? LMAO. You're hilarious. Which half was that?


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-06-2011 at 12:15 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 10:40 AM
  #23
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
BTW, Campbell still led Chicago defensemen in PP TOI/G in 2010, and has 11 points to show for it. If Brian Campbell is one of your 2 best PP defensemen, then you should be just as worried about your own PP defensemen not doing so great.
9th in scoring among defensemen since the lockout. Why are you only looking at one season?

2009-10 was when Campbell really started to struggle with injuries. He missed 14 regular season games and wasn't 100% in all the games he did play.

Come on, we all remember the 2010 playoffs right? Remember how much Chicago missed Brian Campbell when he was injured? They were pretty much pinned in their own zone whenever Keith wasn't on the ice without Campbell's ability to skate the puck out of trouble.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 10:55 AM
  #24
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
9th in scoring among defensemen since the lockout. Why are you only looking at one season?

2009-10 was when Campbell really started to struggle with injuries. He missed 14 regular season games and wasn't 100% in all the games he did play.

Come on, we all remember the 2010 playoffs right? Remember how much Chicago missed Brian Campbell when he was injured? They were pretty much pinned in their own zone whenever Keith wasn't on the ice without Campbell's ability to skate the puck out of trouble.
What is he at, per game?

15th, w/o guys that played less than 100 games. Also, don't ignore the first half of his career, which was *****. Campbell is as good as he is bad in an all time sense.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 11:00 AM
  #25
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
It's not even like Campbell is deficient on the PK anymore either. He was considered the Hawks best and most consistent PKer this year if you look at his bio. Yeah he hasn't been that for his whole career but this vendetta against Campbell is clearly based off of some biased dislike of him, especially considering he's our 3/4 defenseman.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.