Agreed. Rusty was scratched for three minutes of Scott. Never again.
I don't get the Scott hate. You guys are alleged fans and hardly stupid. Scott's job is not to carry the puck, make a play or realy do anything other than stretch his legs once or twice a period ... AND ... Permit others to do their jobs. Most games, Scott is safely in the press box however unless unless you're not paying attention you know that in the past Stars players had often attempted cheap shots on Hawks stars. I didn't see any of that vs guys like Kane, Toews. ... Wonder why.
And those of you claiming Mayers and Carcillo make Scott unneeded on the team have to be kidding, ... Well, I hope you are. If Mayers or Carcillo step up for a teammmate vs a team with a legit heavy they will end up pummeled. Having a heavy like Scott permits the middle weight class guys to do their jobs.
So it is not a wasted spot when he is dressed. Another consideration ... there are 4 offensive "stars" on the Hawks. If your top 3 lines average 17 minutes and the 4th line about 9 minutes If Scott gets 3 minutes of those we only add about 90 seconds each of ice time for the big 4.
I will say I would prefer if Q would give Scott his 3 to 5 minutes as a forward rather than defense as he seems to be doing.
You're mistaking hate for the realization that a guy who plays 10-12 minutes is more valuable than a guy who plays 3-5 minutes. When the ice time is more spread around, every player has more jump in their step. Less fatigue typically leads to less injuries.
Scott has his place, yet by the looks of it, Mayers is an equally effective villain.
You're mistaking hate for the realization that a guy who plays 10-12 minutes is more valuable than a guy who plays 3-5 minutes. When the ice time is more spread around, every player has more jump in their step. Less fatigue typically leads to less injuries.
Scott has his place, yet by the looks of it, Mayers is an equally effective villain.
Mayers is NOT a heavy. vs teams with one Mayers cannot do what he does without Scott in the line up.
Kruger didn't have any hype when we drafted him. Only after his draft year did he really start getting any hype.
You can fall back on your persecution complex all you want, but Kruger showed just as much as Pirri. No more, no less. Both showed less than Saad, who had an good game last night.
At this point, I would say none of them deserve to be on the roster over Smith, Stalberg, or Carcillo.
I'm aware. The point wasn't when we drafted him, but since. He tore up his first 10 or so games on the SEL that season, and ever since has gotten alot of hype. That's what I was referring too.
And I'm sorry, Kruger did show more. Unlike Pirri, Kruger doesn't look lost in his defensive zone and Kruger can PK effectively. Considering neither showed alot offensviely, the advantage goes to Kruger for his two-way play.
And I agree. As I pointed out in my orginal post in this thread, I still think he'll be sent down once Smith and Stalberg are healthy.
I'm aware. The point wasn't when we drafted him, but since. He tore up his first 10 or so games on the SEL that season, and ever since has gotten alot of hype. That's what I was referring too.
And I'm sorry, Kruger did show more. Unlike Pirri, Kruger doesn't look lost in his defensive zone and Kruger can PK effectively. Considering neither showed alot offensviely, the advantage goes to Kruger for his two-way play.
And I agree. As I pointed out in my orginal post in this thread, I still think he'll be sent down once Smith and Stalberg are healthy.
I've been critical of Kruger in the past when he's deserved it, but the bolded is certainly true.
Speculation. Say what you will, but Scott's presence last night manifested nothing but scoring chances going the other way.
You think having a heavy in the lineup is not a great help to letting the middles do there jobs?
Well I guess there is simply nothing I can say to that other than WOW.
Speculation. Say what you will, but Scott's presence last night manifested nothing but scoring chances going the other way.
Having John Scott in the lineup did ABSOLUTELY nothing in terms of the Hawks getting more chances. That was a result of having the more talented team and playing much better hockey than they did in the first game.
Just in case you didn't notice, there was an absolutely BRUTAL shift (sometime in the 2nd or 3rd I'm not sure) where the Stars had the puck in the zone for about 2 minutes straight. Guess who was on the ice?
Scott is worthless on ice and very few will fight him
Scott didn't prevent Burish from going after Kruger or Ott going after Saad
Scott is a sideshow , Never should have made it to NHL to begin with. Somepoint in 90's enforcers went from being able to play hockey to being just worthless goons.
You think having a heavy in the lineup is not a great help to letting the middles do there jobs?
Well I guess there is simply nothing I can say to that other than WOW.
When that "heavy hand" is an absolutely horrendous hockey player, then no, he is not a help at all. Especially against a team (which is really most) that isn't all that physical to begin with.
If the Hawks are playing a slower team that has a couple of goons with a history of roughing up our guys, then there is maybe a LITTLE bit of justification for having him out there. But the reality is he is so dreadful in his own end, that the liability of having him out there usually supersedes the benefit of having him out there. Not to mention, if the guy (the opposition) is a goon in the first place do you reeeallllyyy think having Scott out there is a deterrent at all? That's the part that frustrates me with the goon proponents. The reason you are a goon in the first place is because you have no fear of referee repercussions or reparations by the inflicted team.
I'm all for having tough guys (like Mayers) that can actually play hockey. Guys like Scott that can't skate, shoot, pass, or do anything that helps the team have no business taking up roster spots.
Does anyone have a Q quote or anything on why he has two smallish PMD's in one pairing and two bigger, defensive d-men in another? Seriously, it just seems like an obvious move to make the d-pairings keith-hammer seabrook-leddy.
Does anyone have a Q quote or anything on why he has two smallish PMD's in one pairing and two bigger, defensive d-men in another? Seriously, it just seems like an obvious move to make the d-pairings keith-hammer seabrook-leddy.
I think he looks at it more as #1 with #4 and then #2 with #3, which is stronger to him than 1 & 3 and 2 & 4.
Does anyone have a Q quote or anything on why he has two smallish PMD's in one pairing and two bigger, defensive d-men in another? Seriously, it just seems like an obvious move to make the d-pairings keith-hammer seabrook-leddy.
I would agree... but look how much Leddy has developed. His game is extremely similar to Keith's and being on the ice with him every shift (like he was for about half of the games he played last season) can only help Leddy continue to get better.
In addition, the D looked good last night. If they play against Winnipeg on Thursday like they did in Game 1 of the season in Dallas, then I'd support changing the pairings up a bit.
Side note: Nice to see Montador with a solid game. That's the type of player the Hawks signed... hopefully the bad play in the preseason was just an anomaly and yesterday was the norm.
Does anyone have a Q quote or anything on why he has two smallish PMD's in one pairing and two bigger, defensive d-men in another? Seriously, it just seems like an obvious move to make the d-pairings keith-hammer seabrook-leddy.
Hammer is more comfortable on the left side, as is Keith, I think that's the reason why they have never been paired together. I believe Leddy is also more comfortable on the left, but he's the youngest, so.. sucks for him.
I would agree... but look how much Leddy has developed. His game is extremely similar to Keith's and being on the ice with him every shift (like he was for about half of the games he played last season) can only help Leddy continue to get better.In addition, the D looked good last night. If they play against Winnipeg on Thursday like they did in Game 1 of the season in Dallas, then I'd support changing the pairings up a bit.
Side note: Nice to see Montador with a solid game. That's the type of player the Hawks signed... hopefully the bad play in the preseason was just an anomaly and yesterday was the norm.
In yesterday's post game interview, Q mentioned Leddy being helped by Keith as a partner. Not sure I agree with having the 2 together though, especially against the more physical teams ... just not enough physicality for my liking.
In yesterday's post game interview, Q mentioned Leddy being helped by Keith as a partner. Not sure I agree with having the 2 together though, especially against the more physical teams ... just not enough physicality for my liking.
Disclaimer: I have no evidence for the below statements.
They're fast-tracking Leddy with the hope that he can hold a line on his own fairly soon. So he needs two things, lots of minutes and a great teacher.
The minutes come from playing him on the top pairing. The teacher is obviously the defenseman that they most want him to emulate, namely one of the best defenseman in the NHL that he happens to share several skills with. Effectiveness of that pairing be damned as long as Leddy is learning fast.
I wouldn't expect the top four defensive pairings to look like this come playoff time.
Look, everyone gets it, you've disliked Kruger and the deserved hype that he's gotten since we drafted him. That's fine. He was still better than Pirri and showed just as much as Smith and Saad.
When Kruger has a good game, he gets no credit, and when he plays poorly, everyone loves to point it out.
I have in no way ever, or do I now "dislike" Kruger. Don't take me not foaming at the mouth because he knows how to backcheck and string a few very basic offensive passes together as that.
I'd like to think I'm one of the more grounded posters on this board. I don't get too high on any player, I can't remember anyone outside of maybe Sopel I truly didn't want on our team, and I call them like I see them.
Kruger is a solid defensive player that can't win faceoffs, brings no physical game and hasn't shown any/MAYBE flashes of offensive ability in North America.
We had Denis Arkhipov before. Consider me not overly impressed.
