HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Notices

GM#2 ,,, Hawks 5 - Stars 2

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-09-2011, 02:15 PM
  #76
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 21,374
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
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.
This has basically been my thought process since the offseason started and multiple posters here had Kruger penciled in to start on the third line with Bolland playing the second.

The kid lit up Europe. That's promising. He can play defense at the NHL level. That's good for a first year player. What he isn't is some super elite checking center that rivals Pahlsson in his prime. He's solid defensively. He's not Hossa. He's a marginal fourth liner at this point. Pirri is a project top six forward that created more offense in his single NHL game then Kruger has in all of his combined.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now  
Old
10-09-2011, 02:24 PM
  #77
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 2,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brevard View Post
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.
I'm with Brevard on this one. Having Scott dressed against certain teams does make a difference. He is a deterent. That doesn't mean an Ott won't cleanly hit Saad or Hammer - Ott has his job to do too. But Ott knows Scott is ready and willing to pummel him whether Ott accepts his invitation or not. In the two games against Dallas - a team notorious for extra curricular activity - none of our star players got abused. Deterence is like an insurance policy - complain about the cost when you don't need it but it's sure nice to have when you do.

Besides - Scott took who's position in the lineup - Olesz? Big whoop! I won't whine if Scott get's replaced on the 23-man roster, but to say he adds nothing is to ignore the potentiality of what could happen to our star players if he wasn't there.

EbonyRaptor is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 02:27 PM
  #78
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbonyRaptor View Post
I'm with Brevard on this one. Having Scott dressed against certain teams does make a difference. He is a deterent. That doesn't mean an Ott won't cleanly hit Saad or Hammer - Ott has his job to do too. But Ott knows Scott is ready and willing to pummel him whether Ott accepts his invitation or not. In the two games against Dallas - a team notorious for extra curricular activity - none of our star players got abused. Deterence is like an insurance policy - complain about the cost when you don't need it but it's sure nice to have when you do.

Besides - Scott took who's position in the lineup - Olesz? Big whoop! I won't whine if Scott get's replaced on the 23-man roster, but to say he adds nothing is to ignore the potentiality of what could happen to our star players if he wasn't there.
Its easy to say scott makes no difference when we aren't getting gooned up, but lets not forget the first few games of the 'nucks series last year.

madgoat33 is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:01 PM
  #79
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
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.


Since when is Seabrook a defensive d-man?

massivegoonery is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:03 PM
  #80
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
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.
If you don't like it, they're probably doing something right.

massivegoonery is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:07 PM
  #81
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post


Since when is Seabrook a defensive d-man?
massivegoonery ripping on Seabrook, what a surprise. Seabrook is most definitely a defensive dman.

Chelios is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:09 PM
  #82
brevard*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 1,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbonyRaptor View Post
I'm with Brevard on this one. Having Scott dressed against certain teams does make a difference. He is a deterent. That doesn't mean an Ott won't cleanly hit Saad or Hammer - Ott has his job to do too. But Ott knows Scott is ready and willing to pummel him whether Ott accepts his invitation or not. In the two games against Dallas - a team notorious for extra curricular activity - none of our star players got abused. Deterence is like an insurance policy - complain about the cost when you don't need it but it's sure nice to have when you do.

Besides - Scott took who's position in the lineup - Olesz? Big whoop! I won't whine if Scott get's replaced on the 23-man roster, but to say he adds nothing is to ignore the potentiality of what could happen to our star players if he wasn't there.

The one mistake though was giving him his shifts on defense. He should have had his 2 shifts a period at forward where any errors have less impact. Look at the other minimum skill heavies (living or not) of recent times, nearly all are forwards.

On that note imagine vs Vancouver or St.Louis the 4th line of Mayers, Carcillo and Scott.

brevard* is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:13 PM
  #83
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
massivegoonery ripping on Seabrook, what a surprise. Seabrook is most definitely a defensive dman.
So defensive d-men usually put up 48 points in a season?

massivegoonery is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:15 PM
  #84
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brevard View Post
On that note imagine vs Vancouver or St.Louis the 4th line of Mayers, Carcillo and Scott.
I can easily imagine it, it goes something like this:

Vancouver 1
Hawks 0

massivegoonery is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:17 PM
  #85
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
So defensive d-men usually put up 48 points in a season?
He is still a defence first dman, but if you want to split hairs I guess he is a 2 way dman.

Chelios is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:18 PM
  #86
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,215
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
So defensive d-men usually put up 48 points in a season?
He's not a defensive Dman. I think there is this thought that if someone isn't a PMD they are automatically a defensive Dman, which is silly.

IU Hawks fan is online now  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:21 PM
  #87
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
It's actually pretty simple: PMD means shorter than 6'0", defensive d-man means taller than 6'0".

massivegoonery is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:31 PM
  #88
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
He's not a defensive Dman. I think there is this thought that if someone isn't a PMD they are automatically a defensive Dman, which is silly.
Up until last season, Seabrook was most definitely a defensive defenseman. As I said above if, after his good year offensively last season, you want to call him a 2-way dman then so be it. But he is still a defence first dman.

Chelios is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:37 PM
  #89
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,215
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
It's actually pretty simple: PMD means shorter than 6'0", defensive d-man means taller than 6'0".


Well said.

IU Hawks fan is online now  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:38 PM
  #90
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Up until last season, Seabrook was most definitely a defensive defenseman. As I said above if, after his good year offensively last season, you want to call him a 2-way dman then so be it. But he is still a defence first dman.
Nope. He always had a sick stretch pass and a bomb of a shot. Also, Keith was the more defensive player of the pair through the vast majority of their tenure together.

massivegoonery is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:52 PM
  #91
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post


Since when is Seabrook a defensive d-man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
Nope. He always had a sick stretch pass and a bomb of a shot. Also, Keith was the more defensive player of the pair through the vast majority of their tenure together.
Seabrook scored more points than Keith 2 times, 06-07 and last year. But I agree Seabrook isn't a pure defensive dman like Hjalmarsson has been. The point wasn't that Seabrook's offensive abilities aren't good, it was that he and hjalmarsson are both bigger, more physical players and keith and leddy are smaller less physical but quicker and shiftier players so it seems like it would make more sense to have one of each per pair. But it seems almost moot now as some have speculated that it could be because of the side that each is comfortable playing on.

madgoat33 is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 03:58 PM
  #92
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
Nope. He always had a sick stretch pass and a bomb of a shot. Also, Keith was the more defensive player of the pair through the vast majority of their tenure together.
Agree to disagree I guess. I didn't realize that having a good first pass and a hard shot precluded you from being a defensive dman.

Chelios is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 04:00 PM
  #93
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Agree to disagree I guess. I didn't realize that having a good first pass and a hard shot precluded you from being a defensive dman.
it was my fault in the first place for using an inaccurate term and pigeonholing seabrook.

madgoat33 is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 04:00 PM
  #94
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
The point wasn't that Seabrook's offensive abilities aren't good, it was that he and hjalmarsson are both bigger, more physical players and keith and leddy are smaller less physical but quicker and shiftier players so it seems like it would make more sense to have one of each per pair.
Well, how about you just say that instead of using ridiculous code words? When words like "defense" have multiple completely different meanings, nobody has any idea what other people are even talking about.

massivegoonery is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 04:02 PM
  #95
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
Well, how about you just say that instead of using ridiculous code words? When words like "defense" have multiple completely different meanings, nobody has any idea what other people are even talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
it was my fault in the first place for using an inaccurate term and pigeonholing seabrook.
Just a mistake, it happens.

madgoat33 is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 04:32 PM
  #96
committedindian86
Flip The Switch
 
committedindian86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,984
vCash: 500
Is everyone done freaking out over starting 0-1-0?

committedindian86 is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 04:43 PM
  #97
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by committedindian86 View Post
Is everyone done freaking out over starting 0-1-0?
no way bro. We were on pace to be 0-82-0 with 0 goals from hossa, one game can't change that. PANNNNICCCCC

madgoat33 is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 05:51 PM
  #98
committedindian86
Flip The Switch
 
committedindian86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
no way bro. We were on pace to be 0-82-0 with 0 goals from hossa, one game can't change that. PANNNNICCCCC
Seriously one game and people were saying no playoffs, Hossa is a choke artist, and we have the worst D in the league...

HFBoards summed up for ya...

committedindian86 is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 06:17 PM
  #99
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
This has basically been my thought process since the offseason started and multiple posters here had Kruger penciled in to start on the third line with Bolland playing the second.

The kid lit up Europe. That's promising. He can play defense at the NHL level. That's good for a first year player. What he isn't is some super elite checking center that rivals Pahlsson in his prime. He's solid defensively. He's not Hossa. He's a marginal fourth liner at this point. Pirri is a project top six forward that created more offense in his single NHL game then Kruger has in all of his combined.
I guess that would be correct, if you define creating offense as shooting pucks wide.

HockeySensible is offline  
Old
10-09-2011, 07:52 PM
  #100
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
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.

He is waste of NHL roster spot
I tend to agree. I wouldn't mind if he took an instigator penalty and brutalized someone like Ott. He's not a deterrent if no one will fight him

Illinihockey is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:35 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.