HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ex-Blackhawk Watch 2011-12

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-16-2012, 07:14 PM
  #26
BBSeabs27
#freeseabs
 
BBSeabs27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 2,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
First of all.. Which line is our third line right now? Surely it can't be Brunette-Bolland-Hayes line.. I mean, Brunette is the slowest player in the league, sucks defensively and has an ugly -10 to show for it.. but wait! Lets just bump Brunette down and put Bickell on the left side, right? Well, no, not so fast.. because now you have a lazy, floating player on your third line, who looks like he doesn't give a **** 95% of the time... that doesn't sound very good, does it? Hmm.. well, I must say, given the choice between Brouwer and Brunette/Bickell on our third line, I'd glady take Brouwer over each.

Brouwer's "horrible" defense on this board has been drastically overstated. I'm not saying he's in line for the Selke, but he's nowhere near as bad as he's been made out to be.
I will say Brouwer is better than Brunette and Bickell, but the ship has sailed for him being on the hawks.

Brunette-Bolland-Hayes line looked good last night, no problem with it going forward.

BBSeabs27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 07:38 PM
  #27
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
First of all.. Which line is our third line right now? Surely it can't be Brunette-Bolland-Hayes line.. I mean, Brunette is the slowest player in the league, sucks defensively and has an ugly -10 to show for it.. but wait! Lets just bump Brunette down and put Bickell on the left side, right? Well, no, not so fast.. because now you have a lazy, floating player on your third line, who looks like he doesn't give a **** 95% of the time... that doesn't sound very good, does it? Hmm.. well, I must say, given the choice between Brouwer and Brunette/Bickell on our third line, I'd glady take Brouwer over each.

Brouwer's "horrible" defense on this board has been drastically overstated. I'm not saying he's in line for the Selke, but he's nowhere near as bad as he's been made out to be.
Ya, let's talk about what our 3rd line is now when we have injuries galore.

When Brouwer was on our 3rd line last year we moaned and groaned like we are with Brunette when he plays there.

At the beginning of the year, Bickell was easily Brouwers replacement, can't blame Bowman for that drop off. I am happy without Brouwer on the 3rd line, because it would of been the most over paid, inconsistent 3rd line in the NHL and Brouwer had no place in the top 6.

Yes, Brunette was a mistake, not going to argue that, but it's only a 1 year mistake not a 2.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 08:25 PM
  #28
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,401
vCash: 50
Brouwer this year with Caps = 14 goals + 9 assists and a -1 in 43 games

Brunette this year with Hawks = 9 goals + 9 assits and a -10 in 46 games

Offensively Brouwer hasn't done much more then Brunette this year and Brouwer gets 3 minutes more a game

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 09:01 PM
  #29
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Brouwer this year with Caps = 14 goals + 9 assists and a -1 in 43 games

Brunette this year with Hawks = 9 goals + 9 assits and a -10 in 46 games

Offensively Brouwer hasn't done much more then Brunette this year and Brouwer gets 3 minutes more a game
...so?

I know, I know other facets of the game don't count.

Like 18 ES points compared to 11, -10 compared to -1; 150 hits compared to 11.

Wrong on Stalberg and wrong on Troy Brouwer.

Marotte Marauder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 09:16 PM
  #30
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,401
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
...so?

I know, I know other facets of the game don't count.

Like 18 ES points compared to 11, -10 compared to -1; 150 hits compared to 11.

Wrong on Stalberg and wrong on Troy Brouwer.
Brouwer was absolutely worthless when not leaching off Kane/Toews and his horrendous finish to year last year was part of Hawks struggles. Cant expect to do anything when you are constantly tyring to get Brouwer to do something

Getting a 1st rounder for his RFA rights was a coup for Bowman

Dont miss anything about Brouwer

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 09:22 PM
  #31
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,401
vCash: 50
Looks like Steeger has cooled off

Steegers first 21 games = 12 goals + 14 assists = 26 pts +13
Steegers last 21 games = 5 goals + 8 assists = 13 pts -4 (the last 8 games in particular = 1 goal + 1 assist)

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 09:53 PM
  #32
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Brouwer was absolutely worthless when not leaching off Kane/Toews and his horrendous finish to year last year was part of Hawks struggles. Cant expect to do anything when you are constantly tyring to get Brouwer to do something

Getting a 1st rounder for his RFA rights was a coup for Bowman

Dont miss anything about Brouwer
The struggles were really all season long.

Marotte Marauder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 10:58 PM
  #33
BiBoFro*
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 915
vCash: 500
Lest we forget Brouwer's shoulder was also a concern after the mid point season. Why do you all neglect that fact? You don't think an injury to a main part of the body hampers your ability on the ice? Unbelievable.

Right about now, i'd rather have Brouwer>Frolik for Frolik money. At least Brouwer will hit, and won't miss wide open nets.

BiBoFro* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2012, 06:19 AM
  #34
projexns
Welcome Back Jets!
 
projexns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBSeabs27 View Post
I will say Brouwer is better than Brunette and Bickell, but the ship has sailed for him being on the hawks.
Of course the ship has sailed. It’s funny to see the extremes though that people go to when they don’t like a player, or judge them on a small sampling of games, or not put their skill-set within a league-wide context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
So what you are saying is we should of paid Brouwer 2.35mil so he could play on our 3rd and 4th lines?

he wouldn't play with Toews and Kane (Stalberg)
He wouldn't play with Hossa and Kruger (Sharp)
The Blackhawks cap limitations leave them looking for low-cost complimentary parts to play upfront with the Big Four. Brunette and Bickell don’t do it for me. I’d have Brouwer doing what he’s doing in Washington now and what he did here before. Hanging with skill-players while being the physical, big body presence complimenting that skill. I think one or two large bodies up front that can hang in your top six is hugely important in the NHL, but that’s just me.

BTW, in which alternate universe is Kruger a top-six forward at this point ????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post

Do you want to pay a 4th liner 2.35mil a year? No.
It depends on your definition of a 4th-liner.

Even before we discuss the individual merits and intangibles of a player, we can have as the most basic starting point that with 30 teams in the NHL X 9 forwards making up their top three lines, a 4th-liner would be a player outside of the top 270 forwards in scoring in the NHL.

Conversely, with 30 teams X 6 top-six forwards, one could argue that a player is a top-six forward if they are among the top 180 forwards in scoring in the NHL. At least as the basic starting point of a discussion.

At the moment Brouwer is 126th in scoring among NHL forwards, so I think that it’s safe to say that he is comfortably within the range of being a top six forward in the NHL, and the notion that he is a 4th liner is absurd.

For comparative purposes, Frolik is 236th in scoring among NHL forwards, entrenching him as a 3rd liner, which I think is an accurate assessment of where he is at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Difference is, Frolik is decent defensively, so at least he can play 3rd line W role and not be lost. But could you imagine if we had both of these anchors?

Let's be honest, if Brouwer was on this team, we would all be cursing him along with Frolik.
Not everyone.

Again, I admit my bias towards having at least one or two big bodies that can hang in your top six and play a physical brand of hockey.

These are the “4th liners” as you call them that are in the Brouwer neighbourhood, some better, some equal, some not as good, ranked by hits so far this year. Brouwer is a relative bargain salary-wise for this type of player:



Rank Player Team Hits GP Goals Asst Pts Salary
1 Martin NYI 186 43 5 5 10 852,500
2 Clutterbuck Min166 41 117 18 1,400,000
3 D. Brown LA 157 46 1213253,175,000
4 Callahan NYR 154 43 1417314,275,000
5 Brouwer Wash150 43 149232,375,000
6 Ott Dal 148 38 713202,950,000
7 Neil Ott 144 38 78152,000,000
8 Backes StL 131 45 1418324,500,000
9 Lapierre Van 127 46 5491,000,000
10 Doan Phx124 46 1413274,550,000
15 Foligno Buf115 47 1216281,200,000
18 Dubinsky NYR111 40 516214,200,000
19 Hanzal Phx111 33 514193,100,000
24 Cole Mtl102 45 1716334,500,000
25 Morrow Dal99 38 714214,100,000
187 Ladd Wpg40 45 157224,400,000

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post

Getting a 1st rounder for his RFA rights was a coup for Bowman
The coup lies with Washington until Danault proves something at the NHL level. Until then, he’s a non-NHL asset selected at the end of the 1st-round of a weak draft from a league that you have marginalized in the past.

projexns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2012, 08:22 AM
  #35
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Thank you Projexns!

Not that it matters much around here.

Same for Stalberg, people still saying he's not a Top 6 winger, despite top 100 numbers for goals, point, +/- and game winners. While being 367th in total ice time.

Thanks again for keeping it real.

Marotte Marauder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2012, 10:46 AM
  #36
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
The Blackhawks cap limitations leave them looking for low-cost complimentary parts to play upfront with the Big Four. Brunette and Bickell don’t do it for me. I’d have Brouwer doing what he’s doing in Washington now and what he did here before. Hanging with skill-players while being the physical, big body presence complimenting that skill. I think one or two large bodies up front that can hang in your top six is hugely important in the NHL, but that’s just me.

BTW, in which alternate universe is Kruger a top-six forward at this point ????..
Did we not try Brouwer in the top 6 the last 2 seasons? All he did was bring down Toews and Kanes game. Stalberg has looked FAR better than Brouwer ever did with T & K.

Kruger is not a top 6 forward, but brouwer is not a C-man either, so where does he fit in the Top 6?
Stalberg > Brouwer

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
It depends on your definition of a 4th-liner.

Even before we discuss the individual merits and intangibles of a player, we can have as the most basic starting point that with 30 teams in the NHL X 9 forwards making up their top three lines, a 4th-liner would be a player outside of the top 270 forwards in scoring in the NHL.

Conversely, with 30 teams X 6 top-six forwards, one could argue that a player is a top-six forward if they are among the top 180 forwards in scoring in the NHL. At least as the basic starting point of a discussion.

At the moment Brouwer is 126th in scoring among NHL forwards, so I think that it’s safe to say that he is comfortably within the range of being a top six forward in the NHL, and the notion that he is a 4th liner is absurd.
I'm not calling Brouwer a 4th liner, but that's what he would of been on this team. He wouldn't over take Stalberg with T & K, he isn't a C so he can't play with Hossa and Sharp, and his defense isn't good enough to shut down the other teams top line everynight (3rd line), that leaves the 4th line for him.

I don't care what the stats say, Brouwer never found a home in any of our top 9 slots.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Not everyone.

Again, I admit my bias towards having at least one or two big bodies that can hang in your top six and play a physical brand of hockey.

These are the “4th liners” as you call them that are in the Brouwer neighbourhood, some better, some equal, some not as good, ranked by hits so far this year. Brouwer is a relative bargain salary-wise for this type of player:

Rank Player Team Hits GP Goals Asst Pts Salary
1 Martin NYI 186 43 5 5 10 852,500
2 Clutterbuck Min166 41 117 18 1,400,000
3 D. Brown LA 157 46 1213253,175,000
4 Callahan NYR 154 43 1417314,275,000
5 Brouwer Wash150 43 149232,375,000
6 Ott Dal 148 38 713202,950,000
7 Neil Ott 144 38 78152,000,000
8 Backes StL 131 45 1418324,500,000
9 Lapierre Van 127 46 5491,000,000
10 Doan Phx124 46 1413274,550,000
15 Foligno Buf115 47 1216281,200,000
18 Dubinsky NYR111 40 516214,200,000
19 Hanzal Phx111 33 514193,100,000
24 Cole Mtl102 45 1716334,500,000
25 Morrow Dal99 38 714214,100,000
187 Ladd Wpg40 45 157224,400,000
I've already said how I didn't call Brouwer a 4th liner, jsut the line he would play on this year.

Let's break it down by player and compare them to Brouwer..

1 | Martin |NYI | 186 | 43 | 5 |5 |10 | 852,500
Martin is a 4th liner, a damn good one. Would love him on our team, especially at that salary.

2 | Clutterbuck |Min|166 | 41 |11|7 |18 |1,400,000
Really? Give me Clutterbuck 10 times out of 10 over Brouwer, even if their salaries equaled out.

3 | D. Brown |LA |157 | 46 |12|13|25|3,175,000
Having an off year (and still out scoring Brouwer), but is LA's captain, great defensively, and only makes 800k more than Brouwer

4 | Callahan |NYR |154 | 43 |14|17|31|4,275,000
A selke type forward with far greater offensive abilities, and you are comparing him to Brouwer?

6 | Ott |Dal |148 | 38 |7|13|20|2,950,000
Over paid, just like Brouwer, but would be a 3rd liner here and Bolland would move up to 2nd line C. (Brouwer is not a C)

7 | Neil |Ott |144 | 38 |7|8|15|2,000,000
Again, makes less than Brouwer, is as good offensively, but would probably be on our 4th line here.

8 | Backes |StL |131 | 45 |14|18|32|4,500,000
Really? Far better offensively, far and away better defensively (selke type), and is a leader.

9 | Lapierre |Van |127 | 46 |5|4|9|1,000,000
Makes 1.3 less than Brouwer, would be on our 4th line.

15 | Foligno |Buf|115| 47 |12|16|28|1,200,000
Makes 1mil less than Brouwer, brings the physical game and a better offensive game. I'd take him on our 3rd line as he is decent defensively. If not 3rd line, at least you're not paying him 2.4 to play 4th line.

19 | Hanzal |Phx|111| 33 |5|14|19|3,100,000
Hanzal is better offensively, defensively and is a C, he would be a good #2 C on our team. Too bad Brouwer doesn't play C.

187| Ladd |Wpg|40| 45 |15|7|22|4,400,000
Never stayed with Toews and Kane, can't play C so wouldn't be with Hossa and Sharp, was a great 3rd liner when he was here, but wouldn't want a 3rd line LW making 4.4mil a year.

All of these guys are overpaid and/or old and got their deals when they were far better players than Brouwer will ever be. I wouldn't want any of them here at their salaries for more than the rest of this year.

24 | Cole |Mtl|102| 45 |17|16|33|4,500,000
25 | Morrow |Dal|99| 38 |7|14|21|4,100,000
10 | Doan |Phx|124| 46 |14|13|27|4,550,000
18 | Dubinsky |NYR|111| 40 |5|16|21|4,200,000

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2012, 10:58 AM
  #37
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,502
vCash: 500
Agree with Hawkaholic here

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2012, 12:14 PM
  #38
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,857
vCash: 500
That's all fine and good but the point is we are still missing those hits. The season is only going to intensify and get more physical in the 2nd half. Our soft play is worrisome.

BobbyJet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2012, 12:23 PM
  #39
Stringer Bell
Registered User
 
Stringer Bell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,320
vCash: 500
your input please: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1082709

Stringer Bell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2012, 01:05 PM
  #40
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
That's all fine and good but the point is we are still missing those hits. The season is only going to intensify and get more physical in the 2nd half. Our soft play is worrisome.
I agree, but the Hawks are not about to pay an inconsistent player who would play on our 4th line 2.35mil dollars either.

I'm sure a physical top 9 forward and a physical Dman are high on Bowmans list.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2012, 02:29 PM
  #41
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
I agree, but the Hawks are not about to pay an inconsistent player who would play on our 4th line 2.35mil dollars either.

I'm sure a physical top 9 forward and a physical Dman are high on Bowmans list.
Frolik has that spot locked up already.

Marotte Marauder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2012, 03:05 PM
  #42
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
Frolik has that spot locked up already.
I should of said, -another- in there.
I hope they find a new home for him really soon too.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 06:07 AM
  #43
projexns
Welcome Back Jets!
 
projexns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Did we not try Brouwer in the top 6 the last 2 seasons? All he did was bring down Toews and Kanes game. Stalberg has looked FAR better than Brouwer ever did with T & K.
Two seasons ago the PPG average of the Toews/Kane tandem was .987. Last year it was .974. So far this season without Brouwer in the line-up it’s .924.

There is no magical increase in production without Brouwer. Any drop in Toews/Kane production is likely to be directly proportional to how much less time they play with Sharp who is on a whole other level compared to Brouwer/Stalberg/Brunette/Bickell.

Brouwer and Stalberg are two completely different skill-sets that bring different things to a line. On THIS team, whose most physical forwards are players that you don’t want to see get too much ice-time in the playoffs, a player of Brouwer’s skill-set would be important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Kruger is not a top 6 forward, but brouwer is not a C-man either, so where does he fit in the Top 6? ……….. he isn't a C so he can't play with Hossa and Sharp
Sure he can, on LW while Sharp plays center. Sharp might be a better winger than a centerman, but the TEAM gets the best matchups when it can roll Toews-Sharp-Bolland down the middle. One of Toews-Sharp would get a mismatch after Bolland matches up against the other team’s top line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
I don't care what the stats say, Brouwer never found a home in any of our top 9 slots.
True. Quenneville also couldn’t find a home on his power-play for a defenceman who is currently leading NHL defencemen in power-play production. Nor could he find a home for a top-six forward who’s production is that of a top-six forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Let's break it down by player and compare them to Brouwer
And note that almost all of the players in the top 10 in hitting have spent their entire careers with the organization that drafted them. They are highly valued players except here for some strange reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
1 | Martin |NYI | 186 | 43 | 5 |5 |10 | 852,500
Martin is a 4th liner, a damn good one. Would love him on our team, especially at that salary.

2 | Clutterbuck |Min|166 | 41 |11|7 |18 |1,400,000
Really? Give me Clutterbuck 10 times out of 10 over Brouwer, even if their salaries equaled out.
Qualitatively I would take a top-six forward over a bottom-six forward 10 times out of 10.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
3 | D. Brown |LA |157 | 46 |12|13|25|3,175,000
Having an off year (and still out scoring Brouwer), but is LA's captain, great defensively, and only makes 800k more than Brouwer

4 | Callahan |NYR |154 | 43 |14|17|31|4,275,000
A selke type forward with far greater offensive abilities, and you are comparing him to Brouwer?
This list of players were referred to as

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
...in the Brouwer neighbourhood, some better, some equal, some not as good, ranked by hits so far this year. Brouwer is a relative bargain salary-wise for this type of player:
Remarkable similarities between Callahan’s development and Brouwer’s plus the fact they are the same age.

Callahan’s 2008-09 season of 22-18-40 in 81 games
Brouwer’s 2009-10 season of 22-18-40 in 78 games.

Callahan’s 2009-10 hiccup of 19-18-37 in 77 games
Brouwer’s 2010-11 hiccup of 17-19-36 in 79 games

Callahan improved considerably in 2010-11 with 23-25-48 in 60 games
Brouwer is currently improving on his 2010-11 season.

No question Callahan’s improvements are not likely to be matched by Brouwer, hence the $2 million premium on Callahan’s salary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
6 | Ott |Dal |148 | 38 |7|13|20|2,950,000
Over paid, just like Brouwer, but would be a 3rd liner here and Bolland would move up to 2nd line C. (Brouwer is not a C)
Ott is overpaid. Brouwer is not. Ott is three years older and has had his career year (read: his statistical anomaly) and has now returned to his usual level of goals in the low teen’s and the 40-point mark an unlikelihood. A 3rd-liner getting paid more than a 2nd-liner.

And Bolland as the 2nd-line center is a HORRIBLE idea. Why give away the advantage of matchups we enjoy when Bolland matches up against the other team’s #1 line and they then have to match one of Toews or Sharp with a scrub line?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
7 | Neil |Ott |144 | 38 |7|8|15|2,000,000
Again, makes less than Brouwer, is as good offensively, but would probably be on our 4th line here.
In which alternate universe is Neil as good offensively as Brouwer ?????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
8 | Backes |StL |131 | 45 |14|18|32|4,500,000
Really? Far better offensively, far and away better defensively (selke type), and is a leader.
Yes really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post

... in the Brouwer neighbourhood, some better, some equal, some not as good, ranked by hits so far this year. Brouwer is a relative bargain salary-wise for this type of player:
Of course you don’t get Backes for $2,350,000. Better players cost more money, more than what the ‘Hawks are throwing at completing their top two lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
9 | Lapierre |Van |127 | 46 |5|4|9|1,000,000
Makes 1.3 less than Brouwer, would be on our 4th line.
4th liner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
15 | Foligno |Buf|115| 47 |12|16|28|1,200,000
Makes 1mil less than Brouwer, brings the physical game and a better offensive game. I'd take him on our 3rd line as he is decent defensively. If not 3rd line, at least you're not paying him 2.4 to play 4th line.
20-goal scorers don’t play on 4th lines, regardless of their salary.

Foligno's contract is up this year after which he will likely make more than Brouwer, further showing what a bargain Brouwer’s contract is. Foligno’s career highs so far are 17 for goals, 20 for assists, 34 for points, so I wouldn’t be anointing him a better offensive player just yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
19 | Hanzal |Phx|111| 33 |5|14|19|3,100,000
Hanzal is better offensively, defensively and is a C, he would be a good #2 C on our team. Too bad Brouwer doesn't play C.
As with Foligno, his offensive superiority is imagined rather than real. Scored 35 points as a rookie five years ago and that remains his career high. Career best of 16 goals, has trouble staying healthy and has a salary over $3 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
187| Ladd |Wpg|40| 45 |15|7|22|4,400,000
Never stayed with Toews and Kane, can't play C so wouldn't be with Hossa and Sharp, was a great 3rd liner when he was here, but wouldn't want a 3rd line LW making 4.4mil a year.
Ladd couldn’t play with Sharp and Hossa because Sharp has never played center before ???

I can understand Ladd’s salary being too rich for the ‘Hawks, but how is he only a 3rd-line NHLer? In a 30 team league? With 180 top-six forwards? How does a player that finishes 59th in scoring among forwards last year not be perceived as being a top six forward ?

Why is there this perception that the league is filled with Boston’s and Detroit’s where 20-goal scorers are 4th-liners and Andrew Ladd is a 3rd-liner?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
All of these guys are overpaid and/or old and got their deals when they were far better players than Brouwer will ever be. I wouldn't want any of them here at their salaries for more than the rest of this year.

24 | Cole |Mtl|102| 45 |17|16|33|4,500,000
25 | Morrow |Dal|99| 38 |7|14|21|4,100,000
10 | Doan |Phx|124| 46 |14|13|27|4,550,000
18 | Dubinsky |NYR|111| 40 |5|16|21|4,200,000
Again the point being that better players will obviously cost more money. A 20-20 guy with 200 hits isn’t as good as those guys, but has good value at $2,350,000 and fits the ‘Hawks budget of trying to get low-cost complements for the big four upfront. Instead the brass spent that money on Brunette.

Almost all of the players listed have spent their careers with the same organization that drafted them. They are held in high regard …..by most teams.


Last edited by projexns: 01-18-2012 at 06:14 AM.
projexns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2012, 11:40 AM
  #44
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Two seasons ago the PPG average of the Toews/Kane tandem was .987. Last year it was .974. So far this season without Brouwer in the line-up it’s .924.

There is no magical increase in production without Brouwer. Any drop in Toews/Kane production is likely to be directly proportional to how much less time they play with Sharp who is on a whole other level compared to Brouwer/Stalberg/Brunette/Bickell.

Brouwer and Stalberg are two completely different skill-sets that bring different things to a line. On THIS team, whose most physical forwards are players that you don’t want to see get too much ice-time in the playoffs, a player of Brouwer’s skill-set would be important..
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? Brouwer never got high minutes here, and was one of the players that you didn't want to see on the ice come playoff time (below avg defense, limited offense) I don't care how many hits he had, or how many goals he scored. He didn't strike fear into opponents like say Ott, Clowe, Neil do, and he was far too inconsistent to play a meaningful role every night.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Sure he can, on LW while Sharp plays center. Sharp might be a better winger than a centerman, but the TEAM gets the best matchups when it can roll Toews-Sharp-Bolland down the middle. One of Toews-Sharp would get a mismatch after Bolland matches up against the other team’s top line.
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. And I'm pretty sure we tried brouwer with Sharp and Hossa quite a few times and it never panned out.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
True. Quenneville also couldn’t find a home on his power-play for a defenceman who is currently leading NHL defencemen in power-play production. Nor could he find a home for a top-six forward who’s production is that of a top-six forward.
Q tried Campbell on the PP, and Campbell never succeeded, did you watch any of the hockey games when he was here? Funny how he got 2nd pairing minutes and didn't show anything to put him on the 1st unit PP. Same goes for Brouwer, he was given top 6 minutes at times, didn't do anything with them, was incompetent when it came to defense, so he found himself on the lower lines.

Why would Q force something like Campbell on the PP, or Brouwer in the top 6...that doesn't work?



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
And note that almost all of the players in the top 10 in hitting have spent their entire careers with the organization that drafted them. They are highly valued players except here for some strange reason..
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Qualitatively I would take a top-six forward over a bottom-six forward 10 times out of 10.
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. For instance, Bolland is a top 6 forward points wise, but he is our 3rd line C....not sure what you don't get about this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
No question Callahan’s improvements are not likely to be matched by Brouwer, hence the $2 million premium on Callahan’s salary.
Brouwer will never match Callahan offensively, in their best years, and won't even get a sniff of Callahans selke type defense, ever. That's why he is paid like he should be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Ott is overpaid. Brouwer is not. Ott is three years older and has had his career year (read: his statistical anomaly) and has now returned to his usual level of goals in the low teen’s and the 40-point mark an unlikelihood. A 3rd-liner getting paid more than a 2nd-liner.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
And Bolland as the 2nd-line center is a HORRIBLE idea. Why give away the advantage of matchups we enjoy when Bolland matches up against the other team’s #1 line and they then have to match one of Toews or Sharp with a scrub line?.
Look at Vancouver, their shut down C is on their 2nd line, worked well for them last year.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
In which alternate universe is Neil as good offensively as Brouwer ??????.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Yes really.
You are comparing Brouwer to Backes? That's like comparing Toews to Bolland.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Of course you don’t get Backes for $2,350,000. Better players cost more money, more than what the ‘Hawks are throwing at completing their top two lines.
You mean the top 2 lines that are one of the highest scoring top 6 in the entire NHL?


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
20-goal scorers don’t play on 4th lines, regardless of their salary..
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Foligno's contract is up this year after which he will likely make more than Brouwer, further showing what a bargain Brouwer’s contract is. Foligno’s career highs so far are 17 for goals, 20 for assists, 34 for points, so I wouldn’t be anointing him a better offensive player just yet.
Foligno is on pace for roughly 50pts in his first year playing with a competent offense. Brouwers best year (this year) and he is on pace for 44. Foligno's defensive game is better too. If he makes more than Brouwer, I want no part of him either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
As with Foligno, his offensive superiority is imagined rather than real. Scored 35 points as a rookie five years ago and that remains his career high. Career best of 16 goals, has trouble staying healthy and has a salary over $3 million. .
Never said he was great offensively, but he has the potential to be a selke type shut down C, much like Bolland. The only reason he makes 3+ mil is because PHX has to over pay players to stay there. Not to mention he is a very good defensive C which is far more valuable than a hitting W.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Ladd couldn’t play with Sharp and Hossa because Sharp has never played center before ???

I can understand Ladd’s salary being too rich for the ‘Hawks, but how is he only a 3rd-line NHLer? In a 30 team league? With 180 top-six forwards? How does a player that finishes 59th in scoring among forwards last year not be perceived as being a top six forward ?

Why is there this perception that the league is filled with Boston’s and Detroit’s where 20-goal scorers are 4th-liners and Andrew Ladd is a 3rd-liner?
Here we are again, the team doesn't want Sharp at C.
Should we go and acquire a big RW to play with Toews because Kane can play C? No.

He is not a 3rd liner in the NHL. Like Bolland, he is definitely a top 6 forward that would be used on our 3rd line because of the way our lines shake out. Versteeg (the year we one) had top 180 stats, but was a 3rd liner. (same with Ladd)


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Again the point being that better players will obviously cost more money. A 20-20 guy with 200 hits isn’t as good as those guys, but has good value at $2,350,000 and fits the ‘Hawks budget of trying to get low-cost complements for the big four upfront. Instead the brass spent that money on Brunette. .
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.

Saying all that, wasn't Brouwer traded before Campbell? Chicago, at the time, didn't have a lot of cap space to deal with, and it was either Brouwer or Frolik. Unfortunetly, Frolik greatly out performed Brouwer in the playoffs last year and earned that spot over Brouwer. Yes, I would love to have Brouwer instead of Frolik, but at the time it looked like a great decision and we got a 1st round pick out of it. We would of never got a 1st round pick with Frolik.

Maybe now they can package Frolik with that 1st rounder, or another one, and get a better player than Brouwer or Frolik in return. Salary doesn't much matter when you have a ton of cap space.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2012, 08:06 AM
  #45
projexns
Welcome Back Jets!
 
projexns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
He didn't strike fear into opponents like say Ott,
Now you made me spit my Fruit Loops all over my computer screen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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 ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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 ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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……

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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 !

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
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.

projexns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2012, 08:30 AM
  #46
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post




.











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.

.
What alternative universe was Carcillo in where he was on pace for 26 goals?

Marotte Marauder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2012, 11:28 AM
  #47
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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?
Pretty sure from the start I have been talking about line structure and how Brouwer never filled a decent role in our top 6. Brouwer was never a good line component for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd line in Chicago.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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.
Stalberg is one who has played far better than Brouwer ever did in the top 6. Again, Sharp is on LW, and Brouwer is no C, so he wouldn't be getting a sniff of top 6 on this years team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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.
.
Here you go again giving stats when it's not all about stats when it comes to structuring your top 6.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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?
Maybe I mis-understood....and I still don't get what you are getting at and what it has to do with Brouwer who was never really in our top 6 last year for any length of time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Now you made me spit my Fruit Loops all over my computer screen
And that's probably what NHLers do when Brouwer challenges them to a fight or hits them.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
You mean the last 30 seconds of a PP that Campbell would get after Toews, Kane and Sharp left the ice ?
When you have the 3rd ranked PP in the league (last year) your coach has made the right decisions. Campbell didn;t show much of anything while he was here, but he deserved more PP time over Keith? Who cares what he is doing in Florida? Versteeg has as many points in Florida as Kane does in CHicago, should we have played Versteeg on our 1st line over Kane in the cup year?



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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.
Not really, I believe we had the top PP in the league without Campbell getting significant minutes. Why wreck something that is working?



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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?
Nope. It would mean there are better options for the top 3 lines. There isn't when it comes to Toews, there was when it came to Brouwer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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 ?..
We are 1st place in the entire NHL. Safe to say Q is getting what he needs out of everybody.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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.
It's still a lot of money for a guy who would be on our 4th line when the team is completely healthy.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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.
I will take a guy who scores 10 less points and is sound defensively and plays C, over a guy who scores 10 more points, isn't sound defensively, and plays the W.

Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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
This year, I don't see much of a difference in points/TOI.


Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
And this completes your hat-trick of Ott, Neil and Carcillo over Brouwer. Good luck with that moving forward !
To be honest, I don't want any of them on my team, except maybe Ott but even then he is a little over paid. But Carcillo did bring as much as Brouwer did while he was playing. Agree or not, the stats don't lie and he brings just as much energy, hits, sticking up for teammates as Brouwer ever did. (if not more)



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
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.
That maybe, but in the playoffs, I sure as hell don't want Brouwer in the top 6. (Last year 0pts in 7 games). The year we won the cup he was on the 4th line too.



Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
Isn’t Vancouver the worst possible example you could’ve given?
Didn't they go to the cup final? A place where we would love to go this year? Who cares what we did to them, we clearly have their number. Look at what they did to 2 other teams we will have a hard time beating (Nashville, San Jose).

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2012, 11:33 AM
  #48
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
What alternative universe was Carcillo in where he was on pace for 26 goals?
28 GP = 9G

82/28 = 2.93

2.93 x 9G = ~26

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2012, 11:51 AM
  #49
ChiHawk21
Registered User
 
ChiHawk21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,848
vCash: 500
just saw kopecky got his 6th goal of the season...

shaws got 5 haaa

ChiHawk21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2012, 12:02 PM
  #50
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
28 GP = 9G

82/28 = 2.93

2.93 x 9G = ~26
Did I Rip Van Winkel it and miss a bunch of Carcillo goals? I've got him with 6-11-17 over his last 85 games.

Marotte Marauder is online now   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 10:53 AM.

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.