/\
In the short term, a half empy UC won’t do anything for the team. But Hawks management needs to know that the product on the ice is more important than all the marketing glitz we’ve witnessed since winning the SC. It’s easy to get the impression that their strategy is “the goal was reached now let’s milk it for all its worth”. That’s fine as long as going forward we ice the best team possible and that simply isn’t happening at the moment. Yes, Stan’s hands were certainly tied due to the cap problems and high bonus payments, and he did a decent job in making some difficult decisions, but that was then, and this is now. I don’t want to see a replay of the sad sack era we endured under the Wirtz Sr.
What is this?? Hawks won the Cup two years ago. Have been in the Playoffs the last four seasons. What on earth are we protesting? Wahhh we want a Stanley Cup every year. I know we had to wait 50 years between the last two, but I really expected a Dynasty.
In what way does boardplay have anything to do with backchecking? The point of a backcheck is to apply pressure to the opposing player with the puck, who's attempting to bring the puck into the offensive zone. .
That is not a complete definition of backchecking. Do you even know who the most dangerous player on the ice is?
Bowman is right. Don't force anything, don't overpay and spend your money on proven players and D depth. Build within the organisation.
Hawks just need time and will get it. They are competitive as is. Craw with a bounce back season, Leddy & Krüger with more experience and confidence and our team is a cup favorite.
Bowman wants to upgrade some positions, sometimes there just isn't a chance to do it
"Improve from within" is a euphemism for not being able to get much done and then standing pat. This is what Stan needs if he's ever going to do anything outside the draft and be a real GM:
"Improve from within" is only scratching the surfice of everything Bowman said and he wasn't specifically talking about propsects/players in the system coming in and improving the team.
What is this?? Hawks won the Cup two years ago. Have been in the Playoffs the last four seasons. What on earth are we protesting? Wahhh we want a Stanley Cup every year. I know we had to wait 50 years between the last two, but I really expected a Dynasty.
The fact that other teams go out and get what they need, while Stan either hasn't the negotiating skill, the hockey knowledge, is being hand-cuffed by Rocky and/or honestly thinks that this team is good enough as is with a few small tweaks. Probably a combination of all of the above.
On the opposite side of the spectrum we have teams such as LA, Washington and Philly who seemingly leave no stone unturned to try and improve, and this year it payed off for LA.
The fact that other teams go out and get what they need, while Stan either hasn't the negotiating skill, the hockey knowledge, is being hand-cuffed by Rocky and/or honestly thinks that this team is good enough as is with a few small tweaks. Probably a combination of all of the above.
On the opposite side of the spectrum we have teams such as LA, Washington and Philly who seemingly leave no stone unturned to try and improve, and this year it payed off for LA.
And how has that worked out for Washington and Philly? Almost every team adds players during free agency every year and only 1 wins the Cup. Not every year is every signing going to work out.
Wasn't there some praise that the Kings weren't doing much the year before last. With the idea of getting some contracts locked up and not being overblowing on their roster. They were in the Iyla sweepstakes but I guess they blew it because Lombardi wasn't gonna give up the duckets and talent...
It's a difference from having to make risky moves to making solid ones. When you have a highly touted prospect wanted by many, you don't have to go and give him up and think that's the winning move.
I don't get the mentality of people saying Bowman lacks the calzones. Did everyone miss the message that this was the gameplan from the get-go? Even before the Cup victory it was clear they were oriented on building around that core, developing new young talent, and part time vets. Barker trade for a very part time vet and a new young talent was notice numbero uno.
The point of a backcheck is to apply pressure to the opposing player with the puck, who's attempting to bring the puck into the offensive zone. Boardplay has nothing to do with it. Forechecking? Sure.. but not backchecking.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder
That is not a complete definition of backchecking. Do you even know who the most dangerous player on the ice is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss
Enlighten me.
The first forward back does try to apply pressure on the puck carrier, allowing his defensman to step up and make an agressive play.
What about the other 4 skaters on the opposing team? Doesn't one pick up the their man on the backcheck? 4 players need to be accounted for beside the puck carrier. It is that part of backchecking that typically breaks down as most players key on the puck, even at elite levels of play.
When that part of the backcheck breaks down it leads to an odd man rush which if allowed to develop will give rise to the most dangerous player on the ice. He isn't the player with puck, he typically isn't the guy driving to the far post, he's the late guy coming after losing his backchecker.
Playing without the puck or defending a guy without the puck is the least interesting of a player's development, yet the most important. 80% of the time, you don't have the puck nor does your defensive responsibility have the puck.
PS, this is what holds VS back. If gets elite level awareness away from the puck, he would become a perrenial All Star, the other attributes are there. This is why he always was an intriguing prospect.
How is it easy to get the impression they are "milking it for all its worth" when they buried $8 million dollars in the minor leagues last year to try to be competitive? How can you say that when they've made big dollar, long term commitments to players every single season for the past 4 years?
That would mean more if they didn't leave those $s on the table (spent well below cap), and they thought it was a good idea to sign Huet and trade for Olesz in the first place.
I'm with the majority in this thread. There are significant gaping holes on this team, and plenty of assets to address them. Doing nothing and praying for Leddy & Kruger to fill the holes is folly IMO.
And how has that worked out for Washington and Philly? Almost every team adds players during free agency every year and only 1 wins the Cup. Not every year is every signing going to work out.
Who Cares! They are trying. I hate this weak pathetic argument, well it didn't work for them so never do it. If that's the case fold the franchise because I can show you how every strategy has failed at least once, so therefore no strategy will ever work right?
Seriously what strategy will have more success?
Take a team with major holes, make some bold and even questionable moves, try to fill the holes you have and really try to win.
Yes doesn't work 100% and your odds are about 50/50. However when it doesn't work you will be looked at as a failure for giving up pieces that didn't work out.
or
Take a team with major holes, sign nobody who is a real game changer but are fill ins at best, don't trade any piece with value in positions we are deep to to fill positions we have no one there to fill, and keep the status quo overall.
Yes that strategy has a 0 failure rate which is what Bowman loves, he can't fail, because you can't fail if you don't try, but it also have a 0% success rate because you can't succeed either if you don't try.
I'll take door #1 and make some bold moves and try to actually win then to keep a team as is that clearly isn't good enough just because then I can't fail.
I would rather we join the race, and trip, fall and embarrass ourselves horribly then not enter the race at all.
"Anyways, from where I'm sitting Kruger and Bolland are basically the same player. Your hatred for him really makes no sense at all, so I suspect you are just incredibly inflexible or some kind of bigot."
This may actually be the dumbest thing I've read on HF ever.
Kruger is nowhere near Bolland at this point in time, that is absolutely a ridiculous thing to say.
Who Cares! They are trying. I hate this weak pathetic argument, well it didn't work for them so never do it. If that's the case fold the franchise because I can show you how every strategy has failed at least once, so therefore no strategy will ever work right?
Seriously what strategy will have more success?
"You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take." - Wayne Gretzky.
I don't think these guys here understand that concept.
That would mean more if they didn't leave those $s on the table (spent well below cap), and they thought it was a good idea to sign Huet and trade for Olesz in the first place.
I'm with the majority in this thread. There are significant gaping holes on this team, and plenty of assets to address them. Doing nothing and praying for Leddy & Kruger to fill the holes is folly IMO.
The Hawks were at $60 mil ($3.8 below the cap), with $8 mil burried in the minors. They couldn't use their overate at the start of the year to make up that $3.8 mil because of Huet. And Huet was signed before the Hawks were any kind of contenders. Has nothing to do with what they've done post Cup.
you can make a case for campbell, but ladd, versteeg, and buff were not part of the core. they were like bolland. very important players that made the hawks a great team, but i still don't see how you can say they're a part of the core.
you can't have half a team be the core. it's toews, kane, sharp, hossa, keith, and seabrook.
Who Cares! They are trying. I hate this weak pathetic argument, well it didn't work for them so never do it. If that's the case fold the franchise because I can show you how every strategy has failed at least once, so therefore no strategy will ever work right?
Seriously what strategy will have more success?
Take a team with major holes, make some bold and even questionable moves, try to fill the holes you have and really try to win.
Yes doesn't work 100% and your odds are about 50/50. However when it doesn't work you will be looked at as a failure for giving up pieces that didn't work out.
or
Take a team with major holes, sign nobody who is a real game changer but are fill ins at best, don't trade any piece with value in positions we are deep to to fill positions we have no one there to fill, and keep the status quo overall.
Yes that strategy has a 0 failure rate which is what Bowman loves, he can't fail, because you can't fail if you don't try, but it also have a 0% success rate because you can't succeed either if you don't try.
I'll take door #1 and make some bold moves and try to actually win then to keep a team as is that clearly isn't good enough just because then I can't fail.
I would rather we join the race, and trip, fall and embarrass ourselves horribly then not enter the race at all.
What major moves did Washington make? Trading for Troy Brouwer? Signing Jeff Halpren? I love your second paragraph because you just described the Detroit Red Wings to a T. Ya, 0 success rate.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take." - Wayne Gretzky.
I don't think these guys here understand that concept.
People who look at it more realistically realize it's a whole lot easier to shoot the puck into your own net when dealing with trades than on the Ice.
Making moves for the sake of action doesn't mean you are doing anything that will win now or be smart.
The mentality that this is shocking or surprising is baffling. It's also a joke everyone seems to scough the idea that the teams play can improve when really, one 1 player in Stalberg was outplaying his level of potential.. Maybe Shaw could count there as well but it's slim. Yet I see more posts laughing at plays improving or serious talks of regress in players next year than the opposite despite law of averages implications.
And Campbell was the only core guys traded off... you can try to argue Ladd but he really wasn't. They tried to keep him but the Hammer offer made it too hard.
What major moves did Washington make? Trading for Troy Brouwer? Signing Jeff Halpren? I love your second paragraph because you just described the Detroit Red Wings to a T. Ya, 0 success rate.
