HFBoards

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

Bowman plans to "improve from within"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-29-2012, 10:04 PM
  #126
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
So the Hawks had 9 core players? Thats a pretty sizeable core.
The big shiny silver thing we all got to hug and snuggle with a few years ago agrees with you.

A core player isn't hard to define. A fringe player is someone you can replace relatively easily. A core player is one doing enough that you can't. Core depth wins cups. You lose too much of it while replacing it with players who don't measure up - ie, replacing Campbell with Leddy (no knock on Leddy, he'll get there at some point) or Byfuglien with Brouwer and now Bickell - then that's where you take steps back.

Yes, Versteeg, Ladd, Byfuglien, Campbell were all core players. It's not all about points either (though that's part of it). They weren't playing minor roles on the team. The dependable grinding defensive and offensive play of Ladd, Versteeg's skill and creativity, the physical domination from Byfuglien... these are weapons that you can't just pick up (established) for a 5th round pick or low salary free agent signing (though its great if you can unearth a hidden one like we did with Versteeg). The fact the Hawks were so deep at forward that they all spent considerable amounts of time on the third line doesn't change what they were bringing.

Since we've lost them Bowman has been trying to replace them with scrapheap rejects like Brunette or square peg into round hole promotions like Bickell. This obviously isn't working. You just can't get a Ladd or a Byfuglien from pickups like that. And so our core declined in size to where we don't have core depth anymore. We're stuck shuffling around guys like Kruger, Brunette, Morrison, Bickell into roles they, as fringe players, aren't capable of handling.

There's more than one way to win a Cup but core depth is the most proven of all and pretty much the ONLY way to truly be a cup contender when you don't have a star goalie. L.A. was a core depth team this past playoffs.

A core of Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Buff, Ladd, Versteeg won a cup (we could argue about Niemi and also Bolland until the cows come home). These are the 2010 players that are of a quality difficult to replace.

A core of Keith, Seabrook, Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp hasn't won a playoff round. No one else on our team is particularly difficult to replace.

And that's how I see it.

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 10:07 PM
  #127
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
They fired their coach.
Good point, and they went from 107 to 92 points

Illinihockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 10:10 PM
  #128
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
The big shiny silver thing we all got to hug and snuggle with a few years ago agrees with you.

A core player isn't hard to define. A fringe player is someone you can replace relatively easily. A core player is one doing enough that you can't. Core depth wins cups. You lose too much of it while replacing it with players who don't measure up - ie, replacing Campbell with Leddy (no knock on Leddy, he'll get there at some point) or Byfuglien with Brouwer and now Bickell - then that's where you take steps back.

Yes, Versteeg, Ladd, Byfuglien, Campbell were all core players. It's not all about points either (though that's part of it). They weren't playing minor roles on the team. The dependable grinding defensive and offensive play of Ladd, Versteeg's skill and creativity, the physical domination from Byfuglien... these are weapons that you can't just pick up (established) for a 5th round pick or low salary free agent signing (though its great if you can unearth a hidden one like we did with Versteeg). The fact the Hawks were so deep at forward that they all spent considerable amounts of time on the third line doesn't change what they were bringing.

Since we've lost them Bowman has been trying to replace them with scrapheap rejects like Brunette or square peg into round hole promotions like Bickell. This obviously isn't working. You just can't get a Ladd or a Byfuglien from pickups like that. And so our core declined in size to where we don't have core depth anymore. We're stuck shuffling around guys like Kruger, Brunette, Morrison, Bickell into roles they, as fringe players, aren't capable of handling.

There's more than one way to win a Cup but core depth is the most proven of all and pretty much the ONLY way to truly be a cup contender when you don't have a star goalie. L.A. was a core depth team this past playoffs.

A core of Keith, Seabrook, Campbell, Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp, Buff, Ladd, Versteeg won a cup (we could argue about Niemi and also Bolland until the cows come home). These are the 2010 players that are of a quality difficult to replace.

A core of Keith, Seabrook, Toews, Kane, Hossa, Sharp hasn't won a playoff round. No one else on our team is particularly difficult to replace.

And that's how I see it.
And how do you suppose they get that core depth back? In the cap era NHL, the only way to do thatis through the draft which is why is stupid for people to expect a GM to find a way to replace Versteeg, Buff, and Ladd with $5 mil of cap space.

Illinihockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 10:17 PM
  #129
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeLee View Post
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.
This is the attitude of someone who has no idea what you need to do to win. So afraid you'll make a mistake that you never do anything?

This is roughly analogous to playing poker and only bidding when you have the nuts. Sure, you'll win every hand where that happens... but you'll be out of almost every game long before it does. It's a losing mentality.

Unlike poker, building a team has much less element of luck to it (basically, just the development of draft picks, and serious injuries). You HAVE to take risks to move forward.

If you want to win the cup, you're going to have to win a trade or two along with being lucky with your draft picks and injuries. You float along, never taking a risk, and there you'll be, stuck flailing in mediocrity.

Successful teams and GMs know this. Notice L.A. making the big moves last year, Pittsburgh this year, etc. You only sit pat when you already have a proven lineup (ie, the Detroit or Edmonton dynasties), and we don't anymore.

Quote:
Making moves for the sake of action doesn't mean you are doing anything that will win now or be smart.
Stop saying that. No one wants to move players just to make a move and saying that indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of what is being asked for. People here who want moves understand that the team, as is, is not good enough to contend. Some of us believe we have enough depth of assets in our strengths to move some of it for immediate help. Those of us who believe this way feel that we've already seen what this lineup can do the last couple years, and it's not enough.

Quote:
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.
This is a lot of words for just saying "I think players, despite being in exactly the same position with more or less the exact same teammates, will suddenly start playing better". This defies logic.

But you are likely to see whether or not your "everything is fine, let's just coast along" mentality is right, because I think we're looking at pretty close to the lineup we'll be starting the season with, along with one or two minor FA pickups, scrapheap rescues like Brunette was. Time will tell who is right.

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 10:17 PM
  #130
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,048
vCash: 500
/\ I know you likely won't agree but I think you are talking more about chemistry. The Hawks that year had it in spades as did LA this season. The trick is to develop it during the season and have the team peak at the right time. The salary capped NHL doesn't allow it to remain for too long unfortunately, and though it could happen, I don't expect LA to repeat next season. I guess that's good for the game, but I must admit I miss the dynasties from the past like Montreal, Isles and Oilers that could return with the same line-up annually and it was up to the opps to get better and upset the SC champions.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 10:21 PM
  #131
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
And how do you suppose they get that core depth back? In the cap era NHL, the only way to do thatis through the draft which is why is stupid for people to expect a GM to find a way to replace Versteeg, Buff, and Ladd with $5 mil of cap space.
You realize only Byfuglien, of those three (and Campbell for four), was drafted by the Hawks.

You get players like that by taking risks. You can, and need to, draft some of them (ie, Saad). To keep up to turnover from free agency losses and players getting old, you need to be extremely lucky drafting and get guys like Byfuglien in the mid and late rounds. But you can't depend on that. You need to go out and make things happen, like trading Ruutu for Ladd or Bochenski for Versteeg.


Last edited by Crazy_Ike: 06-29-2012 at 10:29 PM.
Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 10:28 PM
  #132
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
/\ I know you likely won't agree but I think you are talking more about chemistry.
I believe chemistry is a lot like momentum - it's retroactively assigned to explain intangibles. Also, it probably only has a real effect when it's bad. So, yeah, no, I don't agree, but I appreciate that you disagreed with me without demanding I shut up for the rest of eternity. This is, however, just my opinion and people are welcome to believe more strongly in chemistry than I do.

However, in this case, I think there's a clear case of difference in player quality then and now. It goes for the Kings too: look at the size of their Cup winning core. Kopitar, Brown, Carter, Richards, Stoll, Williams, Penner (sometimes), Doughty, Mitchell, Quick. You can't point to a single one of those guys and say "yeah, I can grab one of those in the offseason without too much trouble".

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 10:39 PM
  #133
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
You realize only Byfuglien, of those three (and Campbell for four), was drafted by the Hawks.

You get players like that by taking risks. You can, and need to, draft some of them (ie, Saad). To keep up to turnover from free agency losses and players getting old, you need to be extremely lucky drafting and get guys like Byfuglien in the mid and late rounds. But you can't depend on that. You need to go out and make things happen, like trading Ruutu for Ladd or Bochenski for Versteeg.
I do realize that only 1 of them were drafted but lets not act like Ruutu for Ladd was some bold stroke. Rutuu's bests season of his career was 44 points for the Hawks and had 21 points in 60 games before he was dealt. So just like being extremely lucky in the draft, you have to be extremely lucky with trades. Lets face it, if the Hawks don't end up with Kane and Toews at the top of the draft, the trades for Ladd and Versteeg don't mean a thing.

Illinihockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 10:57 PM
  #134
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
I do realize that only 1 of them were drafted but lets not act like Ruutu for Ladd was some bold stroke. Rutuu's bests season of his career was 44 points for the Hawks and had 21 points in 60 games before he was dealt. So just like being extremely lucky in the draft, you have to be extremely lucky with trades. Lets face it, if the Hawks don't end up with Kane and Toews at the top of the draft, the trades for Ladd and Versteeg don't mean a thing.
We can debate whether or not it is luck to win trades until the cows come home, it all goes back to the original point - you may not always move forward with every trade you make, but you never move anywhere by not making one. I don't like the way the team is now (I am not alone either) and I don't see it likely the same team that lost in the first round twice in a row now will suddenly jump forward.

If we could move Stalberg, who is roughly the same value to us now as Ruutu was then, for someone like Ladd, wouldn't you do it? (no, I am not saying Stalberg plays anything like Ruutu you people so don't even try it)

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 11:45 PM
  #135
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
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.
Except the Redwings weren't changing team that just won the Cup, not teams that had been bounced in the first round two years in a row.

Plus you can't compare them. The Wings didn't have a cap, if there was no cap after 2010 the Hawks have won atleast 1 more Cup and contended for both.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 11:48 PM
  #136
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Good point, and they went from 107 to 92 points
They also went from getting swept in the 2nd round in 2011 as the #1 seed to in 2012 taking the #1 seed to game 7 after beating the #2 seed the round before.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2012, 11:50 PM
  #137
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,099
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
Nope, pretty clear on it actually. And the change in our playoff fortunes pretty much shows I have a better handle on it than you do in that case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nds90 View Post
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.
Not worth repeating on my own, but this ^

Can't just call 9-10 guys a core because they were so good together, IMO.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 12:09 AM
  #138
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
How very... arbitrary... of you.

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 12:44 AM
  #139
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,099
vCash: 772
I just think the definition of a core..a nucleus, a center..evolves around a slim amount of guys, not half the team. It's arbitrary, sure, but it's my opinion.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 06:57 AM
  #140
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 23,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post


Really?
why not?

10/11 Craw was good enough. Leddy wasn't that bad, as was Krüger. If they develop, improve and get more confidence next year, many problems will be solved. It's up to coaching to get a fire under guys like Bickell or Keith.

Bubba88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 07:07 AM
  #141
clydesdale line
Registered User
 
clydesdale line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nds90 View Post
you can make a case for campbell, but ladd, versteeg, and buff were not part of the core.
I'd definitely arge Ladd and I've said it a million times here. By far our biggest loss. That guy did things on the ice that doesn't show up in stat sheets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
It's up to coaching to get a fire under guys like Bickell or Keith.
Good luck with that. Noone has done it since his Ottawa 67 days and even then, left alot to be desired.

clydesdale line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 07:17 AM
  #142
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 23,855
vCash: 500
I know, I would trade Bickell if we can get a better sized player.

Bubba88 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 08:58 AM
  #143
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
They also went from getting swept in the 2nd round in 2011 as the #1 seed to in 2012 taking the #1 seed to game 7 after beating the #2 seed the round before.
People put way too much stock in playoff performance in any one year. The NHL shows us every year that with the small sample size of 7 games, anything can happen, especially when you run into a team with a hot goaltender. If Kane doesn't score that late goal and the Hawks lose to Nashville in 2010 does that mean they were a worse team than the year before when they went to the WCF? Of course not.

Illinihockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 09:01 AM
  #144
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
We can debate whether or not it is luck to win trades until the cows come home, it all goes back to the original point - you may not always move forward with every trade you make, but you never move anywhere by not making one. I don't like the way the team is now (I am not alone either) and I don't see it likely the same team that lost in the first round twice in a row now will suddenly jump forward.

If we could move Stalberg, who is roughly the same value to us now as Ruutu was then, for someone like Ladd, wouldn't you do it? (no, I am not saying Stalberg plays anything like Ruutu you people so don't even try it)
And Bowman has made trades, he's traded for Frolik, Salak, Morrison, Oduya, and Campoli....they just haven't worked out the same way.

Yes I'd trade Stalberg for someone like Ladd because the Hawks need someone that is more physical.

Illinihockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 09:41 AM
  #145
Crazy_Ike
Cookin' with fire.
 
Crazy_Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 500
Yeah thats just it, he traded for fringe rather than core.

Crazy_Ike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 09:57 AM
  #146
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ike View Post
Yeah thats just it, he traded for fringe rather than core.
Thats hindsight. No one knew Ladd was going to become such a stud, no one knew Versteeg was going to havea 50+ points in his first NHL season. Had Frolik returned to his 20+ goal form of his early career he'd be seen as the core, if Salak developed as people hoped, he'd be part of the core. Some trades work out, some don't. It just happened that the Versteeg and Ladd trades worked out great.

Illinihockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 10:04 AM
  #147
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
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.
This is all well and good, but I wasn't attempting to make a point about everything that goes into backchecking from a 5-man unit on the ice. I was making a point about how boardplay has almost nothing to do with backchecking, as backchecking has more to do with the opposing team coming into your zone through the neutral zone and open ice. In backchecking, as much as you're trying to seperate man from puck, you're main concern is simply disrupting him and his progress (in terms of attacking the puck carrier).

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 10:11 AM
  #148
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,773
vCash: 500
I thought the point after the purge was to bring in players to support the core, not find new players to add to the core.

xx - Toews - Kane
Sharp - xx - Hossa
xx - Bolland - xx
xx - xx - xx

Keith - Seabrook
Leddy - xx
xx - xx

That's the current core, as I see it. Right now, we have Viktor Stalberg, Michael Frolik, Andrew Shaw, Johnny Oduya, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Dylan Olsen, Steve Montador, Jamal Mayers, Marcus Kruger and potentially Brandon Saad, Jimmy Hayes, etc filling out the rest of the team.. but I wouldn't say any of those players are "core", they're support players and role players.

Chicago doesn't need to find/add more "core" players. They need to find quality players to support the core they already have. That doesn't mean players can't/won't be consider part of the core going forward, but that's the current core as it stands and the goal should be to build around that, which Bowman has done with mixed results.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 10:22 AM
  #149
helicon1
Registered User
 
helicon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 481
vCash: 500
The importance of something like chemistry is a bit overstated I think. On the one extreme a toxic atmosphere of dislike and mistrust can affect on-ice performance for sure. But I don't really see a team where everybody is the best of buds having any advantage over another where, although not friends of the ice, are professional with each other.

The intangible stuff to me is more a matter of a team getting hot combined with luck. There seems to be this hindsight belief of the Hawks as an unstoppable force who were favourites from the beginning (of the playoffs) in '10, but that just wasn't true. They got hot at the right time and were lucky.

helicon1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2012, 01:48 PM
  #150
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
why not?

10/11 Craw was good enough. Leddy wasn't that bad, as was Krüger. If they develop, improve and get more confidence next year, many problems will be solved. It's up to coaching to get a fire under guys like Bickell or Keith.
No he wasn't they lost in the first round.

Leddy was terrible in his own end

Kruger can't be a 2nd line center in the NHL yet.

No many problems aren't solved by the guys they have just improving.

The Hawks are still small, weak, lacking physicality and in need of goaltending.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 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.