Do Stanton and Dahlbeck play in the same pairing? I note that Stanton is +8 and Dahlbeck +7 for the season so far--Stanton has 8 points --all asists --Dahlbeck has no points --I'm guessing they play in the same pairing most of the time which could explain that Dahlbeck was on when Stanton scored probably 7 of his 8 assists and that thios means that they were EVEN throughout ES play except that Dahlbeck wasn't on for 1 of Stanton's assists in ES..obviously they are net positives by a decent degree in ES play since neithyer contributes that much offense--so it has to be because of good defensive play that they have such positive+/- stats---obviously if they held to that defensive standard but could score more then those +/- stats would be even higher positive..BUT,what I wonder is are they both about equal in defensive steadiness or is either Dalhbeck or stanto the main reason for that steadiness with the other d-partner just benefitting -and if so which of the too is most responsible for that defensive reliability (certailnly compared to the other d-men on the club whose +/- is not as good)? What i'm asking is: IF as some posters think STANTON is NHL ready--what about DAHLBECK? OF course you know the Hawks willnever promote too many SAH d-men -no they would rather hype a D-man's offensive points as indicative of NHL readiness even if the other side of the ledger shows -12 (as in not quite so reasy Leddy ;last year)-but those points! Maybe he willbe another Karlsson and go major positive in the +/- from here on?(though no proof of that trend from Leddy in the AHL so far ) --weel,he is certinly no Justin Schultz --so then i ask :IS IT BETTER TO HAVE A LEDDY scoring 45-55 points but ending up -6 to -12 in the NHL or to have a DAHLBECK scoting no points but going +6 to +12 ? Point is that even if Leddy scores 12 of his points on PP's and still provides only-6 to -12 in ES play then it seems like haedly much of a net overall benefit...Better it seems to have a guy with no points but who still manages to be +6 tp +12 in Es play despite the no points ...not going to help your PP but OVERALL may win you more games by helping lower the ES scoring against you...
I don't really know how Leddy got involved there, but from what I've seen, Dahlbeck is at least as good as Stanton defensively. Both could play decent NHL shutdown defense right now.
Difference is, Stanton's overall game is a good deal better than Dahlbeck's. For that reason alone, if you have to choose between the two, choose Stanton.
For a team that relies so heavily on transition, it's better to have the guy that can actually get the puck up and skate it up, if need be. Leddy > Dahlbeck, and I like Dahlbeck.
How can a guy (Dahlbeck) play 21 games and not get a single point. Not one. Even Hjammer, who would rather ice it or ring it off the high glass than make an outlet pass to a wide open forward, averages a point every 8-10 games.
How can a guy (Dahlbeck) play 21 games and not get a single point. Not one. Even Hjammer, who would rather ice it or ring it off the high glass than make an outlet pass to a wide open forward, averages a point every 8-10 games.
It happens a lot, actually. Pretty much every NHL season, someone plays 20+ games and doesn't get a point. Mostly fighters, but still.
Clendening... such an exciting offensive d-man prospect. Just terrific vision and hockey sense (almost elite already). Helps any PP he's on. Gonna be a huge asset for the Blackhawks when he's up.
PIT was 4th in Gs that season. Don't know why they didn't throw him on a line w/ Jagr for a game to break his 0.
Good answer. Still, for a guy taking a regular shift it's hard to do and I am sure he will put up Hjammer type numbers at some point. If he can play solid defense that's what we need most. Despite all the hype here over our prospects the pipeline is thin in terms of real defenders. I hope Stephen Johns gets a contract and I was kind of thinking we might have gone for Maatta last year, but time will tell.
Was anyone at the game tonight that could give a game summary and how some of the top prospects played? I'm starving for hockey news - appreciate any tidbits I can get.
Points from the blueline isn't our problem in Chicago. It's the, you know, playing defense aspect where we seem to struggle. That's why I'd rather have a solid but unspectacular Stanton over a point producing turnover machine like Clendening.
Points from the blueline isn't our problem in Chicago. It's the, you know, playing defense aspect where we seem to struggle. That's why I'd rather have a solid but unspectacular Stanton over a point producing turnover machine like Clendening.
Every time I've seen Stanton play, he's taken at least one stupid penalty. Clendening will get better defensively in time and he'll learn to make better decisions. Big, solid Dmen are a dime-a-dozen.. potentially elite PP QB's are not. Clendening > Stanton.
