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

Dave Bolland

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-03-2013, 02:19 PM
  #76
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
It's like you think you
think the object of hockey is to win faceoffs
.

He was sound defensively - until the entire team was too tired to do anything but fall in front of shots - and was one of three forwards who managed to hit a teammate with a pass. He's hardly been an issue.

Where are your posts about the headless chicken that is Shaw? He's not even playing physical this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
You need to watch the game again ... that may have been Kruger's worst performance this year without the puck. And don't discount losing face offs as unimportant. It has already cost us some key goals and last night was no exception plus it is placing too much pressure on our PK unit. Q (or Stan) must address this ... some way, somehow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
if anything, it would be Frolik. Bollig is just not smart enough to be in the right position.


Krüger showed up last night, but hey he is our problem.
Whatever this has to do with Bollands injury.
I think there are maybe 5 posters in the Hawks section that understand face offs.

It is the only time in hockey where you can run a set play. Does that maybe make F/Os important? Lose the draw in your end and run around for an entire shift. Might that make F/Os important? Lose a draw in your own end, run around and take a penalty. Might that make F/Os important? Lose a draw in their end, particularly on the PP and get to waste time trying to get a clean entry (which is another significant issue). Might that make F/Os important? If those answers are no, you must be referring to a different game, cuz it ain't hockey.

You think the 10 extra opportunities afforded the Flames due to F/Os may have had a hand in why yesterday was very tough?


Let's see, Bolland's a Center and Kruger is the next most senior Center, you're right it has no relevance at all.

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 02:21 PM
  #77
Ace Rothstein
Aces High
 
Ace Rothstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 3,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
hell, he is just our 4th line Center and plays GREAT at this spot so far.
At some point the 4th line has to contribute a little bit offensively. They are on pace for a grand total of 11 points for the season among the 4 players we've seen on that line this year.

Ace Rothstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 02:37 PM
  #78
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 23,107
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
I think there are maybe 5 posters in the Hawks section that understand face offs.

It is the only time in hockey where you can run a set play. Does that maybe make F/Os important? Lose the draw in your end and run around for an entire shift. Might that make F/Os important? Lose a draw in your own end, run around and take a penalty. Might that make F/Os important? Lose a draw in their end, particularly on the PP and get to waste time trying to get a clean entry (which is another significant issue). Might that make F/Os important? If those answers are no, you must be referring to a different game, cuz it ain't hockey.

You think the 10 extra opportunities afforded the Flames due to F/Os may have had a hand in why yesterday was very tough?


Let's see, Bolland's a Center and Kruger is the next most senior Center, you're right it has no relevance at all.
I'd love you to show me where I said faceoff's aren't relevant.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 06:28 PM
  #79
slappipappi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post

You think the 10 extra opportunities afforded the Flames due to F/Os may have had a hand in why yesterday was very tough?


.
Actually, 5 extra opportunities, in that if the Hawks had won 5 more draws, they would have had an equal amount of face-off winners as the Flames.

The face-off difference didn't effect the game as much as you think.

slappipappi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 06:28 PM
  #80
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,458
vCash: 500
nobody ever said faceoffs aren't important. They are. They are just not going to win or lose you games. They are just not as important as you make them out to be

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 07:32 PM
  #81
pvr
Kruger Line=2.5 Men
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
never said you were the guy to bring up Krüger here. I never said Krüger is a better finisher than Frolik. Just said that if anybody is as bad as Krüger scoring goals and finishing it would be Frolik, not Bollig.


Krüger is a big reason with Frolik that our PK is better than last year. Now add in that the goalie finally is the best penalty killer and you have a Top3 PK.



I just don't get the obsession Krüger gets here. He is in the Bottom 6, playing good on the PK and doesn't make many mistakes while getting better and better. Much improved and still some kind of weak along the boards... but he did beat the Sedins there more than once along the boards - look how they are seen even being that soft and "weak". (waits for response like "Krüger better than Sedin, WTF Oo")

hell, he is just our 4th line Center and plays GREAT at this spot so far.
I'll preface what I write by saying that I'd like to play hockey as "poorly" as Kruger. I believe that he has above average hockey sense, and that allows him to overcome a bit his below average hockey skills.

The obsessions actually started with two posters who wouldn't stop with the rhetoric about what a great player he was/is, about his phenomenal contributions to the Hawks last/this year, and about how "he is getting better and better" (I surely hope so, as he has a lot of room to grow, so to speak). I'm tired of reading about all of the hype and excuses some people here make for him. It forces the rest of us to offer contrarian responses.

Well, he's defensively responsible, but really that's about it. He's made the most of his PK opportunities, and for that I'm grateful. He hustles and backchecks hard, and I really like his overall effort level.

However, if he aspires to be great defensively, he would find a way to win 55% of his faceoffs. Faceoffs are extremely important, as MM outlined. (Anyone who remembers Mikita's prowess would agree.) He gets pushed off the dot frequently, and his weak arm strength also causes him to lose the draw (as well as have a pathetic shot). His best chance to win is a clean pull, though he has a few cute moves that give him a few more wins. It also frustrates the heck out of me when he can't clear the puck out of our zone because he's weak and clears with the authority of a midget-level hockey player.

He's obviously challenged offensively. He doesn't pass or stick-handle particularly well, doesn't snipe, isn't fast, and his "go-to" move is going to the net to get a rebound. He still gets knocked down on the boards and in front of the net with regularity. Can you disagree with any of that???

He certainly seems better this year than last (damning with faint praise), and I attribute that to his time spent in the AHL. Right now he's a passable fourth line center on the Hawks. Anything more on this team andI know that I'll not be happy with our personnel.

Right now, in my wildest imagination, I can't visualize that he'll ever be an adequate second line center on any playoff-bound team in the NHL, let alone on the Hawks. He might rise to third line center, but I hope we have better optons than him on this team in that role.

pvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 08:18 PM
  #82
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
Actually, 5 extra opportunities, in that if the Hawks had won 5 more draws, they would have had an equal amount of face-off winners as the Flames.

The face-off difference didn't effect the game as much as you think.
Not if... the Flames won 10 more draws and 10 more opportunities of puck possession. Just as playing from behind is draining, so is playing without the puck. That's why the rink is tilted, so to speak, when you are on the opponents' side of center with the puck. Everyone has a little more gas with the biscuit than without.

Those lost faceoffs will kill us going forward, no doubt at all.

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 08:19 PM
  #83
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,681
vCash: 500
Well said pvr!

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 10:05 PM
  #84
slappipappi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
Not if... the Flames won 10 more draws and 10 more opportunities of puck possession. Just as playing from behind is draining, so is playing without the puck. That's why the rink is tilted, so to speak, when you are on the opponents' side of center with the puck. Everyone has a little more gas with the biscuit than without.

Those lost faceoffs will kill us going forward, no doubt at all.
You missed the point entirely.

That's Flames 5 more draws than 50%.

10 more draws is 5 extra posessions.

You seriously need to consider some math lessons.

slappipappi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 10:11 PM
  #85
Ace Rothstein
Aces High
 
Ace Rothstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 3,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
You missed the point entirely.

That's Flames 5 more draws than 50%.

10 more draws is 5 extra posessions.

You seriously need to consider some math lessons.
You're forgetting that the Hawks are 5 draws under 50%. That adds up to 10 more possessions.

There were 64 faceoffs last night. Flames had a 37-27 advantage for a total of 10 more possessions that the Hawks.

People who live in glass houses...

Ace Rothstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 11:01 PM
  #86
Atomic Punk
Mean Streets
 
Atomic Punk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Panama
Country: United States
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 500
I come to a supposed Bolland thread and that damn Kruger has hijacked it agin......

Atomic Punk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-03-2013, 11:46 PM
  #87
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanny View Post
I come to a supposed Bolland thread and that damn Kruger has hijacked it agin......
Can't remember who said it (it was in a different thread, maybe a week ago), but he put it perfectly. Something along the lines of "the most analyzed player on this team plays one of the simplest games."

Chris Hansen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 02:00 AM
  #88
LarmerSavardSecord
Registered User
 
LarmerSavardSecord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wicker Park
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
I think there are maybe 5 posters in the Hawks section that understand face offs.

It is the only time in hockey where you can run a set play. Does that maybe make F/Os important? Lose the draw in your end and run around for an entire shift. Might that make F/Os important? Lose a draw in your own end, run around and take a penalty. Might that make F/Os important? Lose a draw in their end, particularly on the PP and get to waste time trying to get a clean entry (which is another significant issue). Might that make F/Os important? If those answers are no, you must be referring to a different game, cuz it ain't hockey.

You think the 10 extra opportunities afforded the Flames due to F/Os may have had a hand in why yesterday was very tough?


Let's see, Bolland's a Center and Kruger is the next most senior Center, you're right it has no relevance at all.
The problem vs CLG was not FOs, it was general fatigue. ,they were dead tired vs a rested team at home.

You have to look at numbers: the best FO% team (54%) will win ONE more FO on average in a game vs the Hawks (50.8%). ONE. Or two over three games.

STL can't win a draw this year (<48%) by this standard, but are out-shooting their VS by 10 and in my mind the best team in the league so far.

LarmerSavardSecord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 07:42 AM
  #89
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvr View Post
I'll preface what I write by saying that I'd like to play hockey as "poorly" as Kruger. I believe that he has above average hockey sense, and that allows him to overcome a bit his below average hockey skills.

The obsessions actually started with two posters who wouldn't stop with the rhetoric about what a great player he was/is, about his phenomenal contributions to the Hawks last/this year, and about how "he is getting better and better" (I surely hope so, as he has a lot of room to grow, so to speak). I'm tired of reading about all of the hype and excuses some people here make for him. It forces the rest of us to offer contrarian responses.

Well, he's defensively responsible, but really that's about it. He's made the most of his PK opportunities, and for that I'm grateful. He hustles and backchecks hard, and I really like his overall effort level.

However, if he aspires to be great defensively, he would find a way to win 55% of his faceoffs. Faceoffs are extremely important, as MM outlined. (Anyone who remembers Mikita's prowess would agree.) He gets pushed off the dot frequently, and his weak arm strength also causes him to lose the draw (as well as have a pathetic shot). His best chance to win is a clean pull, though he has a few cute moves that give him a few more wins. It also frustrates the heck out of me when he can't clear the puck out of our zone because he's weak and clears with the authority of a midget-level hockey player.

He's obviously challenged offensively. He doesn't pass or stick-handle particularly well, doesn't snipe, isn't fast, and his "go-to" move is going to the net to get a rebound. He still gets knocked down on the boards and in front of the net with regularity. Can you disagree with any of that???

He certainly seems better this year than last (damning with faint praise), and I attribute that to his time spent in the AHL. Right now he's a passable fourth line center on the Hawks. Anything more on this team andI know that I'll not be happy with our personnel.

Right now, in my wildest imagination, I can't visualize that he'll ever be an adequate second line center on any playoff-bound team in the NHL, let alone on the Hawks. He might rise to third line center, but I hope we have better optons than him on this team in that role.
just show me when Hoss or I have started anything about Krüger in the past 1 1/2 years. We just respond.

Krüger plays better than you describe him. He can rush the puck up ice into the opponents zone, he did it more than once this season. He isn't strong but he knows how to play in the NHL with his "weakness".
Really, the hate he gets here is laughable. He's a ****ing 4th liner and does his job more than good. He's our #4C for gods sake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
Not if... the Flames won 10 more draws and 10 more opportunities of puck possession. Just as playing from behind is draining, so is playing without the puck. That's why the rink is tilted, so to speak, when you are on the opponents' side of center with the puck. Everyone has a little more gas with the biscuit than without.

Those lost faceoffs will kill us going forward, no doubt at all.
funny that the last 2 games I've seen were won by the 2 teams that lost more draws than they could win. One was the hawks and the other was my hometown team beating the other team 5-2 after they played worse than peewees for 3-4 games.


There are way more things in hockey that will win you games than winning faceoffs. They are important and help you a bit but calling out players because they lost draws is laughable

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 08:23 AM
  #90
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,666
vCash: 500
For the last time, forget the stats. A lost face-off in the defensive zone at any time can lead to a goal and are the ones a team needs to win first and foremost… and losing a draw on a PK can be devastating. Face-offs in the offensive zone lost could be the difference between a goal and no goal for the shift. Both situations are important but it is the ineptness in the defensive zone that is worrying. Other face-offs don’t have nearly the impact, and unfortunately they are all part of the stats that so many like to use (for any losing argument). Anyone who watches the Hawks games can easily see that we lose most of the key faceoffs when Toews is not on the ice. On the PK, in our end, the losses are rampant and they are often clean losses where the puck goes right to the opps dman. MM is right when he says, if it doesn’t improve, eventually that’s going to cost us. It’s a big problem

BobbyJet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 09:04 AM
  #91
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarmerSavardSecord View Post
The problem vs CLG was not FOs, it was general fatigue. ,they were dead tired vs a rested team at home.

You have to look at numbers: the best FO% team (54%) will win ONE more FO on average in a game vs the Hawks (50.8%). ONE. Or two over three games.

STL can't win a draw this year (<48%) by this standard, but are out-shooting their VS by 10 and in my mind the best team in the league so far.

You don't think a couple of key face off wins would greatly alleviate some of the pressure of playing fatigued?

That's another reason why draws are HUGE and always will be.

Booby Jet is correct about lumping all draws together, I only care about the ones in either end. Win all the center dot draws you like, i couldn't care less.

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 09:06 AM
  #92
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slappipappi View Post
You missed the point entirely.

That's Flames 5 more draws than 50%.

10 more draws is 5 extra posessions.

You seriously need to consider some math lessons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein View Post
You're forgetting that the Hawks are 5 draws under 50%. That adds up to 10 more possessions.

There were 64 faceoffs last night. Flames had a 37-27 advantage for a total of 10 more possessions that the Hawks.

People who live in glass houses...
For Slappy White, the math is accurate. Your logic is flawed. If I win 10 more draws than you, how many more possessions do I have?

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 09:26 AM
  #93
pvr
Kruger Line=2.5 Men
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
just show me when Hoss or I have started anything about Krüger in the past 1 1/2 years. We just respond.

Krüger plays better than you describe him. He can rush the puck up ice into the opponents zone, he did it more than once this season. He isn't strong but he knows how to play in the NHL with his "weakness".
Really, the hate he gets here is laughable. He's a ****ing 4th liner and does his job more than good. He's our #4C for gods sake....:
Funny how I didn't name anyone in my post, yet you did (and got it right, I might add). I'm beginning to believe that you're trolling every time you post about your boy. You don't respond, you incite. And I'm not going to look back through your thousands of posts to find all of the bs that you've written about Kruger.

I pointed out in my post my likes and dislikes with Kruger's game. Since his arrival in N. America I've seen him play personally and up close (12th row season tics at DRW, and 3 times at GR this year) at least seven times (and I've made it a point to watch him closely in those games), not to mention countless times on tv. I've given him praise where he deserves it, and have pointed out his obvious deficiencies that we (almost) all can see.

I agree with you that he's ok where he's at right now...the fourth line. I'm happy that you've finally come to that realization. A brilliant flash of clarity of thought for you. Anywhere else on this team, and we're going nowhere.

And btw, I'm not happy with Bolland's faceoff percentage either. His lack of success there is a continuing problem. I'm not sure why he hasn't improved, whether it's technique or a lack of instinct, but his other skills help offset this deficiency in his game.

Edit: Since you asked, and I'm not limiting it to 1.5 years because I've been hearing it for three years...first Kruger post that I could find. The hype started early, soon after you joined HFBoards... http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=127 . Here's a fun thread... http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...kruger+bubba88

There are so many more http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/se...19065521&pp=25 , but that's all I'm going to post.


Last edited by pvr: 02-04-2013 at 10:22 AM.
pvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 10:47 AM
  #94
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,214
vCash: 500
Oops, wrong thread. Thought this thread was about the injury to Bolland.

My bad.

Hawkaholic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 10:51 AM
  #95
Ace Rothstein
Aces High
 
Ace Rothstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 3,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Oops, wrong thread. Thought this thread was about the injury to Bolland.

My bad.
It was/is. Of course, because of the lack of C depth, it became a discussion on said C depth due to the injury.

Ace Rothstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 11:04 AM
  #96
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
You don't think a couple of key face off wins would greatly alleviate some of the pressure of playing fatigued?

That's another reason why draws are HUGE and always will be.

Booby Jet is correct about lumping all draws together, I only care about the ones in either end. Win all the center dot draws you like, i couldn't care less.
No, winning 5 faceoffs isn't going to significantly change how tired a team is. Faceoffs can be important but this isn't like soccer where a team gets possession and the other team is chasing for minutes at a time.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 11:28 AM
  #97
AmericanDream
Puck You
 
AmericanDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: I Return to Serenity
Country: United States
Posts: 9,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
No, winning 5 faceoffs isn't going to significantly change how tired a team is. Faceoffs can be important but this isn't like soccer where a team gets possession and the other team is chasing for minutes at a time.
when your already a tired team, and you lose draws in your own zone which puts so much added pressure and wear on your players, yes it does make a tired team a very desperate team.

people really are undervaluing zone faceoffs and how losing them can really make or break an outcome. we were chasing much of the game as most of the play was in our zone and when you lose the draws in your own zone you make a long night much much longer.

I am not saying losing faceoffs in your own zone will lose you the game, I am saying that it adds a lot of extra pressure and wear on your players if they are constantly chasing the puck around in their own zone. and if your already tired, it makes things 100 times harder overall to overcome.

we need some help at the dot and we need it soon via trade. Bowman needs to handle that asap.

AmericanDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 11:37 AM
  #98
EbonyRaptor
Registered User
 
EbonyRaptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Boonies
Country: United States
Posts: 3,034
vCash: 500
Maybe we should start a Kruger faceoff thread so we can keep tabs on Bolland's injury.

EbonyRaptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 12:23 PM
  #99
Kurtosis
Patiently Waiting
 
Kurtosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Norwood Park
Country: United States
Posts: 14,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbonyRaptor View Post
Maybe we should start a Kruger faceoff thread so we can keep tabs on Bolland's injury.
How about an official faceoff thread where all things faceoffs can be discussed. Sounds like a job for BBH.

Kurtosis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2013, 05:14 PM
  #100
hawksfan50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,013
vCash: 500
Changing the subject--a lot of the excuse for poor play on our part against CGY was the TIRED excuse..that was the 9th game we played in 14 nights --7th on the road and 3rd back to back--HOWEVER our vaunted offense has been in the deep freezer in the 3 games between the "explosion" (3) vs.CLBS and the explosion (3) vs. CGY (though that took an Shoot-out to get) ---so if the "regular" (ie.non-tired ) Blackhawks of the 11 goals in the first 2 GP is the"true" picture of the Blackhawks when they are not as fatigued and can dominate with their "surplus" of skill manifesting when they have "normal" energy,we MUST grant them this TIRED excuse for poor play lucky to get the points that has been the case over the vast majority of periods and games since that CLBS game...(of course the STL and DAL games was other TIRED rationales for the less than scintillating offense (3rd game in 4 nights 4th in 6 nights ) ---EXCEPT that i thought all other NHL teams will be facing similarly tight resting times to recover their usual energy ....to PROVE the HAWKS were tired in so many of these games after the first 2 'dominations"--tired in the schedule ALREADY --might be true-but it cries out to be known how much off the scale compared to other teams facing similar rest problems the Hawks poor play manifestation has been ..Somebody will have to analyze other teams' schedules for smilar evidence of poor play relating to "tiredness" to see IF the Hawks excuse holds water or not --if the Hawks conform to some pattern baed on a league or conference average of getting outplayed (look at both scores and shot totals and PIM totals in rested games vs. "tired " games ) for the tired reason --OR whethger the manifestation of poor play is EXCEPTIONALLY unique or at the higher end of poor play compared to other teams in similar tired game situations...

ONLY when we know the RELATIVE tiredness of the Hawks vs. other teams facing similar schedule lack of rest (as provided by how they competed ,scored shot vs. the
same or more rested opponents ) can we truely let them off the hook for such a prolongued period of poor play over what we EXPECT frm such an allegedly skilled team ..

That would take lots of reviewing other teams records in games with o night, 1 night,2 nights, or more than 2 nights off since their prior game---and few people have the time to collect and summarize all that data..

YET-untill we see on a graph how the Hawks stand in relation to other teams facing the same situations.we cannot let them off that easily on the tired excuse.

IF in such analysis the Hawks were worse than the average --by a lot --THEN , Q--we have a problem;if the Hawks are the same as most on average for these situations,then we grant them the tired excuse ...I doubt we show up better than the averages because there is one big anecdotal difference it "SEEMS" to me in the Hawks team and "normal teams" --and that is --those teams usually have 1 guy or 1 ine that can dominate a game with some super-explosion of offense (somebody scores a 3,4,or even a 5 point night even when overall the rest of the team is "tired")--but NOT OUR BLACKHAWKS--it seems if our team is "tired" they are all tired and we get only 1 or 2 goals -even with explosions of 3 goals in such games --that usually means only 2 points MAX for the 1 guy managing not to be so tired that he otherwise would sink down to the same poor play level of the rest of the team....THUS maybe some team also has to play 4 games in 5 or 6 nights or even 9 games in 14 nights with 3 back to backs...but it SEEMS to me that somwhere in the middle of those tired-causing tight schedules -THEY get 1 "Star" or perhaps some lesser light r --who happens to explode for a 2 or more goal or a 3 to 5 point night ..I our case--IT almost NEVER HAPPENS ...so does "tiredness" affect us so much more that it does the "effectiveness" of other teams facing similar tight schedules of games? IT appears so -but I cannot prove it unless those RELATIVE comparisons of the scoring are done ..

Unfortunately --some teams had a much more leisurely start to the season-for instance ANH has played only 7 games to date in 14 nights and only 2 back to backs -but you know they will get less rest in other 14 night segments later in their schedule --so the averages accross the league based on less offensive output in tired segments will probably take some time to coalesce into a truer picture of performance slowdown due to tiredness until all teams get enough tiring segments to provide proper analytical data on to see how MUCH this diminishes output scoring or not.

Theother side of the coin is that great goaltending can be an equalizer and help diminish the goals against effects on tired teams...So to an analysis of PK efficiency or lack of --tired teams that STILL have great PK's in these tiring segments can skew their team's defensive effectiveness to a better than average performance in such segments of the schedule BUT this does nothing to help a less energetic and thus sloppier tired offense...

So to answer the questions--does tiredness explain away your teams apparent poor offense (or it could be poor defense for other teams) in tighter lack of rest days segments of the schedule and if so how much higher or lower that the league or conference team averages for offensive or defensive performamnce efficiency is that measured effect ---we need i) all the data in and ii) proper relative comparative and averaging analysis...WITHOUT those we ASSUME the Hawks poor offense inthis tight stretch after the first 2 games when we exploded on offense is the result of our tiredness--but if that is the ONLY explanation we must find out by what margin against some league or Conference average do we measure up in the degree of "lethargy ineffectiveness" ..we may find we rank higher than normal in offensive ineffectiveness but rank better too in defensive effectiveness than the tired teams' averages...IF that is the true picture,then we need to measure the points gained by us vs. the average for points gained by teams in tired segments AND then it may be that we have sacrificed whatever energy we had for such games to defensive performance vs. offense ,,yet the GOALIE performance can make that a flawed measure of defensive energy ability in tired situations--a better measure would be shots allowed on our goal in such "tired" segments in addition to number of goals we allow..

The bottom line is that excusing the Hawks for getting outplayed so much after the first 2 games where we dominated on our tight tiring schedule ---may be true or exaggerated --depending on the degree above or below the league or conference averages for offense and defense in tighter schedule segments and #of back to backs in those segments ...TO the extent we are below some average in these categories -then we must look to other reasons ..if we are average or track above average --THEN we can blame the heavier schedule in such a segment of games so close to each other for our less than expected performance even if we still somehow got the majority of points towards the standings in that segment...

Logic would tell us that overemphasizing DEFENSE (goalie efficiency,Pk, minimizing goals and shots allowed) at the expense of offensive energy attacking helps us steal points in games we are too tired to "dominate" or even approach normal offensive pressure ..it may be that another team facing 9 games in 14 nights and
3 back to backs --or close to this--might yet have more offensive explosion games than us in their tight segment --this would hapen IF their pattern was more like getting shut-out or 1 goal or 2 goals only for 4 or 5 of the games but exploding for 4,5 or more goals in the other 5 or 4 games,yet cominmg away with less points that we did over that course of the schedule ...

So what type of team do you want? A stingier defensive club or an explosive offensive dynamo that breaks out in 4 to 5 of every nine played even when the schedule segment is tighter? A team taking a lot of points "ugly" or a team scoring about 4.5 GPG but only 50% of the time but losing more points in low scoring games it plays the other 50% of the time?

I n that sense maybe we blame Q and his system for winning "ugly" (with luck involved too) or for losing but still getting a point --or maybe this has nothing to do with tiredness in most of the games we played after the first two where we muster only low (1 or 2) to average (3) goals in the game and no big explosion games at all
but more to do with the coaching manual for ROAD games --we played only 2 of 9GP at home so far -and we know coaches prefer not to be showey on offense on the road but to tighten up defensively,block shots ,and shut down the home team as much as possible?

Whatever--we need more comparative data to see how other teams are performing offensively ,defensively and points taken-wise to get a complete story of how poor or not we have played in this tough little chance for eough rest segment of the schedule--mostly road gmes to boot--- maybe on average our performance is nt that poor? YET--i think we DO expect a lot better offensive output given our"alleged" talent depth of skill....I do think we expected more of our "stars" to show up more often...I do think we can point out some prime culprits who have done far less than expected--so far ...I do think we can blame SHARP and SEABROOK in particular for not kiving up to the standard we expect from them ....Sharp's goal scoring pace would get him only 18 goals in an 82 game season -we NEED better goal production from him-he's also only +1 --last year he was +28 ...far far off "form" we expect from him..

Seabrook (and Keith) are only at slightly above a 27 point season pace if we
played 82 and at -4 (Keith is-5 but Seabrook is responsible for -4 of that ) Seabrook just has not played to the form we expect from him -looking overall slow and unfocused at times in this early 9 game start...there is still time to catch up to form for both --BUT Q must get the whips or the bag skate orders out SOON ....we need them to be a lot better..

hawksfan50 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 03:38 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.