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

PK, Hawks and Goaltending

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-23-2012, 12:56 PM
  #26
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
Even if they did, they'd probably be sent down in favor of Emery's experience, like Salak before them.

Which isn't really a huge problem, as long as (unlike Salak) they work hard and get called up before February.
Sadly, this is the truth. And really, what does it matter if they even do good in the minors. Hutton had a very good year and didn't see 1 min.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 01:21 PM
  #27
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Sadly, this is the truth. And really, what does it matter if they even do good in the minors. Hutton had a very good year and didn't see 1 min.
Very true.

I think there are reasons that Hutton never got played -- he was only really called up during Crawford's March hot streak when we desperately needed points -- but none of them really change the fact that he worked damn hard and was rewarded with 0 ice time.

I guess an NHL contract isn't a terrible consolation prize.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 02:05 PM
  #28
TurdFerguson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 862
vCash: 500
The lack of a strong goalie is a large problem in our PK, but I'd say the biggest problem is the lack of a strong faceoff guy beyond Toews.

The system is awful, but I'm hoping to see improvement in that this year, it can hardly get worse. I'd also like to see Crawford not look like he's screened when he has a perfectly clear view, its embarrassing sometimes.

TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 03:14 PM
  #29
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,180
vCash: 500
Hutton never got ice time because he wasn't needed.

He wouldn't be an improvement over Emery or Crawford, and Emery only missed 1 game. (Hutton was on the bench for that game)

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 03:14 PM
  #30
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,452
vCash: 500
Magic....

tell me your Top10 goalie list please


Quote:
NJD- Brouder (34th)
MON- Price (20th)
PIT- Fleury (27th)
LAK- Quick (5th)
NYR- Lundqvist (4th)
VAN- Luongo (12th)
STL- Elliott (1st)
PHX- Smith (3rd)
CAL- Kiprusoff (9th)
NSH- Rinne (7th)
I'm sure you have at least 7 goalies out of this list (I included Halak too) on your Top10.

Going with GAA or SV% to say Elliot is better than Price is just embaressing. According to this, Price would be the 20th best goalie in the NHL.


The guys you listed here in the Top10 are the best goalies in the NHL missing a few, but only a few.


Now go and look at the bottom of the PK and tell me how many highly touted and good goalies you can see there... with CHI, TB, EDM & TOR

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 03:48 PM
  #31
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
Magic....

tell me your Top10 goalie list please




I'm sure you have at least 7 goalies out of this list (I included Halak too) on your Top10.

Going with GAA or SV% to say Elliot is better than Price is just embaressing. According to this, Price would be the 20th best goalie in the NHL.


The guys you listed here in the Top10 are the best goalies in the NHL missing a few, but only a few.


Now go and look at the bottom of the PK and tell me how many highly touted and good goalies you can see there... with CHI, TB, EDM & TOR
Too tough to make the argument about goalies without tying in the system, team construction philosophy, pk players, etc.

When the Hawks won the cup, OxyConklin and Mason played goal for the best pk that hit the skids the next year with a real goalie. PHX pk has been extremely erratic the last few years being from among the better ones in the league to the worst. Washington's pk was a mess last year after being dominant with musical goalies the year before. Chicago a couple years ago had 2 goalies playing "hot potato" with the starting job but they were still among the best in 2010 on the pk.

Anyway, there are statistical arguments to make the case either way and make those arguments plausible.

I want a goalie upgrade as the number 3 priority, but I don't see any meaningful difference in the pk because of the goalie. Even a few more pk saves, and I'm just worried they'll still give up the goals later in the pk with more nasty shifts given to good forwards for little to no net gain on the scoreboard. The way Chicago is built, I think it's better to worry about the skaters more than the goalie for the pk.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 05:46 PM
  #32
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,180
vCash: 500
Anyone who thinks a bad PK doesnt relate to having bad goaltending is out to lunch. The common phrase 'your best PKer has to be your goalie' is said for a reason.

Sure, our ****** system doesnt help, but goaltending is the bigger issue.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 06:05 PM
  #33
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Anyone who thinks a bad PK doesnt relate to having bad goaltending is out to lunch. The common phrase 'your best PKer has to be your goalie' is said for a reason.

Sure, our ****** system doesnt help, but goaltending is the bigger issue.
They also say "defense wins championships" but the championship team the last 15 years has been on average better offensively compared to the rest of the league than the opposite. I'm not a fan of most of the cliches'

When it comes to special teams for the Hawks, I'm not so sure Crawford wasn't the best PK'er besides Toews. Hossa and Seabrook were pretty bad and made a bunch of bad decisions last year themselves, and they were the next best two in my opinion.

If they Hawks had to tweak the pk, fine emphasize the goalie, but it's broke. I'm far more concerned with the goalie the rest of the time than the pk. If the pk is the biggest problem, I will always think it has far less to do with the goalie unless it is an otherwise strong defensive team which we all agree Chicago isn't.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 06:30 PM
  #34
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
They also say "defense wins championships" but the championship team the last 15 years has been on average better offensively compared to the rest of the league than the opposite. I'm not a fan of most of the cliches'

When it comes to special teams for the Hawks, I'm not so sure Crawford wasn't the best PK'er besides Toews.
LA proved defense does win championships, so did Boston, so did Detroit, so did Anaheim, etc.

And no, Crawford was one of our worst PKers.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 06:47 PM
  #35
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Anyone who thinks a bad PK doesnt relate to having bad goaltending is out to lunch. The common phrase 'your best PKer has to be your goalie' is said for a reason.

Sure, our ****** system doesnt help, but goaltending is the bigger issue.
No question of that. But the question is to what degree is the goaltending responsible? It certainly is not 100 percent, no even close to that. To try and put all the blame on the goaltending is a cop-out, plain and simple.

At the risk of repeating what has been said hundreds of times, here are a few factors, some relating to Q's system:
- poor face off percentage.
- low collapse PK system deployed, usually leading to poor point coverage.
- poor board presence and lack of grit. We lose too many one-on-one battles.
- terrible coverage in the slot. Too many players watching the puck and not taking the man. The result: many deflections, rebounds and easy goals against.
- passive system in general allowing opps to set-up easily in our zone.
- Q deploying the wrong players (eg. Leddy, Oduya as a pair).
- poor lateral movement, poor puck control behind the net by goalie.
- poor rebound control and the ability to recover by goalie.

Each of the above issues leads to a flawed PK. It certainly is not all about poor goaltending.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 06:56 PM
  #36
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,180
vCash: 500
I agree with that, but I would say goaltending is a bigger percentage of the issue than anything else.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 07:11 PM
  #37
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
And no, Crawford was one of our worst PKers.
We agree to disagree, I thought the whole team was mess on the pk and full of mistakes. I thought Crawford stunk, just like the players and the coaches on the PK.

Quote:
LA proved defense does win championships, so did Boston, so did Detroit, so did Anaheim, etc.

About Championships:

LA was a freakish anomaly ranked 29th in offense and 2nd in defense.

Here's the 15 years previous:

The first column is offense rank the 2nd is defense

Boston Bruins (2010-11) 8th 3rd
Chicago Blackhawks (2009-10) 3rd 5th
Pittsburgh Penguins (2008-09) 5th 18th
Detroit Red Wings (2007-08) 3rd 1st
Anaheim Ducks (2006-07) 9th 7th
Carolina Hurricanes (2005-06) 3rd 18th
Tampa Bay Lightning (2003-04) 3rd 10th
New Jersey Devils (2002-03) 14th 1st
Detroit Red Wings (2001-02) 2nd 3rd
Colorado Avalanche (2000-01) 4th 3rd
New Jersey Devils (1999-00) 2nd 7th
Dallas Stars (1998-99) 8th 1st
Detroit Red Wings (1997-98) 2nd 7th
Detroit Red Wings (1996-97) 6th 2nd
Colorado Avalanche (1995-96) 2nd 8th
Average Rankings 4.9 6.3

NJ was the only team ranked 10th or higher offensively to win a cup prior to LA. I'm making my point only in regards to overall team construction, but even breaking down playoff runs, it's tough to argue that offense or defense is more important than the other. I always assumed defense was the most important factor by a landslide until recently, but it's not.

This doesn't really apply to Crawford, and it doesn't matter for Chicago if he plays like he did last year. It does tie in to the net and defense because I don't want to give up known offensive assets for the chance of marginal improvement in a defensive area.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 07:12 PM
  #38
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
Oh wow, sorry about that. Bad format.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 07:13 PM
  #39
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
I agree with that, but I would say goaltending is a bigger percentage of the issue than anything else.
Isn't the system and matching that system to the roster the most important?

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 08:29 PM
  #40
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Oh wow, sorry about that. Bad format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Isn't the system and matching that system to the roster the most important?
Every team you listed, aside from the Penguins, Hurricanes, and Lightning, were top 8 in defense when they won the cup. That is 'defense wins championships' right there.

And the system, no matter how good it is, doesn't matter if the goalie is letting in soft goals and any shot from the point through screens.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 01:01 AM
  #41
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Every team you listed, aside from the Penguins, Hurricanes, and Lightning, were top 8 in defense when they won the cup. That is 'defense wins championships' right there.
Speaking of right there, did you look at the offense rank? 8 of the last 16 cup winners were in the top 3 in offense. 8 of the last 16 were in the top 3 defensively. "defense wins championships" is an overused cliche' because offense is just as important using the quantifiable statistics. The same similarities between dominant offensive and defensive play exist in postseason runs too (scoring first, playing with the lead, total goals, etc.)

Either can be argued to be a better philosophy for team construction. It's close, the top 10 teams offensively often have more pts than the top 10 teams defensively. The top 10 defensive teams beat the top 10 offensive teams in pts last year but the top 10 offensive teams beat the top 10 defensive teams in pts the 4 years previous. It's pretty even the last 15 years, but there has been a little more of an edge to higher scoring teams getting more pts the last half decade.

Anyway, quantifiably, it's very difficult to make a case that an offensive or defensive focus for team construction is more or less likely to win a championship or put more pts in the standings.

Like I said before, I always thought of defensive as being more important to win by a significant margin, but looking at a pretty large sample size, that was a poor assumption on my part.

Quote:
And the system, no matter how good it is, doesn't matter if the goalie is letting in soft goals and any shot from the point through screens.
We agree, but I don't see many goalies having pk success seeing that number of quality scoring chances or facing that many shots that get through. If the goalie was making the save, the pk unit wasn't getting or clearing the puck anyway.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 06:04 AM
  #42
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
As for our PK, yes a better goalie would obviously help and the statement that your best PKer is your goalie is true, however Lundqvist or Quick wouldn't turn this PK into a top 10 one because there are more then 1 issue.

We have small and weak D-men outside of Seabrook, they get pushed around and out muscled and allow other teams forwards to camp out in the crease and deflect shots and put in rebounds almost uncontested. Our system is awful, we play a float around and be in a space but not attack or play a man system. We allow tons of shots and don't battle in the corners so teams are allowed to keep possession. We would need to fix all of these issues in order to have a top 10 PK again.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 06:10 AM
  #43
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
The statement "Defense win Championships" is true and it's true in all sports, football, soccer, hockey, baseball, basketball, just about every team sport defense wins. It's because defense doesn't go into a slump, defense doesn't run hot or cold, defense can't fail you in the biggest moment and good defense keeps you in every game.

The best way it was ever put to me was a coach I had in high school, and it's a motto I loved and used when I helped my uncle coach and something I will live by in sports. He told no matter how many goals you score, 5-10-100 you can always get outscored, you can never score more goals then could possibly be scored against you there is not magic we a guaranteed to win number. However if you never give up a goal you can't lose, you might not win, you may tie but you can NEVER lose it's IMPOSSIBLE to lose if you don't give up a goal.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 06:21 AM
  #44
Sarava
Moderator
 
Sarava's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Naperville, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 9,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
The statement "Defense win Championships" is true and it's true in all sports, football, soccer, hockey, baseball, basketball, just about every team sport defense wins. It's because defense doesn't go into a slump, defense doesn't run hot or cold, defense can't fail you in the biggest moment and good defense keeps you in every game.

The best way it was ever put to me was a coach I had in high school, and it's a motto I loved and used when I helped my uncle coach and something I will live by in sports. He told no matter how many goals you score, 5-10-100 you can always get outscored, you can never score more goals then could possibly be scored against you there is not magic we a guaranteed to win number. However if you never give up a goal you can't lose, you might not win, you may tie but you can NEVER lose it's IMPOSSIBLE to lose if you don't give up a goal.
Defense isn't black or white in hockey like it is in football. Puck possession is the best defense in hockey, and technically that is offense.

Sarava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 07:08 AM
  #45
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarava View Post
Defense isn't black or white in hockey like it is in football. Puck possession is the best defense in hockey, and technically that is offense.
Yes and No, puck possession means little if you have bad goalies and defensemen, look at the 2011-12 Hawks, we often had plenty of puck possession, but couldn't stop other teams from scoring when they got the puck.

In hockey, PK, GA, SV% are defense, can you stop teams from scoring 5-5, 5-4 and is your goalie a solid one who you can count on, in the Hawks can the answer was no, no, no.

You aren't going to control the puck 100% of the time and not matter how long you do if you can't stop the other team from scoring when they have the puck they it doesn't matter much how long you do have it. The Hawks should focus more on those aspects then more puck possession.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 08:33 AM
  #46
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarava View Post
Defense isn't black or white in hockey like it is in football. Puck possession is the best defense in hockey, and technically that is offense.
Hence the rut this team is in defensively, physically and grit wise. Q utilized the puck possession game successfully a couple of years ago but also had several unsung players capable of playing the gritty game needed without the puck. This team has trouble getting the puck back whenever they do lose possession.

Compounding these weaknesses, Stan has fallen into the trap of thinking the puck possession game is all that is needed to be successful and has recruited players accordingly based on that skill ... and nothing could be further from the truth.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 08:48 AM
  #47
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
Hence the rut this team is in defensively, physically and grit wise. Q utilized the puck possession game successfully a couple of years ago but also had several unsung players capable of playing the gritty game needed without the puck. This team has trouble getting the puck back whenever they do lose possession.

Compounding these weaknesses, Stan has fallen into the trap of thinking the puck possession game is all that is needed to be successful and has recruited players accordingly based on that skill ... and nothing could be further from the truth.
So true, just look at the players acquired sinse Stan took over and the players lost, he let go Brouwer, Kopecky, Eager, Burish, Ladd, Buff and brought in Stalberg, Frolik, Morrison, Brunette, Pisani, Oduya, Montador etc. The one guy he got to fill that role is Carcillo who is more agitator then physical player anyhow. We lost almost all of our size and grit in the F and D and didn't replace it.

It's especially troubling on the D end where he just signs the same player over and over, Montador and Oduya are damn near identical and we are paying them a combined almost 6 mil to do what? They are 3rd pairing Keith clones, PMD who are average at that and are light hitting and weak. It's why teams can park the bus in front of our net and get easy and cheap goals, because there is no one there to stop them. We need some size and grit on this team, some play in your face guys, some go to the dirty area guys, it would help every part of this team.

Our special teams would get better, if we could add a D-man who can block shots, use his body and play a D minded game, if would help the PP to get net cloggers, guys like Brouwer, Buff and Kopy who will go to the net and create space and havok, it would help our puck possession to get guys who will work on the boards and take the body and play aggressive to get the puck back.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 09:24 AM
  #48
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarava View Post
Defense isn't black or white in hockey like it is in football. Puck possession is the best defense in hockey, and technically that is offense.
Puck possession isn't anymore offense or defense since it happens in both zones. Anyway, I'm not arguing preferences, just arguing the assumption that defense is best philosophy to build around and the assumption that "defense wins championships". A great defensive team that can't score first has just as much failure (pts and cups) as great offensive teams that slump. The difference using any metric is negligible.
On the "eye test", I always prefer defense first, but I can't argue it effectively and it's difficult letting go of that belief. Give me a top 3 in EITHER category and a decent cost-effective goalie known to go on a hot streak any time...if I'm able to be objective. On a whim, I want the defense, and that's my mistake. Best to be top third in both obviously.

Quote:
The statement "Defense win Championships" is true and it's true in all sports, football, soccer, hockey, baseball, basketball, just about every team sport defense wins. It's because defense doesn't go into a slump, defense doesn't run hot or cold, defense can't fail you in the biggest moment and good defense keeps you in every game.
I also think defense slumps in hockey more than other sports. Getting a stick in the way of a pass or blocking a shot or timing and bracing for contact is very difficult like passing or shooting. I think the only thing that doesn't slump in hockey is skating ability (speed, quickness, etc). I like the phrase much better for basketball, baseball, or football compared to hockey. Better to spend more time playing with the lead than anything.

Quote:
This team has trouble getting the puck back whenever they do lose possession.
They sure do, I'm hoping a couple of the kids will help out in that area.

Quote:
if would help the PP to get net cloggers, guys like Brouwer, Buff and Kopy
If they were effective against average to above average defenders in front of the net, one or two of them would have still been in Chicago. I don't agree with the examples but I agree with the concept.

Quote:
however Lundqvist or Quick wouldn't turn this PK into a top 10 one because there are more then 1 issue.
I agree. I hope the reasons for upgrading the goalie position would have almost everything to do with 5 on 5 play only because of all those problems at this point.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 01:53 PM
  #49
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,452
vCash: 500
defense wins champions is true... but without some kind of offense you will never win a game....

Still wait to see a Top10 list of the goalie with Price outside of it

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 09:43 PM
  #50
zac
Registered User
 
zac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Too tough to make the argument about goalies without tying in the system, team construction philosophy, pk players, etc.

When the Hawks won the cup, OxyConklin and Mason played goal for the best pk that hit the skids the next year with a real goalie. PHX pk has been extremely erratic the last few years being from among the better ones in the league to the worst. Washington's pk was a mess last year after being dominant with musical goalies the year before. Chicago a couple years ago had 2 goalies playing "hot potato" with the starting job but they were still among the best in 2010 on the pk.

Anyway, there are statistical arguments to make the case either way and make those arguments plausible.

I want a goalie upgrade as the number 3 priority, but I don't see any meaningful difference in the pk because of the goalie. Even a few more pk saves, and I'm just worried they'll still give up the goals later in the pk with more nasty shifts given to good forwards for little to no net gain on the scoreboard. The way Chicago is built, I think it's better to worry about the skaters more than the goalie for the pk.
I agree with this completely.

Two years ago Crawford put up good numbers across the board with a POS defense in front of him. He was the only thing keeping our defense statistically average. Last year Crawford didn't play nearly as well and our defense was as bad, if not slightly worse. Without Crawford bailing these clowns out (time after time) we plummeted to the bottom third of the league in almost every meaningful defensive statistical category.

Due to our lack of aggression, there are few if any teams in the league that give up as many juicy point blank shots as we do. While Crawford needs to rebound and stop more of those shots, the fact is 95% of NHL goalies would struggle in this system. Does anybody really think STLs goalies got any better after the coaching change? No. The proper system was put in place to minimize scoring chances, and the consistency of that system allowed the goalies to find their groove. Not making excuses for Crawford, but this team sabotaged his confidence before the quarter mark of the season.

zac 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 04:31 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.