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
02-05-2013, 04:31 PM
  #151
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by puterwiz53 View Post
What I don't understand is that Toews is probably the best in the league at face offs but none of the other centers on the team seem to be learning anything from him.
I see it the complete opposite.

Bolland, horrid before Toews got here, now just bad but definitely better
Kruger, again, bad when he first got here, better now though
Johnson, a good faceoff guy before he got here, no doubt but was really at the top of his game with the Hawks

I guess the thing to remember is it's something you can only get so much better at, especially when you start off well below average.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 04:54 PM
  #152
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post

Next game, try watching carefully the key face-offs in our end. If the trend continues, you’ll be shocked at how many we lose cleanly.
somehow I thought it was funny that in the last Flames PK Krüger won a D draw and the Flames nearly scored after that FO Win.


and why does it matter if Krüger wins a draw? He is so weak that he will lose the puck within seconds

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 05:44 PM
  #153
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
But it easily could, is the point. Some folks have such a superficial idea of what this game is all about. They like to kid MM about his “game within the game” comments but he is right. There is a lot more detail to any game than the highlights we see on the tube. It is very easy to miss the subtleties that often make the difference between a good shift and a bad shift, a successful team and a mediocre one. Winning face-offs, is not even in that category. It is a fundamental, and yet so many question it’s importance.
"Easily" isn't the right word.

"It could" is accurate, but that could be said of all kinds of little intangibles. A missed check, bad positioning of a defensmans stick, an ill advised shot on goal in the offensive end could all make or break a season. But it isn't something that is a #1 priority to fulfill.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 05:46 PM
  #154
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba88 View Post
somehow I thought it was funny that in the last Flames PK Krüger won a D draw and the Flames nearly scored after that FO Win.


and why does it matter if Krüger wins a draw? He is so weak that he will lose the puck within seconds

Well that's another matter, and a good point.

But seriously. It's not just centers who need to win the draw. Clean wins usually don't happen - often enough, the entire line must execute properly to gain puck possession. One failed assignment can be the difference.


Last edited by BobbyJet: 02-05-2013 at 06:37 PM. Reason: But seriously
BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 05:55 PM
  #155
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
"Easily" isn't the right word.

"It could" is accurate, but that could be said of all kinds of little intangibles. A missed check, bad positioning of a defensmans stick, an ill advised shot on goal in the offensive end could all make or break a season. But it isn't something that is a #1 priority to fulfill.
What is the priority then? If your team has any chance to do anything, all those intangibles should come automatically. And that comes by working on them to improve; that includes every practice and every game.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 06:11 PM
  #156
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
What is the priority then? If your team has any chance to do anything, all those intangibles should come automatically. And that comes by working on them to improve; that includes every practice and every game.
A C is the priority, but he doesn't have to excel at faceoffs. If he does, thats an added bonus.

What I'm saying is, you dont add a John Madden just because he is good on faceoffs, you add the better player and if he is as good as Madden on faceoffs, then great.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 06:25 PM
  #157
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
A C is the priority, but he doesn't have to excel at faceoffs. If he does, thats an added bonus.

What I'm saying is, you dont add a John Madden just because he is good on faceoffs, you add the better player and if he is as good as Madden on faceoffs, then great.
Oh yeah, for sure, I agree, but it's Stan's priority not the players ... can't afford that luxury in the salary capped NHL.

I heard Bozak may be had, and his FO percentage is decent according to TSN announcer. He also had pretty good chemistry with Stalberg when they were both rookies in TO.

BobbyJet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 06:29 PM
  #158
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
"Easily" isn't the right word.

"It could" is accurate, but that could be said of all kinds of little intangibles. A missed check, bad positioning of a defensmans stick, an ill advised shot on goal in the offensive end could all make or break a season. But it isn't something that is a #1 priority to fulfill.
A missed check, bad positioning of stick etc. are not static plays. Face offs are the only set play opportunity, that's what makes them more important. Why do you think there are set plays off the draw?

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 07:30 PM
  #159
Kurtosis
Patiently Waiting
 
Kurtosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Norwood Park
Country: United States
Posts: 15,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
A missed check, bad positioning of stick etc. are not static plays. Face offs are the only set play opportunity, that's what makes them more important. Why do you think there are set plays off the draw?
Faceoffs are not static either. Draws are not always won cleanly and sometimes need support from the other forwards therefore the claim that they are static is faulty. If there is a play drawn up and the faceoff is won cleanly great, if not that play really doesn't mean much.

Kurtosis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-05-2013, 07:46 PM
  #160
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtosis View Post
Faceoffs are not static either. Draws are not always won cleanly and sometimes need support from the other forwards therefore the claim that they are static is faulty. If there is a play drawn up and the faceoff is won cleanly great, if not that play really doesn't mean much.
Faceoffs are absolutely static, when they start. Positioning is placed in the calm between whistles. Once the puck drops the wheels go in motion of course. But give me another example in a game where it starts from static and has a specific plan of action.

There are always 2 plans in place, if you when the draw we do X and if you lose the draw we do Y. Sometimes if the opponent has very prominent tendencies, you let him "win" the draw, anticipating where he will put the puck.

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 02:23 PM
  #161
pvr
Kruger Line=2.5 Men
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,117
vCash: 500
Missed watching the first period on tv, but was listening on the radio. Foley mentioned that it was a direct result of a lost faceoff (by Kruger), with Sharks puck possession and a few passes leading to the shot and rebound goal.

Highlights don't show the beginning of the play. Anyone record the game or remember the play?

pvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 02:54 PM
  #162
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvr View Post
Missed watching the first period on tv, but was listening on the radio. Foley mentioned that it was a direct result of a lost faceoff (by Kruger), with Sharks puck possession and a few passes leading to the shot and rebound goal.

Highlights don't show the beginning of the play. Anyone record the game or remember the play?
It was the Pavelsky goal. Right before the faceoff I said, watch them win this draw and score....and it happened. To be fair, the Hawks had a chance to clear and the defenseman didn't get the puck, the Crawford gave up a bad rebound. But San Jose won the draw and the Hawks never got the puck.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 03:03 PM
  #163
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
A missed check, bad positioning of stick etc. are not static plays. Face offs are the only set play opportunity, that's what makes them more important. Why do you think there are set plays off the draw?
Set plays rarely workout the exact way they are intended. They have set plays for face-off losses too, so as long as they are positioning themselves properly, it shouldn't matter.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 03:04 PM
  #164
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,427
vCash: 500
Also, there were a couple faceoffs that we lost that we had immediate scoring chances and actually scored on one too, I belive it was the Kruger goal.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 04:20 PM
  #165
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
For those seeking more information:

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main...lysis12-12.pdf

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 04:40 PM
  #166
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
For those seeking more information:

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main...lysis12-12.pdf
So that article basically says a 10% difference in faceoff wins for a team accounts for about 2 wins. That means the difference between the 2nd best team (San Jose 56%) and the 2nd worst team (Edmonton 45%) counts for about 4 points in the standings over an 82 game schedule.. Goes to show that faceoffs really don't make that much of a difference when looking at aggregate numbers.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 04:57 PM
  #167
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
So that article basically says a 10% difference in faceoff wins for a team accounts for about 2 wins. That means the difference between the 2nd best team (San Jose 56%) and the 2nd worst team (Edmonton 45%) counts for about 4 points in the standings over an 82 game schedule.. Goes to show that faceoffs really don't make that much of a difference when looking at aggregate numbers.
I knew someone would bite on that!

The study ONLY measures goal scored it does not account for increased penalties, increased fatigue or any other factor caused by lost face offs.

Face offs absolutely make a big difference, do you think the coaches that fixate on it are smarter than you or...?

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 05:03 PM
  #168
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
I knew someone would bite on that!

The study ONLY measures goal scored it does not account for increased penalties, increased fatigue or any other factor caused by lost face offs.

Face offs absolutely make a big difference, do you think the coaches that fixate on it are smarter than you or...?
Coaches don't fixate it. If they did, teams would rush in free agency to sign the best faceoff guys. Look at the top 10 face off teams last year.

Boston and Vancouver were 1 and 3. but then you have

2. San Jose - 7 seed
4. Toronto - missed playoffs
5. Colorado - missed playoffs
6. Detroit - 5 seed
7. LA - 8 seed
8. Minnesota - missed playoffs
9. Columbus - missed playoffs
10. Carolina - missed playoffs

Winning faceoffs is preferable, but Bolland is bad at faceoffs yet Q puts him out there in big defensive spots because he knows having his defense out there is way more important than the fact he'll lose 56 out of 100 faceoffs.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 05:39 PM
  #169
Sleight Of Hand
Mean Streets
 
Sleight Of Hand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Panama
Country: United States
Posts: 9,444
vCash: 500
I have something not stat related. Bolland has played like crap most of the season. He is not cut out for 2nd line duty.

Sleight Of Hand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 05:41 PM
  #170
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanny View Post
I have something not stat related. Bolland has played like crap most of the season. He is not cut out for 2nd line duty.
Agreed, but Shaw is doing well on the 3rd line. Move Stalberg and a prospect and get a center. Can move Bolland down

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 05:43 PM
  #171
Sleight Of Hand
Mean Streets
 
Sleight Of Hand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Panama
Country: United States
Posts: 9,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Agreed, but Shaw is doing well on the 3rd line. Move Stalberg and a prospect and get a center. Can move Bolland down
Yes. He needs to go down to 3rd line C. And Stalberg looks lost down there. Put Sharp at C because maybe he can win a faceoff or something since he isn't doing much else. And move Stal up to 2nd W.

Sleight Of Hand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 05:43 PM
  #172
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,502
vCash: 500
why not just keep the team together for now?

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 05:52 PM
  #173
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
Coaches don't fixate it. If they did, teams would rush in free agency to sign the best faceoff guys. Look at the top 10 face off teams last year.

Boston and Vancouver were 1 and 3. but then you have

2. San Jose - 7 seed
4. Toronto - missed playoffs
5. Colorado - missed playoffs
6. Detroit - 5 seed
7. LA - 8 seed
8. Minnesota - missed playoffs
9. Columbus - missed playoffs
10. Carolina - missed playoffs

Winning faceoffs is preferable, but Bolland is bad at faceoffs yet Q puts him out there in big defensive spots because he knows having his defense out there is way more important than the fact he'll lose 56 out of 100 faceoffs.
I give up trying to teach.

Bolland is taking draws because Q doesn't have many options.

Marotte Marauder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:15 PM
  #174
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder View Post
I give up trying to teach.

Bolland is taking draws because Q doesn't have many options.
He had Ryan Johnson and Jon Madden and Bolland still took the lions share of the draws. Mayers and Sharp both are better are the dot and still out goes Bolland.

Illinihockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2013, 09:46 PM
  #175
Marotte Marauder
Registered User
 
Marotte Marauder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
He had Ryan Johnson and Jon Madden and Bolland still took the lions share of the draws. Mayers and Sharp both are better are the dot and still out goes Bolland.
John Madden was the go to guy and took more F/O than Bolland when both were here, sorry.

Marotte Marauder 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 02:24 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.