HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Jamie Lundmark

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-27-2005, 08:00 AM
  #1
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,411
vCash: 500
Jamie Lundmark

I have criticized Jamie this year for not producing like he should be producing.

I have commented on the fact that he sometimes looks lost and makes some bone-headed plays.

I have stated that he's clearly not the player that we expected that he would become after beting drafted 9th overall.

With all of that said I have to commend Jamie for being a player that seems to have stepped up his game in the PO's.

averaging more than a point a game and being a +3 in the first 4 games in the first round is providing me with a little crow right now that I am happy to munch on.

I would like to see him continue this for as long as possible.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 08:31 AM
  #2
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,895
vCash: 500
Awards:
Where has he been playing, center or wing?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 08:38 AM
  #3
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,457
vCash: 500
I do agree, PLD...

although I can't discount the entire season for a few playoff games, or even an entire playoffs. Conversely, Balej put up good numbers in last season's playoffs (I think it was a point + per game) and look at him this season and in these playoffs. I think what it shows is that Lundmark has the ability, but perhaps not the drive, ambition and intensity to do it consistently over a long haul. He's had brief stints in which he's excelled. He's had longer stints in which he apparently dogged it. There's no excuse for him not being around 80-90 points in the AHL at this stage of his career (he's 24 and there were 6 AHLers with more than 80 points - 19 above 70, and many of them could be considered his peers - Hilbert, Spezza, Kobasew, Boyes, Brown, Moran, Camilleri). They're real prospects - Jamie's becoming borderline.

Fletch is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 09:00 AM
  #4
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,711
vCash: 500
"Can't discount an entire season"

Lundmark had an extremely slow start when he came to Hartford. But in the last 40 or so games of the season, he started to produce and play much more like the player we need him to be. Most of his 41 points on the season came during that stretch.

Had he played over the whole season (and of course had he played the whole season at all, he started the year in Italy) how he played in the last 40 games, he would've had 70 points.

"There's no excuse for him not being around 80-90 points in the AHL at this stage of his career"

How about the fact that no one would get 80-90 points playing in Hartford under McGill? The highest PPG on the team belonged to Hamilton. Under an 80 game season, he still would've only scored around 70 at that pace.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 10:02 AM
  #5
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Where has he been playing, center or wing?
Center

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 10:35 AM
  #6
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,457
vCash: 500
Tawnos...

just because there's nobody scoring that many points on the 'Pack doesn't mean that Lundmark shouldn't. How many potential top six NHL forwards currently exist at the 'Pack? I think at the beginning of the season some would've said Lundmark and/or Balej. And again, just because the highest PPG belonged to Hamilton doesn't mean that someone else could've, or should've, had a higher PPG.

Sure Jamie did well in the second half. Most of his 41 points came in the second half, but what does that translate to per game? I don't know the answer personally, and again, if I looked at small stretches, the pick-up of Scott Fraser by Fraser actually should've looked good at the time.

I understand he started in Italy, but I'm not sure that's a reason for a slow start. It's not like he was out of shape or not playing. He should've been ready to go.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's producing, but the kid's 24, a former 9th round pick, and he's been very inconsistent at best, so therein lies my skepticims.

Fletch is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 10:52 AM
  #7
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,895
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Center
Then that's where he needs to play whenever the Rangers start playing again.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:15 PM
  #8
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Then that's where he needs to play whenever the Rangers start playing again.
I disagree. He has been awful playing center in the NHL. He was horrible at faceoffs and he didn't use his wingers well. He is not center material.

The only way I see him surviving in the NHL (his time is running out 29 points in 111 games) is as a LW. They are a lot more scarce than RW or C. And as you can tell, we don't have a single LW on our roster.

He's not NHL material, simple as that. He didn't have to light up the scoreboard at all, but 29 points in 111 games is pathetic.

NYRangers is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:38 PM
  #9
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,895
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers
I disagree. He has been awful playing center in the NHL. He was horrible at faceoffs and he didn't use his wingers well. He is not center material.

The only way I see him surviving in the NHL (his time is running out 29 points in 111 games) is as a LW. They are a lot more scarce than RW or C. And as you can tell, we don't have a single LW on our roster.

He's not NHL material, simple as that. He didn't have to light up the scoreboard at all, but 29 points in 111 games is pathetic.
I think you stop when you say he's been playing awful at center in the NHL. He's just played awful.

The biggest thing is to figure out what he is and let him play there. If he's having his only real professional success at center, he needs to stay there.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 02:26 PM
  #10
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
just because there's nobody scoring that many points on the 'Pack doesn't mean that Lundmark shouldn't. How many potential top six NHL forwards currently exist at the 'Pack? I think at the beginning of the season some would've said Lundmark and/or Balej. And again, just because the highest PPG belonged to Hamilton doesn't mean that someone else could've, or should've, had a higher PPG.

Sure Jamie did well in the second half. Most of his 41 points came in the second half, but what does that translate to per game? I don't know the answer personally, and again, if I looked at small stretches, the pick-up of Scott Fraser by Fraser actually should've looked good at the time.

I understand he started in Italy, but I'm not sure that's a reason for a slow start. It's not like he was out of shape or not playing. He should've been ready to go.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's producing, but the kid's 24, a former 9th round pick, and he's been very inconsistent at best, so therein lies my skepticims.
Don't get me wrong either, I'm skeptical as well. I'm just willing to be more patient. He's only 24... many guys don't come into their own til they're 25. Just because he was picked high doesn't mean his development goes quicker.

And to be fair, his shots in the NHL weren't exactly great ones. You could see a tentativeness in him that comes mostly from being afraid to make a mistake (and he wasn't wrong... if he did make a mistake, you didn't see him the rest of the game). You can only hope that with the Rangers new direction, that tentativeness won't be there.

I'm willing to wait and see what he does when the NHL comes back rather than judging him at all right now.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 02:35 PM
  #11
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,411
vCash: 500
100% correct

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
Don't get me wrong either, I'm skeptical as well. I'm just willing to be more patient. He's only 24... many guys don't come into their own til they're 25. Just because he was picked high doesn't mean his development goes quicker.

And to be fair, his shots in the NHL weren't exactly great ones. You could see a tentativeness in him that comes mostly from being afraid to make a mistake (and he wasn't wrong... if he did make a mistake, you didn't see him the rest of the game). You can only hope that with the Rangers new direction, that tentativeness won't be there.

I'm willing to wait and see what he does when the NHL comes back rather than judging him at all right now.

but he hasn't really developed at all.

He's no better today than he was when he was drafted. You'd expect to see some growth in a player 6 years after being drafted and I don't believe that we have seent he growth in Lundmark.

Playing better defensively is nice, but the mantra is and I am a firm beliver in it, defence can be taught, putting the puck in the net is a skill and he's not developed that aspect of his game.

As for playing scared, there's only so much you can control. You play within a system as hard as you can. If you make a mistake and sit then you know not to do that again. If you get sent to the minors, you earn a trip back by working on your deficiencies.

My problem with Jamie was and is not with his production, it's with his decision making abilities, or lack there of.

The times I saw him in the NHL he looked lost, more so at C than at LW. He passed when he should have shot and stick-handled when he should be dumping and chasing.

The limited action I saw him at Hartford this year he looked lost on more than one occassion.

I haven't seen the developement in Jamie that you allude to.

But with all that said, he's having a very solid playoffs and I commend him for it.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 02:39 PM
  #12
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,457
vCash: 500
We're somewhat on the same page..

tawnos... The reference to where he was picked was only to point out a bit of disappointment; it wasn't to suggest he should develop quicker.

I do understand that often players don't come into their own until later in life, but many of them have played better in the 20-24 year old period at whatever level they played. His first stint in Hartford wasn't overwhelming in terms of points, but he was quite young. His second stint wasn't that great either. And his third has been good in spurts, but still, not at the level at which you'd like to see him at and not where other young good prospects are.

I too am willing to wait, but I don't really rank him much higher than guys like Moore and Giroux at this time, and think that even a guy like Hollweg may be more useful (meaning, Hollweg could be a solid fourth liner, perhaps even third, and I'm not sure where Jamie fites in and if there's a real role for him).

Fletch is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 02:42 PM
  #13
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
Don't get me wrong either, I'm skeptical as well. I'm just willing to be more patient. He's only 24... many guys don't come into their own til they're 25. Just because he was picked high doesn't mean his development goes quicker.

And to be fair, his shots in the NHL weren't exactly great ones. You could see a tentativeness in him that comes mostly from being afraid to make a mistake (and he wasn't wrong... if he did make a mistake, you didn't see him the rest of the game). You can only hope that with the Rangers new direction, that tentativeness won't be there.

I'm willing to wait and see what he does when the NHL comes back rather than judging him at all right now.
I remember last year during some streches, where Lundmark would play feisty and be more involved, he actually played alot better. But he did this for a few games here and there. He needs to realize that he has to this consistantly during a 82 game schedule. It looks like he is playing more feisty this year by looking at his pim.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 02:56 PM
  #14
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,814
vCash: 500
I think it basically comes down to this...he's playing well right now in the AHL and has earned the trust of his coach, who is a demanding coach, and is doing things to be successful like playing with an edge, playing good defensively, and scoring points...so give him a go at the NHL level when it comes back and see how he does. if he succeeds, good, if he flops, then he flops. His play right now is earning him a spot if the NHL resumes, and that's all that matters right now at this very moment. There's plenty of room for him on the rangers and no pressure for the team to win the cup or anything like that. at this point i'd rather not get caught up in his past and just look to how he's doing right now and judge him at the moment based on that. if he starts to suck later, then i'll change my tune on him

Levitate is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 07:24 PM
  #15
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,261
vCash: 500
I still think this guy will be a NHL regular. He may not be a Simon Gagne like I believe everyone thinks he should be but he'll be a good second line player.

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 07:58 PM
  #16
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,814
vCash: 500
he looked pretty good in his first year when he stuck with the rangers...but never really built on that. the rangers could probably have helped him along a little better but he developed some bad habits. hopefully this year in the AHL has helped him get past some of those.

i imagine he'll always be a player that takes some dumb penalties now and then, especially if he continues to try to play chippy...but i don't mind that too much if they're not the dumb water skiing penalties he learned from messier

Levitate is offline  
Old
04-28-2005, 02:13 AM
  #17
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,533
vCash: 500
I'm happy he's finally showing something at the AHL level. It's nice to know he can put it together at least on that level.

Guess I'll be the pessimist. He still doesn't do much for me as an NHL player. Best case scenario he's a mediocre 2nd liner. Probably a 3rd liner who can step up if necessary. I'm well past the point of thinking he could be a core player. I'm doubtful he can be a valuable support player. He's 24. If he doesnt prove himself as a 2nd liner next year, I would just hope he plays well enough to get something for him in a trade. Who knows? Maybe with some time on Holik's flank he can bump up his trade value a bit ; )

Barnaby is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:43 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.