HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

3/7/09 St. Louis @ Florida

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2009, 11:17 PM
  #76
Crumblin Erb Brooks
Registered User
 
Crumblin Erb Brooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Grenyarnia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheli View Post
I haven't watched enough Blues hockey to comment on Jackman, but behindthenet.ca seems to be a good website for the more obscure stats, like GA/60.

Specifically this might be what he means: http://www.behindthenet.ca/2008/basi...team=STL&pos=D

Pietrangelo is actually #1 but obviously 8 games is a very small sample size, you can set a minimum number of games played.
Thank you for the link, but this just goes to show how statistics in hockey are still very raw. Dont get me wrong, I am a huge stat nerd, and I am excited for the potential of hockey prospectus, but just about everything out there right now is just kind of crap.

Does anyone honestly think TYson Strachan, Mike Weaver, and Jeff Woywitka have been the best three defensemen on our team this year?

Crumblin Erb Brooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2009, 11:24 PM
  #77
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDismyhero View Post
I agree with your first point, I think this is the year you have to take some risks on draft day.

In your second point, were you talking about trading Tkachuk or trading some of our prospects/picks for players at the deadline?
I didn't want them to trade a 1st rounder or a top prospect (like Pietrangelo or Eller). But, I thought they could trade 2nds and 3rds, and, possibly a secondary prospect for a solid (not spectacular) defenceman, as the current non-injured corps is tired, and the weaker players make a lot of mistakes. A decent top 9 scorer would have rounded out the lines, strengthening the 2nd and 3rd lines, dropping Winchester off the scoring lines. Maybe I'm wrong about what level of player was available for what price level. But Vermette and Antropov didn't go for unpayable prices, and I'm curious to know if Blues' management just didn't try hard to find secondary help because they thought it might disrupt team chemistry. The small boosts in those 2 areas might have been enough to get them in. They should be fairly close at the end, butmore likely out than in.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2009, 11:37 PM
  #78
mmitchell19
Registered User
 
mmitchell19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ellisville, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 964
vCash: 500
Never before this season has a game underscored the need for a better 'D'-to-'O' transition game than this one.

We got the puck deep...one pass, another pass, and Florida was at the red line streaking toward Mason. (Obviously, McCabe's brain-fart to Backes is a notable exception.)

They got the puck deep...fumble, pass backwards D-to-D, panic, fire the puck blindly cross-ice to no one in particular...and Florida maintains possession in our zone.

Did I just have my "poor transition game" radar finely tuned tonight, or did anyone else notice this? I've seen us perform poorly in this aspect of the game previously this year, but I really noticed it tonight.

mmitchell19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2009, 11:44 PM
  #79
Polaris
Cold as Ice
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: IL Side
Country: Wake Island
Posts: 1,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDismyhero View Post
Does anyone honestly think TYson Strachan, Mike Weaver, and Jeff Woywitka have been the best three defensemen on our team this year?
Definitely not Woywitka, but Strachan has been consistently solid this season and Weaver seemed to find his groove after he got a handful of games in a row under his belt. It helps that they usually don't get the tough assignments though.

Polaris is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2009, 11:44 PM
  #80
Crumblin Erb Brooks
Registered User
 
Crumblin Erb Brooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Grenyarnia
Country: United States
Posts: 3,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb_K View Post
I didn't want them to trade a 1st rounder or a top prospect (like Pietrangelo or Eller). But, I thought they could trade 2nds and 3rds, and, possibly a secondary prospect for a solid (not spectacular) defenceman, as the current non-injured corps is tired, and the weaker players make a lot of mistakes. A decent top 9 scorer would have rounded out the lines, strengthening the 2nd and 3rd lines, dropping Winchester off the scoring lines. Maybe I'm wrong about what level of player was available for what price level. But Vermette and Antropov didn't go for unpayable prices, and I'm curious to know if Blues' management just didn't try hard to find secondary help because they thought it might disrupt team chemistry. The small boosts in those 2 areas might have been enough to get them in. They should be fairly close at the end, butmore likely out than in.
I dont disagree, but I just dont think there was much of a market this season.

I dont know if I would want to trade a 2nd for someone like Kotalik or Moore.

Even a guy who I have been intrigued by in the past who hasnt done much of anything in the NHL, Erik Christensen, got a guy who was drafted in the 2nd round in 2008.

Crumblin Erb Brooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 12:31 AM
  #81
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 9,134
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Definitely not Woywitka, but Strachan has been consistently solid this season and Weaver seemed to find his groove after he got a handful of games in a row under his belt. It helps that they usually don't get the tough assignments though.
I have no complaints about Weaver. The guy has played like a veteran and far exceeded expectations. He won't be logging ice time for the Blues next year (barring another disaster) but I respect him and really pull for the guy.

Strachan played well, but I doubt he'll get out of Peoria next year much either. He made some pretty bid gaffes, but that's part of the expected growing pains. But people overstate his contribution. The bright side is it looks like he'll be an NHL defenseman for SOMEONE, but doubt its the Blues.

Woywitka is probably done after this year, I'm guessing. He's had some good days, but more bad. And I think this is it. What you see is all he will ever be. And its just not good enough to be a regular NHL defenseman. I think he could possibly be the 7th man for someone, but I'd much rather have Weaver be that guy (next year) if the Blues can do that.

2 Minute Minor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 10:30 AM
  #82
Mike Liut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,968
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDismyhero View Post
We win, people are on the bandwagon

We lose, people are off the bandwagon

Playoff race experience is still valuable experience for all of our young players. Bottom line is you NEVER go out there to lose, tanking is going to do nothing positive for us long term.

If we want to move up into the Top 5-7 picks, we have more than enough firepower to do that from the 9th-12th spot. We have more than enough prospects (or picks in this draft), where if we feel one player or another is a blue chipper, I think we will be aggressive in trying to get him.

I don't want to trade away one of our top prospects to move into the top 7. That's counterproductive. We aren't very far away from being in the top 7. The remaining schedule is brutal. I have a good feeling we will be drafting in the top 7.

1) Tavares
2) Hedman
3) Duchene
4) Kane
5) MSP
6) Schenn
7) Cowen

7 studs. Even though Cowen had reconstructive knee surgery, I would have no problem taking him at #7. He is top 3 talent.

Mike Liut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 11:36 AM
  #83
Overkamp
Registered User
 
Overkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Definitely not Woywitka, but Strachan has been consistently solid this season and Weaver seemed to find his groove after he got a handful of games in a row under his belt. It helps that they usually don't get the tough assignments though.
I'd put Polak in that group though he wasn't very good last night.

As far as Weaver, I'd expect him to get a similar contract from the Blues and be used primarily as a depth guy/7th defenseman. He's been as solid as anyone.

Overkamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 01:10 PM
  #84
Glove side
Registered User
 
Glove side's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Washington MO
Country: United States
Posts: 443
vCash: 500
with these last two starts, does anyone think that Mason needs to skip a start and rest up? I say, give bishop a start.

Glove side is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 01:25 PM
  #85
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Jackman is just not a top 4 defenseman. I'm sorry if some of you can't see that. There is not a defenseman currently playing (read: Brewer) that turns the puck over or gets caught out of position more than Jackman. Jackman has all the physical tools but he is severly lacking upstairs. I think he could be better, but Murray needs to ride him like he rides some of other players. Jackman just gets a free pass and is never called out for his stupid plays. Jackman coasted back on that last goal. That is unforgivable.

jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 01:31 PM
  #86
ChicagoBlues
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDismyhero View Post
Thank you for the link, but this just goes to show how statistics in hockey are still very raw. Dont get me wrong, I am a huge stat nerd, and I am excited for the potential of hockey prospectus, but just about everything out there right now is just kind of crap.

Does anyone honestly think TYson Strachan, Mike Weaver, and Jeff Woywitka have been the best three defensemen on our team this year?
Those three have NOT been our 3 best d-men. And I'm not sure the numbers at behindthenet.ca indicate that they are the best three.

However, of those three, Weaver has been the best overall. Strachan has been okay, but makes some very weak ass mistakes by not taking the body. Woywitka is a complete disaster. He has no role whatsoever on this team. Whenever he gets the puck he acts like he has time to bake a freakin cake and then he gets happy feet like a rookie quarterback and is promptly stripped.

Jackman has been horrible too. And I don't give two hoots about those out there who say that the plus/minus rating is not very useful. It is useful. Compare Jackman to every other d-man and you'll see. His ice time is not that much more than most other guys yet he's a -14.

But I am smart enough to realize that Jackman has been told to join the rush at certain times, which causes him to get caught out of position.

Pol'ak has been our best d-man by far.

Of course, all of this is just my opinion. So, who really cares?!!

ChicagoBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 01:51 PM
  #87
Polaris
Cold as Ice
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: IL Side
Country: Wake Island
Posts: 1,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
Jackman is just not a top 4 defenseman.
Seriously? Way to overreact to a few bad games.

How quickly we forget moments like this (13 seconds in):


And I'm not trying to defend Jackman for his last stretch of terrible hockey. He's merely inconsistent. Nobody was complaining much about him when we were winning.

Polaris is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 02:20 PM
  #88
hockey jedi
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
Jackman is just not a top 4 defenseman. I'm sorry if some of you can't see that. There is not a defenseman currently playing (read: Brewer) that turns the puck over or gets caught out of position more than Jackman. Jackman has all the physical tools but he is severly lacking upstairs. I think he could be better, but Murray needs to ride him like he rides some of other players. Jackman just gets a free pass and is never called out for his stupid plays. Jackman coasted back on that last goal. That is unforgivable.


Your usual uniformed post. Trade him to Detroit or San Jose. He will be playing top 4. It's a team game. The whole team was flat last night. If the Blues offense was more potent so the offense and goaltending didn't have to give up 2 goals or less to win, our D would be fine.

hockey jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 02:59 PM
  #89
woodr0w
Registered User
 
woodr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tulsa, OK
Country: United States
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
Jackman is just not a top 4 defenseman. I'm sorry if some of you can't see that. There is not a defenseman currently playing (read: Brewer) that turns the puck over or gets caught out of position more than Jackman. Jackman has all the physical tools but he is severly lacking upstairs.
If you can't see that Jackman's been one of the most consistent defensemen on the team this year and has responded positively to increased responsibility, then I don't know what to tell you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
I think he could be better, but Murray needs to ride him like he rides some of other players. Jackman just gets a free pass and is never called out for his stupid plays. Jackman coasted back on that last goal. That is unforgivable.
You must be joking. Ever since Brewer went down, Jackman's been the most scrutinized defenseman on the team. You'll hear people (myself included) rant about guys like Woywitka, but nobody really *expects* them to perform well. In terms of overall fan criticism, I'd say that Jackman has almost become the new Brewer.


Last edited by woodr0w: 03-08-2009 at 03:05 PM.
woodr0w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 03:44 PM
  #90
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodr0w View Post
If you can't see that Jackman's been one of the most consistent defensemen on the team this year and has responded positively to increased responsibility, then I don't know what to tell you.



You must be joking. Ever since Brewer went down, Jackman's been the most scrutinized defenseman on the team. You'll hear people (myself included) rant about guys like Woywitka, but nobody really *expects* them to perform well. In terms of overall fan criticism, I'd say that Jackman has almost become the new Brewer.
What qualifies you as the expert? I feel that I'm a much better judge of talent than you. Why do you think I don't like Jackman? Do you think I have it in for him? No, my problem is with the organization and coaching staff putting him out there, giving him the minutes, and rewarding him with long term contracts when he hasn't earned it.

I'm not the only one that had a problem with his play. Even the Florida announcers criticized him for not hustling back, and they don't have a dog in the fight.

Learn to read. I said Murray gives him a free pass, not the fans.

jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 04:19 PM
  #91
woodr0w
Registered User
 
woodr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tulsa, OK
Country: United States
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
What qualifies you as the expert? I feel that I'm a much better judge of talent than you. Why do you think I don't like Jackman? Do you think I have it in for him? No, my problem is with the organization and coaching staff putting him out there, giving him the minutes, and rewarding him with long term contracts when he hasn't earned it.

When did I claim to be an "expert"? Or that you have some personal vendetta against Jackman? You stated in your previous post that some of us "just couldn't see" that Jackman was not a top-4 defenseman. I responded by basically saying that I thought *you* were the blind one. How is the nature of my assertion any different from yours?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
Learn to read. I said Murray gives him a free pass, not the fans.
Here's your quote: "Jackman just gets a free pass and is never called out for his stupid plays." You never specifically attributed that to Murray.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
I'm not the only one that had a problem with his play. Even the Florida announcers criticized him for not hustling back, and they don't have a dog in the fight.
Did I not just say, in my first response to you, that I agreed Jackman had a poor game against Florida? I argued that he'd been one of the Blues' best defensemen *in general* throughout the course of the season. I think you're the one who needs improvement in the reading comprehension department.


Last edited by woodr0w: 03-08-2009 at 04:46 PM.
woodr0w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 07:49 PM
  #92
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodr0w View Post
Here's your quote: "Jackman just gets a free pass and is never called out for his stupid plays." You never specifically attributed that to Murray.
Nice selective use of the quote feature. This was my quote:

Quote:
I think he could be better, but Murray needs to ride him like he rides some of other players. Jackman just gets a free pass and is never called out for his stupid plays.
Jackman is a mediocre defenseman. We'll just have to agree to disagree. However, everytime he screws up (at least every other game), I'll be right here to point them out. The reason I feel a need to point it out is because it frustrates me to hear the Blues PR machine talk about how good Jackman has been and hear people on the call-in shows talk about how good Jackman has been when he's probably been defensively responsible for more goals against than any other Blues defenseman. Then it kills me that Murray will bench McKee, send Strachan down, demote Perron and Berglund to the the 4th line, and then call them out to the media, but then Jackman dogs it and is never called out. My problem is with Murray. I'd like to see Jackman on another team because then Murray won't be able to stick him out there for 25+ minutes a game which hurts our chances of winning.

Oh, and trust me, I'm not the only one that sees Jackman for what he is. This board is generally a pro-Jackman site, but there are plenty of other boards that feel the same way I do. The same goes for Murray. Murray's coaching style is good for a lesser-talented team to be grind it out defensivly and be competitive on most nights, but he'll have no clue how to handle a talent-laden team which we'll have up here in a couple years. We'll need to employ a puck-possession game like Detroit does, not a dump-and-chase, defensive shell style of game. Murray was good for the lean years before the young kids arrived, but he has about outlived his usefulness starting next season.


Last edited by jmwc95: 03-08-2009 at 07:55 PM.
jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 11:30 PM
  #93
ChicagoBlues
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockey jedi View Post


Your usual uniformed post. Trade him to Detroit or San Jose. He will be playing top 4. It's a team game. The whole team was flat last night. If the Blues offense was more potent so the offense and goaltending didn't have to give up 2 goals or less to win, our D would be fine.
And this is your contribution? To rip someone and then state the obvious?

May the farce be with you.

Here's some true "wisdom":

The Blues should win and not lose. The Blues need to score more goals than their opponent. The Blues goalie needs to make saves.



*******s go on my Ignore list.

ChicagoBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2009, 11:33 PM
  #94
woodr0w
Registered User
 
woodr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tulsa, OK
Country: United States
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
Nice selective use of the quote feature. This was my quote:
If I misinterpreted that passage the first time, then fair enough - my fault.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
Jackman is a mediocre defenseman. We'll just have to agree to disagree. However, everytime he screws up (at least every other game), I'll be right here to point them out. The reason I feel a need to point it out is because it frustrates me to hear the Blues PR machine talk about how good Jackman has been and hear people on the call-in shows talk about how good Jackman has been when he's probably been defensively responsible for more goals against than any other Blues defenseman. Then it kills me that Murray will bench McKee, send Strachan down, demote Perron and Berglund to the the 4th line, and then call them out to the media, but then Jackman dogs it and is never called out. My problem is with Murray. I'd like to see Jackman on another team because then Murray won't be able to stick him out there for 25+ minutes a game which hurts our chances of winning.
Jackman's logged so many minutes a game in large part because Murray hasn't had anybody else to rely on for long stretches this season. Who else would you put out there against the other teams' top forward lines when 1-3 of McKee, Brewer, and Polak are injured? Strachan? Weaver? Woywitka? Wagner? You claim that Jackman's being out there all the time hurts our chances of winning - would replacing him with guys like these improve our chances of winning? Perhaps the reason Jackman's supposedly been responsible for X number of goals is because he's a #3 caliber dman (in my opinion; you obviously would peg him even lower than that) being asked to play the role of a #1?

I can understand your feelings to an extent. We had a similar situation not too long ago where Murray had to overuse Eric Brewer due to limited resources (though I would argue that his treatment of Brewer crossed the line into favoritism, but that's a whole different discussion). But yeah - if you honestly don't think that Jackman's play this year is even worthy of a 2nd-pairing defenseman, then we'll have to agree to disagree, cause I don't know what else to tell you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
Oh, and trust me, I'm not the only one that sees Jackman for what he is. This board is generally a pro-Jackman site, but there are plenty of other boards that feel the same way I do.

I don't know which other boards you frequent, but if you're referring to the asylum, where it's incredibly easy for hordes of clueless 'casual fans' to post drive-by rants, then that's not saying much. I've seen Jackman criticized on HF quite a bit (especially in the first few years after the lockout, when he was noticeably struggling), so I'm not sure which threads you are or aren't reading.

woodr0w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 12:01 AM
  #95
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,666
vCash: 500
I'd say that Jackman is a good, solid #4 on a strong team and a slightly below average #3 on a weak team. Yes, he's been overexposed playing #1. It's too bad no decent #4 types were available at the deadline, to help limit Woywitka's Wagner's and Weaver's or Strachan's minutes. Also, Junland doesn't seem to be ready, and may not be at the start of next season. I'd feel better if another 2nd pairing NHL defenceman will be picked up for next season. EJ, Brewer, Jackman, Polák and Pietrangelo, with Junland in the wings is a little short on dependable NHL depth. I suppose that Weaver will be kept on as the 7th. But, I'd be happier with an added d-man that is more physical, and also a better puck carrier and passer.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 12:25 AM
  #96
General Veers
Registered User
 
General Veers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 1,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodr0w View Post
I'm happy with Jackman's overall level of play this year, but man...he seems to save his biggest screw-ups for the worst times.
Perfectly said. I get the feeling that some of the Jackman haters are sweet for Brewer and/or McKee and just want to have someone other than who they like get ripped on.

General Veers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 12:45 AM
  #97
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 9,134
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb_K View Post
I'd say that Jackman is a good, solid #4 on a strong team and a slightly below average #3 on a weak team. Yes, he's been overexposed playing #1. It's too bad no decent #4 types were available at the deadline, to help limit Woywitka's Wagner's and Weaver's or Strachan's minutes. Also, Junland doesn't seem to be ready, and may not be at the start of next season. I'd feel better if another 2nd pairing NHL defenceman will be picked up for next season. EJ, Brewer, Jackman, Polák and Pietrangelo, with Junland in the wings is a little short on dependable NHL depth. I suppose that Weaver will be kept on as the 7th. But, I'd be happier with an added d-man that is more physical, and also a better puck carrier and passer.
You're expecting McKee to be bought out or somehow traded?

2 Minute Minor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 02:52 AM
  #98
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor View Post
You're expecting McKee to be bought out or somehow traded?
Yes, IF they can pick up a cheaper, younger replacement, who can carry the puck well, make outlet passes well, defend well in his own zone and play a more physical game. It won't be an easy task. And I forgot about Colaiacovo! Maybe they shouldn't consider picking up another defenceman unless Brewer can't play. But, maybe signing Bouwmeester would be a good thing, if Brewer can't play. I wish they had unlimited money.


Last edited by Robb_K: 03-09-2009 at 03:18 AM.
Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 06:10 AM
  #99
WalterSobchak
Blues Trololol
 
WalterSobchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canberra
Country: Australia
Posts: 11,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Seriously? Way to overreact to a few bad games.

How quickly we forget moments like this (13 seconds in):


And I'm not trying to defend Jackman for his last stretch of terrible hockey. He's merely inconsistent. Nobody was complaining much about him when we were winning.
To be fair he fell down in front of the goal. It was a nice save and really gutsy but doesn't say anything about his puck handling.

WalterSobchak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 07:52 AM
  #100
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodr0w View Post
If I misinterpreted that passage the first time, then fair enough - my fault.





Jackman's logged so many minutes a game in large part because Murray hasn't had anybody else to rely on for long stretches this season. Who else would you put out there against the other teams' top forward lines when 1-3 of McKee, Brewer, and Polak are injured? Strachan? Weaver? Woywitka? Wagner? You claim that Jackman's being out there all the time hurts our chances of winning - would replacing him with guys like these improve our chances of winning? Perhaps the reason Jackman's supposedly been responsible for X number of goals is because he's a #3 caliber dman (in my opinion; you obviously would peg him even lower than that) being asked to play the role of a #1?

I can understand your feelings to an extent. We had a similar situation not too long ago where Murray had to overuse Eric Brewer due to limited resources (though I would argue that his treatment of Brewer crossed the line into favoritism, but that's a whole different discussion). But yeah - if you honestly don't think that Jackman's play this year is even worthy of a 2nd-pairing defenseman, then we'll have to agree to disagree, cause I don't know what else to tell you.




I don't know which other boards you frequent, but if you're referring to the asylum, where it's incredibly easy for hordes of clueless 'casual fans' to post drive-by rants, then that's not saying much. I've seen Jackman criticized on HF quite a bit (especially in the first few years after the lockout, when he was noticeably struggling), so I'm not sure which threads you are or aren't reading.
First of all, it's not a rule that you have to play one d-pairing 25+ minutes a night. You could play them all equally, or play the ones who are playing well the most. If Jackman cannot handle the #1 d-pairing duties, rotate him out with someone who is playing better. He can play horrible for several games in a row, and he's still put out there 25+ minutes a game. The same way you think it's favoratism allowing Brewer to play so much, I feel the same way about Jackman. It's not working. Try something different.

Secondly, Jackman has been in the league for 7 seasons. Two of his best 3 years were the first two years after the lockout (the third being his rookie season). He was only -6 on the worst team in Blues history, and then he was +20 the following year. It's been his play the past two seasons that have been awful. I think it all comes down to coaching. If Murray was hard on him and benched him when he did something stupid or didn't play well, then I think you would see a lot more consistency out of him. Right now he seems too comfortable in his role out there, and he doesn't have the same level intensity in his play that he had when he was still earning his job.

jmwc95 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 12:15 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.