Speaking of roster \ rumors \ what not

The Hogs randomly added a roster player. Perhaps eludes to some movement especially considering that with Versteeg coming back one would expect one or both of Nordstrom and\or TT to go down...
- fattybeef

Interesting. My spidey sense has been telling me a move is nigh.

And Rundblad's pre-eminence in it proves it.

Another issue with the blogosphere: it's spawned a whole generation of hockey stats geeks, 99.9% of whom have not played any meaningful hockey. Corsi is helpful to see a player's impact offensively. Hence why Rundlblad looks so great in that regard. He's a purely one-dimensional player, and worse still a defenseman who can only play offense.

1/2 of hockey is about something other than accumulating points—it's about stopping the other team from doing so. Many who excel at accumulating points do so at the expense of the other part of the equation.
- John Jaeckel

Sharp is a one dimensional players, too. His GF% is 44.7%; the Great Marcus Kruger is 48.4%; the horrid Rundblad is 75%; next best is Versteeg 68.3%.

So by your parameter of stopping goals and scoring goals, Rundblad is still the leader. As far as hockey experts, do you mean the ones that wanted to trade Kane for Miller, or the ones that thought Saad wasn't ready?

Sharp is a one dimensional players, too. His GF% is 44.7%; the Great Marcus Kruger is 48.4%; the horrid Rundblad is 75%; next best is Versteeg 68.3%.

So by your parameter of stopping goals and scoring goals, Rundblad is still the leader. As far as hockey experts, do you mean the ones that wanted to trade Kane for Miller, or the ones that thought Saad wasn't ready?
- KingB

Haha, touche'

Well, for 20-25 games Saad wasn't ready.

I'll stand by my opinion on Rundblad, borne out by his travels thus far in his career and time spent in the doghouse for colossal fails in his end leading to goals.

As for the Sharp/Kruger comparisons, again, I will defer to the actual experts: people actually paid to judge hockey talent. 99.9% of whom would prefer a Sharp or a Kruger to Stanley's Great Experiment of 2014.

Haha, touche'

Well, for 20-25 games Saad wasn't ready.

I'll stand by my opinion on Rundblad, borne out by his travels thus far in his career and time spent in the doghouse for colossal fails in his end leading to goals.

As for the Sharp/Kruger comparisons, again, I will defer to the actual experts: people actually paid to judge hockey talent. 99.9% of whom would prefer a Sharp or a Kruger to Stanley's Great Experiment of 2014.
- John Jaeckel

Don't forget, we're talking about a #7 Dman with 89 games of NHL experience. At the same age Sharp had around 66 games. My problem is that Oduya is stinking up the season, 41% GF%, as well as Shaw (40.5% GF%) and they aren't subject to Q's benching whims. This is what vexes young players - Q's patience with some guys and impatience with others.

Don't forget, we're talking about a #7 Dman with 89 games of NHL experience. At the same age Sharp had around 66 games. My problem is that Oduya is stinking up the season, 41% GF%, as well as Shaw (40.5% GF%) and they aren't subject to Q's benching whims. This is what vexes young players - Q's patience with some guys and impatience with others.
- KingB

All fair points, except he is being used as a 5-6 d-man. And again, this comes back to things that are quite meaningful yet can't be seen in "stats." Like when he has a breakdown (Scheifele, Ladd), there appears to be a lack of focus and effort that you can't have as a coach—and keep the other 20 guys.

And Rundblad's pre-eminence in it proves it.

Another issue with the blogosphere: it's spawned a whole generation of hockey stats geeks, 99.9% of whom have not played any meaningful hockey. Corsi is helpful to see a player's impact offensively. Hence why Rundlblad looks so great in that regard. He's a purely one-dimensional player, and worse still a defenseman who can only play offense.

1/2 of hockey is about something other than accumulating points—it's about stopping the other team from doing so. Many who excel at accumulating points do so at the expense of the other part of the equation.
- John Jaeckel

Having the puck, generating chances, etc. are a huge part of stopping the other team from doing so.

Stanton was a timing issue. In hindsight maybe you try and keep him around, but at the time he was the 7th/8th D-man with no options to send him back down. They had to expose him to waivers, and subsequently lost him. At the time, he was not better than anyone on the Roster, including Rosival and Brookbank, so they exposed him and lost. He was given a shot, he did notbeat out who he had to beat out. Hawks would have preferred to keep him and send him back down, they didn't get the chance.

Could they expose Runblad or Erixon to waivers with the intent of sending them down? Of course they could, but they would run the risk of losing them on waivers and be left with ZERO return on an asset. That's not smart business. If there was truly a MUCH better option in Rockford, they would be up. Dahlbeck, Johns, Cumiskey or Pokka at this point are not better players, they all have their weaknesses too.

You say the talk of the Hawks being so good is Hogwash, but which players are you replacing? Should Morin have played over Shaw, Bickell, Kruger, Smith? The answer is NO.

Kevin Hayes chose not to sign with the Hawks because he saw that there was a log jam of players in front of him, and a longer path to the NHL. The Rangers were able to provide him an opportunity the Hawks could not.
- TheTrob

What is this? Novel-buzz today?

Not a shot at you Trob, just an observation of this page of comments.

All fair points, except he is being used as a 5-6 d-man. And again, this comes back to things that are quite meaningful yet can't be seen in "stats." Like when he has a breakdown (Scheifele, Ladd), there appears to be a lack of focus and effort that you can't have as a coach—and keep the other 20 guys.
- John Jaeckel

We can all face the fact Rundblad was a Rozy fill-in until TVR went down. Unfortunately for Q, there hasn't been a better 'other' fill-in for TVR.

I would like to see some of the 'hogs kids get a few game auditions here and there, while letting TVR get as close to 100% as possible.

Unless there's a trade, we may all see just how valuable TVR's trickle-up contributions are to the entire D-corp.

Having the puck, generating chances, etc. are a huge part of stopping the other team from doing so.
- BreakoutHockey

I will not disagree.

But if you've ever played a team sport and you have a guy routinely failing at critical times due to what appears to be a lack of focus/effort, it's not a good thing.

Also, his +16 is a real eye-opener, surprising, but I suspect also he is somewhat sheltered. And that there are stats that prove it. Certainly not going out agains the top lines in the league.

As for the Sharp/Kruger comparisons, again, I will defer to the actual experts: people actually paid to judge hockey talent. 99.9% of whom would prefer a Sharp or a Kruger to Stanley's Great Experiment of 2014.

It's easy to vilify a 7th Dman but several important Hawks (Kruger, Smith, Shaw, Bicks, Oduya) are having their worst season as Blackhawks. Richards is on course to tie his point total from last year, which was his worst year.

The Hawks current season is like last year's playoffs. A few players saved the first two rounds with outstanding play while most of the team played poorly or indifferently. This is why Edzo, after the lost to LA, said he expects a major trade to shake up the team. StanBo might have been fooled by last year's playoffs.

It's easy to vilify a 7th Dman but several important Hawks (Kruger, Smith, Shaw, Bicks, Oduya) are having their worst season as Blackhawks. Richards is on course to tie his point total from last year, which was his worst year.

The Hawks current season is like last year's playoffs. A few players saved the first two rounds with outstanding play while most of the team played poorly or indifferently. This is why Edzo, after the lost to LA, said he expects a major trade to shake up the team. StanBo might have been fooled by last year's playoffs.
- KingB

That's why I'm not overly concerned with the last 7 weeks. Sure it's not great but I'd rather have it happen at this time than start towards the end of the RS.

Not being comfortable may be a good thing. It'll stir the pot a bit in the FO.

It's easy to vilify a 7th Dman but several important Hawks (Kruger, Smith, Shaw, Bicks, Oduya) are having their worst season as Blackhawks. Richards is on course to tie his point total from last year, which was his worst year.

The Hawks current season is like last year's playoffs. A few players saved the first two rounds with outstanding play while most of the team played poorly or indifferently. This is why Edzo, after the lost to LA, said he expects a major trade to shake up the team. StanBo might have been fooled by last year's playoffs.
- KingB

Interesting.

Dunno. My belief, based on a lot I was told, is he went hard after Kesler. Obviously, not hard enough to include TT in the deal (the rumored tipping point for a deal on Vancouver's end). And Richards was a fallback because they knew Zus was done.

Not going to go into whether they should have paid the price for Kesler. Time will tell. Not just in TT's career, nor in Kesler's achievements with Anaheim, but also in when the Hawks get back to the Cup Finals. If not this year, could be some time.

My point is I think the FO/Bowman knew they needed to fix some stuff, just couldn't make the deal. Then.

Options are more limited now but maybe the right adds, a big banger at forward and a reserve d-man might be enough to put them over the top.

Sharp is a one dimensional players, too. His GF% is 44.7%; the Great Marcus Kruger is 48.4%; the horrid Rundblad is 75%; next best is Versteeg 68.3%.

So by your parameter of stopping goals and scoring goals, Rundblad is still the leader. As far as hockey experts, do you mean the ones that wanted to trade Kane for Miller, or the ones that thought Saad wasn't ready?
- KingB

Eh. Zone starts and quality of competition are an issue there. Hockey abstract has some neato charts that show how sheltered he is compared to the other players. The only guy getting more favorable zone starts is TT.

It is actually pretty interesting to see how Q hides players with a picture. It should also be noted that Rundblad hasn't played enough minutes to be considered for evaluation on some of the usage charts. Shaw and Bickell should be doing better at evens then they are. Pretty disappointing seasons for those two. Anyhoo...

Watching him play, there are flashes but I wouldn't bank my playoffs on him figuring it out. He has a bomb of a shot but very very inconsistent otherwise.

All fair points, except he is being used as a 5-6 d-man. And again, this comes back to things that are quite meaningful yet can't be seen in "stats." Like when he has a breakdown (Scheifele, Ladd), there appears to be a lack of focus and effort that you can't have as a coach—and keep the other 20 guys.
- John Jaeckel

I understand the breakdown, but when #5 does one, it becomes "The Breakdown" instead of 'a' breakdown, like the many that Seabs, Oduya and Rozy do repeatedly without comment or consequence.

I don't hear anyone comment on how Seabs keeps getting turnstiled or the repeated breakdowns that other Hawk Dmen are committing this year. There is very good reason that the Hawks are allowing a horrid amount of shots against this year (17th in NHL from 4th last year) - and the second to last Dman on the roster is not the reason.

Eh. Zone starts and quality of competition are an issue there. Hockey abstract has some neato charts that show how sheltered he is compared to the other players. The only guy getting more favorable zone starts is TT.

It is actually pretty interesting to see how Q hides players with a picture. It should also be noted that Rundblad hasn't played enough minutes to be considered for evaluation on some of the usage charts. Shaw and Bickell should be doing better at evens then they are. Pretty disappointing seasons for those two. Anyhoo...

Watching him play, there are flashes but I wouldn't bank my playoffs on him figuring it out. He has a bomb of a shot but very very inconsistent otherwise.
- fattybeef

Absolutely - quality of competition and zone starts change #5's stats. But if you have a young hitter that crushes the 4th and 5th starters, a prudent manager would start moving the young hitter up gradually against better pitchers.

At the very least, Q should have #5 on the second PP unit.

Interesting.

Dunno. My belief, based on a lot I was told, is he went hard after Kesler. Obviously, not hard enough to include TT in the deal (the rumored tipping point for a deal on Vancouver's end). And Richards was a fallback because they knew Zus was done.

Not going to go into whether they should have paid the price for Kesler. Time will tell. Not just in TT's career, nor in Kesler's achievements with Anaheim, but also in when the Hawks get back to the Cup Finals. If not this year, could be some time.

My point is I think the FO/Bowman knew they needed to fix some stuff, just couldn't make the deal. Then.

Options are more limited now but maybe the right adds, a big banger at forward and a reserve d-man might be enough to put them over the top.
- John Jaeckel

I think you are dead right. BTW, I heard that a rumored player that you said could be moved was indeed up for trade but he couldn't garner the wanted return.

I will not disagree.

But if you've ever played a team sport and you have a guy routinely failing at critical times due to what appears to be a lack of focus/effort, it's not a good thing.

Also, his +16 is a real eye-opener, surprising, but I suspect also he is somewhat sheltered. And that there are stats that prove it. Certainly not going out agains the top lines in the league.
- John Jaeckel

Being paired with Keith is certainly a definition of sheltered. Nobody is suggesting a shutdown assignment for him. Nobody would benefit from that. He's getting that differential from somewhere, regardless. If there's a real edge in using him in certain situations, then they should figure it out and use him there. If all is hopeless, they should either deal him for a bag of pucks or try to send him back to Rockford and hopefully he clears.

What is this? Novel-buzz today?

Not a shot at you Trob, just an observation of this page of comments.
- BlazinMike

Didn't know there was a limit

I understand the breakdown, but when #5 does one, it becomes "The Breakdown" instead of 'a' breakdown, like the many that Seabs, Oduya and Rozy do repeatedly without comment or consequence.

I don't hear anyone comment on how Seabs keeps getting turnstiled or the repeated breakdowns that other Hawk Dmen are committing this year. There is very good reason that the Hawks are allowing a horrid amount of shots against this year (17th in NHL from 4th last year) - and the second to last Dman on the roster is not the reason.
- KingB

I repeat:

"Like when he has a breakdown (Scheifele, Ladd), there appears to be a lack of focus and effort that you can't have as a coach—and keep the other 20 guys."

Stanton was a timing issue. In hindsight maybe you try and keep him around, but at the time he was the 7th/8th D-man with no options to send him back down. They had to expose him to waivers, and subsequently lost him. At the time, he was not better than anyone on the Roster, including Rosival and Brookbank, so they exposed him and lost. He was given a shot, he did notbeat out who he had to beat out. Hawks would have preferred to keep him and send him back down, they didn't get the chance.

Could they expose Runblad or Erixon to waivers with the intent of sending them down? Of course they could, but they would run the risk of losing them on waivers and be left with ZERO return on an asset. That's not smart business. If there was truly a MUCH better option in Rockford, they would be up. Dahlbeck, Johns, Cumiskey or Pokka at this point are not better players, they all have their weaknesses too.
It's a crapshoot with Hayes, maybe 1 could have looked at it in long range projection: will Kevin Hayes be better down the road than Smith,Kruger, Nordstrom, Versteeg, Carcillo, and a couple of others, probably the answer is yes . The Rangers reap the reward there. Probably should have sacrificed 1 of those guys to give Hayes a spot? I don't know, crapshoot!he's the potential elusive big 2 nd line center the team has be looking for for years, he'll mature out to be a 25-30 goal scorer while we have Ben Smiths 4 goals a year ect.ect...???? Just doin a what if here!
You say the talk of the Hawks being so good is Hogwash, but which players are you replacing? Should Morin have played over Shaw, Bickell, Kruger, Smith? The answer is NO.

Kevin Hayes chose not to sign with the Hawks because he saw that there was a log jam of players in front of him, and a longer path to the NHL. The Rangers were able to provide him an opportunity the Hawks could not.
- TheTrob

Absolutely - quality of competition and zone starts change #5's stats. But if you have a young hitter that crushes the 4th and 5th starters, a prudent manager would start moving the young hitter up gradually against better pitchers.

At the very least, Q should have #5 on the second PP unit.
- KingB

This, I have no problem with.

.
Also, his +16 is a real eye-opener, surprising, but I suspect also he is somewhat sheltered. And that there are stats that prove it. Certainly not going out agains the top lines in the league.

Absolutely, he is being sheltered. But Q can't bench him for a minor misplay that turned into a goal on a goofy bounce off a ref.

Most reporters thought that Q would scratch #5 after his benching in Peg. But what happened in the next game? Q played him over 9 minutes vs. 3:50 in Peg.

This is very telling. Either Q realized that the benching was unfair or someone (from team or higher up) have a talk with Q.

Ps, sorry throb, I screwed up something while responding to your post,..... Called cyber dumb!

Absolutely, he is being sheltered. But Q can't bench him for a minor misplay that turned into a goal on a goofy bounce of a ref.

Most reporters thought that Q would scratch #5 after his benching in Peg. But what happened in the next game? Q played him over 9 minutes vs. 3:50 in Peg.

This is very telling. Either Q realized that the benching was unfair or someone (from team or higher up) have a talk with Q.
- KingB

Or both.

I repeat:

"Like when he has a breakdown (Scheifele, Ladd), there appears to be a lack of focus and effort that you can't have as a coach—and keep the other 20 guys."
- John Jaeckel

Like the lack of focus that keeps generating odd man breaks and breakaways? The entire D-core has had a multitude of miscues and mental errors.