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

Stats advanced or otherwise do not tell the whole story with #5. The main test that he fails is the one that matters most to the Coaching staff, scouts, front office, an fans and that is the EYE test. Watching him play will tell you all you need to know about his abilities.

Ryan Stanton is another guy who maybe should have been given an actual legitimate look. Yet he was discarded like a waste bin. Never given a real look. People talking about needing size, someone who can play tough in his own zone, that guy did. He isn't the flashiest or most dynamic player ever, but he plays a sound hockey game. Yet, was given no shot here. Runblad given months to prove himself...Stanton out with the trash. It is THIS that tells me something is amiss somewhere.

All Stanton did in Rockford was improve every year, every game (he took a real jump between 2012 and 2013, yet NOTHING)...if anyone deserved a shot at the big club it was him. He'll probably be a pretty solid third pairing D-man, who is cost effective, for a number of years up with the Canucks.

All this talk about these guys not getting a chance because the Hawks are just so good is hogwash. A team that can easily discard sound hockey players should be running over teams, not limping around in the middle of the conference despite having virtually no injury problems this year, especially compared to the competition.
- kwolf68

The year we lost Stanton our D men were Keith, Seabrook, Hammer, Oduya, Roszival, Leddy and Brookbank. Q wanted his slow vets over Stanton and that is what he got (Bowman may have thought Stanton would clear waivers). Don't try to compare him to Rundblad as the situation was different and Rundblad wasn't in the organization when they cut Stanton (RUndblad wasn't picked over Stanton). Also, how much of a shot was Rundblad given last year? About as much as Erixon is this year.

Stats advanced or otherwise do not tell the whole story with #5. The main test that he fails is the one that matters most to the Coaching staff, scouts, front office, an fans and that is the EYE test. Watching him play will tell you all you need to know about his abilities.
- TheTrob

Like the eye test that said Crawford sucks?

Eye tests are subjective - the eye test said Phil Espo was a horrid skater and too slow to keep up with Bobby Hull.

The eye test said Dennis Hull was pathetic, couldn't skate, would trip on the blue line and was only on the team to placate Bobby.

Am I to believe that your eye test is better than Team Bowman's with regard to #5?

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

>Hawks will need to own the slot at both ends to get to the Finals
>There was some rodeo-hockey last night with Toews getting thrown around and cross-checked to ice -- and from the Arizona "Bettman's" in a regular season game no less -- hmmm -- wonder what's waiting in playoffs?
>I'm willing to cut the players some slack -- their schedule has been really FUBAR -- and I'm guessing that the recent road trip felt like a 12-game one
>Overall net presence and powerplay need to be fixed in the last stretch of the regular season
>Powerplay needs some new approaches and better compete level: would like to see everything done at a much higher tempo and with much more movement of the players themselves -- no more perimeter set-ups and slow-downs as the desired "first-step"
>Powerplay also needs to stop passing up open shots and get the puck on net -- and eliminate the brain-dead passing that creates 50/50 pucks

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

PP unit is a sore subject. The only reason Keith remains on the 1st unit has to be Q's need to stroke Keith's probably fragile ego.

The PP in overtime yesterday I said the Hawks should go with #19/#88/#81 & #7. Would have been much better. Seabrook has a better shot and much better offensive instincts.

Seabrook should replace Keith on the 1st unit, and if your gonna keep Runblad, then leverage his offensive skills and put him on Unit #2 or instead of Richards or Sharp as a point man.

I gather that +/- doesn't tell the entire story, and I never heard an explanation for it in regards to Rundblad. Is it just a fluke of some kind, the benefit of being paired with Keith, what is it exactly? I don't have a problem with the criticism of him in his own end, though he seems better in that regard the last two games. One can only hope the fear of the forecheck can be drilled out of him at practice.

I sure like what he brings at the point, regardless. As I said on here numerous times, would it really kill them to put him on a power play unit?

Back to the younger player management issue, though. Does anybody think that bringing back Versteeg at half price for Olsen and Hayes was a bad trade?
- 333inthe3rd

I think his +/- is so good because if he messes up, or sometimes is just on the ice and the opposing team scores, Q yanks him and cuts his minutes to next to nothing. If he plays well he plays meaningful minutes (giving him more + because he is playing more when playing well, compared to not playing when playing poorly).

Oduya or Roszival make a mistake, and cause a goal against, they are playing on the next shift. Young guys are on the ice when a goal against is scored and are benched for the rest of the game. I have no issue with Q benching players for playing poorly, but he has much higher expectations on rookies/new guys, than vets (even if the vets are terrible, like Roszival and Handzus).

PP unit is a sore subject. The only reason Keith remains on the 1st unit has to be Q's need to stroke Keith's probably fragile ego.

The PP in overtime yesterday I said the Hawks should go with #19/#88/#81 & #7. Would have been much better. Seabrook has a better shot and much better offensive instincts.

Seabrook should replace Keith on the 1st unit, and if your gonna keep Runblad, then leverage his offensive skills and put him on Unit #2 or instead of Richards or Sharp as a point man.
- TheTrob

Just out of curiosity, what have you seen from Keith on or off the ice that would suggest he has much of an ego at all, let alone a fragile one that needs to be stroked?

Couldn't agree more that he probably shouldn't get first unit time on the PP, what makes him a great player really isn't applicable to the man advantage. Just wondering if I've missed something with him that would lead to your claim.

Like the eye test that said Crawford sucks?

Eye tests are subjective - the eye test said Phil Espo was a horrid skater and too slow to keep up with Bobby Hull.

The eye test said Dennis Hull was pathetic, couldn't skate, would trip on the blue line and was only on the team to placate Bobby.

Am I to believe that your eye test is better than Team Bowman's with regard to #5?
- KingB

Who said Crawford sucked? Not the scouts, coaches or FO and not me.

The eye tests of myself and those on this board mean nothing, I have never said anything but that. My point and my opinion is that stats, advanced or otherwise do not necessarily tell the whole story, especially with such a small sample size for a player like #5.

The comparisons of Espo and Hull are not quite valid. Its a different game now in many respects. Are you comparing Runblad to Phil Esposito or Hull? There are plenty of guys in this league who are not great skaters, and Espo and Hull were still better than most of them (Runblad included)

I think his +/- is so good because if he messes up, or sometimes is just on the ice and the opposing team scores, Q yanks him and cuts his minutes to next to nothing. If Oduya or Roszival make a mistake, and cause a goal, they are playing on the next shift. I have no issue with Q benching players for playing poorly, but he has much higher expectations on rookies/new guys, than vets (even if the vets are terrible, like Roszival and Handzus).
- BearsnHawks

Yep, and this is wrong. Case in point, J Morin. He plays well down the stretch last year but Q benches him in the POs for an ailing Versteeg that is a detriment. The pros & cons can be debated on this. StanBo and Q talk Morin up in the offseason and camp; but the word in camp is that Morin has no chance to make the team - then Q never gives him a chance to prove it.

So, StanBo, and JJ has pointed this out with other players that Q won't play, ships him out. Whether Morin makes it or not in Columbus is besides the point, the feeling is that he didn't get a proper chance - and that gets whispered around the league.

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

Is it correct to say a lack of focus is the problem? I see a kid so afraid to fail, thinking this could be his last stop. There seems to be some yips involved, too. Not only that, his fate seemed to be tied to Rozsival, too, until they finally wised up and shifted the pairings. Yeah, it's easy to see why the forecheck scares him at this point.

Not that I am excusing him. He has to get better, and the coaches have no choice but to try to develop his talent and help him overcome his fears, unless they decide to throw in the towel on the experiment like the others before them. Stanley obviously saw something to warrant a 2nd round pick.

Who said Crawford sucked? Not the scouts, coaches or FO and not me.

The eye tests of myself and those on this board mean nothing, I have never said anything but that. My point and my opinion is that stats, advanced or otherwise do not necessarily tell the whole story, especially with such a small sample size for a player like #5.

The comparisons of Espo and Hull are not quite valid. Its a different game now in many respects. Are you comparing Runblad to Phil Esposito or Hull? There are plenty of guys in this league who are not great skaters, and Espo and Hull were still better than most of them (Runblad included)
- TheTrob

Are you talking about the eye tests from scouts or coaches that had #5 drafted at 17 in the 1st round?

Are you talking about the eye tests from scouts or coaches that had #5 drafted at 17 in the 1st round?
- KingB

Q just needs to use #5 correctly. Limited minutes in a normal D pairing, but he needs to be on the point with the PP units. That guy can hammer it and he is accurate with his shots.

Is it correct to say a lack of focus is the problem? I see a kid so afraid to fail, thinking this could be his last stop. There seems to be some yips involved, too. Not only that, his fate seemed to be tied to Rozsival, too, until they finally wised up and shifted the pairings. Yeah, it's easy to see why the forecheck scares him at this point.

Not that I am excusing him. He has to get better, and the coaches have no choice but to try to develop his talent, unless they decide to throw in the towel on the experiment like the others before them. Stanley obviously saw something to warrant a 2nd round pick.
- 333inthe3rd

BTW, Hjarlmarsson has one of the worst cases of yips in the NHL and regular flips the puck out of the zone or bangs it around the boards. However, the rest of his D-game is outstanding and he is fearless. If he could handle the puck better and pass better, he would be on the PP more.

Q just needs to use #5 correctly. Limited minutes in a normal D pairing, but he needs to be on the point with the PP units. That guy can hammer it and he is accurate with his shots.
- z1990z

+++ What #7 Dman doesn't have deficiencies? Most are slow-footed, space eaters (Sopel, Matt Walker, Nasty Nick). By rule they are one-dimensional.

Who said Crawford sucked? Not the scouts, coaches or FO and not me.

The eye tests of myself and those on this board mean nothing, I have never said anything but that. My point and my opinion is that stats, advanced or otherwise do not necessarily tell the whole story, especially with such a small sample size for a player like #5.

The comparisons of Espo and Hull are not quite valid. Its a different game now in many respects. Are you comparing Runblad to Phil Esposito or Hull? There are plenty of guys in this league who are not great skaters, and Espo and Hull were still better than most of them (Runblad included)
- TheTrob

How about the ex-NHL players, the experts that excoriated Corey for allowing 5 goals in that one SC Final game while Rask was extolled as 'all world' when he allowed 6 goals?

Just out of curiosity, what have you seen from Keith on or off the ice that would suggest he has much of an ego at all, let alone a fragile one that needs to be stroked?

Couldn't agree more that he probably shouldn't get first unit time on the PP, what makes him a great player really isn't applicable to the man advantage. Just wondering if I've missed something with him that would lead to your claim.
- PhatJoeSki

It's not one specific statement or action, just a general feeling.

Keith is one of the best one on one defenders, skaters and outlet passers in the league. He is obviously considered one of the best overall D-men in the league, and from a Defensive standpoint he is. If you look at the others in the Norris trophy talk each year, Chara, Doughty, Weber, Subban, Suter, Karlsson, etc. all of them are there as much if not more for their offensive prowess more than the D-end. All of them are on their respective teams #1 PP unit. Unfortunately, the Norris has become more about the best offensive defenseman, rather than the best defenseman. While I don't have specific stats in front of me (nor do I care to go look), I would guess that a lot of Keiths points come as assists on the PP, especially in his Norris winning years.

If you think pulling him off the #1 unit doesn't effect his ego I would disagree. He knows his numbers would dip, as would his chances for the Norris. Q understands this also, and instead of possibly losing his best defender mentally, he throws him a bone.

Something maybe in the works, maybe not who knows?

http://committedindians.c...ming-icehogs-add-forward/

It's not one specific statement or action, just a general feeling.

Keith is one of the best one on one defenders, skaters and outlet passers in the league. He is obviously considered one of the best overall D-men in the league, and from a Defensive standpoint he is. If you look at the others in the Norris trophy talk each year, Chara, Doughty, Weber, Subban, Suter, Karlsson, etc. all of them are there as much if not more for their offensive prowess more than the D-end. All of them are on their respective teams #1 PP unit. Unfortunately, the Norris has become more about the best offensive defenseman, rather than the best defenseman. While I don't have specific stats in front of me (nor do I care to go look), I would guess that a lot of Keiths points come as assists on the PP, especially in his Norris winning years.

If you think pulling him off the #1 unit doesn't effect his ego I would disagree. He knows his numbers would dip, as would his chances for the Norris. Q understands this also, and instead of possibly losing his best defender mentally, he throws him a bone.
- TheTrob

Most people who get demoted from something will have their ego bruised, I won't argue that. I just got the vibe from your assertion that Keith had shown a need somewhere along the line to be coddled. He doesn't come across that way (in the admittedly very minimal amount we the average fan know about a player's true personality) but who knows. Keith's last Norris was basically won because of secondary assists and I am sure you're right that a good amount of them cam eon the PP. His decision making at the point leaves a lot to be desired, I would love to see someone else there. I was just curious if I'd missed something specific in his time here that would lead you to believe he was a primadonna because he sort of seems like the opposite of that.

Like the eye test that said Crawford sucks?

Eye tests are subjective - the eye test said Phil Espo was a horrid skater and too slow to keep up with Bobby Hull.

The eye test said Dennis Hull was pathetic, couldn't skate, would trip on the blue line and was only on the team to placate Bobby.

Am I to believe that your eye test is better than Team Bowman's with regard to #5?
- KingB

If it looks like a bear and craps in the woods...

Are you talking about the eye tests from scouts or coaches that had #5 drafted at 17 in the 1st round?
- KingB

Not sure what your point is KingB.

There are misses in the first round each and every year. Your drafting a 18-19 year old kid and hoping he continues to develop. For some it works, for others not. The list of misses is long, as is the list of late rounders who turn into all-stars.

I pretty sure he was drafted on what was seen by the scouts and GM and not what a bunch of advanced stats may have told them.

Like the eye test that said Crawford sucks?

Eye tests are subjective - the eye test said Phil Espo was a horrid skater and too slow to keep up with Bobby Hull.

The eye test said Dennis Hull was pathetic, couldn't skate, would trip on the blue line and was only on the team to placate Bobby.

Am I to believe that your eye test is better than Team Bowman's with regard to #5?
- KingB

The eye test also said Hasek was wild, undisciplined, and had horrible technique/angles for a goalie when he was in Chicago

Then again, eye test also said Jack Skille had an amateur level shot, which he did, and still does

Sometimes its right, sometimes its wrong

more often than not, the eye test is reliable when a guy sucks

Q is in a tough bind when it comes to creating power play units. Removing most of the current guys on either unit, let alone Keith, is a delicate situation. I think the only reason that you have Sharp and Richards at point positions is because there are so many forwards who deserve real consideration. I'd have to think that it does come down to managing people here.

The eye test also said Hasek was wild, undisciplined, and had horrible technique/angles for a goalie when he was in Chicago

Then again, eye test also said Jack Skille had an amateur level shot, which he did, and still does

Sometimes its right, sometimes its wrong

more often than not, the eye test is reliable when a guy sucks
- FourFeathers773

Do you have any advanced stats to back that up??

If it looks like a bear and craps in the woods...
- fattybeef

it would still be better than #5

Not sure what your point is KingB.

There are misses in the first round each and every year. Your drafting a 18-19 year old kid and hoping he continues to develop. For some it works, for others not. The list of misses is long, as is the list of late rounders who turn into all-stars.

I pretty sure he was drafted on what was seen by the scouts and GM and not what a bunch of advanced stats may have told them.
- TheTrob

That's my point.