You are very welcome. In spite of living in an alternate universe, I think you, TG and I all feel like it's the right universe.
- Return of the Roar

Yes...we all remember your post season predictions of a first round exit...2nd round exit...western conference finals exit....and a loss in the Stanley Cup Finals.......and the constant "We Like Our Team" comments.....how did those work out for you?....or did you think most of us have forgotten?.....wipe the drool.

Also, regarding shots allowed on the PK, the number of shots will go down if you allow a goal on the first shot often, which I feel has been the case early this year.

Also, regarding shots allowed on the PK, the number of shots will go down if you allow a goal on the first shot often, which I feel has been the case early this year.
- Walky

This

Yes...we all remember your post season predictions of a first round exit...2nd round exit...western conference finals exit....and a loss in the Stanley Cup Finals.......and the constant "We Like Our Team" comments.....how did those work out for you?....or did you think most of us have forgotten?.....wipe the drool.
- UnnamedSource

There is the difference between you and I - humility. IIRC, in spite of my impassioned criticisms, I immediately (with Edzo inflection) ate crow after they won, and admitted to being overzealous.

But I know you pick and choose those posts which serve your immediate need to be right with an exclamation point in the moment, and I am cool with that.

There is the difference between you and I - humility. IIRC, in spite of my impassioned criticisms, I immediately (with Edzo inflection) ate crow after they won, and admitted to being overzealous.

But I know you pick and choose those posts which serve your immediate need to be right with an exclamation point in the moment, and I am cool with that.
- Return of the Roar

I usually don't use exclamation points.....

At least in Rockford, and so far he seems to be making a case for himself in Chicago.

At this time last season, he was slumming it in the ECHL. He was brought into Rockford after the lockout ended and provided valuable play and leadership to that team, which is why he got another contract to stick around. I don't think it was the organization's intention to have him be much more than a role model for the puppies in Rockford. In fact, if he hadn't have gotten a call-up, I'm almost sure he'd be wearing a "C" on his sweater in Rockford by now.
- EKolb13

Good stuff bro...wish more fringe guys like Mills got a chance. Really would have like to have seen Marty St. Pierre get a call up last year. He played well for the Swine.

There is the difference between you and I - humility. IIRC, in spite of my impassioned criticisms, I immediately (with Edzo inflection) ate crow after they won, and admitted to being overzealous.

But I know you pick and choose those posts which serve your immediate need to be right with an exclamation point in the moment, and I am cool with that.
- Return of the Roar

Still doesn't change the fact you made those predictions...hence the alternative universe.

Steve Downie back to Philly for Max Talbot.
- MartiniMan

Philly gets the better of that deal.

Still doesn't change the fact you made those predictions...hence the alternative universe.
- UnnamedSource

This from the King of the pump the breaks crowd on all things blackhawks.

If being wrong once creates an alternative universe...from what universe are you commenting from?

Also, regarding shots allowed on the PK, the number of shots will go down if you allow a goal on the first shot often, which I feel has been the case early this year.
- Walky

This - right after the first FO loss.

Yes Rollpards is young but the comment about it equating to lack of experience is ridiculous.....you seem to have all this hockey knowledge yet you USED to be part of the tin foil hat crowd regarding Q.....your years of experience failed you in that area....
- UnnamedSource

I gave Q his due and admitted as such publicly on this board. You have a short memory. There are still many things I don't agree with him on -- however, he DOES have the skins on the wall and I said as much.

The lack of experience point is what it is . . . no tin foil here. Those comments are very solid and grounded in experience, yes -- there is no question that allowing a PP unit time and space will ultimately result in less overall shots taken and the shots that are taken are typically a combination of very high quality and less likely to be seen by the goaltender. That's my own experience and it is being seen on our PK. The PP unit doesn't have to take 10 shots during a man advantage. All they need is 1 good one.

Collapsing on the goalie seems to be the scheme they've chosen again this year. It's the wrong scheme with this group of players and will continue to see us at the bottom of the pile in terms of PK effectiveness.

>OK, I'll bite on the PK discussion
>Faceoffs: I think Toews is something like 1-10 on his last 10 PK draws (Kruger 0-100 -- just kidding on Krugs)
>Other forward off the draw HAS been way too passive -- last year THAT forward would explode toward the opponent who just got the puck -- making him move it and the draw-taker would already be exploding toward where that forced pass was going -- a Dman would join that drawman on a double-team along the boards creating a turnover and clear (not happening yet this year)
>Front of the net: our Dman have NOT been tieing up the sticks of screeners, at all (see Backes PP goals this year)
>Goalie: CC has been way too deep in his net on quite a few point shots
>Hockey Sabremetrics: A fascinating and evolving thing -- still light years behind other sports
>Conclusion: There's strong merit in both points of view -- the eyes and the numbers

LMAO

How many shots has he faced in those games? How many games have we heard Foley and Eddie O marvel at the Hawks defense and comment on the lack of shots CC has faced.....then only minutes later the Hawks lose that 2 goal lead and are trying to squeeze out a point...............again alternative universe.
- UnnamedSource

Are you suggesting that all these disappearing two goal leads are because of CC? No defensive breakdowns leading to tipped shots? No turnovers in their own zone? I hope you're not suggesting that - you'd lose some credibility if you did.

In one game, one shot can change the SV% from bad to okay, or okay to good, or good to great. Sometimes that shot goes in because of a breakdown by the skaters, sometimes because the goalie blows it; and sometimes (here's a shocker for the extremists in the crowd) both are partially at fault. Stats don't mean crap within one game, or even ten games (depending on the stat in question); they mean something when there's big numbers.

Thanks ROAR -- unfortunately, we know Rollpards is a young guy with not nearly as much experience and would like us all to think it's simply C2 that sucks.

While I can admit he's not been stellar, the kinds of opportunities the PP's have had against us have been quite good. You don't need a tommy-gun's worth of shots on a PP (especially when those come from outside, are rushed, from bad angles and there is enough room for the goalie to see the shots), all you need is the RIGHT shot, not rushed and with not just the PP unit trying to obscure vision but now 4 PKers backed in on top of the goalie so he can't see.

Only need one good shot in those circumstances. So the red herring here is # of shots and %'s -- cause as Paul Harvey would say, "and the rest of the story . . . "
- savvyone-1

Quote where I haven't said CC is great 5v5. Seriously, find it. He's been bad on the PK. Do you honestly think a 70% SV% is good? Again I will ask you to prove that there has been a difference in the quality of shots this year versus last year, I don't see it when I watch. There seem to be tons of point shots, not a lot from the slot.

And easy with the personal comments. I've watched, been around, and played hockey literally my entire life. You disagree with me? Fine, tons of people do about tons of things. TG and I disagree on like 75% of what goes on, but never once has he said anything personal, nor has he questioned my credibility due to something as immaterial as age. You want to prove me wrong, refute the claims I'm making, don't mention how old I am.

Philly gets the better of that deal.
- DarthKane

And Talbot escapes purgatory and joins a juggernaut

>Other forward off the draw HAS been way too passive -- last year THAT forward would explode toward the opponent who just got the puck -- making him move it and the draw-taker would already be exploding toward where that forced pass was going -- a Dman would join that drawman on a double-team along the boards creating a turnover and clear (not happening yet this year)
>Front of the net: our Dman have NOT been tieing up the sticks of screeners, at all (see Backes PP goals this year)

>Goalie: CC has been way too deep in his net on quite a few point shots

>Hockey Sabremetrics: A fascinating and evolving thing -- still light years behind other sports

- SnapitUpstairs

Great detail of exactly what I was talking about. As for CC too deep, that's something very easily correctly but certainly not the reason the PK blows this yr.

The points about the other forward being passive, the forwards in general not being aggressive and forcing the play is exactly what I have been saying.

The PK this year doesn't pass the eye test.

This from the King of the pump the breaks crowd on all things blackhawks.

If being wrong once creates an alternative universe...from what universe are you commenting from?
- TrueGrit

pump the breaks crowd???...this from the king of irony and the prince of talking out of both sides of your arse......the universe of realty.

Quote where I haven't said CC is great 5v5. Seriously, find it. He's been bad on the PK.

You want to prove me wrong, refute the claims I'm making, don't mention how old I am.
- rollpards19

Not being personal, I think you just proved yourself wrong. All Savvy was saying was that the PK scheme is the source of the problems - quite frankly I would add that it is independent of who is in the net.

The quality of chances is likely to be higher when the D is passive.

Philly gets the better of that deal.
- DarthKane

Like most everything, there's more than meets the eye. Downie will be unrestricted, Talbot 2 more years at 1.75M cap hit, but salary is only 1.25M and 1.0M. Right up a low budget team like Colorado's alley.

>OK, I'll bite on the PK discussion
>Faceoffs: I think Toews is something like 1-10 on his last 10 PK draws (Kruger 0-100 -- just kidding on Krugs)
>Other forward off the draw HAS been way too passive -- last year THAT forward would explode toward the opponent who just got the puck -- making him move it and the draw-taker would already be exploding toward where that forced pass was going -- a Dman would join that drawman on a double-team along the boards creating a turnover and clear (not happening yet this year)
>Front of the net: our Dman have NOT been tieing up the sticks of screeners, at all (see Backes PP goals this year)
>Goalie: CC has been way too deep in his net on quite a few point shots
>Hockey Sabremetrics: A fascinating and evolving thing -- still light years behind other sports
>Conclusion: There's strong merit in both points of view -- the eyes and the numbers
- SnapitUpstairs

Stick tap. Especially Toews (your FO #s are dead on), that has to change, Kruger has actually improved substantially, and at least 2 of the goals of FO's have been Toews' fault

Are you suggesting that all these disappearing two goal leads are because of CC? No defensive breakdowns leading to tipped shots? No turnovers in their own zone? I hope you're not suggesting that - you'd lose some credibility if you did.

In one game, one shot can change the SV% from bad to okay, or okay to good, or good to great. Sometimes that shot goes in because of a breakdown by the skaters, sometimes because the goalie blows it; and sometimes (here's a shocker for the extremists in the crowd) both are partially at fault. Stats don't mean crap within one game, or even ten games (depending on the stat in question); they mean something when there's big numbers.
- mohel

No not at all...defensive break downs happen though....a lot have happened while Bulin has been in net...lots of odd man rushes....however CC hasn't faced a lot of shots and he needs to be better in the 3rd period. I stated before the defense and goaltending work in tandem. They both bail each other out....When CC has been subpar the defense has played well enough to protect the goalie...most of the time.....the goal tending this year hasn't helped the defense out this year...on most occasions.

Quote where I haven't said CC is great 5v5. Seriously, find it. He's been bad on the PK. Do you honestly think a 70% SV% is good? Again I will ask you to prove that there has been a difference in the quality of shots this year versus last year, I don't see it when I watch. There seem to be tons of point shots, not a lot from the slot.

And easy with the personal comments. I've watched, been around, and played hockey literally my entire life. You disagree with me? Fine, tons of people do about tons of things. TG and I disagree on like 75% of what goes on, but never once has he said anything personal, nor has he questioned my credibility due to something as immaterial as age. You want to prove me wrong, refute the claims I'm making, don't mention how old I am.
- rollpards19

No personal offense meant -- I'm literally one of the older guys here and have played competitive hockey (and still do) for some 40+ years, having played through junior A. Age and experience does matter, whether you believe it or not -- just as everyone talks about Q's NHL wins total and now his 2 CUPS. It matters. It doesn't mean other coaches (or you) know nothing about hockey, just that those years of experience give you a bigger backdrop of play to draw upon.

A scheme of collapsing on your goalie during a PK I have never seen successful. Only for a team with very slow skaters and mediocre players might they be more successful in clogging up the middle of the ice -- simply because they likely couldn't/wouldn't be able to pressure the puck and therefore a 5 on 4 could turn into a 5 on 3 or 5 on 2 very quickly. Ask me. I've seen it and lived it. Now that isn't likely to happen quite like that in the NHL but these things do matter.

More shot points ARE happening with no opposing Hawk close enough to do anything about it -- and without rushing the shot. C2 hasn't seen a lot of that rubber until it's either right on him or in the net.

I gave Q his due and admitted as such publicly on this board. You have a short memory. There are still many things I don't agree with him on -- however, he DOES have the skins on the wall and I said as much.

The lack of experience point is what it is . . . no tin foil here. Those comments are very solid and grounded in experience, yes -- there is no question that allowing a PP unit time and space will ultimately result in less overall shots taken and the shots that are taken are typically a combination of very high quality and less likely to be seen by the goaltender. That's my own experience and it is being seen on our PK. The PP unit doesn't have to take 10 shots during a man advantage. All they need is 1 good one.

Collapsing on the goalie seems to be the scheme they've chosen again this year. It's the wrong scheme with this group of players and will continue to see us at the bottom of the pile in terms of PK effectiveness.
- savvyone-1

Yes you have and kudos to you.....my point was I don't think it's fair to bring up RP's age to prove lack of experience. I do appreciate your insight, even if I disagree sometimes, it's always a good read.

C2 hasn't seen a lot of that rubber until it's either right on him or in the net.
- savvyone-1

In part because of the sea of red white and black socks that screen his sight lines in a collapse scheme.

This also may contribute to his desire (need?) to play deeper in the net. Since most shots are low, he can cover a wider area post to post if he can't track shots too well. That way, if he at least stops a shot, he can locate it or control the rebounds better when he can see it.

Yes you have and kudos to you.....my point was I don't think it's fair to bring up RP's age to prove lack of experience. I do appreciate your insight, even if I disagree sometimes, it's always a good read.
- UnnamedSource

Thanks Unnamed and as I just replied to him, no personal offense meant. Hopefully in that post I explained my thoughts a bit more clearly. I certainly didn't mean because he was less than half my age he knew nothing about the game although it could have been taken or come across that way. Not intended though.