John Jaeckel: Until Further Notice, Size Matters
- John Jaeckel

Another way of putting it: the best roster is one that can win a diverse set of matchups.

Maybe in a sport like football you can ride really strong "strengths" and favourable matchups to a championship, but not in hockey.

My point was, that despite the hawks "lack of size", they were not worn down by the kings size. The series could have gone either way.
- darkman

point taken, I'm gonna stick with JJ on this 1. the Hawks aren't that small, they just don't play overly physical or get dirty at times when needed.
I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of these supposed gems we got turn out to be a kid like that Rousell kid in Dallas. You hate him but he is a pee rick to play against & he'll go thru a wall for his team, what's he 6'1? thats decent size, he can score & if I recall , if the refs would have let the fight go on another 30 seconds he was starting to kick the snot out of our alleged tough guy Brandon Bollig last year. I think the kid took Seabrooke to the cleaners in his rookie year also. If fricken Mcneill or Hartman turned out like that I'd be elated. then we could get rid of the 4 million dollar mistake.Shaw probably is all we got, as much as you like him, 1 of these days , 1 of these bigger guys are gonna string him out & beat the daylights out of him, & the ref will just look the other way. thebo ttom line is roll with what you have& we have more than most, just need a tweak here or there.

Versteeg >> Sharp this year!

That is a true "if this, if that" and then on to an elimination game... No comparison to the WCF of 14. Game 7 had horrendous non calls including two obvious off sides on goals for the Kings. Show me one equivalent non call or bad call in game 6 of SCF 13. Even the final play could have been blown dead on a penalty. This is hardly sour grapes. The Hawks mailed it in in probably 6-7 periods of that series and were still one goal away. Kings are a great team and deserved to advance - probably more than the Hawks but not that way. It is terrible that that officiating crew was even calling the game. McCauley had no business calling a Kings game in the WCF after officiating in 11 straight wins for them running into the RS.

Officiating is going to be a key factor in whether the Hawks lack of size matters. The officiating of last year's playoffs was the worst since 2 lockouts ago and the NHL should be concerned.
- tredbrta

Lol okay, it's all the refs, that's why you lost. Let's ignore the fact that the Hawks were getting and scoring on PPs after obvious embellishments, and ignore the fact that 3 of LA's 4 wins they blew Chicago out of the building, and ignore the fact that even in that game 7 Chicago flopped around for calls, and yes scored off of them, the one close offsides goal is the only reason why LA won and nothing else. No there weren't two offsides goals either, that was long proven false. The one offsides goal was very close, and those tend to happen. Was it the right call? No. But for you to sit and pretend like that is why you lost is laughable. You lost because is game 2 you had a 3rd period meltdown, in game 3 you failed to hold onto a lead, and game 4 you didn't even show up. Game 7 you again failed to hold onto a lead, and LA won. There were enough bad calls that favored Chicago during the entire series, so if you want to play that card then LA should have wrapped it up before game 7.

Saad is 6'2" and if Richards is 6' 200lbs(doubtful) he plays more like a 5'10" 178lb guy
- EnzoD

Not tht hard to find this info;

Richards;

http://www.hockey-referen.../players/r/richabr01.html

I'm sure he could've added 4 lbs in the offseason

Saad

http://www.hockey-referen...m/players/s/saadbr01.html

As someone mentioned, not huge but not waif like either. Fast also, I watched a couple games on NHL network this week of Rangers and Habs, specifically paying attention to Richards.

Anyone thinking he's just Zues from a speed standpoint is kidding themselves. He'll keep up with Kane and Saad. Night and day difference with Zues

John Jaeckel: Until Further Notice, Size Matters
- John Jaeckel

While I agree that size matters, lets not just assume that all size guys are not fast. Seems to me, the Kings were flying around pretty good in the games they won.

I stress the games they won. Was anyone blown away by them in those first 3 games against San Jose?

You can use the argument that wore down San Jose, but I have to say I am not in agreement with the case that they wore the Hawks down with their size. If anything, I could make the argument the hawks wore them down with their speed. Really after they got up 3-1, is when Kane and Saad started turning it on, why was that? Did they just decide to start playing, or was their speed to much for the big Kings guys.

Not saying it isn't good to have big guys, but they need to skate. Ideally you have that in Bickell if he'd show up.

Remember John Scott was Huge

I think the appraisal of focus on size and hitting is correct, but that is not the only difference nor the most important difference between the Kings and Hawks.

The Hawks simply are not good enough defensively. May sound like troll talk, but facts is facts.

The Hawks finished 2nd in scoring. The Kings finished 26th. Regular season. Sure we added Gaborik but still, the Kings were not known to be a scoring team and rightly so. By comparison the Hawks were a goal-producing machine.

The Hawks finished 12th defensively, the Kings were first. 12th is among a cluster of teams within a very, very close range. At 2.58 the Hawks were 12th, 2.7 was 16th and 2.4 would have been 6th. So 12th is actually even better than is sounds.

Then came Playoffs.

The Hawks scored their usual amount of goals, ending at 3.05 in 3rd but the range makes them anywhere from 3rd to 6th. The Kings ended up 1st at 3.38, alone and well away from even 2nd at 3.14.

The Hawks defensively faltered, in 10th but again within a mid-pack range. They weren't terrible, but that is not the standard for a
Cup winner.

The Kings were 4th, well off the Bruins at 1st, but 4th is still fine. Especially when they played the Ducks and Hawks, the top two goal producers in the League.

The difference is that the Kings held form Defensively against the best, while the Hawks faltered defensively even against the lowest scoring team to make the playoffs, the Kings.

The Hawks should have been able to ride their 2nd offensive and 10th defensive form, but did not. The Hawks do not need to score more; their opponents need to score less.

The Hawks 10th defensive system should have had success against a 26th place scoring team. That did not happen, even when the Hawks stormed out to 2 goal leads.

If no lead is safe, then it isn't goals that fixes what's broken.

Sux but right now I can't stay to talk. I will check later this evening.
- PlayerX

But part of the defensive play is playing physical. If guys are afraid to go into the corner, or rubbed off the puck, that's defense but with a definite physical element. Let's also not minimize the effect Gaborik had on your team, not that you did, but he was acquire late in the season, and played a large part in L.A.'s offensive success. Not only was he one of the top scorers, but but product of his play, he makes the lower lines stronger by allowing Sutter to drop a guy into a more comfortable role on those lines. One of the biggest problems I had with the Hawks vs L.A., was they letting the Kings to camp in front of the net. Part of that is D, yes, but part of that is also being able to physically control the other team. This isn't news to anyone who follows the Hawks, but each season they seem to get a bit smaller. The playoffs are a different beast than the regular season. Less fighting, more grinding.

2013 playoffs Bolland was missed for sure but they were't going to pay him and they weren't going to lose him for nothing. When his replacement Shaw got hurt in the Minny series, that really hurt.

I still don't concede the Kings are a better team than the Hawks. Good for them they won the series. But Chicago can look to blowing 2 goal leads in Games 2 and 7 as the principal reason for losing. That and a guy with size who can really play the game - Jeff Carter. Unfortunately guys like him don't play for $500K a year, that's reserved for the likes of Brandon Bollig.
- RickJ

I still don't understand why Stan gave him that $1.25M contract. It pretty much guaranteed he needed to go.

Don't overlook the fact that one of the Hawks who really turned up the physical play in both 2010 and 2013 was Sharp. It's not even funny how much of a non-factor he was this past playoffs.

But part of the defensive play is playing physical. If guys are afraid to go into the corner, or rubbed off the puck, that's defense but with a definite physical element. Let's also not minimize the effect Gaborik had on your team, not that you did, but he was acquire late in the season, and played a large part in L.A.'s offensive success. Not only was he one of the top scorers, but but product of his play, he makes the lower lines stronger by allowing Sutter to drop a guy into a more comfortable role on those lines. One of the biggest problems I had with the Hawks vs L.A., was they letting the Kings to camp in front of the net. Part of that is D, yes, but part of that is also being able to physically control the other team. This isn't news to anyone who follows the Hawks, but each season they seem to get a bit smaller. The playoffs are a different beast than the regular season. Less fighting, more grinding.
- howiehandles

Well said!

Don't overlook the fact that one of the Hawks who really turned up the physical play in both 2010 and 2013 was Sharp. It's not even funny how much of a non-factor he was this past playoffs.
- NewToHockey

I still don't understand why Stan gave him that $1.25M contract. It pretty much guaranteed he needed to go.
- NewToHockey

At least Stan was able to correct that cock-up. A 3rd rounder in return is nothing to complain about, that's for sure.

Felt bad for Bollig in that he signed that overpaid contract (and who wouldn't?) expecting to be in Chicago for the next few years, only to get punted to Calgary.

I wish him all the best, though I really won't miss him that much.

No, but Martin will easily be making more than that when his contract is up...
Hey, Jam I am not coming after you just everyone here....

Matt Martin is not worth the names being bandied about as "guys w e can trade for him..."
I am totally tired of it too...shuddaup already, b/c the the hawks would be sending Martin packing before 2016 when the Hawks have to attempt to resign Seabrook Shaw and Ben Smith and possibly Raanta...because he stand UNDER all these guys.....
- wiz1901

You basically nailed how I feel about Ott on the Blues, especially given the dollars. At best, they are paying the 9th forward this year over 2.5mm and next year he is likely 10th or 11th depending on how Jaskin progresses (and this ignores Lindstrom and recent draft picks).

Lol okay, it's all the refs, that's why you lost. Let's ignore the fact that the Hawks were getting and scoring on PPs after obvious embellishments, and ignore the fact that 3 of LA's 4 wins they blew Chicago out of the building, and ignore the fact that even in that game 7 Chicago flopped around for calls, and yes scored off of them, the one close offsides goal is the only reason why LA won and nothing else. No there weren't two offsides goals either, that was long proven false. The one offsides goal was very close, and those tend to happen. Was it the right call? No. But for you to sit and pretend like that is why you lost is laughable. You lost because is game 2 you had a 3rd period meltdown, in game 3 you failed to hold onto a lead, and game 4 you didn't even show up. Game 7 you again failed to hold onto a lead, and LA won. There were enough bad calls that favored Chicago during the entire series, so if you want to play that card then LA should have wrapped it up before game 7.
- bluecoconuts

I completely agree. Blaming the officials just makes us fans look salty. Its no excuse. Bad calls go both ways.

Versteeg >> Sharp this year!
- Byfuglien Ate Me

Probably.

But part of the defensive play is playing physical. If guys are afraid to go into the corner, or rubbed off the puck, that's defense but with a definite physical element. Let's also not minimize the effect Gaborik had on your team, not that you did, but he was acquire late in the season, and played a large part in L.A.'s offensive success. Not only was he one of the top scorers, but but product of his play, he makes the lower lines stronger by allowing Sutter to drop a guy into a more comfortable role on those lines. One of the biggest problems I had with the Hawks vs L.A., was they letting the Kings to camp in front of the net. Part of that is D, yes, but part of that is also being able to physically control the other team. This isn't news to anyone who follows the Hawks, but each season they seem to get a bit smaller. The playoffs are a different beast than the regular season. Less fighting, more grinding.

We completely agree that the corners are where important battles shape the attack. It's funny a bit because I am here defending the Hawks in a way, saying the reasons why the Hawks are less effective defensively are more due to system and focus from the Coach than it is from being afraid to go in the corners, or getting easily rubbed off, or being too small as the article discussed, or not being diligent on the backcheck as another reply said.
To me it's not the players nor their ability nor their size, it's the system of attack. It's a choice of style, manifested in everything from the draft choices to the lineup to the actual instructions from the bench. It's choices, not failings.
I could be wrong, I am probably at least part wrong, but my impression is that the Hawks attack is based on a moving puck until possession is gained or kept. The Hawks want to ring the thing around the yielded perimeter as teams defend the middle. The Hawks use the absolute outside with a moving puck to establish possession and then attack. They want the spread game, from outlet to rush to contesting for possession in the O-zone.
The Kings, on O or D, unless on O it is a clear rush attack, want to stop the puck into a scrum on the boards, win the scrum, and do a leapfrog kind of passing to exit and attack. We want to stop the play in a safe spot, slow the pace and win man-to-man battles, then attack. In the O-zone the Hawks defensively play right into that by contesting possession but less in a physical way, more of a positional way. But, if their opponent establishes possession, the Hawks fall into essentially a 5-man penalty kill; inside position, sticks in lanes, but no real pressure on the puck as much as just a containment kind of thing.
That's why I say the Hawks have to hybridize between their offensive and defensive systems of play. Offense is based on pressure and attack and movement, while defense is based on containment and patience and position.
Of course neither of these are absolute, I'm talking tendencies and foundations not the actual "every time they do exactly this." But to me the Hawks have to hybridize their O and D systems to accommodate the disparity in skills between absolute top-end talent and the few grinders. Try to make the grinders work the top-ender's system. The Kings hybridize their players to accommodate one system that everyone can work, as safer more methodical game. You guys want to stretch and run and rush, we want to play tight grouping and short passes and extended possession toward more of a physical grind game.
And you're totally right about Gaborik adding the punch and the effect of that. It actually concerns me this year that the Kings might tip over the edge on rush attacks and the system may change into something more risky.

point taken, I'm gonna stick with JJ on this 1. the Hawks aren't that small, they just don't play overly physical or get dirty at times when needed.
I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of these supposed gems we got turn out to be a kid like that Rousell kid in Dallas. You hate him but he is a pee rick to play against & he'll go thru a wall for his team, what's he 6'1? thats decent size, he can score & if I recall , if the refs would have let the fight go on another 30 seconds he was starting to kick the snot out of our alleged tough guy Brandon Bollig last year. I think the kid took Seabrooke to the cleaners in his rookie year also. If fricken Mcneill or Hartman turned out like that I'd be elated. then we could get rid of the 4 million dollar mistake.Shaw probably is all we got, as much as you like him, 1 of these days , 1 of these bigger guys are gonna string him out & beat the daylights out of him, & the ref will just look the other way. thebo ttom line is roll with what you have& we have more than most, just need a tweak here or there
- wonthecup10[\b].

Agreed 100% with this statement.

We completely agree that the corners are where important battles shape the attack. It's funny a bit because I am here defending the Hawks in a way, saying the reasons why the Hawks are less effective defensively are more due to system and focus from the Coach than it is from being afraid to go in the corners, or getting easily rubbed off, or being too small as the article discussed, or not being diligent on the backcheck as another reply said.
To me it's not the players nor their ability nor their size, it's the system of attack. It's a choice of style, manifested in everything from the draft choices to the lineup to the actual instructions from the bench. It's choices, not failings.
I could be wrong, I am probably at least part wrong, but my impression is that the Hawks attack is based on a moving puck until possession is gained or kept. The Hawks want to ring the thing around the yielded perimeter as teams defend the middle. The Hawks use the absolute outside with a moving puck to establish possession and then attack.
The Kings, on O or D, unless on O it is a clear rush attack, want to stop the puck into a scrum on the boards, win the scrum, and do a leapfrog kind of passing to exit and attack. We want to stop the play in a safe spot, slow the pace and win man-to-man battles, then attack. The Hawks defensively play right into that by contesting possession but less in a physical way, more of a positional way. But, if their opponent establishes possession, the Hawks fall into essentially a 5-man penalty kill; inside position, sticks in lanes, but no real pressure on the puck as much as just a containment kind of thing.
That's why I say the Hawks have to hybridize between their offensive and defensive systems of play. Offense is based on pressure and attack and movement, while defense is based on containment and patience and position.
Of course neither of these are absolute, I'm talking tendencies and foundations not the actual "every time they do exactly this." But to me the Hawks have to hybridize their O and D systems to accommodate the disparity in skills between absolute top-end talent and the few grinders. Try to make the grinders work the top-ender's system. The Kings hybridize their players to accommodate one system that everyone can work, as safer more methodical game. You guys want to stretch and run and rush, we want to play tight grouping and short passes and extended possession toward more of a physical grind game.
And you're totally right about Gaborik adding the punch and the effect of that. It actually concerns me this year that the Kings might tip over the edge on rush attacks and the system may change into something more risky.
- PlayerX

Agree with most of what you said. Just the bolded section contradicts your claim about size not mattering. Do you honestly believe that the Kings would this strategy if they were the size of the Hawks? I don't think so. The reason their strategy works so well is that it plays to their size advantage.
I'm not saying size is the only tangible here. Certain players play a lot bigger then their size. The flip side being some big players play a lot smaller then their size.
The Kings players played to their size And could also skate with the Hawks.
And until someone beats them in the next playoff's they are the Champs! And imo size played a role in that accomplishment. Therfore (imo) Size matters.

Great blog JJ.. but I think an important piece was missing. Yes LA had better depth at C, but LA also rolled 4 lines that entire series. Q rarely rolled that 4th line. Have no doubt that the top 9 was flat f'n exhausted come game 7. 2010 and 2013 had the Hawks running 4 lines. Look at the game 6 clincher in Minny. Saw alot of 4th line work and a 4th line guy (Regin) set up Kaner for the game winner.

Q needs to find a group for that 4th line that he can trust to play some minutes every game. If he doesnt, hes gonna wear out his top guys. The fall off in D for the Hawks was related to chemistry and later fatigue. They played 3 very tough opponents in last years playoff. Of all three, the Blues were prolly the most physical team to play against. And wow.. we beat em 4-2. After the Blues, we played a very tough/physical Wild team then then the Kings. Get a 4th line that can skate/hit/provide energy and you add that final piece.

All that 4th line needs to do is play simple/go get it hockey. Dont need alot of goals. Energy, cycle and give your top 9 a breather. I would like to add size as well, but getting that 4th line worked out is more important.

I think the appraisal of focus on size and hitting is correct, but that is not the only difference nor the most important difference between the Kings and Hawks.

The Hawks simply are not good enough defensively. May sound like troll talk, but facts is facts.

The Hawks finished 2nd in scoring. The Kings finished 26th. Regular season. Sure we added Gaborik but still, the Kings were not known to be a scoring team and rightly so. By comparison the Hawks were a goal-producing machine.

The Hawks finished 12th defensively, the Kings were first. 12th is among a cluster of teams within a very, very close range. At 2.58 the Hawks were 12th, 2.7 was 16th and 2.4 would have been 6th. So 12th is actually even better than is sounds.

Then came Playoffs.

The Hawks scored their usual amount of goals, ending at 3.05 in 3rd but the range makes them anywhere from 3rd to 6th. The Kings ended up 1st at 3.38, alone and well away from even 2nd at 3.14.

The Hawks defensively faltered, in 10th but again within a mid-pack range. They weren't terrible, but that is not the standard for a
Cup winner.

The Kings were 4th, well off the Bruins at 1st, but 4th is still fine. Especially when they played the Ducks and Hawks, the top two goal producers in the League.

The difference is that the Kings held form Defensively against the best, while the Hawks faltered defensively even against the lowest scoring team to make the playoffs, the Kings.

The Hawks should have been able to ride their 2nd offensive and 10th defensive form, but did not. The Hawks do not need to score more; their opponents need to score less.

The Hawks 10th defensive system should have had success against a 26th place scoring team. That did not happen, even when the Hawks stormed out to 2 goal leads. 6

If no lead is safe, then it isn't goals that fixes what's broken.

Sux but right now I can't stay to talk. I will check later this evening.
- PlayerX

you're wrong. Our D wasn't at fault... Our goalie is the weakest link

you're wrong. Our D wasn't at fault... Our goalie is the weakest link
- fvineze

Sorry but no. Without CC we dont survive the Blues or the Wild. Hawks were out of gas at the end of the LA series. Not only that, 2 of your top 4 D were useless a the end of the 3rd in game 7. CC was not the issue.

Agreed 100% with this statement.
- darkman

I am paying special attention to McNeill, Danault, &......... Brandon Mashintor among others this training camp season. hope they all have great camps & make a statement.
also like the Leighton pick up , it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Raanta to go down & play 65 games at Rockford this year instead of 20 up here. same message for TT, get down there, play score 35 !
Unlike others, can't seem to wrap my arms around #29, seen that act too much, 500 K alright, but 4 mill a year for that crap??? hopefully it is poop or get off the pot time for him!

Agree with most of what you said. Just the bolded section contradicts your claim about size not mattering. Do you honestly believe that the Kings would this strategy if they were the size of the Hawks? I don't think so. The reason their strategy works so well is that it plays to their size advantage.
I'm not saying size is the only tangible here. Certain players play a lot bigger then their size. The flip side being some big players play a lot smaller then their size.
The Kings players played to their size And could also skate with the Hawks.
And until someone beats them in the next playoff's they are the Champs! And imo size played a role in that accomplishment. Therfore (imo) Size matters.

No but that is what I meant about the focus being correct but not exclusively correct. I think you nailed it, too, I would only add that it's the choices of drafting and system execution that makes the size effective. So it matters but you can't just go get size; my muddied over-worded point (that's me!!) is that the size is part of a package and the Hawks need more than just the size.

you're wrong. Our D wasn't at fault... Our goalie is the weakest link

You mean Corey "pop-ups" Crawford? Never seen so many pucks sent floating mid-crease off saves.

I am paying special attention to McNeill, Danault, &......... Brandon Mashintor among others this training camp season. hope they all have great camps & make a statement.
also like the Leighton pick up , it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Raanta to go down & play 65 games at Rockford this year instead of 20 up here. same message for TT, get down there, play score 35 !
Unlike others, can't seem to wrap my arms around #29, seen that act too much, 500 K alright, but 4 mill a year for that crap??? hopefully it is poop or get off the pot time for him!
- wonthecup10

The highlighted is an interesting take on things. Raanta has 1 season or 35 more NHL games played to go before his waiver-exempt status disappears. Keeping Leighton over Raanta gives Bowman a $200,000 savings towards the salary cap, and given the current situation could help out Bowman slightly if it comes down to that.

As for McNeill and Danault, I can't see them winning jobs out of camp. Even if they did well enough to win a roster spot, I still can't see the big club carrying them. Not with the 13 forwards that are already under a one-way contract.

If the organization is viewing the both of them as replacement components for the '15-'16 season, they are best served with more playing time in Rockford preparing for the '15-'16 season. At best, McNeill and Danault will get an opportunity to get a taste of NHL action as call-ups to replace injured players.