John Jaeckel: Until Further Notice, Size Matters

Completely agree with you JJ. The winning recipe is both. Speed kills, but when you have speed and size, you're even more dangerous.

Completely agree with you JJ. The winning recipe is both. Speed kills, but when you have speed and size, you're even more dangerous.
- jtommyt

In the PO's the rules do change for sure

turd

Good and accurate write-up. Please navigate over to the Pens blog and try and convince some of them on my behalf.

Most of them believe skill trumps all including the head blogger.

Glad to see someone else gets it.

Hmmmm, if that puck in overtime, in game 7, is flopped in by hjalrmsson, bounces off Doughty twice and evades Quick are we now talking about how the hawks speed eventually wore down the Kings?

Let's not push the panic button!

Solid piece.

you sound like my wife
- DoubleDown

Size, speed, skill, angle of entry, and time spent in the O end. No woman likes it when their man spends 2 minutes in the box!

(I'll send myself to HR now!)

Why are you letting my girlfriend title your blogs? This is hurtful to me.

>Think "playoff Dave Bolland" was very much missed during this year's playoffs
>Had a huge hit on Richards in the WCF and delivered a huge hit that sprung Seabrook for the series winner vs the Wings during Hawks recent Cup win
>That said, a big team that hits everything for 82 regular season games is likely not to have enough in the tank to get the Cup needed 16Ws (and injuries, too) -- Kings tend to coast for a stretch during the regular season to be playoff ready
>To win in the playoffs, you need to own both slot areas -- yours and theirs
>Hoping the Hawks get the right mix dialed in by next Spring

you sound like my wife
- DoubleDown

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.

>Think "playoff Dave Bolland" was very much missed during this year's playoffs
>Had a huge hit on Richards in the WCF and delivered a huge hit that sprung Seabrook for the series winner vs the Wings during Hawks recent Cup win
>That said, a big team that hits everything for 82 regular season games is likely not to have enough in the tank to get the Cup needed 16Ws (and injuries, too) -- Kings tend to coast for a stretch during the regular season to be playoff ready
>To win in the playoffs, you need to own both slot areas -- yours and theirs
>Hoping the Hawks get the right mix dialed in by next Spring
- SnapitUpstairs

No matter what is done in the next 33 days, SB will add (maybe by subtracting) during the season so the starting day roster will be different than the Cup team.

As a note JJ. Turned Hockeybuzz on to 12 of my north of the border customers this week (one location which turned into three) I was informed today that productivity is not what it was before they got hooked. To a man they all love the coverage you guys bring. And hell it helped cement a couple jobs. Thanks and let your comrades know they are appreciated.

Hmmmm, if that puck in overtime, in game 7, is flopped in by hjalrmsson, bounces off Doughty twice and evades Quick are we now talking about how the hawks speed eventually wore down the Kings?

Let's not push the panic button!
- darkman

Well, and in my opinion, if the Hawks won that series it would have been a major implosion by the Kings and testament to the heart and will of the Hawks. By Game 7, IMO, they had no business still being in the series and they were, largely because Kane and Saad went insane and guys like Hjalmarsson and Toews played on pure will.

Fact is, in the playoff, you need it all. The officiating (or lack thereof) alone necessitates size and physicality.

Not sure why for every John Hayden the Hawks pick, they seem to draft four Vince Hinostrozas. But we'll see.

No matter what is done in the next 33 days, SB will add (maybe by subtracting) during the season so the starting day roster will be different than the Cup team.

As a note JJ. Turned Hockeybuzz on to 12 of my north of the border customers this week (one location which turned into three) I was informed today that productivity is not what it was before they got hooked. To a man they all love the coverage you guys bring. And hell it helped cement a couple jobs. Thanks and let your comrades know they are appreciated.
- Cup-Bearer

Awesome man, thx!! Love it!!

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

I will agree that the Hawks got caught out of position a lot and their PK let them down in this series.

The Hawks are very soft for the most part, no doubt about that. After the Hawks won in 2010, they were forced to deal some very good support players. The Hawks identified their core, and there was no way any of those players were going to be dealt that summer. The Hawks lost three very physical forwards in Byfuglien, Ladd, and Brouwer no doubt, but high priced salaries outside of the core were going to be dealt away because of the awful cap situation the Hawks were in. Unfortunately, Byfuglien, Ladd, and Brouwer fell into that grouping and they happened to all be very big and physical. This time around, the Hawks I do feel need to look to get bigger, but in order to do so, somebody from the core that the Hawks identified will have to go in order to provide cap relief and find some much needed depth that has size and plays with some serious snarl to their game. I do feel like Patrick Sharp is that guy, but it does hurt the Hawks some from a secondary scoring standpoint, as Sharp has been huge in that role for quite some time now. No easy answers here, but the Hawks I agree need to find bigger bodies once again that like to hit and play a role that is not fun to play against. How they go about doing that is the $64,000 dollar question.

Spot on John.

A fair and balanced assessment of the league as it is today. A team needs it all to be a real contender for the Cup. If there is one thing the Feathers lack is size and strength relative to the Kings, and perhaps a few others this coming season.

This is not a panic button, ledge jumping or quitting mentality, as I predict subsequent posts will claim. It simply is what it is today.

As was suggested as a theme crossing over to other issues, the front office has a lot to do on many fronts. This year will be their biggest test yet. Here is to hoping they do some good things.

Like, say, the 2011 Vancouver Canucks, who wilted in the Stanley Cup Finals in the face of a bigger—and less skilled—Boston Bruins club

While I agree with your overall premiss, that size AND speed matter, your example is a little bit hyperbole...kind of a dare I say strawman.

While not a fan of the Cannucks, to suggest they wilted in the finals losing in 7 games...well there has to be better examples of teams bowing out early consistently and not making the finals?

I do cede your overall thesis, fast teams can win, so long as they are always winning and leading. But, as you have pointed out time and again, when chasing or in a close series, that physical grind is unavoidable. As I have pointed out over time to you as well, some of the size can be offset by a commitment to finish checks and being willing to engage board battles and play in the tough areas.

At the end of the day, the Hawks will be a favorite based on the fact that they are top 2 or 3 in high end hockey talent up front and on the blue line. In this light, speed and skill are more of a commodity than size. As many young people do not know and others forget, that even the high flying oilers and all dynasties, like Islanders as well, had a winning learning curve to go thru. One can argue the Hawks won faster, with less failure then those others. It is a different world today with Salary cap, but important for perspective.

Last tangent, anyone wanting to know and understand what sports and winning were about needs to watch the ESPN 30 on 30 thing on the Detroit Pistons. It illustrates the long process in developing into a champion. It is what all sports used to be...that is failure and steps towards becoming a champion.

Sorry for hitting like 5 topics...but it is friday....

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

Nice mention of Bolland "playing big" in the playoffs. I still remember his hit in game 7 against Detroit in 2013. That hit led to Seabrook's OT series winning goal.

The Hawks are very soft for the most part, no doubt about that. After the Hawks won in 2010, they were forced to deal some very good support players. The Hawks identified their core, and there was no way any of those players were going to be dealt that summer. The Hawks lost three very physical forwards in Byfuglien, Ladd, and Brouwer no doubt, but high priced salaries outside of the core were going to be dealt away because of the awful cap situation the Hawks were in. Unfortunately, Byfuglien, Ladd, and Brouwer fell into that grouping and they happened to all be very big and physical. This time around, the Hawks I do feel need to look to get bigger, but in order to do so, somebody from the core that the Hawks identified will have to go in order to provide cap relief and find some much needed depth that has size and plays with some serious snarl to their game. I do feel like Patrick Sharp is that guy, but it does hurt the Hawks some from a secondary scoring standpoint, as Sharp has been huge in that role for quite some time now. No easy answers here, but the Hawks I agree need to find bigger bodies once again that like to hit and play a role that is not fun to play against. How they go about doing that is the $64,000 dollar question.
- ChicagoHope

IMO the Hawks are not soft at all. Some other teams have more gravity challenged players.

So scientifically this artical addresses
Force= mass x acceleration or
Cup = Size x speed (team)

Bottom line
Cup = LA
NoCup = CH

So we either add a helluva lot more speed because we are smallish or add some size to help the equation or desired outcome
CH>LA

I'm sure the talented posters here have video evidence they could submit to support the above.

IMO the Hawks are not soft at all. Some other teams have more gravity challenged players.

So scientifically this artical addresses
Force= mass x acceleration or
Cup = Size x speed (team)

Bottom line
Cup = LA
NoCup = CH

So we either add a helluva lot more speed because we are smallish or add some size to help the equation or desired outcome
CH>LA

I'm sure the talented posters here have video evidence they could submit to support the above.
- Cup-Bearer

I know we don't want to be pushovers, but if the Blackhawks are a puck possession team how dire is the need to add significant size?

IMO the Hawks are not soft at all. Some other teams have more gravity challenged players.

So scientifically this artical addresses
Force= mass x acceleration or
Cup = Size x speed (team)

Bottom line
Cup = LA
NoCup = CH

So we either add a helluva lot more speed because we are smallish or add some size to help the equation or desired outcome
CH>LA

I'm sure the talented posters here have video evidence they could submit to support the above.
- Cup-Bearer

Lets change the dynamic. The Hawks had 2 NHL centers the Kings had 4. Get 2 more guys who can move up and down the ice with a little size in the middle (Richards counts) and you change the dynamic a lot. Toews and Kruger are solid...Richards is a plus from last year...still need one more center to compete against the Ducks and Kings....assuming you get out of your division.

I know we don't want to be pushovers, but if the Blackhawks are a puck possession team how dire is the need to add significant size?
- DarthKane

OK lets look at the team as it stands
JT/PS/MH solid
BR(?)/BS/PK solid
So bottom 6 BB/MK/BS Krueger is small but good FO/PK guy
AS/KV/JM Versteeg is small and slow and coming off injury
If you move Versteeg you can replace with size
Extras Nordstrom is tiny and Regin has size but is unproven

Expendable pieces Versteeg and Rosy (old and slow) over Leddy (should be his best year since he is playing for a contract)

Lets change the dynamic. The Hawks had 2 NHL centers the Kings had 4. Get 2 more guys who can move up and down the ice with a little size in the middle (Richards counts) and you change the dynamic a lot. Toews and Kruger are solid...Richards is a plus from last year...still need one more center to compete against the Ducks and Kings....assuming you get out of your division.
- TrueGrit

Yes! If Shaw is not a real center, he still plays big although he had aggresion issues last year.