|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2002 12:51:50 GMT -5
Before you read this report, be aware that it is a Scouting Report. It is going to be critical and emphasize any short comings of the Hab's prospects abilities to make it in the NHL. All comparisons of abilities are to NHL caliber players.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The opposition was better then last time but still not in the same catagory as the Dogs.
Komisarek.
Shooting: Excellent and sneaky wrist shot.
Skating: Speed is very good. Agility is average. Balance is very good.
Average acceleration.
Puckmovement: Confused. Often looks down at the puck when he receives it. Occasional small delay in deciding who to pass too. Somewhat improved in reading the play. He is playing a little better positional. Note that this has to do a lot with the opposition he faces. In the first gameI saw, the opponents were much faster and broke into his zone with a lot of speed. Physical play was non existent. Did not take an opportunity to hit anyone even though he had several chances. His “evergy level” was average.
An example of his play: In the third period, he is on the penalty kill. The box collapses and he moves to the top of the goal crease to block a PASS from getting through to the player BEHIND him. The opposing passer in front of him was physically covered so he should of taken the opposing player that he skated by. On this occasion, he was lucky that the pass hit him but five of the ten passes on similar occasions will get through and give the opposing forward a easy goal.
Defenseman should not depend on luck.
Hainsey.
Shooting: Very good wrist and slap shot that he uses liberally.
Skating: Very good speed and fluid skating. Very good agility. Very good acceleration.
Puck movement: Excellent. And there in lies the problem. Hainsey has the best vision of all the defenseman in that game but he mainly focuses on his offensive abilities. As soon as he gets the puck, he thinks offense. If he is in the offensive zone, he will try to take an extra shot or pinch in a little deeper in order to create an scoring chance. In fact, think of him as a Paul Coffee without the super elite skating. He is easily the best defenseman on this team but he is not the best DEFENSIVE defenseman. That’s the problem. The Hab’s want him to be a Scott Neidermeir type of player and not the offensive hot dog that he is right now.
Example of his play: They were playing in the offensive zone and when the play moved back to the Dogs zone, he was fourth man to get back in his zone. In fact, he had rush back and sneakily hold on to a players stick in order to keep him out of the play and he got a penalty for it. A reactive play. There is nothing wrong with his positioning and he is fully aware as to where he has to be but he chooses not to. The word “hot ‘dogging” came to mind several times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2002 12:52:01 GMT -5
Ward:
Shooting: Wrist shot is accurate and quick. Puck control and pass reception is good. Good patience but occasionally rushes the shot and needs to go higher with them.
Skating: Speed is good. Agility is below average. Balance is good.
Acceleration is below average.
As I have said on the previous two reports, Ward scoring is done all on the inside 20 feet of the net. He picks up a lot of goals from feeds and opportunities that he gets by constantly going to the net. He is not paying a huge price for it because often he is just as big if not bigger then the defenseman who are covering him. He has the grit and desire to take the pain. So far. His defensive coverage is good.
Examples: His first goal was a tape to tape pass and he scored it from the left side of the goalie. There was no one covering him.
Example: His second goal was he he walked in from the side of the net and stick handled around the goalie. He used a fairly long reach in order to get around the sprawling goalie. The defenseman who was supposed to cover him was standing 15 feet away and the other defenseman was flat footed. Basically he scored his goal because the opposing defenseman were not playing him at all. You have to give him credit for the stick handling and reach in order to score but subtract the fact that he was not covered properly. In fact, he was not covered at all.
How does this translate to the NHL? One can argue that he is showing his scoring ability. All I can point out is that his opponents are not NHL caliber defenseman.
Plecanek:
Shooting: Can not comment because I did not see any major use of it. Passing is very good.
Skating: Speed is very good. Agility is average. Balance is good.
Acceleration is very good.
Smart player. Cover his man defensively. Very good on the transition game. But, I don’t like his game. NO GRIT WHATSOEVER. He is no force at all in the corners and depends on puck movement to score. He plays with Hossa all the type and these two are cut from the same cloth. Did I ever use the word “Euro”?
Example: He was covering his man in the defensive zone and while the defenseman was fighting for the puck in the corner, he stood behind the second ooponent wand slapped him on the butt with his stick. He should of closed the distance and cover the second man incase the puck went to him but instead stood 5 feet away and “stick checked” him. If it was Gratton, he would have been all over him. This play reminds me to often of Savage and Audette type of defensive coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2002 12:52:11 GMT -5
Gratton: Shooting: Can not comment because I did not see any major use of it. Passing is very good. In fact, he is responsible for giving Ward a lot of his chances. Skating: Very good with very good agility and quickness. Gritty, hard working player. I like his game a LOT. In fact, if he was 3 inches taller and 20 pound heavier then I think that he would have the best chance of making the NHL. He doesn’t and I don’t think he will make it. Works very hard and is pretty smart. Covers both zones very well. Is it to late for growth hormones? Hossa: See Plekanec and add 20%. Soemone better shove a cactus in his jock and get him to play with some grit and fire. I don’t like his game at all. He is a finesse player without the elite tools to get away with it at the NHL level. Thoughts: I think we have a problem with what is happening with the Bulldogs. They have so much talent that they do not have to struggle to win and that in itself is the problem. They are playing a no grit, skating and shoot game. In fact, when I see a Bulldogs player get cross checked and hurt but no one steps up (including Komi skating by) then I really start to wonder. Sure they are winning but are they preparing the players for the NHL? Is the intensity there? I want my farm team to create and teach the players, not win by 10 goals. Who cares and who remembers if an AHL team wins a trophy or ten. That’s not the purpose of the team. Is Komi facing adversity for 20 minutes a game in order to push him to a higher and higher level? Is Hossa and Pleks painfully cycling down low like some junior versions of Koivu and Zednik? Is Hainsey tested in every corner of the ring and made to pay for every stupid defensive play? Is Garon facing 50 shots of hell in order to learn how to cover his angles? Is Ward facing big, ugly defenseman who punish him for eve coming close to the crease? You don’t forge steel with hot water, you forge it under fire.Are they ever going to hire me as a coach? Or at least a scout?  Things that make you go hmm………. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 22, 2002 13:17:33 GMT -5
Thanks for that
HA...is it safe to say Komi and Hainsey still have a ton of ''raw'' talent? in other words talent that hasn't been tapped yet? talent that will take time to develop?
As for Hainsey...does anyone know if he played liked this in Quebec last year? HA, do you think he will eventually understand the defensive side of the game eventually? how does he compare to the Markov of 2000-01 and the Markov of last year?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2002 13:43:03 GMT -5
Thanks for that As for Hainsey...does anyone know if he played liked this in Quebec last year? HA, do you think he will eventually understand the defensive side of the game eventually? how does he compare to the Markov of 2000-01 and the Markov of last year? I think that Hainsey can see the ice just as well as Markov. He is smart with the puck and he will need severe and continues beatings until he gets it in his mind that he needs to play the defensive game first. There is absolutely nothing wrong with his skating, shooting and passing. NOTHING. He just CHOOSES the offensive game. It may be more fun and enjoyable to hot dog it but it may keep him down if he does not get his mind straight. Komi is FAR away from the NHL right now. He is the FOURTH best defenseman on this team. Defensively he is behind Hainsey, Semenov, Boullion and Bergeron. Offensivly he is behind Hainsey and Bergeron. In fact, if Bergeron was not a 5’7” defenseman, then he could play in the NHL as a 6th. BUT Komi is younger then all of them and he does have that full tool belt. As long as he keeps working and learning, he could start to break in by the following year. He is far away from it right now. What we may wish for him to be and what he is are two different things. On the other hand, Semenov is a freak of nature. He kept TWO players on the boards for 20 seconds and they both struggled to get away from him. He could play for us as a sixth right now. Does Semenov have more potential? I don't know but he is certainly the best defensive defenseman out there by a substantial margin. |
|
|
|
Post by legaspesien on Dec 22, 2002 16:02:46 GMT -5
? ugly defenseman who punish him for eve coming close to the crease? . [/b] [/quote] Can you put one in AS Christmas sock  Thank's for the report mutch appreciate |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 22, 2002 16:11:35 GMT -5
I think that Hainsey can see the ice just as well as Markov. He is smart with the puck and he will need severe and continues beatings until he gets it in his mind that he needs to play the defensive game first. There is absolutely nothing wrong with his skating, shooting and passing. NOTHING. He just CHOOSES the offensive game. It may be more fun and enjoyable to hot dog it but it may keep him down if he does not get his mind straight. But you didn't answer my question...does his offensive game/hot dogging compare with what Markov was doing last year and the year before? You know what? maybe the best place for Hainsey to be...would be in the NHL...in the AHL, like you said he can get away with this...and Julien will keep on playing him because Hainsey is one of his best D... but with MT and RG at the helm, they'll tell him to not even think about his offence and only think about his defence...which will screw him up even more...damn what do we do? damn, I am confused...  The idea of having 2 riverboat gamblers on the left side of our defence(Markov and Hainsey) kind of scares me. Markov seems to know exactly when to pinch in and join the offence but Hainsey on the other hand has not mastered that yet. And to think you thought he would make our team this year  I still don't know why he isn't with the Oilers...he is better than Scott Ferguson and Ales Pisa for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2002 16:43:30 GMT -5
But you didn't answer my question...does his offensive game/hot dogging compare with what Markov was doing last year and the year before?. I think that Hainsey is better then Markov was last year. He certainly know HOW to cover defensivly but he does NOT want to. Anytime he wants, he covers the man and ties him up. He does not get beaten because that implies lack of vision. He places himself out of position. You know what? maybe the best place for Hainsey to be...would be in the NHL...in the AHL, like you said he can get away with this...and Julien will keep on playing him because Hainsey is one of his best D... but with MT and RG at the helm, they'll tell him to not even think about his offence and only think about his defence...which will screw him up even more...damn what do we do? The idea of having 2 riverboat gamblers on the left side of our defence(Markov and Hainsey) kind of scares me. Markov seems to know exactly when to pinch in and join the offence but Hainsey on the other hand has not mastered that yet. I don't like it one bit. There is a huge difference between pinching and playing like a forward in the wrong position. Defense first and offence second. And to think you thought he would make our team this year That's because I read all the b*llsh*t and hype that goes for reporting these days. Did ANYONE ever write about how short his game was? All you heard was Mikey here and Mikey there, Mikey this and Mikey that. There is a world of difference watching him and concentrating on how he is playing versus just the hype you read. Even watching him on two games in Michigan did not prepare me for the shock of what I saw. Raw, that's a good word. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 22, 2002 16:53:21 GMT -5
I think that Hainsey is better then Markov was last year. He certainly know HOW to cover defensivly but he does NOT want to. Anytime he wants, he covers the man and ties him up. He does not get beaten because that implies lack of vision. He places himself out of position. That's what I am saying....in the AHL he can get away with shoddy defensive coverage and ''hot dogging''...he is one of their horses but if he was in the NHL and learning the position and had a DECENT d-man coach who would constantly remind him ''you are a d-man...play your position before thinking of offence...when there is an opening...then you can go'' I think we would see an improvement. Hainsey seems like the kind of player who needs to have his butt kicked sometimes to remind him he is a d-man first and foremost. |
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 22, 2002 16:55:34 GMT -5
Well thanks for the report HA. I will say that the dogs have played a lot of games in a short time frame, and they are putting themselves far ahead of the rest of the AHL. I can't feel sorry for a team that is winning all the time. This team should be considered the front runners for the Calder, as they have beaten the tep teams already, and lead the AHL in most areas.
As for Komisarek, I heard a few games ago, that they wanted to cut his ice time back, cause he was getting tired. Hainsey had the same problem, just towards the end of the season, cause he was injured early on, so he didn't play a whole college seasons worth of games in a row like Komisarek has been doing. It's hard to look past some impressive numbers he is putting up. His +12, and 83 shots on goal, are impressive for a rookie defensemen playing in his first pro season. Also his 15 pts put him around the same pace as Hainsey's numbers for last year. For a guy that was told to work on his offence, he seems to have heard management loud and clear. Maybe he spends all of next year in the AHL as well. Not a bid deal, IMO. I really expected him to be in the NCAA still, so seeing him as a Hab when he's 22-23 years old, sounds about right. Raw he is, but the talent is there. In his sophmore year at Michigan, he was very good. His +23, 111 shots, 30 pts, and being named best defenseive defensemen, show that he has some very good skills.
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 22, 2002 16:58:50 GMT -5
I agree.
Next year, unless he TOTALLY kicks ass in Training Camp...he should go to Hamilton...
Once he truly dominates that league and plays physical...leave him down there.
|
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 22, 2002 17:11:00 GMT -5
As for Hainsey, this is troubling news. I heard Julien on the pregame, when Hainsey was sent down, saying that he is here to work on his defense, not his offence, cause they know that he has that skill, but where worried about his play in his own end. Guess he has listened to the coaches. So far this year, he's a +3, I believe, on a team that has every player a +, this is not very good. Granted he's played a lot less, but something tells me he's in Hamilton for the rest of the year, and if he doesn't improve, he will have trouble cracking the lineup next year.
Hossa, is on fire. He may play a soft game, but his 15 goals, are 2 less then all of last years (and 2nd on the team to Ward's 16g), and his +19 is 2nd in the AHL. His shooting percent is 28.5% tops in the AHL. His 6 game winning goals puts him 3rd in the AHL behind teamate Gratton (8). Hossa just may play the entire year in Hamilton, and if Gilmor keeps getting younger, Hossa could have problems starting on the team next year.
Plekanec, is small, but this is his first year in North America, so it must be tough on him to adapt to the new environment. His 8 goals, puts him on pace with Hossa in his first year, and Hossa didn't have to learn the North American game/English.
Beauchemin is really putting it together, but he's had more time to learn a thing or two in the AHL/ECHL. He's leading the AHL in +/- with a +21, and he's even putting up some decent points. I am hoping they call him up over Bouillon/Hainsey, but I doubt that it will be him. So far, a good improvement over last season.
Garon, seems to keep up his pace of good numbers. He's 10-2 now, I believe with a .922 save %, which puts him near the top of the league for goalies. I hope he's learning some things down there, cause I heard an interview with Rollie the goalie, and he was saying that Theodore/Garon are the future of the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 22, 2002 17:15:36 GMT -5
As for Hainsey, this is troubling news. I heard Julien on the pregame, when Hainsey was sent down, saying that he is here to work on his defense, not his offence, cause they know that he has that skill, but where worried about his play in his own end. Guess he has listened to the coaches. So far this year, he's a +3, I believe, on a team that has every player a +, this is not very good. Granted he's played a lot less, but something tells me he's in Hamilton for the rest of the year, and if he doesn't improve, he will have trouble cracking the lineup next year. Well, I don't think it's troubling...he CAN play defence...I saw him against Colorado(their A lineup) in the pre-season(in QC city) Hainsey was GREAT defensively. He made smart plays with the puck and he really played a great game. I believe the fact he hasn't scored a goal this year(aside from the pre season) has him going on the offence even more than he should be. BTW, see AH's thread...he ain't spending the holidays in Hamilton for sure  |
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 22, 2002 17:21:15 GMT -5
Well, I don't think it's troubling...he CAN play defence...I saw him against Colorado(their A lineup) in the pre-season(in QC city) Hainsey was GREAT defensively. He made smart plays with the puck and he really played a great game. I believe the fact he hasn't scored a goal this year(aside from the pre season) has him going on the offence even more than he should be. BTW, see AH's thread...he ain't spending the holidays in Hamilton for sure Well when management tells him to work on one thing and not the other, he should listen or he could be in Hamilton a lot longer then he would like. As for him being called up, if Markov is ready tomorrow, then Hainsey won't play. If Bouillon was not still injured, I would think he gets called up instead. Therrien seems to be a big fan of Bouillon's. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 22, 2002 17:36:36 GMT -5
Hey HA, thanks for the reports. Very interesting. Just want to make a few comments, but before I do, I must admit I have not seen, nor listened to the Bulldogs play since the last time they were on TV. So all comments below are based on what you have said. How's that for your conscience? On Komisarek, I will say that I am not worried by him in the least. Not at all. Maybe its because I had (somewhat) lower expectations from him than many, and thus his struggling in the AHL is not a surprise to me, nor a concern. I still expect him to be a star in the NHL. I believe I said at the beginning of the year that I expected Komisarek to struggle at the beginning of training camp, and at the beginning of the AHL season, but that he would rapidly improve. From your reports, he has already improved, somewhat, from the first time you saw him. I stand by what I said - by the end of the year, he will be Hamilton's best defenseman. On Hainsey, I cannot help but think (and disagree with our illustrious friend montreal here) that sending him back to the AHL was a mistake. He went back, and was tremendously confused, foresaking his offensive game, and struggling with his defensive game, as he attempted to learn the RGW (Rick Green Way). From your report, it seems he has abandoned that all together, and is back to his wandering, offensive ways. Simply put, he is too good for the AHL (seemingly so). He would never get away with hotdogging in the NHL, because if somebody didn't strip him of the puck, somebody would punch his lights out, for being a precocious little rookie snot. That somebody would probably be Doug Gilmour. He can get away with it in the AHL, because he has the elite skills to recover from his mistakes. As an aside, how many times was his defense partner left alone on two-on-ones? In general, did he recover fast enough? Goes back to your whole theory (that's right, its YOUR theory) that players have to be challenged. If Hainsey is offensively just cruising along, and casually using his superiour AHL skills to make up for any mistakes, maybe he is just too good? Is he getting bored? On Ward and Gratton, neither should be expected to score anything at the NHL level, so I wouldn't worry too much about their hands, or releases, or anything like that. What I would be concerned with, is how strong are they? Can they outmuscle opposing players, or do they just go around them, again with superior AHL skills? Do they win battles, are they high energy players, when they fall down, to they bounce right back up looking for more? That would be their ticket to the NHL. Again, in Gratton, and especially Ward's cases, are they simply too good for the AHL? If Ward isn't being challenged physically, does he need to move on up for improvement? I saw Plekanec play in the World Juniors last year (once) and for some reason he reminded me of Benoit Brunet. When I saw him this year, I thought "wow, I didn't realize he was so small." Not sure why I missed that first time around. Bad lightning in the arena maybe? Hossa always struck me as a perimeter, laissez-faire kind of player, even in his callup to Montreal. Just happy to be there. I compared him to Eric Chouinard on a couple of occassions, and while I didn't mean that as an insult, many people took it that way. Both are big, but not physical shooters. I disagree with you, in that I think he does have (enough) skills to be an NHLer, particularily his shot, and his ability to find open seams. The lack of grit is something we just might have to accept. He won't be a bigger Richard Zednik, but a more consistant, higher producing Martin Rucinsky (a Rucinsky who actually scores 30+ goals)? I'd take that as a second line winger... As for your questions, the fire and steel comments, I can only say that it is something I believe in totally. This doesn't mean I think all these guys should be called up right away, as some are clearly not ready (i.e. Komisarek) but if they are too good for the AHL, and are picking up bad habits (Hainsey?) then maybe they would be better served, in the long run, by being with the big club, if only for 10 minutes a game, every second game. Hainsey may be getting 20+ minutes in Hamilton, but if he isn't learning anything in those 20+ minutes... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2002 18:36:45 GMT -5
On Komisarek, I will say that I am not worried by him in the least. Not at all. Maybe its because I had (somewhat) lower expectations from him than many, and thus his struggling in the AHL is not a surprise to me, nor a concern. I still expect him to be a star in the NHL. I believe I said at the beginning of the year that I expected Komisarek to struggle at the beginning of training camp, and at the beginning of the AHL season, but that he would rapidly improve. From your reports, he has already improved, somewhat, from the first time you saw him. I stand by what I said - by the end of the year, he will be Hamilton's best defenseman. I will probably go to several more games so we will see how things turn out. I am not so certain. I think that we are talking two years to dominate the AHL. The hype had me thinking that we had a baby face killer in our midst. Instead, he is throwing his baby bottle at them……………… On Hainsey, I cannot help but think (and disagree with our illustrious friend montreal here) that sending him back to the AHL was a mistake. He went back, and was tremendously confused, foresaking his offensive game, and struggling with his defensive game, as he attempted to learn the RGW (Rick Green Way). From your report, it seems he has abandoned that all together, and is back to his wandering, offensive ways. Simply put, he is too good for the AHL (seemingly so). He would never get away with hotdogging in the NHL, because if somebody didn't strip him of the puck, somebody would punch his lights out, for being a precocious little rookie snot. That somebody would probably be Doug Gilmour. He can get away with it in the AHL, because he has the elite skills to recover from his mistakes. As an aside, how many times was his defense partner left alone on two-on-ones? In general, did he recover fast enough? Goes back to your whole theory (that's right, its YOUR theory) that players have to be challenged. If Hainsey is offensively just cruising along, and casually using his superiour AHL skills to make up for any mistakes, maybe he is just too good? Is he getting bored? Bored? I don’t know. Arrogant? Probably. His play certainly reflects it. Plus he is directing traffic on the ice. On Ward and Gratton, neither should be expected to score anything at the NHL level, so I wouldn't worry too much about their hands, or releases, or anything like that. What I would be concerned with, is how strong are they? Can they outmuscle opposing players, or do they just go around them, again with superior AHL skills? Do they win battles, are they high energy players, when they fall down, to they bounce right back up looking for more? That would be their ticket to the NHL. Again, in Gratton, and especially Ward's cases, are they simply too good for the AHL? If Ward isn't being challenged physically, does he need to move on up for improvement? Ward wins his battles but Gratton gets wiped out on occasion. Gratton has high energy and Ward seems to be trying harder. I can not say if it is harder then last year because I do not see him. Ward is getting a lot of goals but I can not say if he is too good for the AHL. In three games, Ward has not been dominated by any of the defenseman he has faced. I would love to see how he does against Semenov in practice. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2002 18:36:57 GMT -5
I saw Plekanec play in the World Juniors last year (once) and for some reason he reminded me of Benoit Brunet. When I saw him this year, I thought "wow, I didn't realize he was so small." Not sure why I missed that first time around. Bad lightning in the arena maybe? He is small framed. I have not seen him in the dressing room, mainly because I would look odd bringing scales, fat meters and strength measuring devices. Looks about 5’9” or 5”10” and 170 pound frame. Hossa always struck me as a perimeter, laissez-faire kind of player, even in his callup to Montreal. Just happy to be there. I compared him to Eric Chouinard on a couple of occassions, and while I didn't mean that as an insult, many people took it that way. Both are big, but not physical shooters. I disagree with you, in that I think he does have (enough) skills to be an NHLer, particularily his shot, and his ability to find open seams. The lack of grit is something we just might have to accept. He won't be a bigger Richard Zednik, but a more consistant, higher producing Martin Rucinsky (a Rucinsky who actually scores 30+ goals)? I'd take that as a second line winger... I did not say he does not have enough skill to play an adequate Euro game in the NHL. I said that he does not have ELITE NHL skill to get away with it. I also said I like to see him with a lot more grit and desire if he is going to be something good. How is he going to react after a tough game with the Leafs or Bruins? As for your questions, the fire and steel comments, I can only say that it is something I believe in totally. This doesn't mean I think all these guys should be called up right away, as some are clearly not ready (i.e. Komisarek) but if they are too good for the AHL, and are picking up bad habits (Hainsey?) then maybe they would be better served, in the long run, by being with the big club, if only for 10 minutes a game, every second game. Hainsey may be getting 20+ minutes in Hamilton, but if he isn't learning anything in those 20+ minutes... Wait a minute. You and I fought pitch battles about pushing players in a higher level of competition. I said I wanted Komi up in the AHL in order to push him to a higher and tougher level. You said you wanted him in collage so he can learn to dominate there. Are you saying that I was right? Well? Are you? *smiles* Don't give me no Munchausen syndrome or claim old age and forgetfullness. *looks beady eyed* |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 22, 2002 19:41:31 GMT -5
Wait a minute. You and I fought pitch battles about pushing players in a higher level of competition. I said I wanted Komi up in the AHL in order to push him to a higher and tougher level. You said you wanted him in collage so he can learn to dominate there. Are you saying that I was right? Well? Are you? *smiles* Actually, what I said was that a player should be moved up if they are too good for a level. Hainsey, in my humble opinion, is too good for the AHL and is not being "pushed to a higher level of competition." I was not so sure that Komisarek was too good for College. As I said on many an occassion, he wasn't the best guy in the league down there, nor was he even the best guy on his team. Heck, it was debatable whether or not he was the best defenseman on his team... So no, you're still wrong... ;D (WARNING! WARNING! CODE OF CONDUCT VIOLATION! WARNING!) |
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Dec 22, 2002 20:29:49 GMT -5
Actually, what I said was that a player should be moved up if they are too good for a level. Hainsey, in my humble opinion, is too good for the AHL and is not being "pushed to a higher level of competition." I was not so sure that Komisarek was too good for College. As I said on many an occassion, he wasn't the best guy in the league down there, nor was he even the best guy on his team. Heck, it was debatable whether or not he was the best defenseman on his team... So no, you're still wrong... ;D (WARNING! WARNING! CODE OF CONDUCT VIOLATION! WARNING!)Sorry, but I don't agree with anything you say here. First, how is Hainsey too good for the AHL, when he has no goals, and one of the lowest +/- on the team. I have listened to almost every dogs game (except the Saturday ones) and although Hainsey is good out there, he still seems to be having problems in his own end. The other night he was a -2, followed by a +1, then a -1. In the games I have listened too, and from his stats, I just dont see how he can be considered to good for the AHL. Beauchemin is a +21, Bergeron is a +17, Komisarek a +12, while Hainsey is a +3. I know that these guys have played 10-12 games more, but I never hear Hainsey playing so good that he's considered too good for the AHL from a 2nd year player. As for Komisarek not being the best defensemen on his team? Who was better. I got one of his games on tape, and can look over any player on the team. His stats were solid, and he was clearly a team leader. His +23 and 111 shots were tops for all Michigan defensemen, and only a few of their top forwards had better numbers. Along with his 30pts, which put him near the top of his team as well. What about being named the best defensive defensemen in his conference, and all american (only sophmore to be named). I have a few friends that have season tickets to UM's games, and we were just talking about Komisarek compared with Jeff Jillson. These guys had a lot of good things to say about Mike, and got to see him a lot more then I (who only saw him play 2 games on tv). |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Dec 22, 2002 20:36:48 GMT -5
Sorry, but I don't agree with anything you say here. First, how is Hainsey too good for the AHL, when he has no goals, and one of the lowest +/- on the team. I have listened to almost every dogs game (except the Saturday ones) and although Hainsey is good out there, he still seems to be having problems in his own end. The other night he was a -2, followed by a +1, then a -1. In the games I have listened too, and from his stats, I just dont see how he can be considered to good for the AHL. Beauchemin is a +21, Bergeron is a +17, Komisarek a +12, while Hainsey is a +3. I know that these guys have played 10-12 games more, but I never hear Hainsey playing so good that he's considered too good for the AHL from a 2nd year player. I believe BC is looking at Hainsey's great rookie year last year when he says ''too good for the AHL'' |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2002 21:30:39 GMT -5
Actually, what I said was that a player should be moved up if they are too good for a level. Hainsey, in my humble opinion, is too good for the AHL and is not being "pushed to a higher level of competition." I was not so sure that Komisarek was too good for College. As I said on many an occassion, he wasn't the best guy in the league down there, nor was he even the best guy on his team. Heck, it was debatable whether or not he was the best defenseman on his team... So no, you're still wrong... ;D (WARNING! WARNING! CODE OF CONDUCT VIOLATION! WARNING!)D*mn, good thing you can string a few words together otherwise we have to ban you. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 22, 2002 21:36:34 GMT -5
Sorry, but I don't agree with anything you say here. First, how is Hainsey too good for the AHL, when he has no goals, and one of the lowest +/- on the team. I have listened to almost every dogs game (except the Saturday ones) and although Hainsey is good out there, he still seems to be having problems in his own end. The other night he was a -2, followed by a +1, then a -1. In the games I have listened too, and from his stats, I just dont see how he can be considered to good for the AHL. Beauchemin is a +21, Bergeron is a +17, Komisarek a +12, while Hainsey is a +3. I know that these guys have played 10-12 games more, but I never hear Hainsey playing so good that he's considered too good for the AHL from a 2nd year player. The only thing I say is that it depends on Savard's relationship with Hainsey. Clearly, he is better then the rest in the AHL. Keeping him there just to punish him serves no purpose. Neither is placing him under Julien's "care". In fact, unless someone with real inside information told me otherwise, I suspect Juliens abilities to develop talent. This is a matter of a kid listening to what he has to do. Very often, 21 year old know everything and they don't get over the stage until they are in their mid-twenties. As for Komisarek not being the best defensemen on his team? Who was better. I got one of his games on tape, and can look over any player on the team. His stats were solid, and he was clearly a team leader. His +23 and 111 shots were tops for all Michigan defensemen, and only a few of their top forwards had better numbers. Along with his 30pts, which put him near the top of his team as well. What about being named the best defensive defensemen in his conference, and all american (only sophmore to be named). I have a few friends that have season tickets to UM's games, and we were just talking about Komisarek compared with Jeff Jillson. These guys had a lot of good things to say about Mike, and got to see him a lot more then I (who only saw him play 2 games on tv). I am assuming you are talking ONLY about his university days. Clearly, he was the best there but it meant nothing when he faced stronger, faster and meaner opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 23, 2002 11:32:46 GMT -5
This is all much ado about nothing, imo.
Here. There. Wherever they are, they'll get better. They're young and they have a lot to learn, and they can learn some of it there and some of it here. Better that they learn a lot of it there than here. I have a lot of confidence in Jodoin & co. The farm is in good hands and we have some quality livestock. If we just checked in on the Habs every six months, instead of every six hours, we'd notice the progress and things would be very encouraging.
It's all good.
|
|
