|
|
Post by FormerLurker on Nov 13, 2004 5:23:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 13, 2004 21:34:15 GMT -5
Saturday: 3-0 loss to Cleveland. Dan Ellis now 0-7 and from the report I read, he let in a couple of softies.
Apparently, Danis was sharp on Friday in the shootout loss. No goalie controversy in Hamilton...unless it's over who's to take the blame for acquiring Ellis. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 14, 2004 6:35:12 GMT -5
Saturday: 3-0 loss to Cleveland. Dan Ellis now 0-7 and from the report I read, he let in a couple of softies. Apparently, Danis was sharp on Friday in the shootout loss. No goalie controversy in Hamilton...unless it's over who's to take the blame for acquiring Ellis. ;D Habs management and fans may well be bugged by Ellis' weak performance to date, but their Dallas counterparts must be starting to be just a wee bit worried. After all HF has him ranked as their #3 prospect, behind Junior Lessard and Trevor Daley. Here is their analysis of his game: Talent Analysis Strengths: Hard-working goalie with extremely sound fundamentals who is determined to make the NHL. He also has good reflexes to go with his sound positioning. Weaknesses: Ellis has shown to be very streaky. He tends to have poor starts at the beginnings of seasons. Also, he could be a better puck handler. Future Dallas is stocked with young goaltenders and Ellis is at the top of the depth chart. Gaining consistency will be very important to Ellis. He has the tools to be a very good goaltender at nearly any level if he can keep in top form * Danis-boy I hear the pipes a-callin'... |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 14, 2004 11:55:53 GMT -5
Well I d@mn well hope he gets past his slow starts problem in a hurry. While the article says Dallas is stocked with young goaltenders, notice they said did not say, "Dallas is stocked with excellent young goalies". If I were a Star fan, I'd be in a deep depression over the state of goaltending. If Ellis were a Hab prospect, he'd be in the ECHL right now. That's not exactly where you want your #1 prospect to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 15, 2004 14:48:43 GMT -5
Apparently in today's Hamilton Spectator Gavin Morgan mutters about how Jarvis' defensive system is stifling the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Nov 15, 2004 15:35:28 GMT -5
Apparently in today's Hamilton Spectator Gavin Morgan mutters about how Jarvis' defensive system is stifling the team. Many a frustrated Dogs' fan has been muttering this very message for a while now, usually framed around a beef about Kosty's ice time. Interesting to see the Dogs' checking centre join the fray. The Dogs seem to be still getting the shots away, even if they are stifling the other team's offensive chances with their defence-first approach. In their two games this past week in which they were shutout, they outshot their opponents 35-27 and 33-24. Opposing goalies like Rochester's Ryan Miller sometimes just get the best of you, even if you are getting good chances. Now, not having seen these two games, I cannot speak to the quality of the shots, but at least they are getting rubber on net. Interestingly, last year under the same coach and likely the same defense-first style, Balej, Pleky, Perezhogin and Higgins were all able to have decent offensive production. I guess it may take time with this year's crop of youngsters as well, but it is likely better to have players that play well in all three zones, than strictly one dimensional guys. That is the purpose of a development team. The challenge this year is that the overall quality of the AHL teams in enhanced due to the lockout, so there are fewer and fewer "easy" games. That, and the Dogs have gone to a very young lineup unlike other teams who seem to be stacking up on more veterans looking for a place to play this season. The learning curve does have an opportunity cost in terms of points in the standings. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 15, 2004 20:53:01 GMT -5
Interestingly, last year under the same coach and likely the same defense-first style, Balej, Pleky, Perezhogin and Higgins were all able to have decent offensive production. I guess it may take time with this year's crop of youngsters as well, but it is likely better to have players that play well in all three zones, than strictly one dimensional guys. That is the purpose of a development team. You make some good points, NWT. I personally don't like a defensively paranoid team. I prefer a team that likes to both score and make defensive stops. I love a team that plays great transition hockey. The puck turns over and it immediately goes the other way. The 75-79 team was great for that. You need good d-men to play that way, though, and the Dogs aren't that talented in that way. They have much better forwards than defensemen. Komi may help in that regard. I also don't mind someone who is only adequate in one zone as long as they're great in the other. That's why I'm not sure about Kostitsyn's handling. But from my one 'viewing' of AK, he looked like he needed to move the puck more and perhaps Jarvis is working on that. CJ has a balanced approach to the game, one I like. |
|
|
|
Post by TheCaper on Nov 15, 2004 21:32:50 GMT -5
On the topic of development…<br>
None of these players were drafted based upon the things they did badly. They were drafted and signed based upon the things they did well. IMO, the primary development focus should be on a player’s strengths. That doesn’t mean you ignore his weaknesses, of course not. But I believe rounding out a player’s game, improving their weaknesses, should be the secondary focus.
If Jarvis wants to spend the first 20 games teaching these players how to play a defensive system, great, they need to learn that type of play; it’s a good plan. But I think the second 20 games should be focused on letting the offensive players work on developing their offensive games, while reinforcing the foundation they worked on in the first 20.
I have no problem with Kostitsyn trying to dangle through the whole team. I think it’s a good thing. It shows that he believes he can actually do it, and if he’s ever going to be able to dangle around an NHL d-man, he’ll need some practice dangling around AHL d-men. If he’s as good as we hope, he’ll figure out on his own when to pass or shoot or dangle or dump it in. Coaching can help him, but we don’t want to under develop (or eliminate) one of his strengths.
And if Kostitsyn is going to be able to beat NHL goaltenders with that big shot, he’ll need some practice firing it at AHL goaltenders. It’s ok to take it slowly during his initial adjustment period to NA hockey. But at some point, Gainey and Jarvis need to be concerned with his shot total. That doesn’t mean they ignore the rest of his game, but it does mean that he needs to get regular ice time on an offensive line in order to increase the number of times he fires that shot. That shot didn’t come out of nowhere, it’s obvious that he’s been working hard on that shot for a long time, and we need to make sure he continues to develop his biggest asset. After all, Kostitsyn’s career will likely be defined by how often he puts the puck in the net. I’d rather have an above average sniper with a below average defensive game, than have an average sniper with an average defensive game.
I’ve heard both Jarvis and Julien say a number of times that they want a team that focuses on defense when they don’t have the puck, while allowing them to be offensively creative when they do have the puck. I think that’s right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 16, 2004 0:15:56 GMT -5
On the topic of development…<br> None of these players were drafted based upon the things they did badly. They were drafted and signed based upon the things they did well. IMO, the primary development focus should be on a player’s strengths. That doesn’t mean you ignore his weaknesses, of course not. But I believe rounding out a player’s game, improving their weaknesses, should be the secondary focus. If Jarvis wants to spend the first 20 games teaching these players how to play a defensive system, great, they need to learn that type of play; it’s a good plan. But I think the second 20 games should be focused on letting the offensive players work on developing their offensive games, while reinforcing the foundation they worked on in the first 20. I have no problem with Kostitsyn trying to dangle through the whole team. I think it’s a good thing. It shows that he believes he can actually do it, and if he’s ever going to be able to dangle around an NHL d-man, he’ll need some practice dangling around AHL d-men. If he’s as good as we hope, he’ll figure out on his own when to pass or shoot or dangle or dump it in. Coaching can help him, but we don’t want to under develop (or eliminate) one of his strengths. And if Kostitsyn is going to be able to beat NHL goaltenders with that big shot, he’ll need some practice firing it at AHL goaltenders. It’s ok to take it slowly during his initial adjustment period to NA hockey. But at some point, Gainey and Jarvis need to be concerned with his shot total. That doesn’t mean they ignore the rest of his game, but it does mean that he needs to get regular ice time on an offensive line in order to increase the number of times he fires that shot. That shot didn’t come out of nowhere, it’s obvious that he’s been working hard on that shot for a long time, and we need to make sure he continues to develop his biggest asset. After all, Kostitsyn’s career will likely be defined by how often he puts the puck in the net. I’d rather have an above average sniper with a below average defensive game, than have an average sniper with an average defensive game. I’ve heard both Jarvis and Julien say a number of times that they want a team that focuses on defense when they don’t have the puck, while allowing them to be offensively creative when they do have the puck. I think that’s right. One of my observations of young guys coming up, is they often are scoring sensations in Jr. hockey and become defensive specialists in the NHL. Gainey was a Jr. scorer as were Carbo and Houle but they concentrated on their all round games. Goals that go in against weaker goalies and defensemen are caught by NHL pros. Jarvis |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 16, 2004 1:33:05 GMT -5
Gainey was never a great scorer in juniour. I haven't looked it up, but 20 goals, 30 assists was probably tops for Bob. He was drafted for his defensive abilities and skating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 16, 2004 7:19:54 GMT -5
A guy like Higgins will have to find a way to raise his game and produce at a regular clip. Right now I don't care for his character, work ethic, coachable ways or responsible play, he simply has to put on the afterburner. This guy was suppose to push for a roster spot on the big team yet is barely in the top 5 of his AHL team... Unlike Kots, he isn't adjusting to a new league...
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Nov 16, 2004 9:59:50 GMT -5
You make some good points, NWT. I personally don't like a defensively paranoid team. I prefer a team that likes to both score and make defensive stops. I love a team that plays great transition hockey. The puck turns over and it immediately goes the other way. The 75-79 team was great for that. You need good d-men to play that way, though, and the Dogs aren't that talented in that way. They have much better forwards than defensemen. Komi may help in that regard. I also don't mind someone who is only adequate in one zone as long as they're great in the other. That's why I'm not sure about Kostitsyn's handling. But from my one 'viewing' of AK, he looked like he needed to move the puck more and perhaps Jarvis is working on that. CJ has a balanced approach to the game, one I like. There are a couple of ways to have an effective transition game using a defence-first game. One being the speed of forwards to move the puck into the offensive zone when the puck is turned over in the neutral zone (a la Ottawa Sens). The second being good outlet passes from good puck handling defencemen. I agree with your assessment that the Dogs just are lacking in that consistent good outlet pass due to the calibre of its core of defence. With guys like Dykhuis, Beachemin, Hainsey, and even Traverse around last season, you had a pretty good core of players who would get the transition going with the first pass. This season, that skill is nowhere near as strong among the back 6. As for AK, I think he would see more ice time if he didn't keep coughing the puck up at the blueline or in the neutral zone trying to do it all himself. When Jarvis can teach him to use his linemates more he should see more ice time, as you are right, if he is great in one zone...then use him lots in that zone. The interesting stat is the goals the team scores per game with Danis in net versus when Ellis is in net. The difference is staggering (23 in 8 games with Danis vs 10 in 7 with Ellis). So, not only does Ellis need to get out of his funk and get a few wins under his belt, but the team also needs to play better in front of him when he is playing and get out of their funk by scoring a lot more goals in those games. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 16, 2004 14:26:41 GMT -5
Gainey was never a great scorer in juniour. I haven't looked it up, but 20 goals, 30 assists was probably tops for Bob. He was drafted for his defensive abilities and skating. 22 goals and 21 assists in 51 games playing for a defensive minded Peterboro Petes team. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 16, 2004 21:19:21 GMT -5
Rats, I overstated it. So much for my objectivity.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 17, 2004 1:35:55 GMT -5
Rats, I overstated it. So much for my objectivity. Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 20, 2004 8:18:42 GMT -5
Stats Update
Goals:
Plekanec 7, Locke 5, Ward 4, Higgins and Kostitsyn 3.
Assists:
Plekanec and Thinel 6, Ward, daley and Hainsey 5.
Points:
Plekanec 13, Ward 9, Locke and Thinel 8, Higgins 6.
+/- (good):
Jancevski +3, Higgins and Kostitsyn +2, Ward, Locke, Lambert and Focht +1.
+/- (bad and ugly):
Milroy -9, Daley -6, Ivanans and Plante -5, Ferland, Ott, Hainsey and Thinel -3.
PIM:
Ivanans 78, Ott 60, Jancevski 46, Morgan 39, Archer 27.
PPG:
Plekanec, Ward and Locke 3, Milroy 2, Jancevski 1.
SHG:
Higgins 2, Kostitsyn and Morgan 1.
GWG:
6 players tied with 1 each.
SOG:
Plekanec 55, Hainsey 46, Higgins 38, Morgan 37, Ward 36.
Shot %:
Locke 17.9, Kostitsyn 13.0, Plekanec 12.7, Ward 11.1, Milroy 10.0.
Goalies:
Danis - 6 W, 1 SO, 2.06, .930.
Ellis - 0 W, 0 SO, 3.13, .904.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 20, 2004 11:01:43 GMT -5
Shades of Charron!
Hamilton's rank among 28 AHL teams:
PK - 81.4% (23rd in league)
PP - 12.0% (20th in league)
A simple rule of thumb formula for gauging the success of your special teams is to add the PK and PP percentages. If the total is over 100% you're doing well...
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 21, 2004 7:16:11 GMT -5
Well well, talk about your baptism by fire. The team can't buy a goal. Dogs are beginning to growl about the style they're being asked to play. Coach is slamming the door as he leaves the locker-room. Now's the time for the Montréal media to start assigning reporters to cover the team.
Frustrating as the drought is I think it's ultimately a good thing. This too is part of hockey. Jarvis has a chance to show his mettle by guiding the kids through a rough patch. The players should be buckling down and learning the need for, and practice of, discpline and plain hard work and peseverance.
The team will improve. It's not like they're getting blown out and being massively out-played. The additions of Komisarek and Coté on the blueline should provide a nice pick-me-up. Too bad Perezhogin isn't around to help out. I just hope Danis doesn't catch whatever it is that's dogging Ellis. The kids' are allright.
Bow wow wow
Yippy yi, yippy yay
Atomic Dogs...
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 22, 2004 17:25:08 GMT -5
A weekend homestand against the Baby Laffs this Friday/Saturday.
I gotta get down to one of them....or shame on me.
I know it's a long season....but St. John's is already 3 points up. Don't want to be playing catch-up to that group of sad sacks.
Hopefully the system gels this week. Ah...how long has it been since Habs' talk centred around a system.....I believe since Julien's system took a little time to eradicate Therrien's non-pro system.
Therrien's AHL-system is going okay.....20 pts. in 17 games....better than the Dogs' 16 in 19. Or is that in spite of MT?
CH
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Nov 25, 2004 14:54:49 GMT -5
Yeah, Jarvis is a gem. Imagine him coaching the Habs the same way. Does he even know how to teach offense? It wasn't his strong point as a player. And it's not as though he were handed an untalented bunch of muckers. The length of his coaching experience doesn't dispel the suspicion that he's in Hamilton through cronyism.  |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 25, 2004 23:03:18 GMT -5
Yeah, Jarvis is a gem. Imagine him coaching the Habs the same way. Does he even know how to teach offense? It wasn't his strong point as a player. Uhhhh..to balance the scales it must be pointed out that Jarvis, in his last juniour season, scored 40 some goals and 100 or so assists, on a typically defensive Peterborough team. Don Cherry was a really bad coach too, the year he had Hardy Astrom in goal with the Rockies. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Nov 25, 2004 23:26:02 GMT -5
While playing in a relatively high-scoring NHL era, Jarvis averaged 12 goals and 27 assists per 82-game season. Although this might not be the optimal comparison because their roles weren't identical and their linemates were different, his teammate Doug Risebrough averaged 21 goals and 39 assists.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 26, 2004 6:17:25 GMT -5
While playing in a relatively high-scoring NHL era, Jarvis averaged 12 goals and 27 assists per 82-game season. Although this might not be the optimal comparison because their roles weren't identical and their linemates were different, his teammate Doug Risebrough averaged 21 goals and 39 assists. Per 80 game season, actually. Interesting to note that in baseball a disproportionately high number of successful general managers had careers as backup catchers and utility players. In basketball guards seem to make the best head coaches. In football, defensive backs and linemen. In hockey, defensemen, goalies and defensive forwards. Rarely is it that an outstanding offensive player becomes a top notch head coach in any sport. The immortal Ted Wiiliams had this to say about why he gave up pursuing a general manager's career in baseball: "I realized that I expected others to do what came naturally to me, and when they couldn't I became unereasonable with them." Offense is more a gift, sound overall play is more tactics and work. The first can be honed but not taught, the second can and must be learned if a *team* is to succeed. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Nov 26, 2004 11:44:50 GMT -5
Per 80 game season, actually. Interesting to note that in baseball a disproportionately high number of successful general managers had careers as backup catchers and utility players. In basketball guards seem to make the best head coaches. In football, defensive backs and linemen. In hockey, defensemen, goalies and defensive forwards. Rarely is it that an outstanding offensive player becomes a top notch head coach in any sport. The immortal Ted Wiiliams had this to say about why he gave up pursuing a general manager's career in baseball: "I realized that I expected others to do what came naturally to me, and when they couldn't I became unereasonable with them." Offense is more a gift, sound overall play is more tactics and work. The first can be honed but not taught, the second can and must be learned if a *team* is to succeed. I calculated his career totals on the basis of 82 games. Ted Williams was never a GM, only a field manager. He taught his players all they could absorb about the art of hitting but the rest of the game, the handling of individuals, and the intyeraction with upper management exasperated him. I in turn am exasperated by the disappointing performances of the talented players assigned to Hamilton. In particular, Plekanec and Higgins are performing less well than they did last season despite the additional experience and responsibility. I can understand the adjustment Kostitsyn has had to make and the rationed ice time he has been allowed but I had hoped for better results even at this early stage. For that matter, the Dallas chattels haven't thrived either. So what can/will Jarvis do to end the tailspin? |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Nov 27, 2004 21:22:46 GMT -5
In case you're wondering whether Jozef Balef would have made a huge difference for the Cowdogs, he's 3-8-11 and +2 in 18 games for a winning Hartford Wolfpack team. Mediocre, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 28, 2004 3:43:31 GMT -5
While playing in a relatively high-scoring NHL era, Jarvis averaged 12 goals and 27 assists per 82-game season. The NHL played an 80 game schedule in Jarvis' day. 964 games, 139-264-403 for his career. Based on an 82 schedule he averaged 12- 22-34. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 28, 2004 3:55:45 GMT -5
In case you're wondering whether Jozef Balef would have made a huge difference for the Cowdogs, he's 3-8-11 and +2 in 18 games for a winning Hartford Wolfpack team. Mediocre, I'd say. Actually I wasn't, but since you've brought up his name: Mediocre enough to be second on his team in scoring and to have been involved in 28% of his club's offense. His numbers transposed to the Bulldogs would have him tied for second in team scoring, contributing to 27% of the offense and leading the club with a +2 differential. He would definitely be a plus for the Bulldogs, as he was last season. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 28, 2004 6:52:34 GMT -5
He would definitely be a plus for the Bulldogs, as he was last season. Can't dispute that -- just about anyone or any thing would be an improvement, it seems . . . even me with my goal and two assists in my game last night (of course, we play without goalies and its amazing that we can stay on our feet, let alone get the puck near the net). |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Nov 28, 2004 11:52:09 GMT -5
It isn't legitimate to extrapolate Balej's Wolfpack figures to the woeful Cowdogs. But even if it were permitted in this nebula of speculation, the Cowdogs would still be losers despite his 3 goals in 18 games. They have bigger problems than the absence of Balej.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 28, 2004 12:17:16 GMT -5
It isn't legitimate to extrapolate Balej's Wolfpack figures to the woeful Cowdogs Of course it is. The two teams are virtually identicial in goals for; Hartford has scored 40 and the Bulldogs have scored 41. Plus Balej is playing for a team which is relying on a defensive game with much greater success than Hamilton is enjoying at present. |
|
