Komisarek versus Every Other Defenceman...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Freaky Habs Fan

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
9,546
0
New-Brunswick
Visit site
triggrman said:
If Nashville didn't have any plans for Bouillon they wouldn't claimed him on waivers.

That's not true. When you have the chance to take a good player on waiver, you go for it...nomather your situation. If you don't like him, you put him on waivers again and Boullion cost nothing so it was a good bet to take...
 

db23

Guest
Sammy said:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
What a clown.
Why wasnt Hainsey even mentioned for being on Team USA if he is better?.

Leopold has a history with the U.S. team stemming from the fact that he stayed in college when the better pro prospects like Hainsey and Komisarek turned pro early. They were busy in March and April when the World Championships were held in previous years. Leopold was free and had the profile of a college star which the selectors like. It is no more compicated than that. Plus Leopold is older.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
Nash13 said:
Cheap NHL quality depth on defense. That is it. Pretty much like what he is in Montreal for. He likely wasn't in any long term plans, say over a year.
I wasn't talking future. I was refering to the comment Kimmo would be the only Nashville defenseman to make the Habs, when Kimmo, Zids and Hamhuis all Probably would.
 

Freaky Habs Fan

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
9,546
0
New-Brunswick
Visit site
triggrman said:
I wasn't talking future. I was refering to the comment Kimmo would be the only Nashville defenseman to make the Habs, when Kimmo, Zids and Hamhuis all Probably would.

Kimmonen and Zidlicky would be on the team and Hamhuis, as good as he can be, would be in Hamilton...
 

Sammy*

Guest
db23 said:
Leopold has a history with the U.S. team stemming from the fact that he stayed in college when the better pro prospects like Hainsey and Komisarek turned pro early. They were busy in March and April when the World Championships were held in previous years. Leopold was free and had the profile of a college star which the selectors like. It is no more compicated than that. Plus Leopold is older.
Just so I am clear, the reason he made it & Hainsey or for that matter , Komisarek) didnt even get a sniff is because he has a history with the US team.
I think I get it now. Thats why Jason Ward, Eric Chouinard & Matt Higgins never made the Canadian Oly team & World Cup team,& Iginla did, its because Iggy had a "history" with the Canadian program
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,425
Vancouver, BC
db23 said:
Timmonen is the only Nashville defenceman who would be playing regularly in Montreal. Hamhuis wouldn't. The guy was about -30 over the season if I recall.

Timmonen, Zidlicky, Eaton, and Hamhuis are all better than all of Markov, Boullion, and Quintal, each of whom played over 70 games for Montreal last year. York is roughly equatable with Quintal and Boullion.

Hamhuis was -12, and even after the first two months of the season.


db23 said:
Neither Pitkanen nor Leopold would be playing regularly for the Habs either. Ron Hainsey is better than Leopold. As an NCAA soph, prior to turning pro, Hainsey was much better than Leopold.

And everything before and after that one season in their development, Leopold was better. Calgary has maybe the deepest blueline in the league, and getting quality minutes for them is *way* more difficult than getting minutes in Montreal. Leopold was the #2 defender on the #2 defensive team in the league, but he wouldn't play regularly on the patchwork Montreal defense?

db23 said:
Leopold has a history with the U.S. team stemming from the fact that he stayed in college when the better pro prospects like Hainsey and Komisarek turned pro early. They were busy in March and April when the World Championships were held in previous years. Leopold was free and had the profile of a college star which the selectors like. It is no more compicated than that. Plus Leopold is older.

Hmm ... and it has nothing to do that Leopold was playing 25 minutes/night of terrific hockey on a Stanley Cup finalist while Hainsey has struggled for the most part with NHL pace and is in the AHL?
 

jacklours

Registered User
Mar 5, 2003
1,222
0
Magog
MS said:
Timmonen, Zidlicky, Eaton, and Hamhuis are all better than all of Markov, Boullion, and Quintal, each of whom played over 70 games for Montreal last year. York is roughly equatable with Quintal and Boullion.

Might as well say they would be the best defencemen in the team if they are better the Markov. Though you might argue Souray was superior last year.
 

Enoch

This is my boomstick
Jul 2, 2003
14,239
872
Cookeville TN
db23 said:
That's crap. Komisarek was a regular by the end of the season, he put Quintal on the bench. It is no small thing to put a 15 year veteran who is one of the team leaders on the bench in the playoffs. None of the others managed anythign close to that.

Timonen is the only Nashville defenceman who would be playing regularly in Montreal. Hamhuis wouldn't. The guy was about -30 over the season if I recall. Neither Pitkanen nor Leopold would be playing regularly for the Habs either. Ron Hainsey is better than Leopold. As an NCAA soph, prior to turning pro, Hainsey was much better than Leopold. During the playoffs, Komisarek was playing more minutes per game than Pitkanen, who was strictly an offensive specialist.

Being an effective NHL defenseman is not simply taking the puck and rushing it up the ice, which is what the three you mention do most of the time.


:joker: :joker: :joker:

Its also not about your stats in college several years ago. This is a joke! Do you even understand that your points have no bearing on the merits of these players now?

Oh - Eaton, Timonen, Zidlicky, and Hamhuis would have all likely played for the Habs on defense last year. Hamhuis was not a minus 30.....he was actually a - 12, which taken into context, is quite good.

Rydified said:
Mike= Probable #2 defensemen, if he can polish his Offensive skills #1 defensemen and after that possible norris canditate.
Dan= #3/4 defensemen with the possibility of getting to #2

Dan Hamhuis is already our no. 3 defensemen, and in terms of sheer minutes, almost a no. 2. Are you saying he has already maxed out his potential as a rookie? Furthermore, if we are playing the potential game, why is Mike Komisarek, who has played downright awful for large stretches in his brief NHL career and nominally used as a 5-6 dman, so much better offensively and defensively than Hamhuis who did much much more at a higher level of competition defensively AND offensively already? I'm not even mentioning the fact that he is younger! When I take that information in, it seems to me that at the least Hamhuis has the same potential as Mike ( save for sheer mass), if not more potential.
 
Last edited:

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
Enoch said:
:joker: :joker: :joker:

Its also not about your stats in college several years ago. This is a joke! Do you even understand that your points have no bearing on the merits of these players now?

Oh - Eaton, Timmonen, Zidlicky, and Hamhuis would have all likely played for the Habs on defense last year. Hamhuis was not a minus 30.....he was actually a - 12, which taken into context, is quite good.



Dan Hamhuis is already our no. 3 defensemen, and in terms of sheer minutes, almost a no. 2. Are you saying he has already maxed out his potential as a rookie? Furthermore, if were playing the potential game, why is Mike Komisarek who has played downright awful for large stretches in his brief NHL career, and nominally used as a 5-6 dman so much better offensively and defensively than Hamhuis who did much much more at a higher level of competition Defensively AND offensively...not to mention he is younger? When I take that information in, it seems to me that at the least Hamhuis has the same potential as Mike ( save for sheer mass), if not more potential.

Because Mike plays for the Habs and they get no respect, especially when compared to Nashville
 

Freaky Habs Fan

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
9,546
0
New-Brunswick
Visit site
Enoch said:
Dan Hamhuis is already our no. 3 defensemen

Yeah, he's tour no. 3 defensemen. He wouldn't be our because he would be in Hamilton. That's the way Montreal manage his prospects. And if he would be in the team, he would be no.5 because he have Souray, Markov, Rivet and Brisebois in front of him. I understand that Dan is maybe better then Rivet and Breezy but the situation in Montreal is different from the situation in Nashville...
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,425
Vancouver, BC
jacklours said:
Might as well say they would be the best defencemen in the team if they are better the Markov. Though you might argue Souray was superior last year.

Guess it depends on your opinion of Markov. I thought he looked like absolute ass in most Hab games I watched last year, and showed a pretty significant regression from the year before. Soft as hell and didn't do anything offensively last season. Take him out if you like. Bottom line is that there are still 4 and possibly 5 guys on Nashville who'd suit up regularly for Montreal.
 

Aarex

Registered User
Feb 29, 2004
1,280
0
Regina, Saskatchewan
Enoch said:
Are you saying he has already maxed out his potential as a rookie? Furthermore, if were playing the potential game, why is Mike Komisarek who has played downright awful for large stretches in his brief NHL career.

I guess I should have been more clear

I said 3/4 for dan because he already is at that level and he has the potential to arise to #2 defensemen (Possible #1 Defensemen on the preds(In my opinion))

for Mike

I said PROBABLE #2 he is not there yet, but he will probably get there and i find he has more of a upside as far as potential goes then Dan and thats why i would pick Komisarek over Hamhuis.

You also have to consider the teams these two players are playing on. Montreals depth on Defense is pretty good and like all young players Montreal eases them into the line up instead of throwing them out there with the big fish and see what they could do (See Hamhuis, who responded admirably). Nashville's Depth on Defense is limited.

I expect great things out of both players, and again i think people are missing "in my opinion" part of it but I would prefer Komisarek over Hamhuis and am very happy that Montreal has him as he is EXACTLY what the team needs.
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
MS said:
Timmonen, Zidlicky, Eaton, and Hamhuis are all better than all of Markov, Boullion, and Quintal, each of whom played over 70 games for Montreal last year. York is roughly equatable with Quintal and Boullion.

Hamhuis was -12, and even after the first two months of the season.




And everything before and after that one season in their development, Leopold was better. Calgary has maybe the deepest blueline in the league, and getting quality minutes for them is *way* more difficult than getting minutes in Montreal. Leopold was the #2 defender on the #2 defensive team in the league, but he wouldn't play regularly on the patchwork Montreal defense?



Hmm ... and it has nothing to do that Leopold was playing 25 minutes/night of terrific hockey on a Stanley Cup finalist while Hainsey has struggled for the most part with NHL pace and is in the AHL?

Better than Markov...OK ;) sure, whatever you say...Timonen maybe, as I think he's veryunderrated, but the others don't even come close to Markov...Marko Eaton better than Markov? :lol :lol sure...man I almost bust a gut
 

Enoch

This is my boomstick
Jul 2, 2003
14,239
872
Cookeville TN
Freaky Habs Fan said:
Yeah, he's tour no. 3 defensemen. He wouldn't be our because he would be in Hamilton. That's the way Montreal manage his prospects. And if he would be in the team, he would be no.5 because he have Souray, Markov, Rivet and Brisebois in front of him. I understand that Dan is maybe better then Rivet and Breezy but the situation in Montreal is different from the situation in Nashville...

I don't buy that at all. Hahmuis is better than Rivet and Breezeby right now, and he would step in and play top 3 minutes if on the team. Just because you have "veterans" does not mean your coaches and Gainey are stupid enough to play bad players for long periods of time, while benching the players that are better...simply b/c they are young. If a player is better, he is going to play. Bottomline : Komisarek for most of last season was not good enough to warrant more minutes. I watched him several times, and he was flat out bad....not just buried beneath the enormous defensive depth on the RH side. Don't make excuses for the player when he is underperforming or just hasn't flat out earned icetime yet.

People that keep claiming Hamhuis didn't earn his icetime last season, really do not know the situation. We sent him to Milwuakee to play, and then Jason York broke his cheekbone. We called him up and gave him a chance, and he immeadiately came in and filled a huge role....One that we did NOT have him slated to fill. He played big minutes because he was deserving of them...York missed like 3 games at the start of the season....Hamhuis was only supposed to be in Nashville for those 3 games, yet his play warranted him a roster spot and big minutes for the rest of the year.
 
Last edited:

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
triggrman said:
Did we mention that Hamhuis played on both the righ and the left side this season.

LH d-men do it all the time...there are only 2 or 3 RH d-men who play their off side
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
417 TO MTL said:
Better than Markov...OK ;) sure, whatever you say...Timonen maybe, as I think he's veryunderrated, but the others don't even come close to Markov...Marko Eaton better than Markov? :lol :lol sure...man I almost bust a gut

Markov better than Eaton? :joker: :joker:

See that works both ways
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,425
Vancouver, BC
Rydified said:
You also have to consider the teams these two players are playing on. Montreals depth on Defense is pretty good and like all young players Montreal eases them into the line up instead of throwing them out there with the big fish and see what they could do (See Hamhuis, who responded admirably). Nashville's Depth on Defense is limited.

Except Montreal has tried very hard to give Hainsey a regular spot in their lineup. Each of the last two years, he's made the team out of training camp and the team gave him 15-18 minutes/night for a stretch of games to start the year (same thing Nashville did with Hamhuis). The difference is that Hainsey struggled with that icetime both years, saw his icetime shrink considerably and ended up in the AHL. Had he played at the level that was expected of him in those stints, he'd already be an NHL regular. But he didn't, and his slow development isn't because Montreal is 'easing him along'. It's because when the team handed him big, fat opportunities to step into their lineup he did nothing with them.

Same thing with Komisarek, too. His slow development isn't because he's stuck behind Francis Boullion (WTF??), it's because he hasn't done anything to earn more than the 12-13 minutes/night he's getting. His decision-making skills and defensive positioning are weak, his lateral mobility is sketchy, and he looks overwhelmed by the NHL pace more often than not.
 

db23

Guest
Teams don't just toss aside proven veterans and popular team leaders if a rook comes along and has a few good games. Not in Montreal anyway. There are a lot of different considerations as to the overall makeup of the team. It is not simply the collection of the most talented individuals. Some teams with nothing to lose will go with rookie mistakes because they are focussed on the future. I think that was the case in Nashville even if they did squeeze into the playoffs. It is never the case in Montreal which has a huge following and a rabid media to keep satisfied each and every season. I'm sure that on many other teams Komisarek would have been thrown into the lineup to learn as he went along. Ron Hainsey as well. But they were paying Quintal, Brisebois and Rivet big money, they were all proven veterans and among the team leaders. Two of the three are French Canadian, (and Rivet is half Franco), which is another consideration in Montreal.

Komisarek was head and shoulders above Hamhuis in the AHL when they were both rooks there. Once Mike plays regular minutes in Montreal (which he would have this season) he will be the better NHL defenceman as well.
 

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,329
39,839
www.youtube.com
MS said:
Except Montreal has tried very hard to give Hainsey a regular spot in their lineup. Each of the last two years, he's made the team out of training camp and the team gave him 15-18 minutes/night for a stretch of games to start the year (same thing Nashville did with Hamhuis). The difference is that Hainsey struggled with that icetime both years, saw his icetime shrink considerably and ended up in the AHL. Had he played at the level that was expected of him in those stints, he'd already be an NHL regular. But he didn't, and his slow development isn't because Montreal is 'easing him along'. It's because when the team handed him big, fat opportunities to step into their lineup he did nothing with them.

Same thing with Komisarek, too. His slow development isn't because he's stuck behind Francis Boullion (WTF??), it's because he hasn't done anything to earn more than the 12-13 minutes/night he's getting. His decision-making skills and defensive positioning are weak, his lateral mobility is sketchy, and he looks overwhelmed by the NHL pace more often than not.


Hainsey didn't get 15-18 mintues on the 3rd pairing, in any of the games I recall, but he did struggle with some poor turnovers and questionable pinching.

As for Komisarek, Bouillon had nothing to do with him getting ice time. Rivet, Brisebois and Quintal were in front of Komisarek, and by the end of the year, Quintal was on his way out. Yes Quintal is not a very good defensemen, but he was in the lineup for his size, veteran presence and the fact that he would drop the gloves on a team that lacked many players that can fight. His decision making skills have gotten him in trouble, as he struggles with the speed and temp of the game at times. His positioning as well, as he sometimes gets caught going for the big hit.
 

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,329
39,839
www.youtube.com
triggrman said:
Markov better than Eaton? :joker: :joker:

See that works both ways


Not really, saying Eaton is better then Markov is funny and insulting to Markov. Saying Markov is better then Eaton is an opinion based in reality. I know Eaton is the pride of Delaware, but Markov was the top defensemen in Russia before coming over, and one of the better young defensemen in the game.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
db23 said:
Komisarek was head and shoulders above Hamhuis in the AHL when they were both rooks there. Once Mike plays regular minutes in Montreal (which he would have this season) he will be the better NHL defenceman as well..

First all he had 3 more points and one less goal than Hamhuis in the AHL so head and shoulders above is a stretch unless you're talking about height. :shakehead

Second even if he was better, what does that prove, the speed in the NHL is 5 times that of the AHL. Hamhuis didn't have a problem in fact, many say he's a better NHL defenseman than he was an AHL defenseman. Komisarek can't say the same, in fact the speed of the NHL game is what hurts Komisarek the most, he's yet to adjust to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->