Toews haters on the main board

[member 151739]

That is not what any of us are saying. What we are saying is that what Toews has actually accomplished carries significantly more weight than what a similar player may have accomplished in the same situation.

This is sounding all too similar to the never ending Kane vs. Kessel debate.

 

[Chelios]

This is sounding all too similar to the never ending Kane vs. Kessel debate.

That is another perfect example.

 

[cbh]

I dont think its hate, I think most think he is overrated and maybe rightfully so, I dont like the argument of how many cups does he have, cups are a team accomplishment, I am sure put Crosby with the supporting cast that Toews has and he wins the cup every time as well. I also dont like the argument of Crawford has two rings, its the same thing, championships are a team accomplishment and one player should not get credit for it. Put Toews in Edmonton and I doubt he gets any cups for the rest of his career. Important note to the hot headed fan boys: I dont hate Toews, I am just making a logical point, so try not to reply with your emotions.

Sure, winning the cup is a team accomplishment. Hockey is a team sport. What other argument is there? Individual trophies? How many Art Ross trophies have you won?
The same argument of "a team accomplishment", one player not getting credit for it all, also apllies to individual trophies. Hockey is a team sport. No player plays in a vacuum.
The goal of every player is (should be) to win the SC, not the Art Ross.

...just for the hell of it....

Argument A: how many cups have you won

Black Hawks 1960-69: 1
Blackhaws 2010-2019: 3 (so far)

Argument B: individual trophies/great players dominant in their position

Black Hawks 1960-69: 21
Blackhawks 2010-2019: 3 (so far)

1st/2nd All Star selections

Black Hawks 1960-69: 7 different players selected 36 times
Blackhawks 2010-1019: 3 different players selected 4 times (so far)

Two things.

1. Sure, the eras are different. It might have been easier being selected an all-star back in the 1960s (fewer teams.players). On the other hand, it is a lot harder winning a SC (let alone 3) today (more teams, more games, cap, parity).

2. Having a team stacked with HoF, all-star, individual trophy winners....is no guarantee of winning multiple SC.

No guarantee that if Crosby were to sign with the Hawks that the team would ever win the cup again. Toews going to Edmonton in all likelihood would be the key in turning that team around. We'll never know.
Beyond me why Toews hasn't won the Hart as being "the most valuable player to his team".....but I'll "settle" for 3 SC (with more to come, no doubt).
SC=the only trophy that counts.

 

[Keithsteeth]

One of the most impressive things about Toews is his effort and compete level. The guy goes all out pretty much every single shift and you'll almost never see him dogging it out there.

(btw, this was also one of the most impressive things about MJ on the Bulls, he pretty much never took a night off and played hard all the time; which in Basketball is not all that common in the regular season for superstar players)

 

[Chelios]

Another thing that drives me insane as a Hawks fan, which is relevant to this discussion since it is also a big reason why so many belittle Toews "team accomplishments", is the idea that the Hawks are a stacked team that are head and shoulders above all other teams.

As weird as it sounds, it annoys me when people talk about how dominant the Hawks were after the fact when this was not what we were hearing at all while the games were being played.

Take this playoffs for example, we heard prior to each series (not to mention during each series) how our opponent had changed, or were different than other teams the Hawks have beaten in the past. We heard from Preds fans how much better they were this year. We heard from Minnesota fans how they were deeper, and better than the team that took Chicago to 6 games the year before. We heard how this years Ducks team was different, and that they were going to hit the Hawks into submission while Getzlaf/Perry showed how superior they are to Toews/Kane. Finally, in the finals we heard about how there was no way we were going to shutdown the triplets since they had not been ever shut down since becoming a line. Then all of a sudden, after the Hawks win, the narrative becomes that the Hawks are a stacked team and that you could replace any of their players with any other similar player and get the same result.

The fact is that in a salary cap world there is no team that is head and shoulders better than everyone else. Each year there are a handful of teams that can realistically win the cup, and it often comes down to the team who's best players step up when it matters most. The Hawks' best players do it time and time again, which is the main reason people look back at these teams as being better than they actually were.

 

[Chelios]

One of the most impressive things about Toews is his effort and compete level. The guy goes all out pretty much every single shift and you'll almost never see him dogging it out there.

(btw, this was also one of the most impressive things about MJ on the Bulls, he pretty much never took a night off and played hard all the time; which in Basketball is not all that common in the regular season for superstar players)

I agree, and to take it a step further, this is one of the reason him being the leader of this team is so important (cue the intangible jokes). When your (arguably) best player and leader is working his tail off every shift, when he is playing responsible defensively, when he is being selfless, and when he is doing all the little things, that has a trickle down effect on the team as a whole. It is much easier to demand those things from your players when the captain is leading by example.

 

[JaegerDice]

I said something similar in the Crawford thread, but what the hell, it bears saying again:

Only our fanbase could watch a guy captain his team to 3 Stanley Cups in 6 years and react with 'yeah, but is he better than the hypothetical alternative? I think not.'

 

[Sarava]

I said something similar in the Crawford thread, but what the hell, it bears saying again:

Only our fanbase could watch a guy captain his team to 3 Stanley Cups in 6 years and react with 'yeah, but is he better than the hypothetical alternative? I think not.'

It's not Hawk fans that don't understand Toews' importance to the Hawks. It's opposing fans.

 

[Chelios]

It's not Hawk fans that don't understand Toews' importance to the Hawks. It's opposing fans.

For the most part that is true. But there still are a small amount of Hawk fans that will insist that Kane is more important.

 

[x Tame Impala]

For the most part that is true. But there still are a small amount of Hawk fans that will insist that Kane is more important.

Insisting that any of Toews, Kane, or Keith are more important than the other is pretty ignorant IMO, especially if the person doing so is a Hawks fan. Toews is not more important than Kane, he just has a different job than Kane.

 

[JaegerDice]

Insisting that any of Toews, Kane, or Keith are more important than the other is pretty ignorant IMO, especially if the person doing so is a Hawks fan. Toews is not more important than Kane, he just has a different job than Kane.

I take some small issue with that, for the fact that if Kane isn't producing, he's pretty much doing nothing out there short of being a decoy.

That's not his fault so much as the fact that short of 2-way freaks like Hossa or Jamie Benn, most wingers are inherently less valuable and impact every facet of the game as a whole less significantly than centers or defensemen.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I take some small issue with that, for the fact that if Kane isn't producing, he's pretty much doing nothing out there short of being a decoy.

That's not his fault so much as the fact that short of 2-way freaks like Hossa or Jamie Benn, most wingers are inherently less valuable and impact every facet of the game as a whole less significantly than centers or defensemen.

True, but he produces, A LOT. He's a dynamic player and other teams notice that. I don't mean this in a patronizing way, but how much of Victor Hedman's time was spent shadowing Patrick Kane? Freeing up ice for the Toews line? As soon as that switched in games 5 and 6 Kane put up 3 points.

Kane's biggest asset is his ability to give the Hawks goals when they need them most and he's been consistently doing that his whole career, even if he isn't driving possession every night (I meant that in a patronizing way )

 

[JaegerDice]

True, but he produces, A LOT. He's a dynamic player and other teams notice that. I don't mean this in a patronizing way, but how much of Victor Hedman's time was spent shadowing Patrick Kane? Freeing up ice for the Toews line? As soon as that switched in games 5 and 6 Kane put up 3 points.

Kane's biggest asset is his ability to give the Hawks goals when they need them most and he's been consistently doing that his whole career, even if he isn't driving possession every night (I meant that in a patronizing way )

I know. Thats what I meant by being a decoy. He's not producing, but he takes attention, which frees up other lines.

The problem is it's kind of terrifying to watch him play decoy, because he spends most of those shifts in his own end. Thank god for Duncan Keith and Corey Crawford on more than one occasion.

He's obviously a very valuable player. He's a one-shot guy, who's proven he doesn't need a ton of time with the puck to do damage, and that's terrifying for any team that has to play against him.

I just think that when he's not putting goals in, he's invisible, and at times this playoffs, he was objectively bad through the neutral zone and defensive end on the other side of the puck.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Agreed that he was downright bad at points, but he turned it up at the end of series' so it's a wash for me

 

[Chelios]

True, but he produces, A LOT. He's a dynamic player and other teams notice that. I don't mean this in a patronizing way, but how much of Victor Hedman's time was spent shadowing Patrick Kane? Freeing up ice for the Toews line? As soon as that switched in games 5 and 6 Kane put up 3 points.

Kane's biggest asset is his ability to give the Hawks goals when they need them most and he's been consistently doing that his whole career, even if he isn't driving possession every night (I meant that in a patronizing way )

But thats the thing... he doesn't produce "a lot" more than Toews. Their points per game is not really all that different, especially at even strength. There would certainly be an argument to be had if Kane produced significantly more than Toews across a big sample size, but he really hasn't. And when you take into consideration all other parts of the game aside from scoring, Toews blows him out of the water.

There is certainly an argument to be had for Keith being as important as Toews (I personally find it difficult to compare a Dman to a Forward), but there really isn't any argument for Kane.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Kane Regular Season: .97 PPG
Kane Playoffs: .98 PPG

Toews Regular Season: .89 PPG
Toews Playoffs: .87 PPG

This isn't an argument I want to have so let's just agree to disagree

 

[JaegerDice]

But thats the thing... he doesn't produce "a lot" more than Toews. Their points per game is not really all that different, especially at even strength. There would certainly be an argument to be had if Kane produced significantly more than Toews across a big sample size, but he really hasn't. And when you take into consideration all other parts of the game aside from scoring, Toews blows him out of the water.

There is certainly an argument to be had for Keith being as important as Toews (I personally find it difficult to compare a Dman to a Forward), but there really isn't any argument for Kane.

This is actually very true.

5v5 Points per 60 (Both regular season and playoffs, career to date):

Toews: 2.21

Kane: 2.34


Kane benefits a ton of a PP system that runs through him. Once you go from 5v5 to all situations you get...


Toews: 2.68

Kane: 3.00


I remember being really shocked just how close Kane and Toews were offensively 5v5 when I started getting into stats.

 

[Keithsteeth]

But thats the thing... he doesn't produce "a lot" more than Toews. Their points per game is not really all that different, especially at even strength. There would certainly be an argument to be had if Kane produced significantly more than Toews across a big sample size, but he really hasn't. And when you take into consideration all other parts of the game aside from scoring, Toews blows him out of the water.

There is certainly an argument to be had for Keith being as important as Toews (I personally find it difficult to compare a Dman to a Forward), but there really isn't any argument for Kane.

However- I think one would have to admit that Toews is usually matched with much better linemates.

At times it seems like Kane's job is to get out there with two mediocre guys and make them dangerous

 

[here come the]

True, but he produces, A LOT. He's a dynamic player and other teams notice that. I don't mean this in a patronizing way, but how much of Victor Hedman's time was spent shadowing Patrick Kane? Freeing up ice for the Toews line? As soon as that switched in games 5 and 6 Kane put up 3 points.

Kane's biggest asset is his ability to give the Hawks goals when they need them most and he's been consistently doing that his whole career, even if he isn't driving possession every night (I meant that in a patronizing way )

In their playoff careers Kane averages about 1 more point per every ten games. Toews produces A LOT. Over the course of the playoffs Toews played harder competition, plays much harder competition in the RS. Kane has much more favorable ZS in the RS and playoffs. Over the last 3 years (which most would consider the best 3 of Kane's career), Toews has been a more productive ES P/60 player. You don't think if they stopped making him kill penalties and gave him more ES time he'd score more and the point gap would be even smaller? Kane's a better PP player, but he's asked to much less and of those things he isn't asked to do, Toews is one of the very best in the world at. And it's not about tearing anyone down, Kane's one of the best wingers in the world and has been a MAJOR difference maker in all 3 cup runs, but he's not as valuable or as good as Toews.

 

[DPHawk]

In their playoff careers Kane averages about 1 more point per every ten games. Toews produces A LOT. Over the course of the playoffs Toews played harder competition, plays much harder competition in the RS. Kane has much more favorable ZS in the RS and playoffs. Over the last 3 years (which most would consider the best 3 of Kane's career), Toews has been a more productive ES P/60 player. You don't think if they stopped making him kill penalties and gave him more ES time he'd score more and the point gap would be even smaller? Kane's a better PP player, but he's asked to much less and of those things he isn't asked to do, Toews is one of the very best in the world at. And it's not about tearing anyone down, Kane's one of the best wingers in the world and has been a MAJOR difference maker in all 3 cup runs, but he's not as valuable or as good as Toews.

He's asked to play with crap linemates and still be the most productive player on offense while Toews is given the best tools the Hawks have to do his job. Kane really doesn't get enough credit for doing things like play with Bolland, Versteeg, Kruger, and moving to center.

Anyways, does anyone find this whole thing tedious? Toews vs other NHL stars, Toews vs Kane vs Keith? Those three aren't going anywhere for a long time and all they do is win together so what is so interesting about hashing out who is the most important or why some mainboard posters don't give Toews enough love?

 

[member 151739]

In their playoff careers Kane averages about 1 more point per every ten games. Toews produces A LOT. Over the course of the playoffs Toews played harder competition

He also plays with Sharp/Saad and Hossa. But yeah, Toews is the greatest. Kane sucks. Let's move on.

(Exaggerating to change the subject. This topic isn't about Toews vs. Kane.)

 

[Chelios]

He also plays with Sharp/Saad and Hossa. But yeah, Toews is the greatest. Kane sucks. Let's move on.

Yeah, that is exactly what we are saying. Its not like we are saying that Kane is one of the best wingers in the game, is one of the most offensively gifted players in the league, but just happens to play on a team with one of the few players who is simply better (all things considered) than he is. Nah, its gotta be black and white.

Edit: missed your edit. Agreed, lets change the subject.

 

[ManChild20]

Ok thats fine but lets think about it this way, what if Kane was given the C, would Toews get as much praise? What is Hoss was given the C? This is why I dont give one player ever the credit for an entire team winning, it does not make sense. Yes Toews is an awesome guy and an awesome captain but so will Kane, Keith, Seabrook, Hossa will be awesome captains. The leadership in the locker room is not coming from one guy, all these guys are leaders.

No one is giving Toews all the credit...but Toews has the C for a reason over those guys, so once again these are pointless hypothetical arguments.

 

[ManChild20]

Another thing that drives me insane as a Hawks fan, which is relevant to this discussion since it is also a big reason why so many belittle Toews "team accomplishments", is the idea that the Hawks are a stacked team that are head and shoulders above all other teams.

As weird as it sounds, it annoys me when people talk about how dominant the Hawks were after the fact when this was not what we were hearing at all while the games were being played.

Take this playoffs for example, we heard prior to each series (not to mention during each series) how our opponent had changed, or were different than other teams the Hawks have beaten in the past. We heard from Preds fans how much better they were this year. We heard from Minnesota fans how they were deeper, and better than the team that took Chicago to 6 games the year before. We heard how this years Ducks team was different, and that they were going to hit the Hawks into submission while Getzlaf/Perry showed how superior they are to Toews/Kane. Finally, in the finals we heard about how there was no way we were going to shutdown the triplets since they had not been ever shut down since becoming a line. Then all of a sudden, after the Hawks win, the narrative becomes that the Hawks are a stacked team and that you could replace any of their players with any other similar player and get the same result.

The fact is that in a salary cap world there is no team that is head and shoulders better than everyone else. Each year there are a handful of teams that can realistically win the cup, and it often comes down to the team who's best players step up when it matters most. The Hawks' best players do it time and time again, which is the main reason people look back at these teams as being better than they actually were.

 

[STC]

I dont think its hate, I think most think he is overrated and maybe rightfully so, I dont like the argument of how many cups does he have, cups are a team accomplishment, I am sure put Crosby with the supporting cast that Toews has and he wins the cup every time as well. I also dont like the argument of Crawford has two rings, its the same thing, championships are a team accomplishment and one player should not get credit for it. Put Toews in Edmonton and I doubt he gets any cups for the rest of his career. Important note to the hot headed fan boys: I dont hate Toews, I am just making a logical point, so try not to reply with your emotions.

I don't think you understand the definition of "logical".

Supporting an argument with nothing other than hypotheticals that are impossible to prove is hardly logical. In fact, its the opposite.