Around The NHL #2 - Playoffs?

[cobra427]

Let's play Schmaltz with Cousins and Archibald for 8 minutes a night and see how he looks before making these kinds of statements...
The fact that talent looks better playing with talent isn't exactly revolutionary. The fact we gave up on yet another kid without even trying to see if he'd work here should alarm you. Especially when he looks like a 2C immediately somewhere else, but we couldn't find any use for him.
We're #'ed if we don't change the way we do things here. I'm not entirely sold we even got the best player today having watched Chicago. It's certainly not clear that with a year of actual time to adjust and develop by playing his natural role while in the NHL Strome will not have improved.

Just because Strome has some points playing a handful of games with Patrick Kane, the best winger in the game today, doesn't make him a 2C. Strome is benefitting with points from players around him, not the opposite where he is benefitting anyone else. Stromes play away from the puck is still poor and that will ultimately limit his minutes if he is held accountable. It will be tough for the new young coach to do that given his boss just hired him and acquired Strome. The coach will go out of his way to not make Bowman look bad.

 

[Jamieh]

Just because Strome has some points playing a handful of games with Patrick Kane, the best winger in the game today, doesn't make him a 2C. Strome is benefitting with points from players around him, not the opposite where he is benefitting anyone else. Stromes play away from the puck is still poor and that will ultimately limit his minutes if he is held accountable. It will be tough for the new young coach to do that given his boss just hired him and acquired Strome. The coach will go out of his way to not make Bowman look bad.

I argue the Kane assertion.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Secondary assists can be as important as a primary assist. I'm not mad about the trade, players are traded all the time, but what rattles my a-- is that RT didn't bother to give Strome a chance to succeed, not a f------ chance. He did with Perlini, has with Fischer, even Crouse, so why in hell not Strome, who has dominated at every level he has played in. I knew this from the start of training camp that Strome was a goner.

Probably because Strome decided not to do the elements of work that any coach or GM asked of the list of other players that were given that opportunity.

Strome is looking like the player that we wanted him to turn into here. It's the same argument over and over again - prove that you are willing to play as needed and you get time in key situations and with key players. He didn't do that here and he appears to be doing that more in Chicago. If a player chooses to play less hard here and play harder after a trade, that's an issue on the player. It also helps to have a player like Kane that is being put with Strome. We dont have Kane yet. Keller is trying to get there, but we don't have the type of player that can draw attention away from Strome.

 

[lanky]

If a player chooses to play less hard here and play harder after a trade, that's an issue on the player.

If it happens repeatedly with different players, then it's an issue on the team.

 

[Jakey53]

Probably because Strome decided not to do the elements of work that any coach or GM asked of the list of other players that were given that opportunity.

Strome is looking like the player that we wanted him to turn into here. It's the same argument over and over again - prove that you are willing to play as needed and you get time in key situations and with key players. He didn't do that here and he appears to be doing that more in Chicago. If a player chooses to play less hard here and play harder after a trade, that's an issue on the player. It also helps to have a player like Kane that is being put with Strome. We dont have Kane yet. Keller is trying to get there, but we don't have the type of player that can draw attention away from Strome.

IF our dumb a-- coach would have tried him with Keller we could have seen here the player we wanted him to turn into. Strome was good enough to be on the PP, but not good enough to play with better players than the ones he was saddled with. Again, I'm not mad that we traded Strome, rather pissed at RT for not even trying Strome with Keller, Chucky or a Grabner. Strome didn't have a chance, yet RT has put Cousins, Archibald and even Perlini when he was here on different lines. Perlini, Cousins both played on the first line as some point during this year. Chayka had said early in the year he was happy with Strome, then when he was traded he made some kind of dumb a---- comment about hope.

 

[Jakey53]

If it happens repeatedly with different players, then it's an issue on the team.

Most times I think it is the responsibilities of the player to perform, but they have to be put in a position to succeed. Turris was, Duclair was, and others have, but not Strome. Strome still might turn into a turd, who knows, but he also might turn into a real good C, something that we have been looking for the last decade.

 

[cobra427]

Most times I think it is the responsibilities of the player to perform, but they have to be put in a position to succeed. Turris was, Duclair was, and others have, but not Strome. Strome still might turn into a turd, who knows, but he also might turn into a real good C, something that we have been looking for the last decade.

Think about that for a minute. We have needed a true 1C since JR 15 years ago. Do you really think Chayka and Tocc are stupid enough to let Strome go if that is even remotely possible or if it is possible he can be as good as Stepan (2c)? As you know, I am not a huge Tocc fan and I think Chayka is young and capable of mistakes. This one would be glaring, I just don't see them both being that stupid, given our need and the multiple opportunities they gave Strome. I have also seen Strome from my third row seats at the United center many times since the trade. He is being propped up on a bad team with a great winger (IMO).

I might be wrong (wouldn't be the first time or the last), but I think Strome is a lot like Duclair in that he will get his points in the right situation but ultimately hurts the team with the rest of his play. That will eventually catch up with him when the coach needs to win more than please his boss.

 

[CLW]

The idea that you have to work yourself up from the 4th line to the 1st line is outdated. Coaches in Finland are playing their best players on the top lines regardless of age or seniority because they know it's no good asking a talented player to play a role that does not suit their game. Finland lost a decade or more of player development because they tried to make players fit a specific mold rather than let the players inherent talent express itself.

 

[BUX7PHX]

If it happens repeatedly with different players, then it's an issue on the team.

True. So far, I have seen two players that this holds some weight to: Turris and to a lesser degree, Strome. We knew Turris was not happy here in many respects. Still not certain if that is 100% the case with Strome, but I do think there was some smoke to that fire.

I don't necessarily see that with Duclair, as many coaches have appeared to have similar issues with his sporadic play.

Also, the players that this is happening with are typically under the age of 22. That tells me that there is a learning curve for these players who probably believe that they are ready for the biggest of situations, but are not emotionally mature or responsible enough to be at that level yet. I think that the trade may have renewed Strome's thinking and whether he changed his thinking and approach or he already had the right approach but dogged it for the Coyotes remains to be seen. We had seen that with Turris before, so it is not out of the question that this was a scenario as well...

 

[BUX7PHX]

The idea that you have to work yourself up from the 4th line to the 1st line is outdated. Coaches in Finland are playing their best players on the top lines regardless of age or seniority because they know it's no good asking a talented player to play a role that does not suit their game. Finland lost a decade or more of player development because they tried to make players fit a specific mold rather than let the players inherent talent express itself.

That mindset has actually changed very recently. Like only within the past 5-8 years or so.

I thought that around 2011 draft was when players like Landeskog and others started to go the juniors route b/c the time that they were getting was so little in SHL or Liiga, and that started to necessitate the changes in those leagues and how they were using some of their young talent. I could be a little off on timelines, but I thought that many drafts would always take about this Swedish or Finnish player that was getting only 7 or 8 minutes per game in a men's league as a 17 or 18 year old. Look at Auston Matthew's going to the Swiss league and all of a sudden, he is being relied on way more than what happened in Euro leagues in the past. Maybe it is slightly more prevalent in the Czech or German leagues?

Anyone more familiar with the history of some of these leagues that can comment?

 

[TheLegend]

Auston Matthews went to the Swiss league because the caliber of play and environment exceeded playing in junior. He ended up playing with men instead kids his own age.

Babcock also started him out on the third line. But he quickly moved up because his play dictated it.

It’s rediculous to compare Matthews to Strome anyway. There was a lot of speculation back during the McDavid draft he would have knocked Eichel down a spot and actually pushed for the 1OA spot had he been eligible and the right team be there.

 

[RemoAZ]

IF our dumb a-- coach would have tried him with Keller we could have seen here the player we wanted him to turn into. Strome was good enough to be on the PP, but not good enough to play with better players than the ones he was saddled with. Again, I'm not mad that we traded Strome, rather pissed at RT for not even trying Strome with Keller, Chucky or a Grabner. Strome didn't have a chance, yet RT has put Cousins, Archibald and even Perlini when he was here on different lines. Perlini, Cousins both played on the first line as some point during this year. Chayka had said early in the year he was happy with Strome, then when he was traded he made some kind of dumb a---- comment about hope.

I made a f***ing thread about this. Every time he got a shift or two with Keller or our best forwards, he looked like a different player. He looked like a different player instantly after the trade because he was installed as the #2 center day one. The kid is a good offensive player right now with plenty of talent and time to get a lot better and he's improving defensively. Chicago has recently put Anisimov on his line so he and Kane can concentrate more on offense. That's a great coaching move, putting players in a position to succeed and making the best use of their abilities. Tocc and Chayka simply didn't think he deserved a shot and that is not only concerning, it's unacceptable for an organization that absolutely must develop draft picks to build a contender. Never mind the fact that he brings offense and we're about the worst offensive team in the whole friggin league. Too many of the trades over the last year stink of desperation to try and win a few more games this year to save jobs when they should be about building a contender that can actually put some winning seasons together.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Auston Matthews went to the Swiss league because the caliber of play and environment exceeded playing in junior. He ended up playing with men instead kids his own age.

Babcock also started him out on the third line. But he quickly moved up because his play dictated it.

It’s rediculous to compare Matthews to Strome anyway. There was a lot of speculation back during the McDavid draft he would have knocked Eichel down a spot and actually pushed for the 1OA spot had he been eligible and the right team be there.

Correct, but the point was that 10 years ago, if a player like Matthews went to the Swiss league, he would be subjected to 7-9 minutes per game, but even the Euro leagues have gradually started to figure out that the 18 year old kids (or even younger than that) can keep up with the players in that league. That was a situation that didn't happen previously.

As far as Strome goes, that's fine if he looked slightly different when on Keller's line. I agree that he may have looked better in certain respects, but maybe he wasn't consistent enough defensively and away from the puck to merit getting significant time on top lines. If someone isn't able to keep up defensively, wouldn't that signify the same thought process of development and putting him on the 3rd line so that he can develop his defensive play further so that when he is relied upon for top line minutes, he wouldn't be a liability?

It seems like development gets argued, but maybe he didn't respond to development in a conducive way, and that is where we felt forced to move on from him.

 

[Jakey53]

Correct, but the point was that 10 years ago, if a player like Matthews went to the Swiss league, he would be subjected to 7-9 minutes per game, but even the Euro leagues have gradually started to figure out that the 18 year old kids (or even younger than that) can keep up with the players in that league. That was a situation that didn't happen previously.

As far as Strome goes, that's fine if he looked slightly different when on Keller's line. I agree that he may have looked better in certain respects, but maybe he wasn't consistent enough defensively and away from the puck to merit getting significant time on top lines. If someone isn't able to keep up defensively, wouldn't that signify the same thought process of development and putting him on the 3rd line so that he can develop his defensive play further so that when he is relied upon for top line minutes, he wouldn't be a liability?

It seems like development gets argued, but maybe he didn't respond to development in a conducive way, and that is where we felt forced to move on from him.

You Strome haters always come back and talk about his D and play away from the puck, which was fine by the way, is the reason he didn't get top minutes. What a bunch of BS. The reason he never got top line minutes is RT, and RT only. How can any coach justify and put Cousins on the first line, or play Archibald higher than the fourth line and saddle Strome to the fourth line, who has produced at every level he has played. What a moron of a coach, but at least we got a very good player in Schmaltz.

 

[BUX7PHX]

You Strome haters always come back and talk about his D and play away from the puck, which was fine by the way, is the reason he didn't get top minutes. What a bunch of BS. The reason he never got top line minutes is RT, and RT only. How can any coach justify and put Cousins on the first line, or play Archibald higher than the fourth line and saddle Strome to the fourth line, who has produced at every level he has played. What a moron of a coach, but at least we got a very good player in Schmaltz.

I think that you are answering your own question there, Jake.

If it was 100% evident that he was effective both offensively and defensively, then what reason would he not be on the first or second line 100% of the time? Wasn't a part of Chayka's philosophy that there was a clear message throughout the organization, from GM to coach to scouts to trainers regarding what needs to get done? If they are following that line of thinking, then it is not solely on Tocchet's shoulders, but also on the GM, and others as well.

You're scraping for answers when everything in the way that our management team had been shooting for suggests that this wasn't a one-off scenario where the coach goes off-script from every other piece of information in other areas. This was evident to the GM that there was a lack of something on Strome's part, as well as the coaches, as well as strength/conditioning, and even so far as to be noticeable to the other players on the team.

But again, you want to put every ounce of blame on the coaching staff alone, and treat Strome as if though he was absolved of any negative attributes to his play. It sounds like you have never had the opportunity to coach any sport on any level and fail to understand that if someone doesn't show the ability to get some parts of the process done, then it is common place for a coaching staff to ignore where a player needs to get better at for the sake of just getting him minutes.

 

[lanky]

I put the blame on Barroway. I see no other reason for Chayka's impatience. There's a win now mandate that has been passed down through the organization. The mandate is compromising the long term outlook of the roster but Barroway doesn't care after the team is sold. The mandate is failing, which is another story.

 

[Jakey53]

I think that you are answering your own question there, Jake.

If it was 100% evident that he was effective both offensively and defensively, then what reason would he not be on the first or second line 100% of the time? Wasn't a part of Chayka's philosophy that there was a clear message throughout the organization, from GM to coach to scouts to trainers regarding what needs to get done? If they are following that line of thinking, then it is not solely on Tocchet's shoulders, but also on the GM, and others as well.

You're scraping for answers when everything in the way that our management team had been shooting for suggests that this wasn't a one-off scenario where the coach goes off-script from every other piece of information in other areas. This was evident to the GM that there was a lack of something on Strome's part, as well as the coaches, as well as strength/conditioning, and even so far as to be noticeable to the other players on the team.

But again, you want to put every ounce of blame on the coaching staff alone, and treat Strome as if though he was absolved of any negative attributes to his play. It sounds like you have never had the opportunity to coach any sport on any level and fail to understand that if someone doesn't show the ability to get some parts of the process done, then it is common place for a coaching staff to ignore where a player needs to get better at for the sake of just getting him minutes.

I thought Strome could have done much better, but I now think he also knew the writing was on the wall, so he went through the motions. I mean, most of us thought he would be traded sooner than later, so I would assume Strome knew this long before us. It would not have mattered what Strome did here, he was a dead man walking. You can thank the good lord that Chicago believed in Strome, otherwise we would not have gotten a player like Schmaltz.

 

[Jamieh]

Couldn't we have matched that Benning offer to Edmonton for Caggiula??

 

[Jakey53]

I put the blame on Barroway. I see no other reason for Chayka's impatience. There's a win now mandate that has been passed down through the organization. The mandate is compromising the long term outlook of the roster but Barroway doesn't care after the team is sold. The mandate is failing, which is another story.

AB gonzo, and Doan back.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I thought Strome could have done much better, but I now think he also knew the writing was on the wall, so he went through the motions. I mean, most of us thought he would be traded sooner than later, so I would assume Strome knew this long before us. It would not have mattered what Strome did here, he was a dead man walking. You can thank the good lord that Chicago believed in Strome, otherwise we would not have gotten a player like Schmaltz.

I think that the frustrating thing for me in that instance is that if you see the writing is on the wall, to some degree, I would have enough pride in myself to not give anyone the reason to continue to think that way. I know that isn't the easiest thing to do, but I do like to think that if someone has a negative perception of you, whether deserved or undeserved, you are the one who controls the elements that can make that person think that way. I wouldn't want a future team to have this idea that I couldn't fit with the team.

Stylistically, that was probably the bigger issue in terms of how Strome's game played within our system and where there were some issues. Now, the counter-argument is that Chicago hasn't been known as a defensive team in their style, and that is where the situation is murky from an effort level. It seems to point to the idea that the effort level wasn't there, and the trade served as both a fresh start and a wake-up call for the player. Especially because the firing of Q opened the doors for the new coach to kind of experiment around for some time, and maybe even for the entire year. With little pressure on him to completely turn everything around, Colliton is in that position to put Strome in different scenarios that he may not have had the luxury of being put in here. Those comments about Barroway's win now mindset may actually be more of an influence as well and is something that I forgot about.

But yes, if the writing was on the wall, it shouldn't deter someone from then shutting themselves out of opportunities to improve. And that is likely where the "hope" statement by Chayka should be of note. There was hope that he would put the pieces together, and even if the writing was on the wall, coaches down the road in his career are going to be just as focused on improvements to the game. As an example, if he is being relied on to be less of a defensive presence now in Chicago, that doesn't mean that he won't have to face that down the line in due time whether with the Hawks or a different team altogether once free agency or other potential trades hit.

 

[_Del_]

Stylistically, that was probably the bigger issue

We're so flush with top six talent that we can waste the guys that don't fit our stylistic wish list. Who cares if you can put up 60 points if you don't do it with style...

Think about that for a minute. We have needed a true 1C since JR 15 years ago. Do you really think Chayka and Tocc are stupid enough to let Strome go if that is even remotely possible or if it is possible he can be as good as Stepan (2c)?

If it was 100% evident that he was effective both offensively and defensively, then what reason would he not be on the first or second line 100% of the time?

For the same reason they discarded a previous 3ov player citing those same ridiculous statements. For the same reason an idiot might say Domi is a third line, dime a dozen winger.
They suck at evaluating talent and are extremely short-sighted and narrow-minded and have no clue on how to develop talent or make use of talent that doesn't fit in the extremely narrow field of view provided by their bias-blinders.

 

[hbk]

By style we are referring to the way they play the game. Does a player push the play or do he stop and go. The current NHL and is much about a quick transition with emphasis on speed. The wait for a play to develop style isn't as prevalent.

 

[_Del_]

I don't think we have the luxury of benching or burying players based on stylistic differences. That's been our recipe for immediate short-term "success" for a decade.

 

[hbk]

I don't think we have the luxury of benching or burying players based on stylistic differences. That's been our recipe for immediate short-term "success" for a decade.

I've been complaining for a season and a half already about everything being about fitting a desired system instead of a coach creating a system or multiple systems to suit the players actually on the team.

 

[cobra427]

We're so flush with top six talent that we can waste the guys that don't fit our stylistic wish list. Who cares if you can put up 60 points if you don't do it with style...



For the same reason they discarded a previous 3ov player citing those same ridiculous statements. For the same reason an idiot might say Domi is a third line, dime a dozen winger.
They suck at evaluating talent and are extremely short-sighted and narrow-minded and have no clue on how to develop talent or make use of talent that doesn't fit in the extremely narrow field of view provided by their bias-blinders.

Do you mean "they" by the ownership group/coach/GM/team, 3 owners ago and a trade of 3OA 7 or 8 years ago?