News Article: Brian Burke: ‘Mikhail Grabovski is just a class act’

[The_Chosen_One]

We will not be using JVR on the 3rd line in a shut down role.....maybe at best a couple of games to remind him that he has to continue to work hard.

We'll use him against high teams that have higher performing forwards. Giroux - who is a first liner - is often given shifts against top lines. Likewise, Datsyuk or Zetterberg ( first liners as well), are often used against top lines in "third line" roles.

You do know that the playoffs and the regular season is much different?

Of course. However, the playoff did tell us the strength and weaknesses of our forwards.

We will have JVR playing with Bozak line or Kadri line and not on the 3rd line. There will be times when Carlyle will mix things up to keep everyone on their toes but he is not going to use a $4.255 million skilled winger in a checking role during the regular season. Unless he gets out played by two other left wingers. I just do not see that happening.

JVR will largely play with Kessel. That is why I suggested that he's going to be double-shifted. Line combinations tend to follow a pair setup. The first pair is Bozak - Kessel, while third linemate tends to see regular time.

As for mixing things, I could see that happen in the most competitive conference in the NHL.

Bolland is vastly more suited as a shut down center than Grabo, Bolland was injured last season and was playing on the 2nd line before getting injured. He is a very effective shut down center and has improved our team. He will be playing with Kulemin and McClements for the majority of the season and moved up and down to supply some incentive to our other centers. I could see him between Kessel and JVR or Lupul at times when we require it, if Bozak was just killing a penalty etc, or with Kessel and Kulemin when Carlyle double shifts Kessel as he likes to do.

Bolland was not even a stellar shut down centre three seasons ago. This was even though he spent a significant amount of time with Hossa. The season after that, I'm not even sure if he was the "shut down" forward. I could claim Bickell and Frolik was, but in Chicago's case, that workload was heavily re-distributed due to the two-way work of Hossa, Sharp, and Toews.

Nonetheless, I do not see a Bergeron, Couts/ Giroux Datsyuk, Plekanec, Turris-level shut down line. That is especially the case if McClement is on the wing. His diminishing role in the playoffs suggested that he is much better on the fourth line. Nothing wrong with him, but he didn't take the shut down role in Colorado even though Stastny was performing much like Grabo but at a much higher cap hit. Most top forwards do not have the two-way acumen of Datsyuk, but I'd rather have Stasts up against top lines than McClement. However, as a PK specialist, he's excellent,

Our 3rd line is so much better then last year. Clarkson can also be spoted in on the 3rd line at times to give it more of a presence with Bolland and Kulemin it would be scary.

Clarkson was never used in a shut down role. He never had the positional discipline on his own end. However, I can see him being used in a "third line" role if you mean, depth scoring.

We have so many more options then we did last year as adding Bolland and Clarkson and Colborne for the whole year gives us more flexibility in our line up. I just do not see us using JVR or any skilled winger on the shut down line for an extended period of time.

I could see Colborne play up on the wing on the 3rd line and McClements Centering the 4th line.....having him fresher for the PK and not effecting our line matching as much.

I agree here. Colborne is going to be that Bickell/ Frolik hybrid. He should be able to do what Bickell does, and his creativity is not that far from Frolik so that's going to keep top lines honest.

Out
Grabo
C Mac
Frattin

In
Bolland
Clarkson
Colborne

Grabovski does seem more like a Datsyuk-esque possession forward to me than Bolland, though. However, overall, the introduction of Bernier, Clarkson and younger like Colborne are going to make us a much stronger team. Bolland does have the agitator element that Grabovski doesn't have, and it's going to be interesting see that utilised.

 

[diceman934]

We'll use him against high teams that have higher performing forwards. Giroux - who is a first liner - is often given shifts against top lines. Likewise, Datsyuk or Zetterberg ( first liners as well), are often used against top lines in "third line" roles.

Of course. However, the playoff did tell us the strength and weaknesses of our forwards.

JVR will largely play with Kessel. That is why I suggested that he's going to be double-shifted. Line combinations tend to follow a pair setup. The first pair is Bozak - Kessel, while third linemate tends to see regular time.

As for mixing things, I could see that happen in the most competitive conference in the NHL.

Bolland was not even a stellar shut down centre three seasons ago. This was even though he spent a significant amount of time with Hossa. The season after that, I'm not even sure if he was the "shut down" forward. I could claim Bickell and Frolik was, but in Chicago's case, that workload was heavily re-distributed due to the two-way work of Hossa, Sharp, and Toews.

Nonetheless, I do not see a Bergeron, Couts/ Giroux Datsyuk, Plekanec, Turris-level shut down line. That is especially the case if McClement is on the wing. His diminishing role in the playoffs suggested that he is much better on the fourth line. Nothing wrong with him, but he didn't take the shut down role in Colorado even though Stastny was performing much like Grabo but at a much higher cap hit. Most top forwards do not have the two-way acumen of Datsyuk, but I'd rather have Stasts up against top lines than McClement. However, as a PK specialist, he's excellent,

Clarkson was never used in a shut down role. He never had the positional discipline on his own end. However, I can see him being used in a "third line" role if you mean, depth scoring.

I agree here. Colborne is going to be that Bickell/ Frolik hybrid. He should be able to do what Bickell does, and his creativity is not that far from Frolik so that's going to keep top lines honest.

Grabovski does seem more like a Datsyuk-esque possession forward to me than Bolland, though. However, overall, the introduction of Bernier, Clarkson and younger like Colborne are going to make us a much stronger team. Bolland does have the agitator element that Grabovski doesn't have, and it's going to be interesting see that utilised.

Carlyle is a coach who likes to play 4 lines during the regular season he will continue to do so.....hence me asking you if you knew the difference.

Contrary to what you believe Carlyle knows what he is doing and quickly made some adjustments that allowed us to make a series out it against Boston....we lacked some items and many were addressed. One a dependable goalie to have as a back up or starter as we had only one option last year. More toughness in our lineup that can play more meaningful minutes .....hence Clarkson and Bolland. Those are players that gives us a better playoff team next year.

Clarkson is an up grade in toughness over C Mac.
Bolland a upgrade over Grabo in toughness and as a better center in the role that Grabo played in the playoffs last season.

I see a vast improvement in the 3 lines that we can ice next season over the 3 lines that we could have iced last season.

I do not see JVR being double shift as that I believe would be Kessel's role as we could get him away from the top checking lines....only this year with a better over all line.

Last thing...you are not going to convince me that Bolland is not vastly more appropriate for our 3rd line this coming season then Grabo was this year. More physical and meaner as well as much more defensively aware.

Here is his strengths and weakness as Identified by a pro:

Assets: Owns plenty of two-way ability. Is versatile, polished and plays a very solid all-around game. Can be used in all game situations. Likes to play an in-your-face style and can be a pest to play against.
Flaws: Extremely defensively responsible, that part of his game will take away from getting high point totals--because he is needed more for his defensive work. Must avoid more serious injuries.

So his flaw is that he is a defense first type player as apposed to Grabo who is an offense first type player.

I usually do not use Corsi but I will here: Bolland's QOC was the highest on Chicago in each of the past 4 years and 2 in the year before that. I guess that somewhat disproves your assertion that he is not a shut down player unless you think his two time Stanley cup winning coach is a fool.

 

[Ari91]

Just to be clear... you're describing why the Kule-Grabo-MacA unit was a very good one: no guy did anything purely, everyone was pretty good at defense, passing, shooting. I'm really not sure what's 'unfair' about producing stats that confirm this when that's the argument. I'd rather the team not have got rid of 2/3rds of their best line for the last 2 full seasons.

As to this year's stats, I gave you Kessel's. I left out GRabo because his role varied: from 2nd line C (first ten), to shutdown (most of the season), to something else as Kadri got tried out on a few tougher assignments (and saw his production dry up). Similarly, Kadri started on a sheltered youth scoring line; after injuries to Frattin and Lupul and the Grabo slump, he was slotted in with better scoring wingers, but still pretty sheltered; after he excelled at this, he was less sheltered. There was a lot of movement in the lineup that makes the numbers noisy. The players with the most clearly defined roles were Kessel, Bozak, and the facepunchers. Even McClement did double duty as their center and Grabo's wing for much of the season.

That said, I can put these together... sometime this weekend.

I think that's true of most people who use stats. Personally, I like them because they do help to contextualize anecdotal things I see, sometimes making it part of a larger pattern, sometimes showing that it's merely something that annoys me about or I find endearing in a player's game. But, you're right, it goes both ways. The numbers not only paint a bigger picture than anyone's memory for particular plays can manage, but the numbers themselves need to be contextualized with things that you see and know about usage and assignments.

I apologize, I got myself mixed up between your argument and likeabosski's argument because my discussion with you derived from a conversation with likeabosski. Looking back at your stats, you were showcasing the efficiency of each line but due to my conversation with likeabosski, I assumed you were just extending his argument, using those line stats as proof that Grabo is the better defensive player than Bozak. That is why I brought up the point about which centre had better defensive linemates (which would impact the overall efficiency of the line).

My annoyance with stats is when people bring it into a discussion as a way to 'prove' they're right. Relatively speaking, stats don't prove anything. They are a reasonable way of supporting your point of view but very rarely do they prove that a point of view is actually fact simply because stats are not a perfect measure of the whole picture. I find that way too many people on this forum use stats for this purpose and it's rather annoying. Stats are derived from mathematical formulas but the way we apply them are still subject to our bias.

 

[Guided by Veseys]

My annoyance with stats is when people bring it into a discussion as a way to 'prove' they're right. Relatively speaking, stats don't prove anything. They are a reasonable way of supporting your point of view but very rarely do they prove that a point of view is actually fact simply because stats are not a perfect measure of the whole picture. I find that way too many people on this forum use stats for this purpose and it's rather annoying. Stats are derived from mathematical formulas but the way we apply them are still subject to our bias.

Definitely. I also think that it's bizarre that people take these simple stats and assume that the average fan can't grasp them. Everybody can grasp them, they are too simplistic and the majority of sports fans can see through them. Grab an actually complex algorithm and maybe you can act smarmy but everybody can see through the basic flawed "analytics" of corsi, et al.

 

[mr grieves]

Definitely. I also think that it's bizarre that people take these simple stats and assume that the average fan can't grasp them. Everybody can grasp them, they are too simplistic and the majority of sports fans can see through them. Grab an actually complex algorithm and maybe you can act smarmy but everybody can see through the basic flawed "analytics" of corsi, et al.

No, they can't. And the numbers themselves are nothing to 'see though.' As the the Crazed said, the stats aren't 'proof' of anything one way or another. They're numbers that represent things that happen on the ice. They only become 'proof' when they're attached to certain propositions -- Bozak is terrible defensive player, Grabo is an elite possession player, Kadri was lucky offensively, etc. -- and then you can say whether you think what the numbers describe are accurate reflections of 'defensive ability' or 'possession' or 'offensive luck.' But Corsi's no different from goals or shooting percentage or icetime -- and similarly useful in supporting some arguments and not others.

Dismissing Corsi because you don't like the attitude of some who use it is stupid. I find lots of people with specialized knowledge to be a bit arrogant. I'm not going to try to write my will, fix my car, or remove my own gall bladder over that.

 

[Guided by Veseys]

Dismissing Corsi because you don't like the attitude of some who use it is stupid. I find lots of people with specialized knowledge to be a bit arrogant. I'm not going to try to write my will, fix my car, or remove my own gall bladder over that.

Yes because understanding Corsi is just as complex as fixing a car or removing a gall bladder. I was addressing the tendency of some sports fans using Corsi as a "proof" in evaluating a player. No big deal.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

Carlyle is a coach who likes to play 4 lines during the regular season he will continue to do so.....hence me asking you if you knew the difference.

Of course, he does. All coaches do. He mentioned in his interview that he likes to establish effective possession like Chicago. In that case, we'd be seeing four lines based on skill vs the cliché grinder line.

Contrary to what you believe Carlyle knows what he is doing and quickly made some adjustments that allowed us to make a series out it against Boston....we lacked some items and many were addressed. One a dependable goalie to have as a back up or starter as we had only one option last year. More toughness in our lineup that can play more meaningful minutes .....hence Clarkson and Bolland. Those are players that gives us a better playoff team next year.

Carlyle is not perfect. He made line changes where skill was substituting grit. We didn't see McLaren/ Orr iced as much even though he relied heavily on them in the regular season. We saw much greater usage skilled forwards like Frattin, MacArthur, and even Colborne.

Clarkson is an up grade in toughness over C Mac.

Clarkson is a good signing. He's going to make our top six tougher.

Bolland a upgrade over Grabo in toughness and as a better center in the role that Grabo played in the playoffs last season.

Bolland was a fourth liner in Chicago and played pretty ineffective in that role. However, he is a great agitator if he's allowed to play with Ladd-equivalent wingers. I don't see that in either Kulemin or McClement.

I do not see JVR being double shift as that I believe would be Kessel's role as we could get him away from the top checking lines....only this year with a better over all line.

Well, Kessel is going to be double-shifted regardless. We'll probably see him playing with both Bozak and Kadri.

Here is his strengths and weakness as Identified by a pro:

Assets: Owns plenty of two-way ability. Is versatile, polished and plays a very solid all-around game. Can be used in all game situations. Likes to play an in-your-face style and can be a pest to play against.

Flaws: Extremely defensively responsible, that part of his game will take away from getting high point totals--because he is needed more for his defensive work. Must avoid more serious injuries.

Who is the "pro" who wrote this? As I said, I don't see Bolland being our own answer to Bergeron or Turris. Chicago's playing style is predicated on four lines that can drive offence. Toews and the rest really share the defensive burden with Bolland.

I usually do not use Corsi but I will here: Bolland's QOC was the highest on Chicago in each of the past 4 years and 2 in the year before that. I guess that somewhat disproves your assertion that he is not a shut down player unless you think his two time Stanley cup winning coach is a fool.

It doesn't disprove anything. Grabovski had a higher CORSI, yet he wasn't effective. It is all about effectiveness. Bolland was hardly effective last season and during the playoffs, his main linemates were Frolik and Krueger. In other words, he was a fourth liner.

To treat Bolland as some sort of Bergeron/ Giroux/ Turris-equivalent shut down centre is ridiculous. Let's remember that he was behind Toews who is superior to any forward on our team. His presence is why Chicago can afford to have a weaker third line. Ironically, they ended up moving Bolland for nothing, while they resigned Bickel for $4 million.

 

[therealkoho]

I understand the concept yes...and its not like I don't believe that team cohesion (chemistry) isnt important. A dysfunctional team is not usually a good team. Point being its over rated to a degree. The Bozak-Kessel chemistry means nothing. Its nonsense. Phil Kessel will put up as many points if not more with Grabovski, Kadri and probably Bolland.

Grabovski was most likely liked by his team mates too. He was ready to do anything to win it seemed. I am not a big Grabovski guy, liked him but he was overpaid by at least 2M IMO. But so is Bozak. I'm not happy that Nonis brought him back at that kind of money. I think we have seen Bozak peak. He reminds a lot of Matt Stajan with less playmaking ability but better faceoff skills. He is not a bad player but he represents the mediocrity that the team has toiled in for a decade now and its getting tiresome.

Perhaps someone will smell some salts and pair Kadri with Phil so that the Leafs can have a top line that can rival the best in the East. Dont even care who is on the other wing.

They have chemistry and it is important to Kessel and that's what matters once you put the team on the ice

Phil is comfortable with him the coach is comfortable with it and the line scores lots, and that offence is something that Matt Stajan has never been able to accomplish no matter who's been on his wings. Bozak is never going to be considered the prototypical #1 centre because of the people he gets compared to, there are few really elite centres in the league and while Philly if hooked up with a guy like Toews or Datsyuk might produce 10 more points a season, the Leafs just don't have that guy

Kadri is going to be playing with JVR and Clarkson, two wingers who will support him as that is how his game works best. Phil needs a centre who'll allow him to carry pucks and Kadri isn't that guy.

 

[diceman934]

Of course, he does. All coaches do. He mentioned in his interview that he likes to establish effective possession like Chicago. In that case, we'd be seeing four lines based on skill vs the cliché grinder line.

Carlyle is not perfect. He made line changes where skill was substituting grit. We didn't see McLaren/ Orr iced as much even though he relied heavily on them in the regular season. We saw much greater usage skilled forwards like Frattin, MacArthur, and even Colborne.

Clarkson is a good signing. He's going to make our top six tougher.

Bolland was a fourth liner in Chicago and played pretty ineffective in that role. However, he is a great agitator if he's allowed to play with Ladd-equivalent wingers. I don't see that in either Kulemin or McClement.

Well, Kessel is going to be double-shifted regardless. We'll probably see him playing with both Bozak and Kadri.

Who is the "pro" who wrote this? As I said, I don't see Bolland being our own answer to Bergeron or Turris. Chicago's playing style is predicated on four lines that can drive offence. Toews and the rest really share the defensive burden with Bolland.

It doesn't disprove anything. Grabovski had a higher CORSI, yet he wasn't effective. It is all about effectiveness. Bolland was hardly effective last season and during the playoffs, his main linemates were Frolik and Krueger. In other words, he was a fourth liner.

To treat Bolland as some sort of Bergeron/ Giroux/ Turris-equivalent shut down centre is ridiculous. Let's remember that he was behind Toews who is superior to any forward on our team. His presence is why Chicago can afford to have a weaker third line. Ironically, they ended up moving Bolland for nothing, while they resigned Bickel for $4 million.

Bolland was hurt last year while playing on the second line and when he returned he still was not 100%.....his coach still played him against all the best players in the NHL in a shut down role, he was not as effective as he had been in the previous 4 years but he was banged up. You can ignore the fact that he was used more then his team mates against the best players in the League all you want, because by doing so it supports your stance that Grabo is better in that role....but that is not true. Look at their Corsi numbers over the past 4 years....here is a snap shot of Bolland's.

Bolland has been Chicago top shut down player for the past 4 years and they have won two Stanley Cups.....he is still young and has lots of hockey to play.....He will be loved by the fans....he is a warrior in every way you can use that word...We got a gift!

 

[bunjay]

Wow.....

I posted a video of all of Grabo's 29 goals in that season....it was to refute another person's claim that Grabo was as good a player maker as C Mac.....If you bothered to watch that video it showed C Mac with a **** load of first assists. I back up my opinion with a video.

You keep saying that as if a video of Grabovski's goals from a certain season say anything about his playmaking skills relative to MacArthur's. "I posted proof" or "I backed up my opinion" doesn't mean that's actually what you did, no matter how many times you say it.

My pointing out to you that Grabo can not grasp concepts of when to force the puck carrier who has clear possession and his team mate already pressuring the puck seems lost on you.....one pass should not beat two forecheckers....as a general rule! Forechecking is a whole line role and not specific roles for a center or a winger...I guess you did not know that. Sorry I guess I should have given a more in depth explanation as I assume most on here have a basic working knowledge of the game.

It's strange that you think Grabovski always does the same thing on the forecheck, and is always causing 2 players to get beaten by 1 pass. And yet, somehow, he's still a centre in the NHL playing 2nd line even strength minutes. Which would suggest that he's not so terribly flawed at such an important position that opposing teams essentially get a powerplay when he's on the ice. I know what a centre's job is when the other team has possession, and I know it's situational.

You seem confused here, who said anything about anybody having one specific role in any given situation? Only you. Who is making the bizarre claim that a player whos played 5 seasons at centre in the NHL is so dumb he doesnt know the basics of strategy? Was RC trying to lose, then, when he gave him the most ES minutes of all forwards in the playoffs? Is Washington hoping to miss the playoffs picking this guy up as their second line centre?

In what world is Grabo's shot considered great....funny that you ask that....did you watch that video, he can shoot the puck.

Again with this child-like misunderstanding of what you're showing with a video. A compilation of his goals...of course his shot looks great. But it's not. When he's on, it's pretty good. When he's off, he couldn't score if his life depended on it. He's got accuracy but takes a long time to get the shot off. It's not a "great" shot. The Kessel's of the league have "great" shots, that's why they score 30+ every year cold streaks and all. Grabovski was my favourite player in his time here and I'd never be so naive as to say "he's got a great shot." Comments like this are why one would have trouble taking your analysis seriously.

Bold part was obvious a typo as I was refering to the penalty kill. Sorry for the confusion.

Then what you're saying is even more embarrassing. You think that Grabovski not playing the PK is some sort of indication of his lack of vision, or hockey intelligence. Because that's who you put on your PK, right, your smartest playmakers? Like Kessel and Kadri? No wait... Remember what I just said about why one might have trouble taking your analysis seriously?

Finally you posted this .sounds like you're no really sure what you're watching You think that a center has a specific role on the forecheck..

I'm quite certain you're no treally sure what you're watching. Nor do you really understand what you're reading. Of course entre's have a role on the forecheck. It's not "specific," whatever that means, and nobody said that but yourself, just now. Do you think the centre just takes a little mental break until the puck's in their own zone or something?

 

[diceman934]

You keep saying that as if a video of Grabovski's goals from a certain season say anything about his playmaking skills relative to MacArthur's. "I posted proof" or "I backed up my opinion" doesn't mean that's actually what you did, no matter how many times you say it.



It's strange that you think Grabovski always does the same thing on the forecheck, and is always causing 2 players to get beaten by 1 pass. And yet, somehow, he's still a centre in the NHL playing 2nd line even strength minutes. Which would suggest that he's not so terribly flawed at such an important position that opposing teams essentially get a powerplay when he's on the ice. I know what a centre's job is when the other team has possession, and I know it's situational.

You seem confused here, who said anything about anybody having one specific role in any given situation? Only you. Who is making the bizarre claim that a player whos played 5 seasons at centre in the NHL is so dumb he doesnt know the basics of strategy? Was RC trying to lose, then, when he gave him the most ES minutes of all forwards in the playoffs? Is Washington hoping to miss the playoffs picking this guy up as their second line centre?



Again with this child-like misunderstanding of what you're showing with a video. A compilation of his goals...of course his shot looks great. But it's not. When he's on, it's pretty good. When he's off, he couldn't score if his life depended on it. He's got accuracy but takes a long time to get the shot off. It's not a "great" shot. The Kessel's of the league have "great" shots, that's why they score 30+ every year cold streaks and all. Grabovski was my favourite player in his time here and I'd never be so naive as to say "he's got a great shot." Comments like this are why one would have trouble taking your analysis seriously.



Then what you're saying is even more embarrassing. You think that Grabovski not playing the PK is some sort of indication of his lack of vision, or hockey intelligence. Because that's who you put on your PK, right, your smartest playmakers? Like Kessel and Kadri? No wait... Remember what I just said about why one might have trouble taking your analysis seriously?



I'm quite certain you're no treally sure what you're watching. Nor do you really understand what you're reading. Of course entre's have a role on the forecheck. It's not "specific," whatever that means, and nobody said that but yourself, just now. Do you think the centre just takes a little mental break until the puck's in their own zone or something?

Where to start :

Well I start at the top and work my way down time. I posted a video that shows C Mac passing the Puck Directly to Grabo who scored ....first assists....What proof have you provided to argue to the contrary...nothing.

I never said he always does the same thing on the forecheck....so stop putting words in my mouth and debate my opinion that I presented to you and not some factitious item that you made up. I said My pointing out to you that Grabo can not grasp concepts of when to force the puck carrier who has clear possession and his team mate already pressuring the puck seems lost on you.....one pass should not beat two forecheckers....as a general rule! I never said always or any other word that describe how often it happened.

You said " he's still a centre in the NHL playing 2nd line even strength minutes. Which would suggest that he's not so terribly flawed at such an important position that opposing teams essentially get a powerplay when he's on the ice. I know what a centre's job is when the other team has possession, and I know it's situational. "

I though Grabo lost his mind because he said he was played on the 3rd and 4th lines....now you are telling me he is a 2nd line Center...He played on our shut down line ( not very well I may add) 3rd line for about half the season or slightly more as Kadri took his spot as our second line center. There are no assigned roles that are position specific when you do not have possession of the puck ....you thinking that a center has an assigned role is funny...this is not Novice hockey we are talking about when the center supports the puck in all four corners etc.

Do you even know what system we played last year in our zone and what the responsibilities of the players on the ice were?

You stated that a center has a specific role in your post....not me as I understand how team systems work. Here is what you said 2) Grabovski is a centre, and forechecks as fits his role. I hope that clears this up....

What I said and it is true, that Randy Carlyle did not use him on the PK as he lacks positional discipline....on the PK if you skate out of position in a system you are using it creates a defensive breakdown....no one can cover for you as easy...there is a rotation that teams use and I'm not talking about players. It is a read and react situation and it is mostly used down low....Do you even know what we used last season in our own zone while killing a penalty?


Here is another beauty Then what you're saying is even more embarrassing. You think that Grabovski not playing the PK is some sort of indication of his lack of vision, or hockey intelligence. Because that's who you put on your PK, right, your smartest playmakers? Like Kessel and Kadri? No wait... Remember what I just said about why one might have trouble taking your analysis seriously?

You do remember what I said about players and playing the PK...here I will post it for you : I use to say that the PK was just hard work but Grabo disproved that theory for me as he has no positional discipline. Which takes a hockey IQ....and he is lacking in this area.


Last point ...you posted this I'm quite certain you're no treally sure what you're watching. Nor do you really understand what you're reading. Of course entre's have a role on the forecheck. It's not "specific," whatever that means, and nobody said that but yourself, just now. Do you think the centre just takes a little mental break until the puck's in their own zone or something?

I know what I watch when watching hockey and I know we are not watching hockey in the same way....I watch from a much different perspective then you. Centers have a role on the forecheck......nope a forward has a role on the forecheck....and it depends on making good reads and the system you are playing. One thing is for sure that you never should be in a position were one pass will beat two forecheckers.... I will ask you a very simply question here...basic stuff.

When you are a player and forechecking ...on a dump in...what do you see when your opponent has the puck and when would they have possession.

Grabo is what he is.....over paid but a very hard working player who lacks on ice awareness and is limited in his role by a low hockey IQ.....He has good skill but poor execution and would rather keep the puck then pass, other then that he is good. I will not miss him at all.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

Bolland was hurt last year while playing on the second line and when he returned he still was not 100%.....his coach still played him against all the best players in the NHL in a shut down role, he was not as effective as he had been in the previous 4 years but he was banged up. You can ignore the fact that he was used more then his team mates against the best players in the League all you want, because by doing so it supports your stance that Grabo is better in that role....but that is not true. Look at their Corsi numbers over the past 4 years....here is a snap shot of Bolland's.

Bolland has been Chicago top shut down player for the past 4 years and they have won two Stanley Cups.....he is still young and has lots of hockey to play.....He will be loved by the fans....he is a warrior in every way you can use that word...We got a gift!

We'll have to see Bolland play then. I've never saw him being our answer to Jordan Staal. Instead, I saw him playing with the likes of Havlet, Hossa, Ladd, providing the agitator role. Personally, Ladd is a better shut down guy than Bolland and he could probably produce at a point-per-pace while at it.

The need of a number #1C is a lot more extreme now if we're not going with depth. Chicago essentially runs four lines. Their Teravainen/ Krueger/ Hayes lines are essentially offensive ones. I think Bolland's role is overstated and the fact they're going to be replacing him with playmakers (i.e. TT, Krueger, Hayes). Chicago has been great due to great two-way top six forwards and strength in depth.

 

[diceman934]

We'll have to see Bolland play then. I've never saw him being our answer to Jordan Staal. Instead, I saw him playing with the likes of Havlet, Hossa, Ladd, providing the agitator role. Personally, Ladd is a better shut down guy than Bolland and he could probably produce at a point-per-pace while at it.

The need of a number #1C is a lot more extreme now if we're not going with depth. Chicago essentially runs four lines. Their Teravainen/ Krueger/ Hayes lines are essentially offensive ones. I think Bolland's role is overstated and the fact they're going to be replacing him with playmakers (i.e. TT, Krueger, Hayes). Chicago has been great due to great two-way top six forwards and strength in depth.

Why do you inject players in to a conversation that has nothing to do with the conversation that we were having. Ladd is not a Leaf and neither is Stall, or the other players you introduced....

I guess you now know that we have a better player one that is vastly more suitable to play the role that Grabo did last year.

Bolland played the toughest minutes of all the Chicago forwards last year and the 3 season before that and you can try to deflect and ignore it all you want. I am happy that we have Bolland as he will improve our team not only on the ice but in a leadership role!

Our number one line is fine, it was among the best in the league offensively and not a problem.Far to many people on here want to fix something that is not broken and I believe that we have our number one center....he is just apprenticing as a number two currently. We have moving forward two lines that teams will have to try shutting down, this makes us a team with balance and options. that we never had in the past 12 years.

People have a hard time letting go off players who they liked, but when you are an improving team and get better options the change is inevitable. People stomp their feet and get mad but do not look at the big picture. I liked C Mac as a player, but I know we Need Clarkson more. The same way I knew before we resigned Grabo that he had to go if we were to be a better hockey team. Now their are posters ragging on Bernier because they Like Riemer as a player, I simply do not care, I want the best player and not my favorite player, as I want to one day attend another Stanley cup parade.

 

[The_Chosen_One]

Why do you inject players in to a conversation that has nothing to do with the conversation that we were having. Ladd is not a Leaf and neither is Stall, or the other players you introduced....

Because he played a critical role during Bolland's effective years as did Versteeg. I don't see how you could isolate Bolland's performance from his linemates. He simply isn't a Staal shutdown forward. Instead, he's more of an agitator, who can be slotted in the middle.

I guess you now know that we have a better player one that is vastly more suitable to play the role that Grabo did last year.

Grabovski's role was to maintain possession. He did that job, but didn't produce. Bolland, similarly, didn't produce last year. We're dealing with two players who couldn't produce. I think if we bought out Grabovski and relied upon a Colborne - McClement combination, it would've worked.

Chicago seems pretty confident with Krueger/ Hayes. I don't see how a similar Colborne/ McClement tandem couldn't have worked. The top team in the NHL seems to have no problem replacing the "best third liner in the world" with primarily offensive guys.

Bolland played the toughest minutes of all the Chicago forwards last year and the 3 season before that and you can try to deflect and ignore it all you want. I am happy that we have Bolland as he will improve our team not only on the ice but in a leadership role!

Yes, and you can ignore the presence of Toews. Chicago didn't really have a "shut down" line. Instead, they had four skilled lines. The fact that Kane isn't a "shut down" forward and yet he played with Bolland during the regular season tells us that.

As is, leadership, is some sort of limitation on our team. Remember, we saw pretty significant changes and went with a new coach for half-a-season. I don't see how our current core didn't do a great job in the leadership front.

Our number one line is fine, it was among the best in the league offensively and not a problem.Far to many people on here want to fix something that is not broken and I believe that we have our number one center....he is just apprenticing as a number two currently. We have moving forward two lines that teams will have to try shutting down, this makes us a team with balance and options. that we never had in the past 12 years.

It becomes a major hole when we're trying to field a pricey checking line. On the other hand, if we moved towards multiple skilled lines, I think the need for the #1C reduces. My belief is if Gauthier can develop into a Bozak-esque forward, he'd be excellent on the top line.

Kadri could be used on a separate scoring line. Seeing that both he and Kessel are possession-players, both will be underutilised. Actually, Kadri will be more underutilised, because Kessel is simply a superior playmaker. It's much like the St Louis-Vinny tandem, but Kadri probably wouldn't last as long if he played Vinny-style hockey. More so, St Louis is a lot more tougher than Kessel so the #1C is going to be expected to do a lot on the physical side.

People have a hard time letting go off players who they liked, but when you are an improving team and get better options the change is inevitable. People stomp their feet and get mad but do not look at the big picture. I liked C Mac as a player, but I know we Need Clarkson more. The same way I knew before we resigned Grabo that he had to go if we were to be a better hockey team. Now their are posters ragging on Bernier because they Like Riemer as a player, I simply do not care, I want the best player and not my favorite player, as I want to one day attend another Stanley cup parade.

It's called having a sustainable team. Outside of the top six/ top four, we're better off depending on EL talent elsewhere. We've just drafted Gauthier and he'll likely develop into an exceptional shut down centre. I can see him being ready soon as well.

 

[zeke]

Anyone who refers to bolland as a fourth line centre is being dishonest.

Bolland was the hawks #2 centre all year, before being felled by injury (which he tried to play through for a while), after mising a month and a playoff series, with the team playing well, he was eased back into the lineup on a bottom line. But by the finals, he was back up to 16+ minutes per game, and had 5pts in 6gms, including the cup winning goal.

 

[MaximAmirian]

Kadri outplayed him and took his spot. Carlyle basically had nothing to do with it. Some moves make themselves. This was one.

Yeah, for half a season...

 

[Joey Hoser]

Yeah, for half a season...

Well what does that mean? Should we demote Kadri despite outplaying Grabovski just to give him his spot back? Or do we promote Grabovski to the first line because he lost his spot on the second?

 

[diceman934]

Because he played a critical role during Bolland's effective years as did Versteeg. I don't see how you could isolate Bolland's performance from his linemates. He simply isn't a Staal shutdown forward. Instead, he's more of an agitator, who can be slotted in the middle.

Grabovski's role was to maintain possession. He did that job, but didn't produce. Bolland, similarly, didn't produce last year. We're dealing with two players who couldn't produce. I think if we bought out Grabovski and relied upon a Colborne - McClement combination, it would've worked.

Chicago seems pretty confident with Krueger/ Hayes. I don't see how a similar Colborne/ McClement tandem couldn't have worked. The top team in the NHL seems to have no problem replacing the "best third liner in the world" with primarily offensive guys.

Yes, and you can ignore the presence of Toews. Chicago didn't really have a "shut down" line. Instead, they had four skilled lines. The fact that Kane isn't a "shut down" forward and yet he played with Bolland during the regular season tells us that.

As is, leadership, is some sort of limitation on our team. Remember, we saw pretty significant changes and went with a new coach for half-a-season. I don't see how our current core didn't do a great job in the leadership front.

It becomes a major hole when we're trying to field a pricey checking line. On the other hand, if we moved towards multiple skilled lines, I think the need for the #1C reduces. My belief is if Gauthier can develop into a Bozak-esque forward, he'd be excellent on the top line.

Kadri could be used on a separate scoring line. Seeing that both he and Kessel are possession-players, both will be underutilised. Actually, Kadri will be more underutilised, because Kessel is simply a superior playmaker. It's much like the St Louis-Vinny tandem, but Kadri probably wouldn't last as long if he played Vinny-style hockey. More so, St Louis is a lot more tougher than Kessel so the #1C is going to be expected to do a lot on the physical side.

It's called having a sustainable team. Outside of the top six/ top four, we're better off depending on EL talent elsewhere. We've just drafted Gauthier and he'll likely develop into an exceptional shut down centre. I can see him being ready soon as well.

Colborne is not a shut down Center....and McClements played with Grabo last year....so your suggestion that we do not need Bolland in this role tells me all I need to know.

Bolland was injured before the start of the playoffs....I thought that you knew this stuff as you are always injecting players into conversation.....it seems that you only do so to cloud an issue. Bolland played the toughest minutes of any Hawk last year despite being injury. Trying to twist things may fool you but not me.

You said this Actually, Kadri will be more underutilised, because Kessel is simply a superior playmaker. Do you seriously watch games....Kadri lead the league in first assists and is great passer of the puck. Putting Kessel and him together would make Phil more dangerous not less. Saying Kessel is simply a superior playmaker is without merit!

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

Well what does that mean? Should we demote Kadri despite outplaying Grabovski just to give him his spot back? Or do we promote Grabovski to the first line because he lost his spot on the second?

No, it means that the Leafs may have put the cart before the horse.

We'll find out soon enough. The season is fast approaching!

 

[diceman934]

No, it means that the Leafs may have put the cart before the horse.

We'll find out soon enough. The season is fast approaching!

What will we find out soon?

That we should have kept Grabo.....over Kadri? Or Bolland can not do what Grabo did?

It was a horrible contract and no one wanted it...no other team was willing to pay him 5.5 million. There is no way that we will ever regret that decision...

 

[Ari91]

Anyone who refers to bolland as a fourth line centre is being dishonest.

Bolland was the hawks #2 centre all year, before being felled by injury (which he tried to play through for a while), after mising a month and a playoff series, with the team playing well, he was eased back into the lineup on a bottom line. But by the finals, he was back up to 16+ minutes per game, and had 5pts in 6gms, including the cup winning goal.

Hawks fans have said that Bolland played #2 because of their lack of centre depth. They have agreed that his injury did take its toll but have said that he's a very good third liner and flourishes in that role. I don't know much about Bolland's game but taking what Hawks fans have said about him, I think a #3 is the best spot for him.

 

[thewave]

Grabo was indeed an agitator but a different sort. His dynamic play and near elite stick handling gave teams a lot o troubles. It's why he was often targeted and laid out. Boston hated him in particular and he drove Montreal crazy.

My two cents.

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

Hawks fans have said that Bolland played #2 because of their lack of centre depth. They have agreed that his injury did take its toll but have said that he's a very good third liner and flourishes in that role. I don't know much about Bolland's game but taking what Hawks fans have said about him, I think a #3 is the best spot for him.

Bolland is basically Komarov who got put in position to score. Bolland is better defensively but there isnt much that separates the two offensively. Dont count on him being a satisfactory top-6 center for us.

 

[mr grieves]

Well what does that mean? Should we demote Kadri despite outplaying Grabovski just to give him his spot back? Or do we promote Grabovski to the first line because he lost his spot on the second?

I don't know what the OP meant, but what I'd mean is this: an abbreviated season isn't much to base player evaluations -- positive or negative -- on. Expecting Kadri to take over the second line on a permanent basis after a good 48 game season is a bit of gamble, especially when he wasn't unsheltered on the 2nd until the last 19 games -- and then he struggled. Thinking Grabo's lost it permanently after a bad 48 game season is also a bit of a gamble.

If I was unsure about whether Kadri would be great as the core of the 2nd line at this point in his career, I'd promote him to the first where Kessel draws enough attention that even a pretty mediocre center (Bozak) does well, so a sophomore adapting to a bigger role should be able to get by. And since I've never seen Bozak play well with anyone but one of the elite wingers in the league, I'd have stuck with Grabo as the 2nd center, because he's shown he can do quite well with not-elite but solid talent over a good number of games (about 200 with MacA and Kule).

I just don't view it as who "lost" whose job to whom for right now. All those "earning it" questions are vaguely moralistic and cloud what I think is the bigger question: who's going to the best center you can have in each position over the next 3 to 5 years? I don't think it's Bozak on the top line, don't think it's him on the top-6 unless he's sheltered by some crazy talent, and, assuming there is truth to his defensive abilities (I'm skeptical), think he's overpaid for a 3C. So I think this summer is when they should've walked away from him.

 

[InterceptSchenn]

Bolland is basically Komarov who got put in position to score. Bolland is better defensively but there isnt much that separates the two offensively. Dont count on him being a satisfactory top-6 center for us.

Oh come on.......Leo had complete stone hands. Bolland was a big scorer in Junior and has some quick hands. Bolland is miles ahead of Koma offensively.