Komisarek Vs Hamhuis

[Orange]

As a counterpoint:
Dykhuis/Traverse - not NHL caliber d-man
Bouillon - fringe 6/7 d-man
Hainsey - totally unproven

If Komi wasn't playing over those 4 guys, something is seriously wrong. Add in that Quintal was toast at that point in time of his career, and it's not looking good.

I do agree that MON brought Komi along slowly. I would say though that if he had shown more, he should of been behind Markov, Rivet, Brisebois, and Souray (who has been hurt for much of Komi's NHL time). If Komi is kept off the ice by the guys you talk about above, I think that is a MAJOR problem.

Along those lines - Nashville felt confident enough in Hamhuis (and Zdilicky) that they moved guys like Skrascins & York. Just something to consider.

This doesn't do justice to Komisarek's situation. Komisarek plays the right side, meaning he was behind Brisebois, Rivet and Quintal in the depth chart (nothing to do with Dykuis, Traverse, Bouillon and Hainsey ...). Montreal's recent history has always favored vets over prospects. That's why Quintal was on the roster over Komi in the season. Playoff was another story. Komi ran Quintal out of town. Quintal clearly hasn't been the same D he used to be, but was reliable and a good veteran presence with the team. Komi taking Quintal's spot in what was the most important moment of the hab's season (bruins first round oust) was not such a small feat has you make it sound.

Komi was brought in slowly because the Montreal crowd is very impatient. Expectations to win are always high even if the team is not up to it. Rookie or not, habs fan and media can be very unforgiving. Inserting youth into the roster is much more tricky than in Nashville. I don't think it's got anything to do with the organization's level of confidence in Komisarek. As a matter of fact, Komi had a very desapointing training camp and a bad start in Hamilton. He was brought up by Gainey anyway and he stated at the time that Komi should be in the NHL from now on. I'm pretty sure the organisation's confidence in Komi was always very high.

Back to the question at hand, I take Hamhuis over Komi. I do believe that Komi has the most potential and holds the most "intangibles". Unfortunately, I think Komi will develop very slowly. Hamhuis will reach his ceiling much faster and be valuable to his team over a much longer period. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Legolas]

Back to the question at hand, I take Hamhuis over Komi. I do believe that Komi has the most potential and holds the most "intangibles". Unfortunately, I think Komi will develop very slowly. Hamhuis will reach his ceiling much faster and be valuable to his team over a much longer period. That's my opinion anyway.

I agree. I think both defencemen will be very good and I think Montreal is quite happy to have Komisarek, however but Hamhuis is further along in his development right now.

 

[Bacchus]

Hamhuis

 

[417]

Pretty bad for professional players to not be able to play both sides. Besides 1 pairing, the Flames played 2 pairings with al LH shot defenseman. I still consider the "but they can't play on their off wing" a very weak arguement as to why Komi didn't get more time, etc.

It's alot easier for a Left handed d-man to play his offside than it is for a right handed d-man...so your argument dosen't hold...

Komisarek plays the RD, he was behind Rivet, Brisebois and Quintal, the latter would not accept a lesser role, and he was a veteran player who has given years of service to the Habs, the coach did not want to disrupt team moral by benching a higly regarded teamate for a still green rookie...that's the only reason he didn't play more...

 

[HuskyFlames]

It's alot easier for a Left handed d-man to play his offside than it is for a right handed d-man...so your argument dosen't hold...

Komisarek plays the RD, he was behind Rivet, Brisebois and Quintal, the latter would not accept a lesser role, and he was a veteran player who has given years of service to the Habs, the coach did not want to disrupt team moral by benching a higly regarded teamate for a still green rookie...that's the only reason he didn't play more...

Once again that is a weak arguement. It also also easier for point men to make a 1 timer on the blueline playing on their offwing. There are a TON of guys, forwards and defense that play on their offwing. When 3 or 4 guys are RH and no one of them can play the left side, either tells me there are all very poor defenseman or Komi wasn't ready to step up during last season.

 

[417]

Once again that is a weak arguement. It also also easier for point men to make a 1 timer on the blueline playing on their offwing. There are a TON of guys, forwards and defense that play on their offwing. When 3 or 4 guys are RH and no one of them can play the left side, either tells me there are all very poor defenseman or Komi wasn't ready to step up during last season.

Ok, you obviously don't know what your talking about, most coaches are opposed to playing a RH d-man on his off side, only a few have done it with success for a long period of time, and to ask a rookie to make that kind of adjustment is crazy, no offense, but you lack knowledge on this subject...the NHL and hockey has a shortage of RH d-men, thus when growing up and playing in the minors and eventually in the NHL, RH d-men, usually are a dime a dozen and aren't asked to play their off side, while LH d-men are everywhere and make that adjustment at an earlier age...

 

[HuskyFlames]

Ok, you obviously don't know what your talking about, most coaches are opposed to playing a RH d-man on his off side, only a few have done it with success for a long period of time, and to ask a rookie to make that kind of adjustment is crazy, no offense, but you lack knowledge on this subject...the NHL and hockey has a shortage of RH d-men, thus when growing up and playing in the minors and eventually in the NHL, RH d-men, usually are a dime a dozen and aren't asked to play their off side, while LH d-men are everywhere and make that adjustment at an earlier age...

Lets see guys like Ference, Lydman, Leopold and regher are ALL LH and 2 out of those 4 play on the right side and are much younger than many of the guys you listed AND have done is successfully. that doesn't say much for the habs defense if they cannot play on their off wing.

 

[Hunter74]

I think at the moment Hamhuis is the better defenseman and looks liekhe will develope into the better all round defenseman.

Though Komisareks upside is so intriguing that if he actually hits it he will be a much better defenseman than hamhuis is or woudl be according to what I think there individual upside is. Komisarek can end up being a real beast of a defenseman both offensively and defensively. To top it off this guy has already proved that he can dish out the punishement in this league against the biggest players.

Dont get me wrong I really like Hamhuis aswell and he obvioulsy has some upside and is surprisingly physical for a defenseman of his limited stature. NHL.com has Hamhuis in at 6' 204lbs and has Komisarek at 6'4" 237lbs. Obviously being bigger doesn't make you better but Komisarek and Hamhuis had about the same offensive upside when they were first drafted. only difference is that Hamhuis has translated his skill set to the NHL game alittle faster to then Komisarek has.

Obvioulsy you can argue alot of things in defense of Komisareks slow developement or the Habs unwillingness to allow him to play his game.

So wre was I. Yes Hamhuis is better now and looks liek he will develope into the better all round defenseman. But if Komisarek developes into the defenseman people thought he woudl he woudl IMO be alot better or just more effective in a different way.

 

[HellsBells]

It's alot easier for a Left handed d-man to play his offside than it is for a right handed d-man...so your argument dosen't hold...

:lol

I know this really isn't the topic but I got a good laugh out of this post. How is it harder for a RH shot ?? It's the same thing either way.

 

[Moskau]

Anyone notice how during the regular season there was a huge dropoff of Mike Komisarek threads?

Maybe Montreal fans didn't want to draw attention to the fact Komisarek wasn't running away with the Calder, Norris, Hart, Art Ross etc. etc. like some fans had promised?

Or maybe they didn't want to draw attention to the fact Komisarek wasn't playing good period?

But as luck would have it as soon as the season was over Komisarek threads took a 400% increase.

 

[db23]

The first offensive stats we have for Komisarek are from the EJHL where he played as a 16 year old rookie and scored 41 points in 53 games. The two top prospects from the EJHL in this summer's draft were Rob Bellamy and Shawn Weller. I think they went in the second round. Both are forwards, they are 18 or 19 years old, have previous EJHL experience and scored 40 or 41 points last season there. Neither is close to Komisarek's size either. In the NCAA, Mike scored 46 points in the two seasons he was there. Same as Leopold had in his first two seasons in a higher scoring division. More than Mike Van Ryn had in his first two seasons at Michigan. More NCAA points than Paul Martin, Jim Fahey, or J.M. Liles had at the same age.

It is harder to compare his points against the WHL guys, but the best we can do is look at the case of Duncan Keith who moved from the CCHA to the WHL mid season.
Keith had 1 less point in the same number of games as a CCHA freshman as Komo. As a soph, Komisarek averaged .75 points per game in the full year. As a soph, Keith was averaging .6 points per game when he left Michigan State for the Kelowna Rockets. As a Rocket, he more than doubled his p.p.g. average to 1.24. Mike Comrie did something similar a couple of years previous when he went from Michigan to the Kootenay Ice. Nearly doubled his p.p.g. as a major junior player.

If you use those examples, Komisarek would have averaged 1.5 points per game in the CHL as a 19 year old. I don't think either Hamhuis or Bouwmeester managed much over a point per game in their final WHL season.

 

[417]

:lol

I know this really isn't the topic but I got a good laugh out of this post. How is it harder for a RH shot ?? It's the same thing either way.

It's a known fact, any one here who has played competitive hockey or coached will tell you the same, it is easier for LH d-amn to play their off side then it is for RH d-men, if you didin't know that you should thank me instead of trying to make yourself look like a jerk

 

[Genghis Keon]

:lol

I know this really isn't the topic but I got a good laugh out of this post. How is it harder for a RH shot ?? It's the same thing either way.

It's not that inherently right shooting defenseman can't play their offwing, while left shooting D can; it has to do with experience. Generally, right from the start of their development, right shooting forwards play right wing and right shooting defenseman play right defense--the same goes for left shooting players, only they play on the left side.

However, there are a lot more left hand shooting players than right hand shooting players, especially amongst defenseman (look at rosters). So a team might only have two right hand shooting defenseman and four left hand shooting defenseman. Obviously the coaches will keep the right hand shooters on the right side, but they have to put a left hand shot on the right side to complete the lines. This lasts all the way from developmental hockey right to the NHL, so, generally speaking, most left shooting defenseman have played a lot of right defense over the course of their lives, while most right hand shooting defenseman have only played right defense, except for maybe spot duty on the left or on special teams (or if they happened to be on a rare team that has more right shooting D than left).

All things being equal "it's the same thing either way," but things are never equal.

 

[417]

Lets see guys like Ference, Lydman, Leopold and regher are ALL LH and 2 out of those 4 play on the right side and are much younger than many of the guys you listed AND have done is successfully. that doesn't say much for the habs defense if they cannot play on their off wing.

Again, you didn't take the time to read my post, i'll write it in caps for you, but this is the last time, next time you go to your room without dessert!

I SAID IT IS EASIER FOR LH D-MEN TO PLAY THERE OFFSIDE (JUST LIKE 2 OF FERENCE, LYDMAN, LEOPOLD AND REGEHR DID) THAN IT IS FOR A RH D-MAN TO PLAY THE LEFT SIDE...THE REASON BEING THAT THERE ARE MORE LEFT HANDED D-MEN THEN RIGHT HANDED D-MEN IN HOCKEY, THEREFORE LEFT HANDED D-MEN ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THEIR OFFSIDE AT A YOUNG AGE BECAUSE THERE IS USUALLY NO RIGHT HANDED D-MEN TO FILL THAT SPOT, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A RIGHT HANDED D-MEN, YOU USUALLY PLAY HIM ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST A LUXURY HAVING A RIGHT HANDED D-MAN IN YOUR LINEUP, SO WHEN A RIGHT HANDED D-MAN IS ASKED TO PLAY HIS OFFSIDE LIKE QUINTAL, BRISEBOIS AND KOMISAREK WERE ASKED TO DO LAST YEAR, IT IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM AS THEY'VE NEVER BEEN ASKED TO DO THAT BEFORE...GET IT?

edit:

 

[HellsBells]

It's a known fact, any one here who has played competitive hockey or coached will tell you the same, it is easier for LH d-amn to play their off side then it is for RH d-men, if you didin't know that you should thank me instead of trying to make yourself look like a jerk

Thank you ??

Because there are more LH shots, they play more RW than RH shots play LW. But that doesn't mean its any harder for one or the other. It all depends on how much you've played the opposite wing in your lifetime. You try to tell Hossa or Havlat that they are playing an easier position than Kovalchuk.

 

[417]

It's not that inherently right shooting defenseman can't play their offwing, while left shooting D can; it has to do with experience. Generally, right from the start of their development, right shooting forwards play right wing and right shooting defenseman play right defense--the same goes for left shooting players, only they play on the left side.

However, there are a lot more left hand shooting players than right hand shooting players, especially amongst defenseman (look at rosters). So a team might only have two right hand shooting defenseman and four left hand shooting defenseman. Obviously the coaches will keep the right hand shooters on the right side, but they have to put a left hand shot on the right side to complete the lines. This lasts all the way from developmental hockey right to the NHL, so, generally speaking, most left shooting defenseman have played a lot of right defense over the course of their lives, while most right hand shooting defenseman have only played right defense, except for maybe spot duty on the left or on special teams (or if they happened to be on a rare team that has more right shooting D than left).

All things being equal "it's the same thing either way," but things are never equal.

this is exactly what i've been trying to explain

left handed shooting defenseman are used to playing their offside their whole lives, through minor hockey, pro hockey, they do it all the time

but a right handed defensman always plays the right defense because there's a shortage of right handed defenseman, so when he's asked to play the left side as a right handed defensman in the NHL, the transition is much more difficult...

 

[HellsBells]

Again, you didn't take the time to read my post, i'll write it in caps for you, but this is the last time, next time you go to your room without dessert!

I SAID IT IS EASIER FOR LH D-MEN TO PLAY THERE OFFSIDE (JUST LIKE 2 OF FERENCE, LYDMAN, LEOPOLD AND REGEHR DID) THAN IT IS FOR A RH D-MAN TO PLAY THE LEFT SIDE...THE REASON BEING THAT THERE ARE MORE LEFT HANDED D-MEN THEN RIGHT HANDED D-MEN IN HOCKEY, THEREFORE LEFT HANDED D-MEN ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THEIR OFFSIDE AT A YOUNG AGE BECAUSE THERE IS USUALLY NO RIGHT HANDED D-MEN TO FILL THAT SPOT, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A RIGHT HANDED D-MEN, YOU USUALLY PLAY HIM ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST A LUXURY HAVING A RIGHT HANDED D-MAN IN YOUR LINEUP, SO WHEN A RIGHT HANDED D-MAN IS ASKED TO PLAY HIS OFFSIDE LIKE QUINTAL, BRISEBOIS AND KOMISAREK WERE ASKED TO DO LAST YEAR, IT IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM AS THEY'VE NEVER BEEN ASKED TO DO THAT BEFORE...GET IT?

edit:

But you said it's flat out harder. So you were wrong. It's not harder because it's harder, its harder because they don't have the experience.

 

[417]

Thank you ??

Because there are more LH shots, they play more RW than RH shots play LW. But that doesn't mean its any harder for one or the other. It all depends on how much you've played the opposite wing in your lifetime. You try to tell Hossa or Havlat that they are playing an easier position than Kovalchuk.

I give up...people like you refuse to listen to logic, instead your too busy trying to be a smart *** when anybody with half a hockey brain could tell you this...forget it, this is useless...


KOMISAREK SUCKS!!! YOU HAPPY? HOW BOUT THIS....EVERY HABS PLAYER AND HAB FAN SUCKS...

that's it for me!

 

[417]

But you said it's flat out harder. So you were wrong. It's not harder because it's harder, its harder because they don't have the experience.

dosen't that mean the same thing, same crap different toilet...

now i'm really done, go do some reaserch, i'm not getting into this anymmore

 

[HellsBells]

I give up...people like you refuse to listen to logic, instead your too busy trying to be a smart *** when anybody with half a hockey brain could tell you this...forget it, this is useless...


KOMISAREK SUCKS!!! YOU HAPPY? HOW BOUT THIS....EVERY HABS PLAYER AND HAB FAN SUCKS...

that's it for me!

What ?? I'm just saying you did not explain yourself like you should have. To say it is harder is not the right choice of words. If two 10 yr olds both start playing oppsosite side for the first time in their lives, its equally as hard for both. That is my point.

Anyway, Hamhuis by 10,000 miles.

Why does Komisarek always end up in one sided comparisons ?? Why not compare him to players on his own level.

 

[HellsBells]

dosen't that mean the same thing, same crap different toilet...

now i'm really done, go do some reaserch, i'm not getting into this anymmore

Exactly. It was a misunderstandment on my part. To say its harder meant to me that it was harder. But its not harder, its same thing for both players when all things are equal.

 

[db23]

Why does Komisarek always end up in one sided comparisons ?? Why not compare him to players on his own level.

We're still waiting for someone to come along with the same level of potential. I know it isn't fair to these other guys, but they are the best there is at the moment.

 

[Bacchus]

If you use those examples, Komisarek would have averaged 1.5 points per game in the CHL as a 19 year old. I don't think either Hamhuis or Bouwmeester managed much over a point per game in their final WHL season.

Seriously: Who cares?
Bouwmeester and Hamhuis both have established themselves to some degree in the NHL. Who cares, even if they had zero points in their whole junior careers - they are playing NHL and they are playing good.
As of now, you can't say that of Komisarek.

 

[db23]

Komiarek was "playing NHL and playing good" more recently than either Bouwmeester or Hamhuis. They were both on the golf course when Mike was a top 4 defenceman in the playoffs.

 

[Enoch]

Komiarek was "playing NHL and playing good" more recently than either Bouwmeester or Hamhuis. They were both on the golf course when Mike was a top 4 defenceman in the playoffs.

Uh - Hamhuis was playing in the playoffs as well. His team just didn't advance past the Red Wings.