Too Many Men On The Ice???

[Mr. Goalie]

From THIS article:

.....the Blackhawks got a gift power play in overtime when the Blues were whistled for too many men on the ice. It was their second such penalty of the evening, and one of seven they've taken since Jan. 17.


One word:

P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C


Mr. G

[CD]

Seven?

Good lord.

[Mr. Goalie]

Originally posted by devaskar@Feb 22 2004, 11:07 PM
Seven?

Good lord.

Yes, seven.

They've played 17 games since 1/17.


Mr. G

[ElviswasaBluesFan]

On Channel 4, they showed Murray Baron pushing the goal of its moorings and said that was the reason for the penalty in OT. Is that not true?

I didn't watch the game so I'm not sure what really happened.

[Blues Fan in TX]

Originally posted by ElviswasaBluesFan@Feb 22 2004, 09:23 PM
On Channel 4, they showed Murray Baron pushing the goal of its moorings and said that was the reason for the penalty in OT. Is that not true?

I didn't watch the game so I'm not sure what really happened.

No...Baron's penalty was arguably a good one to take...Osgood was caught out of position by the Hawks who were going to score on a wraparound from behind the net on the other side...the penalty did lead to the tying goal in regulation, though...

The OT penalty was just brainlock on the part of the Blues...Tkachuk was late getting off, or someone jumped over the boards too soon...the puck was in play in the area of the Blues bench, so it's an easy call...

[steveInebriated]

I think it's best to blame Tkachuk and his lack of hustle in getting off the ice. He would then be at fault for both Too Many Men penalties today.

[007]

Seven, eh? It actually seems like they get that called once a game, believe it or not....its that bad....

Really, really sad....

[CD]

Since Steve mentioned Tkachuk, I'm going to go off on a tangent here...

Why do people believe power forwards should be paid so handsomely? To me, any GM who gives a power forward big time money is a moron (and that means you, Larry Pleau and Bobby Smith).

Everyone points out how little Tkachuk produces in the playoffs and while part of that is his own fault (he's pretty easy to take off his game over a long series because he's so undisciplined), a big reason for it is because his linemates don't do well. And there in lies the problem with paying Tkachuk all this money. You can't pay that kind of money to players who are dependent on other players doing well in order to succeed. Tkachuk, and other players like him, will not ever produce unless they have linemates who are creating scoring chances for him. He can't create scoring chances himself and, in my view, you can't pay big money to a forward who is unable to create his own scoring chances.

My personal opinion as to why the Blues fell into this trap with Tkachuk is because Pleau saw how Detroit won, with a "power forward" on every line. But what he did not realize is that their best power forwards were Tomas Holmstrom and Martin Lapointe, not Brendan Shanahan. Tkachuk is much more like Holmstrom and Lapointe than he is Shanahan. Holmstrom and Lapointe just basicly stood in front of the goalie and created screens and chased after rebounds and went for redirections. That is what Tkachuk does. Certainly, Tkachuk has better hands than those guys, but Tkachuk has about as much control over a game as those two do.

Shanahan, on the other hand, stopped being a true power forward in the mold of Tkachuk, Holmstrom and Lapointe in around 1992 when he developed his shot. Then he became largely a perimeter player with a great slap shot, but one who played the role of a power forward when it was needed, in St. Louis, Hartford, and in his early days in Detroit. By 1999, Shanahan was much more like Brett Hull than he was like Keith Tkachuk.

Shanahan was always a more dangerous player than Tkachuk because not only did he excel around the net playing the power game but also because he had developed his shot to the point that he could be a dangerous sharp-shooter from the circles or even the point. Tkachuk's shot is no better than average when he escapes the area right in front of the goal mouth.

Another example of this is John Leclair, who has a rocket of a slapper. He can play the power game but isn't entirely reliant upon it. Tkachuk has a power game and nothing else, which is why he's easy to contain over a long series, and why he's too one-dimensional to be considered a real franchise cornerstone or be paid like one.

I don't understand how it is that more general managers don't realize this although, to be fair, I can understand how one as poor as Larry Pleau doesn't realize this.

[007]

Originally posted by devaskar@Feb 22 2004, 11:58 PM
Since Steve mentioned Tkachuk, I'm going to go off on a tangent here...

Why do people believe power forwards should be paid so handsomely? To me, any GM who gives a power forward big time money is a moron (and that means you, Larry Pleau and Bobby Smith).

Everyone points out how little Tkachuk produces in the playoffs and while part of that is his own fault (he's pretty easy to take off his game over a long series because he's so undisciplined), a big reason for it is because his linemates don't do well. And there in lies the problem with paying Tkachuk all this money. You can't pay that kind of money to players who are dependent on other players doing well in order to succeed. Tkachuk, and other players like him, will not ever produce unless they have linemates who are creating scoring chances for him. He can't create scoring chances himself and, in my view, you can't pay big money to a forward who is unable to create his own scoring chances.

My personal opinion as to why the Blues fell into this trap with Tkachuk is because Pleau saw how Detroit won, with a "power forward" on every line. But what he did not realize is that their best power forwards were Tomas Holmstrom and Martin Lapointe, not Brendan Shanahan. Tkachuk is much more like Holmstrom and Lapointe than he is Shanahan. Holmstrom and Lapointe just basicly stood in front of the goalie and created screens and chased after rebounds and went for redirections. That is what Tkachuk does. Certainly, Tkachuk has better hands than those guys, but Tkachuk has about as much control over a game as those two do.

Shanahan, on the other hand, stopped being a true power forward in the mold of Tkachuk, Holmstrom and Lapointe in around 1992 when he developed his shot. Then he became largely a perimeter player with a great slap shot, but one who played the role of a power forward when it was needed, in St. Louis, Hartford, and in his early days in Detroit. By 1999, Shanahan was much more like Brett Hull than he was like Keith Tkachuk.

Shanahan was always a more dangerous player than Tkachuk because not only did he excel around the net playing the power game but also because he had developed his shot to the point that he could be a dangerous sharp-shooter from the circles or even the point. Tkachuk's shot is no better than average when he escapes the area right in front of the goal mouth.

Another example of this is John Leclair, who has a rocket of a slapper. He can play the power game but isn't entirely reliant upon it. Tkachuk has a power game and nothing else, which is why he's easy to contain over a long series, and why he's too one-dimensional to be considered a real franchise cornerstone or be paid like one.

I don't understand how it is that more general managers don't realize this although, to be fair, I can understand how one as poor as Larry Pleau doesn't realize this.

And people will now understand where '15 feet came from'....

[CD]

The 15 feet thing is actually exaggerated--originally, it was 10 feet.

It stems from when I was in high school in around 1996. Me and a couple friends were talking about whatever regarding the NHL and Tkachuk came up and all of us thought that he must be good because he put up the numbers, but from watching him, it didn't seem like he had much real hockey skill. He was just unbelievably strong and so he just stood in front of the net and put in loose pucks around the goalie. None of us could recall ever seeing him score a goal from more than 10 feet away.

After further observation, I concluded that on occassion, he could score from about 15 feet away with his shot but it was too weak to do much damage from anything further out than that. I also concluded that we were all right--Tkachuk has virtually no goal scoring ability from anywhere beyond the goal mouth.

So 10 feet became 15 feet and he has done little, if anything, to dissuade the notion.

[Jack Sparrow]

If you ask me (and I think you should) the Blues never have enough men on the ice.

[Glovey]

Tkachuk's skating abilities are underrated, as is his wrist shot.