BYE BYE, MCKEE

Discuss the St. Louis Blues, the NHL, or anything hockey.

Moderator: LGB Mods

Re: BYE BYE, MCKEE

Postby hugedeal » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:54 pm

JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:
Well what else do you expect the team to do? They've shown a track record of loyalty towards the two whipping boys for the fans. Just because we don't like one or both of them doesn't mean management doesn't. It isn't like we traded for these guys and their contracts came along with them. The management team signed these guys to these deals.


I expect the team to admit their mistake by actually trying to put players on the ice that will actually prevent goals from being scored. Move Jackman down the depth chart.

At the time Jackman was signed to his contract he was playing as a #3-#4 guy and was compensated as such. When the top two guys went down the natrual progression of the depth chart took place and he slid into that role. Did he ask to play 25+ minutes a night? No. But he did it anyway. Now do I think he did a great job? Not really. I'd give him a B- or C+ as a #1 guy. That doesn't mean he's a f'ing throw away player. And he sure as hell wasn't bringing the team down with his play. What brought the team down was the lack of responsiblity exhumed by our #1 pick D-man. That and the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Brewer's injury.


In his contract year, Jackman played like a #5 defenseman. He played pretty well the previous two seasons, but he stunk in his contract year. He was bringing the team down with crappy play in his defensive zone. For goodness sakes, 8 of the 10 Vancouver goals in the playoffs (not counting the empty netter) were scored with Jackman on the ice. Brewer is actually as bad as Jackman if not worse. Brewer being healthy might have actually hurt us because he would have been playing on the top pairing instead of Polak. At least Polak could bail out Jackman from time to time.

The fact remains if Jackman didn't step up and play those minutes, the team probably doesn't make the playoffs. He's no All-Star and probably shouldn't be making as much as he does. But I don't think he deserves the severe criticizim he receives on a constant basis.


How do you come up with that? Because the Blues media department told you so? Jackman's advanced statistics show that he was the equivalent of a minor league call-up last year (i.e. Strachan). The Blues would have made the playoffs with or without him. The biggest reason Jackman receives so much criticism is because Murray puts him out there all the time. Khalil Greene isn't going to get as much criticism on the DL as he would batting .200 and playing horrible defense on the Cards. The same thing applies here as well. The other reason he gets criticized is because his hefty contract is getting in the way of us acquiring a good defenseman.


Who would you have played on the top pairing instead of Jackman? I hope you're not suggesting Strachan could have filled in for Brewer or EJ because his limited playing time yielded similar stats to Jackman. Jackman is far from ideal, but there's only so much that can be done to patch the holes without handicapping yourself even more severely down the road. He filled in and did an adequate job until EJ was ready to come back.

I understand that he was too high up the depth chart last year, but who would you play instead? Suggesting a call-up would have performed the same as Jackman with increased minutes is a stretch.
Official LGB sponsor of Alex Steen.
hugedeal
3rd Line Grinder
3rd Line Grinder
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:31 pm

Re: BYE BYE, MCKEE

Postby JWatt (formerly PMS) » Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:07 pm

hugedeal wrote:
JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:
Well what else do you expect the team to do? They've shown a track record of loyalty towards the two whipping boys for the fans. Just because we don't like one or both of them doesn't mean management doesn't. It isn't like we traded for these guys and their contracts came along with them. The management team signed these guys to these deals.


I expect the team to admit their mistake by actually trying to put players on the ice that will actually prevent goals from being scored. Move Jackman down the depth chart.

At the time Jackman was signed to his contract he was playing as a #3-#4 guy and was compensated as such. When the top two guys went down the natrual progression of the depth chart took place and he slid into that role. Did he ask to play 25+ minutes a night? No. But he did it anyway. Now do I think he did a great job? Not really. I'd give him a B- or C+ as a #1 guy. That doesn't mean he's a f'ing throw away player. And he sure as hell wasn't bringing the team down with his play. What brought the team down was the lack of responsiblity exhumed by our #1 pick D-man. That and the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Brewer's injury.


In his contract year, Jackman played like a #5 defenseman. He played pretty well the previous two seasons, but he stunk in his contract year. He was bringing the team down with crappy play in his defensive zone. For goodness sakes, 8 of the 10 Vancouver goals in the playoffs (not counting the empty netter) were scored with Jackman on the ice. Brewer is actually as bad as Jackman if not worse. Brewer being healthy might have actually hurt us because he would have been playing on the top pairing instead of Polak. At least Polak could bail out Jackman from time to time.

The fact remains if Jackman didn't step up and play those minutes, the team probably doesn't make the playoffs. He's no All-Star and probably shouldn't be making as much as he does. But I don't think he deserves the severe criticizim he receives on a constant basis.


How do you come up with that? Because the Blues media department told you so? Jackman's advanced statistics show that he was the equivalent of a minor league call-up last year (i.e. Strachan). The Blues would have made the playoffs with or without him. The biggest reason Jackman receives so much criticism is because Murray puts him out there all the time. Khalil Greene isn't going to get as much criticism on the DL as he would batting .200 and playing horrible defense on the Cards. The same thing applies here as well. The other reason he gets criticized is because his hefty contract is getting in the way of us acquiring a good defenseman.


Who would you have played on the top pairing instead of Jackman? I hope you're not suggesting Strachan could have filled in for Brewer or EJ because his limited playing time yielded similar stats to Jackman. Jackman is far from ideal, but there's only so much that can be done to patch the holes without handicapping yourself even more severely down the road. He filled in and did an adequate job until EJ was ready to come back.

I understand that he was too high up the depth chart last year, but who would you play instead? Suggesting a call-up would have performed the same as Jackman with increased minutes is a stretch.


Read my previous posts. I would have played Jackman on a lower pairing and moved up McKee or Weaver to the top pairing. Suggesting a call up (Strachan) would have performed about the same as Jackman on a lower pairing is not a stretch, it is supported with statistics like Jackman's GVT (+1.5, which is the equivalent of a 1.5 goal differential over the entire season versus an average replacement) and Strachan's good stats in that role (1.60 GA/60min at even strength versus Jackman's 2.93).
JWatt (formerly PMS)
All-Star
All-Star
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:50 am
Location: Saint Charles, MO

Re: BYE BYE, MCKEE

Postby section319 » Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:41 pm

Weaver Coliacovo
Polak Jackman
Mckee Strachan

There. Done. 2009 Stanley Cup Champions.
Official LGB sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko.
User avatar
section319
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
 
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:20 am
Location: Mizzou

Previous

Return to St. Louis Blues Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dmiles2186, Kerfuffle, MSNbot Media, Portland Blues and 6 guests