[A] Player Evaluation: Corey Crawford

Tater

Tater

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
13,392
Liked Posts:
5,654
LordKOTL said:
The difference is Leddy isn't Campbell, Monty isn't Sopel, and Hammer doesn't have a vet to hold his hand this time around. We're coached on the same philosophy, but the players are different. IMHO that's the key difference. If Q was the coach he's cracked up to be, he should know that no matter what system you coach, you have to tweak it to the players you have, not try and make your players play a system they can't play.



Further, let's not forget our forwards are as much to blame for some of the biggest fuckups leading to high-percentage goals against (i.e. Sharp's play leading to the tying goal in game 4).



EVERYONE needs to play better when the puck is behind the blueline. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
Click to expand...





Most definitely.
 

Ton

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
3,991
Liked Posts:
124
Location:
Park Ridge, IL
LordKOTL said:
The difference is Leddy isn't Campbell, Monty isn't Sopel, and Hammer doesn't have a vet to hold his hand this time around. We're coached on the same philosophy, but the players are different. IMHO that's the key difference. If Q was the coach he's cracked up to be, he should know that no matter what system you coach, you have to tweak it to the players you have, not try and make your players play a system they can't play.



Further, let's not forget our forwards are as much to blame for some of the biggest fuckups leading to high-percentage goals against (i.e. Sharp's play leading to the tying goal in game 4).



EVERYONE needs to play better when the puck is behind the blueline. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
Click to expand...



Can't say I disagree with a single word you've said. Great post.
 

the canadian dream

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
6,402
Liked Posts:
14
Variable said:
The "right save at the right time" is a bunch of bullshit that's been passed off as an adequate enough analysis for goalies for way, waaaaayyyy too long. Numbers matter. It's just more work.
Click to expand...



Bull shit its ...a combo of both. Talk to NHL goalies and players past and present instead of mathematicians and i bet it would change your perspective a little bit. All sports break down to moments within the time frame of the game and physical and mental actions within those moments and how one handles them. That's what makes sport so great. That's pretty much what sport is.



We will never agree much on goalkeeping it's pretty clear. Numbers are great I won't discredit them at all for telling part of the story but I really have to question if you yourself have ever played an organized, team or individual sport in your life where the concept of competition and winning is the main goal.



Anyways. I agree with what I have heard. Craws year to prove himself is this season. Isn't the first goalie in the history to shit the bed in his 2nd year. Crawford has a lot of eyes on him this season and without doubt he himself is putting a lot of pressure on himself. This is someones young career we are talking about. We as fans sometimes can be evil fucks who either love to watch train wrecks or feel good stories emerge from sports. I'm sure there is a good percentage of "Hawk fans" that want to see Craw fail. I want to see him succeed myself.
 

R K

Guest
LordKOTL said:
The difference is Leddy isn't Campbell, Monty isn't Sopel, and Hammer doesn't have a vet to hold his hand this time around. We're coached on the same philosophy, but the players are different. IMHO that's the key difference. If Q was the coach he's cracked up to be, he should know that no matter what system you coach, you have to tweak it to the players you have, not try and make your players play a system they can't play.



Further, let's not forget our forwards are as much to blame for some of the biggest fuckups leading to high-percentage goals against (i.e. Sharp's play leading to the tying goal in game 4).



EVERYONE needs to play better when the puck is behind the blueline. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
Click to expand...



You named it. Until the losing streak Q had them playing uptempo offensive hockey as a team. After the losing streak, and or towards the end, he moved back to defensive hockey, holding forwards responsible. Is why I included coaching.



I specifically named Duncan and Leddy because they were the two culprets most culpible for TERRIBLE GA'S in front of their goalie.

They can not do that and continue to expect their goalie to bail them out.
 
PatrickShart

PatrickShart

New member
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
4,782
Liked Posts:
452
I don't think a save percentage is measurable game to game - but at the end of the season, it can be a measuring stick on how a goaltender performed. The eye test - I don't think the team had much confidence in Crawford as the season went on. I'm not very comfortable in Crawford's mental makeup and I think it translate to the D trying to do to much to cover/block every single shot - which essentially pulls them out of position or trying to do too much (which I think has been Keith's problem much of the last 2 years). Too many straight on shots/saveable chances go in on him. On the PK - the goaltender needs to be able to make a save or two...and I don't think they got that last year. This team could have used him to steal a game or two during the long losing streak. Maybe even 1 shutout?



At the end of the year, I don't think its too much to want/expect average numbers - around that .910%. I don't ever expect him to challenge for a Vezina...just expect average out of him. Physically I think he's capable...mentally...not sure, but I hope so. Because the D gets blamed for any of his shortcomings.
 

R K

Guest
pmxc12873 said:
I don't think a save percentage is measurable game to game - but at the end of the season, it can be a measuring stick on how a goaltender performed. The eye test - I don't think the team had much confidence in Crawford as the season went on. I'm not very comfortable in Crawford's mental makeup and I think it translate to the D trying to do to much to cover/block every single shot - which essentially pulls them out of position or trying to do too much (which I think has been Keith's problem much of the last 2 years). Too many straight on shots/saveable chances go in on him. On the PK - the goaltender needs to be able to make a save or two...and I don't think they got that last year. This team could have used him to steal a game or two during the long losing streak. Maybe even 1 shutout?



At the end of the year, I don't think its too much to want/expect average numbers - around that .910%. I don't ever expect him to challenge for a Vezina...just expect average out of him. Physically I think he's capable...mentally...not sure, but I hope so. Because the D gets blamed for any of his shortcomings.
Click to expand...



I think it's a combination, along with coaching. Win like a team, lose like a team. Imagine had JT not gone out and was healthy come playoff time.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
I'm a fan of statistics, but like many have said, stats don't tell the whole picture.



The quality of shots is something that just can't be given a numerical value. What makes a shot from somewhere more/less than another shot isn't something numbers can tell you.



I can tell you after watching the Hawks play last season, that Crawford had too many quality shots against. By quality Variable, I mean shots between the defensive zone faceoff circles to the goal mouth, untouched/point blank/ backdoor/easy shots on net. As a forward, if I know that the other teams D isn't going to pressure me or make me pay (read the Brookbank article tomorrow) for taking the puck to the net, I'm essentially licking my chops. Crawford was thrown out to dry a lot last season. Our defense sucked, and so did our forwards in zone. That comes down to poor coaching and structure. That's not Crawfords fault.
 

R K

Guest
Crawfords fault where his soft goals. Just like the defense fault was GA's and improper positioning, just like the coaching was responsible for the type/style the team in front of him played. Which changed as the season when along, and did improve after the losing streak.



Win like a team, lose like a team. Every aspect has things they can work and improve on IMO.
 

Ton

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
3,991
Liked Posts:
124
Location:
Park Ridge, IL
R K said:
Crawfords fault where his soft goals. Just like the defense fault was GA's and improper positioning, just like the coaching was responsible for the type/style the team in front of him played. Which changed as the season when along, and did improve after the losing streak.



Win like a team, lose like a team. Every aspect has things they can work and improve on IMO.
Click to expand...



Which, ironically, is when we saw Crawford's best stretch of hockey of the season.



I miss 2010. You know, when the whole team was in sync... yeah, get that back!
 
PatrickShart

PatrickShart

New member
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
4,782
Liked Posts:
452
With the team not turning over 9-10 new players in the off season, is a start. Thats a coaches/chemistry nightmare.
 

Ton

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
3,991
Liked Posts:
124
Location:
Park Ridge, IL
pmxc12873 said:
With the team not turning over 9-10 new players in the off season, is a start. Thats a coaches/chemistry nightmare.
Click to expand...



Have to agree, but then again in 2011-12, the roster turnover really wasn't too bad... maybe 4-5 players that actually mattered?
 
PatrickShart

PatrickShart

New member
Joined:
May 17, 2010
Posts:
4,782
Liked Posts:
452
Last year....new faces at the start of the season that didn't start 10-11 -

Leddy, Brunette, Kruger, Mayers, Montador, Carcillo, O'Donnell, Lepisto



Yes, I realize Leddy played 46gms the year before and Kruger 7



But you can then say Shaw, Olsen, Hayes and Oduya to an extent were "new faces"



That's a lot of turnover once again..closer to 10 than 5. Whether they "mattered" or not, when you have 23 players on your roster and each of the last 2 years having 10 new faces doesn't make it easy for a coach. It looks as if this year will be different. One of the biggest things once Toews and Kane started in CHI,



08-09 - Campbell, Huet, Walker, A.Johnson

09-10 - Hossa, Kopecky, Madden



Then the next 2 years they've had to restructure the finances/have that 50% turnover. Hopefully they're at the point where they don't have to do that and have some young talent in the pipeline.
 

sniper

New member
Joined:
Jul 3, 2012
Posts:
29
Liked Posts:
0
he will never be top 5, but for everyone wanting luongo to replace him... vancouvers asking price is too high cause they dont think they need to move him, also provides insurance if schneider fails. its just not worth it at term and trade price. if i were stan i would go for kiprusoff and if the asking price is too high just call it a day and go with crawford for another year and see if he can do it. bernier and all these other upcoming backups arent worth the time either.



the only time i can see crawford in the top 10 goalies is if hes playing on elite teams. but if his 3rd year is anything like his 2nd year, he'll never get that chance again.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
sniper said:
he will never be top 5, but for everyone wanting luongo to replace him... vancouvers asking price is too high cause they dont think they need to move him, also provides insurance if schneider fails. its just not worth it at term and trade price. if i were stan i would go for kiprusoff and if the asking price is too high just call it a day and go with crawford for another year and see if he can do it. bernier and all these other upcoming backups arent worth the time either.



the only time i can see crawford in the top 10 goalies is if hes playing on elite teams. but if his 3rd year is anything like his 2nd year, he'll never get that chance again.
Click to expand...

I would consider the Hawks an elite team.



If the team plays better defensively and as RK said, Crawford got more consistent with not letting in soft goals, he could be solid just like Niemi was.
 

R K

Guest
Niemi was not exactly "top 5" in the Stanley Cup Finals either.. Lucky for him Leighton and boucher sucked more...



Lets not get carried away. Not to mention that SC team was FAR MORE defensively repsonsible than either Crawfrod has been behind. That's where Trev's 'quality shots" fit in. Maybe they allow less shots but if out of those LESS Shots more are quality, no goalie will save you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,881members
93,070threads
4,374,909posts
423online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 423 (members: 54, guests: 369)

Staff online NOW

Top