I would like to see Schlemko double shifted and playing 25+ minutes a night like Wideman while against the other teams best players. His possession numbers are good because he plays against the other teams bottom lines, lets get some perspective here.
In 2011-12 Schlemko faced tougher competition than Wideman faced last year.
Yes possession is a team stat. But Wideman faced less tough competition last season than competition Schlemko has proven himself against.
Did playing bottom pairing help Schlemko's possession last year? Yes.
Did playing middle pairing hurt Wideman's possession last year? Yes.
But that doesn't mean Schlemko falls apart when you put him in a top 4 role. He does visible things that wideman doesn't like keeping the puck in the blue line and being less chaotic defensively. Those don't just go away from better competition.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 09-10-2015 at 08:00 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
I see them as being comparable options that bring different elements. Wideman isn't nearly as good as people think and Schlemko isn't as replacement-level as people think.
He plays a quiet game that goes pretty unnoticed, and doesn't put up much stats. I wouldn't put it past 70%+ of GMs in the league to not have watched any real tape on the guy.
so, do you think BT is one of that 70%, considering he let Schemko walk for a one year 625K deal?
Shlemko was an awesome player, very unnoticeable (good for a 6/7) and skated quite well I thought. Devils got a great deal @ 625K. All the best to this guy, what a way to come into an organization with that shoot-out move!
Yes possession is a team stat. But Wideman faced less tough competition last season than competition Schlemko has proven himself against.
Did playing bottom pairing help Schlemko's possession last year? Yes.
Did playing middle pairing hurt Wideman's possession last year? Yes.
But that doesn't mean Schlemko falls apart when you put him in a top 4 role. He does visible things that wideman doesn't like keeping the puck in the blue line and being less chaotic defensively. Those don't just go away from better competition.
It's not a Wideman v Schlemko thing, not even close. Smid was likely the one in the way of Schlemko coming back. Bring up whatever advanced stats you want from whatever year you want but I still prefer Wideman. Call it the eye test, call it ignorance, call it whatever you want, I just think Wideman is better.
Schlemko is better positionally but Wideman is better at every other aspect of the game IMO. I would take Schlemko as the perfect 6/7 guy but Wideman is just a better NHL player with his skillset: his booming shot, good passing skills and being decent hitter (though he does lose his man from time to time). He is a way better option as our 4/5 than Schlemko with how he can run the PP and how he has great chemistry with guys like Gaudreau and Hudler. He got more goals and points last season than David has in his entire career. Whatever advantage you think Schlemko has over Wideman defensively is not near enough to make up that grand canyon sized difference offensively. In addition, Wideman is a RH shot which makes him perfect for the second PP, an advantage I can't overstate. With Gio-Hamilton-Brodie-Wideman as our PP defense I fully expect a 20%+ PP given the talent up front. Russell is great insurance too. Sub Schlemko in for Wideman and we are one injury away from losing the advantage that Hamilton has provided us: depth in our top 4. There was just no room for Schlemko unfortunately as there is no trade market for an injured Smid and Engelland probably isn't getting a flood of calls either.
Last edited by Fire of the Phoenix; 09-10-2015 at 10:39 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fire of the Phoenix For This Useful Post:
The reason he wasn't signed was because he had little offensive contribution. Seems like we are building a team of two way defenders that can put up points. Makes sense, the more points the d have the better the team will be other things considered the same.
__________________ https://www.reddit.com/r/CalgaryFlames/
I’m always amazed these sportscasters and announcers can call the game with McDavid’s **** in their mouths all the time.
The reason he wasn't signed was because he had little offensive contribution. Seems like we are building a team of two way defenders that can put up points. Makes sense, the more points the d have the better the team will be other things considered the same.
The reason he wasn't signed was because like Diaz he was butter soft.
9 hits in 19 games as a Flame on a team that is playing 2 smaller skilled d-men in their top 4 ...(targets rather than hunters) Russell and Brodie....
There is room for the non-contact players (Gaudreau, Brodie, Monahan and Hudler) but they have to be a lot more skilled than Schlemko is.
That is why I don't have a lot of confidence in improving team success by adding another non-contact player in Frolik. Although adding Hamilton and bumping Diaz and Schlemko off the roster is a huge positive move.
Some here would take Schlemko over Wideman, that's fine and you can think whatever you want. I'm willing to bet that no NHL GM's would agree and I'm glad you have no input on who the Flames have on their roster.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Poe969 For This Useful Post:
The reason he wasn't signed was because like Diaz he was butter soft.
9 hits in 19 games as a Flame on a team that is playing 2 smaller skilled d-men in their top 4 ...(targets rather than hunters) Russell and Brodie....
There is room for the non-contact players (Gaudreau, Brodie, Monahan and Hudler) but they have to be a lot more skilled than Schlemko is.
That is why I don't have a lot of confidence in improving team success by adding another non-contact player in Frolik. Although adding Hamilton and bumping Diaz and Schlemko off the roster is a huge positive move.
I think the reason he didn't sign was because he knew he'd be in the AHL most of the year. I don't doubt BT offered him a deal.
NJ gave him an opportunity to stay in the NHL full time.
Some here would take Schlemko over Wideman, that's fine and you can think whatever you want. I'm willing to bet that no NHL GM's would agree and I'm glad you have no input on who the Flames have on their roster.
I disagree, I believe they deserve to be resoundingly ridiculed.
Schlemko is a serviceable, inexpensive bottom-pairing Defenceman who can play limited minutes.
Dennis Wideman, while more expensive, is also vastly more talented as a Top 4, if not top pairing, unsheltered, big minutes defenceman who can make an excellent first pass out of the zone and QB a powerplay. He scored 56 points last season.
David Schlemko has 50 NHL points period.
Wideman accrued more points last season than Schelmko has in his career.
So really, all Schlemko has going for him is that hes younger and cheaper but nowhere near as good.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I disagree, I believe they deserve to be resoundingly ridiculed.
Schlemko is a serviceable, inexpensive bottom-pairing Defenceman who can play limited minutes.
Dennis Wideman, while more expensive, is also vastly more talented as a Top 4, if not top pairing, unsheltered, big minutes defenceman who can make an excellent first pass out of the zone and QB a powerplay. He scored 56 points last season.
David Schlemko has 50 NHL points period.
Wideman accrued more points last season than Schelmko has in his career.
So really, all Schlemko has going for him* is that hes younger and cheaper but nowhere near as good.
And The Schlemko.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
But that doesn't mean Schlemko falls apart when you put him in a top 4 role. He does visible things that wideman doesn't like keeping the puck in the blue line and being less chaotic defensively. Those don't just go away from better competition.
Pretty astonishing that a D reaches 56 points from his own zone. It truly shows you the flippancy of counting stats IMHO, I will now commence disregarding them. If only Wideman could keep the puck in at the blueline like Schlemko, he might have better, Schlemko like numbers.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobHopper
The thing is, my posts, thoughts and insights may be my opinions but they're also quite factual.
Whatever advantage you think Schlemko has over Wideman defensively is not near enough to make up that grand canyon sized difference offensively.
For the record I'm not arguing Schlemko > Wideman, but:
1) Among top 4 guys, Wideman is one of the worst defensemen in the league in his own zone. There was a TSN article posted yesterday that actually makes a case he is possibly the worst:
This isn't about "corsi" either, this is about shots on goal against taken in the slot and the crease per minute. Even Russell pulls out ahead of him despite being way smaller and stuck paired with him 90% of the time.
2) Schlemko's offense isn't as poor as the numbers suggest. There were many offensive plays last season that started because Schlemko was on the ice, but he did not get any credit because the puck was passed multiple times before it found the back of the net. Just watching him play you could tell his offensive impact was positive, even if he isn't the playmaker that Wideman is.
3) Overall, it's a defenseman who has a positive impact on defense, if a bit less "proven" against better competition, and a positive impact on offense, vs a player that has an overwhelmingly negative impact on defense, if a bit more "proven" against better competition, and a an overwhelmingly positive impact on offense. The net result is slightly above zero for both players but neither is a true top 3 defenseman. Both are NHLers. They bring different elements though.
4) The biggest mistake though is looking at point totals to separate players' impact. Just think back to all the offense that was generated by TJ Brodie last season where he didn't get a point, and all the offense that was generated by Johnny where Wideman just had to make the final play.
Maybe Schlemko doesn't get those Wideman points, but he genuinely did generate a lot of offensive opportunity, especially for the Stajan line, through neutral zone and defensive play as well as his basic ability to hold the puck in. You can look at a lot of our bottom 6 forwards and see how much they were struggling pretty much all year, and then when the Schlemko/Diaz showed up they all experienced legitimate boosts in their individual production. Stajan, Bollig, Shore, Ferland, Granlund all finished the season and postseason playing a lot better than they had most of the year and it wasn't by co-incidence. Does that happen if Wideman is on the bottom pairing? Maybe, but in a cap world 5.25 million might be the difference between keeping Hudler or Russell, it's pretty tough to justify Wideman on the bottom pairing, and it's not easy to justify him on the middle pairing either. He's a tweener who's paid due to stats his overall play doesn't quite live up to.
Last year was an awesome team to watch, but it was still breakdown city. These I see these two players as High Risk, Medium Reward vs Low Risk, Medium Reward. The reward of the two players is more similar than different, the path to it is different.
Quote:
In addition, Wideman is a RH shot which makes him perfect for the second PP, an advantage I can't overstate.
No disagreement here. But if Wideman is not a top 4 D then he can't be afforded. If Schlemko is not a top 4 D he'd have been dirt cheap.
Quote:
There was just no room for Schlemko unfortunately as there is no trade market for an injured Smid and Engelland probably isn't getting a flood of calls either.
I agree. The fat contracts of Smid and Engelland were probably the main thing that stopped Schlemko from being kept. There also had to be space for prospects to get a chance.
Quote:
9 hits in 19 games as a Flame on a team that is playing 2 smaller skilled d-men in their top 4 ...(targets rather than hunters) Russell and Brodie....
When you're spending most of your time with the puck, you can't exactly be the Hunter. And how many times do I have to remind you the Hawks were the team that had the least hits in the NHL last year and won the Stanley Cup?
Quote:
so, do you think BT is one of that 70%, considering he let Schemko walk for a one year 625K deal?
Brad Treliving has a history with Schlemko that goes back to Schlemko breaking into the NHL, Schlemko playing half a season on a WCF Coyote team's top 4 against top competition. BT is anything but part of that 70%. I understand why he let Schlemko go (we have seven guys under contract) and it's also possible it was Schlemko's decision to not be a potental #8D.
What Brad thinks of Schlemko can only be known by his own comments on the guy:
Brad Treliving has a history with Schlemko that goes back to Schlemko breaking into the NHL, Schlemko playing half a season on a WCF Coyote team's top 4 against top competition. BT is anything but part of that 70%. I understand why he let Schlemko go (we have seven guys under contract) and it's also possible it was Schlemko's decision to not be a potental #8D.
What Brad thinks of Schlemko can only be known by his own comments on the guy:
BT let him go because he didn't think he was better than a depth defenseman.
its a 625K salary on a 1 year contract... if Schemko was as good as some people here think he is, you'd think he sign for a lot more and teams would have been chomping at the bit.
he's not better than Smid or Engelland. If he was, then BT f'd up majorly by letting him walk for nothing compared to just putting Smid or Engelland on waivers and saving salary.
BT does have a history with Schlemko... and yet still let him walk for peanuts...
