WC Playoffs Round 1: St. Louis Blues vs Chicago Blackhawks (Blackhawks win 4-2).

[strombad]

Uh oh!

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Really, you think the Blues went after Bouwmeester and his $6.75M contract, gave up their 1st round pick for 1 point and -1 in the Playoffs.

I highly doubt it. As per usual, he does nothing when it counts and his defenders come in and say "well he's not a bad player". No #### he's not "Bad", but he's not good and he's not a difference maker. You don't give up your 1st round pick for "depth" on the blue line. He's underdelivered as a Blue just as he did here, only in St.Louis the team is good enough to make it to the dance with him being blaze. But they aren't good enough to win around with one of their top defenders not being the difference maker he's paid to be.

Bow's comparables in this series are Keith and Seabrook end of story. And they kicked the #### out of him. Do the Blues lose this series if their top 2 d-men were putting up the same numbers as the Hawks top 2? Not a chance. Bouw failed to do what he's paid and expected to do.

There is a bit of a difference playing D against St Louis (Oshie coming of injury, Tarasenko, Schwartz, Steen, Injured Backes) then playing D against Chicago (Toews, Kane, Saad, Sharp, Hossa) so I am not sure what you are getting at with the comment saying that Keith (who is one of the best 3 D in the world) and Seabrook outplayed Bouwmeester.

Bouwmeester averaged 25min/g against what is widly considered the best team in hockey (and defending stanley cup champs) and you are referring to him as a "depth defenceman". Give your head a shake, him and Pietro were responsible for keeping this series as close as it was as Miller and the Shattenkirk pairing weren't doing their jobs.

Bouwmeester may not be a "game breaker" offensively but he never gets beat one on one, can skate with anyone, and makes almost no mistakes on the ice. Bouwmeester is however an elite defenseman (top 20 in the world) and to say otherwise is ludicrous.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

excuse me but I guess that it a bit much to expect your highest paid player to actually dominate and control a game. Try and find an example where Bouwmeester is a difference maker in an important game........ in a positive way

Who set up Jamie Benn's goal against the Americans?

(See semi-finals, 2014 olympic game kind of a big game)

Just saying...

[bubbsy]

why the hell does Bouwmeester ever get PP time? He is absolutely terrible from the point. He is so damn shy to shoot the puck, it takes him about a full minute to come to the conclusion that he should shoot, and by that time his weak ass shot is usually blocked or he just puts it wide/into the corner on purpose.

Watching him this series reminded me just exactly why i wanted him off the flames as soon as humanly possible.

he wasn't the sole reason the blues lost, maybe not even a big part of the loss. He won't be the reason the blues win either though. He's a guy who should quietly play his defensive game and hope someone else on the roster can make the big plays.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

There is a bit of a difference playing D against St Louis (Oshie coming of injury, Tarasenko, Schwartz, Steen, Injured Backes) then playing D against Chicago (Toews, Kane, Saad, Sharp, Hossa) so I am not sure what you are getting at with the comment saying that Keith (who is one of the best 3 D in the world) and Seabrook outplayed Bouwmeester.

Bouwmeester averaged 25min/g against what is widly considered the best team in hockey (and defending stanley cup champs) and you are referring to him as a "depth defenceman". Give your head a shake, him and Pietro were responsible for keeping this series as close as it was as Miller and the Shattenkirk pairing weren't doing their jobs.

Bouwmeester may not be a "game breaker" offensively but he never gets beat one on one, can skate with anyone, and makes almost no mistakes on the ice. Bouwmeester is however an elite defenseman (top 20 in the world) and to say otherwise is ludicrous.

You are making appologies for Bouw, and you missed my point.

Bouw is NOT a depth d-man, that was my point, he's St.Louis' equivalent to Keith and Seabrook. But he doesn't make the difference that Keith and Seabrook make in a positive fashion to their club, which is a huge reason why Chicago is moving on and St.Louis isn't. Bouwmeester is also one of the best D-men in the world too (he made Team Canada), and when his contract in Calgary paid him as one of the top 5.

And that's the point, Keith and Seabrook are rarely outperformed by the opposition teams other top 2 d-men. Bouw is always a top 2 d-man on his team in the NHL, but in a situation that mattered, when has he ever outperformed his counter parts on the other squad. The answer is never, which is why he isn't good at his job. I called him a depth defender because when people come in to defend him, they hold him to a depth defender standard, not the elite standard he should be held too.

You choose to make excuses for him by saying he had a tougher job in this series than Keith and Seabrook. I actually agree, but it's a long career now of him not getting it done when it counts, and people like Keith getting it done when it counts, we need to stop saying his failures are situational and accept he's not a guy you have in your top 2 if you want to win.

[Enoch Root]

I don't think that Bouwmeester was one of the primary reasons that St Louis lost the series.

But I do think he was one of the primary reasons that they didn't win it.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't think that Bouwmeester was one of the primary reasons that St Louis lost the series.

But I do think he was one of the primary reasons that they didn't win it.

This might be the best and most simple post I've ever read on the topic. In order for Bouwmeester to be successful, and be what he's expected to be, he has to start being a reasons why his teams win. It's not good enough at his pay scale and minutes to simply not be a reason they lost, he's not a backup goalie who just "needs to give his team a chance".

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

And that's the point, Keith and Seabrook are rarely outperformed by the opposition teams other top 2 d-men. Bouw is always a top 2 d-man on his team in the NHL, but in a situation that mattered, when has he ever outperformed his counter parts on the other squad. The answer is never, which is why he isn't good at his job. I called him a depth defender because when people come in to defend him, they hold him to a depth defender standard, not the elite standard he should be held too.

You choose to make excuses for him by saying he had a tougher job in this series than Keith and Seabrook. I actually agree, but it's a long career now of him not getting it done when it counts, and people like Keith getting it done when it counts, we need to stop saying his failures are situational and accept he's not a guy you have in your top 2 if you want to win.

Let me get this straight...

You say he is a top 2 D man on one of the best teams in hockey all season, yet you state right after that he isn't good at his job? That makes no sense. If you are a top 2 D man in the league, one of the 20 best in the league, and are able to crack team Canada you are ELITE at your job.

You say it is a long career of him not getting it done, well he played on 2 of the worst teams in hockey (Florida then Calgary) what is your definition of not getting it done? Making playoffs, winning a cup? Did Bourque have a long history of not getting it done until he went to Colorado (subsequently didn't get it done) then won in his second year there?

Bouwmeester did his job in this series and in the series last year against the Kings. They lost to the Kings because Quick>>>>Ellis. They lost to Chicago because they didn't have there captain take a cheap shot and get knocked out of the series. If Bouwmeester did a Seabrook to Toews would you then consider him a "winner" because I can almost guarantee that Chicago without Toews in the lineup would have lost the series.

I understand what you are trying to say (he doesn't perform to his salary expectations, and that he got outplayed by Keith and he should have done more) but I think your statement is backed more by a bias against Bouwmeester and the TEAMS result then with his actual performance in the playoffs.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

Let me get this straight...

You say he is a top 2 D man on one of the best teams in hockey all season, yet you state right after that he isn't good at his job? That makes no sense. If you are a top 2 D man in the league, one of the 20 best in the league, and are able to crack team Canada you are ELITE at your job.

You say it is a long career of him not getting it done, well he played on 2 of the worst teams in hockey (Florida then Calgary) what is your definition of not getting it done? Making playoffs, winning a cup? Did Bourque have a long history of not getting it done until he went to Colorado (subsequently didn't get it done) then won in his second year there?

Bouwmeester did his job in this series and in the series last year against the Kings. They lost to the Kings because Quick>>>>Ellis. They lost to Chicago because they didn't have there captain take a cheap shot and get knocked out of the series. If Bouwmeester did a Seabrook to Toews would you then consider him a "winner" because I can almost guarantee that Chicago without Toews in the lineup would have lost the series.

I understand what you are trying to say (he doesn't perform to his salary expectations, and that he got outplayed by Keith and he should have done more) but I think your statement is backed more by a bias against Bouwmeester and the TEAMS result then with his actual performance in the playoffs.

let's be honest here, only reason bouwmeester made team canada was that they had an "out of the box" top pairing, as Pitreangelo was a lock for the team.

Bouwmeester shouldn't be talked about in the same convo as the top tier dmen of the league. He is in the 2nd tier of dmen in the league (vlasic, hamhuis). He's a shutdown dman, without the physical intimidation that label typically comes with. His skating allows him to jump up on the rush as he can skate himself out of trouble, but his offensive skill itself is terrible, bad shot, bad vision, etc.

at least his salary rank has gone down, as previously his salary was a joke for what he brings to a team. He's #9 dman in the league as far as pay goes, and i'd argue he's still likely overpaid.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

let's be honest here, only reason bouwmeester made team canada was that they had an "out of the box" top pairing, as Pitreangelo was a lock for the team.

Bouwmeester shouldn't be talked about in the same convo as the top tier dmen of the league. He is in the 2nd tier of dmen in the league (vlasic, hamhuis). He's a shutdown dman, without the physical intimidation that label typically comes with. His skating allows him to jump up on the rush as he can skate himself out of trouble, but his offensive skill itself is terrible, bad shot, bad vision, etc.

at least his salary rank has gone down, as previously his salary was a joke for what he brings to a team. He's #9 dman in the league as far as pay goes, and i'd argue he's still likely overpaid.

And yet Keith was a lock for the team and Seabrook didn't make it... Not saying he is better then Seabrook I am just saying he made it on the team for more then being Pietroangelos D partner.

I also agree with you that he is a 2nd tier D man, but that still puts him in a tier that starts at 8th best D man in the world, (behind in no particular order Keith, Weber, Pietroangelo, Doughty, Chara, Suter, McDonaugh) meaning that he is in the top 20 in the world. I am not saying that he is a flawless D man, or that he isn't handsomely rewarded, I am only saying Chicago won because they have more talent throughout the lineup except in net, and Chicago's goalie was better. Not because Bouwmeester was bad.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

And yet Keith was a lock for the team and Seabrook didn't make it... Not saying he is better then Seabrook I am just saying he made it on the team for more then being Pietroangelos D partner.

I also agree with you that he is a 2nd tier D man, but that still puts him in a tier that starts at 8th best D man in the world, (behind in no particular order Keith, Weber, Pietroangelo, Doughty, Chara, Suter, McDonaugh) meaning that he is in the top 20 in the world. I am not saying that he is a flawless D man, or that he isn't handsomely rewarded, I am only saying Chicago won because they have more talent throughout the lineup except in net, and Chicago's goalie was better. Not because Bouwmeester was bad.

The huge thing .... the elephant in the room so to speak..... is that Bouwmeester never steps up and dominates a game and makes the players that play with him better. He disappears in important games .... he had every opportunity in the world to step up and carry the Flames into the playoffs in 2011-12 where the Flames lost 5 close games down the stretch that if Bouwmeester would have played anywhere as a top 20 D-man they could have won and knocked the SC champs Kings out of the playoffs.

He has not stepped up in the Blues last 8 playoff losses.

Did Bouwmeester outplay 33 year old journeyman Sheldon Brookbank.. this series.... Maybe... but not by a lot.

It can definitely be said that Brookbank did not cause the Hawks to lose...

[blender]

Wow.
Popped in here to see if there was any follow up discussion about a pretty good series between two really good TEAMS, and am amazed by the Bouwmeester bashing/debate.
I guess it is a discussion, but it seems cut and pasted from so many other threads from when he was a Flame.
Guys, we've heard it all before. Let's just say he's better than some give him credit for and not as good as some think and be done with it.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by blender

Wow.
Popped in here to see if there was any follow up discussion about a pretty good series between two really good TEAMS, and am amazed by the Bouwmeester bashing/debate.
I guess it is a discussion, but it seems cut and pasted from so many other threads from when he was a Flame.
Guys, we've heard it all before. Let's just say he's better than some give him credit for and not as good as some think and be done with it.

He is a significant reason that St. L (the prototypical young team that built on a 5 year plan) with hasn't won a Playoff series since the year before they got him.

Before Bouwmeester they were clearly the best up and coming team. Maybe it is just a coincidence but their biggest "win now" acquisition appears to have set them back and might very well prevent them from getting to their 2011-12 potential.

Two very good teams - why does one win and one lose 4 straight playoff games 3 years in a row?

[blender]

^^^^You really think he is that bad, don't you?

[Machiavelli]

I haven't been a fan since his first season with the Flames, but I don't think Bouw had anything to do with the Blues' lack of success this playoffs.

They just don't have enough (any?) difference-makers up front.

Still very glad he's gone.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Dienasty

Let me get this straight...

You say he is a top 2 D man on one of the best teams in hockey all season, yet you state right after that he isn't good at his job? That makes no sense. If you are a top 2 D man in the league, one of the 20 best in the league, and are able to crack team Canada you are ELITE at your job.

You say it is a long career of him not getting it done, well he played on 2 of the worst teams in hockey (Florida then Calgary) what is your definition of not getting it done? Making playoffs, winning a cup? Did Bourque have a long history of not getting it done until he went to Colorado (subsequently didn't get it done) then won in his second year there?

Bouwmeester did his job in this series and in the series last year against the Kings. They lost to the Kings because Quick>>>>Ellis. They lost to Chicago because they didn't have there captain take a cheap shot and get knocked out of the series. If Bouwmeester did a Seabrook to Toews would you then consider him a "winner" because I can almost guarantee that Chicago without Toews in the lineup would have lost the series.

I understand what you are trying to say (he doesn't perform to his salary expectations, and that he got outplayed by Keith and he should have done more) but I think your statement is backed more by a bias against Bouwmeester and the TEAMS result then with his actual performance in the playoffs.

I own a Bouwmeester jersey, I have no bias against him. It's all perspective like you said. He's the 9th highest paid defender in the league. IMO teams acquire him and bring him on board to be the best defender on the ice at both ends of the ice. Whether it be making a difference in making the Flames move from a 10th place team to an 8, or helping his Blues win a round, I just don't feel like he delivers in any important situation. He doesn't #### the bed either, but I just don't think that's enough at his pay grade.

[Dienasty]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

He is a significant reason that St. L (the prototypical young team that built on a 5 year plan) with hasn't won a Playoff series since the year before they got him.

Before Bouwmeester they were clearly the best up and coming team. Maybe it is just a coincidence but their biggest "win now" acquisition appears to have set them back and might very well prevent them from getting to their 2011-12 potential.

Two very good teams - why does one win and one lose 4 straight playoff games 3 years in a row?

Again st Louis lost because they played the kings (defending Stanley cup champion) then Chicago (defending Stanley cup champion) it isn't like they have been playing cupcake teams.

Bouwmeester has been everything that st Louis has hoped for and probably more. He is on what is widely considered one of the top five d pairings in the entire NHL so I am finding it hard to believe that he is being accused of letting the team down. If you want to knock him for his salary shouldn't you be knocking management for signing him?

As steam whistle said he doesn't think he deserves his salary, that is a fair argument, I would disagree but that is why we all have our own opinions!