Player Discussion David Backes

[Hali33]

I wouldn't sign either to a 6x6 contract at their ages while the plan for defense is to "wait for the prospects". Not only to crack the roster but handle the significant roles that need to be addressed. That's asking a lot.

Always been a fan of Backes. I like the idea of Backes for leadership and agree this is an area lacking in the team. But at the same time, I doubt in your face leadership is really going to help the overall effect if the team is just not that good.

How many players were really playing below their capabilities? Hayes and Rask? Not sure how effective he'll be changing that and there's really no one on defense who I think will play better with someone in their face calling them out. The effort has never been in question there, they're just not that good and it's where this team carries far and away its biggest weakness.

Contract vs contract I suspect Loui is the more productive player for more years and I suspect there's a fair degree of separation between the two.

Until a capable team is on the ice I think Backes leadership effect is not going have a significant impact on the overall result.

 

[HiyaGeorgii]

I wouldn't sign either to a 6x6 contract at their ages while the plan for defense is to "wait for the prospects". Not only to crack the roster but handle the significant roles that need to be addressed. That's asking a lot.

Always been a fan of Backes. I like the idea of Backes for leadership and agree this is an area lacking in the team. But at the same time, I doubt in your face leadership is really going to help the overall effect if the team is just not that good.

How many players were really playing below their capabilities? Hayes and Rask? Not sure how effective he'll be changing that and there's really no one on defense who I think will play better with someone in their face calling them out. The effort has never been in question there, they're just not that good and it's where this team carries far and away its biggest weakness.

Contract vs contract I suspect Loui is the more productive player for more years and I suspect there's a fair degree of separation between the two.

Until a capable team is on the ice I think Backes leadership effect is not going have a significant impact on the overall result.

It's more for the guys coming up I think instead of the guys already here. My issue is they signed backs in five minutes, and haven't extended Marchand in 2 1/2 months. How many 6-7 mil forwards can a team have?

 

[Fossy21]

It's more for the guys coming up I think instead of the guys already here. My issue is they signed backs in five minutes, and haven't extended Marchand in 2 1/2 months. How many 6-7 mil forwards can a team have?

I doubt they let LE21 go to sign Backes, only to let that steer them into letting Marchand go. If Marchand isn't a Bruin in a year's time because they signed Backes, I'll join the doom and gloom crowd.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

He was on the 4th line and looked exactly like a 4th liner IMO. I doubt he plays in the tournament. Most of the teams are just too quick for him. He had some hits.

In the playoffs, the guy was the best player for a STL team that went to the WCF's. I think he will be OK in the NHL (which is all I care about) for the next 3 years. Years 4 and 5 have me worried a bit, but it is what it is. Any good 31-32 year old is looking for a 5-6 year deal in this day and age.

 

[HiyaGeorgii]

In the playoffs, the guy was the best player for a STL team that went to the WCF's. I think he will be OK in the NHL (which is all I care about) for the next 3 years. Years 4 and 5 have me worried a bit, but it is what it is. Any good 31-32 year old is looking for a 5-6 year deal in this day and age.

Agreed with the NHL. I'm not worried about him, I think the modern day athlete can play well at 36.

 

[HiyaGeorgii]

I doubt they let LE21 go to sign Backes, only to let that steer them into letting Marchand go. If Marchand isn't a Bruin in a year's time because they signed Backes, I'll join the doom and gloom crowd.

I'm not doom and gloom, I think the team will trend up. I'm just not sure the most wise thing is to have over 20 mil invested in 3 30 yo centers may not be the way to go. Add in 7 mil for Marchand and that's over 1/3 of your cap.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

I'm not doom and gloom, I think the team will trend up. I'm just not sure the most wise thing is to have over 20 mil invested in 3 30 yo centers may not be the way to go. Add in 7 mil for Marchand and that's over 1/3 of your cap.

Agreed.

I don't think the Backes deal affects signing Marchand in any way, shape or form.

 

[PlayMakers]

Chalk it up to agreeing to disagree I suppose on what our definition of the subjective term "physical presence" is, but I consider the grinding and battling in front of the net just as important as the hits and corner battles when it comes to that.

I consider Loui's work in front of the net just as important too. That doesn't make him a physical presence.

...I also think it's a little simple to think that you have to only play like those players to be considered a physical presence.

Definitions tend to be like that. Simple and specific. You're trying to re-define and broaden an established hockey term. Ask 100 people to name a player who exemplifies the term "physical presence" and they'll say Neely, Lucic, Byfuglien... Ask a thousand, ask 10,000, nobody is going to say Loui Eriksson. That doesn't mean he's not good at what he does and it doesn't mean that what he does isn't important. He's just not a physical presence, in the classical sense of the term.

What you're doing would be like me suggesting Chris Kelly and Adam McQuaid are "skilled players" because I feel like penalty killing is a skill, therefore whenever someone in the hockey world refers to "skilled players" I think we should all picture Kelly right next to Kane.

 

[PlayMakers]

I agree with you BofJ. I'd call Loui one of the best boards players in the NHL and one of the best puck possessors in the NHL. I don't see how a player can be at that level without being physical. Now that isn't to say he's intimidating anyone because he's not, but he wins way more than his share of battles for loose pucks. Hard to do that without using your body.

Come on Beeps, I'm not sure why you and BoJ feel the need to "defend" Eriksson on this point. He threw 22 hits last year, he's not a physical presence by any accepted definition of the term.

Eriksson does some things better than Backes, I think he has better hands and poise. Backes does some things better than Eriksson, he's a physical presence and he's a good center.

That doesn't mean Eriksson isn't good along the walls or in front of the net. Eriksson and Backes both do that well. Lucic is probably the first player most people would name when asked to pick a player who exemplifies "physical presence" and he was terrible in front of the net.

 

[EverettMike]

Isn't this just a semantics debate at this point? It kinda seems like everyone agrees on the two players, just not on how to define their traits.

 

[BNHL]

Maybe he meant that, with Loui gone, they needed to improve their transition game?

I mean, he did try to re-sign Eriksson, and offered the same deal he got in Vancouver. So it's not like he thought Eriksson was a bad player.


That said, I'm not crazy about the so-call "possession" stats. They're based on shots. David Krejci is the Bruins best possession player, in terms of actually having the puck on his stick the most, but he's not rated that way because he doesn't like to shoot. A player like Vatrano is going to have big "possession" numbers because he'll spray pucks on net every chance he gets but he will rarely actually possess the puck.

And I think when a coach or GM uses the term possession they're talking about one thing, and when fans hear the term "possession" they think analytics. To a coach/GM, a player who helps your possession game is someone who can either find those quiet spaces, like Krejci and Dastyuk and Kane, or someone who can work the walls and play keep away by protecting and shielding the puck. Eriksson was good at that, so is Backes. I watched the STL/DAL series and Backes dominated that series by possessing the puck in the corners against Klingberg and Goligoski. He was like a man against boys, they literally couldn't get the puck from him. That's possession, that buys you time and wears down the other team's defense, but if it doesn't result in a shot it's not treated as such by analytics.

I didn't know that.

 

[bp13]

Isn't this just a semantics debate at this point? It kinda seems like everyone agrees on the two players, just not on how to define their traits.

Yeah Mike is right.

I personally don't think a guy needs to hit to be called "physical", and I'd use Loui or Bergy as great examples. Other guys feel like "physical" means they hit. That's fine. It's semantics. Ultimately if you want to win, you need the puck. Puck possession directly leads to goals. I think Loui's value in that area is tremendous. I'm glad they didn't sign him to 6/$36, but I'd have been happier with that bad deal than the Backes deal because I don't see Backes being remotely effective in years 4 or 5 whereas I think Loui will be.

But anyway...

 

[PlayMakers]

I didn't know that.

Maybe I'm wrong. I thought it was reported that the issue wasn't money it was term, and then as July 1st approached, it was reported that Sweeney gave in on the term.

 

[BNHL]

Maybe I'm wrong. I thought it was reported that the issue wasn't money it was term, and then as July 1st approached, it was reported that Sweeney gave in on the term.

If that's true,either he was dreaming of the Sedins or just wanted out. Sucks to hear that.

 

[finchster]

Yeah Mike is right.

I personally don't think a guy needs to hit to be called "physical", and I'd use Loui or Bergy as great examples. Other guys feel like "physical" means they hit. That's fine. It's semantics. Ultimately if you want to win, you need the puck. Puck possession directly leads to goals. I think Loui's value in that area is tremendous. I'm glad they didn't sign him to 6/$36, but I'd have been happier with that bad deal than the Backes deal because I don't see Backes being remotely effective in years 4 or 5 whereas I think Loui will be.

But anyway...

Besides, if you wanted to use hits as a measure of physicality, the Bruins were 6th in the NHL last year. http://www.sportingcharts.com/nhl/stats/team-hit-statistics/2015/

The problem with hits, it's a subjective stat and some places count hits more than others. But, I don't ascribe to the theory the Bruins are bad because they aren't tough or don't hit enough. Adding Backes last year over Eriksson gets us to second in the NHL in hits, but is that really a problem, does hits mean anything?

Five of the top ten teams in hits were playoff teams, the same for the bottom ten in hits. Hitting is not a determiner of success. The mental aspect or intimidation can have an effect, but I don't think anyone is afraid of David Backes.

 

[Fossy21]

Maybe I'm wrong. I thought it was reported that the issue wasn't money it was term, and then as July 1st approached, it was reported that Sweeney gave in on the term.

Haven't heard the reports, but maybe they lowered average money when they upped the term? I don't blame him for leaving for the Sedins even if he was offered the same from both teams. Fairly convinced he'd still be here if offered it before reaching free agency anyway.

I'm not doom and gloom, I think the team will trend up. I'm just not sure the most wise thing is to have over 20 mil invested in 3 30 yo centers may not be the way to go. Add in 7 mil for Marchand and that's over 1/3 of your cap.

Sorry if I made it sound like you are. I meant that my reaction to letting Marchand go to sign an ageing Backes (not to mention other moves they've made, none of which I'm not really too negative about) would probably be drastic.
I agree that it's not the wisest decision, but still don't think it affects Marchand's status.

 

[EverettMike]

Assuming he plays 78 games (no other modifiers):

Over/Under 49.5 points?

 

[DKH]

Assuming he plays 78 games (no other modifiers):

Over/Under 49.5 points?

Vegas line? That's pretty good Mike

I'll go over if he gets 75 games

Claude will run him out there all the ting and with Spooner Pasta & Krejci as potential linemates he's playing with 3 guys who lean heavily to the offensive sheet and do best work there

Backes I'll go 25/30/55 if he gets 75 games I'll give him 7 to whatever

 

[EverettMike]

I made the line up.

 

[Pia8988]

Assuming he plays 78 games (no other modifiers):

Over/Under 49.5 points?

Over

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

this guy

 

[Nose Face Killah]

absolutely love backes. gonna have a good year

 

[bob27]

Better than I thought in the first game. Hope he keeps it up.

 

[Fopppa]

Looks like he's already in a leadership role, A on the chest notwithstanding. The way he and Marchy pulled the entire team back into the game toward the end of the second last night was very pleasing.

 

[DKH]

He's a 1980-90's player. In a perfect world he would have come up around 1975 and played in the Don Cherry teams and into the late 80's early 90's.

What he does is expand the Core of Four vet forwards

The odds of the Bruins winning games when either Bergeron or Krejci are out is not usually good but this guy can be plugged in like we saw last night

He should be called the handyman because that what he does- this is Claude's Christmas pony

The concern is the last year or two of his contract when he's 35 and 36.

Three points on specifically the contract

1. The contract was structured player first 3 years team last 2. Everyone that comments to me personally ends with 'oh, I didn't know,'

2. Look around the league - go on General Fanager.

3. We should wait to till it happens instead of assuming he is going to be Chris Kelly the final year.