Player Discussion David Backes

[Salem13]

3rd in points black hole

Yea, 3rd on this team, that gets you 109th in the league.

Nothing to brag about.

 

[Agent86]

3rd in points black hole



Seems people just love his style. He's a "Bruin" so he gets a pass. Loui is just some soft Euro who won't pick his team up despite leading his team in points for the final stretch run. If only he grabbed someone and yelled in their face, or hit someone hard. Simple fact is if Loui is a perennial loser, Backes is just as much one if not more-so.


That said, I don't give Loui 6 years, and have been okay with Backes. I think he needs to be better for this team, but there are a lot of players that need to be better.

I kind of glossed over the part as well about Crosby, Chicago, and LA also losing in first rounds, which they have. But they all also have multiple cups, something a Backes led team has even gotten close to.

The bolded is based on what? Loui has been to the dance 3 times in his 10 year career with 2 of those coming in his first 2 seasons (which can be argued that he was in no way in a leadership role with Dallas at that point). Backes, in his 10 years has been to the playoffs 6 times, with 5 in a row as captain of the team. Anyone watching last years playoffs saw the elevation of his game and the raw emotion he had when they were finally eliminated by the Sharks, he wore the defeat personally. To say he is a perennial loser is a bit disingenuous, to say the least.

 

[Pia8988]

The bolded is based on what? Loui has been to the dance 3 times in his 10 year career with 2 of those coming in his first 2 seasons (which can be argued that he was in no way in a leadership role with Dallas at that point). Backes, in his 10 years has been to the playoffs 6 times, with 5 in a row as captain of the team. Anyone watching last years playoffs saw the elevation of his game and the raw emotion he had when they were finally eliminated by the Sharks, he wore the defeat personally. To say he is a perennial loser is a bit disingenuous, to say the least.

Loui has won in international play while being one of the better players on said team

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

If there's one thing that is obvious in the Loui vs. Backes debate, it's that no one is changing their opinion on said topic.

Personally, I just didn't like Loui's "nonagressive" style of play. He put up points, but I didn't see that "next gear" from him. Is it unfair of me to want to see a little more aggressiveness, a little more drive? Is it because I'm a Bruins fan and have had a driven into me I want to see things "the Bruins way"? That might be part of it. (That being said, I was ready to be done with Iginla after a year as well...Avs fans feel similar about him now as Canucks fans did about Loui the first 15 or so games of this season).

Will David Backes' contract be ****** in year 4 or year 5? There is a good chance. But I'd really rather a Backes on this team with the expectation for high point totals being put into the more skill and upcoming younger players. Backes is there for physical support and net front presence. He isn't going to bring you a strong skating game, but he generally is going to give 100% every night and can change the tone physically. I have a strong appreciation for it and would rather his game than Loui's, which I often found uninspiring and not impactful on the rest of the team's play.

Just my opinion. It's hard to quantify it as being right or wrong.

 

[BruinDust]

3rd in points black hole



Seems people just love his style. He's a "Bruin" so he gets a pass. Loui is just some soft Euro who won't pick his team up despite leading his team in points for the final stretch run. If only he grabbed someone and yelled in their face, or hit someone hard. Simple fact is if Loui is a perennial loser, Backes is just as much one if not more-so.


That said, I don't give Loui 6 years, and have been okay with Backes. I think he needs to be better for this team, but there are a lot of players that need to be better.

I kind of glossed over the part as well about Crosby, Chicago, and LA also losing in first rounds, which they have. But they all also have multiple cups, something a Backes led team has even gotten close to.

True, but until maybe last year or two with Tarasenko, when has Backes ever had a player the caliber of a Crosby/Doughty/Toews/Kane on his team?

 

[Pia8988]

True, but until maybe last year or two with Tarasenko, when has Backes ever had a player the caliber of a Crosby/Doughty/Toews/Kane on his team?

Pietrangelo may not be Doughty, but he is really good in his own right and while not #1, I think he's in the top 10 of defenders at least.

 

[PlayMakers]

True, but until maybe last year or two with Tarasenko, when has Backes ever had a player the caliber of a Crosby/Doughty/Toews/Kane on his team?

Fwiw, I also think that argument is unfair, because it doesn't speak to the makeup of his team or the quality of the competition...

Look up those playoffs and you see STL got very poor goaltending. Even Team Canada can't overcome bad goaltending. His team's also got beat by LA or CHI in 3 of those 4 playoff runs, two teams with 5 Cups between them in the last 7 years.

Was Ray Bourque a bad leader in Boston? His teams didn't do very well in the playoffs so by the logic of some here he must be a bad leader.

 

[finchster]

Ray Bourque has a damn good record in the playoffs though. He lost giving his best more often than not. The only evidence of Backes' leadership is people say so. Backes has never led a team anywhere and his scoring record in the playoffs isn't good. But all dat yellin tho.

 

[BruinDust]

Fwiw, I also think that argument is unfair, because it doesn't speak to the makeup of his team or the quality of the competition...

Look up those playoffs and you see STL got very poor goaltending. Even Team Canada can't overcome bad goaltending. His team's also got beat by LA or CHI in 3 of those 4 playoff runs, two teams with 5 Cups between them in the last 7 years.

Was Ray Bourque a bad leader in Boston? His teams didn't do very well in the playoffs so by the logic of some here he must be a bad leader.

I think were in agreement here (maybe I worded it poorly).

I don't judge Backes on his leadership abilty based on the lack of team success his Blues has in the playoffs, same as like you mentioned Bourque. Another example is Shane Doan, whose barely seen playoff ice in his career, let alone tasted success, but is a terrific captain and leader for 12-13 years now. If he wasn't, he wouldn't still be there as captain, you don't get it and keep it that long if your bad at what you do.

It works both way. Toews (who I'm a big fan of) is probably over-rated a bit in terms of leadership because of the success his teams have had. He's still a great leader, not disputing that, but let's keep it in perspective as well.

And your right, the Blues lack of playoff success has more to do with faulty goaltending during Backes tenure than anything else.

 

[BNHL]

I think were in agreement here (maybe I worded it poorly).

I don't judge Backes on his leadership abilty based on the lack of team success his Blues has in the playoffs, same as like you mentioned Bourque. Another example is Shane Doan, whose barely seen playoff ice in his career, let alone tasted success, but is a terrific captain and leader for 12-13 years now. If he wasn't, he wouldn't still be there as captain, you don't get it and keep it that long if your bad at what you do.

It works both way. Toews (who I'm a big fan of) is probably over-rated a bit in terms of leadership because of the success his teams have had. He's still a great leader, not disputing that, but let's keep it in perspective as well.

And your right, the Blues lack of playoff success has more to do with faulty goaltending during Backes tenure than anything else.

I have no idea what the leadership of one player does for the success of a team. The 2013-14 team had Chara,Bergeron,Iginla,Boychuk,Kelly and Thornton and were outworked by an inferior Montreal team. The leadership of one player is totally overblown. Give me a soldier with an abundance of talent over a less talented leadership type.

 

[PlayMakers]

Ray Bourque has a damn good record in the playoffs though. He lost giving his best more often than not. The only evidence of Backes' leadership is people say so. Backes has never led a team anywhere and his scoring record in the playoffs isn't good. But all dat yellin tho.

I think STL fans would say Backes lost giving his best too.

Fwiw, here's a list of some people with the same playoff pts per game as David Backes...

Marchand
Filppula
Saad
Kunitz
Stepan
Hudler
Hartnell
Shaw
Neal
Vanek
Silvferberg
Guerin
Knuble
Drury
Simmonds
Gallagher
Langenbrunner
Pacioretty
Ryan
Voracek
Shanahan
Modano

 

[PlayMakers]

I think were in agreement here (maybe I worded it poorly).

I don't judge Backes on his leadership abilty based on the lack of team success his Blues has in the playoffs, same as like you mentioned Bourque. Another example is Shane Doan, whose barely seen playoff ice in his career, let alone tasted success, but is a terrific captain and leader for 12-13 years now. If he wasn't, he wouldn't still be there as captain, you don't get it and keep it that long if your bad at what you do.

It works both way. Toews (who I'm a big fan of) is probably over-rated a bit in terms of leadership because of the success his teams have had. He's still a great leader, not disputing that, but let's keep it in perspective as well.

And your right, the Blues lack of playoff success has more to do with faulty goaltending during Backes tenure than anything else.

Agreed.

 

[PB37]

Ray Bourque has a damn good record in the playoffs though. He lost giving his best more often than not. The only evidence of Backes' leadership is people say so. Backes has never led a team anywhere and his scoring record in the playoffs isn't good. But all dat yellin tho.

If by people you mean players and coaches, you'd be correct.

There's a lot of different things that go into a winning atmosphere and we only see some of those ingredients in the way of product on the ice.

 

[PlayMakers]

I have no idea what the leadership of one player does for the success of a team. The 2013-14 team had Chara,Bergeron,Iginla,Boychuk,Kelly and Thornton and were outworked by an inferior Montreal team. The leadership of one player is totally overblown. Give me a soldier with an abundance of talent over a less talented leadership type.

Is there a rule that you can't have both?

Having one doesn't diminish the other, it compliments it.

Frankly, I have to laugh at fans who claim leadership doesn't matter, when every single player you ask would say it matters immensely. When every coach you ask would say it does. When every GM at the deadline goes searching for it...

Who do you think is more qualified to answer that question?

 

[BruinDust]

I have no idea what the leadership of one player does for the success of a team. The 2013-14 team had Chara,Bergeron,Iginla,Boychuk,Kelly and Thornton and were outworked by an inferior Montreal team. The leadership of one player is totally overblown. Give me a soldier with an abundance of talent over a less talented leadership type.

I mean there is no right answer.

How much would a team win if they had twelve Ryan Spooner's up front at the same time? Probably not much.

Conversely, how much would a team win if they had twelve Derek McKenzie's? Probably about the same as the team with twelve Spooner's, probably not a whole lot.

I guess at the end of the day it takes the right mix of intangibles and talent.

I also don't believe you can win without a solid leadership group.

But like you pointed out with that 2013-14 team, a solid leadership group is no guarantee of success either.

We've also seen players probably prolong careers by a year or two because of their leadership abilities and character, so it does matter. We've also seen some skilled guys find themselves out of work a bit early because of perceived character issues.

 

[BNHL]

Is there a rule that you can't have both?

Having one doesn't diminish the other, it compliments it.

Frankly, I have to laugh at fans who claim leadership doesn't matter, when every single player you ask would say it matters immensely. When every coach you ask would say it does. When every GM at the deadline goes searching for it...

Who do you think is more qualified to answer that question?

Just show me tangible results from adding a leader to a team that presently has veteran leadership. If it's a rudderless ship,lacking leadership,then I see it. If it's a veteran team with 6 Cup winners on it,I have no idea what it means in wins and losses to add 1 more "leader."

 

[LSCII]

Are people really arguing about Backes vs Loui?? And whether Backes is a leader or not? Maybe it's just me, but I think a far more reasonable discussion involving Backes is why he's continually being rolled out with DK when they've shown they don't seem to play well together. I'd like to see Backes with Pasta and Spooner.

 

[finchster]

There's a lot of different things that go into a winning atmosphere and we only see some of those ingredients in the way of product on the ice.

Well Backes hasn't been on a winning team and his contribution to the Bruins hasn't improved the team thus far. 95% of what goes into a winning team happens on the ice.

 

[PB37]

Well Backes hasn't been on a winning team and his contribution to the Bruins hasn't improved the team thus far. 95% of what goes into a winning team happens on the ice.

St Louis wasn't a winning team? What? They've been one of the best teams in the West for 5/6 seasons.

And I disagree with your percentage.

 

[PlayMakers]

Just show me tangible results from adding a leader to a team that presently has veteran leadership. If it's a rudderless ship,lacking leadership,then I see it. If it's a veteran team with 6 Cup winners on it,I have no idea what it means in wins and losses to add 1 more "leader."

That would be like me saying show me the wins/losses proof that speed makes you better. The Bruins are clearly faster this year, but they're in the same spot in the standings as last year. (Slightly worse, I think.) San Jose won the west and certainly wasn't the fastest (or youngest) team out there. Colorado is one of the fastest teams in the league and they're terrible. EDM has been one of the fastest teams in the league for 3 years now and they consistently finished in the basement. It wasn't until they added a leader like Lucic that things changed.

Seriously, though, so much goes into winning/losing that it's very hard to say "show me how" a leader/speedster/youth/age/etc made them tangibly different in wins/losses. Any example I give, you're going to point to something else as being the "real" reason for the changes.

For example, Joel Ward is considered a leader, he went to SJ last year and they go from being perennial playoff flop to Cup finalists. Matt Cullen in PIT. It had been a long time since they went deep, how much did his leadership contribute in those tough games against TB? You could probably argue that Brouwer's leadership and experience helped get STL to the Conference finals.

Honestly, people here downplayed the contributions of Mark Recchi. They couldn't have been more wrong or disrespectful in their views toward him during the 2011 Cup run, but when it was all said and done, guys like Bergeron said he was the catalyst.

I would think Patrice Bergeron's comments are tangible proof. And I believe he is also on record as saying this team needed more leadership and that he's happy to have Backes in that role. I don't think anyone is saying leadership is more or less valuable than speed/talent/age/etc. Just that it matters. Every Cup winner since the beginning points to great leadership as a reason for their success. And every 1st overall picking team points to a lack of leadership as an issue.

 

[PlayMakers]

95% of what goes into a winning team happens on the ice.

And yet, you take Mark Recchi off that 2011 Bruins team and I would bet the farm that Bergeron would tell you they don't win the Cup.

Recchi wasn't a game changer. He was constantly maligned on here and Julien was vilified for using him. Bergeron, Krejci, Marchand, Horton, Chara, Thomas... Recchi's biggest contribution to that team was his leadership.

 

[BNHL]

That would be like me saying show me the wins/losses proof that speed makes you better. The Bruins are clearly faster this year, but they're in the same spot in the standings as last year. (Slightly worse, I think.) San Jose won the west and certainly wasn't the fastest (or youngest) team out there. Colorado is one of the fastest teams in the league and they're terrible. EDM has been one of the fastest teams in the league for 3 years now and they consistently finished in the basement. It wasn't until they added a leader like Lucic that things changed.

Seriously, though, so much goes into winning/losing that it's very hard to say "show me how" a leader/speedster/youth/age/etc made them tangibly different in wins/losses. Any example I give, you're going to point to something else as being the "real" reason for the changes.

For example, Joel Ward is considered a leader, he went to SJ last year and they go from being perennial playoff flop to Cup finalists. Matt Cullen in PIT. It had been a long time since they went deep, how much did his leadership contribute in those tough games against TB? You could probably argue that Brouwer's leadership and experience helped get STL to the Conference finals.

Honestly, people here downplayed the contributions of Mark Recchi. They couldn't have been more wrong or disrespectful in their views toward him during the 2011 Cup run, but when it was all said and done, guys like Bergeron said he was the catalyst.

I would think Patrice Bergeron's comments are tangible proof. And I believe he is also on record as saying this team needed more leadership and that he's happy to have Backes in that role. I don't think anyone is saying leadership is more or less valuable than speed/talent/age/etc. Just that it matters. Every Cup winner since the beginning points to great leadership as a reason for their success. And every 1st overall picking team points to a lack of leadership as an issue.

How can it be argued? How many leaders does a team need? I was one of the Recchi critics,I think they win with a comparable player of no significant leadership value. It seems that leadership is a quality people use to build up a player who may be lacking somewhere else. IE;Loui was a very good 2 way player,great net front presence and great in the corners. Backes is a very good 2 way player,great net front presence,physical and good leader. In my opinion Backes will fall short of Loui's 30 goals but make up for it in hits and leadership.

 

[finchster]

St Louis wasn't a winning team? What? They've been one of the best teams in the West for 5/6 seasons.

And I disagree with your percentage.

Playoff disappointment after playoff disappointment in St Louis with Backes under preforming. I am sure somewhere Backes' name is etched on the intangibles cup. So St Louis was a playoff team but they won nothing and went no where.

And yet, you take Mark Recchi off that 2011 Bruins team and I would bet the farm that Bergeron would tell you they don't win the Cup.
.

You know, I can put stock into that argument because the Bruins at that time were a young team that had never won anything.

However, our players have won at every level and been through wars. Adding a guy who never won anything won't and hasn't made a difference

 

[PlayMakers]

Maybe it's just me, but I think a far more reasonable discussion involving Backes is why he's continually being rolled out with DK when they've shown they don't seem to play well together. I'd like to see Backes with Pasta and Spooner.

I don't know. I'm not convinced of that yet. Krejci has 8pts in his last 9 games, so something is going right there. I think Bergeron's struggles between the team's two most prolific scorers is more perplexing.

Plus, I'd like to see what a trio of Vatrano-Krejci-Backes looks like. I like the makeup in terms of skill-sets, and I feel like Krejci is at his best when there's chemistry among all 3 players, Lucic-Krejci-Horton, Wheeler-Krejci-Ryder... So far, it's been 46-42 and a revolving door.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing them mix things up until Vatrano gets back, and I wouldn't mind seeing Backes at center again. I know that there's this belief that Backes is better at center but I wonder if that mantra is based on too small of a sample size to really know if it's true. I mean, he only played 3 games there, and in 2 of those games he didn't record a point.

My guess is that their reluctance to put Backes at center (and Pastrnak on the 3rd line) is because the 3rd line plays less. Whether that 3C is Backes, Krejci or Bergeron, it's going to mean a reduction in ice time for one of your better players.

 

[EverettMike]

David Backes has been worth 6 million a year thus far: yes or no?

(You can even ignore the injury to answer this.)