Player Discussion Torey Krug - Part II

[77bestever*]

Krug's not "my guy", but apparently you live in a vacuum? Krug will be 25 next hockey season, has been in the league 3 years, and I believe he's still improving. Loui Eriksson will be 31 this summer and is playing in his 10th NHL season. By definition, "on the back 9" means that a player is in the latter stages of their career. For that not to be true with Loui, he would have to play another 11 years, which is not going to happen. He will likely earn his money for the first 2-3 years of the deal, and after that all bets are off.

Krug is 6 years younger than Loui and I will take 6-9 years of a #4-5 d-man that can QB the PP over 2-3 years of a Top 6 wing. Particularly when I can likely turn that wing into a 1st round draft pick and a very good prospect, that either step into the lineup in a few years or turn into more immediate help on the blue line.

I'm not a Krug guy...I'm not a Loui guy...I'm a Bruins guy. Dealing Eriksson is the right move for the franchise because they are NOT winning a Cup this year, even if they do add at the TDL.

Not winning the cup, And you know that. Please tell me who is ?

Krug is not improving, he is terrible in his own end. Below, below average. On a 1-10...He is a 2. Now the league looks to have figured out how to stop his point shot as well. He is having a bad year. Yet you see improvement. And you want to pay him 5 million. That's my opinion. I will respect yours.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

I see inprovement. The first half of this season he was very good. The past month, the same cannot be said. Something is wrong with him offensively... the rest of his game is what it is and we need to accept that. He is solid, but heavily undersized.

 

[Gee Wally]

Not winning the cup, And you know that. Please tell me who is ?

Krug is not improving, he is terrible in his own end. Below, below average. On a 1-10...He is a 2. Now the league looks to have figured out how to stop his point shot as well. He is having a bad year. Yet you see improvement. And you want to pay him 5 million. That's my opinion. I will respect yours.

Gotcha!

 

[Bahston*]

Okay, chill out for a second.

I said Wheeler sacrificed speed when he FIRST PUT ON WEIGHT. He's an extremely good player.

He'd look good in a Bruins uniform....

 

[JEM28]

So then Bergeron makes no sense here either...Should we trade him ? Krejci ? Wow, what we could get for Marchand right now.....Lets trade him also....Anyone else ?

No. They're not pending UFAs and are way more valuable than Loui.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I really question why a guy like Chara only looks bad to some because he has a horrible partner, yet Torey Krug is held to a standard where he's apparently just a failure in his own end and is now somewhat useless in the offensive zone.

If Chara would be better with a more mobile, more adequate #2 defenseman...isn't the exact same argument for a better defensive defenseman valid for Torey Krug?

A guy like Krug and what he brings can CLEARLY be part of a championship team. Couple that with the fact that he is still young and I'd rather add to the defensive core with him than without him.

 

[Bahston*]

I really question why a guy like Chara only looks bad to some because he has a horrible partner, yet Torey Krug is held to a standard where he's apparently just a failure in his own end and is now somewhat useless in the offensive zone.

If Chara would be better with a more mobile, more adequate #2 defenseman...isn't the exact same argument for a better defensive defenseman valid for Torey Krug?

A guy like Krug and what he brings can CLEARLY be part of a championship team. Couple that with the fact that he is still young and I'd rather add to the defensive core with him than without him.

I would love to add with him depending on what the market looks like in the offseason.
I think if we can get some stronger dman around him for the money than give him the 5m if not then dump him.

He's not proving he's ready for that next step.
And people give Chara the benefit of the doubt because of what he's done for us in the past.

 

[Bergyesque]

Here are some stats about Krug from NHL.com on Feb 15th:

He's 4th in the league in Shots among Dmen
Brent Burns 231
Oliver Ekman-Larsson 174
Dustin Byfuglien 170
Torey Krug 169
Erik Karlsson 169

He's 38th (and next to last) in Shot % among Dmen with at least 100 shots
Alex Pietrangelo 2.2 (139 shots)
Torey Krug 1.8 (169 shots)
Seth Jones 0.9 (108 shots)

In his full NHL seasons
2013-2014: 183 shots (11th) / 7.7% (10th among Dmen with at least 150 shots, 33 qualified)
2014-2015: 205 shots (9th) / 5.9 % (14th among Dmen with at least 150 shots, 25 qualified)
2015-2016: 169 shots (4th) / 1.8% (38th among Dmen with at least 100 shots, 39 qualified)

I'm no stats expert, but the gap seems pretty big.
So is he having an lucky year?
Or maybe the accrued responsibilities (due among other things to DH departure) have taken a toll on him.
I don't know, but something is amiss.

 

[Brewins]

Its been ever since he broke his finger last year combined with an unlucky sh percentage

 

[JEM28]

Here are some stats about Krug from NHL.com on Feb 15th:

He's 4th in the league in Shots among Dmen
Brent Burns 231
Oliver Ekman-Larsson 174
Dustin Byfuglien 170
Torey Krug 169
Erik Karlsson 169

He's 38th (and next to last) in Shot % among Dmen with at least 100 shots
Alex Pietrangelo 2.2 (139 shots)
Torey Krug 1.8 (169 shots)
Seth Jones 0.9 (108 shots)

In his full NHL seasons
2013-2014: 183 shots (11th) / 7.7% (10th among Dmen with at least 150 shots, 33 qualified)
2014-2015: 205 shots (9th) / 5.9 % (14th among Dmen with at least 150 shots, 25 qualified)
2015-2016: 169 shots (4th) / 1.8% (38th among Dmen with at least 100 shots, 39 qualified)

I'm no stats expert, but the gap seems pretty big.
So is he having an lucky year?
Or maybe the accrued responsibilities (due among other things to DH departure) have taken a toll on him.
I don't know, but something is amiss.

Not sure, but this post does remind me that Seth Jones would have been a great acquisition for Boston if there were a way to pull it off.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Here are some stats about Krug from NHL.com on Feb 15th:

He's 4th in the league in Shots among Dmen
Brent Burns 231
Oliver Ekman-Larsson 174
Dustin Byfuglien 170
Torey Krug 169
Erik Karlsson 169

He's 38th (and next to last) in Shot % among Dmen with at least 100 shots
Alex Pietrangelo 2.2 (139 shots)
Torey Krug 1.8 (169 shots)
Seth Jones 0.9 (108 shots)

In his full NHL seasons
2013-2014: 183 shots (11th) / 7.7% (10th among Dmen with at least 150 shots, 33 qualified)
2014-2015: 205 shots (9th) / 5.9 % (14th among Dmen with at least 150 shots, 25 qualified)
2015-2016: 169 shots (4th) / 1.8% (38th among Dmen with at least 100 shots, 39 qualified)

I'm no stats expert, but the gap seems pretty big.
So is he having an lucky year?
Or maybe the accrued responsibilities (due among other things to DH departure) have taken a toll on him.
I don't know, but something is amiss.

Personally, I think it's a combination of things:

1) No puck luck

2) Increased ES minutes against Top 6 players requires adjusting to, and may be making him a bit less effective on the PP and offensively at ES (goal-wise)

3) This is subjective, but it seems to me that the strategy on the B's PP has changed. They seem to be moving the puck around as quickly as possible, creating lanes and shooting opportunities for the guys down low, rather than bombs from the point. This may lead to more assists for the D, but less goals.

 

[Burt Reynolds]

Personally, I think it's a combination of things:

1) No puck luck

2) Increased ES minutes against Top 6 players requires adjusting to, and may be making him a bit less effective on the PP and offensively at ES (goal-wise)

3) This is subjective, but it seems to me that the strategy on the B's PP has changed. They seem to be moving the puck around as quickly as possible, creating lanes and shooting opportunities for the guys down low, rather than bombs from the point. This may lead to more assists for the D, but less goals.

As a Krug guy I'm hoping it all boils down to #1. For a guy to average 13 goals a year his first 2 and then struggle to 3(so far. But I'm not expecting more than 5) should at least help out Sweeney at the negotiating table.

 

[MAINE-IAC]

I'm a Krug guy but 5 mil is too much IMO.

 

[Bahston*]

Personally, I think it's a combination of things:

1) No puck luck

2) Increased ES minutes against Top 6 players requires adjusting to, and may be making him a bit less effective on the PP and offensively at ES (goal-wise)

3) This is subjective, but it seems to me that the strategy on the B's PP has changed. They seem to be moving the puck around as quickly as possible, creating lanes and shooting opportunities for the guys down low, rather than bombs from the point. This may lead to more assists for the D, but less goals.

1. A full season of no puck luck? I don't buy it.

2. Isn't he expected to be one of our better dmen on this team? How is he going to stay at the same minutes as he had when we had Boychuk, Siedenberg(in prime), Chara(in prime), and others who played more minutes then him in the pastt years. His whole game is being on the power play even when ES he plays like were on man advantage. How long is it going to take him to adjust if ever?

3. It has definitely changed but he's still taking a hell of a lot of shots on PP and ES. Most in the chest of goaltender or posts... I don't call that bad puck luck I call that not an accurate shooter.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

I like Krug
I don't like the thoughts of anything north of 4m Krug

 

[Pia8988]

5 years ago Krug signs for under 5 million. Nowadays it just doesn't happen. Too many teams need defensemen that will happily pay Krug if Boston chooses not to.

 

[TheBigBadB]

He reminds me of Bergeron(the defenseman) and may end up with the same type of career. PP specialist on the third pairing.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

honestly him having a year with zero puck luck is the best thing that could have happened to us. If they can use his lack of production to leverage him into taking 4 million or less for multiple years then he'll be a steal.

 

[jdz]

honestly him having a year with zero puck luck is the best thing that could have happened to us. If they can use his lack of production to leverage him into taking 4 million or less for multiple years then he'll be a steal.

Yeah he just cant land the puck in the ocean this year. He's a better shooter than we're seeing. I'm ok with his down year being this year.

 

[ODAAT]

Yeah he just cant land the puck in the ocean this year. He's a better shooter than we're seeing. I'm ok with his down year being this year.

think the biggest problem is the lack of defensive depth has put too much pressure on the D. Outside of Z and Seids, all of them pretty much being asked to do way more than they ideally would

I`d be far more concerned if Krug wasn`t shooting or always looking hesitant out there with his decision making which he isn`t

Love the kid, reminds me of Sweeney himself only with much stronger offensive game. Takes on all comers, busts his arse shift by shift, total team guy etc....he`s going nowhere IMO

 

[RedeyeRocketeer]

5 years ago Krug signs for under 5 million. Nowadays it just doesn't happen. Too many teams need defensemen that will happily pay Krug if Boston chooses not to.

Ya but he's still RFA. But with arb rights.

 

[reillysmith38]

Do you guys remember when Brad Marchand was seriously struggling to do anything out there a few years ago? He was woefully inconsistent and the puck was a grenade on his stick.

The defenseman in the league have adjusted to Krug, it's on him to adjust right back. He's talented enough where I think he will bounce back.

 

[ODAAT]

Do you guys remember when Brad Marchand was seriously struggling to do anything out there a few years ago? He was woefully inconsistent and the puck was a grenade on his stick.

The defenseman in the league have adjusted to Krug, it's on him to adjust right back. He's talented enough where I think he will bounce back.

lack of depth on D has made it easier on opponents, has little to do with TK`s game IMO

He`ll still wind up with around 40 pts IMO

 

[reillysmith38]

lack of depth on D has made it easier on opponents, has little to do with TK`s game IMO

He`ll still wind up with around 40 pts IMO

40 pts is perfectly fine with me. And that deserves around 4 million dollars.

I'm not okay paying 5+ but he's worth somewhere under that.

 

[Bahston*]

40 pts is perfectly fine with me. And that deserves around 4 million dollars.

I'm not okay paying 5+ but he's worth somewhere under that.

I would be happy with 4.5 -4.75