Player Discussion Torey Krug - Part II

[BruinsFanSince94]

maybe try him at wing. just to see how it looks. it would be rather impressive to have Z, Mac, Killer, Mc, and Carlo as 5 of your 6 D. Gryz would get the chance to stay on as the smaller PMD.

Awful idea. This isn’t Matt hunwick, here. I don’t think think McQuaid in over Krug makes it impressive. It actually makes it very redundant.

 

[frickinbobby]

Awful idea. This isn’t Matt hunwick, here. I don’t think think McQuaid in over Krug makes it impressive. It actually makes it very redundant.

it appears we disagree on both aspects.

 

[Mick Riddleton]

I was basically drawn and quartered at the beginning of the year for even having the gall to suggest he's not fit to play top 4 minutes against opposing team's top lines. Glad there's a shimmer of rationality that is starting to permeate through the boards, that maybe I'm not so crazy after all. A great philosopher once said, "Ball don't lie." Puck don't either.

He logs a lot of minutes carrying the puck and by so is prone to turnovers by pushing the envelope, he needs to scale back and play simpler. Some ppl want Karlsson but he is minus 18 and slowing down from injuries. He is also looking at at least a 10 million contract and plays right dee. Not the time to thin the crop in the top 4 this early, next year maybe. Lets see what opens up when teams start to panic in March.

Another great philosopher said
“Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.”

― Bruce Lee, Striking Thoughts: Bruce Lee's Wisdom for Daily Living
- and its Lau's time - Enter The Dragon

 

[JP Nolan]

And for the record this post should be bumped in the future if it happens the biggest winner of a Krug trade would probably be Krug.

Dude would get put on a top pairing and possibly lead NHL D men in scoring and maybe make an all star team.

Now this is very funny....

 

[pineapplestastegood]

Yeah, bad run of play = Not a top 4 defenseman

He hasn't shown anything the past 3 seasons since he's been a top 4 defenseman, that he's actually a top 4 defenseman or anything.

This isn't a "bad run of play". He's never been a top 4 defenseman.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

He logs a lot of minutes carrying the puck and by so is prone to turnovers by pushing the envelope, he needs to scale back and play simpler. Some ppl want Karlsson but he is minus 18 and slowing down from injuries. He is also looking at at least a 10 million contract and plays right dee. Not the time to thin the crop in the top 4 this early, next year maybe. Lets see what opens up when teams start to panic in March.

Another great philosopher said
“Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.”

― Bruce Lee, Striking Thoughts: Bruce Lee's Wisdom for Daily Living
- and its Lau's time - Enter The Dragon

I'm not saying to trade him for nothing. I'm not saying I want Karlsson either. I just want someone who if they're going to play top 4 minutes, to not be a complete liability in the defensive zone.

 

[DrJustice]

Some people will never accept Krug because he is not a rugged, physical penalty killer. They simply look past the role and skill he adds to the team, none of which is to be an elite shutdown defensive defenceman. He has flaws. He has deficits, but they are much easier to make up for than finding a guy who will give you that level of production on the back-end.

Personally, I thought he and McQuaid played a lot better than he and Carlo play together. The defensive flaws are much more noticeable because they have been putting themselves into more bad positions than a more experienced defensive pair. If its up to me, I keep him and Carlo together and hope that over time they learn how to improve their play as a pairing in their own end. If that doesn't happen, there are a few options to perhaps put the players into a better position.

Chara-Carlo
Krug-McAvoy
Gryz-Miller

Chara-McAvoy
Krug-McQuaid
Gryz-Carlo

No need for a Marco Scandella, who will make us a little better defensively and a lot worse offensively. I also believe Krug is a huge part of the chemistry that has let this team gel and succeed this year, and that trading him would be a major step-back in that regard.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

I'm not saying to trade him for nothing. I'm not saying I want Karlsson either. I just want someone who if they're going to play top 4 minutes, to not be a complete liability in the defensive zone.

PMD are generally not very strong defensively. That's just the way it is. Guys like Karlsson, Letang, Burns, Byfuglien, Subban, even Duncan Keith, are not particularly strong defensively. (On the Keith one, it's always been a personal opinion of mine that his defensive play is vastly overrated).

Considering that this team is actually pretty damn good at keeping the puck out of their own net, I am really not concerned about this apparent "total liability" nor do I really believe it based on what I've seen.

 

[bearcountry17]

People

We are 11th in the league for GF/GP

We are 5th in the league for GA/GP

Krug is our highest scoring defencemen. Is he really the problem? He hasn't been good defensively this year but if anything sacrificing a little defensive play for some more offence would balance this team out.

But please, go ahead and trade a top 10 offensive dman in the game because he's been in a slump. It's not like he's played hundreds of good games for us or anything. And clearly his play is enabling the team from getting wins.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

People

We are 11th in the league for GF/GP

We are 5th in the league for GA/GP

Krug is our highest scoring defencemen. Is he really the problem? He hasn't been good defensively this year but if anything sacrificing a little defensive play for some more offence would balance this team out.

But please, go ahead and trade a top 10 offensive dman in the game because he's been in a slump. It's not like he's played hundreds of good games for us or anything.

Nobody disputes his offensive prowess, so saying he's our highest scoring defenseman is irrelevant. Nobody is talking about his offense.

He's not sacrificing "a little" defensive play, he can't play against top 6 forwards in his own end. The money he is paid is better allocated to someone who is more well rounded, and can be counted on to play big minutes against top 6 lines without being a liability in his own end (or coincidentally, at the offensive blue line. Nobody gives up more shorthanded breakaways than Krug.) Where's the stat for positioning? Because Krug has to have some of the worst in the league. Hockey isn't a stat based sport, you can have a great game and have horrible stats, and have a horrible game and have great stats. That part isn't necessarily directed at you.

 

[bearcountry17]

Nobody disputes his offensive prowess, so saying he's our highest scoring defenseman is irrelevant. Nobody is talking about his offense.

He's not sacrificing "a little" defensive play, he can't play against top 6 forwards in his own end. The money he is paid is better allocated to someone who is more well rounded, and can be counted on to play big minutes against top 6 lines without being a liability in his own end (or coincidentally, at the offensive blue line. Nobody gives up more shorthanded breakaways than Krug.) Where's the stat for positioning? Because Krug has to have some of the worst in the league. Hockey isn't a stat based sport, you can have a great game and have horrible stats, and have a horrible game and have great stats. That part isn't necessarily directed at you.

Are you more interested in moving Krug or helping the team?

A more rounded Krug is getting Norris votes and would never be available without an overpayment in assets or cap(FA). So you're suggesting that we sacrifice an offensive player for a more defensive one. I just showed you that this team has more trouble scoring goals than keeeping them out. Please explain your logic because I see none.

 

[ORRMAN]

playoffs last year we watched as this blueline was decimated with injury and no answer and now fans want to move Krug ? Sorry, while I`m not one who thinks he`s an untouchable, if he`s moved, it better be for a helluva return. Yes he has his defensive shortcomings however, when he`s on his game (and he definitely wasn`t vs the Caps) he`s bloody good, toss in a typical season where he`s putting up or around the 40-50 pt range.....

I like Grizz thus far, not sure he can bring offensively what Krug can and I see many of the same shortcomings in his game defensively as Krug has

You and I agree 99% of the time, but Krug is the 1%. I have not been a fan of his for a long time. He moves extremely well East-West, but he is painfully slow South-North. As a small, physically limited D in this NHL, you better be fast. Krug is not; Gryz is. Even as a PP specialist (which I think is the most he can be), his slap-shot is mediocre at best, and it gets blocked frequently. If that blocked shot results in a defender getting past Krug for SH chance, there is virtually zero chance of Krug catching that player.

I do believe other teams value Krug, and we could get a decent return in a trade. With our stable of D prospects, I don't think we necessarily need a LHD coming back. Krug is my new Dennis F. Wideman.

Happy New Year!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

PMD are generally not very strong defensively. That's just the way it is. Guys like Karlsson, Letang, Burns, Byfuglien, Subban, even Duncan Keith, are not particularly strong defensively. (On the Keith one, it's always been a personal opinion of mine that his defensive play is vastly overrated).

Considering that this team is actually pretty damn good at keeping the puck out of their own net, I am really not concerned about this apparent "total liability" nor do I really believe it based on what I've seen.

Excellent point.

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

You and I agree 99% of the time, but Krug is the 1%. I have not been a fan of his for a long time. He moves extremely well East-West, but he is painfully slow South-North. As a small, physically limited D in this NHL, you better be fast. Krug is not; Gryz is. Even as a PP specialist (which I think is the most he can be), his slap-shot is mediocre at best, and it gets blocked frequently. If that blocked shot results in a defender getting past Krug for SH chance, there is virtually zero chance of Krug catching that player.

So you don't like Krug because he's not 'fast'? Who cares about his speed when he's one of the top offensive defenseman in the game? Krug is on pace for 15 goals, which would be a career high. His slapshot is far from "mediocre at best".

I do believe other teams value Krug, and we could get a decent return in a trade. With our stable of D prospects, I don't think we necessarily need a LHD coming back. Krug is my new Dennis F. Wideman.

So you're basically giving up on the season then? Trading Krug for anything other than an upgrade on LHD is doing just that. You're going absolutely nowhere with Chara and then the combination of Grzelcyk, McQuaid, or Miller; whoever is playing the left side behind Chara. And if those prospects aren't ready, it stays the same or gets worse if Chara retires.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This isn't a "bad run of play". He's never been a top 4 defenseman.

In the 2015-16 season, Krug put up 44 points. He was +9. He played 21:37 a night (only Chara played more).

No way do those numbers translate to bottom pair defenseman.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

Are you more interested in moving Krug or helping the team?

A more rounded Krug is getting Norris votes and would never be available without an overpayment in assets or cap(FA). So you're suggesting that we sacrifice an offensive player for a more defensive one. I just showed you that this team has more trouble scoring goals than keeeping them out. Please explain your logic because I see none.

The way people talk about Krug, how is he not the kind of asset that you could trade as the central piece of a package for a more rounded defenseman?

In the 2015-16 season, Krug put up 44 points. He was +9. He played 21:37 a night (only Chara played more).

No way do those numbers translate to bottom pair defenseman.

I don't care about points, I'm not talking about points, and +/- can be an extremely misleading stat. Just because a puck doesn't end up in the back of the net, doesn't mean a good play was made. Where are the numbers for his positioning? Or are there things that happen on the ice that aren't quantifiable by numbers? He should not be playing against the top 2 lines of other teams.

 

[bearcountry17]

The way people talk about Krug, how is he not the kind of asset that you could trade as the central piece of a package for a more rounded defenseman?

Why do we need a more well rounded player(worse offensively, better defensively) when we have more trouble scoring goals than keeping them out. It's a simple question.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

Why do we need a more well rounded player when we have more trouble scoring goals than keeping them out. It's a simple question.

Because Krug's skillset doesn't match where he's slotted into the lineup. Goals for and goals against in a vacuum doesn't mean anything. That accounts for empty nets, garbage time goals, etc. To boil it down to a simple statistic like that, is ignorant. Hockey isn't a stat sport. Just because a mistake doesn't end up in the back of the net, doesn't mean you shouldn't be actively trying to find a way to cut down on those mistakes.

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

Because Krug's skillset doesn't match where he's slotted into the lineup. Goals for and goals against in a vacuum doesn't mean anything. That accounts for empty nets, garbage time goals, etc. To boil it down to a simple statistic like that, is ignorant. Hockey isn't a stat sport. Just because a mistake doesn't end up in the back of the net, doesn't mean you shouldn't be actively trying to find a way to cut down on those mistakes.

So you think your hockey eye is good enough watch a player and decide whether he's a top 4 defenseman or not? Bawahahahaha

I think the coaching staff knows a bit more than you do. Which is why Torey Krug is deployed as a top 4 defenseman, and you're on the internet complaining about it.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

So you think your hockey eye is good enough watch a player and decide whether he's a top 4 defenseman or not? Bawahahahaha

I think the coaching staff knows a bit more than you do. Which is why Torey Krug is deployed as a top 4 defenseman, and you're on the internet complaining about it.

The coaching staff has no other option, they're only working with what they're given.

Although if you want to talk about how the coaching staff handles Krug's ice time, you may want to reference the last game, where they benched Krug for the entire second half of the third period, and the entirety of overtime, in a tie game against a "top" team that has owned the Bruins.

Added to that, the coach publicly called out his poor play as of late, because it's impossible to ignore.

 

[DrJustice]

So somehow having one bad stretch of play = has never been a top-4 defenceman in his entire career?

 

[Chief Nine]

The coaching staff has no other option, they're only working with what they're given.

Although if you want to talk about how the coaching staff handles Krug's ice time, you may want to reference the last game, where they benched Krug for the entire second half of the third period, and the entirety of overtime, in a tie game against a "top" team that has owned the Bruins.

Added to that, the coach publicly called out his poor play as of late, because it's impossible to ignore.

Which is exactly what Cassidy should have done. That doesn’t mean that Krug is permanently benched, he’s too good of a player going through a rough spot. These guys aren’t robots.

 

[bearcountry17]

Ya, who cares about goals for and against when your team is struggling to find wins, oh wait, we could be a top 5 team in P% with a win tonight..... nevermind. To brush off my arguments as simple stats in a vacuum is deflection at it's finest. Whoever scores the most goals comes out with 2 points. Whoever allows the least goals gets 2 as well. The mark of a good team is scoring more goals than you allow. It's ok to admit you're wrong

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

The coaching staff has no other option, they're only working with what they're given.

Although if you want to talk about how the coaching staff handles Krug's ice time, you may want to reference the last game, where they benched Krug for the entire second half of the third period, and the entirety of overtime, in a tie game against a "top" team that has owned the Bruins.

Added to that, the coach publicly called out his poor play as of late, because it's impossible to ignore.

Oh so like I said in a previous post....

poor play of late = Not a top 4 defenseman

You do realize that they are humans, right? They're not robots. They can't be perfect every game. They will have bad runs of play. They will have good runs of play. That's just the name of the game.

 

[pineapplestastegood]

Which is exactly what Cassidy should have done. That doesn’t mean that Krug is permanently benched, he’s too good of a player going through a rough spot. These guys aren’t robots.

I know it's not permanent, but he walked right into that one and I would've been stupid not to mention it.

Oh so like I said in a previous post....

poor play of late = Not a top 4 defenseman

You do realize that they are humans, right? They're not robots. They can't be perfect every game. They will have bad runs of play. They will have good runs of play. That's just the name of the game.

Yes I know about the robot thing, the guy above told me. You just set that one up on a tee for me, I had to swing at it.