2008-09 Rink Wrap: Matt Bradley
by David Getz on May 20, 2009 7:00 AM EDT
in Rink Wraps
Email
PrintFrom Alzner to Varlamov, we're taking a look at and grading the 2008-09 season for every player who laced 'em up for the Caps for a significant number of games during the campaign, with an eye towards 2009-10. Next up, Matt Bradley.
Matt Bradley
#10 / Right Wing / Washington Capitals
6-3
201
Jun 13, 1978
8
$1,000,000 through 2010-11; UFA after 2010-11 season
6.98 rating
Key Stat: Bradley's 8.03 hits per sixty minutes of play were the third most on the team, second most among forwards, and ahead of Alexander Ovechkin and Milan Jurcina.
Interesting Stat: Of Bradley's nine fights in 2008-09, he wasn't credited with a single win by voters at hockeyfights,com. His season record was 0-5-4.
The Good: As usual, Bradley brought energy and physicality to the Capitals' fourth line without hurting the team. His 1.69 GAON/60 was second lowest on the team, he took an exceptionally low seven non-coincidental minor penalties this season, while drawing thirteen, the fourth best among team forwards. In true grinder fashion, Bradley stepped up his game in the playoffs: his six points were tied with Viktor Kozlov for eighth on the team and were more than David Steckel and Tomas Fleischmann.
The Bad: Bradley's already pedestrian offense output dropped in the 2008-09 regular season: his goal total went from six to five, his assists total from eleven to six, and his point total from eighteen to eleven. For all his hard work, Bradley could stand to do a better job of getting his big body in front of shots (he blocked fewer per sixty minutes than anyone on the team other than Alex Semin) and although opponent didn't score all that often when Bradley was on the ice, they still scored more often than the Capitals did. In addition some of what Bradley did well is mitigated by the fact that he had the second lowest quality of competition rating among Capitals forwards.
The Vote: Rate Bradley below on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the best) based on his performance relative to his potential and your expectations for the season - if he had the best year you could have imagined him having, give him a 10; if he more or less played as you expected he would, give him a 5 or a 6; if he had the worst year you could have imagined him having, give him a 1.
The Discussion: What would you like to see Bradley improve on in 2009-10? What will it take for him to earn a 10 rating next year? Does his play as a member of the very successful third-line in the playoffs mean he might be ready for full-time third-line duty next year?
150 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
45 votes without a comment… guess I’ll start us off.
I gave him a 5 – lower end of “as expected,” but bumped him to a 6 for a strong post-season.
To get a 10, he’d have to be in double-digits in goals and be in the upper single digits in plus/minus, which may not sound like a high bar, but given that he should again be a fourth-liner next year, I think it’s fair.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I gave him a 7 this year (similar +1 playoff bump). To get a 10 I agree he needs double digit goals but on this team I think he also needs to be a more effective penalty killer. With the emphasis on special teams now I don’t think you should have too many guys that can only contribute 5 on 5.
That’s a really interesting point – I hadn’t thought of it that way.
Quick math reveals that the following is a complete list of Caps who got less combined 5-on-4 and 4-on-5 time per game than Brads:
ALEXANDREGIROUX
ERICFEHR
STAFFANKRONWALL
KEITHAUCOIN
SEANCOLLINS
DONALDBRASHEAR
JAYBEAGLE
Not too many regulars there, eh? (And obviously Fehr sticks out like a sore thumb here… sigh.)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Calling Fehr a regular is a pretty charitable description, games dressed notwithstanding. Thanks for the breakdown, I expected it to look something like that but hadn’t looked at the numbers myself.
But he certainly is a regular for this analysis in that he’s taking a sweater on a regular basis and only playing five-on-five.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Le sigh
…if only he was Flash. Maybe we can give BB some ‘shrooms and put a red wig on Fehr and he’ll get 16min/g.
Anyway, I gave Brads a 5 as well. I expected more offense from him and got virtually none. He’s a good grinder and did what he was supposed to do, nothing more, nothing less. Perfect 5 material.
Brads is a better PKer than he gets credit for, at least statistically. Not a lot of TOI there, no, but apparently he could handle more. Wouldn’t we ALL rather have Brads killing than Flash?!
Wouldn’t we ALL rather have Brads killingthanFlash?!
Fixed that for you.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Eh, as Brads repeatedly showed during the regular season, he’s a threat to hurt no one. Zing!
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
he also would need to win a few more fights or at least not have his nose explode.
I realize the team is happy he is willing to go to bat, but it can’t be fun or inspiring to see him tuned up like a pinata every time.
I gave him a 6, 4 of that being based on his post season play in round 1. I thought he was mediocre to poor for even Bradley during the season, but he probably was a key catalyst for the team even making beyond round 1. For that, I’m not going to bash the guy too much.
I don’t think his fight W-L is relevant. The fact that he fought 9 times is all that’s important. Ask Talbot how much you can spark your team by taking a beating.
it certainly is relevant.
he’s being paid partially to add toughness and throw them on occasion (9 times on a team that fights rarely is a big number) and he doesn’t do that well.
That isn’t his fault, and I’m glad he is game, but he doesn’t get a million bucks to just throw big hits and play 8 or 9 minutes a game.
If you want someone to win fights for you consistently, resign 87, or ask Erskine to drop the gloves more. Bradley is a scrapper, not a fighter, and he’s going to lose almost any fight he enters, and I’m ok with that.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on May 20, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
win a few more fights or at least not have his nose explode.
Does Brads become our go-to Bodyguard if Brash is sent packing? I am dubious.
Erskine is next in line, then Brads. Hopefully, SDR surprises everyone next camp and brings his certain amount of crazy to the team, incl., but not limited to, fights (that he’ll likely lose as a 20 year old, considering that, as far as I know, he’s not built/trained like Milan Lucic).
by DrinkingPartner on May 20, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Ersky plays his best when he doesn’t have to worry about the “bodyguard” role, but we’ll see.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on May 20, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Posted this in the Hershey breakdown thread. Did you see that SDR got sent home today from Hershey? Guess he either wasn’t ready at this level or they just didn’t need what he brought. Might be longer than you think before we see him in Washington.
by HateOffSeason on May 20, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Depends on which “we” you’re talking about.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Probably true. I was just thinking that any hope that he would be able to replace Brash either next year or the one after is probably not realistic. If he wasn’t an amazing enough talent to crack the Hershey roster even once, he probably has a way to go. Not that that is a slam at SDR, I hope he is an excellent player and that he does make a positve contribution to the team. I wouldn’t know one way or the other, I"ve never seen him play.
by HateOffSeason on May 20, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely not. Brads can’t even get a win in the middleweight class of NHL fighters.
As DP says above, Erskine is next in line, but I have serious doubts about Erskine’s willingness to be ready EVERY night to take on a heavyweight. His only two fights this year after returning from his umpteenth concussion were solid performances (Belak and Rechlicz), but in both cases he was jumped and wasn’t looking for a fight.
I love Erskine, and think he’s a well above average fighter, but he’s one glancing blow off the chin from not having a career anymore. The Caps need to bring in somone bigger to fill this full-time role, assuming Brash is eating borscht next year. SDR is too small.
Erskine could handle the grind of it, if he was given the task. But like you said, one missed shot or a slip, and he is done for his career.
I also think his little knicks and bruises he plays with would limit his effectiveness.
They need a fighter, and they need an effective one if they don’t bring Brash back. that’s how it needs to be. I know Bruce isn’t a fight first kinda guy, but you need toughness.
DET, CAR, PIT basically don’t have fighters. Godard and Clownboy never dress so I don’t count them. CHI has Eager and a couple tough types that will drop the mits (Burrish, Walker, Bolland, Bufflin) but no real heavyweights. I think the Final 4 this year is showing just how useless fighters have become. I’d rather have Darren Helm on my 4th line than Brash.
by Rob Parker on May 20, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Spot on.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on May 20, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes. He is still a needed part of a hockey team.
Maybe not him, but you need a guy who can throw them well.
It certainly helps if they can take a 10-12 minute shift and not be a skating bear, but you still need a guy who cleans up the mess. Especially on a hockey team like this that has some toughness issues from top to bottom.
I’m sure a skating bear would scare the bejesus out of people too, and would be a much lighter cap hit.
by Stephen Pepper on May 20, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
i still think it is needed in the regular season. Playoffs, not so much. But during the regular season, this team, with the goons they face consistently, need a fighter of some repute.
What JP said, above. I completely agree with you. The regular season is a totally different animal. And out of the final four teams this year, only DET didn’t regularly dress a heavyweight during the regular season, right? I think DET is the exception, not the norm of the league. Most teams will carry a heavyweight and dress them every night, or at least when matched up against a team with one.
This is not addressed to anyone specific, but in my opinion, it is a contradiction when some people try and hold Brash accountable during the regular season by saying he’s “not doing his job” by allowing other teams to take liberties, but then turn around and say his type is useless and not needed.
I get the whole staged fighting nonsense and how the league might want to look at that, but I also get that the regular season is over 6 months long, that there is simply not as much on the line on a nightly basis (as in the playoffs), and there is a need for deterrance that doesn’t exist in the playoffs.
in my opinion, it is a contradiction when some people try and hold Brash accountable during the regular season by saying he’s "not doing his job" by allowing other teams to take liberties, but then turn around and say his type is useless and not needed.
I don’t think there’s a contradiction there. For example, my opinion is that Brashear didn’t really do much of anything to deter physical play against the Capitals but that the team was still fine, i.e. that Brash isn’t needed.
Am I the only one who, when Brash was not on the ice to fight, saw him do some real good work being a power forward in the corners and a few drives to the net, albeit VERY few and far between occasions?
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on May 20, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, I think Brashear has been one of those guys who could do more than just fight throughout his career. He’s a good hitter, he works hard, he forechecks pretty well, and he plays good position for the most part. Heck, he even has a pretty good set of hands. But I think he’s slowed down enough as he has aged that the team can find someone who can contribute more.
by David Getz on May 20, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The way your response is written, then no, there is no contradiction. But I don’t think that’s what I’m getting at. Put another way, I feel there is a contradiction when we as fans say “Hey you, you didn’t fulfill your role in last night’s game”, and then follow it by saying, “Well, I don’t think your role is necessary, but I’ll call you out anyway”.
I think many teams are “fine”, despite not always deterring physical play, but that doesn’t mean you don’t want someone of Brash’s ilk available for a response. I’m only using Brash as an example. I agree with highlighting certain games where he didn’t live up to what he was paid to do, but I disagree with saying his role in the league isn’t necessary. Sometimes it seems as if some fans want it both ways: they want protection for the skill guys, but also want to indict the unskilled guys that protect them.
I liked this comment so much, I rec’d it and JP’s comment rec’ing it.
by Gould Old Days on May 20, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Why do you think that he stays a 4th liner? Is there someone on the farm that will come and be better than him on the 3rd line? His goals against Henrik were as important as any in that series.
Easily he stays a fourth liner. His goals in the NYR series were awesome, but not to be expected, and he knows his role. Bring up a Bear or sign a 3rd liner.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on May 20, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Really? I loved the 10-39-21 3rd line vs. the Pens. You don’t see that line coming back?
by Love and Osechkin on May 20, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t. Brads is a 4th-liner. Laich is a 3rd-liner who can play up a line in a pinch. Stecks is probably a 4th-liner who can play on the 3rd.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
You guys are holdin’ the man down!!!
Seriously though, I know I am wearing playoff colored glasses. But wouldn’t it be phenomenal if that magic carried through all 82 next year?
by Love and Osechkin on May 20, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Your best chance is if 10-39-21 becomes the fourth line:
AO — Backstrom — Acquisition
Semin — Acquisition — Fehr
Fleishmann — Fedorov — Chris Clark
Bradley — Steckel — Laich
But realistically, I see Laich in the top 9, and I don’t see Bradley there.
There’s a 3rd line alternative:
AO – Backstrom – Semin
Fleicshmann – Acquisition – Fehr
Bradley – Steckel – Laich
Acquisition – Gordon – Clark
But that’s not as good a team.
by Gould Old Days on May 20, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I actually like that first set of line GOD, I just don’t like not seeing Gordon for the PK.
by HateOffSeason on May 20, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Re-read the post. In fact, re-read the thread. Things are not as you see them.
by Gould Old Days on May 21, 2009 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Let’s also comment on how everyone loves him in the locker room. He brings a lot more to the table than just his game on the ice.
by zephyr on May 20, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree w/ this… from all accounts I’ve ever seen/heard via radio/tv/in person … he’s the “team clown” and keeps everyone loose.
As is the case w/ Fedorov… sometimes intangibles earn you part of your paycheck. for brads, he’s scrappy, smart, works hard, and will defend his teammates even if it means taking a beating from somoene, i’d love to have that guy on my team.
rec’d
I voted an 8..
I compare this to last year and frankly, I really expected him to be, well, nothing more than a player who scores once every 15 games and lose fights. His numbers are a bit lower but he absolutely SHINED on the Laich/Steckel/Bradley line. All of those guys deserve great ratings for performing where it matters: the playoffs. You can sleep through the regular season as long as you perform like those three when it’s win or go home.
Follow-up: The guy costs $1M .. you’re practically playing unproven rookies who may not even make it in the NHL that much money. For the physicality he brings to the game and the occasional secondary scoring, he’s worth it to me.
Thirded. 8 from me also. The key is “relative to his potential and my expectations”. Sure, he could score a few more goals, but Brads has my utmost respect for the courage, durability, and leadership he showed throughout the season (never mind stepping up his production big time in the postseason).
I’ve given him tons of shit for the way he performs in fights, but you have to give him credit for being one of only two or three Caps willing to drop the gloves on a regular basis. He had some gruesome fight losses this year, but only missed one game. That is toughness. He wears the “A” on occasion, and if you go to a few practices at Kettler, you’ll easily notice the way guys respond to him and his character.
I gave him a 7
For those reasons as well; but he basically saved the season (for a little while) in the first period of game 5 against the Rangers. If he doesn’t shatter the Lundqvist mystique there, the Caps may not have even gone back to MSG for Game 6.
7 and he'll probably stay there
Brads is a guy with a limited ceiling, so 7 might be as good as it gets. I will say that I sometimes forget he’s 6-3 because he doesn’t necessarily play his size. He was terrific in the playoffs and is a leader on/off ice, but, aside from using his size more forcefully, I’m not sure what he can do to get above 7/10 from me. At his price, he’s a great value.
Remember, you’re not grading these guys relative to anything but your own expectations for them. As we say in the posts, “if he had the best year you could have imagined him having, give him a 10; if he more or less played as you expected he would, give him a 5 or a 6; if he had the worst year you could have imagined him having, give him a 1.”
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Right. I think every year is the year I expect Bradley to lose his roster spot. He tends to get high ratings from me because he always surprises me by contributing more to the team than I think he will.
by Gould Old Days on May 20, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Best thing about Bradley is that, in training camp, if someone wants to make the team, they’re going to have to work harder than him. I think he really sets a tone for everyone by going all out all the time. I think he’ll keep earning his spot for a few years to come.
by Gould Old Days on May 20, 2009 9:03 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
that is an excellent point on work ethic, Gouldie. Rec’d
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on May 20, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
i agree……‘ll take someone with a hard work ethic over someone who’s looking for fights
by RedskinFan4Life on May 20, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Does his play as a member of the very successful third-line in the playoffs mean he might be ready for full-time third-line duty next year?
For starters, I gave him a six. Normally, he’d have got a five but he got bumped up a notch for his two goals against the Rangers. As to his getting regular third line time? In a word, no. My view of a third-liner is someone who’s a hybrid, who brings some scoring ability and some grinding to the game. A player who can contribute both defensively and offensively. In other words, Brooks Laich. Brads only brings the grinding skill to that equation. Matt is the quintessential fourth-liner, the guy who will bring energy each and every time he steps on the ice, who will start and lose the occasional fight and can slide into the third line for spot duty. He’s valuable at his price for what he brings to the team on the ice and in the locker room and every team needs someone like him.
I agree w/ most of this… but w/ what I saw from the Steckel/Laich/Brads line… I wouldn’t be opposed to giving him 3rd line minutes for 2-3 weeks and see what happens. I can’t say I’d rather have flash there (and he’s playing up) … I can’t say I’d rather see Fehr there (he can’t finish and doesn’t provide enough toughness IMO) … why not brads? he obviously has some stick skills (vs. lundquvist) and can plays on the energy/shutdown line vs. top liners… I don’t think it’d be a bad experiment.
Aren’t 3rd lines supposed to be shutdown, like Kris Draper’s line?
by red army line on May 20, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I gave him an 8....
…which is a composite of what it really should be, a 10 for effort and a 6 for the results. No one on this board and certainly no one in the league will say Brads doesn’t give everything he has every night, because he does. His effort is second to none on this team and the only player that matches him effort-wise is Ovechkin.
The work ethic is what keeps him at the NHL level, because the talent isn’t there. He has hands of lead, his skating is good, but not great, he has very few offensive instincts. He is good at getting under opponents skin (although I think he could do a little better there…) and he is also good at drawing retaliation penalties.
He’s never been a good fighter, I think I’ve only seen him win one fight as a Cap (vs. Villeaux of Minnesota, who is also a miserable fighter). That he stands up for his teammates is great.
What I’d love to see him do is get on a line with someone who can score and be Tomas Holmstrom. Not that I expect him to score like Holmstrom, but there is no doubt in my mind that if he is in front of the net, there will be chaos.
He certainly makes folks around him work harder since they see the effort he puts in for his relatively low salary (he’s making $1M a year, not chicken feed, but below the NHL average). It has to make everyone else bust their butts. Additionally, he is very much a good guy in the community, with the recycling bins at Kettler and the Arena, going to schools, doing the “Forces of Hockey” on the TV show, and while it’s done as fun, he actually is explainging the real physics of the game…
I for one, will never complain to hear Matt Bradley is playing for my team
Let's go Caps!
In what situations and at whose expense would you like to see him get more?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Who would your top six PK Fs be? Mine, I suppose, would be 39, 15, 21, 28, 19 and 10.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Does it help or hurt to have all the forwards on a single line playing on the PK? I would think the tiring effort, assuming they kill it, would really mess up your rotation if you got a whole line in its entirety sucking wind on the bench. Especially if that is the line we like to throw out after the PK to change the momentum back in our favor. (21,39,10)
by HateOffSeason on May 20, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
The AO line is almost always first up after a PK so unless 19 and/or 28 are out to end the kill we have a fresh line ready to swing the momentum after a kill. You gotta find that 3rd line minutes somehow, and give them opportunities to contribute. It’s sure not going to happen on the PP so they need to carry the PK burden.
If we’re talking PK today, I still think #8 needs to commit himself.
Him playing well on the PK sets the tone and provides help there.
I realize his numbers for time are ridiculous as it is, but cut down elsewhere (i.e. no 2 minutes on the PP ever) and give him more PK time.
What’s wrong with 8 playing the whole PP? I really don’t want him on the PK. Higher chance for injury and he’s just not as good as other guys are back there.
He’s also robbing ice time for other guys and isn’t getting the rest he needs to play the shift after the PP.
Past the 1:30 mark, he’s usually gassed and susceptible to breaks going the other way. Especially if he is playing the point.
I also think he could be one of the best PK guys we have, but it requires commitment. Yes, injuries could occur, but they occur everywhere.
We already have guys that are good at the PK though and it gives them a chance to get more ice time. Ovi really doesn’t need anymore time. His line also needs to be ready to go after the penalty is killed.
I agree with this. Team has enough PK depth without AO out there. Gives him some enforced breaks. And there’s the psychological pressure on the other team of knowing that the second the penalty is killed, they’re going to have to deal with the best player in the league
by Gould Old Days on May 20, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know if you can call what we have “depth” when it’s still bottom 15 in the NHL.
by red army line on May 20, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d put our PK forwards up there with most teams. Our mediocre PK was a defense issue, in my opinion.
by Gould Old Days on May 20, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Bingo. The only thing I don’t like about 19 and 10 is the faceoff issue. But a coach can mitigate that by sending 21-28 for FOs and rolling 19-10 over the boards while the play is ongoing.
I’d also like to see the Caps’ PK more aggressively challenge the puck. But I’ve said that forevs and no dice. (Look at the final four: They all pressure the puck pretty aggressively on the PK.)
I think that’s easier said than done. Guys with great instincts and a quick first step can do it (think Semin). Guys who aren’t as quick out of the blocks (think Stecks) can get caught chasing the puck if they’re not careful in applying pressure.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yes. His reach is a great advantage to him as a PKer.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Well, if 39/15 do their shift and the puck goes off the ice and the faceoff is/stays in the D-zone, you need to put someone else out there.
You don’t necessarily have to pair 39 and 15, though – could have 39, 15 and 21 each in separate pairings so you have one FO guy per (and when you need a righty or a lefty and can make the change, you do so as needed).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
That’s more what I meant, and even in that case I want Backstrom on the ice as the other PK guy on a D zone draw because he’s still better than 28 and 10 at draws.
Not better than 21… yet. I was just responding under the parameters set by J.P., that 39, 15, and 21 are all on different pairs so we always have one of our top 3 face off guys on the ice during a PK.
Why not 91 (assuming he’s back)? I’m not a fan of him on the PK anymore but if you win the draw and clear the zone (the latter point upon which our defensemen really need work), 91 gets off.
by red army line on May 20, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Back in January, I wrote this:
Think the penalty kill could use Feds? With him in the lineup prior to his return from injury (when he was actually getting PK time), the team killed 83.5% of the penalties it faced, a number that would be in the top ten in the League. Without 91, the penalty kill has been a woeful 77.1%, a bottom five success rate. And if you’re looking for a big reason for that differential, look no further than the face-off circle – the Caps won 57.3% of their draws when shorthanded before Fedorov got hurt and have won just 49% when he’s out. It’s no wonder – and no mistake – that Sergei Fedorov has the lowest goals against on ice per sixty minutes of four-on-five time of any Caps forward.
Still applicable? Maybe. But Bruce had every opportunity to play Feds on the PK this year and pretty much passed.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
You don’t have to, but damn, 15 and 39 was effective.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on May 20, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d like to see 19 get great at faceoffs and start every kill. That way he’s ready to jump pack out when the kill is over.
by Gould Old Days on May 20, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Probably true, but part of it may not be Bruce but the longer shifts that sometimes happen… In a normal game there are only 180 forward minutes (if the team doesn’t take any penalties) and Ovie, Backstrom, and Semin are going to get big chunks of those minutes…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on May 20, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Brads got a six from me. Pretty much what you see is what you get.
What did surprise me this year was his speed. How many times did we see him force a turnover at the defensive blue line, and streak up the wing with the puck, really forcing the opposing D to skate hard to get back? I was usually like “Hell yeah … Oh, its Brads, too bad he won’t score.”
I really liked what he did in the post season this year on that Laich/Steckel/Bradley line. IF that line stays together next year, it could be the year we see double digit goals and in the 20’s on assists.
My real question is the aforementioned line a 3rd line or a 4th line? Which one is supposed to be your puck control, bottle them in their own offensive end, grinders? Do we even have a 4th line on the caps? We have so much talent on the top two lines, we tend to forget that our 4th line guys more often than not seem to get under 3 minutes of ice time. I don’t know what you would call that, but it ain’t a 4th line.
Voted a 6
As stated numerous times, Brads had an unremarkable regular season but turned the dial up a notch for the postseason. Sweet.
Brads is kind of in an interesting situation when you look at the organization, being that he may be one of the few truely expendable guys (in terms of on-ice stats). If his regular season next year is again — statistically — unremarkable, shouldn’t that mean a Beagle, Pinner, A. Gordan or (possibly) Della Rovere takes his spot? I know, I know, his contract is for two more years, but the point is valid right?
So, along the lines of some of the other posts, is Brads current level of “value added” enough to keep him for the remaining term of his contract? I certainly think so for another year, but after that…
Brads is kind of in an interesting situation when you look at the organization, being that he may be one of the few truely expendable guys (in terms of on-ice stats).
Completely disagree. The playoffs put the lie to that statement. I can think of 3 guys in particular that had better statistical years than Bradley and are far more expendable than him.
when you hear McPhee and the rest talk about Bradley, you get the strong impression that he is a Cap for life (or at least as long as his work ethic holds). I think there will always be a roster spot for Bradley, and probably at least 5 minutes of TOI for that matter.
by Gould Old Days on May 20, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
This thread is missing something…
There. That’s better.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on May 20, 2009 10:53 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Well done. I really appreciate Brads, but he’s at his ceiling. 5 from me for achieving pretty much what I thought he would.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on May 20, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Pretty badass
But I still only gave him a 6 – I think he needs to shoot more from in the slot. The grinders can cycle until the cows come home and if their sole objective was to wear down the D, then case closed. I think 90% of the cycling with Brads ended up with a pass back out to the point and , hopefully , a D man let’s it fly.
I dont know the system and I’m sure BB has the D staying back while the forwards cycle, but without someone in front of the net, or Laich going strong to the net, or a D-man pinching down, quality chances are rare . But that’s a given because…they’re on the 4th line for a reason.
I’ve noticed Brash likes to throw it to the crease, but that can result in the puck hitting no one and actually getting behind the D for an odd man break.
by S h a g g y on May 20, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
According to BB all the D men have the “green light;” it’s just that Green is most easily able to make it up with his speed if he gets caught.
by red army line on May 20, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not a huge advocate of fighting or into bloodlust but I’ll say this:
if I’m Matt Bradley, 30 years or so from now, he’s in his den with that picture on the wall when his grandson comes in to visit and when the kid says, “Wow, grandpa, you were such a bada— er, tough dude, huh?” And Brads grins from ear to ear, nodding in agreement. Awesome image.
by S h a g g y on May 20, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Thats’ the only fight he’s won, from what I’ve seen, in the past 2 years…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on May 20, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
They have a new Black Lager out. It is excellent. I recommend it.
by Gould Old Days on May 20, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Mmm… to quote Sid, “I’m thirsty.”
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I thought 6, too
He is the definition of ‘glue guy.’ And his 2-4-6, +3, with 15 shots, a shortie and a GWG in 14 playoff games? If only we had more like him this year.
from the house that Red Jesus built
You know, on the Bradley scale of value and performance, he’s probably playing at a 8 or 9 for him.
But compared to the value to the team and his performance overall, he’s probably in the 4-6 range.
A lot of effort guys with limited talent seem to have higher goals per game and points per game in the playoffs than the regular season. Dale Hunter’s offense went up, per game by about 10% in the playoffs. Brads is the same type of effort guy, but certainly not with Dale Hunter talent…
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on May 20, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
but didn’t dale hunter play on lines w/ much better talent? by that, i mean… brads, for most of the season, spent his time w/ 15/87/39/16… you can’t expect too much from him when he’s arguably the most talented offensive guy on the line, IMO. hunter played w/ some stout guys that brads doesn’t have the same fortune.
when paired w/ 39/21 … he started to look more offensive/higher caliber IMO. and if chris clark can score 30 goals playing w/ ovechkin…. i’d put money that brads, with pretty much a full season on 8/19 line, (ala 17’s full season on that line) would get 25+.
Of course Hunter played with more talented players, he was a more talented player than Bradley. I was comparing discussing the effort he put into the game which is comprable to Bradley….
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on May 20, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Dale Hunter’s offense went up, per game by about 10% in the playoffs. Brads is the same type of effort guy, but certainly not with Dale Hunter talent…
Hunter averaged .72 points per game in the regular season and .63 in the playoffs. His offense actually went down about 12% in the postseason.
by David Getz on May 20, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think most people’s offensive numbers tend to go down in the playoffs, just because the scores seem to dip a little bit and the work ethic of everyone skyrockets, especially in the realm of defensive accountability.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
Most players offensive numbers go down in the post season because you don’t get to play bad teams in the playoffs… the Islanders, Thrashers, Lightning, etc. are all nowhere to be found….
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on May 20, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Over all that is true, but during Hunter’s peak he had many years where he stepped it way up in the playoffs, esp. with the Caps:
1987-88: .75ppg in the regular season, .86ppg in the playoffs
1988-89: .71ppg in the regular season, .67ppg in the playoffs
1989-90: .78ppg, .80ppg in playoffs
I can keep going, but in many years, Hunter had a higher ppg (sometimes dramatically) in the playoffs.
In both the 2008 and 2009 playoffs, Bradley’s ppg went up, which is a sign that he is an effort player.
Let's go Caps!
by MikeL-Pivonka on May 20, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Neither here nor there
The morning hockey show on XM has added a new official mantra based on callers (and lack thereof):
“Are there any hockey fans in Washington”
And what exactly are they suggesting we call in to talk about? I guarantee that after one Caps caller, they’ll get 10 from fans of other teams telling us to shut up and go home cuz our season is over.
Maybe we have more intelligent/respectful places to discuss the team.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on May 20, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oh I’m sure there’s some truth there, but for the unclean masses we certainly aren’t doing our part for Caps hockey on the national level as far as the XM signal goes.
This morning they were talking about knee-on-knees in the playoffs
“Ovechkin didn’t get a penalty for his either did he?”
“No, I don’t think so”
“Any Caps, ah, nevermind…”
(sigh)
This is the second time I post on this, I’ll just try and dig up their number myself for next time
:)
In the morning, I’d rather listen to Howard Stern to see if Artie wins the latest battle of “Anal Ring Toss”.
Plus, I’d rather listen to HNIC’s afternoon show on channel 122.
so That’s where all the caps fans are all morning…
I’m not commenting on the quality of the callers or analysis, just the surprising enthusiasm by analysts and personalities for Caps players on Home Ice across their programming and what lack of fan reinforcement may do to positive references (or references in general) to the Caps org.
Here, here. Rec’d.
I listen to/watch NHL Live at lunchtime, and it’s pretty much the same. It was driving me batty that there seemed to be almost nothing but Penguins callers, even from places like Florida, and I’d think the caller from DC was a Caps fan, but was actually a Penguins fan. I’m not one to call in because I don’t want to sound stupid on the air (believe me, I would, and I think most of the callers do), but I did write in once — they didn’t use the e-mail.
That’s why HNIC’s radio show is better, in my opinion. Nothing ruins talk radio more than taking too many calls from fans. They’re rarely prepared, get horribly tongue-tied or ramble, and add almost nothing to the point being discussed. HNIC is almost exclusively analysis between the hosts and media/front office types that call in.
“if he had the best year you could have imagined him having, give him a 10; if he more or less played as you expected he would, give him a 5 or a 6”
What if it’s both what I expected and the best I could imagine? (I voted 5 – pretty standard year for Brads)
I’d like to see something like 8/15/23 with some more blocked shots and a fight win next year to approach a 10 – while keeping his penalties drawn/taken ratio where it’s at.
This year is pretty much what i’d expect to get a 5 next year.
-d
8/15/23
i think i need a nap. i thought for a second you were suggesting a line combo with the above #"s. juice would look sweet coming down the right wing with AO!! :)
At least it would be a big body in front of the net…..
….if he ever got there.
by HateOffSeason on May 20, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions
problem is that he’d block most of the goal.
though that didn’t really help on the defensive front either..
With all the screening of Theo he did this year, he sure didn’t block most of the other teams goals.
I'm so sick and tired of the refs explaining the calls like this is the NFL.
by Whiter Mage on May 20, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
