'08-09 Season Review - Brian Campbell

by McClure on Jun 8, 2009 11:00 AM CDT in Season Reviews Comment 29 comments

With the season now over after a return to the playoffs and the Western Conference Finals, we're looking back at each player who wore the Indian Head sweater for the 08-09 Season and grading their performance. Hold on to your Spider-Man Underoos, kids, it's time for Brian Campbell.

Brian Campbell

#51 / Defenseman / Chicago Blackhawks

Height: 6-0

Weight: 188

Born: May 23, 1979

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	PIM	PPG	SHG	GWG	GTG	SOG	PCT
2008 - Brian Campbell	82	7	45	52	5	22	4	0	1	0	108	6.5

The Good: In his first season with the Blackhawks within his free-agent mega-deal, Brian Campbell, produced his second highest single season point output, and was 10th in the league in scoring among defenseman. Campbell was brought on to quarterback the Blackhawks' moribund power play, which he did successfully, boosting its conversion percentage from 15.9% with 58 power play goals in the 2007-2008 season to 19.3% and 70 total power play goals. In the playoffs, Campbell was arguably the Hawks best defenseman, playing positionally sound in his own end (for a change), becoming a one man trap-buster with his speed through the neutral zone, and directing traffic on a league best 27.9% power play in the second season.

The Bad: Sam covered a lot of the points a couple weeks ago that I'm sure will be brought up in the comments here, so I'll spare everyone from rehashing a lot of it. But it should be known that I'm pretty much in agreement with Sam - he is what he is, and the salary is the market rate for his level of point production from the blue line, and much like Huet, he's not going anywhere. He has a tendency to run around in his own end, can be out-muscled by larger forwards, and tends to give up chances going the other way when getting overly aggressive while attacking. All of these manifested themselves at some point during the year, and the latter of them unfortunately occurred in overtime of the Western Conference Finals. His atrocious stretch in March also needs to be mentioned, but the entire team was floundering at that point. And as he has proven throughout his career, Campbell needs a stable partner to be effective. It was no coincidence that once Matt Walker returned to being Matt Walker during the aformentioned late-season stretch, Campbell's weaknesses were exacerbated. Much like Les Claypool of Primus needs Larry Lalonde to deftly and skillfully fill in the gaps during his insane interludes, Brian Campbell similarly needs a positionally sound, reasonably quick partner to stay at home and cover for him. Hopefully the Hawks have found such a man in Niklas Hjalmarsson.

Nicknames: 51 Phantom, Soupy

Playoff Beard Strength: One of the few post-season veterans on a young Hawks squad had a full and fiery red beard to reflect his previous experience.

Related Photoshops: I seem to recall one being a Page 6 of the Indian at some point during the March Death Spiral, but I'll have to verify with Sam

The Grade: Contract notwithstanding, Campbell came to Chicago as a completely known quantity, and given both his strengths and weaknesses, did exactly what he was asked to do, which was to provide offense and quarterback the power play, as well as provide experience and perform well in the post season - which would yeild an "A" in my world normally. But Campbell stood out as particularly poor at a time when the entire team was struggling- a fairly impressive feat, which knocks him down to a B. What say you?

Poll

Brian Campbell's Final Grade?

A

34 votes

B

164 votes

C

103 votes

D

18 votes

F

8 votes

327 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 29 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Almost 40 votes.. all grades accounted for..

and no comments? I guess everyone is just tired of debating Campbell already.. which is understandable.. perhaps a bit of burnout on the topic.

Second City Hockey

by Matthew Dirt on Jun 8, 2009 12:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m just still sad and tired. Once Scum and Penguin Dung get through with this thing they’re doing and I no longer have to look at Fleury’s chompers or Datsyuk’s Spongebob noggin, I’ll recharge and probably start commenting again.

by ChicoMaki on Jun 8, 2009 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gonna try this again since my first try at posting this went into the void...

Campbell has been debated to death this year. We need a photoshop of him as a dead horse at this point.

As many have said, he is what he is. That is why I give him a C for the year. He didn’t do anything other than what he was supposed to. At times he barely did that, and then he had moments like the playoffs where he seemed to shine a bit. But at no point did he wow anyone, show improvement, or do more than he was asked. I think for him to get more than a C vote for this year he would have had to at least be consistent in his play. This doesn’t mean I was disappointed in having the guy around (though I do feel he is overpaid), but I don’t think he earned more than an average vote based on his potential.

by runningquicklynowhere on Jun 9, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brian Campbell similarly needs a positionally sound, reasonably quick partner to stay at home and cover for him

This is exactly what bothered me about occasionally seeing him paired with Cam Barker at even strength. It’s a lot like making a peanut butter sandwich, only using more peanut butter instead of jelly.

by hawksfan21 on Jun 8, 2009 12:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Brian Campbell is a helluva good hockey player

His value on the power point and quarterbacking out there is underrated by too many fans. Campbell has certain limitations on defense, but his strengths and impact otherwise more than make up for this. Some have a problem with Campbell driven mainly by the size of his contract. That’s too bad because that is clouding their ability to see a very vital member of the Blackhawks.

You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little messed up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

by BLou on Jun 8, 2009 12:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

He is good

But can Q get the most out of his strengths while absorbing his weaknesses? I accept the the storyline that he has done what he was brought here to do, but I have also found myself asking whether what he does can be balanced a bit better. I can tolerate occasional lapses in favor of the offense he brings, but I have to admit that I started to get annoyed watching teams gang up and ragdoll him seemingly at will. I don’t have major complaints about his salary, but I get the impression right now that he is not the type of guy who is going to take less to keep a good team together in order to win cups. I’m not sad to see him here next year, but when the money gets tight to keep other guys, he isn’t going to stick around anyway. Long term it doesn’t see like something to really bitch about and he certainly isn’t going to drag the team down next year.

by NKLHD on Jun 8, 2009 1:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with a B rating.

My biggest hope is that he has learned from some of the more experienced players that came in late this year, looking at you Pahlson, and that Soupy gets even better this fall. I don’t have a problem with his salary, and I’m sorry to say that he probably did better than even I gave him credit for in a few games.

SHOOOOOOOT IT!!!! Anon

by burpchelischili on Jun 8, 2009 9:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I've said enough about Campbell

the past year.

I agree with you guys, I gave him a B. In fact, I voted before reading your piece, which led me to giggle with delight after realizing we gave him the same grade.

Got more soul than a sock with a hole.

by chrome on Jun 8, 2009 9:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Not good enough D-wise

As soft as they come.Neither checks nor takes a check to make the play.Maybe if he had the Sopel of 2yrs ago with him a different story.Those 52pts and only a plus 2 tell the real story,as do his stupid giveaways.

by idiot man on Jun 8, 2009 11:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

so I’m guessing you’re not one of the 19 A’s.

Second City Hockey

by Matthew Dirt on Jun 9, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where in the fuck did you get a picture of my ex-wife?

SHOOOOOOOT IT!!!! Anon

by burpchelischili on Jun 9, 2009 5:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am probably one of a very few

Who is hoping that Sopel comes back from this reconstructive elbow surgery and can play like he did 2 years ago (or possibly add to that with some of the assist production he had in his time at Vancouver). I have always thought a healthy Sopel paired with Soupy might not be a bad thing as their different styles could compliment each other well. All this though is contingent on Sopel coming back from that major surgery and playing well though, which is a big if.

by runningquicklynowhere on Jun 9, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

B, but only because of the playoffs

Good point about his partner (Walker). It’s hard to judge him apart from his salary. Not great bang for the buck, but we couldn’t have expected a lot more from him.

by cliffkoroll on Jun 9, 2009 7:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Hammer?

Thats like callin Cambell maddog!The next good check (Hammer)throws will be his first.Im sure opposing forwords just shit their pants at the punishment they will recieve from Soupy and Hammer! What happened to A Johnson +18 throws his weight,fights and sticks up for teamates,unlike the pansy twins.Is Johnson in Q,s doghouse?

by idiot man on Jun 9, 2009 5:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually I believe Hammer can be a hard hitter. Though I didn’t follow him much in his pre-NHL career, from what I’ve heard, the Blackhawks coaching staff specifically told him to dial down his hard hitting when he was brought up in an effort to keep from getting out of position until he is more comfortable with the speed of the NHL game. I expect to see a more physical Super Nintendo in the coming seasons.

by Geoffhawk on Jun 11, 2009 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I voted F

Because a guy making what he makes and going goalless for over 40+ games is just inexcusable. And he made his classic boneheaded plays int the playoffs yet again. See Buffalo, see San Jose. Enough said, he has to have a complete turn around next year if this team wants to win, because like it or not he his hear for the next 6 fucking years.

by SLAZZ on Jun 9, 2009 10:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

sigh

Second City Hockey

by Matthew Dirt on Jun 10, 2009 12:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can't enlighten them all, can you?

NOW STOP IT RIGHT HERE

by mjthor on Jun 10, 2009 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess not

At least we got an explanation for an F grade finally though.

Second City Hockey

by Matthew Dirt on Jun 10, 2009 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Khabby and Huet

combined for around $13M and were goalless in all 80 games they combined for! This is bullshit! I hope you voted for them to get F’s as well.

What’s that? Their responsibility isn’t to score goals? So it would be ridiculous to expect them to score because that’s not what they were brought in to do?

Hmm…..

by hawksfan21 on Jun 10, 2009 2:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

DING DING DING!!

Being asked to QB the PP doesn’t mean you’ll actually score the Goals, Just assist in making them Happen

by Roos-34 on Jun 10, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The proof in Campbell’s effectiveness is reflected in the Hawks PP%. Last year their power play scored at a 15.9% clip, which would have left them with the 24th best PP in the league in 2008-2009 with the same number. But instead the number jumped up to 19.3% this season, good enough for 12th.

Love him or hate him, without Soup our PP wouldn’t have progressed as much. It may well have gotten better with the maturing of Kane and Toews, among other crucial PP guys, but it wouldn’t have gotten us the 4th seed or the top ranked PP in the playoffs either.

by hawksfan21 on Jun 10, 2009 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would be curious though

to see what the power play % was with him actually out there on the ice, compared to it with him off the ice. Not saying he didn’t help it, just curious.

by runningquicklynowhere on Jun 10, 2009 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And now that I look back at what I wrote I realize I forgot to mention the development of Barker too, who was on the top unit all season long. And it also ignores that for a time we were in the top 5 on the PP and fell to 12th, so I don’t know who was responsible for that. He certainly wasn’t an A, but I refuse to justify the F either

by hawksfan21 on Jun 10, 2009 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

campbell

I telling you right here and now. I had hopes for him but all he showed was that he’s a big pussy. He probably has one the size of idiotmans girlfriend. He lolly-gags and waste alot of time by turning back and circleling behind his own net and then bringing it up only to have it taken away or making a shitty pass. Spin-o-Rama this you clown. I gave him a D. HELLO…….

by JOHNNY O' SHAM on Jun 11, 2009 10:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

anybody giving a D or F....

to paraphrase the great Terry Boers, is hockey retarded. I actually have a few reasons why you wouldn’t realize the production Soupy gave you all year and vote him low.

1. See Above
2. You didn’t watch the Hawks prior to 08-09
3. You didn’t pay attention to the hawks before July 1st’s Free Agent period when the only thing anybody talked about was how we needed Brian Campbell wearing the indian head for years to come.
4. You’re too dumb to separate production vs. the going contract rates for d-men of Soupy’s class.
5. You didn’t follow Campbell before he came to Chicago. To paraphrase Dennis Green, “Soupy is who we thought he was!”
6. You’re an idiot.

I don’t need to defend Campbell here anymore. He’s exactly the player we thought we were getting, provided exactly what we needed (pp qb, entry passes, minutes, playoff experience, etc.), and worked really well when he wasn’t playing next to a defensive parking cone (Barker and Walker).

by hoorock89 on Jun 13, 2009 7:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Contract rates

A question about money.If Cambell is worth a going rate of say 8mill a yr for 52 pts and a +5 what is Keith worth with 44pts and a +33 at least Cambells right?If thats the case we better say bye bye to Dunc.Just a question no hostility meant.Tho johnny o sham should be johnny o nitwit!

by idiot man on Jun 14, 2009 2:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Campbell

First off, you are the IDIOT. I don’t need to defend myself to you or anyone else here.
My opinion is what it is about that slacker. What ever he did prior to coming to the Blackhawks makes no sense at all. It’s all about how he played this past season. You are the blind one, especially when you have 20,000 fans booing his ass when he touches the puck. Also I don’t give a rats ass how much he makes, he still didn’t produce the way he should have. You goofballs who are worried about how much each guy makes is a a joke. You play this game for the love of it. And in order to do that, you play each and every shift like it’s your last. WOW, paraphrase other people because you don’t have your own opinion? Get a life man. It looks to me that you and Idiotman are one in the same. Pee Wee Herman & a fat chick. Yeah, that makes you worthy of being experts.

by JOHNNY O' SHAM on Jun 14, 2009 9:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs