'08-09 Season Review - Niklas Hjalmarsson
by Matthew Dirt on Jun 9, 2009 12:22 PM CDT
in Season Reviews
15 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. Next up, the man with possibly the best nicknames, Niklas Hjalmarsson.
The Good: Hjalmarsson played almost as many playoff games with the Hawks (17) as he did in the regular season (21) this year - so his real impact is pretty limited. He started the season with the club in the opener against the Rangers but didn't do much to impress anyone - he skated less than 4 minutes in 5 shifts then sat for the rest of the game and was sent back to Rockford. He had another one game stint with the Hawks in January (helping to fill in for an injured Keith) but didn't really make it to the club til early March when he played in 19 of the final 20 games.
Once finally on the club though he quickly found his role anchoring a pairing with Brian Campbell. Hammer let Campbell focus on his offensive game while providing coverage and reasonable quickness that someone like Matt Walker couldn't. The Hawks needed someone to compliment Campbell and Hjalmarsson seems to do that quite nicely.
It's a small sample size (too small to really count) but his Behind the Net rating is high and he's right behind Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook in playing the highest quality of competition on the team. The overall good is that Hammer has proven that he deserves to stay in the NHL. He's got plenty of upside and could prove to be a solid, though probably never spectacular, top 4 defenseman.
The Bad: Well.. he's still learning his role. He's only played 51 games in the NHL so there's still a bit of a learning curve Hammer is getting over. Putting him on the ice with Campbell means he's got to be solid in his positioning and coverage, most of the time, he was pretty good at that... sometimes.. not so much.
There's not much "bad" that you can really claim in a limited time he's seen. He's learning the speed of the game at the top level. With more time in the NHL Hjalmarsson will gain the confidence and experience to continue to improve at his position and also learn to use his size more to his advantage (even Campbell had more hits than he did in the playoffs).
Odd as it may sound, Hjalmarsson could also stand to pick up his offensive game just a tad. Obviously if paired with Campbell again you don't want him going overboard but providing at least a bit of a threat off the blue line could ease up some pressure on Campbell. So Hammer, basically just shoooooooooooot once in a while.
Nicknames: Hammer, Super Nintendo Jalmers, Ham Sandwich (courtesy of Fifth Feather)
Playoff Beard Strength: Not one of the better beards - more of a chinstrap or dare I say, neckbeard. Far from one of the worst beards on the team though.
Related Photoshops: We only have 3 stories with a Hjalmarsson tag - I don't think he was enough of a factor to get his own photoshop this year. Though 3 solid nicknames ain't bad.
The Grade: Again, hard to really grade him for a small sample but I think he's right around a B-/C+... he didn't do much to impress but was hardly a liability on the ice. Taking his place as Campbell's linemate and doing an admirable job ought to count for something seeing as how that position had been played fairly poorly throughout the year. What say you?
0 recs |
15 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Based on a typical bell curve grading scale
and echoing your analysis, I have to give Hammer a C. If a C is average, he was just that. Not horrible, but not great either. I think it’s been pretty easy to give a little too much praise in these polls, and while a C may be a tad conservative, he was basically a serviceable, solid D-man as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t really notice him on the ice all that often, and I think that speaks to the type of player he was this season (and the type of player he should be). If I were grading him on the role he was expected to play, I’d give him a low A or a high B. However, I’m grading these based on impact on the performance of the team, and the role he played on the team wasn’t an impact role. Therefore, he earns a solid C in my book. I’m definitely looking forward to watching him mature and grow as a player in the future.
NOW STOP IT RIGHT HERE
by mjthor on Jun 9, 2009 12:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Bell Curve
I agree with the bell curve, but id give him a B, just because he was leaned upon pretty heavily in the playoffs and i think he responded pretty well. You always have to be on your toes playing with the offensive happy Soupy, and either I blacked out the memories of horrible mistakes which leaves me unable to remember them, or there weren’t any mistakes that were completely game changing. So given his exp. and the role he had, id say he was above average, but not stellar.
by Delta0ne1 on Jun 9, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
B-
simply because he often played as bizarro B.Campbell – took a hit to avoid turning over the puck. He was strong behind the net and on the boards for such a young player. .
by Crease Monkey on Jun 9, 2009 1:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
he plays a real smart game for a young guy
able to get the puck out of his own zone and makes good outlets as well. Could have a more active stick on D and as one of our bigger D guys he could learn to throw his weight around a little better
"Oh, that's easy. White Sox. I'm not one of these fair-weather fans. You go to Wrigley Field, you have a beer; beautiful people up there. People aren't watching the game. It's not serious. White Sox, that's baseball. South Side." -O'Bama
by Hawk is God on Jun 9, 2009 2:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A+
Was taken out of Rockford and thrown to the lions (paired with Soupy & logging top 4 time) and I was awestruck but how he handled it. He played a smart/conservative game and you could see his confidence grow with each shift. 2-3 years down the road, he’ll be the type of player everyone expected Barker to become.
by BrotherSuperior on Jun 9, 2009 2:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
not true about Barker
play an NHL 09 franchise and Barker is an 88 in only a few years. So there’s still hope.
"Oh, that's easy. White Sox. I'm not one of these fair-weather fans. You go to Wrigley Field, you have a beer; beautiful people up there. People aren't watching the game. It's not serious. White Sox, that's baseball. South Side." -O'Bama
by Hawk is God on Jun 9, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hjalmarsson has nowhere near the offensive instincts of Cam Barker.
by McClure on Jun 9, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Hammer?
Thats like callin Cambell Maddog!Im sure all the enemy forwords shit their pants when the pansy twins Soupy and Hammer are out there.The next punishing check the Hammer throws will be his first.What happened to Aaron Johnson his +18 throws real checks,fights and sticks up for teamates unlike these two fruits.Yeah Hammer did all right D-wise at least he doesnt cough it up like Soupy but bring Johnson back.
by idiot man on Jun 9, 2009 5:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Ladies and gentlemen, Aaron Johnson is officially the next James Wisniewski.
by McClure on Jun 9, 2009 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well at least your name is fitting.
NOW STOP IT RIGHT HERE
by mjthor on Jun 10, 2009 2:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Hjalmarsson a good deal
He played remarkably well given the situation he was thrust into. He also has nice natural instincts to go along with actual talent. He will be an upgrade over Wisniewski.
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 9, 2009 8:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I had to go C, C+ to be sure, but that’s still a C. Once I see him over a season, maybe it will be better. For the most part, other than discussions on how to pronounce his name, I don’t remember him having much of an effect on the game. Only one goal in 21 games?
SHOOOOOOOT IT!!!! Anon
by burpchelischili on Jun 10, 2009 3:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I gave him an A
Based strictly upon his talent and situation.
With that said, the standard has been set. He needs to exceed what he’s done the last two years. This whole team needs to, in fact.
by wlittle on Jun 10, 2009 9:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A low B
I liked his play alot. When you watch Hammer for a little bit, you see that forwards don’t go around him, nor do they go through him; he just steers them to the boards with his positioning. While he doesn’t use a hit to cause turnovers, he keeps his positioning and frustrates opponents into turning over the puck. He’s like a gangly cousin of Lidstrom in my mind. I am really looking forward to watching him develop.
by russellguldin on Jun 11, 2009 9:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I hit him pretty hard with a “D” in my regular season end review, but he DID play better in the playoffs. I hated his play in the regular season, but I’ll admit i didn’t find myself screaming “What the hell is he DOING??? HE SUCKS!” as much in the playoffs. He still hasn’t really impressed me with his checking, mainly because I saw him punish the boards more than opposing players. He’s got potential, but lets not annoint him Nik Lindstrom Jr. just yet. I’d still take Barker over him anyday. I’d say a C+.
by G8K33P3R on Jun 11, 2009 1:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
