HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Los Angeles Kings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Who has the best top 6 D in the league? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=291924)

Hollywood 09-22-2006 09:35 AM

Who has the best top 6 D in the league?
 
With new additions on D for us this year it certainly moves us up the list in best defence. Are we at the top now? If not, who has a better top 6?

Kingz4life 09-22-2006 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollywood (Post 6550325)
With new additions on D for us this year it certainly moves us up the list in best defence. Are we at the top now? If not, who has a better top 6?

I think we are in the top 10 for sure as long as we stay healthy.

IlyaAlexanderMalkin 09-22-2006 02:36 PM

Calgary and Nashville for sure....

Johnny Utah 09-22-2006 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IlyaAlexanderMalkin (Post 6552566)
Calgary and Nashville for sure....

Phoenix Yotes with Boynton, Jovo, Morris and Co.

VADEN 09-22-2006 02:59 PM

calgary

Capn Brown 09-22-2006 03:08 PM

WoW! I hate the Dux as much as anybody else, but that doesn't make me biased enough to not consider Pronger & Neidermeyer when assessing the NHL's best D.

riseandfall9 09-22-2006 03:10 PM

Calgary and Anaheim for sure lol...

FuTMaR* 09-22-2006 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseandfall9 (Post 6552897)
Calgary and Anaheim for sure lol...

ducks have best 1-2 in league for sure but there 3-6 sucks

JimBeam 09-22-2006 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingz4life (Post 6552555)
I think we are in the top 10 for sure as long as we stay healthy.

Thats a big IF! LOL

kingsfan25 09-22-2006 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deviate (Post 6552916)
ducks have best 1-2 in league for sure but there 3-6 sucks

The Kings probably have better 1-6 depth.

However, the Ducks and their two # 1's are still probably ahead of the Kings' one #1 and two #2's.

ILuvLA 09-22-2006 03:33 PM

Isn't this about more than a 1-2 punch - i.e., 1-6 on defense?
I agree that the Ducks have the biggest 1-2, but look what happened with their D in their pre-season without Nieds or Pronger. If one or both go down with injury... A team of all stars does not necessarily mean the Cup. After all, who picked Edmonton & Carolina last preseaon to go as far as they did? No one.

For 1-6 depth overall, I'd go with Calgary and Carolina.

Fat Elvis 09-22-2006 03:59 PM

So the addition of Blake and subtraction of Corvo make LA a defensive powerhouse? I remember all the complaining about how absolutely sucky the D was last year. You can't forget about the age of Miller, Matty and Blake. Who knows what we'll get with Sopel. On paper LA has a good defense, in January it's another thing.

Osprey 09-22-2006 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis (Post 6553265)
So the addition of Blake and subtraction of Corvo make LA a defensive powerhouse? I remember all the complaining about how absolutely sucky the D was last year. You can't forget about the age of Miller, Matty and Blake. Who knows what we'll get with Sopel. On paper LA has a good defense, in January it's another thing.

I think that it has more to do with the belief that the D played well below their ability last season. For one, Miller and Sopel were injured the whole time. Also, as for Sopel, he came in late, so he's an addition of sorts. Then, there were other players like Norstrom and Gleason who didn't play as well as they're capable. I think that most people are confident that Norstrom will bounce back, and Miller and Sopel are healthy and have been impressive so far in camp.

Of course, Blake is a huge addition and the "loss" of Corvo is rather forgettable. Oh, and, finally, part of the reason why the D struggled last year could've been that the team needed a defenseman all season and, because they didn't get it, relied on Weaver and Dempsey, who were disappointing, themselves.

Nothing went right with regards to defensive play from the D corps, so does it not make sense to have optimism that it can only be better?

RightKinger 09-22-2006 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 6553651)
I think that it has more to do with the belief that the D played well below their ability last season. For one, Miller and Sopel were injured the whole time. Also, as for Sopel, he came in late, so he's an addition of sorts. Then, there were other players like Norstrom and Gleason who didn't play as well as they're capable. I think that most people are confident that Norstrom will bounce back, and Miller and Sopel are healthy and have been impressive so far in camp.

Of course, Blake is a huge addition and the "loss" of Corvo is rather forgettable. Oh, and, finally, part of the reason why the D struggled last year could've been that the team needed a defenseman all season and, because they didn't get it, relied on Weaver and Dempsey, who were disappointing, themselves.

The only bright spots on D were Visnovsky and Corvo, but that had to do with offense. Nothing went right with regards to defensive play, so it can only be better this season, no?

I agree. Plus the fact that a lot of players were playing out of their comfort zone(Norstrom on the PP). Blake allows players like Norstrom and Miller to go back to what they are good at.

Fat Elvis 09-22-2006 04:59 PM

They may be relying on Weaver again this season. I agree the defense this season Should be a lot better than last season. There are still many IF's that some with it though imo. Blake is a big addition, corvo is a good -, a healthy Sopel should help, Matty playing a more Matty like role. But what if Gleason is only this good? I'm a big Gleason fan, mostly because I want to see the kids do well. Health is another concern for me. But you all are probably right about the King D being good, not sure about top 10.

Fat Elvis 09-22-2006 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftKinger (Post 6553689)
I agree. Plus the fact that a lot of players were playing out of their comfort zone(Norstrom on the PP). Blake allows players like Norstrom and Miller to go back to what they are good at.


What was Miller good at, it's been so long I can't remember?

RightKinger 09-22-2006 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis (Post 6553708)
What was Miller good at, it's been so long I can't remember?

Defense. When healthy he is a rock defensively.

Osprey 09-22-2006 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis (Post 6553708)
What was Miller good at, it's been so long I can't remember?

...battling attackers in the corners and behind the net, and preventing them from going straight to the net. He's awesome at it when his back allows him to be.

ILuvLA 09-22-2006 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 6553651)
I think that it has more to do with the belief that the D played well below their ability last season. For one, Miller and Sopel were injured the whole time. Also, as for Sopel, he came in late, so he's an addition of sorts. Then, there were other players like Norstrom and Gleason who didn't play as well as they're capable. I think that most people are confident that Norstrom will bounce back, and Miller and Sopel are healthy and have been impressive so far in camp.

Of course, Blake is a huge addition and the "loss" of Corvo is rather forgettable. Oh, and, finally, part of the reason why the D struggled last year could've been that the team needed a defenseman all season and, because they didn't get it, relied on Weaver and Dempsey, who were disappointing, themselves.

Nothing went right with regards to defensive play from the D corps, so does it not make sense to have optimism that it can only be better?


I agree. Sopel is still somewhat of an unknown as far as this team, so it is like he's a new guy this season. Hopefully, Miller's surgery worked and his back will hold up, if it does, we will see a Miller that we haven't seen in a few years. Blake? Personally, I'm looking forward to his big *** checks.

johnjm22 09-22-2006 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deviate (Post 6552916)
ducks have best 1-2 in league for sure but there 3-6 sucks

Beauchemin does not "suck."

Osprey 09-22-2006 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnjm22 (Post 6553838)
Beauchemin does not "suck."

I agree. They're solid 1-4, at least.

ILuvLA 09-22-2006 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnjm22 (Post 6553838)
Beauchemin does not "suck."

Agree that he doesn't suck - but I'd like to see what Beauchemin does without Nieds or Pronger as his pairing to see how his game evolves. You have to admit that Nieds & Pronger would make ANYONE look good.

David A. Rainer 09-22-2006 05:44 PM

Nashville has a good one. Calgary is nice.

But, you could take Pronger, Niedermayer and 4 strategically placed trash cans, and they would still be the best defense in the league. The combination of Pronger and Niedermayer is that devasting.

Josh Deitell 09-22-2006 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnjm22 (Post 6553838)
Beauchemin does not "suck."

He hasn't played especially well in their preseason games, has he?

Regardless, he's had one good year in his career playing with Scott Niedermayer, I don't think you can give him all too much credit. I think he's a "wait and see" kind of situation.

Pronger and Niedermayer are obviously elite but O'Donnell is not made for the new NHL, Vishnevski was shipped out, and Beauchemin is a good defenseman who still has to prove last year wasn't a fluke.

Back to the topic at hand, if you make the assumption that every player in the league is completely healthy for 82 games, only a few teams with better 1-6 (or 7) depth come to mind: Calgary, Buffalo, and Phoenix, maybe Vancouver as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David A. Rainer (Post 6554021)
Nashville has a good one. Calgary is nice.

But, you could take Pronger, Niedermayer and 4 strategically placed trash cans, and they would still be the best defense in the league. The combination of Pronger and Niedermayer is that devasting.

The same comment I always make when someone brings this up is to remember how many cups St. Louis won with Pronger and MacInnis.

bland 09-22-2006 05:50 PM

I'll say it, Blake is NOT an improvement over Corvo in the defensive zone. Both are poor defenders, but the difference in the transitional game should be enormous. Blake's a far better passer, where as Corvo's strength's were all of the selfish variety - strictly shooting and stickhandling. Blake has the capability of making his teammates more effective.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.