View Single Post
06-17-2011, 03:46 PM
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,999
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
He's also bad at keeping opponents from taking dangerous shots at his net, which is one of the qualities I look for in a defenseman. "Rugged and intimidating", to me, are nice-to-haves, but if it's all a defenseman has, then what we have is a poor defenseman.
I find this hard to believe. If he has no skills and isn't effective defensively, why the heck is he in the NHL and playing for not one but two teams that have made the final?
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Sure they will, if they have value. Presumably this helps the defenseman in question defend the net against opposing scorers, surely? If it doesn't help prevent scoring chances against, then what good is it? "These guys sure are intimidated while they bombard our goalie"?
They may take shots from the perimeter, they may not get a second chance at rebounds... The Bruins actually did win the cup dude and while Thomas was great, the Bruins D was stifling. Not sure if it shows up on your spreadsheet but it sure showed up for those who actually watched the games. The Bruins had one of the best GAs in the league... maybe it did show up on your spreadsheet. I forgot though, GA is just a fluke and corsi is the be all and end all.

How many goals are dirty goals that get scored while fighting in front of the net? How many are rebounds in traffic? We don't score that many dirty goals, we tend to make the pretty passes and the goals that we get look terrific. But at the end of the day our shooting percentage sucks right? Do you think maybe it has something to do with the fact that other clubs are able to sink those short putts because they're in front of the net and able to fight off the opposing defense for that 'second chance' shot? If your D is big and the opposing forwards are small, it's going to help prevent goals.

You can count shots and shooting percentage all you wish but at the end of the day if you don't score you don't win. And having a huge defense core that helps clear traffic (or as Chara did actually make a couple of key saves for you) in front is going to help your save percentage.
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
They also had extraordinarily good goaltending and faced unusually bad goaltending. Which had more to do with Boston's Cup than any roughing and tumbing.
It was definitely the biggest factor. But to sit there and claim that Boston didn't do a great job against the best offense in the league is to be willfully blind. I don't care what your spreadsheet tells you.
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
That's largely irrelevant though. He offers X amount of effectiveness offensively and defensively and his salary is in line with that X amount. What we think he should be is pretty much completely irrelevant to what he is, and as a GM Gauthier must primarily be concerned with the latter.
It's not irrelevant to this discussion. You're talking about 'the real problem' and again... the answer isn't on a spreadsheet. It isn't his salary either.

We know kind of talent this guy has, we've seen it in flashes. The 'real problem' is that he doesn't do it consistently enough. The reason? I guess we're trying to figure that out but the 'real problem' is that his talent is much greater than the results we've been getting from him. You may say that it's misplaced expectations and I believe that people unfairly throw the 2003 draft in his face but the bottom line is that he should be a lot better than he is.

Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
the least you could do if you want to respond to someone is read their whole post...

it was one f-ing sentence, was it so hard ?
I don't know what you're talking about.

Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 06-17-2011 at 04:13 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote