View Single Post
09-09-2011, 10:44 AM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,778
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

jarek mentioned Julien has some trouble with powerplays. I can't confirm or deny this myself, but you probably can. Sell me on why we should believe Julien will run a powerplay effective enough to outshine ours.
Because Eden Hall has much better personnel on the PP than Regina. Coaches coach, players play, and the advantage Eden Hall has in PP players is enormous. Believe me, I'm going to emphasize this again before the series is up.

In one of the few seasons Julien actually had decent powerplay personnel (2008-09), his team finished 4th in the league on the PP. Of course, that's besides the point, as I already indicated that John Muckler will be just as involved in team strategy as Claude Julien, and will likely take the role on the PP.

I'm going to go with "his reputation was considerably better throughout his career" if you don't mind. Despite missing as many games as he did, Erixon placed 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th in selke voting, being named on between 5 and 18 ballots each time, for a total of 48. Tippett was 9th, 12th, and 14th, with 2-5 ballots each time for a total of 11. Tippett's also one of the few forwards here who might be a weaker offensive threat than Erixon. (24 adjESPPS vs. 27)

I'm surprised you asked this, honestly.
Serious question: How much better is the 3rd best defensive forward (as determined by the media) than the 9th best defensive forward (as determined by the media)? I really don't think the gap between the top checking forwards is that high - certainly not as high as the gap between the top scorers, which is why I never draft 3rd liners before 1st liners.

Once in awhile, there will be a generational defensive forward like Bob Gainey, but Erixon clearly isn't that. If he was, ATD canon would have him go in the main draft, considering the ATD was started by a group of GMs who grew up watching 80s (and 70s) hockey.

no, not forgetting, but the differences are huge, I don't think era transcends it considering Sargent was 4th, 5th, and 7th in those three years. Ehrhoff was 58th, 42nd and 23rd in his best three years. As I touched on earlier, this does not mean anything conclusively, but a quick perusal of the leaders over the years does provide a very strong indication that Sargent was something special for three years, as we know other guys with similar credentials were

Maybe it just means that Sargent was the big fish in a small pond - those North Stars teams weren't exactly stacked - certainly not like the recent San Jose Sharks or the President's Trophy winning Canucks.

well, none of this is really untrue, so all it comes down to now is, are Sargent's 3.5 years better enough to overcome Ehrhoff's specialist years? Let me know your thoughts on the icetime piece.
Sargent certainly didn't have any years better than Ehrhoff's last 2 when he finished top 10 in Norris voting over a much larger talent pool and deserved it. I mean, you can claim that Sargent's 3.5 seasons are better than Ehrhoff's next 2 and that's possible; I don't know. Ehrhoff has been a 21 minute+ defenseman for the last 4 seasons and was a specialist for several before.

I agree. But do note that bias against defensive defensemen also means bias for offensive defensemen. Which makes it understandable why I'm not sure Campbell's norris votes reflect his true value in 2007 and 2008, although he was obviously very good.
If Brian Campbell had a full career (10 years or so) of seasons like he had in 2006-07 and 2007-08, he would have a career as good or better than Sergei Zubov, who most think is a rock solid offensive minded #3 in the main draft. Of course Campbell didn't have a career of seasons like that, so he falls to the MLD, but let's be realistic about just how good those seasons were.

Anyway, the Gibbs/Campbell thing has become a mess, so I'll make a new post on just that in a bit.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote