Thread: OT: Jason Garrison
View Single Post
Old
02-22-2013, 09:25 AM
  #111
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Beach Clean I don't know how hard this is to get across but the reason we are talking about Garrison here is because this thread is about Garrison.

If you want to have a discussion comparing the different defensemen then make a separate thread.



Sorry Orca, just not getting it. Can't understand why context doesn't matter. I could leave the discussion of other Dmen out, but I won't, because it matters. It offers perspective of Garrison's current environment. You not liking it is irrelevant. I'm talking about Jason Garrison as a cog of the Vancouver Canucks. That includes him, and others, and how fits, relative to others.

But perhaps it's who it's coming from that bothers you, so here's another way of putting it that might get through:

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Honestly, as long as guys like Hamhuis and Bieksa are playing like trash I'm having a hard time getting too worried about Garrison's play so far. The defense as a whole still isn't anywhere near up to par and he's just one part of it.

Really, how would people have felt about Hamhuis if he'd just signed here in the offseason and all we'd seen of him on the team was his season to date?
better?




Quote:
You say I'm biased because I put down Garrison but don't put down others or hold them to the same standard. That might have some validity if the point of the thread was some general discussion about the Canuck defensemen. But the point of the thread is to discuss Garrison as player - not Garrison relative to others. That is simply changing the topic

If the topic was a comparison of defensemen then I would say several of the Canuck defenseman have had some pretty rough games and rightfully have come in for some criticism. But I think illogical to say that the play of others somehow makes poor play by Garrison acceptable.


It doesn't make it acceptable, it makes it understandable. Right now, the play of the entire defense is unacceptable based on prior standards, but until all the other pieces right their games, we can't fully infer how "off" Garrison is in his game. There's Garrison "the player" and then there's Garrison "the player among players". Both his ability and his ability within the context of the group matters. Overall, it gives us the complete picture. Notice that I have not refrained on giving an analysis of Garrison's play itself, it's just that I include the context, which you have failed to do.


Quote:
Also, you talk l about over-blown statement but then say that "everyone is looking like crap". First, if this was really true the team would not have anything like the record it has. Yes, there have been periods of poor play by the defensemen but there have also been some very good play. Second, I guess if everyone is looking like crap then Garrison is looking like crap. This kind of defeats all your statistical analysis that tries to suggest Garrison is playing well. Can you see the contradiction???


So somehow saying that the top4 has struggled/looked like crap is akin to calling for a buyout on a newly signed player 13 games in? Not that I want to get into this line of reasoning because it's irrelevant, but the hyperbole is still clearly with you. It remains with you. It's was a poor statement at a poor time. But hey, I'm not going to even get into it further than that so whatever.

I put those numbers up to show you that looks can be deceiving. Which actually plays into the team still winning, despite the hand-wringing about the players. Be it Garrison or others. You tried to make your buyout argument based on the "look" of Garrison. Remember? That he is appearing to struggle. I agreed that he looked awkward out there, but my analysis extends beyond that to include context and objective statistics. It's why I'm not calling for a buyout. Plus, you know, the fact that it's only been 14 games without a proper training camp... That too. Basically, I'm saying that your analysis lacked context and objectivity. The numbers bear that out. Now your only course of action is to prove that the "look" of a player (to which I have also provided my account) is more relevant than his effectiveness and is context. Good luck.





Quote:
I did not see all the game tonight so it is hard to be too definitive but from what I saw I agree with those who think Garrison played better. He seemed to really be trying to get up in the play and provide support. I think he could have jumped a little quicker on Ryder on the second goal but I did think he was reacting better to situations than in previous games.

I hope that Garrison forces me to eat my words and that he starts to fulfill the hopes the Canucks have here. But I think up to this point the criticism of Garrison and the worries about his contract are absolutely justified.


14 games in, limited camp, new team, everyone struggling, underlying stats, history of the team working with players (Ballard) etc... is a direct indictment on your comments. They were, and remain, unjustified.

It's not about making you eat your words, it's about having patience and not uttering an extreme statement until you see things play out first...




Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
can you please please please










stop







posting






like







this



Would you rather I type gargantuan paragraphs? I space things out so it's easier to read for others. What would you suggest I change? Are others having trouble reading my posts?


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 02-22-2013 at 09:38 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote