HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Matt Carle article

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2011, 08:29 AM
  #51
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,040
vCash: 500
You know that people don't understand the game when they are willing to pay matt Carle near 5 million per season

Is this a joke?

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 08:33 AM
  #52
Bort Sampson
Registered User
 
Bort Sampson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hammock District
Country: United States
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
There is no information that you can offer that supports your opinion that Carle is a poor defender. Because it's an uninformed opinion. You can not find any statistical data, or an opinion from a credible analyst that occurs with your opinion. You can tell me that I'm in the latter and in the group that doesn't know what I'm looking at until your blue in the face. They are hollow and meaningless words. All the information available says that you are incorrect. And you are incorrect.
Carle is actually pretty good as a smaller stature defenseman in using body position down low defensively. He is an outstanding puck mover. And another incorrect statement you've made is that I've failed to mention how Carle is a fine player in his own end. I've made numerous statements and provided numerouos facts over various threads supporting on how Carle is a fine player in his own end. And in fact, the article I posted to start this thread supports my opinion.

You obviously feel you need to qualify yourself with your opening statement, but your comments afterwords failed miserable to back that up. So just more hollow words.
So if Carle plays well down low and uses his body, show us some credible statistics to back that statement up. You know, hits or something. It wasn't like Zherdev landed nearly twice as many hits as Carle in the playoffs last season (in 3 less games). Or led the team in giveaways. But hey! Look at what he does lead the team in! BLOCKED SHOTS! It's almost as if I have statistical evidence to show Carle's proficiencies and deficiencies in the playoffs and you merely have an article that shows his play during the regular season. It's retarded for the BSH article to say that Carle plays against better competition, but doesn't acknowledge Carle's play against playoff teams in the playoffs.

Plus, this came from the article you posted:

Quote:
Matt Carle was an elite defenseman in the NHL this past season. He was even better without Pronger than he was with Pronger this past season. So, yeah.
That's not an expert opinion, it's a blogger. I've seen every Flyers game for the past 3 seasons. Carle gets deserved credit (offensively) and deserved criticism (defensively).

edit: the whole problem with your argument is that you're merely linking to a blog that is attempting to write something positive to counteract their admittedly recent negative article streak (it was 2 articles, but fans are pretty reactionary and defensive to criticism). It attempts to shed light on Matt Carle as an "elite" defenseman but it falls flat on its face in its relevant evidence. If your main argument is that Matt Carle was a great player against higher competition and did it without Chris Pronger, look at the playoffs. He was awful in the playoffs. The article makes no mention of the significant drop in production, despite it making up 1/4 of the game sample.


Last edited by Bort Sampson: 07-21-2011 at 09:29 AM.
Bort Sampson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 08:34 AM
  #53
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Stats are only part of it. Show me some information from a credible source that substantiates your opinion. You con't do it because it doesn't exist. Simply ecauce you are incorrect.



There is no information that you can offer that supports your opinion that Carle is a poor defender. Because it's an uninformed opinion. You can not find any statistical data, or an opinion from a credible analyst that occurs with your opinion. You can tell me that I'm in the latter and in the group that doesn't know what I'm looking at until your blue in the face. They are hollow and meaningless words. All the information available says that you are incorrect. And you are incorrect.
Carle is actually pretty good as a smaller stature defenseman in using body position down low defensively. He is an outstanding puck mover. And another incorrect statement you've made is that I've failed to mention how Carle is a fine player in his own end. I've made numerous statements and provided numerouos facts over various threads supporting on how Carle is a fine player in his own end. And in fact, the article I posted to start this thread supports my opinion.

You obviously feel you need to qualify yourself with your opening statement, but your comments afterwords failed miserable to back that up. So just more hollow words.
Disclaimer: my comments below have nothing to do with whether Matt Carle is or isn't a good defender.

1) Statistics do not exist that completely and inherently quantify defense. The only statistics that exist, require interpretation of those statistics in order to arrive at a conclusion. You can look at +/-, shots for, shots against, Qualcomps etc. They still all require interpretation. This isn't as clear cut as...Jeff Carter scores more goals than Jody Shelley.

2) Can you find me ANY analyest that EVER just blasted someone and talked about how bad they were defensively? I'm not talking about someone saying or writing "so and so had a rough game today". I'm talking about them legitimately saying, "this guy can't play defense". It doesn't happen; and if it does, it's exceedingly rare.

The counterarguments you are demanding to refute your particular opinion, flat out don't exist; not because you're right, just because they don't exist for anyone. So you could present the same opinion for any player, and with your criteria, it would be impossible for someone to prove you wrong.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 08:40 AM
  #54
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,632
vCash: 500
How tough they try to re-sign Carle will depend (imo) on the progress of Gustafsson and Bartulis. Meszaros and Coburn are good defenseman but neither one of them are as good at moving the puck up the ice as Carle is, and with Timonen only having a year left after this season a defenseman who can make a breakout pass is something we could find ourselves sorely lacking.

If somebody throws a ridiculous contract at Carle than the Flyers' hands are tied, but I could live with Carle on a 4 year 16 million contract.

McNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:30 AM
  #55
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,762
vCash: 156
Carle is a Mike Green Lite. He's not as good on offense, and he's worse on defense.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:43 AM
  #56
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Hi. I'm an expert.

Either way, Carle has some significant flaws to his game defensively.
Every player has strengths and weaknesses. Carle is no exception. But he is reliable defensivley in his own end. And that combined with other aspects of his game that he brings to the ice such as his puck movement, which is a huge factor in today's NHL and his playmaking abilities, combines to form a quality top 4 defenseman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bort Sampson View Post
So if Carle plays well down low and uses his body, show us some credible statistics to back that statement up. You know, hits or something. It wasn't like Zherdev landed nearly twice as many hits as Carle in the playoffs last season (in 3 less games). Or led the team in giveaways. But hey! Look at what he does lead the team in! BLOCKED SHOTS! It's almost as if I have statistical evidence to show Carle's proficiencies and deficiencies in the playoffs and you merely have an article that shows his play during the regular season. It's retarded for the BSH article to say that Carle plays against better competition, but doesn't acknowledge Carle's play against playoff teams in the playoffs.

Plus, this came from the article you posted:



That's not an expert opinion, it's a blogger. I've seen every Flyers game for the past 3 seasons. Carle gets deserved credit (offensively) and deserved criticism (defensively).

edit: the whole problem with your argument is that you're merely linking to a blog that is attempting to write something positive to counteract their admittedly recent negative article streak (it was 2 articles, but fans are pretty reactionary and defensive to criticism). It attempts to shed light on Matt Carle as an "elite" defenseman but it falls flat on its face in its relevant evidence. If your main argument is that Matt Carle was a great player against higher competition and did it without Chris Pronger, look at the playoffs. He was awful in the playoffs.
Your biggest problem is that you think I'm only offering the blog I linked as the only evidence. That's not the case. All the information available supports my opinion. And secondly the blogger offered statistical evidence to back up and support his opinion, which you conveniently omit or ignore. And just to be clear, I don't consider Carle in any way to be an elite defenseman.
As far as hits, does Nick Lidstrom play well down low? Because Carle registered more hits than Lidstrom does. Not in any way trying to compare Carle as a player to arguably the greatest dman of all time. So as a self proclaimed guy who's been watching Hockey all his life, you should know that hits are not the only indicator of whether and player plays well defensively and uses his body well. Two other defenseman in Flyers history who played very well in their own end and used body position well while not registering a lot of hits were Mark Howe and Eric Dejardins.

Carle's play, along with the majority of the team, was subpar in the playoffs. But saying he was awful is overstating it. And 11 games doesn't define a player.

And by the way, as far as the 1-0 loss to Buffalo, that you referenced. Who blew the coverage on Kaleta in front of the net? I'll give you a hint, not Carle! But as a guy who has watched Hockey all his life, why don't you know that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
Disclaimer: my comments below have nothing to do with whether Matt Carle is or isn't a good defender.

1) Statistics do not exist that completely and inherently quantify defense. The only statistics that exist, require interpretation of those statistics in order to arrive at a conclusion. You can look at +/-, shots for, shots against, Qualcomps etc. They still all require interpretation. This isn't as clear cut as...Jeff Carter scores more goals than Jody Shelley.

2) Can you find me ANY analyest that EVER just blasted someone and talked about how bad they were defensively? I'm not talking about someone saying or writing "so and so had a rough game today". I'm talking about them legitimately saying, "this guy can't play defense". It doesn't happen; and if it does, it's exceedingly rare.

The counterarguments you are demanding to refute your particular opinion, flat out don't exist; not because you're right, just because they don't exist for anyone. So you could present the same opinion for any player, and with your criteria, it would be impossible for someone to prove you wrong.

Your absolutely right, the counter arguments don't exist. Because statements that Carle is poor in his own end is simply innacurate. All the number and all the information, as well as analysis by credible analysts point in the same direction. Are seriously basing an opinion on Analysts don't blast a player as being poor defensively? Happens all the time. So credible NHL analysts state that Carle is reliable in his own end because they don't want to state publicly that his isn't? Seriously!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Carle is a Mike Green Lite. He's not as good on offense, and he's worse on defense.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Carle is a far better defender than Green is. That's a no brainer

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:47 AM
  #57
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
That's absolutely ridiculous. Carle is a far better defender than Green is. That's a no brainer


Dude, come on now...

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:50 AM
  #58
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Your absolutely right, the counter arguments don't exist. Because statements that Carle is poor in his own end is simply innacurate. All the number and all the information, as well as analysis by credible analysts point in the same direction. Are seriously basing an opinion on Analysts don't blast a player as being poor defensively? Happens all the time. So credible NHL analysts state that Carle is reliable in his own end because they don't want to state publicly that his isn't? Seriously!
You missed my point. I'm not saying these counter arguments don't exist for Carle, I'm saying they don't exist for ANYONE.

You could replace Carle with Jaroslov Modry (ala 2006 was it?), for everything you've said, and with the criteria you are demanding in order to refute it, it would still be impossible to do so.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:50 AM
  #59
Ghost of Downie*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Carle is a Mike Green Lite. He's not as good on offense, and he's worse on defense.
Funny, I always thought Green was more of a dick than a Carle.

Ghost of Downie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:51 AM
  #60
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,762
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
That's absolutely ridiculous. Carle is a far better defender than Green is. That's a no brainer
No, it's not ridiculous. It's fact. Green is better defensively than Carle. However, Green is still pretty bad at defense, so that says a lot about Carle's defensive abilities. Green is at least willing to make or take hits, unlike Carle. He stands his ground, and at least TRIES to clear the net area. Carle is softer than a baby chinchilla.

Do you even watch Caps games? I catch most of them.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:57 AM
  #61
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post


Dude, come on now...
No substance here Chris. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
You missed my point. I'm not saying these counter arguments don't exist for Carle, I'm saying they don't exist for ANYONE.

You could replace Carle with Jaroslov Modry (ala 2006 was it?), for everything you've said, and with the criteria you are demanding in order to refute it, it would still be impossible to do so.
I didn't miss your point at all. Your point is simply incorrect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
No, it's not ridiculous. It's fact. Green is better defensively than Carle. However, Green is still pretty bad at defense, so that says a lot about Carle's defensive abilities. Green is at least willing to make or take hits, unlike Carle. He stands his ground, and at least TRIES to clear the net area. Carle is softer than a baby chinchilla.

Do you even watch Caps games? I catch most of them.
I watch a lot of Cap games. The above statement is simply not fact, and couldn't be more innacurate.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 09:58 AM
  #62
Bort Sampson
Registered User
 
Bort Sampson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hammock District
Country: United States
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Your biggest problem is that you think I'm only offering the blog I linked as the only evidence. That's not the case. All the information available supports my opinion. And secondly the blogger offered statistical evidence to back up and support his opinion, which you conveniently omit or ignore. And just to be clear, I don't consider Carle in any way to be an elite defenseman.
As far as hits, does Nick Lidstrom play well down low? Because Carle registered more hits than Lidstrom does. Not in any way trying to compare Carle as a player to arguably the greatest dman of all time. So as a self proclaimed guy who's been watching Hockey all his life, you should know that hits are not the only indicator of whether and player plays well defensively and uses his body well. Two other defenseman in Flyers history who played very well in their own end and used body position well while not registering a lot of hits were Mark Howe and Eric Dejardins.

Carle's play, along with the majority of the team, was subpar in the playoffs. But saying he was awful is overstating it. And 11 games doesn't define a player.

And by the way, as far as the 1-0 loss to Buffalo, that you referenced. Who blew the coverage on Kaleta in front of the net? I'll give you a hint, not Carle! But as a guy who has watched Hockey all his life, why don't you know that?
Once again, you're referencing a blog. I read BSH. Earlier in the year he posted a similar read on Carle.

This was an interesting shortcoming of that article that is perpetuated in the one you posted:

Quote:
There are many things we aren't discussing here, simply because we can't. We don't know just how much different Carle's competition is with and without Pronger. We can assume his quality of competition is lower without Pronger, but we can't be certain. Either way, the notion that Matt Carle needs Chris Pronger at his side to be successful needs to be dropped. He is given far fewer opportunities to succeed offensively without Pronger, and he still drives the play away from his own net. The team may not be as successful in the goal department, but Carle gives them more opportunities to score and fewer opportunities to be scored against when he's without Chris Pronger.
This shortcoming isn't corrected in the "new" evidence, and it's actually completely ignored. The blogger is attempting to show that Matt Carle is "elite", and that he was better without Pronger than with him. Yet, he conveniently omits the final 11 games of the Flyers' season in his analysis, despite it deserving to be in the sample. By quick glance, Carle faced playoff competition in about 14 games without Pronger during the regular season, and faced playoff competition 8 times (without Pronger, 11 with Pronger just in the line-up) in the playoffs. That's a pretty hefty sample omitted.

This was a fluff piece. The article I linked has a much better analysis and I agree with it completely.

edit: I also have no idea what 1-0 game you're talking about, but this is a video of Matt Carle standing in front of the net and doing nothing that I was talking about.

Oh, you're talking about this video showing Matt Carle's Eric Desjardins-esque skills down low. It's interesting to note that the puck was just about a foot from Carle's stick before Kaleta put it in, which could have been eliminated had Carle been where he was supposed to be. Last time I checked he's not a winger and had no business following the play up the boards.


Last edited by Bort Sampson: 07-21-2011 at 10:19 AM.
Bort Sampson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:01 AM
  #63
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Matt Carle is brutal to watch defensively against anyone physical. He just can't hang with em.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:03 AM
  #64
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
No substance here Chris. LOL
And here I thought you had no need for substance...

I mean, you appreciate the finer points of Carle's defensive game after all.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:26 AM
  #65
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I didn't miss your point at all. Your point is simply incorrect.
Oh. My mistake then.

Your entire approach to presenting an argument is terribly flawed.

Defensive "statistics" just don't tell the whole story. It requires interpretation and greatly vary from team to team. Why else do people spend so much time creating these advanced statistics to TRY to quantify such things.

If we were in a court of law, you'd be torn to shreds, because your arguments are based in nothing and literally could be applied to any player in the league.

You select a random set of criteria, which in your mind defines what a good defensive player is, and then select another random set of criteria, which you require as "evidence" to prove the contrary. Yet that "evidence" doesn't exist for anyone, anywhere.


"Well you can't prove God doesn't exist!!"

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 10:58 AM
  #66
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bort Sampson View Post
Once again, you're referencing a blog. I read BSH. Earlier in the year he posted a similar read on Carle.

This was an interesting shortcoming of that article that is perpetuated in the one you posted:



This shortcoming isn't corrected in the "new" evidence, and it's actually completely ignored. The blogger is attempting to show that Matt Carle is "elite", and that he was better without Pronger than with him. Yet, he conveniently omits the final 11 games of the Flyers' season in his analysis, despite it deserving to be in the sample. By quick glance, Carle faced playoff competition in about 14 games without Pronger during the regular season, and faced playoff competition 8 times (without Pronger, 11 with Pronger just in the line-up) in the playoffs. That's a pretty hefty sample omitted.

This was a fluff piece. The article I linked has a much better analysis and I agree with it completely.

edit: I also have no idea what 1-0 game you're talking about, but this is a video of Matt Carle standing in front of the net and doing nothing that I was talking about.

Oh, you're talking about this video showing Matt Carle's Eric Desjardins-esque skills down low. It's interesting to note that the puck was just about a foot from Carle's stick before Kaleta put it in, which could have been eliminated had Carle been where he was supposed to be. Last time I checked he's not a winger and had no business following the play up the boards.
Syvret blew the coverage on Kaleta there, not Carle. Carle was comong off the half wall and couldn't get back in time. Carle had his coverage on the play. I could show one video highlight from even the best of NHL defenseman that shows them making a mistake. Carle is not mistake free just every other NHL players isn't. Again, your focused on one blogger and one article. All of the evidence including statistical analysis, opinions of credible NHL analysts, and quotes from his Coaching staff and teammates support that Carle is a very good top 4 NHL defenseman. And no one on here with an opinion to the contrary has supplied any evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
And here I thought you had no need for substance...

I mean, you appreciate the finer points of Carle's defensive game after all.
Again, nothing here Chris!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
Oh. My mistake then.

Your entire approach to presenting an argument is terribly flawed.

Defensive "statistics" just don't tell the whole story. It requires interpretation and greatly vary from team to team. Why else do people spend so much time creating these advanced statistics to TRY to quantify such things.

If we were in a court of law, you'd be torn to shreds, because your arguments are based in nothing and literally could be applied to any player in the league.

You select a random set of criteria, which in your mind defines what a good defensive player is, and then select another random set of criteria, which you require as "evidence" to prove the contrary. Yet that "evidence" doesn't exist for anyone, anywhere.


"Well you can't prove God doesn't exist!!"
If I'd be torn to shreds them I'm waiting for you to do so. LOL I'll be waiting. I didn't select any random set of criteria. Don't know where your getting that from. I've used all the information available to come to an informed opinion on the player. Your free to prove that my opinion is incorrect. Again, I'll be waiting

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:34 AM
  #67
Bort Sampson
Registered User
 
Bort Sampson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hammock District
Country: United States
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Syvret blew the coverage on Kaleta there, not Carle. Carle was comong off the half wall and couldn't get back in time. Carle had his coverage on the play. I could show one video highlight from even the best of NHL defenseman that shows them making a mistake. Carle is not mistake free just every other NHL players isn't. Again, your focused on one blogger and one article. All of the evidence including statistical analysis, opinions of credible NHL analysts, and quotes from his Coaching staff and teammates support that Carle is a very good top 4 NHL defenseman. And no one on here with an opinion to the contrary has supplied any evidence to the contrary.
Your analysis of the play kind of illustrates that you don't understand defensive play. Part of being a good defenseman is exceptional positional play. You need to get to an area and use your body/frame(including stick) to occupy space. Space is a huge thing to give up in the defensive zone. Look at where Kaleta goes: he goes immediately to the space left vacant by Carle, which was his side of the net. Carle unnecessarily follows the play up the boards, gets caught, and somebody slides into his position for an easy rebound. A very good defenseman is there to clear the puck. A poor defender is caught out of position heading back towards his own net, despite the puck never leaving the zone.

That's a defensive failure leading to a loss. Syvret couldn't do anything given that Kaleta did not yet have the puck, and he still had to cover the play shifting from point to point. Carle's responsibility as a weak side defenseman is to shift over to the front of the net. He didn't, and followed the play up the boards as a forward would do in anticipation of a breakout.

And I'm addressing the article you posted, guy. What else am I supposed to address given you just keep telling us the stats in the article speak for themselves?

Matt Carle fits into the line-up because of favorable pairings. A lot of people saw what the Bruins and Sabres did to him in the playoffs, and he's going to be chasing a lot of dump-ins this season as a result.


Last edited by Bort Sampson: 07-21-2011 at 11:40 AM.
Bort Sampson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 11:51 AM
  #68
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bort Sampson View Post
Your analysis of the play kind of illustrates that you don't understand defensive play. Part of being a good defenseman is exceptional positional play. You need to get to an area and use your body/frame(including stick) to occupy space. Space is a huge thing to give up in the defensive zone. Look at where Kaleta goes: he goes immediately to the space left vacant by Carle, which was his side of the net. Carle unnecessarily follows the play up the boards, gets caught, and somebody slides into his position for an easy rebound. A very good defenseman is there to clear the puck. A poor defender is caught out of position heading back towards his own net, despite the puck never leaving the zone.

That's a defensive failure leading to a loss. Syvret couldn't do anything given that Kaleta did not yet have the puck, and he still had to cover the play shifting from point to point. Carle's responsibility as a weak side defenseman is to shift over to the front of the net. He didn't, and followed the play up the boards as a forward would do in anticipation of a breakout.

And I'm addressing the article you posted, guy. What else am I supposed to address given you just keep telling us the stats in the article speak for themselves?

Matt Carle fits into the line-up because of favorable pairings. A lot of people saw what the Bruins and Sabres did to him in the playoffs, and he's going to be chasing a lot of dump-ins this season as a result.
One of the most basic and elementary fundamentals of defensive zone coverage is that when the puck is established in your zone, coverage is man to man. This is something you learn at the pee wee level. Carle's coverage was exactly what he was suposed to do, until the man got above the circle. He did what he was supposed to do. The only person that lost position on his player, which was the goal scorer Kaleta, was Syvret. Clearly, you have zero understanding of the principles of defensive zone coverage.

I didn't tell you or "us", that the stats in the article speak for themselves, I'm telling you that all the information available supports my opinion of Carle as a player.

Matt Carle fits into the lineup because of favorable pairings? That's pretty funny. Carle fits in the lineup and is stil on this team, when many fans mistakenly thought that he was the "logical guy to move" because he is a very good NHL defenseman.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 12:17 PM
  #69
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,413
vCash: 500
Given our precarious D situation..keeping Carle is pretty much a no brainer but come trade deadline I wouldn't be opposed to shopping him before he gets pushed around in the playoffs and his added value is less so...

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 02:21 PM
  #70
Bort Sampson
Registered User
 
Bort Sampson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hammock District
Country: United States
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
One of the most basic and elementary fundamentals of defensive zone coverage is that when the puck is established in your zone, coverage is man to man. This is something you learn at the pee wee level. Carle's coverage was exactly what he was suposed to do, until the man got above the circle. He did what he was supposed to do. The only person that lost position on his player, which was the goal scorer Kaleta, was Syvret. Clearly, you have zero understanding of the principles of defensive zone coverage.
That's how peewees play hockey, yes. Real defensive zone coverage is just a bit simpler than "man-to-man".

It's also hilarious that you say the correct defensive zone coverage is man-to-man, considering Matt Carle doesn't mark one player in the whole video. He's late into his corner, turns the puck over by just throwing it up the boards, and follows the play too far up the boards and is late getting back to clear the rebound. He's not playing man-to-man. He just doesn't know where he's supposed to be.

Quote:
I didn't tell you or "us", that the stats in the article speak for themselves, I'm telling you that all the information available supports my opinion of Carle as a player.

Matt Carle fits into the lineup because of favorable pairings? That's pretty funny. Carle fits in the lineup and is stil on this team, when many fans mistakenly thought that he was the "logical guy to move" because he is a very good NHL defenseman.
If the information isn't in the article, why post it? And why not just re-post it?

He's a decent defenseman considering his offensive abilities. However, if he's our #3 guy, we're in trouble.


Last edited by Bort Sampson: 07-21-2011 at 02:35 PM.
Bort Sampson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 03:28 PM
  #71
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bort Sampson View Post
I've been watching hockey since I was born. I've played defense since I was 10-years-old (I was an excellent skater who drifted back at a young age), and have watched and attempted to emulate defensemen for years.

Carle is a poor defender. He refuses to use his body in his own zone. He fails to use it to initiate contact or to protect the puck. As a result, he dumps the puck off to vacant wings or merely throws the puck into traffic. His one saving grace in his own zone is his shot-blocking, and he's very good at that.

Ruff knew it and put Buffalo's most physical line on the ice against the Syvret-Carle pairing (one of Lavi's mistakes in the playoffs).
It directly led to them winning a game 1-0, as it was the only goal scored in that game.

There are no statistics to show his inability to use his body, only people who know what they're looking for and people who don't. You fall into the latter group, as you've failed to actuallly mention how he is a fine player in his own zone.

He was paid correctly when the Flyers traded for him and he deserves a modest raise. It will be somewhere between an offensive specialist and a #3/#4 go-between: 3.75-4. Anything else is absurd considering his defensive deficiencies. If he commands more, I hope he ends up in the Atlantic because the Flyers' coaching staff would have an easy job with him.
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that he is poor defensively. He is not much more than average though. Problem is that none of Carle, Meszaros or Coburn has really shown themselves to be more than a #4 guy yet. We need at least one of them to step up and show that they can be the go-to guy on their pairing, both offensively and defensively.

The Carle-Syvret pairing was one of Laviolette's strange moments during the playoffs together with matching Brière against Krejci and the goalie carousel. It just seems so obvious that that would never, ever work. I would have done almost anything as a coach to keep those two on separate pairings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bort Sampson View Post
That's how peewees play hockey, yes. Real defensive zone coverage is just a bit simpler than "man-to-man".

It's also hilarious that you say the correct defensive zone coverage is man-to-man, considering Matt Carle doesn't mark one player in the whole video. He's late into his corner, turns the puck over by just throwing it up the boards, and follows the play too far up the boards and is late getting back to clear the rebound. He's not playing man-to-man. He just doesn't know where he's supposed to be.



If the information isn't in the article, why post it? And why not just re-post it?

He's a decent defenseman considering his offensive abilities. However, if he's our #3 guy, we're in trouble.
That goal was a failure by pretty much the entire line. Both Syvret and Carle definitely could have played that a lot better (as could the forwards).

Edit: Damn, I was referring to the Pominville goal there... Same thing pretty much goes for the Kaleta goal though. Leino(?)'s work in the corner isn't exactly stellar there, Carle isn't doing much right in any sequence and Syvret fails at defense 101.


Last edited by mirimon: 07-21-2011 at 03:34 PM.
mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 04:39 PM
  #72
sa cyred
Yea....the Flyers...
 
sa cyred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Traveling...
Country: Cuba
Posts: 15,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that he is poor defensively. He is not much more than average though. Problem is that none of Carle, Meszaros or Coburn has really shown themselves to be more than a #4 guy yet. We need at least one of them to step up and show that they can be the go-to guy on their pairing, both offensively and defensively.

The Carle-Syvret pairing was one of Laviolette's strange moments during the playoffs together with matching Brière against Krejci and the goalie carousel. It just seems so obvious that that would never, ever work. I would have done almost anything as a coach to keep those two on separate pairings.



That goal was a failure by pretty much the entire line. Both Syvret and Carle definitely could have played that a lot better (as could the forwards).

Edit: Damn, I was referring to the Pominville goal there... Same thing pretty much goes for the Kaleta goal though. Leino(?)'s work in the corner isn't exactly stellar there, Carle isn't doing much right in any sequence and Syvret fails at defense 101.
100% agreed and I think the only one that will disagree with you is Vansciver.


We need more NHL ANALYSIS BILL MELTZER, in this thread...

sa cyred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 05:15 PM
  #73
Bort Sampson
Registered User
 
Bort Sampson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hammock District
Country: United States
Posts: 1,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirimon View Post
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that he is poor defensively. He is not much more than average though. Problem is that none of Carle, Meszaros or Coburn has really shown themselves to be more than a #4 guy yet. We need at least one of them to step up and show that they can be the go-to guy on their pairing, both offensively and defensively.

The Carle-Syvret pairing was one of Laviolette's strange moments during the playoffs together with matching Brière against Krejci and the goalie carousel. It just seems so obvious that that would never, ever work. I would have done almost anything as a coach to keep those two on separate pairings.
I agree with that, and that's pretty much the main consensus of the earlier BSH article I posted. Statistics showed that at that point of the season Mesz was statistically the best of the three, but also faced the more favorable match-ups. Carle had a good season without Pronger. Coburn failed to step up when given the opportunity to make a consistent impact on the team.

Quote:
That goal was a failure by pretty much the entire line. Both Syvret and Carle definitely could have played that a lot better (as could the forwards).

Edit: Damn, I was referring to the Pominville goal there... Same thing pretty much goes for the Kaleta goal though. Leino(?)'s work in the corner isn't exactly stellar there, Carle isn't doing much right in any sequence and Syvret fails at defense 101.
You're right, but a very good NHL defenseman should at the very least not make the same mistakes as an AHL defenseman. The Carle-Syvret pairing was a nightmare because of the play of both defenders.

Basically the article goes as far to say Matt Carle is "elite"(their words) but doesn't explain the criteria for the conclusion. They also don't even mention a huge sample that was ignored. It's a fluff piece.

Bort Sampson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 05:34 PM
  #74
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Carle's season needs to be taken in segments. He got shredded early, then things turned around midseason a bit, and then he held on after Pronger went out. Importantly, after struggling early Pronger was a rock once he got his feet wet.

Then the playoffs happened.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2011, 05:37 PM
  #75
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
Disclaimer: my comments below have nothing to do with whether Matt Carle is or isn't a good defender.

1) Statistics do not exist that completely and inherently quantify defense. The only statistics that exist, require interpretation of those statistics in order to arrive at a conclusion. You can look at +/-, shots for, shots against, Qualcomps etc. They still all require interpretation. This isn't as clear cut as...Jeff Carter scores more goals than Jody Shelley.

2) Can you find me ANY analyest that EVER just blasted someone and talked about how bad they were defensively? I'm not talking about someone saying or writing "so and so had a rough game today". I'm talking about them legitimately saying, "this guy can't play defense". It doesn't happen; and if it does, it's exceedingly rare.

The counterarguments you are demanding to refute your particular opinion, flat out don't exist; not because you're right, just because they don't exist for anyone. So you could present the same opinion for any player, and with your criteria, it would be impossible for someone to prove you wrong.
along with offense, goal-tending, teamwork, creativity, vision, and locker-room presence. I just wish more people on this board would acknowledge that fact and take stats for what they do represent.

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.