Webers game is very similar to Big Als in his prime. Hes big, hits like a tank, great in his own end, is a leader, moves the puck well and has a booming shot.
MacInnis was far better defensively, slightly better offensively, and Weber is more physical (and has a better playoff beard).
But we're talking about his "prime" though (I'm referring to the Calgary years). At his prime Big Al wasn't exactly a shutdown machine either. The problem was that other teams rarely got the puck from him during that time and he'd end up putting points on the board.
I don't see the MacInnis/Weber comparison at all based on their in game styles. Blake/Weber is a better comparison like a couple others have suggested. Not sure off hand who I would match up with MacInnis on the comparison scale and don't feel like thinking that hard right now.
Aside from being right-handed and having a great shot, they are two different defensemen. While MacInnis was decent in his own zone, Weber is better at it and he's definitely more complete, and a lot more physical.
If you want to compare Weber to someone from the past, I'm thinking more of a guy like Doug Wilson in his prime.
Aside from being right-handed and having a great shot, they are two different defensemen. While MacInnis was decent in his own zone, Weber is better at it and he's definitely more complete, and a lot more physical.
If you want to compare Weber to someone from the past, I'm thinking more of a guy like Doug Wilson in his prime.
MacInnis was much better then "decent" in his own zone.
Wow, big Al is getting way underrated here. His defensive game was crazy good, and his shot was better than Webers. Only thing Weber has on him is his physical game and durability.
Plus, Weber is terrific, be he's not as good defensively as MacInnis was. He makes more mistakes, gets out of position when the other team cycles well from time to time, and he isn't as elusive or unpredictable in either end. He doesn't play as cerebral of a game. It goes without saying that MacInnis was superior offensively. Weber is more like Blake or a watered down version of prime Scott Stevens. More physical, clears the front of the net, more straight up-and-down.
Plus, Weber is terrific, be he's not as good defensively as MacInnis was. He makes more mistakes, gets out of position when the other team cycles well from time to time, and he isn't as elusive or unpredictable in either end. He doesn't play as cerebral of a game. It goes without saying that MacInnis was superior offensively. Weber is more like Blake or a watered down version of prime Scott Stevens. More physical, clears the front of the net, more straight up-and-down.
A watered down Scott Stevens isn't a good analogy for Weber. He just isn't as experienced yet. Weber could very well be the next Steven's on the right team.
No one's shot struck the fear into opposing players like MacInnis'. Weber maybe shoots as hard as Al all-time but overall the shot isn't the same. MacInnis somehow had a really quick wind up and release which is strange to say about a slap shot. But he did. Plus he was accurate. MacInnis' slap shots didn't go all over the place, he kept them on net.
That being said Weber has a great shot, just like Chara, but in the context of a game no one could use it like MacInnis. Overall offensively you still give the clear edge to MacInnis, not a lot of defensemen controlled the game from an offensive standpoint like him.
Defensively and physically I give the edge to Weber. Not by a whole lot but if I am picking more of a shutdown guy I choose Weber. A guy who sets the tone with a hit and its Weber too. Not that MacInnis wasn't good defensively either.
Overall their styles are different but to compare them as defensemen that you would want on your team I still say it is hard to pass up MacInnis. Weber has done marvelous things on Nashville and lets face it, he has carried that franchise for a few years, but I don't think a team does any worse if their best player is MacInnis either. We also have the luxury of seeing an entire career vs. a partial one too
