Pretty bold statement that can definitely be debated. He wasn't even assigned to shutdown Yakupov's line. It was Harrington and Percy who shut him down, and it wasn't til Hamilton was paired up with Harrington in the final minutes of the game that Yakupov was able to score against him. I don't blame Hamilton for that, but I wouldn't call him the total shutdown on defense.
Ok I exaggerated, but he was strong. The entire OHL defense was really strong (except for a couple brain farts from Koekkoek and Murphy), Percy was really impressive. I was responding to Rielly impressing much much more but should have just considered the source (well established credibility problems) and let it go.
If you want to compare hamilton to a bonafide #1 Dman, dont compare him to chara. Anyone that does that automatically makes themselves look ignorant.
Maybe Pietrangelo.
I've never seen another like Chara. HE truly is a freak. However, people are probably saying that Hamilton will learn a lot from working alongside someone like Chara, rather than comparing the two. Hamilton will probably be known more for his offense, but be proficient in defense, whereas Chara will always be known for his defense first (but is great offensively too).
If Dougie comes even remotely close to being at Pietrangelo's level, I will be more than ecstatic.
I've never seen another like Chara. HE truly is a freak. However, people are probably saying that Hamilton will learn a lot from working alongside someone like Chara, rather than comparing the two. Hamilton will probably be known more for his offense, but be proficient in defense, whereas Chara will always be known for his defense first (but is great offensively too).
If Dougie comes even remotely close to being at Pietrangelo's level, I will be more than ecstatic.
Ya, there is really no way you can compare anyone to Chara. He's a 7 foot tall intimidating monster and I'm pretty sure he is the strongest player in NHL. Hamilton might learn defense from watching Chara, but there is no way he could learn to have the incredible attributes that Chara possess.
Hamilton played a great game against Russia, Rielly was good but not flawless, not that I should be surprised Rielly impressed much much more in your mind.
It was kinda weird seeing you type that after I heard Ferraro said this on TV.
"[Rielly's] game is almost flawless at this level..." Ray Ferraro (www.tsn.ca/chl/)
I don't really trust Ferraro's judgement that much and I saw a few flaws in Rielly's game that he'll need to work on. But I just wanted to get this quote out there just in case there are posters that really respect what the TSN guys say.
It was kinda weird seeing you type that after I heard Ferraro said this on TV.
"[Rielly's] game is almost flawless at this level..." Ray Ferraro (www.tsn.ca/chl/)
I don't really trust Ferraro's judgement that much and I saw a few flaws in Rielly's game that he'll need to work on. But I just wanted to get this quote out there just in case there are posters that really respect what the TSN guys say.
Bobby Mac also tweeted last night that Rielly is outstanding. It's funny because that was one of the weaker games I've seen from Morgan, personally.
If you want to compare hamilton to a bonafide #1 Dman, dont compare him to chara. Anyone that does that automatically makes themselves look ignorant.
Maybe Pietrangelo.
As a Bruins fan I agree... The only thing he really had in common with Chara is that he's tall.
Hamilton can't even dream of being as good defensively as Chara. I'm still very happy with him and have no doubt he can be a #1 defenseman, but a Pietrangelo comparison is much more accurate, and fair, in my opinion.
How do you know he's still growing? 18 is pretty old for height growth. And how is his weight compared to offensive dmen relevant to his odds of amounting to a first pairing defenseman?
I wasn't referring to growing in height (if you noticed, everything I discussed was weight and strength). The odds of him being a first pairing d-man will have little to do with his height or weight and lots to do with his skills. Why anyone cares about height is beyond me. Weight and strength will serve him far better.
So all of Rielly's points are due to his super-awesomeness and all of Dougie's points are him just getting lucky. Rielly "hit that level one year sooner" uh, no, check Dougie's accolades from 2011-2012. This is why nobody argues with your "facts", your whole post just reeks of blatant homerism.
Way to twist words. I didn't say that. I said Rielly is more of a game-breaker and can carry the play better, while Hamilton works off of great players a lot to accumulate points.
Rielly's play this year is just as good as Hamilton's play from 2011-2012. Hamilton just had a way better team. And Hamilton has not progressed from that level, which is a factor.
Well there's 297 defenseman who played in the NHL and 75 are 6' or under (26%). Of those 75, only 18 of them are at, or over, 205 pounds.
So actually it seems like those type of players are exceptionally rare. Of those, only 9 played over 20 minutes per game:
Kevin Shattenkirk
Tim Gleason
Justin Faulk
Drew Doughty
James Wisniewski
Francois Beauchemin
P.K. Subban
Barret Jackman
Matthew Carle
Great players absolutely, but those are the guys that made it and are the best of the best (using ice time as a benchmark).
Like I said, it's totally possible that he makes it happen, but it is very hard to make it as a 6' or smaller defenseman (26% of total population): and weight doesn't really seem to make any difference.
Now see how many of Hamilton's height and size there are. Must be even harder to make it for him.
Way to twist words. I didn't say that. I said Rielly is more of a game-breaker and can carry the play better, while Hamilton works off of great players a lot to accumulate points.
Rielly's play this year is just as good as Hamilton's play from 2011-2012. Hamilton just had a way better team. And Hamilton has not progressed from that level, which is a factor.
There is absolutely no "homerism" in my posts.
I'd say this is probably be true, but it has to be noted that Hamilton will be playing on a really good team in the NHL too, so the fact that he can stand out on a really good team and produce points bodes well for him in the NHL. I think Rielly is more of a game breaker, but that doesn't mean he's the better player (atleast not right now). The better player is the one that is most valuable to a "successful" team and if Hamilton manages to be a/the top player on an elite team, game breaking ability wouldn't be that much of a factor.
That's why I voted for Hamilton even though I like Rielly more. Right now, I'd say he's the better of the two, but that could change in a few years.
I'd say this is probably be true, but it has to be noted that Hamilton will be playing on a really good team in the NHL too, so the fact that he can stand out on a really good team and produce points bodes well for him in the NHL. I think Rielly is more of a game breaker, but that doesn't mean he's the better player (atleast not right now). The better player is the one that is most valuable to a "successful" team and if Hamilton manages to be a/the top player on an elite team, game breaking ability wouldn't be that much of a factor.
That's why I voted for Hamilton even though I like Rielly more. Right now, I'd say he's the better of the two, but that could change in a few years.
I never said Hamilton's points were bad or worthless, but a player who can put up those same kind of points and be a game-breaker is always the better player/worth more.
Game-breaking ability is very rare.
I also find it funny that you think Hamilton will be on Boston and Boston will be great for Hamilton's entire career.
Now see how many of Hamilton's height and size there are. Must be even harder to make it for him.
Obviously said in jest, but I should respond and say that not many humans are born who are that tall in the first place, while the average male is 5,9-5,10. So it's hardly fair to say what you said.
I never said Hamilton's points were bad or worthless, but a player who can put up those same kind of points and be a game-breaker is always the better player/worth more.
Game-breaking ability is very rare.
I also find it funny that you think Hamilton will be on Boston and Boston will be great for Hamilton's entire career.
You seem to be assuming that these are the only factors, or that Hamilton lacks game-breaking ability. All things being equal, yes, a game-breaker could probably be valued more, but I don't think most objective observers would say all things are equal.
Obviously said in jest, but I should respond and say that not many humans are born who are that tall in the first place, while the average male is 5,9-5,10. So it's hardly fair to say what you said.
Then again, it's hardly fair to compare Rielly to other players who did or didn't make the NHL just based on height. If the average male is 5,9-5,10, how can you call Rielly undersized?
Then again, it's hardly fair to compare Rielly to other players who did or didn't make the NHL just based on height. If the average male is 5,9-5,10, how can you call Rielly undersized?
By NHL defenseman standards. Like saying 290 is underweight by NFL offensive tackle standards.
Then again, it's hardly fair to compare Rielly to other players who did or didn't make the NHL just based on height. If the average male is 5,9-5,10, how can you call Rielly undersized?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BudMovin
By NHL defenseman standards. Like saying 290 is underweight by NFL offensive tackle standards.
Precisely.
Again, I'm by no means advocating that Rielly will not be a star NHL defenseman, just that the odds of him making it are fairly low statistically.
Far be it for me to say it's impossible *looks at avatar*
Obviously said in jest, but I should respond and say that not many humans are born who are that tall in the first place, while the average male is 5,9-5,10. So it's hardly fair to say what you said.
That's the joke.
I was exposing a terrible method of evaluation. Just because there aren't a lot of something in the game, it doesn't mean those types are less likely to make the NHL.
I was exposing a terrible method of evaluation. Just because there aren't a lot of something in the game, it doesn't mean those types are less likely to make the NHL.
Actually it does. The lets say the average male is 5'-9.5". 1 standard deviation from the mean height (average) is about 2.8 inches. 1 Standard deviation is about 68% of the total population. So 68% of the population is between 5-6.5 and 6 feet. If you take 68% from 100% you get 32% falls out of that range. Half of that will be less than 5"-6.5" and half of that will be above 6 feet so 84% (68+16) of the male population is under 6 feet tall.
If we go by this previous post here, we find that only 26% of NHL defensemen are 6 feet and under, yet this accounts for 84% of the general male population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves
Well there's 297 defenseman who played in the NHL and 75 are 6' or under (26%). Of those 75, only 18 of them are at, or over, 205 pounds.
So actually it seems like those type of players are exceptionally rare. Of those, only 9 played over 20 minutes per game:
Kevin Shattenkirk
Tim Gleason
Justin Faulk
Drew Doughty
James Wisniewski
Francois Beauchemin
P.K. Subban
Barret Jackman
Matthew Carle
Great players absolutely, but those are the guys that made it and are the best of the best (using ice time as a benchmark).
Like I said, it's totally possible that he makes it happen, but it is very hard to make it as a 6' or smaller defenseman (26% of total population): and weight doesn't really seem to make any difference.
So, yes, being shorter does hinder your chances in the NHL as a defensemen.
Note: I don't think it will hinder Reilly too much. He is the real deal. I am merely warming up for my all-night study session for my calculus exam in the morning by pointing out how illogical your statement is.
