Take out a top defensemen or two from about any defense in the league and you'll have an average guy playing top3 minutes.
Again, a good contrast is the 2010-2011 Habs. They started the season with 5 top-4 dmen: Markov, Gorges, Subban, Hamrlik, Spacek. They lost 2 and added Wisniewski, so effectively they lost 1, and that was good enough for 6th place in the Eastern Conference.
The 2012-2013 Habs? They have 3 top-4 dmen: Markov, Gorges, Subban.
Again, a good contrast is the 2010-2011 Habs. They started the season with 5 top-4 dmen: Markov, Gorges, Subban, Hamrlik, Spacek. They lost 2 and added Wisniewski, so effectively they lost 1, and that was good enough for 6th place in the Eastern Conference.
The 2012-2013 Habs? They have 3 top-4 dmen: Markov, Gorges, Subban.
Okay, so there's a good chance that one of Kaberle, Emelin, Diaz, or even Weber fill that top 4 role adequately. In 2010-2011 Subban was the best defenseman on the Habs.
Sure Wiznewski put up a huge amount of points for us but let's not forget that he was a disaster in our own zone and there was much debate in offering him the same contract for exactly that reason and the fact that he might be injury prone. Hamrlik was imo the biggest loss because he was a minute eating two-way defenseman that always bailed the team out and played beyond his limitations. He was old and slow but when he turned it on he would get us that goal or empty the tank to rush back and dive to the ice to save one, he was the glue.
In 2011-2012, Gorges has adequately filled in for Hammer and I would say even then some (played less than half a season).
Subban was two points shy of his rookie total yet developed into a defensive D-man with huge untapped offensive potential. If he can put it together offensively for a whole season not just the latter half (Something like 19gp12pts+9), I am convinced he's going to be a force like Shea Weber for us in the future, and he's got the advanced statistics that almost mirror Nashville's finest right now.
Markov will give us more than 7 games hopefully, nothing more needs to be said there, guy is still elite even at this stage which will give us a gigantic boost.
So overall, when you break it down, we are going into next season with a MUCH better defense than 2010-2011 and especially last year.
Last edited by poetryinmotion: 08-26-2012 at 11:51 AM.
It's hard to take you seriously when you make a comments like this. it reeks of Homerism. If Karlsson was a Hab, everyone on this board would be saying how he's the next Lidstrom and you would trade him for Markov? Really?!
I hope Markov has a great bounce back year but no matter how good it is, he won't win a Norris like Karlsson just did. Neither will PK.
My point is that from the list you just gave and what's actually still available in the NHL right now, there are defensemen who had better years last year, who will continue to grow and who are better than PK and Markov whether they pique your interest or not. We have some huge holes to fill on defense and even if Markov and PK were the two top defensemen in the league.
He won the Norris without barely any time on the PK.
Does that scream best defenseman in the league to you? When his team doesn't even trust him to kill penalties?
It's hard to take YOU seriously when all you look at is points for a Defenseman.
The James Norris Memorial Trophy is awarded annually to the National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position".[1]
But what does the NHL know. They're just the ones who invented the award. You obviously know better.
The James Norris Memorial Trophy is awarded annually to the National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position".[1]
But what does the NHL know. They're just the ones who invented the award. You obviously know better.
You are building a team. You are selecting your top defenceman. If you select a guy who can only play rover and PP, you are going to be a horrific team.
My ideal top defenseman? Plays the point on the PP, springs the attack from the back end, eats up short-handed situations, is the key piece to the 5-on-3 kill, and is a stalwart on defense.
Apparently your ideal top defenseman is a guy who averaged 33 seconds a game shorthanded. You know what that means? He was only ever used in situations where the penalty was expiring, the face-off or puck was played in the other opponents end and they could transition from short-handed to offence once the penalty was killed.
Erik Karlsson ranked 167th in the league for DEFENSEMAN for short-handed time on ice. He however averaged 4 minutes a game on the powerplay. 8th overall for D on the powerplay.
PK Subban averaged 2:36 minutes a game on the penalty kill. Good enough for 48th in the league (Only reason he didn't play more is because of Hal Gill & Gorges forming the tandem for the first unit).
You can try and argue your way out of this, which you won't, but what the stats and anyone with a keen hockey eye will realise is that PK Subban is much more rounded defenseman than Karlsson. In no world is PK Subban better offensively, but I'll take the <20 points that Karlsson will get over Subban, for the time on ice Subban is killing penalties, hitting the opposition, drawing penalties, and skating us out of trouble.
Karlsson contributed importantly to the rise of the Senators relative to their previous season. A similar clain cannot reasonably be made for any Hab Dman despite the teams' high percentage of penalties killed. Since the odds of scoring SH goals are small, it would seem logical not to overburden a team's best offensive Dman with PK duties.
You are building a team. You are selecting your top defenceman. If you select a guy who can only play rover and PP, you are going to be a horrific team.
My ideal top defenseman? Plays the point on the PP, springs the attack from the back end, eats up short-handed situations, is the key piece to the 5-on-3 kill, and is a stalwart on defense.
Apparently your ideal top defenseman is a guy who averaged 33 seconds a game shorthanded. You know what that means? He was only ever used in situations where the penalty was expiring, the face-off or puck was played in the other opponents end and they could transition from short-handed to offence once the penalty was killed.
Erik Karlsson ranked 167th in the league for DEFENSEMAN for short-handed time on ice. He however averaged 4 minutes a game on the powerplay. 8th overall for D on the powerplay.
PK Subban averaged 2:36 minutes a game on the penalty kill. Good enough for 48th in the league (Only reason he didn't play more is because of Hal Gill & Gorges forming the tandem for the first unit).
You can try and argue your way out of this, which you won't, but what the stats and anyone with a keen hockey eye will realise is that PK Subban is much more rounded defenseman than Karlsson. In no world is PK Subban better offensively, but I'll take the <20 points that Karlsson will get over Subban, for the time on ice Subban is killing penalties, hitting the opposition, drawing penalties, and skating us out of trouble.
Evaluating defenseman solely on their defensive abilities is as silly as evaluating forwards solely on their point production.
Every non-goalie position is a two-way position in the modern NHL.
Erik Karlsson may not have killed penalties, but he produced 19 goals and 78 points and went +16 on a mediocre team.That's TWENTY-FIVE more points than the second best dman on offense, Brian Campbell and Dustin Byfuglien in a two-way tie, and thus easily makes up for his lack of contribution on the penalty kill.
By the way the difference in points between Karlsson and Subban is 40 points not <20 points. Do you like Subban's offense? Karlsson doubled Subban's offense last year.
Evaluating defenseman solely on their defensive abilities is as silly as evaluating forwards solely on their point production.
Every non-goalie position is a two-way position in the modern NHL.
Erik Karlsson may not have killed penalties, but he produced 19 goals and 78 points and went +16 on a mediocre team.That's TWENTY-FIVE more points than the second best dman on offense, Brian Campbell and Dustin Byfuglien in a two-way tie, and thus easily makes up for his lack of contribution on the penalty kill.
By the way the difference in points between Karlsson and Subban is 40 points not <20 points. Do you like Subban's offense? Karlsson doubled Subban's offense last year.
Picking the league's best defenseman who cannot be relied upon to kill penalties is a joke. If he was a top DEFENSE (note the word defense, you know, the thing they should be contributing FIRST and FOREMOST)man, he should have been relied on to kill penalties.
You guys can gush over points. I saw a very ineffective defenseman when the game tightened up in the play-offs. We can continue deny that PK came in during our play-off run when Markov got injured, having only 2 regular season games under his belt, and was a key component to us defeating Pittsburgh in 7 games, and one of the few bright spots against Philadelphia in the Conference Finals.
You guys are absolutely hilarious. You would tear down every player this team has to prove a point that the grass is greener everywhere else. I don't really care about Karlsson's point total when he isn't a reliable piece in his own end (at this stage in his career, ever is debatable, but I won't make such bold proclamations that you guys like to I.E. PK will never win the Norris).
I'll take the guy who can score 40-50 points, score 10+ goals, hit, intimidate, annoy, and play the penalty kill.
You can take the guy who can score 70 points, can't hit, intimidate, annoy or play the penalty kill.
Most people line up to build their defense around guys like Chara, Lidstrom, Markov, Weber and Pronger.
Most teams don't line up to build their defense around guys like Green and Karlsson. They're nice pieces, but they aren't multi-dimensional and can end up hurting you.
Mike Green being nominated for the Norris was a pretty clear indication that to be dominated you don't need to play defense.
Karlsson winning it is a clear cut case.
The guy doesn't play on the penalty kill, obvious he's not ****ing sound defensively.
I still remember when Mark Streit got votes for the Norris in 2007-2008 while playing over half the season on forward for us, its hard to take the voting seriously for that award.
You are building a team. You are selecting your top defenceman. If you select a guy who can only play rover and PP, you are going to be a horrific team.
My ideal top defenseman? Plays the point on the PP, springs the attack from the back end, eats up short-handed situations, is the key piece to the 5-on-3 kill, and is a stalwart on defense.
Apparently your ideal top defenseman is a guy who averaged 33 seconds a game shorthanded. You know what that means? He was only ever used in situations where the penalty was expiring, the face-off or puck was played in the other opponents end and they could transition from short-handed to offence once the penalty was killed.
Erik Karlsson ranked 167th in the league for DEFENSEMAN for short-handed time on ice. He however averaged 4 minutes a game on the powerplay. 8th overall for D on the powerplay.
PK Subban averaged 2:36 minutes a game on the penalty kill. Good enough for 48th in the league (Only reason he didn't play more is because of Hal Gill & Gorges forming the tandem for the first unit).
You can try and argue your way out of this, which you won't, but what the stats and anyone with a keen hockey eye will realise is that PK Subban is much more rounded defenseman than Karlsson. In no world is PK Subban better offensively, but I'll take the <20 points that Karlsson will get over Subban, for the time on ice Subban is killing penalties, hitting the opposition, drawing penalties, and skating us out of trouble.
That statement makes you sound all the more reasonable and credible. Good job. Must be nice to always be the smartest guy in the room.
That statement makes you sound all the more reasonable and credible. Good job. Must be nice to always be the smartest guy in the room.
What's hilarious is you think a trophy makes one defenseman significantly better than another. The Norris trophy has annually been a joke because point production is weighted too highly in the whole scheme of things.
A bunch of guys I don't care about voted Karlsson best "Defense"man in the league even though he doesn't play short-handed minutes. It's quite clear that the NHL needs to bring in an Offensive D trophy and the Norris can be awared to the best defenseman.
No one is arguing that Karlsson isn't an elite offensive talent from the back-end. But it's a joke when you call a rover, who can't play short handed, and is a tragedy in his own end (adequate at BEST), the best D man in the league.
I don't care if Subban or Markov ever win or get nominated for the Norris trophy. I don't give two flying ****s about a popularity contest. What I see on the ice is the most important factor. Those two are exemplary at their position and both possess unique qualities that you want in D and are extremely hard to find.
What's hilarious is you think a trophy makes one defenseman significantly better than another. The Norris trophy has annually been a joke because point production is weighted too highly in the whole scheme of things.
A bunch of guys I don't care about voted Karlsson best "Defense"man in the league even though he doesn't play short-handed minutes. It's quite clear that the NHL needs to bring in an Offensive D trophy and the Norris can be awared to the best defenseman.
No one is arguing that Karlsson isn't an elite offensive talent from the back-end. But it's a joke when you call a rover, who can't play short handed, and is a tragedy in his own end (adequate at BEST), the best D man in the league.
I don't care if Subban or Markov ever win or get nominated for the Norris trophy. I don't give two flying ****s about a popularity contest. What I see on the ice is the most important factor. Those two are exemplary at their position and both possess unique qualities that you want in D and are extremely hard to find.
I find it hard to call anyone who's well known as a playoff and pressure ghost "exemplary". Teams used to game-plan around Markov... 4-5 years ago. Now they just pressure him and they know he'll either cop out from the play or pathetically try to take a hit and crumble like a broken sandbag.
This isn't 2008, no matter how badly you'd like it to be.
Picking the league's best defenseman who cannot be relied upon to kill penalties is a joke. If he was a top DEFENSE (note the word defense, you know, the thing they should be contributing FIRST and FOREMOST)man, he should have been relied on to kill penalties.
You guys can gush over points. I saw a very ineffective defenseman when the game tightened up in the play-offs. We can continue deny that PK came in during our play-off run when Markov got injured, having only 2 regular season games under his belt, and was a key component to us defeating Pittsburgh in 7 games, and one of the few bright spots against Philadelphia in the Conference Finals.
You guys are absolutely hilarious. You would tear down every player this team has to prove a point that the grass is greener everywhere else. I don't really care about Karlsson's point total when he isn't a reliable piece in his own end (at this stage in his career, ever is debatable, but I won't make such bold proclamations that you guys like to I.E. PK will never win the Norris).
I'll take the guy who can score 40-50 points, score 10+ goals, hit, intimidate, annoy, and play the penalty kill.
You can take the guy who can score 70 points, can't hit, intimidate, annoy or play the penalty kill.
Most people line up to build their defense around guys like Chara, Lidstrom, Markov, Weber and Pronger.
Most teams don't line up to build their defense around guys like Green and Karlsson. They're nice pieces, but they aren't multi-dimensional and can end up hurting you.
Just because they're called defensemen doesn't mean defense is more important than offense.
You win a game by outscoring the other team, that means offense and defense are equally important.
You want players that are good at both. However, if one player is off the scales in one, then you tolerate imperfections in the other.
What's hilarious is you think a trophy makes one defenseman significantly better than another. The Norris trophy has annually been a joke because point production is weighted too highly in the whole scheme of things.
A bunch of guys I don't care about voted Karlsson best "Defense"man in the league even though he doesn't play short-handed minutes. It's quite clear that the NHL needs to bring in an Offensive D trophy and the Norris can be awared to the best defenseman.
No one is arguing that Karlsson isn't an elite offensive talent from the back-end. But it's a joke when you call a rover, who can't play short handed, and is a tragedy in his own end (adequate at BEST), the best D man in the league.
I don't care if Subban or Markov ever win or get nominated for the Norris trophy. I don't give two flying ****s about a popularity contest. What I see on the ice is the most important factor. Those two are exemplary at their position and both possess unique qualities that you want in D and are extremely hard to find.
What I find hilarious is your ego maniacal posts. Who are you that you know so much more the experts who vote for these awards? I can only thank God you're nowhere near in control of the Habs. Anyone who wouldn't trade Markov for Karlsson one for one is a moron beyond Milbury proportions. I like Markov but there is ZERO chance that he is a better defensman than Karlsson or more valuable overall.
Karlsson helped propel the Sens into a contending team when everyone thought they'd be amongst the leagues bottom feeders. PK didn't do that and Markov hasn't don't that. I have no idea what your bias is against Karlsson but if he was a Hab and Markov and PK where on another team, I highly doubt you'd be singing the same tune.
Karlsson helped propel the Sens into a contending team when everyone thought they'd be amongst the leagues bottom feeders. PK didn't do that and Markov hasn't don't that. I have no idea what your bias is against Karlsson but if he was a Hab and Markov and PK where on another team, I highly doubt you'd be singing the same tune.
The Sens were not contenders last year, they are a bubble team. Actually if you put Karlsson on the Habs and PK + Markov on the Sens, we still finish in the lottery and you probably would be singing about how valuable Subban was for them and how Karlsson doesn't have the overall game and intangibles that he brings. Works both ways.
The Sens were not contenders last year, they are a bubble team. Actually if you put Karlsson on the Habs and PK + Markov on the Sens, we still finish in the lottery and you probably would be singing about how valuable Subban was for them and how Karlsson doesn't have the overall game and intangibles that he brings. Works both ways.
I'm sure your shiny crystal ball must be great to have but saying what "would" have happened in some alternate universe is akin to being a babbling fool. How does anyone base an arguement on that? You do realize that Ottawa was in fact better than Montreal and Karlsson did on fact win a Norris. Your assumption that having Karlsson on the Habs makes no sense what so ever based on what he actually did accomplish in real life.
Why berate a kid who's obviously an extremely talented young budding star? Because he's not a Hab he must suck and be inferior to the guys we have? It's not a bad thing to say a player Ina different team is good. No one will think you're any less of a Hab fan. Saying that Markov is a better option than Karlsson is just about one of the most homer comments I can think of. I mean why would a 22 year old Norris trophy winner be more desirable than a 34 year old who's had two major knee surgeries and barely played in the past two years? Because one is a Hab and the other isn't? If you want to believe that, have fun with that.
Again, a good contrast is the 2010-2011 Habs. They started the season with 5 top-4 dmen: Markov, Gorges, Subban, Hamrlik, Spacek. They lost 2 and added Wisniewski, so effectively they lost 1, and that was good enough for 6th place in the Eastern Conference.
The 2012-2013 Habs? They have 3 top-4 dmen: Markov, Gorges, Subban.
Spacek was not better than Kaberle, in fact he was probably worse. Gorges was hardly considered a top4 defensemen at the time. Its reasonable to expect that one of Kaberle, Emelin or Diaz could be a serviceable no4 if asked and acquiring another top4 defensemen is still possible if the team plays well enough to justify seeking an upgrade for the playoffs (like they did by getting Wisniewski)
Spacek was not better than Kaberle, in fact he was probably worse. Gorges was hardly considered a top4 defensemen at the time. Its reasonable to expect that one of Kaberle, Emelin or Diaz could be a serviceable no4 if asked and acquiring another top4 defensemen is still possible if the team plays well enough to justify seeking an upgrade for the playoffs (like they did by getting Wisniewski)
Gorges has been a top-4 dman since 2008-09 in my opinion. I don't actually know when he began to be "recognized" as a top-4 dman.
Finally, Spacek was a great complemento to that top-4. Remember Hamrlik-Spacek was an effective shutdown pair in addition to Gill-Gorges. Tomas Kaberle is a good player, better than Spacek, but on this specific Habs team he doesn't give us much that we can't get from Markov or Subban.
Yeah the defense depth is not great, I think simply think its OK in most cases. Kaberle is at a crossroads. He can bounce back and be a legit top4 player (which he seems intent to do, with the reports of him taking training seriously for once) or fall off from the face of the earth into waiver/buy out land.
Its one of the big questions about our defense next year, if he plays well we have good depth, if not we're vulnerable. Its an aspect that can be upgraded at the deadline for sure if the team surprises. Hamrlik's departure really hurt the team, he ought to have been replaced. That was Gauthier's biggest mistake if he believed last year team would compete.
