HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Prospect Thread - Part XI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-30-2012, 08:56 PM
  #901
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 13,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
30 #1's?

New Jersey's is who? Bryce Salvador, Buffalo's is? Ehrhoff? eek, Myers? Vancouver clearly doesn't have one, Edmonton? Ryan Whitney?

A teams best two way defensman doesn't automatically equate to a #1.

I'll agree about Pronman though!
Obviously not every team has a #1 defender. And some teams (like Nashville last season or Chicago) will have two.

If there are 30 NHL teams, there are 30 #1 defender spots available, and then by definition the top 30 NHL defenders will be worthy of being called a #1 defender. And the 31st-60th best defenders in the league are ‘#2 defenders’ and so on.

If you only call the top 8 guys #1 defenders and, say, the next 20 after that #2 defenders ... all of a sudden the 30th best defender in the sport is a ‘#3 defender’ despite playing #1-2 minutes for every team in the NHL.

The 15th-best defender in the NHL is an ‘average #1 defender’.

To live on a planet where only the top 5 or 7 Norris-contending guys are considered ‘#1 defenders’ makes zero sense. Again, there is a ‘franchise’ defender and then there is a #1 defender.

If anything, I’d argue we have two #1 defenders.

MS is offline  
Old
10-30-2012, 10:49 PM
  #902
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
If you only call the top 8 guys #1 defenders and, say, the next 20 after that #2 defenders ... all of a sudden the 30th best defender in the sport is a ‘#3 defender’ despite playing #1-2 minutes for every team in the NHL.
There is a huge difference between the top 5 or 8 and 25-30, the same gap doesn't exist from 30-90.

It just feels wrong to put the 30th best defensemen in the league in the same class as Chara etc.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 12:33 AM
  #903
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
There is a huge difference between the top 5 or 8 and 25-30, the same gap doesn't exist from 30-90.

It just feels wrong to put the 30th best defensemen in the league in the same class as Chara etc.
There's a difference between a #1 center and a franchise center. Krejci, Kesler, Richards, and Weiss are all #1 centermen, few would argue that. Malkin, Crosby, Sedin, Stamkos, Datsyuk and so on are all franchise centermen, there's a considerable difference. It's the same for defensemen, Edler is a #1 defenseman but not a franchise defenseman like Weber. I wouldn't build my franchise solely around Edler as the cornerstone whereas I would with Chara, Lidstrom, or Edler.

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 12:39 AM
  #904
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,234
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
There's a difference between a #1 center and a franchise center. Krejci, Kesler, Richards, and Weiss are all #1 centermen, few would argue that. Malkin, Crosby, Sedin, Stamkos, Datsyuk and so on are all franchise centermen, there's a considerable difference. It's the same for defensemen, Edler is a #1 defenseman but not a franchise defenseman like Weber. I wouldn't build my franchise solely around Edler as the cornerstone whereas I would with Chara, Lidstrom, or Edler.
wut?

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 12:40 AM
  #905
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
There is a huge difference between the top 5 or 8 and 25-30, the same gap doesn't exist from 30-90.

It just feels wrong to put the 30th best defensemen in the league in the same class as Chara etc.
You could say the same thing for goalies. Corey Crawford was voted as the 30th best goalie in an HFBoards poll. He's considered a #1 goalie (albeit a very mediocre one), just like Lundqvist.

The 30th best defenseman should be considered a #1 defenseman, although they'll obviously be quite fringe for a #1. You would definitely want one of the top-tier #1 defensemen if you were building a strong Cup contender though.

I think there definitely is a lack of an agreed upon definition for a #1 defenseman though - and that creates some confusion when people discuss #1 defensemen.

Zarpan is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 12:41 AM
  #906
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
He probably meant Weber.

Wisp is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 12:50 AM
  #907
Leafs For Life*
Nothing
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,636
vCash: 500
Damn.. Jensen plays with Biggs. And now he's gone.

And if you view this Siverback, check your pm b/c I have a problem with unactive playoff rival for this round. sorry for the hunt down, just hope we haven't advanced so we can get it figured out.

Leafs For Life* is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 12:57 AM
  #908
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,234
vCash: 900
I find placing the word "legit" in front of anything works. Legit #1 D, Legit #1 centre, Legit top-6 forward, etc.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 01:02 AM
  #909
Leafs For Life*
Nothing
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I find placing the word "legit" in front of anything works. Legit #1 D, Legit #1 centre, Legit top-6 forward, etc.
It's basically like would you be comfortable moving them up a line/spot if there are injuries, like with Kesler he is a more than legit #2 and is an okay #1 if needed.

Leafs For Life* is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 01:09 AM
  #910
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarpan View Post
You could say the same thing for goalies. Corey Crawford was voted as the 30th best goalie in an HFBoards poll. He's considered a #1 goalie (albeit a very mediocre one), just like Lundqvist.

The 30th best defenseman should be considered a #1 defenseman, although they'll obviously be quite fringe for a #1. You would definitely want one of the top-tier #1 defensemen if you were building a strong Cup contender though.

I think there definitely is a lack of an agreed upon definition for a #1 defenseman though - and that creates some confusion when people discuss #1 defensemen.
So in this case a team's 'No. 1 defenseman' by definition is really just their top defender, irregardless of how they stack up compared to another team's No. 1? A No. 1 D on Edmonton, for example, may be No. 3 in Vancouver for example.

I thought the 'traditional' definition of a No. 1 guy, if there ever really was one, was a very good two-way D-man who could play big minutes and in all situations, no matter what. And not all teams might have one player of this calibre. So it's possible that the meanings of 'No. 1' have been mixed up?

vanuck is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 02:24 AM
  #911
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
There's a difference between a #1 center and a franchise center. Krejci, Kesler, Richards, and Weiss are all #1 centermen, few would argue that. Malkin, Crosby, Sedin, Stamkos, Datsyuk and so on are all franchise centermen, there's a considerable difference. It's the same for defensemen, Edler is a #1 defenseman but not a franchise defenseman like Weber. I wouldn't build my franchise solely around Edler as the cornerstone whereas I would with Chara, Lidstrom, or Edler.
I wouldn't call any guy playing that position by default a #1. Weiss is only a #1 because they don't have anyone better. Krejci and Kesler are borderline, neither has carried the load and both are inconsistent. It applies to every position for me, I don't see the point in classifying players in a way that doesn't narrow the field in a meaningful way. If the NHL expands to 40 teams, are there then 40 #1's?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarpan View Post
You could say the same thing for goalies. Corey Crawford was voted as the 30th best goalie in an HFBoards poll. He's considered a #1 goalie (albeit a very mediocre one), just like Lundqvist.
I do not consider Crawford a #1 goalie.


Last edited by Scurr: 10-31-2012 at 02:44 AM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 03:46 AM
  #912
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
So in this case a team's 'No. 1 defenseman' by definition is really just their top defender, irregardless of how they stack up compared to another team's No. 1? A No. 1 D on Edmonton, for example, may be No. 3 in Vancouver for example.

I thought the 'traditional' definition of a No. 1 guy, if there ever really was one, was a very good two-way D-man who could play big minutes and in all situations, no matter what. And not all teams might have one player of this calibre. So it's possible that the meanings of 'No. 1' have been mixed up?
Nope, the definition I was using was a top 30 dman in the NHL. Some teams may have none, others may have multiples. I think Vancouver has two, but they're not top-tier franchise defensemen.

Zarpan is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 03:52 AM
  #913
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I do not consider Crawford a #1 goalie.
He's pretty marginal for sure, but I was using him as an example since he was ranked #30 in the poll. Only 25% of people voted him as #30 though, so there would be a lot of people who would consider him a #2.

Maybe someone like Niemi (#25) would be a better example. I think most people would rank him in the top 30, although few would rank him in the top half. I don't think you can call him a #2, although he's a very pedestrian #1.

Zarpan is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 02:28 PM
  #914
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Obviously not every team has a #1 defender. And some teams (like Nashville last season or Chicago) will have two.

If there are 30 NHL teams, there are 30 #1 defender spots available, and then by definition the top 30 NHL defenders will be worthy of being called a #1 defender. And the 31st-60th best defenders in the league are ‘#2 defenders’ and so on.

If you only call the top 8 guys #1 defenders and, say, the next 20 after that #2 defenders ... all of a sudden the 30th best defender in the sport is a ‘#3 defender’ despite playing #1-2 minutes for every team in the NHL.

The 15th-best defender in the NHL is an ‘average #1 defender’.

To live on a planet where only the top 5 or 7 Norris-contending guys are considered ‘#1 defenders’ makes zero sense. Again, there is a ‘franchise’ defender and then there is a #1 defender.

If anything, I’d argue we have two #1 defenders.
Seabrook is overrated. He's not a #1 either.


I made a post a number on months ago on terms I use, now I forget them (I'll try and find it)....but some teams #1 doesn't kill penalties.

IMO a true #1 plays the oppositions best players. It's why I can't class Edler there. His own team doesn't ask him too, why do the fans think he does?

It reminds me of when we had Ehrhoff...quite clearly was our #1 offensive defensman, but got butter soft minutes 5 on 5....like Erik Karlsson, he's a #1 in terms of being a PP QB and skating the most EV strength minutes, but does not shutdown anyone.

If my #1 d-man can't play D, then he aint #1 - he's just my PP QB.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
10-31-2012, 02:50 PM
  #915
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
The whole #1 defender (or any other # position) thing adds no value to people's understanding of how good a player is and is simply a semantic argument over the definition of #1. It just ends up distracting everyone from the real question (how good is Jake Gardiner?).

pitseleh is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 02:54 PM
  #916
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
The whole #1 defender (or any other # position) thing adds no value to people's understanding of how good a player is and is simply a semantic argument over the definition of #1. It just ends up distracting everyone from the real question (how good is Jake Gardiner?).
While true, if the board could come to a consensus on the term, then attributing a number to how good Jake Gardiner is would be easier.

He has top pairing potential, but I don't think he'd be a true #1 - more Brian Campbell then Duncan Keith.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
10-31-2012, 03:00 PM
  #917
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
While true, if the board could come to a consensus on the term, then attributing a number to how good Jake Gardiner is would be easier.

He has top pairing potential, but I don't think he'd be a true #1 - more Brian Campbell then Duncan Keith.
To me it's a player who logs 30+ mins a game, is a key contributor both on the PP and PK, is consistently defensively responsible and adds 30 + points/year.

LickTheEnvelope is online now  
Old
10-31-2012, 03:06 PM
  #918
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
While true, if the board could come to a consensus on the term, then attributing a number to how good Jake Gardiner is would be easier.

He has top pairing potential, but I don't think he'd be a true #1 - more Brian Campbell then Duncan Keith.
The problem is that there isn't really a cookie cutter approach. Maybe you could define a #1 as a defenceman that is relied upon (heavily) at EV and on the PP/PK (i.e. Chara, Lidstrom, Weber), but then you're out of luck trying to define #2, #3, etc. How do you define those categories to encompass both Willie Mitchell and Alex Edler?

Why not just analyze players based on how they contribute (i.e. we all know Jake Gardiner will be a good PP player going forward, but the question is whether his defensive game will round out enough to be a reliable minute eater at EV/PK) rather than try to figure out whether they fit into some category that no one has a definition of?

pitseleh is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 03:15 PM
  #919
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
The problem is that there isn't really a cookie cutter approach. Maybe you could define a #1 as a defenceman that is relied upon (heavily) at EV and on the PP/PK (i.e. Chara, Lidstrom, Weber), but then you're out of luck trying to define #2, #3, etc. How do you define those categories to encompass both Willie Mitchell and Alex Edler?

Why not just analyze players based on how they contribute (i.e. we all know Jake Gardiner will be a good PP player going forward, but the question is whether his defensive game will round out enough to be a reliable minute eater at EV/PK) rather than try to figure out whether they fit into some category that no one has a definition of?
I can't say I disagree, but the whole debate sprung in this thread by Corey Pronman calling Gardiner a potential #3 ie. a 2nd pairing defensman.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
10-31-2012, 03:27 PM
  #920
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
The problem is that there isn't really a cookie cutter approach. Maybe you could define a #1 as a defenceman that is relied upon (heavily) at EV and on the PP/PK (i.e. Chara, Lidstrom, Weber), but then you're out of luck trying to define #2, #3, etc. How do you define those categories to encompass both Willie Mitchell and Alex Edler?

Why not just analyze players based on how they contribute (i.e. we all know Jake Gardiner will be a good PP player going forward, but the question is whether his defensive game will round out enough to be a reliable minute eater at EV/PK) rather than try to figure out whether they fit into some category that no one has a definition of?
#1 D

Contributes significantly on both special team, plays great defence and contributes offensively at even strength

#2

Contributes significantly to at least one special team, plays great defence and good offensively or good defence and great offensively

#3 Contributes significantly to at least one special team, plays good defensively and offensively or great defensively or great offensively.

How'd I do?


Last edited by Scurr: 10-31-2012 at 03:41 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 03:30 PM
  #921
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
To me it's a player who logs 30+ mins a game, is a key contributor both on the PP and PK, is consistently defensively responsible and adds 30 + points/year.

So no one then? No defenseman consistently plays more than 26-27 minutes a game.

opendoor is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 04:57 PM
  #922
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I wouldn't call any guy playing that position by default a #1. Weiss is only a #1 because they don't have anyone better. Krejci and Kesler are borderline, neither has carried the load and both are inconsistent. It applies to every position for me, I don't see the point in classifying players in a way that doesn't narrow the field in a meaningful way. If the NHL expands to 40 teams, are there then 40 #1's?



I do not consider Crawford a #1 goalie.
Excluding two seasons ago where he was only on pace for 53 points, hes been on pace to average (while only missing 5 games total) 61 points per season. That would put him between 19th to 24th in scoring for a center in those years. All this while playing on a relatively poor team without much secondary scoring as support. I wouldn't tout Weiss as a 'great' #1 centerman, but he does seem to fill that role just fine. Hence the difference between a #1 center and a franchise center.

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 05:17 PM
  #923
Socratic Method Man
Weise's Lost Lunch
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,669
vCash: 500
I agree with Pitseleh here. But if a person still wants definitions, it seems to me that the definitions would have to be general enough to be applicable to every defenceman who should fit into the category, past, present and future. That means the terms would have to be very general. I'll take a stab.

#1 = "A defenceman who can play the applicable minutes of a #1 defenceman aka against the opposition's top players, playing the most minutes for his own team on his own team's first pairing. AND play these minutes successfully aka come out on the positive side while playing these minutes."

I'm not sure how to define "positive side", perhaps in terms of +/-, because that is about having more goals scored than goals against while he is on. Or perhaps corsi or some other advanced stat. But to me these seem like the general terms that would have to be used. And these terms seem to include everyone who should be included, Chara, Weber, Doughty, Keith, perhaps Karlsson (depending on whether he plays the most minutes and whether he comes out on top), etc.

Socratic Method Man is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 05:37 PM
  #924
Catamarca Livin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferroid View Post
And do you feel particularly confident in the Canucks' organizational ability to produce good quality NHL players?

It has now been 4 years since Gillis took the helm, and outside of Hodgson and Schneider there has been no push up from the farm.

It is possible - and indeed, I hope it is the case - that the last couple years of drafting will result in a few quality NHLers, but to be completely frank, outside of Kassian and Jensen at forward and Lack in net, our prospect pool seems devoid of sure-fire impact players.

For how many seasons can an elite club like the Canucks sustain their high level of play? At least during the WCE days, the Sedins were developing in the wings so that after a few lean years, our team became dominant again.

Like I said, unless Kassian and Jensen pan out as top flight NHLers, I fear for the fate of this team post-Sedins.
Good Points but it needs to said Gillis has been busy winning now. What is his choice? We have a good core now. He is not trading all the future away. To keep winning we have to keep making players like Hansen Burrows Kesler Bieksa be better than expected and get lucky with some picks. Detroit has shown it is easier for lesser prospects to develop on a winning team.

Catamarca Livin is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 06:32 PM
  #925
StrictlyCommercial
Registered User
 
StrictlyCommercial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,955
vCash: 500
I don't get why people are arguing with MS on this. He's 100% right.

There are 30 #1 defensemen in the NHL by simple reasoning. (30 teams= 30 #1 spots available)
There are 30 #2 defensemen
etc

People are using the term #1 incorrectly when they really mean 'Franchise' (Weber) or 'Star' (Doughty) or 'Generational talent' (Lidstrom).

I don't see how this is hard to grasp/define.

StrictlyCommercial is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:47 PM.

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.