Player Discussion Chris Tanev (4 years, 4.5m AAV)

[User1996]

The definition of a rover may differ slightly from person to person. My personal easiest summary is that it is a dman who is willing to be defensively responsible, yet still impossible to predict where he will go on the ice on any given play.

You know those hockey dome games and the player is on those tracks? I feel like most players actually kinda do majority play like they're on tracks. Rovers don't really follow the tracks at all.

Personally, IMO, if you look at the ozone as a 2 x 2 grid, a rover goes into all 4 zones vs a offensive PMD going into 2 or 3 out of 4. Part of this is that a rover may often enter and exit the ozone in a "U" shape vs a typical offensive minded dman may more habitually go with a "J" shape and go back to his side. You also need a specific skill set to be a rover with no rover capabilities seemingly possible without good skating and offensive acumen/skills.

A rover also is the first to enter the ozone/attempt to enter the ozone in the first wave with the puck with relative frequency as well and often one of the first entering the dzone no matter how deep in the ozone in the play prior to the reverse momentum.

A good d partner has to be able to actively determine the best option for being on the left or right side of the top of the blue line if the rover goes in deep. This is a challenge for a d partner already to cover both left and right ozone exits to reduce the efficacy of an odd man rush in the opposite direction, let alone a full system due to the fluidity of the options and risks that comes with aggressive offense attempts by a rover.

At least that's how I define it in my head.

Fair enough. That’s a well thought out definition. That clarifies a lot. I tend to define it more in line of the amount of time a player spends “out of position” (how much time in the OZ does a D play away from the point). By this definition I wouldn’t necessarily consider a guy like Hanifin a rover, but a guy like Hamilton I would. Slightly different definitions, but there is absolutely no set way it should be defined.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

What is the definition of a rover being used? I think there are very few true rovers in the league and not sure I would classify many of our guys as one.

I just see it as a style of play.

Rover - Bobby Orr
Traditional Defenseman - Nik Lidstrom

The latter will do his damage from the point, the former will be doubling as a centreman cutting through the middle of the ice with the puck on their stick.

Neither is wrong, and both can produce offense, but the latter is more predictable for better or worse. The former can be more dynamic.

For Calgary, a team with Sean Monahan as its dejure 1C, having a rover like Brodie really compensated.

I'm not sure why you can't have a rover on all 3 D pairs. The idea that it's a defensive adventure seems to be imagined rather than factual. When one D pair is not on the ice, that does not influence what another D pair should be doing.

It's just hard to find talent like Kylington that can play that rover game and have the green light to do so.

Hanifin isn't a rover. He might jump into the play sometimes but his game is predominantly about point shots.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Tanev's first pass out of the zone is pretty nice too. He likely won't be skating into the zone with it, but he can get it out of our end pretty well.

 

[GumbyCan2]

So basically brodie for tanev

Partially, yes. Needed rhs exp'd Dman. Tanev I believe truly replaces, is an upgrade on Hamonic. We do still need more offense from the backend absolutely. Losing Brodie does hurt that, yes.

 

[GumbyCan2]

I had a feeling this might happen. Not much to choose from with regards to available NHL established RD d-men that wouldn't involve a trade and giving up players by Treliving, or UFA's that we could afford, or were any good defensively and can slot into Calgary's top four d-pairings

Would prefer 2-3 year term but it is what it is. Hopefully his play doesn't decline during the term of the contract.

This analysis from Elite Prospects:

A two-way defenceman at the top of his class in intellect, composure, and decision-making. Elite-level hockey IQ pairs seamlessly with smooth skating and quick puck movement. Defensively assertive and diligent; keeps the opposition to the outside and along the boards, and doesn't give much to work with up the middle. Finds key lanes and takes them away proactively. Good first pass and can provide support offensively. Chris Tanev is the total package defenceman that can offer positives in all three zones due to his calm disposition and superb poise.

Could pair well with Hanifin.

To be fair the shake up we called for was with the forwards. I think everyone wanted Brodie resigned as he was not the issue

Not sure on this and don't have specific article or author, but I read somewhere just before FA day that Tre & Flames were only willing to go same salary for 3 years max. Brodie wanted 5 years security term and 5+ mil. He had supposedly also stopped negotiations so Tre resolved to move on looking for replacements.
Would have been positive to keep Brodie but if he wanted to move on and his demand was more than team friendly...a parting of ways results.
Still lots of time to entertain trade opportunities, to renew our forward group some.

 

[GumbyCan2]

This has to be better than 3x3.5 for Stone right

At least! Still a couple of "unproven younger Dmen" who unQ'd on their ending rfa contracts, now FA.
One comes to mind is Madison Bowey. Decent size, 25, rhs, was a good puck mover/ backend play driver in juniors, gets his shots through to scoring areas from the point. A strong skater with some physical presence. He could be worth a trial " show me 1 to 2 year contract". See if he fits? Was only on a 1$ mil per year previously.

 

[Fig]

Fair enough. That’s a well thought out definition. That clarifies a lot. I tend to define it more in line of the amount of time a player spends “out of position” (how much time in the OZ does a D play away from the point). By this definition I wouldn’t necessarily consider a guy like Hanifin a rover, but a guy like Hamilton I would. Slightly different definitions, but there is absolutely no set way it should be defined.

I just see it as a style of play.

Rover - Bobby Orr
Traditional Defenseman - Nik Lidstrom

The latter will do his damage from the point, the former will be doubling as a centreman cutting through the middle of the ice with the puck on their stick.

Neither is wrong, and both can produce offense, but the latter is more predictable for better or worse. The former can be more dynamic.

For Calgary, a team with Sean Monahan as its dejure 1C, having a rover like Brodie really compensated.

I'm not sure why you can't have a rover on all 3 D pairs. The idea that it's a defensive adventure seems to be imagined rather than factual. When one D pair is not on the ice, that does not influence what another D pair should be doing.

It's just hard to find talent like Kylington that can play that rover game and have the green light to do so.

Hanifin isn't a rover. He might jump into the play sometimes but his game is predominantly about point shots.

Perhaps there's something to be said about preconceived notions. What I've seen of Hanifin on the Flames causes me to think he's a rover, and one of the reasons I also think this is because I stumbled upon an article about him before he was drafted from a former coach that said he's a thoroughbred rover that most coaches are trying to rein in, but instead he should be let to run like he instinctively wants to run. I'll try to see if I can dig up that interview (I believe it was lengthy).

(pay walled and my subscription expired)
Flames' Noah Hanifin accustomed to racing up the hockey ladder

Maybe his overall NHL isn't as pure rover as Brodie and perhaps not as pure rover as I identify. But I do recall one of the reasons I was so dead set in my understanding of Hanifin as a rover was due to the fact that it seemed like Hamonic was relatively OK with basically everyone on top line to bottom line up until he was paired with Hanifin. That's when it seemed like he had completely no clue how to cover for his partner.

Hanifin finishes freshman year at Boston College

I think OKG's definition has merit too. Players that cross over in front of the net, in the slot and do aggressive net front offensive plays pique my rover definition more than players that skate behind the net and pop back out. Maybe that's why I identify Hanifin as a rover.

Still though, I don't get how Hamonic just couldn't figure out how to defend for his d partner Hanifin if he was just a straight up an offensive dman. I could be absolutely wrong in defining Hanifin as a rover, but somewhere along the lines, I made up my mind that Hanifin was a rover.


I don't think Tanev will struggle as much as Hamonic to defend for Hanifin. At least, I really hope he doesn't..

 

[JPeeper]

this guy is a solid d-man. no clue why there is so much hate

PTSD from Hamonic and Brouwer.

 

[Iggys Dome]

PTSD from Hamonic and Brouwer.

At least we didn't trade a first and 2 seconds for Tanev...but I do expect him to fare much better than Hamonic here, given he stays healthy of course.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Chalked full of that character that kids crave and mothers love

 

[Disappointed EP40]

this guy is a solid d-man. no clue why there is so much hate

yea.. this is the most bizarre response to getting a free top 3 dman for a good price.

 

[crackdown44]

We don’t hate Tanev we just miss Brodie. Leave us alone

 

[DFF]

Problem is are we getting the good Tanev or another Neal

Only time will tell but I understand why people are freaking out based on BT's record.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I have no issues with signing Tanev, we desperately needed a dman like him. My only issue is we have a pretty solid hole on our defence still.

 

[Corpus X]

I don't dislike Tanev. I just realized that I've been wearing the same pants for a week.

 

[Volica]

I just see it as a style of play.

Rover - Bobby Orr
Traditional Defenseman - Nik Lidstrom

The latter will do his damage from the point, the former will be doubling as a centreman cutting through the middle of the ice with the puck on their stick.

Neither is wrong, and both can produce offense, but the latter is more predictable for better or worse. The former can be more dynamic.

For Calgary, a team with Sean Monahan as its dejure 1C, having a rover like Brodie really compensated.

I'm not sure why you can't have a rover on all 3 D pairs. The idea that it's a defensive adventure seems to be imagined rather than factual. When one D pair is not on the ice, that does not influence what another D pair should be doing.

It's just hard to find talent like Kylington that can play that rover game and have the green light to do so.

Hanifin isn't a rover. He might jump into the play sometimes but his game is predominantly about point shots.

A guy like Brodie is more of a transitional defencemen than really a rover.
A rover to me is a guy like Erik Karlsson, Brent Burns or early on Dustin Byfuglien.

Guys you mistake for being a forward at times if you're not paying attention, like 'why's the guy on a 2 on 1?'

Brodie didn't really push up the ice, especially over the past 4 or so years in terms of a true rover. His game was just more transitional. Just because he preferred to carry the puck across his own blueline over the first pass doesn't constitute a rover.

Rover's are kind of a dying breed regardless. The ask for them in the NHL is that they are at minimum elite offensively, or don't do it. No team wants a 25 point defencemen leaving his post all game to try and push the puck up ice; because that creates mismatches and turnovers. Hell guys like Karlsson were doing near PPG seasons playing that style, and still were being chastised for their defensive liabilities because it'd cause odd-man rushes the other way. I think even someone elite like Karlsson, whether it be age or just coaching isn't really that pure type of play style anymore.

 

[Kranix]

A guy like Brodie is more of a transitional defencemen than really a rover.
A rover to me is a guy like Erik Karlsson, Brent Burns or early on Dustin Byfuglien.

Guys you mistake for being a forward at times if you're not paying attention, like 'why's the guy on a 2 on 1?'

Brodie didn't really push up the ice, especially over the past 4 or so years in terms of a true rover. His game was just more transitional. Just because he preferred to carry the puck across his own blueline over the first pass doesn't constitute a rover.

Rover's are kind of a dying breed regardless. The ask for them in the NHL is that they are at minimum elite offensively, or don't do it. No team wants a 25 point defencemen leaving his post all game to try and push the puck up ice; because that creates mismatches and turnovers. Hell guys like Karlsson were doing near PPG seasons playing that style, and still were being chastised for their defensive liabilities because it'd cause odd-man rushes the other way. I think even someone elite like Karlsson, whether it be age or just coaching isn't really that pure type of play style anymore.

I could be wrong but I think the last guy to play that way and still have a sterling record defensively was Scott Niedermayer

 

[JurassicTunga]

lmao.

 

[HighLifeMan]

I have no issues with signing Tanev, we desperately needed a dman like him. My only issue is we have a pretty solid hole on our defence still.

I don't necessarily disagree but at some point you have to give Kylington a legitimate shot, no?

You can't develop as an NHL defensemen playing between 12 and 13 minutes a game. It's just not going to happen, and to me that's equivalent to giving a forward like Dube 7 or 8 minutes a night and expecting him to move himself up the lineup.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I don't necessarily disagree but at some point you have to give Kylington a legitimate shot, no?

You can't develop as an NHL defensemen playing between 12 and 13 minutes a game. It's just not going to happen, and to me that's equivalent to giving a forward like Dube 7 or 8 minutes a night and expecting him to move himself up the lineup.

If Oliver can play the RS, I’m totally on board. And I agree, let’s see what we have there. But it might be a painful season.

 

[Rubi]

If Oliver can play the RS, I’m totally on board. And I agree, let’s see what we have there. But it might be a painful season.

About that... Juusi is the more talented D-man. Kylington struggles on the left side some times. Putting him on the right might make it even worse.
If I were the Flames GM I'd ask the Finnish team coach to try playing Valimaki on the right side for the two or three months that he's playing there. That might work better than throwing Kylington on the right side (if it came to that) once the NHL season starts.

 

[Mobiandi]

Kylington has said he played on the right side for his entire life before being forced to play on the left by Huska upon coming over.

 

[GumbyCan2]

Perhaps there's something to be said about preconceived notions. What I've seen of Hanifin on the Flames causes me to think he's a rover, and one of the reasons I also think this is because I stumbled upon an article about him before he was drafted from a former coach that said he's a thoroughbred rover that most coaches are trying to rein in, but instead he should be let to run like he instinctively wants to run. I'll try to see if I can dig up that interview (I believe it was lengthy).

(pay walled and my subscription expired)
Flames' Noah Hanifin accustomed to racing up the hockey ladder

Maybe his overall NHL isn't as pure rover as Brodie and perhaps not as pure rover as I identify. But I do recall one of the reasons I was so dead set in my understanding of Hanifin as a rover was due to the fact that it seemed like Hamonic was relatively OK with basically everyone on top line to bottom line up until he was paired with Hanifin. That's when it seemed like he had completely no clue how to cover for his partner.

Hanifin finishes freshman year at Boston College

I think OKG's definition has merit too. Players that cross over in front of the net, in the slot and do aggressive net front offensive plays pique my rover definition more than players that skate behind the net and pop back out. Maybe that's why I identify Hanifin as a rover.

Still though, I don't get how Hamonic just couldn't figure out how to defend for his d partner Hanifin if he was just a straight up an offensive dman. I could be absolutely wrong in defining Hanifin as a rover, but somewhere along the lines, I made up my mind that Hanifin was a rover.


I don't think Tanev will struggle as much as Hamonic to defend for Hanifin. At least, I really hope he doesn't..

Would be cool to pair Hani with Tanev and let Noah "guide the ark" to opposition scoring zone. See if he finds his former skills, drive, control and vision to " super-roam" effectively. Maybe if he has confidence in his partner backing him up and is applauded for trying to start plays up ice with puck control and "roaming" effectiveness. Might unlock his previous draft hype value wise projected skills? With a better goalie ( hopefully he proves it in a Flames jersey) and a more competent defensive D partner, with coaching and teams blessing, might be worthy try.

 

[GumbyCan2]

Valimaki and Dube and Kylington need new contracts next year guys btw...

They won't break bank but it would be wise not to wreck all of our cap space on over 30 players.

I believe Valimaki has 1 more on his ELC, as per season ending injury before start of NHL season last year gave an extended year, as in similar to entry-level slide if player doesn't play over the allowable rookie games.
He is safe for this year.

 

[GumbyCan2]

I don't personally buy this. Treliving was quoted as saying Brodie had other priorities. I don't think the Flames simply had to match the offer to keep him.

Thats what I heard too. He was wanting to explore other offers, opportunities in FA, in which T.O. media is reporting he was hoping for them to make him an offer. And he is very excited about joining the Leafs.
Almost wouldn't have mattered what Tre did or said, short of being abld to increase his his term and salary considerably more.