What's Your Ideal D Lineup For Next Season

[Dr Johnny Fever]

None of those things have been goals, and he's the worst +/- on the team. It's a good rookie showing, but "unreal" isn't really an appropriate way to put it.

That's disingenuous as long as you keep saying Fowler's +/- is off limits. Either it's a worthless stat for everybody, or nobody.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

In before a couple paragraphs.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

None of those things have been goals, and he's the worst +/- on the team. It's a good rookie showing, but "unreal" isn't really an appropriate way to put it.

Palat and Hedman also have the worst +/- on the team.

 

[2faded]

Dangles.

Are sweet to watch. Might as well be entertained if they're going to lose every year.

 

[Ducks DVM]

He creates a scoring chance everytime he is on the ice, now you wanna use +/- but when it comes to Fowler you don't.

Interesting.

Find me a single quote of mine where I describe Fowler's play as "unreal" and you have a point.

There's a difference between saying +/- when the opposite of being sheltered doesn't make someone the worst player on the team (which is what I'm usually doing) and pointing out that the player with the worst +/- on the team who IS being sheltered isn't "unreal".

I believe that I even used the word "good" to describe him. Put the agendas away, folks, and read what I actually wrote.

That's disingenuous as long as you keep saying Fowler's +/- is off limits. Either it's a worthless stat for everybody, or nobody.

See above.

Palat and Hedman also have the worst +/- on the team.

Are you describing them as "unreal" too? And I'm going to look at Hedman's responsibilities and give him just a little more leeway than a scoring forward as far as +/- goes.

Regardless, we need someone who can score goals, not set them up, and he's not scoring goals.

 

[Duck Off]

I want a D lineup that doesn't have Bieksa. Not because he's worse than Stoner, but because having him here may cause us to lose Manson or Theodore for nothing.

As for the Fowler/Vatanen debate. I've long been in favor of having Cam over Vatanen, but if Vatanen signs a reasonable contract, and we can get more for Cam in a trade, I'd be okay with moving Fowler instead. That said, I think Murray should do everything possible to not trade one of the big 3.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Okay maybe this is a little off but would something around Vatanan for hamonic, be something worth exploring(He makes a little more then what I expect Vatanan to be making after his contract), wed def have to move Andersen/Gibson and at least 1 of stoner/bieska..... but I feel like this group looks solid, I feel like hamonic could give fowler some freedom that he never had with some of his partners hes played with. Idk what Hamonics value is, or if hed even want to come to Anaheim.

Lindholm + Manson
Fowler + Hamonic
Bieska/Despres + Theodore

 

[2faded]

I don't think Vats would get Hamonic. Fowler might though.

 

[The Duck Knight]

Okay maybe this is a little off but would something around Vatanan for hamonic, be something worth exploring(He makes a little more then what I expect Vatanan to be making after his contract), wed def have to move Andersen/Gibson and at least 1 of stoner/bieska..... but I feel like this group looks solid, I feel like hamonic could give fowler some freedom that he never had with some of his partners hes played with. Idk what Hamonics value is, or if hed even want to come to Anaheim.

Lindholm + Manson
Fowler + Hamonic
Bieska/Despres + Theodore

He wouldn't. He wants to be as close to Winnipeg as possible.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I don't think Vats would get Hamonic. Fowler might though.

Well I figured we'd have to add something appealing to the vatanan offer... fowler for hamonic would also work from my perspective.

fowler traded
Lindholm + Manson
Theodore + Hamonic
Despres/Biesksa + Vatanan

Vats traded
Lindholm + manson
Fowler + hamonic
Despres/bieska + Theodore

I like both better tbh

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

He wouldn't. He wants to be as close to Winnipeg as possible.

Ah okay, well that's a shame hed be a great fit on our defense

 

[Duck Off]

Okay maybe this is a little off but would something around Vatanan for hamonic, be something worth exploring(He makes a little more then what I expect Vatanan to be making after his contract), wed def have to move Andersen/Gibson and at least 1 of stoner/bieska..... but I feel like this group looks solid, I feel like hamonic could give fowler some freedom that he never had with some of his partners hes played with. Idk what Hamonics value is, or if hed even want to come to Anaheim.

Lindholm + Manson
Fowler + Hamonic
Bieska/Despres + Theodore

I was actually pitching this when the Hamonic rumors came out. For what it's worth, Islander fans seemed to be on board, but said what others are saying here. He wants to be moved to be closer to home, and Anaheim is actually further from home than NY.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I want a D lineup that doesn't have Bieksa. Not because he's worse than Stoner, but because having him here may cause us to lose Manson or Theodore for nothing.

As for the Fowler/Vatanen debate. I've long been in favor of having Cam over Vatanen, but if Vatanen signs a reasonable contract, and we can get more for Cam in a trade, I'd be okay with moving Fowler instead. That said, I think Murray should do everything possible to not trade one of the big 3.

Agreed. I'd rather trade Despres, if we can find a taker. 300K less than what Fowler is getting for 3 extra years. Ride Fowler as the #3 next year, trade him in the offseason or even let him go for nothing, and hope that Larsson is ready for NHL duties as he leaves.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I was actually pitching this when the Hamonic rumors came out. For what it's worth, Islander fans seemed to be on board, but said what others are saying here. He wants to be moved to be closer to home, and Anaheim is actually further from home than NY.

Ya for some reason I thought he was from more western Canada.

 

[Henkka]

Hello guys.

I'd just like to ask, how good is Josh Manson defensively only?

And how would you rank your defencemen as a defensive ability as an only attribute. Not puckmoving skills etc. Just pure ability to prevent shots/scoring chances.

When looking Manson's stats, he looks unreal. Also Kevin Bieksa is getting a lot of negative slack in all discussions. Is he really that bad?

 

[idiroft]

Hello guys.

I'd just like to ask, how good is Josh Manson defensively only?

And how would you rank your defencemen as a defensive ability as an only attribute. Not puckmoving skills etc. Just pure ability to prevent shots/scoring chances.

When looking Manson's stats, he looks unreal. Also Kevin Bieksa is getting a lot of negative slack in all discussions. Is he really that bad?

He is the ideal partner for Lindholm. Strong positionally, can muscle guys off pucks, good stick work. I think we could be a poor man's #2 with the ideal #1 (Lindholm).

 

[Sojourn]

Hello guys.

I'd just like to ask, how good is Josh Manson defensively only?

And how would you rank your defencemen as a defensive ability as an only attribute. Not puckmoving skills etc. Just pure ability to prevent shots/scoring chances.

When looking Manson's stats, he looks unreal. Also Kevin Bieksa is getting a lot of negative slack in all discussions. Is he really that bad?

When he's on his game, Manson is pretty good, with room to get even better. Plays hard, plays physical, and he just brings a good all-around defensive game. I don't think he has any real defensive weakness, as far as potential goes. He can do a lot of things well. Not great, but well. He's inconsistent though, and when he's not playing sharp he's pretty bad. His stats are a little misleading, if you're looking at them strictly as a testament to his defensive game. He's not that good, but there is definitely potential there, and he shows a lot of it when he's on. He reminds me a lot of Beauchemin, albeit in a lesser form.

Bieksa is... bleh. Okay, so he's overpaid. Let's get that out of the way. Bieksa is not worth his price tag, and he should not be in a top pairing role. Unfortunately, that's exactly the role he found himself in through long periods in the season. On top of that, and especially early on, he seemed to take the opportunity he had with Lindholm, and then with Fowler, as a chance to show off how much he could impact the game. He was sloppy, made poor decisions, and seemed to think he was Scott Niedermayer. The only regular who frustrated me more, in terms of poor decisions, was Despres.

When he settles down, he can be pretty solid. Not worthy of his price tag solid, but he's got talent and good physical tools, but he isn't the same player he once was, and he just needs to learn how to play within himself more. Ideally, and when he keeps it simple, he's a 4/5 guy who can log plenty of minutes.

 

[Sean Garrity]

Bieksa catches a lot of flak because he's overpaid, overused, and tends to play outside of his limitations. Part of that is a coaching issue, but if he played within his limits and in a more limited role then he would simply be overpaid.

 

[IDuck]

I may be in the minority but I think bieksa will have a good year this year under RC...I think he will have a more defined role which will help him....something something, old dog, new tricks......but, he is still overpaid

 

[IDuck]

Hello guys.

I'd just like to ask, how good is Josh Manson defensively only?

And how would you rank your defencemen as a defensive ability as an only attribute. Not puckmoving skills etc. Just pure ability to prevent shots/scoring chances.

When looking Manson's stats, he looks unreal. Also Kevin Bieksa is getting a lot of negative slack in all discussions. Is he really that bad?

I am a big manson fan (think most ducks fans are high on him)...he is kind of a throw back dman, who plays on the edge and can be nasty to play against....he will not back down from anyone, and can throw with the best of them (ask lucic).