Carle vs Meszaros

Pure Rock Fury*

Guest
Please pay no attention to cyclops. All season long all he does is put down players from other teams for no apparent reason.

And dempsey, I demand you change your avatar and text. I AM Patrick Bateman ;)


As for the question at hand, I think Carle can become an elite number 1 d-man in the NHL, but at the moment Meszaros is hell of a lot more proven.
 

USF Shark

Zôion politikòn
Aug 19, 2005
22,176
1
DC Area
man...both players are so young that you can't really call it one way or the other. Both could be superstars and lead their respective teams to the Stanley Cup. Right now though Meszaros has the edge, simply because he's had a year under his belt.

But honestly, you couldn't go wrong with either of these guys...my only concern with Carle is that there is no one to really help him and tutor him with regards to his offensive game and I wonder how that will effect him in years to come. Hannan and McLaren can help him grow in the defensive zone so I'm not concerned about his defense getting better, it's him maturing as as offensive threat that I have some questions about right now.
 

Adam91

Registered User
Dec 19, 2005
3,024
5
Toronto
I just love the physical edge Mesjaros brings to the table. He had one of the hardest hits in the history of the WHL here in Vancouver, I'd say that gives him the slight advantage over Carle although I think Carle has better offensive upside, although Mesjaros' is strong also
 

Cyclops II*

Guest
Please pay no attention to cyclops. All season long all he does is put down players from other teams for no apparent reason.

And dempsey, I demand you change your avatar and text. I AM Patrick Bateman ;)


As for the question at hand, I think Carle can become an elite number 1 d-man in the NHL, but at the moment Meszaros is hell of a lot more proven.


My post was completely accurate. You obviously didn't watch Ottawa in the playoffs. Unless I am getting him confused with another Senators defenseman, Mezaros gave up most of the scoring chances in the last few playoff games Ottawa was in. Since he was in his first NHL playoffs it could be rookie jitters. I haven't seen anything in the their play so far to indicate that there is any great disparity in
their abilities.
 

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,351
59,260
Ottawa, ON
My post was completely accurate. You obviously didn't watch Ottawa in the playoffs. Unless I am getting him confused with another Senators defenseman, Mezaros gave up most of the scoring chances in the last few playoff games Ottawa was in. Since he was in his first NHL playoffs it could be rookie jitters. I haven't seen anything in the their play so far to indicate that there is any great disparity in
their abilities.

(Player X On My Team) is awesome. (Player Y On Your Team) isn't as good.
 

Cyclops II*

Guest
(Player X On My Team) is awesome. (Player Y On Your Team) isn't as good.

:shakehead Can't anybody read? I didn't say Carle was a great player. I said their is no conclusive evidence that Mezaros is a much greater player than Carle.

The comments would apply regardless of who Mezaros was compared to.
 

Hossa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,649
274
Abroad
Visit site
I said their is no conclusive evidence that Mezaros is a much greater player than Carle.

What's conclusive evidence though? I mean, you can give out personal opinions all you want, but if you want "conclusive evidence", well there are plenty of statistics that show Meszaros being if nothing else, a more advanced player than Carle (despite being a year younger anyways).
 

Cyclops II*

Guest
What's conclusive evidence though? I mean, you can give out personal opinions all you want, but if you want "conclusive evidence", well there are plenty of statistics that show Meszaros being if nothing else, a more advanced player than Carle (despite being a year younger anyways).[/QUOTE


What stats? I haven't seen any. I don't see any area where Meszaros is clearly superior except in bodychecking. Both were on a 40 pt pace this season in the NHL although Carle played far fewer games. Meszaros did well in the WHL last season - Carle had a great season in the NCAA last season and was the best player in the NCAA this year.
 

Powdered Toast Man

Is he a ham?
Nov 22, 2005
13,852
1
What's conclusive evidence though? I mean, you can give out personal opinions all you want, but if you want "conclusive evidence", well there are plenty of statistics that show Meszaros being if nothing else, a more advanced player than Carle (despite being a year younger anyways).[/QUOTE


What stats? I haven't seen any. I don't see any area where Meszaros is clearly superior except in bodychecking. Both were on a 40 pt pace this season in the NHL although Carle played far fewer games. Meszaros did well in the WHL last season - Carle had a great season in the NCAA last season and was the best player in the NCAA this year.

Man, you are dense. You talk about conclusive evidence and then you spring all this crap? Give me a break, scoring 6 points in 12 games is ALOT different then having 39 points in a full season and being on the all-rookie team. As of right now you have absolutely no ground to stand on, you are just a stinkin' homer and won't let it go. Argueing with a writer is not a good way to make people think you are right. :teach:
 

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,351
59,260
Ottawa, ON
Both were on a 40 pt pace this season in the NHL although Carle played far fewer games.

Looks like Rick Nash and Zigmund Palffy had better be watching their backs.

They're about to be joined by illustrious company:
-Chad Wiseman
-Konstantin Pushkarev
-Nathan Paetsch
-Jeremy Williams
-Matt Carkner
-Bruno St. Jacques
-David Gove

are all on pace for 82 points, just like the two aforementioned "stars".
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
Argueing with a writer is not a good way to make people think you are right.

Neither is bringing up dimestore credentials like "Hockeysfuture Writer". [Yes, I realize that you aren't the writer]

Personally, I think it's hard to call right now. A lot will change for a defenseman in his first season and a lot can change beyond that. Potential is not always realized, nor improvement made. Brad Stuart looked like a future Norris winner as a rookie and now six years later, how much has he really improved? Pronger looked bad as a rookie and then matured into a dominant force. These guys are still very young and while Meszaros looked very good in the pros, Carle's credentials are also impressive. Can you name the last defenseman to win the Hobey before his senior year? Trick question: Carle is the first ever.

We shall see. I think it is far too early for both players (not just Carle) to make even a very well-educated guess as to how they will top out. One thing that can definitely be said is that the Sens are getting a lot of production out of Meszaros in his "cheap years" (before RFA and potential UFA status) and that is obviously a really good thing irrespective of how the players top out. Then again, Carle will be older when he hits his free agency window, so it's possible that the Sharks will catch more of his prime on the cheap.

Right now I'd rather have Meszaros on the Sharks because Ehrhoff already fills the offensive D-man/QB role and with the very promising Vlasic also in the pipeline swapping a guy like Carle for a more defensive-minded and more proven guy would probably be a good thing. As far as who I think will be a better pro - I don't really know enough about Meszaros' game to intelligently compare the two, but I do believe very strongly that Matt Carle will be a good top-pairing guy, so take that for what it's worth.
 

Cyclops II*

Guest
Looks like Rick Nash and Zigmund Palffy had better be watching their backs.

They're about to be joined by illustrious company:
-Chad Wiseman
-Konstantin Pushkarev
-Nathan Paetsch
-Jeremy Williams
-Matt Carkner
-Bruno St. Jacques
-David Gove

are all on pace for 82 points, just like the two aforementioned "stars".


Do you always resort to spewing irrelevant comments when you can't back up your view. 39 points doesn't make a career.

Anyone who has watched Carle play knows he has the skills to be a top 2 defensman in the NHL and I am sure those who have seen a lot of of Meszaros would say the same.
They are different types of defensemen but should be key defensmen on their teams. Meszaros may turn out to be the more valuable defensman but there is NOT a significant difference in their abilities.
 

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,351
59,260
Ottawa, ON
Do you always resort to spewing irrelevant comments when you can't back up your view. 39 points doesn't make a career.

It's about as relevant as comparing a 12-game season with an 82-game season.

Now do you get it?

They are different types of defensemen but should be key defensmen on their teams.

Oh, so they're different kinds of defencemen.

Cyclops II said:
Meszaros may turn out to be the more valuable defensman but there is NOT a significant difference in their abilities.

Oh, so they're different kinds of defencemen but there is no difference in their abilities? Seems a bit odd.

I'll go ahead and assume you mean no significant difference in value of their respective abilities.

Obviously one season does not a career make. But the ball is firmly in Meszaros' court until Carle proves otherwise.
 

Cyclops II*

Guest
It's about as relevant as comparing a 12-game season with an 82-game season.

Now do you get it?



Oh, so they're different kinds of defencemen.



Oh, so they're different kinds of defencemen but there is no difference in their abilities? Seems a bit odd.

I'll go ahead and assume you mean no significant difference in value of their respective abilities.

Obviously one season does not a career make. But the ball is firmly in Meszaros' court until Carle proves otherwise.


Carle played the last 12 games of the season with the Sharks fighting for a playoff spot. Do you think he would have seen the ice if Doug & Ron weren't convinced of his abilities. Now do YOU get it????
What do first year stats prove? Frequently nothing. Unless one clearly outlplays the other in a full season their is no significant advantage.
They are different types of defensmen just as Pronger and Leetch approach the game differently. As I said their overall talent level is similar although their playing style isn't.
 

stardog

Been on HF so long my Myspace link is part of my p
Oct 31, 2003
5,318
309
www.myspace.com
How about we put it this way. Meszaros, at 20, Played top four minutes, on one of the best teams in the league, was one of the leaders in +/- all year, Played in the Olympics, and played top pair mins when redden went down....

While I respect the opinions of MOST (some in this thread are wayyyy off the reservation) in this thread and am in no way indicating that this is conclusive evidence one way or another, I would just like to point out that the +/- is a pretty useless stat when comparing individual defensemen. It is, IMO (and has been stated here and other places forever) more of a team or line statistic and doesnt give even a close to accurate read on an individual player's defensive ability, but is a reflection of the team. Case in point would be this years +/- leader Michal Rozsival.
He was not very good defensivley while playing for the Penguins. He was average, but his -6 and -5 the two seasons he played prior to this years +36 really speak volumes as to how this stat can be skewed many ways. This year, he played with a much better team than he had during his time with the Pens.

So, does that mean, despite the injuries and all of the time he missed out on (thus missing out on valuable experience as he is still relatively young) he became not only that much better defensivley, but THAT GOOD defensivley to warrant a +41 turn around?
I would think not. Rather, I would think it had everything to do with the team he played for and little to do with Roz himself. This year he had a much better team and it is reflected in his +/- (and I am in no way saying Roz isnt a good D-Man because I always liked the kid and was upset when he was let go...I always hoped he could come back from his injuries and I am thrilled to see that he did just that. PISSED OFF that he couldnt do it on the Pens where he was sorely needed this year).
I think AM's season (and progression/status) is helped out in a large part due to the team he played on. The Sens were one of the best teams (and best defenses) in the NHL and that certainly has helped him along as it is much easier for a young guy to come in and look good/progress quicker playing for a team that has top end talent and incredible depth (again, use the Roz comparison as he looks much better playing for a team that didnt stink defensivley and has many other options to use).

In no way am I saying that AM doesnt deserve his accolades. He was a very nice addition and he did his part to make the Sens one of the better defensive teams in the NHL this season. Yet would he have looked as good on my Penguins? Of course not (Neither would Carle mind you). But I am simply saying that when you judge an individual, you absolutely have to look at the team he plays on and at the very least, take that into consideration. AM looks to be a very good player for many years to come, but I think the +/- thing is incredibly over rated when using it to judge an individual's defensive accumen, just as I think he truly benefitted this past season from playing on such an incredible team.
That is why I think the opinions given are fine and I respect them, yet I think to say that when I see comments that he is far and away better than Carle at this point it isnt fair because it isnt entirely accurate as Carle didnt have the opportunity to play a whole season and he didnt play for a team near as good defensivley as the Sens.
Give it some time and perhaps we will see a different story once we are able to see the two of them and get a better read on the individual play of each instead of having it skewed by the teams they play for.
Does that make sense even a little?
 

Pangu

Registered User
Jun 20, 2005
4,675
107
One played the first season the other did not... that's a pretty significant differance right there.

But first can you give us an example of one bad turnover that Mezzer made in the last 4 games of the playoffs? Frankly, I thought he played pretty well in those games and of course no goals were his fault in those games.
 

Powdered Toast Man

Is he a ham?
Nov 22, 2005
13,852
1
Meszaros playing great on the best defence in the league should be a credit to his abilities rather then a blanket excuse for preforming well. He was straight out of the WHL but played his way onto the Senators and played his pay onto the all-rookie team. He was handed nothing and everything he has proven in the NHL is entirely his own doing. I am getting sick and tired of hearing "it's cause he played with so and so" whenever any Ottawa player is talked about positively. So far we have, Spezza, Heatley, Alfredsson, Redden, Phillips, Volchenkov and now Meszaros...hell I've heard it about pretty much anyone. I'm starting to think that alot of you would rather delude yourself and pretend Ottawa's stars suck and just leech off each other then realize that the reason they play so good is because they are good players. Who woulda thought that? Phaneuf is god on ice playing for the Flames but Meszaros is not clearly better as of right now then someone older that has played 12 NHL games because he plays for the Sens. :shakehead:
 

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,351
59,260
Ottawa, ON
Carle played the last 12 games of the season with the Sharks fighting for a playoff spot. Do you think he would have seen the ice if Doug & Ron weren't convinced of his abilities. Now do YOU get it????

And Meszaros played 38 minutes when Ottawa's top 4 D-men were out to injury.

Your limited examples prove nothing.

With respect to Meszaros, there were long stretches during the season where he was Ottawa's best defensive defenceman, in that his one on one skills in the new NHL were second-to-none, while players like Chara struggled at times.

He played a great deal for a kid who could have played in Junior, and stepped up in a big way. Considering how many minutes he logged at the tail end of the season before the playoffs, it's likely that conditioning played a part, if some decrease in his effectiveness was perceived. Most rookies (including Phaneuf) suffered ni the same way. Carle's limited time in the league meant that he didn't suffer through the grind of an entire NHL season, and has yet to illustrate his abilities in that proving ground.

Carle may have been on pace for 39 points, but Meszaros scored 39 points. He accomplished what Carle's stats had to be extrapolated to achieve.

What's amusing about your argument is that you state on one hand that:

(a) It's only one regular season so it doesn't mean much.

And on the other hand:

(b) He (apparently) choked in the playoffs.

So, when we're discussing how well he did in the regular season, you can apply the "limited example" excuse but then you go out and generate conclusions based on an even smaller sample of playoff games (what 4 against Buffalo at most)?

That is extremely poor reasoning.

Could Carle be the better defenceman? Sure. Is he the better defenceman right now? By opinion, perhaps. But statistically, which you keep referring to over and over again, Meszaros has much more to back him up than Carle does at this point in their careers.
 
Last edited:

stardog

Been on HF so long my Myspace link is part of my p
Oct 31, 2003
5,318
309
www.myspace.com
Meszaros playing great on the best defence in the league should be a credit to his abilities rather then a blanket excuse for preforming well. He was straight out of the WHL but played his way onto the Senators and played his pay onto the all-rookie team. He was handed nothing and everything he has proven in the NHL is entirely his own doing. I am getting sick and tired of hearing "it's cause he played with so and so" whenever any Ottawa player is talked about positively. So far we have, Spezza, Heatley, Alfredsson, Redden, Phillips, Volchenkov and now Meszaros...hell I've heard it about pretty much anyone. I'm starting to think that alot of you would rather delude yourself and pretend Ottawa's stars suck and just leech off each other then realize that the reason they play so good is because they are good players. Who woulda thought that? Phaneuf is god on ice playing for the Flames but Meszaros is not clearly better as of right now then someone older that has played 12 NHL games because he plays for the Sens. :shakehead:

I think perhaps you are over exaggerating things and taking my post out of context. I knew someone might do that which was why I was very careful to state that it wasnt the team that makes the player and that AM is a very good player and so on and so forth. His performance was amplified by the team. I dont see why you would take offense to that statement. If you are offended then I am sorry but that wont change my POV. Again, I ask you this. Would AM looked JUST as good this season if he had played on the Penguins? Of course not.
As far as Spezza Volchenkov etc. goes, I didnt make a comment on that and I have no idea how it applies to this thread. Yet it seems to me that there is some sort of a persecution complex that you are dealing with.
Again, I never knocked AM as a player or as a person. More than anything I knocked the usage of +/- to judge or rate an individuals specific talents on defense. I dont see a problem in stating that either.
So step back and re-read what I wrote. You will find it isnt a knock on AM or his play. I didnt say he didnt earn anything. I thought I gave him the credit he deserves. I just said that a player (ANY player, be it AM, Carle Rozsival etc.) will look better and play better when they are playing with elite talent. That is the truth. It isnt a slam or persecution to AM (or players on the Sens, though I dont know why that was brought up) who I think is a fine player and deserving of his accolades.
If you DONT think that players play better when partnered with elite talent then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. If you dont think younger players benefit more or learn/develop quicker from playing with elite talent then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
But please dont tell me that my post stated anywhere that AM was only this good only because he played with elite talent. I didnt say that anywhere. You are reading what you wanted to, though it wasnt anything that I stated or believe.

And the players age is completely irrelevant to the question of who will be the better player in the future. Who cares who made the NHL first. What matters is how they finish, not where they start. Robert Dome played in the NHL at 18, so really, age means little in terms of player A vs. Player B.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->