D Samuel Girard

[Cousin Eddie]

Here’s a question. If For example there’s only 10 #1’s, 15 #2’s, 12 #3’s and 18 #4’s, what in the hell do you consider everyone else in the league? Do you think there’s like 60 NHL level D and the rest are just actors?

 

[Balthazar]

Here’s a question. If For example there’s only 10 #1’s, 15 #2’s, 12 #3’s and 18 #4’s, what in the hell do you consider everyone else in the league? Do you think there’s like 60 NHL level D and the rest are just actors?

No. You can have a bunch of #5 or #6 dmen playing in the top 4. Not everyone is sitting on the right chair and there are a lot more #6's than #4's in the world.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

No. You can have a bunch of #5 or #6 dmen playing in the top 4. Not everyone is sitting on the right chair and there are a lot more #6's than #4's in the world.

Ok do me a favor. Forget everything said in this conversation and tell me how many of each #d you have in the NHL. Doesn’t have to be exact. Just give me a guess of how many #1,2,3,4,5 and 6 D there are.

actually respond to this too. Don’t start, see how ridiculous the numbers look and then avoid answering. Actually do it.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

My argument to that would be that I don't actually believe we have 186 NHL caliber Dmen in the league for starters.


31 teams and 6D per team is 186 jobs. But if you ask me there's anywhere from 30-40 guys in the league right now playing Defense every night, that aren't actually good enough to be NHL Dmen and if they were in a different organization or different situation, they wouldn't have a job.


And then it just trickles down from there to each individual spot(IE #1D, #3D, etc).


To me, if you're not a guy whou could be a #1D on a cup contending team, for me you're not a #1D. Thats what really drives my criteria. If you can play that role on a team that truly has cup aspirations, you're probably a #1 Guy or very close to it.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

My argument to that would be that I don't actually believe we have 186 NHL caliber Dmen in the league for starters.


31 teams and 6D per team is 186 jobs. But if you ask me there's anywhere from 30-40 guys in the league right now playing Defense every night, that aren't actually good enough to be NHL Dmen and if they were in a different organization or different situation, they wouldn't have a job.


And then it just trickles down from there to each individual spot(IE #1D, #3D, etc).


To me, if you're not a guy whou could be a #1D on a cup contending team, for me you're not a #1D. Thats what really drives my criteria. If you can play that role on a team that truly has cup aspirations, you're probably a #1 Guy or very close to it.

We have to though lol. The NHL is the league they play in. You may believe there’s a bunch of players that are a clear tier beneath the group ahead of them, but they’re still NHL caliber players because the NHL has that money jobs available.

If I work at a candy store and I’m a f***ing terrible candy bagger. I curse at kids, I spill candy. I f***ing suck at my job, but there’s nobody better available to replace me I’m still an employee of that candy store. Same thing in the NHL.

The quality of the NHL has thinned out thanks to expansion. But these players are on NHL contracts, they make NHL money and they complete daily NHL employer tasks. Other NHL’rs play against these guys every night. They’ve adapted to a modified quality of a league yet fans refuse to acknowledge there’s enough jobs for everyone on an Internet forum lol?

 

[S E P H]

Strongly disagree. Erik Karlsson was easily considered #1 defenseman and was worse than Makar defensively and less physical.

Makar's defensive game improved quite a bit already. He even played PK in the playoffs. He's going to be a true #1, the full package.

Karlsson impacts the game differently than Makar, which sort of goes back to our discussion between Makar and Hughes. Makar is very good...extremely good at making offence for himself. He can make offence for other players and does it quite a bit throughout a game, but he's not nearly as good at it as Hughes and Karlsson are. These blokes central factor in their game is that they create offence for other players and in my mind that's harder to shutdown than a more individual player that I suggest Cale is. In a game, you can say that Karlsson is much more dangerous and in a way more impactful than Makar is and is deemed better as a #1. Makar is a #2 right now, who could be debated as an elite #2 that could fit into the #1 mould. But he suffers from some of the problems I've listed here and before.

I’m a 31-31-31 guy.

I rank where players fall into an NHL lineup relative to how many of those lineup places are on the NHL. Some teams have 2 #1D. Some have 0. In total I count 31.

I subcategorize those with terms like Elite, high end, average, and lower end. The Hedman’s, Jones’, Josi’s etc are all elite #1 defenseman and that’s how I separate them but to me there are 31 jobs in the NHL where a player plays #1 minutes and therefore there are 31 people capable of filling it. Some much better than others but they still exist.

Just because there are #1 minutes available on every team doesn't mean the defenders who take up those #1 minutes are #1 defenders. Ask Red Wings fans where they think they're going to go with Hronek as their #1 defender (even if I think he's underrated).

 

[henchman21]

Here’s a question. If For example there’s only 10 #1’s, 15 #2’s, 12 #3’s and 18 #4’s, what in the hell do you consider everyone else in the league? Do you think there’s like 60 NHL level D and the rest are just actors?

I think there are an abundance of 3's and 4's in the NHL, especially 4's... and a metric crap ton of bottom pairing guys. I'd say there are probably more 3s and 4s as there are teams and overall they make up for most of the lack of 1s and 2s in top 4s. Overall in the NHL, probably not short more than 15-20 top 4 sorts, but that shortage nearly all stems from the 1s and 2s.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Just because there are #1 minutes available on every team doesn't mean the defenders who take up those #1 minutes are #1 defenders. Ask Red Wings fans where they think they're going to go with Hronek as their #1 defender (even if I think he's underrated).

You aren’t understanding. Detroit doesn’t have a #1D. They have somebody incapable filling that role.

I clearly demonstrated in my post that some teams have 0 while other teams have multiple and this is still the response you give?

 

[Hasbro]

My argument to that would be that I don't actually believe we have 186 NHL caliber Dmen in the league for starters.


31 teams and 6D per team is 186 jobs. But if you ask me there's anywhere from 30-40 guys in the league right now playing Defense every night, that aren't actually good enough to be NHL Dmen and if they were in a different organization or different situation, they wouldn't have a job.


And then it just trickles down from there to each individual spot(IE #1D, #3D, etc).


To me, if you're not a guy whou could be a #1D on a cup contending team, for me you're not a #1D. Thats what really drives my criteria. If you can play that role on a team that truly has cup aspirations, you're probably a #1 Guy or very close to it.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I think there are an abundance of 3's and 4's in the NHL, especially 4's... and a metric crap ton of bottom pairing guys. I'd say there are probably more 3s and 4s as there are teams and overall they make up for most of the lack of 1s and 2s in top 4s. Overall in the NHL, probably not short more than 15-20 top 4 sorts, but that shortage nearly all stems from the 1s and 2s.

If you would simply use terms to label those guys I would 100% agree with you. But instead you use numbered labels which in total makeup the employment of the National Hockey League and it makes no sense.

You don’t just get to label players based on how they fit in an ideal cup contender if numbers are all you’re using. I can’t say there are only 25 NHL teams because teams like Detroit, Anaheim, Ottawa etc exist. There are shit teams too and they all make up 31. Just like the shit players dilute the quality of the league, thus making more job positions available for 31 slots of each position.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

Karlsson impacts the game differently than Makar, which sort of goes back to our discussion between Makar and Hughes. Makar is very good...extremely good at making offence for himself. He can make offence for other players and does it quite a bit throughout a game, but he's not nearly as good at it as Hughes and Karlsson are. These blokes central factor in their game is that they create offence for other players and in my mind that's harder to shutdown than a more individual player that I suggest Cale is. In a game, you can say that Karlsson is much more dangerous and in a way more impactful than Makar is and is deemed better as a #1. Makar is a #2 right now, who could be debated as an elite #2 that could fit into the #1 mould. But he suffers from some of the problems I've listed here and before.

Just because there are #1 minutes available on every team doesn't mean the defenders who take up those #1 minutes are #1 defenders. Ask Red Wings fans where they think they're going to go with Hronek as their #1 defender (even if I think he's underrated).

No one should be in conversation with prime Karlsson at this point, but Makar’s offence is just as good as Hughes if not better.

About 50% of Hughes offence came from the power play throughout the regular season and playoffs.

 

[S E P H]

You aren’t understanding. Detroit doesn’t have a #1D. They have somebody incapable filling that role.

I clearly demonstrated in my post that some teams have 0 while other teams have multiple and this is still the response you give?

No you clearly did nothing except make something convoluted. I am confused because you clearly set a position of being a 31-31-31 bloke then you indict that Red Wings do not have a a bloke who can be in that 31, so you explain to me what being a 31-31-31 is and then saying they do no have somebody capable of filling that role brah.

No one should be in conversation with prime Karlsson at this point, but Makar’s offence is just as good as Hughes if not better.

About 50% of Hughes offence came from the power play throughout the regular season and playoffs.

Whocares about PPP? If Avs had Hughes we would be in the Conference Finals FYI. What I mean is that Makar is better goalscorer while Hughes is a better passer and creator of plays. It makes perfect sense to me why Hughes has more powerplay points is because he's better with creativity in terms of teammates. It also makes sense why Makar has fewer and why Avs PP was worse than Canucks.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

Here’s a question. If For example there’s only 10 #1’s, 15 #2’s, 12 #3’s and 18 #4’s, what in the hell do you consider everyone else in the league? Do you think there’s like 60 NHL level D and the rest are just actors?

My thinking as well. It’s just math really.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

No you clearly did nothing except make something convoluted. I am confused because you clearly set a position of being a 31-31-31 bloke then you indict that Red Wings do not have a a bloke who can be in that 31, so you explain to me what being a 31-31-31 is and then saying they do no have somebody capable of filling that role brah.
.

Oh my god I feel like I’m talking to a seven year old. I didn’t say every team has a #1 defenseman. In fact I clearly said many don’t. I said there are 31 NHL defenseman in the NHL. Don’t think about teams. You just mentioned the red wings in your second consecutive post so I know you’re having a hard time with it but just stop thinking about teams. Now look at the league as a whole. Pretend it’s a big fantasy draft if that makes the concept more comprehensible. Now I’m saying of all those defenseman there are 31 #1’s. #32 may even be almost exactly as good as 31. But he isn’t.

 

[henchman21]

If you would simply use terms to label those guys I would 100% agree with you. But instead you use numbered labels which in total makeup the employment of the National Hockey League and it makes no sense.

You don’t just get to label players based on how they fit in an ideal cup contender if numbers are all you’re using. I can’t say there are only 25 NHL teams because teams like Detroit, Anaheim, Ottawa etc exist. There are shit teams too and they all make up 31. Just like the shit players dilute the quality of the league, thus making more job positions available for 31 slots of each position.

Between our groups, there really isn't a middle ground on this debate. We aren't winning each other over. You'll stick to numbers, I'll stick to quality. What I was saying was 1-4s are semi close to covering the whole top 4 group, but the 1-2s don't really come close to covering all teams. The context of why we think certain players may or may not be 1s, 2s, 3s, etc is a philosophical difference that isn't likely to get bridged. For example, I think Girard is clearly a top 50 defensemen, arguably top 40... but I think he is a 3. I think Makar is borderline top 20, easily top 25 defensemen and I'd say he is more of a 2 at this point. You'd take those numbers and elevate them up to 1/2 slots. That's totally fine... it is just when people say ___ is a #2, then people jump on that person saying ___ is top 20 therefore #1... while the person stating that may actually agree on top 20 part... just not the definition of levels.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

No you clearly did nothing except make something convoluted. I am confused because you clearly set a position of being a 31-31-31 bloke then you indict that Red Wings do not have a a bloke who can be in that 31, so you explain to me what being a 31-31-31 is and then saying they do no have somebody capable of filling that role brah.


Whocares about PPP? If Avs had Hughes we would be in the Conference Finals FYI. What I mean is that Makar is better goalscorer while Hughes is a better passer and creator of plays. It makes perfect sense to me why Hughes has more powerplay points is because he's better with creativity in terms of teammates. It also makes sense why Makar has fewer and why Avs PP was worse than Canucks.

He's saying Detroit doesn't have a #1D, but Colorado for example has 2 #1D in Makar and Girard.


I dont agree with him at all, but I understand the point he's making. I just completely disagree that there's 31 #1D in the league.



If we really, really want to get into the argument. I would argue that there's not actually 31 NHL teams worth of players in the league. If you trimmed the fat off the league and removed all players in every position around the league that weren't actually NHL caliber but were only in the league because the NHL has designated 31 teams to be filled.... I dont think you fill more then 28 teams of quality NHL players that are deserving of being in the league.



But that's just an entirely different conversation. I dont feel all that strongly about the topic either. I respect the logic behind believing there to be 31 #1D, 31 #2D, 31 #3D, etc. I just dont agree with it at all. There's far, far more 4/5 caliber Dmen then there's Top pairing guys.

 

[S E P H]

Oh my god I feel like I’m talking to a seven year old. I didn’t say every team has a #1 defenseman. In fact I clearly said many don’t. I said there are 31 NHL defenseman in the NHL. Don’t think about teams. You just mentioned the red wings in your second consecutive post so I know you’re having a hard time with it but just stop thinking about teams. Now look at the league as a whole. Pretend it’s a big fantasy draft if that makes the concept more comprehensible. Now I’m saying of all those defenseman there are 31 #1’s. #32 may even be almost exactly as good as 31. But he isn’t.

Yikes, what's with this stupid level of animosity from you? Chill the f*** down and step away from the bull shark testosterone, this is just a conversation not even a debate. I mistook your post, that's all. E: Actually I still don't agree with it.

He's saying Detroit doesn't have a #1D, but Colorado for example has 2 #1D in Makar and Girard.


I dont agree with him at all, but I understand the point he's making. I just completely disagree that there's 31 #1D in the league.



If we really, really want to get into the argument. I would argue that there's not actually 31 NHL teams worth of players in the league. If you trimmed the fat off the league and removed all players in every position around the league that weren't actually NHL caliber but were only in the league because the NHL has designated 31 teams to be filled.... I dont think you fill more then 28 teams of quality NHL players that are deserving of being in the league.



But that's just an entirely different conversation. I dont feel all that strongly about the topic either. I respect the logic behind believing there to be 31 #1D, 31 #2D, 31 #3D, etc. I just dont agree with it at all. There's far, far more 4/5 caliber Dmen then there's Top pairing guys.

Yeah I don't agree with that either, there are absolutely multiple #1s on certain teams while others have zero, but that doesn't mean there are thirty-one #1s out there in the hockey world.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

He's saying Detroit doesn't have a #1D, but Colorado for example has 2 #1D in Makar and Girard.


I dont agree with him at all, but I understand the point he's making. I just completely disagree that there's 31 #1D in the league.



If we really, really want to get into the argument. I would argue that there's not actually 31 NHL teams worth of players in the league. If you trimmed the fat off the league and removed all players in every position around the league that weren't actually NHL caliber but were only in the league because the NHL has designated 31 teams to be filled.... I dont think you fill more then 28 teams of quality NHL players that are deserving of being in the league.



But that's just an entirely different conversation. I dont feel all that strongly about the topic either. I respect the logic behind believing there to be 31 #1D, 31 #2D, 31 #3D, etc. I just dont agree with it at all. There's far, far more 4/5 caliber Dmen then there's Top pairing guys.

I at least 100% see your point. All your theory’s align with one another. I just simply disagree with you. But at least I see your point.

If you don’t see 31 capable teams and that’s how you value the league than you shouldn’t see 31 capable defenseman and so on. I get that. My only thing is that I disagree because there are in fact 31 teams in the league, thus 31 #1D etc because that’s how many jobs fill that league even if many aren’t quite as good as the rest.

The arguing I’m doing with everyone is for the group of people who think there are enough NHL quality players to fill every job position yet are labeling 6 different D positions with numbers. I just wish they would use their vocabulary instead of numbers to group/classify the tiers they see them in.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Here's maybe the best argument against the idea of 31-31-31 etc....



Parabolic Curves. They're pretty much the perfect example of how large scale data ultimately gets sorted out and ranked. And in pretty much every subject matter or any data research that is done... A parabolic curve almost always forms when comparing large data of the same subject. 500 people taking an IQ test, 500 people doing a 100M dash, 500 people writing an exam, 500 people playing hockey... Take the statistical performance of all those people, and put the data into a graph.... You're going to get something very similar to the parabolic curve.


The same thing ultimately applies to the quality of NHL Dmen.


~10 #1D in the league
~25 #2D in the league
~35 #3D in the league
~50 #4D in the league
~50 #5D in the league
~20 #6D in the league



Just like on a natural parabolic curve a large percentage of the sample size in question will fall in the middle of the scale, while a very select few would perform at the top, and a similar select few would fall under the rest of the pack.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

No you clearly did nothing except make something convoluted. I am confused because you clearly set a position of being a 31-31-31 bloke then you indict that Red Wings do not have a a bloke who can be in that 31, so you explain to me what being a 31-31-31 is and then saying they do no have somebody capable of filling that role brah.


Whocares about PPP? If Avs had Hughes we would be in the Conference Finals FYI. What I mean is that Makar is better goalscorer while Hughes is a better passer and creator of plays. It makes perfect sense to me why Hughes has more powerplay points is because he's better with creativity in terms of teammates. It also makes sense why Makar has fewer and why Avs PP was worse than Canucks.

The Avs would be in the conference finals with Hughes instead of Makar? Yeah, I’m going to call BS on that.

This thread really shouldn’t be about this, but that doesn’t make any sense. Hughes had a dominant play-in round against Minnesota, was very good for about half the Blues series, and was quite bad for most of the Vegas series. Makar was just better in the playoffs.

Offensively they were pretty close, but defensively Makar was a fair bit ahead of Hughes from my viewings of the two. Hughes unwillingness to use his body at all caught up to him in the playoffs.

 

[henchman21]

I'd argue there are a crap ton of 6-7-8 capable defensemen in the AHL tied to NHL organizations. The curve is more exponential than parabolic. Connauton, Cole, Z, and Graves are all 5-6 defensemen. Barberio was a 6. At the bottom end of any NHL lineup, you can filter in plenty of players that are bottom of the lineup sorts. The top 10 defensemen in 4-5-6 leagues across the world could slot in a 6 spot in the NHL.

 

[S E P H]

The Avs would be in the conference finals with Hughes instead of Makar? Yeah, I’m going to call BS on that.

Not because he's a better player than Makar, but because he would make the powerplay better than Makar did thus more power play points (PPP) thus more wins. You say that "Hughes has more PPPs than Makar thus Cale is the better player", I say that Hughes himself in fact made the Canucks powerplay better thus contributed to more PPPs.

But alas this is NOT the intended point of the conversation, I rather not make this into a Hughes vs Makar thread because the original point of this discussion were you lot responding to me about if Makar is a #1 or not. Balth used Karlsson as an example and I used him along with Hughes - since he's very comparable - about how they individual are different than Makar. I say this respectively, but you might have an inferiority complex when it comes to Makar. Let me say that whatever I've written about Makar is what I believe, but that doesn't mean he's useless or inferior to Quinn. I am noting that he plays the game differently than Hughes or Karlsson do and has superior strengths in other categories.

 

[S E P H]

I'd argue there are a crap ton of 6-7-8 capable defensemen in the AHL tied to NHL organizations. The curve is more exponential than parabolic. Connauton, Cole, Z, and Graves are all 5-6 defensemen. Barberio was a 6. At the bottom end of any NHL lineup, you can filter in plenty of players that are bottom of the lineup sorts. The top 10 defensemen in 4-5-6 leagues across the world could slot in a 6 spot in the NHL.

If you were to compare the NHL stars and development to the 90s...

- 2020 doesn't nearly have the firepower of top-end generational talent as the 1990s did.
- 1990s doesn't nearly have the depth of talent as the 2020s does.

The average #3, #4, #5, and #6 defenders along with the tweener forwards have exponentially developed greater than the talent level was in the 90s. In the 90s, you would be insanely fortunately to have a defensive core consist of a couple de Haans, but nowadays the majority of defenders being selected in the top 90s in the draft have a good chance of becoming "de Haan" level defenders. It also makes perfect sense why the combination of generational talent and lack of depth caused the star players to have ridiculous numbers.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

My other argument I would make against the 31-31-31 argument, is that it's such an exact, no room for adjustment ideology as well.


Like, make a list of your 32 best Dmen in the league, and then try to explain to me why the 31st guy is worth being called a #1(Even if he is classified as a low end #1), and why the 32nd guy on that list is only a #2(Even high end #2).


I dunno, for me I just dont think one could successfully provide an argument to rank them as such. Hence how I see the parabolic graphing and breaking them down into tiers where the Top 3-4%(Or roughly 10 guys for me) are legit #1s, then the next 10-15% are #2 Guys, and so on and so on further down the charts.

 

[henchman21]

If you were to compare the NHL stars and development to the 90s...

- 2020 doesn't nearly have the firepower of top-end generational talent as the 1990s did.
- 1990s doesn't nearly have the depth of talent as the 2020s does.

The average #3, #4, #5, and #6 defenders along with the tweener forwards have exponentially developed greater than the talent level was in the 90s. In the 90s would be insanely fortunately to have a defensive core consist of a couple de Haans, but nowadays the majority of defenders being selected in the top 90s in the draft have a good chance of becoming "de Haan" level defenders. It also makes perfect sense why the combination of generational talent and lack of depth caused the star players to have ridiculous numbers.

Yeah the depth overall has become much better across the NHL and the world. There are probably 50-75+ players capable of playing in the bottom pairing in the NHL that didn't for one reason or another. Could be that the team wanted them to develop at lower levels (Byram/Timmins), could be they were buried on deep teams (Bean), could be that they like Russia a lot more than the US (Nesterov)... I'd say there are well over 200 defensemen who could play regularly in the NHL all over the world, but only about 20 of those are capable of being #1s.