Defense

Alflives*

Guest
Across the league, there's maybe 5 defencemen who fit your requirements. I'd argue you're BETTER to have a second pairing that can deal with the powerplay, with your shutdown pairing (that still puts up 70 pts between them at ES) not playing those minutes. Better distributes the workload. Playing in all situations including powerplay is part of the top pairing 'definition' that's totally irrelevant.

I am not as familiar with the D-men around the league as many others who post here, but players like:

Chara
Weber
Suter
Pieterangelo
Doughty
Karlson
Subban

are ones that fill the role of a #1, where Hamhuis could be an excellent fit as a #2 beside them. If others would like to add to the list, I would like to see it.
 

deckercky

Registered User
Oct 27, 2010
9,379
2,452
This is the first year where Subban has performed at the level one would expect of a #1. I'm going to need more time on that one.

Doughty has actually scored less than Dan Hamhuis last two years. I agree he has the tools to step up to another level, and he does occasionally, but overall he's no better than Hamhuis.
 

cotillion

Registered User
May 26, 2011
1,454
2
PoCo
Defence.

Kevin "r.a. Dickey" bieksa is our #1. Edler can hang with him if he steps up his game.
 

Alflives*

Guest
Defence.

Kevin "r.a. Dickey" bieksa is our #1. Edler can hang with him if he steps up his game.

Bieksa is the Canuck's most valuable D-man, but he is not able to play #1 minutes. He is not a PP guy, and breaks down physically, when playing too many minutes. He, could be a #1 guy, if he could take extra minutes and be effective on the PP.
 

Alflives*

Guest
You've said that a few times....when has Bieksa broken down physically?

Groin issues and back issues and.... To be effective, he needs to play heavy and nasty. He is a slim guy to start with, so the repeated collisions break him down. He needs to play limited minutes, in a supporting role over time. He's a good player though. That's not the issue. It's simply his body type does not mesh well with his style of play. Many have said the same about Kesler.
 

BoHorvatFan

Registered User
Dec 13, 2009
9,091
0
Vancouver
I am not as familiar with the D-men around the league as many others who post here, but players like:

Chara
Weber
Suter
Pieterangelo
Doughty
Karlson
Subban

are ones that fill the role of a #1, where Hamhuis could be an excellent fit as a #2 beside them. If others would like to add to the list, I would like to see it.

Duncan Keith... what in the world does he have left to prove. The man played half of every game for an entire cup run, controls the pace with his skating and puck moving. Tremendous player and better than anyone we have.

Sedin cheap shot aside, he is one of my favourite players to watch.
 

Angry Little Elf

My wife came back
Apr 9, 2012
8,717
8,101
Victoria B.C.
I am not as familiar with the D-men around the league as many others who post here, but players like:

Chara
Weber
Suter
Pieterangelo
Doughty
Karlson
Subban

are ones that fill the role of a #1, where Hamhuis could be an excellent fit as a #2 beside them. If others would like to add to the list, I would like to see it.

Oliver Ekman-Larsson.
 

Alflives*

Guest
One of Hammy or Garrison are our #1D. Edler has the tools

I agree with you that Hamhuis plays that role with the Canucks. That does not mean he is a true #1 D-man though. His minutes have been too high this season, with PP time added to his regular shift and PK. As a result, his play (especially recently) has dropped off. Plus, any true #1 must play PP time, or he is (at best) a #2. Hamhuis (with the correct partner) is a very good #2.

I agree that Edler has the physical tools to be a #1. Has he shown he has the mental game though? Some would say his hockey IQ is too low.
 

Ryan96

Registered User
Mar 1, 2013
49
0
Vancouver
I really like Garrison but he can be a liability at times. Not a lot, but it's enough to worry me. I know people say, well that's a penalty he has to take. But, if he had have just moved his feet he wouldn't be in that position. A key example would be in either Calgary game we played recently. I think he can do a good job offensively, and do alright in his own zone, but he just doesn't seem to be able to make that good defensive play on the rush.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
25,892
10,953
I really like Garrison but he can be a liability at times. Not a lot, but it's enough to worry me. I know people say, well that's a penalty he has to take. But, if he had have just moved his feet he wouldn't be in that position. A key example would be in either Calgary game we played recently. I think he can do a good job offensively, and do alright in his own zone, but he just doesn't seem to be able to make that good defensive play on the rush.

I don't think you can say that Garrison is unable to make that good defensive play off the rush, he does it often. And usually it's a very simple, safe, uneventful action. Garrison is right at home defending off the rush, as long as everything around him is predictable. He clearly shows high defensive IQ with his positioning, stickwork and stick positioning, and the way he waits plays out.

But in those plays like where he took the penalty, when things break down and go sour in a hurry...i think you're right. He just really doesn't have the footspeed to cope and adjust in time. It gets him into trouble at times. The change of direction stuff, the short area quickness, the lateral movement. Say 90+% of the time, Garrison manages to use his positioning to avoid foot races...but when things go south and it's 'last resort' stuff where he ends up in a short-area battle, it exposes a hole in his game.

But as a 2nd pairing defenceman, they're all going to have holes. That's the way it goes...it's just a matter of counteracting that. And i think that's why we continue to see him paired with Hamhuis, despite the fact that the 2nd pairing is a trainwreck and the 'top-pairing' isn't as good as it can be, leaving Hamhuis to make a lot of the snap decisions and play the aggressor role defensively...where he clearly isn't as comfortable and makes a ton more mistakes.

I worry though, that Garrison isn't exactly the 'defensive rock' many make him out to be...if he can't play with a player like Edler. And i also worry that in a best of 7 series where teams focus their scouting directly on exposing 'weaknesses' on the opposing team...we're going to see a team target Garrison in ways that exploit his lack of footspeed in quick snap decision situations.
 

StIllmatic

Registered User
Mar 27, 2010
4,754
0
Vancouver
I really like Garrison but he can be a liability at times. Not a lot, but it's enough to worry me. I know people say, well that's a penalty he has to take. But, if he had have just moved his feet he wouldn't be in that position. A key example would be in either Calgary game we played recently. I think he can do a good job offensively, and do alright in his own zone, but he just doesn't seem to be able to make that good defensive play on the rush.

Garrison has been our best defensive defenseman this year... two penalties don't change that.
 

Nona Di Giuseppe

Registered User
Jul 14, 2009
4,923
2,451
Coquitlam
I continue to get the sense that people believe a #1 D-man means annual Norris contender.

That's a franchise D-man. A franchise D-man is of course a #1 but a #1 need not be a franchise guy.

Last year:

Edler was 10th in ES points
Edler was 7th in PP points
heck he was 20th in SH points (only 1...D-men don't get a lot of SH points).
Edler was 24th in time/game
He wasn't top 30 in PK time but he did get about the same amount as Suter and Weber.

There really isn't much of a stat that doesn't say Edler is a #1 or as close as you can get without being one.

Now I'm sure we'll get the advanced stats etc to show that he had easier competition than Hamhuis, but hey that's to be expected. However, if Edler was several other team he'd immediately be their best D-man.


And I just chose Edler as a quick comparison. i think you'll find similar things for Hamhuis and perhaps even Bieksa. You'll likely find it this year with Garrison (provided they got 82 games so that his 15 game familiarization didn't so obviously bias the stats). These guys are #2s or better.

The problem boils down to what I said....people expect a franchise D-man rather than a #1 D-man. The latter costs about $5 mil a year and the former much more than that.


This is it.

There's only about half a dozen of these players that some people think every team should have. Other teams would kill for Hamhuis and Edler.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
25,892
10,953
This is it.

There's only about half a dozen of these players that some people think every team should have. Other teams would kill for Hamhuis and Edler.

This is a silly, overly literal attitude to take though.

If every team had a '#1C' and a '#1D', there wouldn't be much to seperate teams in the standings. And while there is 'parity' in the league for sure...there isn't that level of parity.

The reality is...a lot of teams don't have a #1Defenceman and lots of teams don't have a #1Center. Those are some of the most significant characteristics that separate a 'cup contender' from a 'fringe team at best'.
 

Alflives*

Guest
This is a silly, overly literal attitude to take though.

If every team had a '#1C' and a '#1D', there wouldn't be much to seperate teams in the standings. And while there is 'parity' in the league for sure...there isn't that level of parity.

The reality is...a lot of teams don't have a #1Defenceman and lots of teams don't have a #1Center. Those are some of the most significant characteristics that separate a 'cup contender' from a 'fringe team at best'.

Are the Canucks a Cup contender?
 

Drop the Sopel

Registered User
May 4, 2007
18,325
59
calgary
I worry though, that Garrison isn't exactly the 'defensive rock' many make him out to be...if he can't play with a player like Edler. And i also worry that in a best of 7 series where teams focus their scouting directly on exposing 'weaknesses' on the opposing team...we're going to see a team target Garrison in ways that exploit his lack of footspeed in quick snap decision situations.

You've been waiting for Garrison to have defensive issues for a long time but it just doesn't come to fruition. Dan Hamhuis is outstanding defensively and he's had a lot more defensive miscues this season than Garrison.

When you play the toughest defensive minutes on your team and go head to head with the opposition's top players you will be on the ice for some goals against. There just isn't an issue whatsoever with 'quick snap decision situations'. Garrison skates like Shea Weber and Zdeno Chara and his work in his own zone is very much on that level.

How can anyone watch this defense and worry about anything other than the play of Edler, Bieksa, Ballard and Alberts? Garrison is the least of our problems...
 

Alflives*

Guest
You've been waiting for Garrison to have defensive issues for a long time but it just doesn't come to fruition. Dan Hamhuis is outstanding defensively and he's had a lot more defensive miscues this season than Garrison.

When you play the toughest defensive minutes on your team and go head to head with the opposition's top players you will be on the ice for some goals against. There just isn't an issue whatsoever with 'quick snap decision situations'. Garrison skates like Shea Weber and Zdeno Chara and his work in his own zone is very much on that level.

How can anyone watch this defense and worry about anything other than the play of Edler, Bieksa, Ballard and Alberts? Garrison is the least of our problems...

Garrison is not Weber or Chara. He is a good player, when given the proper role: #3/4 D-man. He's not a top-pairing guy over prolonged periods. Sure, he can play that role for a few games, against selected teams, but he does not provide anywhere close to what Weber and Chara do.
 

rebel diamond

Registered User
Sep 2, 2008
5,045
0
Toronto
Edler - 2
Hamhuis - 2
Bieksa - 3/4
Garrison - 2
Tanev -5
Ballard - 5

I think that's the best go at it yet.

Hamhuis and Garrison are looking like an elite-level shutdown pair. They have the best advanced stats numbers of any of our dmen while facing some of the hardest competition (Edler has also had some tough assignments). Perhaps more importantly, you just look at them on the ice and they dictate the play. "Solid" is probably the best adjective to describe them.
 

rebel diamond

Registered User
Sep 2, 2008
5,045
0
Toronto
Garrison is not Weber or Chara. He is a good player, when given the proper role: #3/4 D-man. He's not a top-pairing guy over prolonged periods. Sure, he can play that role for a few games, against selected teams, but he does not provide anywhere close to what Weber and Chara do.

So, just to sum up your whole argument in this thread, since Garisson is not as good as 2 of the best 4 or 5 defensemen in the world he should not be on a top pairing and is essentially a number 4. Got it.
 

Alflives*

Guest
I think that's the best go at it yet.

Hamhuis and Garrison are looking like an elite-level shutdown pair. They have the best advanced stats numbers of any of our dmen while facing some of the hardest competition (Edler has also had some tough assignments). Perhaps more importantly, you just look at them on the ice and they dictate the play. "Solid" is probably the best adjective to describe them.

MG, when he came to Vancouver, said he was changing the way the Canuck's draft. He was going to use these 'advanced' stats as the center to his new - and improved - strategy. How well has that worked?
 

Drop the Sopel

Registered User
May 4, 2007
18,325
59
calgary
Garrison is not Weber or Chara. He is a good player, when given the proper role: #3/4 D-man. He's not a top-pairing guy over prolonged periods. Sure, he can play that role for a few games, against selected teams, but he does not provide anywhere close to what Weber and Chara do.

Defensively, Garrison is very close to a Weber and Chara IMO and he can do it over prolonged periods of play, against any and all teams.

I'm about as concerned with Garrison's skating as I am with Chara and Weber's skating.
 

Alflives*

Guest
So, just to sum up your whole argument in this thread, since Garisson is not as good as 2 of the best 4 or 5 defensemen in the world he should not be on a top pairing and is essentially a number 4. Got it.

It's nice to see that other Vancouver fans can be objective too. Although I think Garrison is a much better player than, it appears, you do. He is a 3/4 guy, who is fully capeable of playing top pairing minutes, in a limited role. That is a valuable guy to a team.

Where do you see Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler fitting in? Do you think they are top pairing guys (over 25 minutes/game) over prolonged periods?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad