Weber and Chara are really nasty guys to play against, who could (and have - often) hurt other players. They create space for their teammates, and protect their goalies. Garrison is a good player, that is not in question.
Weber and Chara are really nasty guys to play against, who could (and have - often) hurt other players. They create space for their teammates, and protect their goalies. Garrison is a good player, that is not in question.
rebel diamond
Registered User
I think Hamhuis is a solid #2, the kind of guy that can round out a very good pairing or play a supporting role to an offensively gifted defensively suspect partner. Bieksa is a good 2nd pairing player (3/4), who can provide grit and clutch offense, but who you don't want playing top-pairing minutes or 1st unit PP beyond spot fill-in duty. Edler's the toughest one, as he's shown he can be the best d-man on the team when he's on but has been inconsistent and has fought injuries; I'd call him a soft 2 at this point.
There's really nothing off with what he said. He has now been getting top of the league results for 3 straight years while playing shutdown minutes. Defensively, Garrison is as good as anyone in the league.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,516
- 8,651
According to TSN's injury history on him, he has missed seven games to groin injury his entire career.
You're eyes aren't telling you Jason Garrison is an elite defensive defenseman?
I would put Willie Mitchell on Chara and Weber's level defensively as well. Obviously Garrison and Mitchell aren't as good at both ends but in terms of pure shutdown ability, all 4 are comparable IMO.
Garrison is a good player, but he does not play with the same 'edge' these others do. In hockey, being able to play with an 'edge' increases a player's value, both to his team and to his pocket book.
Johnny Canucker
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2009
- 17,750
- 6,116
Come on......April 1st has come and gone.
Garrison as good as Chara/Weber?
Post that on the main board and it will shut down HF Boards.
Garrison as good as Chara/Weber?
Post that on the main board and it will shut down HF Boards.
Bieksa is a tough guy, who often plays hurt. If you believe he has the physical tools to play his style in the number one role, that's your opinion. Most would believe his size (or lack there-of) limits his ice-time and style of play.
How a player gets the job done doesn't really concern me, I just care if they can get the job done. Garrison isn't nasty, quick, agile or overtly physical but none of that stops him from being an elite defensive defenseman. People seem more enamoured with particular skills than actual effectiveness. Like claiming Tanev will never be a high end defensive defenseman because he's not a 'crease clearer' or lacks aggressiveness. Couldn't disagree more with those types of assessments.
I'm not saying Garrison is as valuable as Chara or Weber, he's obviously not. But when it comes down to stopping the opposition from scoring goals, he's about as good as anyone in the game right now IMO. The Dan Hamhuis fom the last couple years was as well IMO.
As I have stated here before: Garrison is a good player. However, I do believe you point out those aspects of his game which limit him to at best a #2 role (providing he is playing with a true number one minute eater - which the Canucks don't currently have.) You wrote: "Garrison isn't nasty, quick, agile or overly physical"
Yes, he is a good player. Edler, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Tanev are all good players too. That's not in question. How good are they? That's what is in question.
Henrik Sedin isn't nasty, quick or physical and I wouldn't say that stops him from being a bonafide #1 centre. He's also not elite defensively and doesn't kill penalties - that still doesn't stop him from being a #1 centre.
So why isn't Garrison a #1 defenseman? He kills difficult 5 on 5 minutes as good as Chara/Weber and can play on both special teams. Because he skates like Henrik Sedin? Nope. Not a good enough reason IMO. Like I said, it's what they accomplish that I concern myself with. Could care less how they get there - and Jason Garrison gets there.
Just don't understand the disconnect fans have with what warrants being a #1 defenseman compared to being a #1 centre. If Garrison isn't a #1 defenseman because he's not an elite PP player and puck rusher than you cannot classify guys like Henrik Sedin as #1 centremen because they lack the defensive side of the game.
IMO a #1 dman is a guy that can excel in tough matchups and play in all situations. Jason Garrison does these things. Could care less that he skates like Zdeno Chara and Shea Weber.
I like what you have to say, but your comparison to Henrick Sedin falls short on one account: ablitity to play 1st line minutes, and continue to be effective. Garrison is not able to play those minutes over long stretches of games, and continue to be an effective player. Henrick does play those top line minutes. That's the difference. Your argument presupposes that all athletes have the same aerobic abiltities.
Again, I like Garrison as a player, just not in the number one role, and the minutes required of that spot.
Garrison is very good but let's not exaggerate. He got "walked" twice in recent games, both on the right side.
And Weber never gets walked? Chara doesn't either?
With standards like that, no wonder nobody is good enough to be a #1 on this team.And Weber never gets walked? Chara doesn't either?
You are correct: all players get beat in one-on-one battles. What do you believe are the standards (qualities) to classify a #1 D-man? Who on the Canucks has those qualities you defined?
Aphid Attraction
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2013
- 5,066
- 1,702
And Weber never gets walked? Chara doesn't either?
This...
I myself have never understood what was up with people grading #1 D number # 2 D and so on, IMO by definition if you are ranked in the top 30 odd players you must be up there, Garrison has done that for 3 years as you point out, Now he is doing it on a contender on his off side.
But if what we have is 4 D men that you could make the case for being # 2 guys then to me that is greater then one #1 and three #3s
He played with Mike Weaver two years ago (Yes, Mike Weaver was second in TOI/G for the Panthers in the 2010-2011 season) and Brian Campbell last year, although Dineen would reunite the Garrison - Weaver pairing late in games to hold the lead. Anyways, I can't recall anybody taking issue with Garrison's ability to eat minutes.
Aphid Attraction
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2013
- 5,066
- 1,702
Can I flip that on you and ask what qualities Garrison dose not have that stops him being classified as a #1. (Or any of our D for that matter)
This dose not matter as much as people make out as the best D are always paired with the teams other best D, also he has probably had more partners this year then any other teams #1 (based on how much AV shuffles players not actual proof)
rebel diamond
Registered User
Maybe? It certainly provides more protection against injury. That being said, the two most recent cups have gone to teams with a dominant #1 and a supporting cast instead of a balanced top 4.
