Defense

[Balls Mahoney]

Watching Canucks fans homer out over Garrison's defensive game is fascinating. I still find it funny that there's a vocal minority on here that thinks he's a top five defensive defenseman.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

The ball is in your court.

I have answered my own question by saying I don't really know what it is when people say some one is a #2 D and not a number #1, even they are consistently in the top 30, Is it possible that #1 is like the top 5 D, in which case, I say our D is still built better then others with #1s, but that's just me...

 

[Verviticus]

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.

how many goals is, as a number or a multiplier, for and/or against, 'an edge' worth

you can deliver the answer per minute, per 60, per game or per 82. your choice

 

[Tiranis]

Watching Canucks fans homer out over Garrison's defensive game is fascinating. I still find it funny that there's a vocal minority on here that thinks he's a top five defensive defenseman.

Because he is? I'm not the one arguing that Dennis Seidenberg is a top shutdown defenseman when he doesn't even play shutdown minutes. Honestly, I would like you to demonstrate how Garrison ISN'T one of the top shutdown defensemen in the league.

He has gotten some of the top defensive results in the whole league for 3 straight years, playing with various partners (Weaver, Campbell, Hamhuis) on both left and right side. What else does it take to be recognized as a top shutdown guy?

 

[Wizeman*]

Watching Canucks fans homer out over Garrison's defensive game is fascinating. I still find it funny that there's a vocal minority on here that thinks he's a top five defensive defenseman.

I think hes done well considering he's had to adjust to a new system , new city, travel and fan base. Sunrise is about as far away from Vancouver as you can get NHL wise.

Speaking of our defense men, Dan Hamhuis has turned into a total stud or what? I know hes good but I swear hes even better now.

 

[Verviticus]

I think hes done well considering he's had to adjust to a new system , new city, travel and fan base. Sunrise is about as far away from Vancouver as you can get NHL wise.

Speaking of our defense men, Dan Hamhuis has turned into a total stud or what? I know hes good but I swear hes even better now.

im honestly thinking the 'secret injury that has recently healed' theory is correct. i doubted it before but i just can't think of another Thing that can make the difference ive seen recently in an established nhl defenceman

edit: yes i know what you're thinking, like chara can be walked around, i too can be wrong

 

[Verviticus]

Because he is? I'm not the one arguing that Dennis Seidenberg is a top shutdown defenseman when he doesn't even play shutdown minutes. Honestly, I would like you to demonstrate how Garrison ISN'T one of the top shutdown defensemen in the league.

He has gotten some of the top defensive results in the whole league for 3 straight years, playing with various partners (Weaver, Campbell, Hamhuis) on both left and right side. What else does it take to be recognized as a top shutdown guy?

ironically, a lot of assists would do the trick in a pinch

 

[Tiranis]

Also, he achieved those results under three different coaches: DeBoer, Dineen and Vigneault; and three different goalies: Vokoun, Theodore and Schneider. It's not like he's just out there exploiting goaltending and systems to his advantage.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'd classify a #1 as an all-situation Dman, but that has to excel at one aspect at ES. On this team, that's Edler, Hamhuis and Garrison... On the balance of their careers thus far.

Garrison plays all situations, but is excellent at shutting down opposing teams at ES.

Hamhuis is the same as Garrison, but with more mixed results on the PP. Still, he's able to put up better totals in those situations, despite missing the bomb shot.

Edler is an all situation Dman that excels offensively at ES. Different type of #1.




Again, these are assessments based on the balance of careers. From what I have seen of all Dmen to date. Or tracked via stats.

To use the scheme outlined in this thread:

Garrison 1/2
Hamhuis 1/2
Edler 1/2
Bieksa 2/3
Tanev 4/5
Ballard 4/5
Alberts 6/7
Barker 6/7

 

[tantalum]

Because he is? I'm not the one arguing that Dennis Seidenberg is a top shutdown defenseman when he doesn't even play shutdown minutes. Honestly, I would like you to demonstrate how Garrison ISN'T one of the top shutdown defensemen in the league.

He has gotten some of the top defensive results in the whole league for 3 straight years, playing with various partners (Weaver, Campbell, Hamhuis) on both left and right side. What else does it take to be recognized as a top shutdown guy?

The debate reminds me of when the canucks signed Mitchell. Many people laughed at him being called a top shut down guy and couldn't believe the money the canucks paid. Turns out he was indeed a top shutdown guy in the league.

Same thing with Garrison. This was an astute signing by Gillis, just as Mitchell was for Nonis (see I can compliment Nonis).

 

[Jyrki]

Watching Canucks fans homer out over Garrison's defensive game is fascinating. I still find it funny that there's a vocal minority on here that thinks he's a top five defensive defenseman.

Maybe not top 5, but he's an elite defensive D like Hamhuis.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Watching Canucks fans homer out over Garrison's defensive game is fascinating. I still find it funny that there's a vocal minority on here that thinks he's a top five defensive defenseman.

Not top-5, but definitely top-20.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

I'd classify a #1 as an all-situation Dman, but that has to excel at one aspect at ES. On this team, that's Edler, Hamhuis and Garrison... On the balance of their careers thus far.

Garrison plays all situations, but is excellent at shutting down opposing teams at ES.

Hamhuis is the same as Garrison, but with more mixed results on the PP. Still, he's able to put up better totals in those situations, despite missing the bomb shot.

Edler is an all situation Dman that excels offensively at ES. Different type of #1.



Again, these are assessments based on the balance of careers. From what I have seen of all Dmen to date. Or tracked via stats.

To use the scheme outlined in this thread:

Garrison 1/2
Hamhuis 1/2
Edler 1/2
Bieksa 2/3
Tanev 4/5
Ballard 4/5
Alberts 6/7
Barker 6/7

Totally agree, thats how I look at it, but that is not saying much...

AV is good at seeing who is playing best out of our D at a particular time, and adjusting time and opposition accordingly. that is why we don't see any one D eating 30min night after night, they just don't need too.

all It takes is for 2 of our D to have a good/great game or series and we have 2 # 1Ds,
I would say that the reason that Bieksa is not at the same level is his potential to play like a #3 or even #4 at times.

 

[Karl Hungus]

Garrison has been worth the money so far. The whole defense got off to a rough start and I think some people were quick to get on Garrison as he was the most high profile change from last season. I would say he's a solid 3-4 defenseman. He's well conditioned and reads the play well enough to make up for his not so fluid skating. He's not vicious but he's been good at making sure that rebounds are not becoming coronary chances in front most of the time. After a slow start offensively I'd say he's living up to the hype that surrounded his slap shot. I'd like to see the Canucks find a way to use it more often.

 

[opendoor]

Garrison has been worth the money so far. The whole defense got off to a rough start and I think some people were quick to get on Garrison as he was the most high profile change from last season. I would say he's a solid 3-4 defenseman. He's well conditioned and reads the play well enough to make up for his not so fluid skating. He's not vicious but he's been good at making sure that rebounds are not becoming coronary chances in front most of the time. After a slow start offensively I'd say he's living up to the hype that surrounded his slap shot. I'd like to see the Canucks find a way to use it more often.

He's the 27th highest paid defenseman in the league in terms of cap his and 18th in terms of salary this year. I don't really see the internal logic where he's been worth his contract while at the same time being a 3/4 defenseman.

He's being paid like a high end #2 guy and I think that's a pretty good representation of how he's performed. I honestly think the coaching staff is underusing him. There's no way given their relative performances this season that Bieksa should be getting a minute more of ES ice time per game than Garrison.

 

[Verviticus]

He's the 27th highest paid defenseman in the league in terms of cap his and 18th in terms of salary this year. I don't really see the internal logic where he's been worth his contract while at the same time being a 3/4 defenseman.

He's being paid like a high end #2 guy and I think that's a pretty good representation of how he's performed. I honestly think the coaching staff is underusing him. There's no way given their relative performances this season that Bieksa should be getting a minute more of ES ice time per game than Garrison.

the logic that there are currently 30 teams in the league and therefore approximately 30 #1 defencemen doesn't actually resonate with people

 

[m9]

I'd classify a #1 as an all-situation Dman, but that has to excel at one aspect at ES. On this team, that's Edler, Hamhuis and Garrison... On the balance of their careers thus far.

Garrison plays all situations, but is excellent at shutting down opposing teams at ES.

Hamhuis is the same as Garrison, but with more mixed results on the PP. Still, he's able to put up better totals in those situations, despite missing the bomb shot.

Edler is an all situation Dman that excels offensively at ES. Different type of #1.




Again, these are assessments based on the balance of careers. From what I have seen of all Dmen to date. Or tracked via stats.

To use the scheme outlined in this thread:

Garrison 1/2
Hamhuis 1/2
Edler 1/2
Bieksa 2/3
Tanev 4/5
Ballard 4/5
Alberts 6/7
Barker 6/7

II totally agree with this post. I would slot Bieksa (3-4) Ballard (5-6) and Barker (8-9) a bit lower but that's just nitpicking.

 

[CanadianPirate]

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?

Very, very well? I get the feeling you are calling into question that strategy but it is one where the team has gone to the finals and won two presidents trophies. It has also resulted in the canucks ahl team having more canucks prospects than it has ever had before. So...

 

[Alflives*]

how many goals is, as a number or a multiplier, for and/or against, 'an edge' worth

you can deliver the answer per minute, per 60, per game or per 82. your choice

The comparison - in a previous post - was between Garrison and Weber/Chara. That poster saw little difference between Garrison's defensive play and that of Weber/Chara. I pointed out one HUGE difference.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

The comparison - in a previous post - was between Garrison and Weber/Chara. That poster saw little difference between Garrison's defensive play and that of Weber/Chara. I pointed out one HUGE difference.

That was also the huge difference between Chara and Lidstrom's defensive play as well. Did that make Chara a better defensive defenseman? No. You don't defend by being nasty, you defend by not letting your opponents shoot the puck in high percentage areas or get to loose pucks. There's more than one way to accomplish this...

 

[Alflives*]

I'd classify a #1 as an all-situation Dman, but that has to excel at one aspect at ES. On this team, that's Edler, Hamhuis and Garrison... On the balance of their careers thus far.
Garrison plays all situations, but is excellent at shutting down opposing teams at ES.
Hamhuis is the same as Garrison, but with more mixed results on the PP. Still, he's able to put up better totals in those situations, despite missing the bomb shot.
Edler is an all situation Dman that excels offensively at ES. Different type of #1.
Again, these are assessments based on the balance of careers. From what I have seen of all Dmen to date. Or tracked via stats.
To use the scheme outlined in this thread:

Garrison 1/2
Hamhuis 1/2
Edler 1/2
Bieksa 2/3
Tanev 4/5
Ballard 4/5
Alberts 6/7
Barker 6/7

Very good post. It's enlightening to read several different fans evaluations of the Canuck's D-core. I still do not see a #1 D-man on the current roster, but (after reading several posts here) can better accept that players like Garrison and Hamhuis and Bieksa could be effective in the #2 role.

I still believe this lack of a 25 + min/night D-man that AV can play (like he does Kesler) in all circumstances is a BIG hole on this current team, especially in the play-offs. I am not writing about needing a 'franchise' level D-man, just a true #1 guy AV can go to, often, and without question.

 

[Alflives*]

That was also the huge difference between Chara and Lidstrom's defensive play as well. Did that make Chara a better defensive defenseman? No. You don't defend by being nasty, you defend by not letting your opponents shoot the puck in high percentage areas or get to loose pucks. There's more than one way to accomplish this...

Are we now comparing Garrison with Lidstrom? Garrison is a very good player, but he's not Chara/Lidstrom or Weber.

 

[Alflives*]

Very, very well? I get the feeling you are calling into question that strategy but it is one where the team has gone to the finals and won two presidents trophies. It has also resulted in the canucks ahl team having more canucks prospects than it has ever had before. So...

And which management group was responsible for bulding the core of those top Canuck's teams? It was not Gillis. He should get credit for re-signing those players, but not for drafting/trading for them. His draft record is poor.

 

[Barney Gumble]

There's no way given their relative performances this season that Bieksa should be getting a minute more of ES ice time per game than Garrison.

A result of the amount of righties/lefties on the blueline. If not Bieksa, then who else besides Tanev or a player playing his off-side (which the coaching staff don't like doing unless they absolutely have to)?

 

[Alflives*]

A result of the amount of righties/lefties on the blueline. If not Bieksa, then who else besides Tanev or a player playing his off-side (which the coaching staff don't like doing unless they absolutely have to)?

And why do the coaches not like to play Canuck's D on their wrong side?