Well my post wasn't meant to be full of meaning...I mean, the numbers show what they show, expecting a guy to score 40+ points when he's only done it once the last 7 years, seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely.
Let's review what I said in my original post, the one you originally responded to:
"I see no reason why he can't be a 35+ point player every year for the foreseeable future now that he has a competent team playing around him (which, let's be honest, he never had in Toronto). I think 10g-30a-40pts is entirely attainable for him on this team, if used properly. Randy Carlyle was the worst thing that ever happened to Phaneuf, and I think you started to see him shake off the Post-Carlyle Stress Disorder last year under Babcock, and a little more after getting traded."
1) I expect him to be a 35 point player most years (barring injury, of course, which should be the boilerplate caveat to any player projection)
2) I think 10g+30a is attainable for him
if used properly. That is to say, if he gets 1st minute PP time with the best offensive defenceman on earth, and logs a ton of minutes with favorable matchups. Obviously, if you don't think he will get those opportunities, then you have to adjust your projections on what you'd expect from him.
But it can be argued that he had way more beneficial circumstances on the Leafs then he will on the Sens. He was the man in Toronto, chewed up 25+ mins a game and was #1 choice in all situations.
He won't have that same opportunity in Ottawa.
Again, a completely reasonable hypothesis. I might not agree with it, but I can understand why you might think that.
You say he was a 25 min/night player. Fact. Whether or not playing 25 mins a night on a terrible defensive team, that plays pond hockey without a system, and leaves it's defencemen out to dry on a minute-by-minute basis is a good thing or a bad thing is maybe a discussion for another time, that could take up an entire thread on it's own, but let's just say that not all minutes are equal, and on bad teams, "mo minutes, mo problems" as Biggie might say (if he were a hockey fan, and liked bad dad jokes). I don't think that 25 mins/night was good for Phaneuf, and I think he's a better player playing #3 mins than he is playing #1 mins.
On top of this, playing 25 mins a night meant he was playing against the best of the best. He needed to. He was playing against every team's shutdown players. As a #3 in Ottawa, he will draw far fewer of those assignments, which at Even Strength will almost assuredly be deployed against Karlsson (though now that Calgary has hired Dave Cameron, I won't discount the possibility that we'll see some shutdown players on the Flames assigned to the mighty Mark Borowiecki, what with all of Cameron's insight into his offensive prowess
)
You say he was the #1 choice in all situations. There's where we're really going to disagree. When you look at his deployment, it's obvious just how badly he was misused under Carlyle. He has the most defensive minutes of any player on the Leafs, and the least even-strength offensive minutes of any of Toronto's NHL-caliber defencemen. That boggles my mind. He was deployed -at even strength- as a defensive specialist. Did he get offensive time on the PP? Yes, he was always on the first unit. But at even strength, he was used almost exclusively against the opposition's best players as a purely "Carlyle-esque" sit-back-and-defend defensive player.
So, if you think that he won't produce in Ottawa because he had every chance in the world in Toronto to do so, I would probably suggest that we look deeper into what exactly he was asked to do in Toronto. Usage matters, not all minutes are equal.
Again, I'm not trying to win the Nobel prize with every post I make. I also have high standards for myself, I'm just not always trying to meet them when I come on HF boards.
Meh...I guess, I mean I expected some backlash, but I also didn't think what I said was inflammatory either and what's worse, many Sens fans who responded with in this thread doubled down on what I wrote.
Again, the previous points were largely my opinion. Not fact, just one guy's opinion. I have no problem if others have different opinions, but I also expect people to expect be able to challenge their opinions and defend them if necessary with some reasoning. Not saying that's what you in particular are doing here, but there are some others who frequent here who like to quote numbers without discussing context, which is why there might have been a few posters who immediately wanted some context and explanation for your argument, because it tends to be found lacking around these parts more often than it should by some of the more... jimmy-rustling posters on HFSens. Don't take it personally.
Again, being from Ottawa, even though I'm 100% a Habs fans and have no love for the Sens in any way, I do follow them, most of my friends are sens fans so I can't really escape it. I also lurk on this board quite a lot and mostly never respond to posts, even though I would like to.
You should post more if you want (assuming you're polite about it, of course, which in general you have been so far). I personally enjoy talking to fans of other teams, because discussion among Sens fans tends to be... far too insular sometimes. I like hearing other takes from a different set of eyes who aren't biased towards the team.
That being said, don't expect that you'll be able to post arguments around here without needing to defend them if necessary. Again, not that you necessarily have here, but just as a rule in general. A good argument invites criticism. A bad argument is destroyed by it.
