Is It Time for a Norris Trophy AND a "Best Offensive Defenseman Trophy"?

Proust*

Registered User
Dec 8, 2010
4,506
4
The fact that one of Karlsson or Subban is about to have more Norris Trophies than Chara and Weber combined says all you need to know about the award's credibility

It really doesn't. That is overly simplistic, because it doesn't account for the fact that a guy being in the top 3 best in the league over many years is way more valuable than a guy being the best in the league for one year.

Bobrovsky has more Vezina's than Carey Price and Pekka Rinne combined! The Vezina is a joke!
 

HarrisonFord

President of the Drew Doughty Fan Club
Jul 20, 2011
21,916
1,840
Toronto
I think it's fairly clear that it is. Norris voters look at Karlsson's speed, passing and his ability to take the puck from players in the defensive zone and move it up the ice at breakneck speed, producing scoring chances for his team.

It's the new style of 'the less time you spend in the defensive zone, the better' and Karlsson's the king of the league in going from point A to point B.

It's not always about knocking a guy into the next century with massive bodychecks, nor is it always about shot blocking, nor is it always about crease-clearing. What Karlsson does has absolutely revolutionized playing defence in this era.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think I can be. Puck possession rules now, Norris voters see it, they see his ability to breakout of his own zone, they see his elite speed and vision and that's why he's already won one Norris and is poised to win another.

Puck possession will eventually be countered by teams who build their teams around being opportunistic on the counter attack.

Why even have defensemen then? Just draft and develop forwards and teach some of them to play defense. Why hasn't anyone done that already? And why is it that Erik Karlsson needs a defensive stud like Marc Methot beside him to do well and when you put possession darling Patrick Weircoich beside him it's a dumpster fire in the Sens zone?

Erik Karlsson hasn't revolutionized anything. You clearly are in your teens, or either just recently started watching hockey or have only watched Ottawa Senators hockey. The offense-first defenseman has been around for years. Unless you think that Erik Karlsson has somehow added a different dimension that Coffey or Leetch didn't have, I'd love to know about it. He's not even the first Swede of his kind. The only thing he's revolutionized is that he's the first one the Ottawa Senators have had, so congratulations I guess for having one.

You know why Erik Karlsson isn't the defenseman of the future? Because even if the puck is in the opponent's zone more and theres less shots against (which doesn't seem to make sense, considering where the Sens SA have been the last few seasons - 25th this year, 2nd last last year behind only the NHL record setting Toronto Maple Leafs, and 2nd last in his magical Norris season). But hey, that has more to do with the rest of the team, and not the 25+ minute a night Karlsson right?

You know how you reduce shots on goal? Blocked shots. Shots blocked with your stick, shots blocked with your body. You know how else you reduce shots on goal? By winning puck battles in your own zone, using your physical strength, and clearing the crease of rebound chances. And Erik Karlsson doesn't do shot blocking, and he's too small to rely on his own physical strength to separate opponents from the puck and clear the crease.

Thats why he's never on the ice for the PK. That's why, as a rival fan, I love seeing him on the ice with a minute to go, protecting a lead. Because when he's put in a defensive situation, he's exposed a lot. And easily. That's why he'll never be the top NHL defenseman, no matter how many points he puts up. Because unless the strategic structure of NHL hockey changes, and defense aren't meant to spend 95% of the time between the opponents blue line and their own redline, keeping the puck out of your own net will always be the #1 priority of a defenseman, and the part of the game that they are able to have the most influence over.
 

swiftwin

★SUMMER.OF.PIERRE★
Jul 26, 2005
23,562
12,940
Thats why he's never on the ice for the PK. That's why, as a rival fan, I love seeing him on the ice with a minute to go, protecting a lead. Because when he's put in a defensive situation, he's exposed a lot. And easily. That's why he'll never be the top NHL defenseman, no matter how many points he puts up. Because unless the strategic structure of NHL hockey changes, and defense aren't meant to spend 95% of the time between the opponents blue line and their own redline, keeping the puck out of your own net will always be the #1 priority of a defenseman, and the part of the game that they are able to have the most influence over.

Clearly you missed the part in game 4 against the Habs where he played 3:37 of the last 4 minutes of the game, protecting a 1-0 lead, on the brink of elimination. The Habs were barely able to get in the Sens zone because of his defensive ability.
 

HarrisonFord

President of the Drew Doughty Fan Club
Jul 20, 2011
21,916
1,840
Toronto
Clearly you missed the part in game 4 against the Habs where he played 3:37 of the last 4 minutes of the game, protecting a 1-0 lead, on the brink of elimination. The Habs were barely able to get in the Sens zone because of his defensive ability.

Really. Solely him. For 3:37. Weird, because the official game sheet says he was off the ice when Pacioretty's shot was blocked by Wiercoich with 2:43 to go. Not the block by Wiercoich, the block by Methot, the defensive zone faceoff won by Turris or the 2 takeaways by Stone? Or the shot by Turris? That was all EK right? Not to mention the goalie not being pulled until less than a minute to go.

It's almost like the forwards clogged up the neutral zone against a Montreal team that was up 3-0 in the series and didn't really allow them access. EK didn't have to do a thing.

I can guarantee you though that he was caught up ice doing his "revolutionizing the position" thing in game 3, leaving his D partner with a 2 on 1, which resulted in a Dale Weise overtime goal. And he's the 4th player back too :laugh:

 

Proust*

Registered User
Dec 8, 2010
4,506
4
I can guarantee you though that he was caught up ice doing his "revolutionizing the position" thing in game 3, leaving his D partner with a 2 on 1, which resulted in a Dale Weise overtime goal.

Except that didn't happen... it was a 1 on 1 and a bad goal on Anderson via wrist shot from the boards.

Your agenda is exposed.
 

WilderPegasus*

Guest
Really. Solely him. For 3:37. Weird, because the official game sheet says he was off the ice when Pacioretty's shot was blocked by Wiercoich with 2:43 to go. Not the block by Wiercoich, the block by Methot, the defensive zone faceoff won by Turris or the 2 takeaways by Stone? Or the shot by Turris? That was all EK right? Not to mention the goalie not being pulled until less than a minute to go.

It's almost like the forwards clogged up the neutral zone against a Montreal team that was up 3-0 in the series and didn't really allow them access. EK didn't have to do a thing.

I can guarantee you though that he was caught up ice doing his "revolutionizing the position" thing in game 3, leaving his D partner with a 2 on 1, which resulted in a Dale Weise overtime goal. And he's the 4th player back too :laugh:



If you doubt his ice time at the end of the game you could just check the TOI shift report instead of posting passive aggressive crap.

And if you think that overtime goal was a 2 on 1 then you either need to get your eyes checked or learn how to count to 2. Based upon your posts it is 50/50 either way.
 

arunnair87

Registered User
Aug 12, 2009
295
0
The only real problem I have with the Norris is that it's literally the only trophy for defensemen.

Can't win the Selke.
Art Ross has been won once by a defensmen (Bobby Orr.)
Hart - is possible but rare
Bill Masterton - does anyone want this?
Rocket - it's possible I guess, but I don't think any defensemen has ever won this.

They should give defensemen another award just to be fair. Should it be for defensive defensemen? Idk. It'd be nice to see a Marc Staal win an award. But I get that it would be hard to define a criteria since Shea Weber also shuts down the top players on the opposing team and is much better offensively.
 

HarrisonFord

President of the Drew Doughty Fan Club
Jul 20, 2011
21,916
1,840
Toronto
Except that didn't happen... it was a 1 on 1 and a bad goal on Anderson via wrist shot from the boards.

Your agenda is exposed.

It was a 2 on 1 with a forward rushing back to try and cover the passer. And it was only a 2 on 1 because EK was more focused on trying to make the risky, offensive play rather than retreat back and play the zone exit like he should be doing in that situation. Which is what he does all the time.

If you doubt his ice time at the end of the game you could just check the TOI shift report instead of posting passive aggressive crap.

And if you think that overtime goal was a 2 on 1 then you either need to get your eyes checked or learn how to count to 2. Based upon your posts it is 50/50 either way.

That information I posted came from the NHL.com report. And I'm being far from passive aggressive.

A proper 2 on 2 is one where there are 2 forwards coming against 2 defensemen who are skating backwards. This is one defenseman back in their proper position and a forward racing back to try and cover the pass. If you look, you'll see that rather than have a defenseman in position to go through, the passer had clear use of his stick with a clear path to the net had it come across.
 

DrunkUncleDenis

Condra Fan
Mar 27, 2012
11,820
1,682
Erik Karlsson hasn't revolutionized anything. You clearly are in your teens, or either just recently started watching hockey or have only watched Ottawa Senators hockey. The offense-first defenseman has been around for years. Unless you think that Erik Karlsson has somehow added a different dimension that Coffey or Leetch didn't have, I'd love to know about it. He's not even the first Swede of his kind. The only thing he's revolutionized is that he's the first one the Ottawa Senators have had, so congratulations I guess for having one.

So a poster needs to be over 20 years old, a rabid hockey fan watching all games across the league, and have been watching NHL hockey for an arbitrary length of at least 10 years to have a valid opinion? Give me a break.

I agree that the offensive defenceman has been around for decades. Orr, Coffee, etc. Ok fine. But EK is no normal offensive D, ie. Mike Greene. Just watch the way he skates, how be breaks out of the zone. His forwards cover on the blue line because they know when he's "going for it". The Senators' system is built around his game style, and the team is getting quite good at it. Guys with high hockey IQ like Stone really excel in this system.

Face it, the game is changing, and much like the enforcer, the one dimensional stay at home defenceman is slowly being phased out, or at least to the point where they are no longer the stars of the game, garnering the 6m+ contracts.

Really. Solely him. For 3:37. Weird, because the official game sheet says he was off the ice when Pacioretty's shot was blocked by Wiercoich with 2:43 to go. Not the block by Wiercoich, the block by Methot, the defensive zone faceoff won by Turris or the 2 takeaways by Stone? Or the shot by Turris? That was all EK right? Not to mention the goalie not being pulled until less than a minute to go.

It's almost like the forwards clogged up the neutral zone against a Montreal team that was up 3-0 in the series and didn't really allow them access. EK didn't have to do a thing.

I can guarantee you though that he was caught up ice doing his "revolutionizing the position" thing in game 3, leaving his D partner with a 2 on 1, which resulted in a Dale Weise overtime goal. And he's the 4th player back too :laugh:



First, there is no need to intentionally be pedantic to get your point across. Obviously it's a 5 man effort out there, and everyone did their part in the last 4 mintues of game 5. People (including you) harp on how EK doesn't defense, then a superb example of how he does is pointed out to you, and you try to downplay fact by shifting praise to whoever else was on the ice. In this case, your argument doesn't make any sense.

Second, that was a horrendously weak 2 on 2 wrister goal. EK was at the blue line trying to intercept. Michalek is there to cover his position. Michalek caught up, covered his man, Methot took the shooter, but Andy let in a brutal goal. You can't pin that terrible goal on Karlsson.
 

DrunkUncleDenis

Condra Fan
Mar 27, 2012
11,820
1,682
It was a 2 on 1 with a forward rushing back to try and cover the passer. And it was only a 2 on 1 because EK was more focused on trying to make the risky, offensive play rather than retreat back and play the zone exit like he should be doing in that situation. Which is what he does all the time.



That information I posted came from the NHL.com report. And I'm being far from passive aggressive.

A proper 2 on 2 is one where there are 2 forwards coming against 2 defensemen who are skating backwards. This is one defenseman back in their proper position and a forward racing back to try and cover the pass. If you look, you'll see that rather than have a defenseman in position to go through, the passer had clear use of his stick with a clear path to the net had it come across.

"Proper 2 on 2" lol. Since when does anything in the NHL happen perfectly and properly. The fact is, Michalek had his man covered without issue. The second forward didn't even receive the pass anyway. It was a bad goal on our tender, nothing more.
 

swiftwin

★SUMMER.OF.PIERRE★
Jul 26, 2005
23,562
12,940
Really. Solely him. For 3:37. Weird, because the official game sheet says he was off the ice when Pacioretty's shot was blocked by Wiercoich with 2:43 to go. Not the block by Wiercoich, the block by Methot, the defensive zone faceoff won by Turris or the 2 takeaways by Stone? Or the shot by Turris? That was all EK right? Not to mention the goalie not being pulled until less than a minute to go.

It's almost like the forwards clogged up the neutral zone against a Montreal team that was up 3-0 in the series and didn't really allow them access. EK didn't have to do a thing.

I can guarantee you though that he was caught up ice doing his "revolutionizing the position" thing in game 3, leaving his D partner with a 2 on 1, which resulted in a Dale Weise overtime goal. And he's the 4th player back too :laugh:



Cool, so when he's on the ice for almost the entire last 4 minutes of a game, and successfully defends a lead for the win, it's not because of Karlsson, it's because of his teammates. But when the team gets scored on when it's his teammates' fault, it's all Karlsson's fault.
 

Rayzorexe

Meh..
Dec 29, 2009
1,814
6
Toronto, ON
I think one of the reason why they don't want anymore trophies the fact that forwards can't win the Norris and defenceman can't win the Selke. All other awards besides the goalie ones can be won by a defenceman or a forward. Also you have to look at the fact the even though the chances of winning a major award favours towards the fowards, There are a lot less D man in the league and you don't really have to make separate awards for the Norris.

Basically if you want something changed, look at the voting process.
 

Legionnaire

Help On The Way
Jul 10, 2002
44,253
3,964
LA-LA Land
Haha. No. This isn't preschool where everyone needs an award. :facepalm:

Best offensive defenseman? Really? You want an award for looking at the points standings? Lame.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
It's time for the Norris and an "I suck at offence but I'm good at the less skilled defensive side" award.

Haha! :laugh:

I'm really not sure why more people don't appreciate how refreshing it is that there is a defensemen with Erik Karlsson's skill set in the league. He's already become the player that seemingly everyone wanted Scott Niedermayer to become in the mid-1990s. I'm sure if Karlsson was placed inside of a conservative offensive system, he would develop into a much stronger defensive player. But what a waste of a pair of skates that doesn't come around too often.
 

Sureves

Registered User
Sep 29, 2008
11,520
928
Ottawa
Just because your personal favourite defenseman wasn't determined to be the best defenseman in the league in any given year by impartial voters, and they instead felt that a defenseman who had a far superior offensive display of abilities was the best defenseman in the league that year, that doesn't mean we need a new trophy.

It means you need to grab a tissue and grow up.
 

Crede777

Deputized
Dec 16, 2009
14,611
4,124
I would rather see the Norris be unchanged and have them change the Selke to include both defensive forwards and defensive defensemen. Potentially have 2 Selke trophies, one awarded to a forward and another awarded to a defenseman.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->