OT: Jason Garrison

[StringerBell]

He's a decent second pairing defenseman who does everything well but doesn't really stand out in any way. A total Gillis defenseman in that he has a well-rounded game but isn't exceptional at any one element of the game. Still adjusting to the system but honestly I think he's pretty generic and I think Edler, Hamhuis and Bieksa are better than him. Kind of redundant in our system. I also think he's over his head when he plays on the first unit PP and his much touted slapshot takes so long to wind up that it's largely useless. But I still like him and think he'll get better.

I'm glad this thread popped up. I've been interested to hear other fans opinions on him.

I would disagree with this. Check his Florida highlights. His release is pretty quick, he's just not shooting with confidence yet.

Every aspect of his play is unconfident right now. I'm waiting to see him gain confidence in his play before making any judgements. Hopefully it doesn't take two years like it did with Ballard.

 

[Rod Buskas*]

Expectations for Garrison were way too high. Was suppose to come in and be a force on the power play. However, looked awkward and ineffective and was fairly quickly jettisoned off the power play and has not been used there since early in the season. Looks evident now that much of what he did in Florida offensively resulted from playing with a truly gifted player in Campbell.

I think it is becoming evident that Garrison is not a great skater. There is little smoothness to his play and he has to labour to make plays. I think this really shows up when he is forced to chase pucks dumped into his corner. He unable to turn fast enough or get to the puck quick enough to give himself space and time to make a play. Everything turns into a chase and puck battle in the corner. As a result the Canucks end up playing a lot in their own end when Garrison is out. I think this deficiency has been picked up by other teams and they try to exploit it.

The other problem here is that in order to try to provide himself time Garrison cheats a bit at the blueline and thus gives up the blue line line too easily.

Up to this point Garrison has been playing off his back heel and ends up mostly just trying to keep the puck to the outside and scramble the puck out of his end. He really cannot join the rush or get playing down hill in the middle ice or offensive end.

In the pre-season he had groin issues and that might explain some of the lack of mobility. However, could well be that Garrison is what he is - a pretty marginal NHL player.

I don't think anyone is making any final conclusions on Garrison but up to this point he has be a disappointment. As it is, looks like Tanev is being moved into the top 4 and Garrison to the last pairing.

flawless posting.

 

[biturbo19]

Expectations for Garrison were way too high. Was suppose to come in and be a force on the power play. However, looked awkward and ineffective and was fairly quickly jettisoned off the power play and has not been used there since early in the season. Looks evident now that much of what he did in Florida offensively resulted from playing with a truly gifted player in Campbell.

I think it is becoming evident that Garrison is not a great skater. There is little smoothness to his play and he has to labour to make plays. I think this really shows up when he is forced to chase pucks dumped into his corner. He unable to turn fast enough or get to the puck quick enough to give himself space and time to make a play. Everything turns into a chase and puck battle in the corner. As a result the Canucks end up playing a lot in their own end when Garrison is out. I think this deficiency has been picked up by other teams and they try to exploit it.

The other problem here is that in order to try to provide himself time Garrison cheats a bit at the blueline and thus gives up the blue line line too easily.

Up to this point Garrison has been playing off his back heel and ends up mostly just trying to keep the puck to the outside and scramble the puck out of his end. He really cannot join the rush or get playing down hill in the middle ice or offensive end.

In the pre-season he had groin issues and that might explain some of the lack of mobility. However, could well be that Garrison is what he is - a pretty marginal NHL player.

I don't think anyone is making any final conclusions on Garrison but up to this point he has be a disappointment. As it is, looks like Tanev is being moved into the top 4 and Garrison to the last pairing.

I agree with a lot of this actually.

But i do think that Garrison is more than a 'marginal NHLer'. Locking up this many LH-only defenders is something i suggested would be a problem before Garrison was brought on board...and i also really questioned his play in the same sense as Hjalmarsson looked really good alongside Campbell. That guy is honestly probably the most underrated defenceman in the league. He's a strange and unique example of a 'rover' who actually makes his partner look better.

As for Garrison here...his skating is definitely an issue. It's not even about straight line speed (which isn't great), but about his lateral mobility and change of direction, acceleration, and yes...the fluidity of what he's doing. He is easily the worst skater in our top-6 by a wide margin. He's clunky, awkward, and at times looks like his skates are weighted with concrete. And it legitimately creates problems for the whole team.

Nah, I think you made your final conclusion when you pushed his name for a buyout candidate in the GDT.


Question: How does a "marginal NHLer" get the 2nd toughest minutes on the team and still be a plus possession player?




Garrison's reads are slower than you would like, but I don't think his skating is a hindrance. He moves pretty well for his size. Choppy stride yes, but not a detriment. There's no poise in his game though, and that unsettles people. He "looks" worse than his results would indicate.


I think this move to the bottom pairing is just AV at his absolute worst. He needs to point at himself as a direct culprit to the way the team played the last game. Scapegoating others isn't going to move the attention away from himself.

I don't understand how an unsettling lack of poise isn't a problem though. He has looked slow to read and react to plays...slow to change directions and accelerate towards loose pucks...slow to alter reads when things go wrong...and he hasn't shown any real 'puck moving' ability to this point. It's off the wall and out...3rd pairing style with him an awful lot of the time.

I am willing to give him time to adjust here...it takes most d-men time to figure out what they're supposed to do here...but to say that he hasn't been very underwhelming for a $4.6M NTC defenceman is silly at this point.

 

[RobertKron]

I would disagree with this. Check his Florida highlights. His release is pretty quick, he's just not shooting with confidence yet.

Every aspect of his play is unconfident right now. I'm waiting to see him gain confidence in his play before making any judgements. Hopefully it doesn't take two years like it did with Ballard.

I think it could be possible that they've pulled him off of the PP so that he can get himself settled in defensively and 5-on-5 before they give him a whole other area to get used to. It seems clear that he is still getting a handle on things. It's a shame that there was no training camp or pre-season.

Also, either Mike Weaver is a top-level guy or Jason Garrison isn't a "marginal NHLer."

 

[opendoor]

Honestly, as long as guys like Hamhuis and Bieksa are playing like trash I'm having a hard time getting too worried about Garrison's play so far. The defense as a whole still isn't anywhere near up to par and he's just one part of it.

Really, how would people have felt about Hamhuis if he'd just signed here in the offseason and all we'd seen of him on the team was his season to date?

 

[vanuck]

I think this move to the bottom pairing is just AV at his absolute worst. He needs to point at himself as a direct culprit to the way the team played the last game. Scapegoating others isn't going to move the attention away from himself.

Is it scapegoating, or is it just AV shuffling the pairings around? I'm not sure. Unless there was something he said after the game that indicated Garrison was to blame?

Edit: Ignoring that, perhaps by putting him with Ballard they're also planning on easing him into the right side?

 

[orcatown]

Nah, I think you made your final conclusion when you pushed his name for a buyout candidate in the GDT.


Question: How does a "marginal NHLer" get the 2nd toughest minutes on the team and still be a plus possession player?




Garrison's reads are slower than you would like, but I don't think his skating is a hindrance. He moves pretty well for his size. Choppy stride yes, but not a detriment. There's no poise in his game though, and that unsettles people. He "looks" worse than his results would indicate.


I think this move to the bottom pairing is just AV at his absolute worst. He needs to point at himself as a direct culprit to the way the team played the last game. Scapegoating others isn't going to move the attention away from himself.

AV is watching the same thing all of us are watching and is making a rational decision. Tanev is clearly outplaying Garrison and the move helps get Edler back on his best side. All AV wants to do is win hockey games.

Frankly I had no pre-determined opinion about Garrison. I am basing everything on what I am seeing. It seems to me, instead that many insisted before the season that Garrison was a great pick up. That he would be a solid top 4 player and real good on the PP. That he would be better than Salo and improve the team. To me, the evidence, to date, is that this is not true.

I appreciate that there was substance to those beliefs but it seems to me that people are so wedded to their original opinion that they are not open to looking at the situation free of that opinion. Instead the coaches get blamed, Bieksa get blamed, Hamhuis gets blamed, the system gets blames, the forwards get blamed and so on. ...

You say there is no poise in his game, that he makes slow reads but then get upset when others say the same thing and cite them as drawbacks. There are things about his game (and I would include his choppy, clunky skating) that are not good and prevent him from doing anything more, at the moment, than play in his own end.

As far as the buy out goes it has to be at least a consideration. If Garrison continues to play as he is, if continues to sink deeper down the depth chart, if there isn't a clear up tick in his game then the buy out option has to be on the table. This is no short term deal. This a very long term commitment and money involved is what you pay to a bona vide top 4 defenseman (especially under the new CBA). If the Canucks have made a mistake here it could be crippling. The buy out offers them a safety valve.

Right now any such decision is premature. But given Garrison's play to date there has to be apprehension about his contract. To say there isn't simply, to me, means you're burying your head in the sand.

 

[Bleach Clean]

AV is watching the same thing all of us are watching and is making a rational decision. Tanev is clearly outplaying Garrison and the move helps get Edler back on his best side. All AV wants to do is win hockey games.

Frankly I had no pre-determined opinion about Garrison. I am basing everything on what I am seeing. It seems to me, instead that many insisted before the season that Garrison was a great pick up. That he would be a solid top 4 player and real good on the PP. That he would be better than Salo and improve the team. To me, the evidence, to date, is that this is not true.

I appreciate that there was substance to those beliefs but it seems to me that people are so wedded to their original opinion that they are not open to looking at the situation free of that opinion. Instead the coaches get blamed, Bieksa get blamed, Hamhuis gets blamed, the system gets blames, the forwards get blamed and so on. ...

You say there is no poise in his game, that he makes slow reads but then get upset when others say the same thing and cite them as drawbacks. There are things about his game (and I would include his choppy, clunky skating) that are not good and prevent him from doing anything more, at the moment, than play in his own end.

As far as the buy out goes it has to be at least a consideration. If Garrison continues to play as he is, if continues to sink deeper down the depth chart, if there isn't a clear up tick in his game then the buy out option has to be on the table. This is no short term deal. This a very long term commitment and money involved is what you pay to a bona vide top 4 defenseman (especially under the new CBA). If the Canucks have made a mistake here it could be crippling. The buy out offers them a safety valve.

Right now any such decision is premature. But given Garrison's play to date there has to be apprehension about his contract. To say there isn't simply, to me, means you're burying your head in the sand.

You said it best with stating that any decision is premature. I would extend that to say the consideration is premature also. That's a logical thought process, not "burying one's head in the sand". But you made that call didn't you? After 13 games? In a game where the entire team looked like crap? Well done.


It's the judgement, not the description. You and I concur on how he looks, but not how it impacts his effectiveness. Then, after 13 games, a buyout gets thrown out as a legitimate option? Gimme a break.


Fans don't see the game like AV. That much is clear. We all may be watching the same game, but we read it differently. In a game where I thought AV had lost the plot, it's awfully easy for him to push the blame. We're 22 scoring chances against on Garrison? Hardly, but AV's first move so it must be right?


13 games orca, for you to consider buyout for Garrison. 13 games. A sample that also has him put up strong underlying numbers. There just isn't enough information here to go there, but you did.

 

[leftwinglockdown]

Throwing around buyout ideas already after only a handful of games? Honestly, from what I have seen, Garrison has been fine defensively and that is the most important part for a defenseman no? Sure, he hasn't gotten it done on the PP but there are growing pains with a new team and a new system. He is playing with ~20 new teammates out there who all have their own tendencies without a full training camp due to the shortened season. Those who expected him to score 10-15 goals the instant he got here are the ones who were really burying their heads in the sand.

The stats show that he has been pretty reliable given the 21 minutes he plays per night (which are the 4th highest on the team after Edler, Hamhuis and Bieksa):

Team Goals For: 17, 5th most after Hank, Dank, Edler and Bieksa.
Team Goals Against: 12, the lowest of our top 4. Hamhuis: 17, Bieksa: 14, Edler: 14
Plus/Minus: +6, 3rd best, tied with Bieksa after Hank and Dank.
Giveaways: 6, 4th worst BUT Bieksa, Hamhuis, Edler and Kassian all lead with 10 giveaways each then Dank follows with 9 and Tanev with 7.

Relative to his teammates, Garrison has been fine if not better defensively. Comparing these stats with what he has said about his current comfort level with the system, there is a lot of potential for improvement. I personally think he can only get better as the season rolls along. My hunch about him being taken off the PP has probably more to do with giving him a lighter workload so he can focus on improving and understanding our 5on5 system.

Now about the new pairings, I'm a big Edler supporter but you have to think that the current shuffling of the pairings has more to do with getting Edler to his left-side rather than a demotion for Garrison. Edler being burned nightly on his right side does not look good on management who want him to be our #1 d-man (he's going to be paid like he is with that new contract).

 

[TheDiver*]

Throwing around buyout ideas already after only a handful of games? Honestly, from what I have seen, Garrison has been fine defensively and that is the most important part for a defenseman no? Sure, he hasn't gotten it done on the PP but there are growing pains with a new team and a new system. He is playing with ~20 new teammates out there who all have their own tendencies without a full training camp due to the shortened season. Those who expected him to score 10-15 goals the instant he got here are the ones who were really burying their heads in the sand.

The stats show that he has been pretty reliable given the 21 minutes he plays per night (which are the 4th highest on the team after Edler, Hamhuis and Bieksa):

Team Goals For: 17, 5th most after Hank, Dank, Edler and Bieksa.
Team Goals Against: 12, the lowest of our top 4. Hamhuis: 17, Bieksa: 14, Edler: 14
Plus/Minus: +6, 3rd best, tied with Bieksa after Hank and Dank.
Giveaways: 6, 4th worst BUT Bieksa, Hamhuis, Edler and Kassian all lead with 10 giveaways each then Dank follows with 9 and Tanev with 7.

Relative to his teammates, Garrison has been fine if not better defensively. Comparing these stats with what he has said about his current comfort level with the system, there is a lot of potential for improvement. I personally think he can only get better as the season rolls along. My hunch about him being taken off the PP has probably more to do with giving him a lighter workload so he can focus on improving and understanding our 5on5 system.

Now about the new pairings, I'm a big Edler supporter but you have to think that the current shuffling of the pairings has more to do with getting Edler to his left-side rather than a demotion for Garrison. Edler being burned nightly on his right side does not look good on management who want him to be our #1 d-man (he's going to be paid like he is with that new contract).

Great post.

A lot of people here think the NHL is shinny. You just go out there and play.

I know the players make it all look instinctive, but teams actually have systems in place. Players need to adjust to these systems, the new guys they are playing with, and when coming from the East, new opposition. Garrison is playing against teams this season that he would have only seen once, maybe twice last season.

He's playing with new guys at a different pace, and is playing in an entirely different system.

Its a lot harder to make that adjustment when you have no training camp! And its much easier for guys like Tanev and Hamhuis who play a fairly conservative style.

 

[rban*]

. Personally I'd take Salo at two years over Garrison right now with the way theyre both playing.

Yes but will you be saying the same when Salo gets injured or retires early after takign a big hit?

Salo is all fine and well when he's healthy. It's the times he is not that is the problem.

I think if anyone could guarantee Salo healthy for next 2 yrs Nucks would have given him a 2 yr deal no problem/

 

[SnapIt]

He looks exactly like Johnny Canuck. He'll be fine

 

[PhilMick]

He looks exactly like Johnny Canuck. He'll be fine

How did that work out for Luongo?

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Garrison is what he is: A shut down guy with a booming slapshot. The thing is we don't have any PMD defensemen who are an ideal fit for him to utilize his shot from the point. If I were AV I would try out Ballard-Garrison as a D pairing for a tryout on a couple of games to see how that goes and if Ballard can regain some of his ofensive ability.

Otherwise maybe we should just have Henrik/Schroeder be the PPQB, going with 4 forwards and a defenseman(alternate Garrison and Edler)

If all else fails acquire a rental like Visnovsky at the deadline as a last effort to fix our PP.

 

[rban*]

Over the course of the whole yr, I wouldn't expect him to score anything like 15 goals.. because in Fla the only otehr offensive Dman was Campbell.

Here, Edler will score goals, Bieksa will score, and heck even Hamhuis (who is more of a defensive shut down guy) will pot a few.

So exactly how many goals and points will the defense generate? And if Edler and Bieksa are getting a lot of these pts, how much is left for Ballard and Garrison?

It would be amazing if over the course of a whole season, each of Edler Bieksa Ballard Garrison got 10 goals and 30 pts, but it probably wont happen.

Not enough ice time, not enough PP time to go around for that.

 

[medgett]

You said it best with stating that any decision is premature. I would extend that to say the consideration is premature also. That's a logical thought process, not "burying one's head in the sand". But you made that call didn't you? After 13 games? In a game where the entire team looked like crap? Well done.


It's the judgement, not the description. You and I concur on how he looks, but not how it impacts his effectiveness. Then, after 13 games, a buyout gets thrown out as a legitimate option? Gimme a break.


Fans don't see the game like AV. That much is clear. We all may be watching the same game, but we read it differently. In a game where I thought AV had lost the plot, it's awfully easy for him to push the blame. We're 22 scoring chances against on Garrison? Hardly, but AV's first move so it must be right?


13 games orca, for you to consider buyout for Garrison. 13 games. A sample that also has him put up strong underlying numbers. There just isn't enough information here to go there, but you did.

I don't think we can really say that Garrison has met expectations to this point in the season. Orcatown's assessment of his skating and his inability to give himself time is bang on. A symptom of this I'd like people to watch for here is how many times he rings pucks up the boards for the forward. I recall a few seasons ago Bowness saying this is a stat the coaching staff keeps and it is seen as a negative thing. This leads to many giveaways by wingers or, at the very least, a puck battle as it puts them in an awkward position to play the puck. Garrison not only does not get to the puck quickly, but when he gets there he hasn't had a look around to know what he's going to do with it. This leads to him turning back into the wall and engaging in a battle more often than not. Where his skating's an issue IMO, is in joining the play as the canucks come up the ice. In this system, the defence has been extremely active in closing the gap between our forwards and our d men. This helps support the play, limits opponent's transition opportunities and helps to keep pucks in and keep pressure on offesively. Garrison often lags far behind the play as the team breaks out and on the o zone entry. Lastly, his vaunted slap shot has been terribly inaccurate when he has gotten it off and he doesn't move well to give himself opportunities to get it off. Those are the negatives.

His defensive play and positioning in his own zone is actually quite good. Although I feel he leads to us spending a lot of time in our own zone, he does more than his fair share to prevent that leading to a goal. He isn't beaten as often 1 on 1 as Bieksa or Edler and he's smart enough and strong enough to get good positioning in front of his own net to protect against rebounds. That's the positive and it actually makes up for quite a lot.

At this point, many have made up reasons why the negatives exist and some may be valid. For instance, not making quick decisions with the puck, not moving to get himself shooting opportunities and making the simple wrap around the boards play may all be symptomatic of a guy who's not quite acclaimated to the system. Also, some have pointed to the groin injury. He wasn't scouted as a 'clunky' skater, which is the exact term for it, so perhaps he's still suffering somewhat from that. This might account for a guy being slow to join the play and being slow back to the puck. These are all perfectly reasonable arguments, but they all could just as easily be wrong.

I might be reading into this incorrectly, but as far as I can tell, Orcatown's point is that, f these issues are rectified over the course of the season, Garrison should be one of the guys considered for a buy out this summer. To say that a guy should be bought out now is definitely premature, but to say that if his play continues this way, it should be a consideration is not illogical.

 

[opendoor]

Which defenseman has met expectations so far though? Maybe Tanev? Ballard has looked OK but he's also getting soft minutes and has still racked up a ton of minor penalties.

Like I said above, Garrison is getting singled out because he has no history with the team. If what we've seen so far this year was all we knew of Bieksa or Hamhuis people would be dreading having them tied up long term as well. People naturally put their play in context of what they've seen in the past and give them some leeway. And those guys aren't even getting used to a new team and system yet they're still playing some of their poorest hockey in the last couple of years.

 

[Babs]

Look at who he's been paired with. Casual Kev and Wrong Handed Edler. Bieksa (my favourite Canuck) is good for several bone headed TO's a game and the same for Edler this year. How is a guy playing on a completely different team supposed to get any offensive momentum going when he is constantly covering up for these two. I might add that looking at his numbers he's been cleaning up their messes quite nicely.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Medgett, if it's logical to point out that Garrison is a buyout candidate this early in the game, if he continues as is, is it just as logical to say the same thing about Hamuis or Bieksa? Both of whom have played brutal hockey for the start of the season?


I mean, if we are watching every player with clean eyes, as Orca claims he is, why did he not list Hamhuis of Bieksa as potential buyout options? Could there be a bias here?


It's funny, he claims some are married to their opinion and have their collective heads stuck in the sand about Garrison, yet you can spot the clear bias in his evaluation. He is unwittingly granting the old hands a free pass and goin after the easiest target. Because he doesn't have the history here. Yet, to my eye, he's been a shade or more better than Hamhuis or Bieksa. Where's the balance? Where's the patience?

 

[Babs]

Medgett, if it's logical to point out that Garrison is a buyout candidate this early in the game, if he continues as is, is it just as logical to say the same thing about Hamuis or Bieksa? Both of whom have played brutal hockey for the start of the season?


I mean, if we are watching every player with clean eyes, as Orca claims he is, why did he not list Hamhuis of Bieksa as potential buyout options? Could there be a bias here?


It's funny, he claims some are married to their opinion and have their collective heads stuck in the sand about Garrison, yet you can spot the clear bias in his evaluation. He is unwittingly granting the old hands a free pass and goin after the easiest target. Because he doesn't have the history here. Yet, to my eye, he's been a shade or more better than Hamhuis or Bieksa. Where's the balance? Where's the patience?

As with most Canuck fans it seems the patience comes back when we win.

 

[Outside99*]

Main reason for pairing change is imo a) getting Hamhuis and Bieksa back together and b) Edler back on his proper side. coaches are going with what they know works. Tanev doesn't have Salos experience but he's more mobile.

For the rest of speculation, its way too early.

 

[orcatown]

I don't think we can really say that Garrison has met expectations to this point in the season. Orcatown's assessment of his skating and his inability to give himself time is bang on. A symptom of this I'd like people to watch for here is how many times he rings pucks up the boards for the forward. I recall a few seasons ago Bowness saying this is a stat the coaching staff keeps and it is seen as a negative thing. This leads to many giveaways by wingers or, at the very least, a puck battle as it puts them in an awkward position to play the puck. Garrison not only does not get to the puck quickly, but when he gets there he hasn't had a look around to know what he's going to do with it. This leads to him turning back into the wall and engaging in a battle more often than not. Where his skating's an issue IMO, is in joining the play as the canucks come up the ice. In this system, the defence has been extremely active in closing the gap between our forwards and our d men. This helps support the play, limits opponent's transition opportunities and helps to keep pucks in and keep pressure on offesively. Garrison often lags far behind the play as the team breaks out and on the o zone entry. Lastly, his vaunted slap shot has been terribly inaccurate when he has gotten it off and he doesn't move well to give himself opportunities to get it off. Those are the negatives.

His defensive play and positioning in his own zone is actually quite good. Although I feel he leads to us spending a lot of time in our own zone, he does more than his fair share to prevent that leading to a goal. He isn't beaten as often 1 on 1 as Bieksa or Edler and he's smart enough and strong enough to get good positioning in front of his own net to protect against rebounds. That's the positive and it actually makes up for quite a lot.

At this point, many have made up reasons why the negatives exist and some may be valid. For instance, not making quick decisions with the puck, not moving to get himself shooting opportunities and making the simple wrap around the boards play may all be symptomatic of a guy who's not quite acclaimated to the system. Also, some have pointed to the groin injury. He wasn't scouted as a 'clunky' skater, which is the exact term for it, so perhaps he's still suffering somewhat from that. This might account for a guy being slow to join the play and being slow back to the puck. These are all perfectly reasonable arguments, but they all could just as easily be wrong.

I might be reading into this incorrectly, but as far as I can tell, Orcatown's point is that, f these issues are rectified over the course of the season, Garrison should be one of the guys considered for a buy out this summer. To say that a guy should be bought out now is definitely premature, but to say that if his play continues this way, it should be a consideration is not illogical.

Very thoughtful post. I have emphasized myself the the buy out is premature. Only thing I ever said was thank god the option is there. Maybe Garrison starts to play up to his salary and all this goes away. But until he does I think any degree of foresight has leads to a consideration of that option.

This becomes even more a point of discussion if Garrison has some chronic groin problems (which, has has been suggested may provide some explanation for his play).

I think we have to be cautious that Garrison does not become some whipping boy to explain away some very poor defensive play by the team. Other defensemen have had some very obvious difficulties as well. But we know that Bieksa, Edler , and Hamhuis are, or have been, excellent defenseman, and are fully worth what they are getting. Garrison is much more of an unknown, at least with this team, and he needs to start proving that he is worth the type of dollars and term he was given.

The point of this thread is to IMO to say where Garrison is now. Maybe some projections can see him differently. But those are projections. As it is, there are several major issues with how Garrison has played (most especially his inability to contribute at all to the offense) and these are admitted by even those that try to defend Garrison. He needs time but based on the present evidence there has be concern.

To me, the most irrelevant posts here are the ones that say we should even think about how Garrison is playing because someone else is playing bad. IMO that is senseless especially given that the thread is an attempt to focus on Garrison.

Might also say that the buyout would be huge and that whether team ownership would consider such a expenditure would be open to question.

 

[medgett]

Medgett, if it's logical to point out that Garrison is a buyout candidate this early in the game, if he continues as is, is it just as logical to say the same thing about Hamuis or Bieksa? Both of whom have played brutal hockey for the start of the season?


I mean, if we are watching every player with clean eyes, as Orca claims he is, why did he not list Hamhuis of Bieksa as potential buyout options? Could there be a bias here?


It's funny, he claims some are married to their opinion and have their collective heads stuck in the sand about Garrison, yet you can spot the clear bias in his evaluation. He is unwittingly granting the old hands a free pass and goin after the easiest target. Because he doesn't have the history here. Yet, to my eye, he's been a shade or more better than Hamhuis or Bieksa. Where's the balance? Where's the patience?

I don't really think this is true. It may be confusing the point to go into this, but if we actually look at the games of Bieksa and Hamhuis, IMO they've started to turn it around. It seems that defensemen took a lot longer to get going than forwards after the lockout and they struggled as a unit initially. I actually did have some concern for Bieksa very early on as some of the nonchalant and lackadaisacal play that nearly led to his being traded away in 2009 had seemed to creep back into his game. That said, when he's on, he skates exceptionally well, he's physical and he stays right with the play up and down the ice. This is more of the player I've seen after a slow start, although in the Chicago game its as though he forgot that breakaways against are a bad thing. Still, he has 4 goals and 6 points in his last 7 games and is a plus 6 over that stretch. Hamhuis obviously doesn't show up in the same ways as Bieksa and many point to his -2 rating as being unacceptable for a supposedly stalwart stay at home defenseman. If we dig a little deeper, we see that he was -3 through the first three games of the year and since then has been a minus in only 2 games since. He's a +1 through that stretch of his last 12 games which isn't bad since he gets the toughest assignments each game. Any struggles he's had since I'd be more inclined to chalk up to the 'good eddy, bad eddy' personality of his partner. Edler is actually the only other defenseman that I'd say is not meeting expectations right now.

Similarly, he's coming off the huge extension and is expected to produce somewhat offensively. The struggle with Edler is and always will be consistency though, not ability. His good moments are great and although its infuriating to watch him fumble the puck out over the line on the PP or make a terrible read on a pinch, he gives you reasons on an almost nightly basis as to why he has the contract he does. Looking at the blue line as a unit, Bieksa and Hamhuis are clearly rounding into form, Edler is still inconsistent and this is perhaps part of the reason to put him with Tanev, who along with Ballard, have clearly exceeded expectations. Garrison is the only one to this point who hasn't shown marked improvement since the start of the year and doesn't have a body of work built up to give him credibility IMO. Again, as I said previously, there are perfectly logical explanaitons provided for this, but until his play turns around, it is a concern.

 

[Tiranis]

Points and +/- don't really tell the whole story. Bieksa doesn't pass the eye test or the advanced stats test. He has been the worst defenseman this whole season. He's pretty much benefiting from some lucky bounces right now. If his play doesn't improve soon, he'll find himself on the wrong end of the +/- scale very quickly.

 

[medgett]

Points and +/- don't really tell the whole story. Bieksa doesn't pass the eye test or the advanced stats test. He has been the worst defenseman this whole season. He's pretty much benefiting from some lucky bounces right now. If his play doesn't improve soon, he'll find himself on the wrong end of the +/- scale very quickly.

Like I said, may be confusing the point, but perhaps you'd like to back this up a little bit. The eye test is totally subjective and I'd suggest that IMO, he's passing the eye test of late, the Chicago game notwithstanding.