Rate the defensemen on your team!

[zar]

Lightning

Hedman-2
Stralman- low3/high4
Sustr-low4/high5
Garrison-6
Coburn-6
Nesterov- healthy scratch/7

TB needs D help

If Hedman is a #2, what the hell does a #1 look like? Can you please talk to the Lightning about a GM job.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

Lindholm 1
Fowler 2
Vatanen 3 with upside of 2
Depres 3 when healthy, 5 now
Bieksa 8
Stoner 6
Manson 3/4
Holzer 6/7

 

[FlaPanthers11]

holy hyperbole on ekblad. First two games weren't his best for his standards, but he has still been good compared to the average defenseman in the NHL.

Uh no he hasn't.

 

[major major]

IMO it all goes down to this age old argument:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2118805

And for reasons like this current thread is why I'm in the minority on the poll in that linked thread.

Take the defenseman on the Coyotes top pairing OEL and Connor Murphy for example. Let's say for sake of debate that OEL is considered the consensus 10th best defenseman in the league and Connor Murphy is 110th.

Murphy still plays top pair minutes but he's not a #2 as such because in the grand scheme of NHL defensemen he's not that good.

Likewise if Doughty is considered the 1st ranked defenseman in the league and the Coyotes traded for him, OEL is still a #1 defenseman despite not being the best one on his team anymore.

Yeah this thread is exhibit A for why we need shared definitions, and why dividing the D-pool into groups of 30 is the simplest way to do it. People are arguing here over the quality of the players, or so they think, when what could be going in is just differences in definitions.

 

[10coach*]

Suter - 1
Spurgeon - 2/3
Scandella - 3
Brodin - 3
Dumba - 5(#1 PP)
Folin - 6
Reilly -6
Prosser- 7

Pretty good list. Scandy and Brodin of course are in that 2/3 range on a lot of teams. Spurgeon is a low end 1 or top tier 2 for sure. You guys are spoiled.

 

[biturbo19]

I have a hard time with the strict 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 classification. Don't think it really accurately reflects things in this day and age, too prone to misrepresentation by how a coach spreads his wealth around/chemistry/etc. So i'd break it down a bit differently, but i'd say...




Edler- Top Pairing D.
Tanev- Top-3 D.
Hutton- Top-3 D.
Gudbranson- Top-4 D.
Larsen- Top-6 D, though he's at times surprised playing well as a Top-4 guy.
Sbisa- Top-6 D.
Biega- 7th D.
Tryamkin- AHLer stuck in the NHL due to Russian contract shenanigans.

 

[nobody0211]

If Hedman is a #2, what the hell does a #1 look like? Can you please talk to the Lightning about a GM job.

Only reason I don't think hes a #1 is he seems to want to get rid of the puck way too fast on the PP. Being the QB on the PP is a big deal and he seems to not want the puck on his stick.

I also think he takes some shifts off, where he looks lackadaisical sometimes.

Seriously with the GM remark? You whine everytime somebody says something you don't agree with?

 

[I am not exposed]

holy hyperbole on ekblad. First two games weren't his best for his standards, but he has still been good compared to the average defenseman in the NHL.

No he hasn't. And that game against Washington hardly helped!

 

[robbieberns]

Faulk #2
Slavin #2
Hanifin #3
Pesce #4
Hainsey #6
Dahlbeck #6/7
Nakladal #6/7
Murphy #7

 

[gorangers0525]

If Hedman is a #2, what the hell does a #1 look like? Can you please talk to the Lightning about a GM job.

Lmao Stralman as a #4 is just as funny. Both are top 30 defenseman, with Hedman without a doubt being top 5...

 

[Viqsi]

Jones - #2
Werenski - #2 (no, really, he's been ludicrously incredible)
Murray - #2
Johnson - #4
Savard - #4
Nutivaara - #6
Prout - #7

 

[Paradoc]

Rielly #2
Gardiner #4
Zaitsev #4/5
Marincin #5
Carrick #6
Polak #6/7
Hunwick #7
Corrado #7

No wonder our defence sucks.

 

[Canadienna]

Shea Weber #1
Jeff Petry #3
Andrei Markov #3
Nathan Beaulieu #4
Alexei Emelin #4
Greg Pateryn #6

 

[Playmaker09]

I asked the same question. Just go with it. As far as I understand the #1 or #3 is the anchor or better player on the pairing.

Any input would be awesome.

IMO a #3 is even more important than a #2. #2s are just complimentary Dmen who can log 22-25 minutes a game.

Looking at some of the past Stanley Cup winners you have: Pronger/Niedermayer, Keith/Hjalmarsson, Lidstrom/Kronwall, Doughty/Voynov, Chara/Boychuk. Having one of those two on the ice for 50 minutes a game is incredible.

The #2s on those teams are far less impactful (and probably replaceable to a degree). Beauchemin, Seabrook, Rafalski, Mitchell/Muzzin, Seidenberg etc.

 

[OmniSens]

Karlsson - 1
Phaneuf - 3
Methot - 4
Ceci - 5
Borowiecki - 7 (NHL) - 4 (AHL)
Wideman - 6 (NHL) - 2 (AHL)

 

[Sensinitis]

Wideman won best dman award in AHL, I don't think he's a 2 there.

 

[Boud]

Karlsson #1
Methot #3
Phaneuf #4
Ceci #5
Wideman #5
Borowiecki #7

Exact same list for me.

 

[biturbo19]

IMO a #3 is even more important than a #2. #2s are just complimentary Dmen who can log 22-25 minutes a game.

Looking at some of the past Stanley Cup winners you have: Pronger/Niedermayer, Keith/Hjalmarsson, Lidstrom/Kronwall, Doughty/Voynov, Chara/Boychuk. Having one of those two on the ice for 50 minutes a game is incredible.

The #2s on those teams are far less impactful (and probably replaceable to a degree). Beauchemin, Seabrook, Rafalski, Mitchell/Muzzin, Seidenberg etc.

That's where i don't think the whole 1/2/3/4 concept really represents things anymore. The difference between a #2 and a often has more to do with chemistry, handedness mix on a team, and how a coach wants to balance their depth.

I think it makes more sense to just call guys by what sort of pairing they could feasibly anchor, rather than where they actually end up playing on their respective team.

Franchise D= Anchor a top pairing with just about anyone beside them.

Top-pairing= Anchor a decent or better top pairing.

Top-3 D= Anchor a very good 2nd pairing, or play second fiddle on a very strong top pairing.

Top-4D= Play Top-4 minutes, maybe even on a top-pairing, but won't really anchor a Top-4 pairing. Would anchor a terrific 3rd pairing.

Top-6D= Quality bottom-pairing guys who you still really don't want to have pushed up the lineup for any length of time.



Otherwise you end up with guys who are great complementary pieces to a Franchise Defenceman who play on the top pairing, even though you wouldn't really want to count on them to carry a 2nd pairing of their own. Or guys who could easily play on a terrific top-pairing, who are split off to carry a 2nd pairing of their own because of the value that depth brings. It's all too fluid and situation to label things that strictly these days i think. Have to give it a sort of built in +/- range based on what sort of pairing they could carry as the "go-to guy".

 

[major major]

Slavin a #1 and Werenski a #2 LOL. Some people really overrate their young players.

Any reason why a Flyers fan would knock the Canes and Jackets young D? Roo Mad Bro?

I can't speak for Slavin, but how exactly are you supposed to rank Werenski when he's never played an NHL game where he hasn't been a top pair quality player, and literally on the top pair? Just pick an arbitrary number like #4 and raise it as the GP goes up?

 

[major major]

IMO a #3 is even more important than a #2. #2s are just complimentary Dmen who can log 22-25 minutes a game.

Looking at some of the past Stanley Cup winners you have: Pronger/Niedermayer, Keith/Hjalmarsson, Lidstrom/Kronwall, Doughty/Voynov, Chara/Boychuk. Having one of those two on the ice for 50 minutes a game is incredible.

The #2s on those teams are far less impactful (and probably replaceable to a degree). Beauchemin, Seabrook, Rafalski, Mitchell/Muzzin, Seidenberg etc.

Keep in mind most folks on this thread aren't using that definition. It's sort of implied by the word "rank" that we are talking about quality not usage.

Look one post below yours. Marc Methot has long been the "complementary D" next to Karlsson but Sens fans aren't calling him a #2, because he's not that good. And Hjalmarsson is ranked as top pair quality by every Hawks fan.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Any reason why a Flyers fan would knock the Canes and Jackets young D? Roo Mad Bro?

I can't speak for Slavin, but how exactly are you supposed to rank Werenski when he's never played an NHL game where he hasn't been a top pair quality player, and literally on the top pair? Just pick an arbitrary number like #4 and raise it as the GP goes up?

Based on TOI looks like he's the #4. Saying he's a #2 is definitely premature.

 

[MessierII]

Larsson #2 with upside
Klefbom high end #3 with upside
Sekera #3
Russel #4/5
Davidson #4/5 with upside
Nurse #6 with upside
Gryba #6/7

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Mike green. Top pair
Sproul. #4
Ericsson (surprisingly) or Danny
Above. (Both 4)
Marchenko #6
Smith (hasn't been that good so far) #6

I'd slot ouellet above march 2

 

[Viqsi]

Based on TOI looks like he's the #4. Saying he's a #2 is definitely premature.

His most common partner is Seth Jones. That goes some way towards why he keeps getting referred to as #2.

JJ and Savard also tend to get a lot more PK time, as that plays to their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses.

 

[major major]

Based on TOI looks like he's the #4. Saying he's a #2 is definitely premature.

That was surprising to me. I looked into it and it's just because the team has been shorthanded far more than on the powerplay. If those evened out Werenski would be #2 in minutes. He has currently about 5x the pp minutes of the next D, Jones. In those measly 7 minutes, Werenski has scored twice and his unit has a total of 4 goals. They've taken themselves off the ice very quickly by scoring. So he'd literally be more of a #2D, by your definition, if he scored less.

Again, I'm just saying "#2, so far". Declaring someone a #2 is just as premature as declaring him #4, only less arbitrary. If you prefer we can just not count him.