Thoughts on the Anaheim Ducks?

[PatrikBerglund]

Fowler is a borderline top-10 defenceman in the league.

Yeah, I said it.

Perry is hardcore-regressing.

Rakell should never play centre.

Lindholm is top-3 in the NHL, among defensive defencemen. Has zero offensive instincts.

Gibson is not a goalie a contending team wants/needs. Andersen is better.

Current Anaheim is a team that will never go beyond the second round.

 

[Flyboy34]

I don't think we're a true contender until we find another impact top 6 winger.

 

[Hockeyholic]

My thoughts are why is a perennial cup contender only averaging 92 percent of capacity through the season? Legit question.

Great team btw.

 

[Morgs]

I think they should go back to the Mighty Ducks jerseys. The design and colours are fantastic.

Other than that, I think they're better than most of the teams in the league, but I also don't think they're in the "elite". I wouldn't be surprised if they won the Cup this season, and I also wouldn't be surprised if they just missed the playoffs/eliminated in the first round.

 

[Brian McDavid]

Love the d-core. Skilled, mobile (and Manson is tough). Forwards are big/skilled albeit not that quick. If officiating in the playoffs finds some level of consistency to regular season, I doubt they beat Oil/Preds. Gibson was brutal in playoffs last year but by most accounts will have a good career. Miller as a backup is nice.

At this point I'd say:
Preds/Oilers
Chi/Anahiem (maybe Minnesota/Dallas as well).

All of these teams capable of winning the West

 

[Sol]

They WILL lose to the Flames at home this year. I promise this.

They have not materially improved or declined much in any season for the past decade. Still considered contenders as long as Getzlaf is playing.

If I recall correctly, the Ducks pounded the Flames into oblivion, and swept them. Lol.

 

[HanSolo]

Fowler is a borderline top-10 defenceman in the league.

Yeah, I said it.

Perry is hardcore-regressing.

Rakell should never play centre.

Lindholm is top-3 in the NHL, among defensive defencemen. Has zero offensive instincts.

Gibson is not a goalie a contending team wants/needs. Andersen is better.

Current Anaheim is a team that will never go beyond the second round.

Does it just not matter to anyone that Gibson is only 24 years old?

 

[Rec T]

They WILL lose to the Flames at home this year. I promise this.

No, no, no, they have to continue the streak for another 4+ years. 'Then' whoever your coach is at the time can make one of the most epic motivational speeches ever..... "Look, many of you weren't even 'born' the last time we won here.... now get out there & make history"

But on topic...

Ducks should be #1-2 in the division with a strong chance to represent the West for The Cup.

A good bit of that will depend on Perry bouncing back & Gibson staying healthy but not everything is riding on that. It should be yet another good year to be a Ducks fan.

 

[Sol]

Does it just not matter to anyone that Gibson is only 24 years old?

Nah, how many goalies drastically improve? Really hate when people bring up a goalies age, like there's much transition. Bernier never got better after he left the Kings. Gibson isn't a good goalie. Maybe I'm wrong. But his age doesn't matter.

 

[HanSolo]

Nah, how many goalies drastically improve? Really hate when people bring up a goalies age, like there's much transition. Bernier never got better after he left the Kings. Gibson isn't a good goalie. Maybe I'm wrong. But his age doesn't matter.

He was top 5 in GAA and SV%. Yeah yeah we have a good defense but Gibson was challenged plenty and played great in the regular season. He flubbed a bit in his second playoffs ever. How many goalies contend for Vezinas at age 24? Give me a break. I mean do you have more examples than just Bernier? It's a fallacy to suggest that because more goalies than not don't improve over the course of their career that means Gibson won't. There's a limited sample of goalies every generation and most of them never become stars. Gibson was touted by scouts who watched him for years to have star potential. He has TWO seasons longer than 40GP and only one full playoff run under his belt. It's absurd to write him off at this point just because he didn't pull a Matt Murray. Matt Murray is exceptional precisely because goalies usually don't step in and dominate young the way he did.

I'm not gonna knock our own defense but our defense isn't THAT good that Gibson's numbers stand as a puppet representation of how good the defenders in front of him are to say that Gibson is BAD. If Gibson was BAD the Ducks would scramble for a good young replacement (I specify as such cause Miller is there to cover for Gibson injuries. He's not a long term solution) not plant him firmly as the starter for the future. It's not like we can plant a traffic cone in net and the defense will take care of the rest. They aren't that good. We still suffer mistakes at the hands of guys like Bieksa and Holzer.

I can understand saying he's not gonna be a superstar. Or not elite. But I don't understand how one not so great playoffs, his first full run with a nagging injury makes him BAD. Maybe Andersen will end up the better goalie, it's entirely possible. But to write Gibson off already is unfair. Goalies don't have the same peaks and primes as forwards.

 

[Machinehead]

Why do people not like Gibson?

His numbers are great.

 

[Pastor Of Muppets]

I think the addition of Ryan Miller is going to be great for the Ducks...The guy singlehandedly wins games..A very astute veteran signing by GM Murray.

 

[HanSolo]

Why do people not like Gibson?

His numbers are great.

He had a rough go in his first full playoffs and obviously that should halt declarations of top ten or even top 15 star goalie until he can prove himself more. Part of it was jitters, part of it was lack of polish, but part of it was a lingering injury.

But because this young goalie didn't pull a Matt Murray in the playoffs we go all the way to declarations that Gibson is BAD. It happened in the playoffs too. A lot more then. No one cared to remember Gibson had a very strong stretch of games that kept the Ducks in the win column and it certainly wasn't just the defense.

 

[Machinehead]

Lundqvist was bad his first FOUR playoffs and then won a whole ****ing bunch of game 7's in a row.

People just pay way too much attention to individual playoff results. The samples are nothing.

Regular season numbers are better predictors of future playoff performances.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Nah, how many goalies drastically improve? Really hate when people bring up a goalies age, like there's much transition. Bernier never got better after he left the Kings. Gibson isn't a good goalie. Maybe I'm wrong. But his age doesn't matter.

Mabe your wrong... of course your wrong hes already putting up good #'s.

 

[Paul4587]

Fowler is a borderline top-10 defenceman in the league.

Yeah, I said it.

Perry is hardcore-regressing.

Rakell should never play centre.

Lindholm is top-3 in the NHL, among defensive defencemen. Has zero offensive instincts.

Gibson is not a goalie a contending team wants/needs. Andersen is better.

Current Anaheim is a team that will never go beyond the second round.

Only 1 of the things you've said there is definitely true (Rakell playing C) and 1 may be true but we can't know until next season (Perry regressing).

Lindholm is not top 3 defensively. He probably isn't even top 10. He doesn't have zero offensive instincts either, offensively he's actually pretty good at knowing when to jump into the play and getting open, injuries limited his production last season but before that he produced well for a guy in his early 20s getting 2nd unit PP time.

Gibson was better than Andersen last season. So you're wrong there.

Fowler is not a borderline top 10 defenseman. Not even the biggest Fowler homer would say that. He's realistically in the 25-50 range (depends on what attributes you value) and where he falls in that range depends on whether he can keep last years production up. Consistency and being overplayed are huge issues with Cam.


As for the OP, my thoughts are that how good the Ducks will be depends on how Getzlaf and Kesler age, the forwards rely on those two to lead the way. The D has awesome depth but lacks a high end number one guy. Coaching is iffy. Goaltending is pretty good but Gibson needs to stay healthy.

 

[HanSolo]

Only 1 of the things you've said there is definitely true (Rakell playing C) and 1 may be true but we can't know until next season (Perry regressing).

Lindholm is not top 3 defensively. He probably isn't even top 10. He doesn't have zero offensive instincts either, offensively he's actually pretty good at knowing when to jump into the play and getting open, injuries limited his production last season but before that he produced well for a guy in his early 20s getting 2nd unit PP time.

Gibson was better than Andersen last season. So you're wrong there.

Fowler is not a borderline top 10 defenseman. Not even the biggest Fowler homer would say that. He's realistically in the 25-50 range (depends on what attributes you value) and where he falls in that range depends on whether he can keep last years production up. Consistency and being overplayed are huge issues with Cam.


As for the OP, my thoughts are that how good the Ducks will be depends on how Getzlaf and Kesler age, the forwards rely on those two to lead the way. The D has awesome depth but lacks a high end number one guy. Coaching is iffy. Goaltending is pretty good but Gibson needs to stay healthy.

Yeah I'm a huge fan of Fowler's. I never let the hype die down after he fell to us (though I could've if he ended up sucking). I've felt for years that he has A.) been mismanaged by our coaches by being paired with suboptimal partners (it has always felt like Fowler has been on babysitting duty in that sense) and B.) been on the whole pretty badly underrated up until this year.

But I cannot as a fan of the game say with a straight face that he's a top ten player. When he's at his absolute best he can contend with the guys around the 14th-18th range but realistically as you said he's more around the 20-25 range. Though for a good chunk of the season he was our best defenseman at both ends and for a short time due to the lethargy of our whole team, he was our best player. Top ten in the league just isn't accurate though.

 

[Sol]

He was top 5 in GAA and SV%. Yeah yeah we have a good defense but Gibson was challenged plenty and played great in the regular season. He flubbed a bit in his second playoffs ever. How many goalies contend for Vezinas at age 24? Give me a break. I mean do you have more examples than just Bernier? It's a fallacy to suggest that because more goalies than not don't improve over the course of their career that means Gibson won't. There's a limited sample of goalies every generation and most of them never become stars. Gibson was touted by scouts who watched him for years to have star potential. He has TWO seasons longer than 40GP and only one full playoff run under his belt. It's absurd to write him off at this point just because he didn't pull a Matt Murray. Matt Murray is exceptional precisely because goalies usually don't step in and dominate young the way he did.

I'm not gonna knock our own defense but our defense isn't THAT good that Gibson's numbers stand as a puppet representation of how good the defenders in front of him are to say that Gibson is BAD. If Gibson was BAD the Ducks would scramble for a good young replacement (I specify as such cause Miller is there to cover for Gibson injuries. He's not a long term solution) not plant him firmly as the starter for the future. It's not like we can plant a traffic cone in net and the defense will take care of the rest. They aren't that good. We still suffer mistakes at the hands of guys like Bieksa and Holzer.

I can understand saying he's not gonna be a superstar. Or not elite. But I don't understand how one not so great playoffs, his first full run with a nagging injury makes him BAD. Maybe Andersen will end up the better goalie, it's entirely possible. But to write Gibson off already is unfair. Goalies don't have the same peaks and primes as forwards.

I'm just saying, I've seen many good goalies in Anaheim that go on and do nothing of their careers. This isn't an attack at your team or your fan base. As kings fan, Ive just seen highly touted goalies like Bernier come do good, and never live up to their potential. And I see that in Gibson. He's a good goalie, I just don't see him getting better, and I don't see him living close to his hype.

 

[Alluckks]

Fowler is a borderline top-10 defenceman in the league.

Yeah, I said it.

Perry is hardcore-regressing.

Rakell should never play centre.

Lindholm is top-3 in the NHL, among defensive defencemen. Has zero offensive instincts.

Gibson is not a goalie a contending team wants/needs. Andersen is better.

Current Anaheim is a team that will never go beyond the second round.

No, he isn't close.

 

[HanSolo]

I'm just saying, I've seen many good goalies in Anaheim that go on and do nothing of their careers. This isn't an attack at your team or your fan base. As kings fan, Ive just seen highly touted goalies like Bernier come do good, and never live up to their potential. And I see that in Gibson. He's a good goalie, I just don't see him getting better, and I don't see him living close to his hype.

There's a difference between not living up to his potential and being bad. The distance between elite (which, many scouts touted him as having elite potential), superstar, or even just star goalie and being a BAD goalie is immense.

Your having a bad experience with Bernier is not indicative of what will necessarily happen to Gibson. Bernier is not the standard. We as Ducks fans have watched Gibson plenty more than you have. We know he has his shortcomings right now but he has been getting better...at least up until these playoffs (I still maintain that was as much a blend of lingering injury and jitters as it was technical/ability based shortcomings). I'm sorry Bernier didn't pan out for you. But how good was Quick when he first got into the league? I mean sure at the time, LA's defense wasn't as strong but if you need a refresher here you go

Regular season/Playoffs

07-08 22 years old 3GP 85.5 sv% 3.83 GAA
08-09 23 years old 44gp 91.4 sv% 2.48 GAA
09-10 24 years old 72gp 90.7 sv% 2.54 GAA| 88.4 sv% 3.50 GAA
10-11 25 years old 61gp 91.8 sv% 2.24 GAA| 91.3 sv% 3.16 GAA
11-12 26 years old 69gp 92.9 sv% 1.95 GAA| 94.6 sv% 1.41 GAA

It took him until he was 26 years old and his third playoff run to put up elite numbers. Gibson is 24 right now. I think Quick's numbers are evidence of a goalie that improved with age, no? That's just one goalie from your own team, I'm sure there are other examples within the league. Bernier burning out isn't the rule. He isn't the exception either but to use him as the basis of your certain expectation of Gibson is a little absurd when you consider the fact that at 24 Gibson was fourth in the league in GAA and SV% in the regular season while fighting a lingering injury.

 

[Sol]

There's a difference between not living up to his potential and being bad. The distance between elite (which, many scouts touted him as having elite potential), superstar, or even just star goalie and being a BAD goalie is immense.

Your having a bad experience with Bernier is not indicative of what will necessarily happen to Gibson. Bernier is not the standard. We as Ducks fans have watched Gibson plenty more than you have. We know he has his shortcomings right now but he has been getting better...at least up until these playoffs (I still maintain that was as much a blend of lingering injury and jitters as it was technical/ability based shortcomings). I'm sorry Bernier didn't pan out for you. But how good was Quick when he first got into the league? I mean sure at the time, LA's defense wasn't as strong but if you need a refresher here you go

Regular season/Playoffs

07-08 22 years old 3GP 85.5 sv% 3.83 GAA
08-09 23 years old 44gp 91.4 sv% 2.48 GAA
09-10 24 years old 72gp 90.7 sv% 2.54 GAA| 88.4 sv% 3.50 GAA
10-11 25 years old 61gp 91.8 sv% 2.24 GAA| 91.3 sv% 3.16 GAA
11-12 26 years old 69gp 92.9 sv% 1.95 GAA| 94.6 sv% 1.41 GAA

It took him until he was 26 years old and his third playoff run to put up elite numbers. Gibson is 24 right now. I think Quick's numbers are evidence of a goalie that improved with age, no? That's just one goalie from your own team, I'm sure there are other examples within the league. Bernier burning out isn't the rule. He isn't the exception either but to use him as the basis of your certain expectation of Gibson is a little absurd when you consider the fact that at 24 Gibson was fourth in the league in GAA and SV% in the regular season while fighting a lingering injury.

Bernier had the same reports. I'm not saying he's the standard, I'm saying it happens. And what I'm also saying is that I see the same thing I saw in Bernier, that I see in Gibson. And I live in Southern California, I've
Watched the Ducks a lot. I watch about 60-65 a season of the Ducks. I'm not saying he's a bad goalie, I have a hunch he's gonna be a normal goalie. My hunches are very accurate. If I'm going to be honest, I've never really considered Quick to be an elite goalie because he lacked consistency.

 

[BlueDream]

Good team and a contender in the West but I don't see them as having enough to offset Nashville and moving forward, Edmonton plus maybe some others.

 

[Mathew Barzal]

No team with present day Bieksa on their roster is making it anywhere.

They should bomb this year, give Jones and Steel another year of development and then go full gung ho in 2019.

 

[HanSolo]

Bernier had the same reports. I'm not saying he's the standard, I'm saying it happens. And what I'm also saying is that I see the same thing I saw in Bernier, that I see in Gibson. And I live in Southern California, I've
Watched the Ducks a lot. I watch about 60-65 a season of the Ducks. I'm not saying he's a bad goalie, I have a hunch he's gonna be a normal goalie. My hunches are very accurate. If I'm going to be honest, I've never really considered Quick to be an elite goalie because he lacked consistency.

Okay well we all have hunches. I bet few had the hunch that Yakupov would be the kind of blistering failure he has been. And what do you mean by normal? To me not good is another term for bad and that's what you originally said. Do you mean he'll be a standard career starter or do you mean he's bad?

Also I didn't make the argument that Quick was elite. I don't think he's elite either. But he has been well regarded as a very good goalie. And it took him some improvement and internal team improvements to get to his peak. A peak that didn't come till he was 26. And mind you, while not being elite he still backstopped a team to two Stanley Cups. Obviously he wasn't the only reason the Kings won. Carey Price is elite and the Habs aren't anywhere close to winning a cup. So it sounds like you're saying the Ducks can't possibly win a cup with Gibson in net. That's unfair. Even in a playoff run that we can call a struggle (again with a lingering injury affecting him) the Ducks came within a stone's throw of the Finals with him in net until, in a fit of irony, Gibson succumbed to injury and Jonathan Bernier coughed up 4 goals in 16 shots to sink the Ducks in a game they played very well.

Stick to your hunches if you want but the evidence will come in how his career actually plays out.

 

[Zegras Zebra]

Perry, who scored 53 points last season and 34 goals the season before, is now at best a 3rd liner? He might be slowly starting to decline, but 3rd line players don't score 53 points. That's ridiculous.

I respect the Ducks because each season you hear the same thing about how their top players are getting older, and yet they storm out of no where each season and win the division. Guess who won the Pacific Division the last 5 years in a row? The ''declining'' Ducks. Things may eventually swing over to another team, but for now the Ducks are the team to beat in the Pacific. They are coming of a WCF appearance. Their older top players are proving each and every season to still be able to play at an elite level. Their scouting is top notch and they have one of the best Ds in the league, even after the expansion draft.

If anything the Ducks are underrated, often overlooked as a top contending team, and don't get the respect they deserve as an organisation.

I should probably clarify what I meant about Corey Perry being a 3rd liner at best. Historically it is not uncommon for elite scorers like Perry to fall off a cliff when they reach their early 30's. As a Ducks fan who pays more attention to Perry than most I can say that it appears that Perry has lost some of his edge that made him a great player when he was younger (also annoying opposing players, fans, media, etc.), and he will most likely never find it again based on his age. Sure, he can still put up some points, but I don't think he will ever top 70 points in a regular season again. The best we can hope for is that Perry plateaus at his current level and can still contribute 25 goal, 55-60 point seasons for a few years as he is a bit of a liability defensively and he is unlikely to change to a more defensive style of play.

The main reason why I said he is a third liner at best is on this team last year Carlyle was experimenting with splitting up Getzlaf and Perry to try and balance out scoring, so Perry was placed on the third line, while Getzlaf had more of a rotation of players at RW. He was put on the third line because the second line of Cogliano-Kesler-Silfverberg was a very valuable line with great chemistry so there was little point of breaking it up. After the Ducks traded with the Stars for Patrick Eaves, Perry was more permanently placed on the third line, while Getzlaf played more often with Eaves. On most teams Perry would be a first or second line player, and he still could play on the first line if Eaves is injured or if Carlyle wants to shake things up, but he for the most part isn't a first line player anymore.

Your second paragraph I agree with and if you reread my original post again I point out that the Ducks are one of the best teams in the Pacific and can still win the division, and go as far as even win the Stanley Cup. However the Oilers are a young, improving team that will likely build on their season last year and may be able to beat Anaheim for the Pacific Division crown, and in an inevitable second round playoff match up. Even if Getzlaf, Perry and Kesler begin to decline I see the Ducks as a team that mostly will just need to reload their offensive depth instead of a full scale rebuild, but that will still not be for a few more years.