Player Discussion Victor Mete: Part II

[Runner77]

Falk, Dunn, Tarasenko, Steen, Perron Schwartz and Barbashev are all 6’’0 or under

Also, Montreal’s D (aside from Mete)

- Chiarot 6’’3
- Fleury 6’’1
- Folin 6’’4
- Kulak 6’’2
- Petry 6’’3
- Reilly 6’’1
- Weber 6’’4

It’s not like we truly are missing big, heavy D

The argument was about certain teams favoring players with size on their D. I don't think Montreal is one of those teams since they're willing to play a 5'9 D in their top 4. I'm merely suggesting some teams make it a building strategy.

All of the Blues's D don't matter to this discussion unless they're playing in the top 4.

Their top 4 right now:

Gunnarsson 6'2 198 Pietrangelo 6'3 210
Bouwmeester 6'4 206 Parayko 6'6 230

Mete at 5'9 187 would not fit their roster building strategy in a top 4 role. This was not 8 years ago, it's happening now. And unlike your theory about losing teams with big players on D, you can't use that argument about the Blues, who have the blueprint for a SC team right now that I am certain, several other teams would love to emulate given how the NHL is a copycat league.

 

[26Mats]

Dont care what you say our d is small.

????

NAME	AGE	HT	WT	SHOT	BIRTH PLACE	BIRTHDATE
	Ben Chiarot8	28	6' 3"	219 lbs	L	Hamilton, ON	05/09/91
	Cale Fleury20	20	6' 2"	199 lbs	R	Carlyle, SK	11/19/98
	Christian Folin32	28	6' 3"	214 lbs	R	Kungsbacka, Sweden	02/09/91
	Brett Kulak17	25	6' 2"	187 lbs	L	Edmonton, AB	01/06/94
	Victor Mete53	21	5' 9"	181 lbs	L	Toronto, ON	06/07/98
	Jeff Petry26	31	6' 3"	204 lbs	R	Ann Arbor, MI	12/09/87
	Mike Reilly28	26	6' 2"	195 lbs	L	Chicago, IL	07/13/93
	Shea Weber6	34	6' 4"	236 lbs	R	Sicamous, BC	08/14/85

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[HBDay]

????

NAME	AGE	HT	WT	SHOT	BIRTH PLACE	BIRTHDATE
	Ben Chiarot8	28	6' 3"	219 lbs	L	Hamilton, ON	05/09/91
	Cale Fleury20	20	6' 2"	199 lbs	R	Carlyle, SK	11/19/98
	Christian Folin32	28	6' 3"	214 lbs	R	Kungsbacka, Sweden	02/09/91
	Brett Kulak17	25	6' 2"	187 lbs	L	Edmonton, AB	01/06/94
	Victor Mete53	21	5' 9"	181 lbs	L	Toronto, ON	06/07/98
	Jeff Petry26	31	6' 3"	204 lbs	R	Ann Arbor, MI	12/09/87
	Mike Reilly28	26	6' 2"	195 lbs	L	Chicago, IL	07/13/93
	Shea Weber6	34	6' 4"	236 lbs	R	Sicamous, BC	08/14/85

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

????

NAME	AGE	HT	WT	SHOT	BIRTH PLACE	BIRTHDATE
	Ben Chiarot8	28	6' 3"	219 lbs	L	Hamilton, ON	05/09/91
	Cale Fleury20	20	6' 2"	199 lbs	R	Carlyle, SK	11/19/98
	Christian Folin32	28	6' 3"	214 lbs	R	Kungsbacka, Sweden	02/09/91
	Brett Kulak17	25	6' 2"	187 lbs	L	Edmonton, AB	01/06/94
	Victor Mete53	21	5' 9"	181 lbs	L	Toronto, ON	06/07/98
	Jeff Petry26	31	6' 3"	204 lbs	R	Ann Arbor, MI	12/09/87
	Mike Reilly28	26	6' 2"	195 lbs	L	Chicago, IL	07/13/93
	Shea Weber6	34	6' 4"	236 lbs	R	Sicamous, BC	08/14/85

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

It was a total joke, our d is not small, and with cale and weber, they can play a heavy punishing game as well.

 

[Mrb1p]

If Chiarot is in fact your TOI leader on the left side, then he's playing out of his element. And that's not based on reputation -- he doesn't have the talent to be a first pairing D. Nor is Mete a first pairing D. So the Habs do not currently have a first pairing D on their roster is all.

Habs don't have a number one D either, and Petry/Weber are used as such, its a common sight in Habs land. No #2 RW, no #1 C, no #1D, no #3D, no #1 LW... The team lacks talent all over the place.

Honestly, these don't really matter though, as every team has had success while missing #x and #y players. Just taking the Blues as an example, they had Edmundson and Bouwmeester as their top used LDs, none of them are better than Mete and they certainly are not top pair LDs. Yet they still won. They didn't really have a top LW and they won regardless. They had strengths elsewhere.

 

[Baksfamous112]

The argument was about certain teams favoring players with size on their D. I don't think Montreal is one of those teams since they're willing to play a 5'9 D in their top 4. I'm merely suggesting some teams make it a building strategy.

All of the Blues's D don't matter to this discussion unless they're playing in the top 4.

Their top 4 right now:

Gunnarsson 6'2 198 Pietrangelo 6'3 210
Bouwmeester 6'4 206 Parayko 6'6 230

Mete at 5'9 187 would not fit their roster building strategy in a top 4 role. This was not 8 years ago, it's happening now. And unlike your theory about losing teams with big players on D, you can't use that argument about the Blues, who have the blueprint for a SC team right now that I am certain, several other teams would love to emulate given how the NHL is a copycat league.

Except that Dunn was one of their most trusted and used D last playoff and he’s listed at 6’0 and after seeing him in real life, I would say he’s more like 5’’10

 

[Runner77]

Yes, and I pretty much showed you it wasnt true. There is no team with such bias in 2019. STL is the only big team in the western conference, and it didnt stop then from using Dunn when he came in the league at 5'11, it didnt stop them from using Faulk whos 6' and soft as a ripe banana or Shattenkirk whos even smaller.

As per our discussion in prior posts, the argument is about Mete in a top 4 capacity. I'm working with those players on the Blues who are in the top 4, where Mete would be vying for a spot. As I've just shown in my prior post, Mete would not break into the Blues's D right now given how their top 4 is constructed and the type of players they are valuing right now in those positions.

Anaheim is another team known for being big and they are using below average Ds in size like Mahura, Del Zotto and Vatanen.

Continuing with the top 4 argument, which is what Mete would have to break into to make the Ducks.

Ducks top 4 is:

Mahura 6'1 192 Fowler 6'2 206
Lindholm 6'3 211 Gudbranson 6'5 217

Anaheim favors bigger, heavy D as is evident from their roster. Fox shows 19 D in their organization and only 2 are below 6': Chris Wideman and Dawson Davidson. From the remaining 16, 12 of them are almost 200 lbs. or over.

Dallas is another of the "heavy" team and they have used small dmen like Kris Russel, Honka and Sekeraj.

Looking at Dallas's top 4, where Mete would slot if he were part of their team:

Lindell 6'3 215 Klingberg 6'2 180
Oleksiak 6'7 255 Heiskanen 6'1 185

Again, not likely Mete would be a consideration for them in their roster building strategy.

Out of the 21 D in their system, only two are below 6' (the two are 5'11 and they are Joel Hanley and Emil Djuse). Nine from this group is 200 lbs or more.

Conclusion: for all the three teams you named, Mete is significantly smaller in height and weight vs. the top 4 all of those teams are favoring. Also, from an organizational standpoint, the Blues, the Ducks and Stars all have a very notable size bias when it comes to the D in their system. Mete would be unlikely to be part of these teams based on their roster building approach.

Every team in the league would pick the 6'3 guy at equal talent, but these guys dont run the streets.

Those full package players are more rare and require an early pick, or some incredible luck if picked later coupled with competent development. However, there are teams like the Blues, Ducks and Stars who will keep drafting such players even in later rounds while other teams will mine for talent at all costs and loosen the height/bias filter.

 

[Mrb1p]

The argument was about certain teams favoring players with size on their D. I don't think Montreal is one of those teams since they're willing to play a 5'9 D in their top 4. I'm merely suggesting some teams make it a building strategy.

All of the Blues's D don't matter to this discussion unless they're playing in the top 4.

Their top 4 right now:

Gunnarsson 6'2 198 Pietrangelo 6'3 210
Bouwmeester 6'4 206 Parayko 6'6 230

Mete at 5'9 187 would not fit their roster building strategy in a top 4 role. This was not 8 years ago, it's happening now. And unlike your theory about losing teams with big players on D, you can't use that argument about the Blues, who have the blueprint for a SC team right now that I am certain, several other teams would love to emulate given how the NHL is a copycat league.

Thats a bit misleading as Gunnarsson is not one of the Blues top 4 Dman at all. Gunnarsson has the least ETOI of the regulars and he's used on the PK. Their actual top 4 is Pietrangelo, Parayko, Bouwmeester and Faulk. Faulk is 6' and one of the softest player in the league. Other than that, thats really skewed because the Blues don't just build around big players because theyre big, they build around big players because theyre good. If Parayko and Pietrangelo were 5'11 and had the same impact, you believe they would've shipped em out ? Sorry but thats a bit asinine.

 

[Runner77]

Habs don't have a number one D either, and Petry/Weber are used as such, its a common sight in Habs land. No #2 RW, no #1 C, no #1D, no #3D, no #1 LW... The team lacks talent all over the place.

That's a separate argument. Dealing with Mete as per the argument as to whether he would be considered eligible for certain teams who have a clear cut size bias when it comes to their D. Of course, I don't disagree that the Habs have other holes but that's for another thread.

Honestly, these don't really matter though, as every team has had success while missing #x and #y players. Just taking the Blues as an example, they had Edmundson and Bouwmeester as their top used LDs, none of them are better than Mete and they certainly are not top pair LDs. Yet they still won. They didn't really have a top LW and they won regardless. They had strengths elsewhere.

That's not the argument. The Blues have a very pronounced size bias when it comes to their D. Mete would not fit their strategy.

 

[Runner77]

Thats a bit misleading ...Sorry but thats a bit asinine.

Dude, if you're going to move the goal posts repeatedly and use crass and uncalled for derogatory and condescending qualifiers like "asinine", then we're done. You have a difficult time holding a basic argument without going all over the place. We're arguing size. I've dug up the stats for all 3 teams you've claimed did not fit the narrative. You're wrong. End of story. I'm not wasting any more time digging up stuff while you're moving goal posts and essentially pulling stuff out of your ass cause everyone knows in here, you can't admit you're wrong even when you are.

 

[DangerDave]

I think we're putting too much emphasis on height here. At the end of the day, Mete is such a good skater and he's so smart that he rarely gets hit. He's one of the best I've ever seen against the rush due to his gap control. He's also really effective against the cycle because of how quick and aggressive he is.

Whatever disadvantages that typically come with small Dmen, Mete overcomes.

 

[Runner77]

Except that Dunn was one of their most trusted and used D last playoff and he’s listed at 6’0 and after seeing him in real life, I would say he’s more like 5’’10

I didn't make up his vitals. I've quoted them verbatim.

 

[angusyoung]

Jumping in to add my 2 cents, Mete is still to be determined what he will be. Sound on D, and played with the appropriate partner,size doesn't factor all that much in the equation. Contingent on the rest of the D will determine where he is best utilized and when for how long. Regardless,would not really like to have 2 same sized D out of 6 of his stature or minutely above. He might be another Francis Boulion or a lesser Krug, TBD.

 

[Mrb1p]

As per our discussion in prior posts, the argument is about Mete in a top 4 capacity. I'm working with those players on the Blues who are in the top 4, where Mete would be vying for a spot. As I've just shown in my prior post, Mete would not break into the Blues's D right now given how their top 4 is constructed and the type of players they are valuing right now in those positions.



Continuing with the top 4 argument, which is what Mete would have to break into to make the Ducks.

Ducks top 4 is:

Mahura 6'1 192 Fowler 6'2 206
Lindholm 6'3 211 Gudbranson 6'5 217

Anaheim favors bigger, heavy D as is evident from their roster. Fox shows 19 D in their organization and only 2 are below 6': Chris Wideman and Dawson Davidson. From the remaining 16, 12 of them are almost 200 lbs. or over.



Looking at Dallas's top 4, where Mete would slot if he were part of their team:

Lindell 6'3 215 Klingberg 6'2 180
Oleksiak 6'7 255 Heiskanen 6'1 185

Again, not likely Mete would be a consideration for them in their roster building strategy.

Out of the 21 D in their system, only two are below 6' (the two are 5'11 and they are Joel Hanley and Emil Djuse). Nine from this group is 200 lbs or more.

Conclusion: for all the three teams you named, Mete is significantly smaller in height and weight vs. the top 4 all of those teams are favoring. Also, from an organizational standpoint, the Blues, the Ducks and Stars all have a very notable size bias when it comes to the D in their system. Mete would be unlikely to be part of these teams based on their roster building approach.



Those full package players are more rare and require an early pick, or some incredible luck if picked later coupled with competent development. However, there are teams like the Blues, Ducks and Stars who will keep drafting such players even in later rounds while other teams will mine for talent at all costs and loosen the height/bias filter.

Heh... I don't think youre debating from a honest standpoint here. (Where is Mahura 6'1 ?)

These teams don't have a size bias, theyre just drafting the average of the NHL. You could use the qualifier 6'4 and over or 5'9 and under and those stats would look as convincing, the fact is, most NHL players are around 6'1, its obvious why most teams won't have a guy as small as Mete, its because he's one of the smallest defenseman in the league, not because teams don't like small defensemen.

Anaheim have played guys like Montour, Mahura and Vatanen who would all be considered small on D, Dallas spent one of their highest pick on a 5'10 Dman, STL played Shattenkirk, Dunn (Who was 5'10 when drafted.), they spent their 2nd rounder on a 5'09 overager in 2018.

Also I would like to touch on something very obvious but it seems to have went right over your head, but Gudbranson and Oleksiak may very well be two of the worst defensemen in the league as of today, there's no way on earth that anyone would even consider them for one second when building a team.

 

[Runner77]

Jumping in to add my 2 cents, Mete is still to be determined what he will be. Sound on D, and played with the appropriate partner,size doesn't factor all that much in the equation. ...

I guess no one bothered to read the string of posts that led to arguing about where size fits in the argument.

We're not arguing Mete's size and how effective he would be as a top 4D or whether there is any question that he is a top 4D on the Habs.

The size argument was made relative to how certain teams would not have a Mete as part of their roster building strategy in terms of their top 4.

Top 4 in Anaheim
Top 4 in Boston
Top 4 in Bufalo
Top 4 in Calgary
Top 4 in Chicago
Top 4 in Colorado
Top 4 in Colombus ?
Top 4 in Dallas
Top 4 in Detroit
Top 4 in Edmonton
Top 4 in Florida
Top 4 in LA
Top 4 in MTL
Top 4 in NJD
Top 4 in NYI
Top 4 in NYR
Top 4 in OTT
Top 4 in PHI
Top 4 in PIT
Top 4 in SJ
Top 4 in STL
Top 4 in TOR
Top 4 in VG
Top 4 in WSH
TOp 4 in WPG

I think you really need to look around the league to understand just where Mete stands. He'd be one of the best 4 Ds in all of those teams, Colombus is the only one I am unsure on.

Mete would never be a consideration for several of the teams you list, esp. certain western conference teams that will prioritize size. Even if he plays at a certain level doesn’t necessarily mean he’d have a spot on those teams so that would produce a whole other list on this basis.

As per my above post, I was not arguing Mete's talent but merely suggesting that he would not fit certain teams's roster building strategies for their D.

I was told that building a D that favors size was a decade or 8 year ago thing, which is wrong when it comes to certain teams.

I was also told that teams don't win with that type of strategy with their D. Again wrong, since the Blues have a huge size bias.

I was then told that teams like Dallas, Anaheim and St-Louis are rostering small players on their D so the contention doesn't apply. I've lifted stats from their organizations to show that not only the size bias is real and pervasive but when you look at the current top 4 of those teams, Mete would not fit what they favor in terms of player profile.

The argument has zero to do as to whether Mete's size is an impediment or whether he shouldn't be a top 4 -- the Habs clearly don't hold that view. The argument has nothing to do with what the Habs are doing.

 

[Mrb1p]

Dude, if you're going to move the goal posts repeatedly and use crass and uncalled for derogatory and condescending qualifiers like "asinine", then we're done. You have a difficult time holding a basic argument without going all over the place. We're arguing size. I've dug up the stats for all 3 teams you've claimed did not fit the narrative. You're wrong. End of story. I'm not wasting any more time digging up stuff while you're moving goal posts and essentially pulling stuff out of your ass cause everyone knows in here, you can't admit you're wrong even when you are.

Heh, I like you Runner, but I feel anytime someone disagrees with you, you tend to become emotional about it.

You're suggesting that a team is building around Gudbranson and Oleksiak. Thats asinine.
You're suggesting that teams X and Y draft bigger players, the fact is they've drafted around the average height of NHL players, not bigger players. 22 of the 70 defenders drafted last year were 6' and under.. You could say the Bruins draft only big players if you looked at their last few years of drafting, but thats not exactly true looking at their rosters, and this works both ways.

Basically what Im saying is that teams don't usually work in ways like the 2013 habs do, they don't have size as a pre-requisite. Hampus Lindholm wasn't the 5th overall pick because he was 6'2, it's because he's a fantastic defeseman. Same goes for Heiskanen, Parayko, Pietrangelo, etc.

In the same way, would the Blues trade Gunnarsson and Bouwmeester for Krug and McAvoy ? You can be three hundred percent sure that they would. Would they be a better team ? For sure.

 

[Runner77]

Heh, I like you Runner, but I feel anytime someone disagrees with you, you tend to become emotional about it.

Look man, I'm one of your biggest supporters in here in case you haven't noticed.

But you can do away with using condescending qualifiers like "asinine". I have no time for any poster that dips into toxic, demeaning crap as part of their argument. I've put in time and looked up stuff that initially was a hunch for me as I wanted to make sure my contention was right. It turns out it was this time. I never pretend to know more than anyone and respect other people's opinions but "asinine" loses me. That is all.

 

[angusyoung]

I guess no one bothered to read the string of posts that led to arguing about where size fits in the argument.

We're not arguing Mete's size and how effective he would be as a top 4D or whether there is any question that he is a top 4D on the Habs.

The size argument was made relative to how certain teams would not have a Mete as part of their roster building strategy in terms of their top 4.



My bad....that time of the month? lol.

Regardless,it's still a Mete thread and this is the place to post observations and opinions pertinent to Mete.

 

[Runner77]

My bad....that time of the month? lol.

Regardless,it's still a Mete thread and this is the place to post observations and opinions pertinent to Mete.

No argument from me. I thought your post was in response to the size arguments we were having which were limited to certain teams with pervasize size biases in respect of their D and how Mete does not fit the profile of the type of player they favor in their top 4.

If it wasn't, then by all means argue size separately from that, it's totally your prerogative. Was not disputing the point you were making only making sure about providing context since it was bringing up size and size is what we were arguing but within a whole other narrower context.

 

[angusyoung]

No argument from me. I thought your post was in response to the size arguments we were having which were limited to certain teams with pervasize size biases in respect of their D and how Mete does not fit the profile of the type of player they favor in their top 4.

If it wasn't, then by all means argue size separately from that, it's totally your prerogative. Was not disputing the point you were making only making sure about providing context since it was bringing up size and size is what we were arguing but within a whole other narrower context.

Nope,don't want to get into something that am not informed enough of to have any insight. Was merely expressing some thoughts about Mete.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Almost won $5k on draft kings Tuesday night! 20 pts from 1st OA with 10,000 people playing. I had a solid roster and was scrambling to find a cheap player to fit in the cap and took a shot with Mete and he scored two goals! Friggen Matthews and Rielly disappointed me! Won $35 bucks instead

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

There are less than 30 D-men in the NHL with a 6 mil aav. 6 mil is first pair money.

Right now I wouldn't pay him over three.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

HEs a nUmBeR 5

Has been the habs 2nd best D all year.

Ok.

He has been the 2nd best D all year.

And that's why our D sucks. If Victor Mete is your 2nd best blueliner you're in serious f***ing trouble.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I like him with Petry. I've always liked him with Petry. Hope CJ sticks with that pairing.

Getting more confident offensively and defensively.

I like him with Petry too. One day I think he actually could turn into a legit 2nd pairing guy. But he still has to be carried by somebody to be effective.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Right now I wouldn't pay him over three.

If Montreal can get him 3 or under, even on a 2-3 year deal, it would be a pretty great deal. Even if you ignore his offense, his play and impact justifies more.

 

[Mrb1p]

Right now I wouldn't pay him over three.

You realize Chiarot is paid over three?