What is the definition of a #1D?
- Thread starter LaymanX
- Start date
Lunatik
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,248
- 8,384
HF doesn't have a consensus about anything whatsoever
For me a #1 Defenseman is one of the top 31 defensemen in the NHL. What makes them one of the best 31 can be various things, some of the things that makes defensemen great are thing you cannot quantify with stupid advanced stats
ThirdManIn
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2009
- 55,115
- 4,034
If your team has a defenseman who is clearly the best defenseman on your team but who is also clearly playing on the depth chart above his skillset, you do not have a #1 defenseman. It seems like this is most often found on rebuilding teams with a young core and someone who has the potential to be a #1, but who needs seasoning.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,772
- 29,303
Who's the best Dman on your team? Do you think that's a position that needs to be upgraded?
If your answer is no, you have a 1D.
If your answer is no, you have a 1D.
You muddy the waters by bringing #1G into it.
Most people are comfortable listing the top~30 D in the league and calling them #1Ds. Most people are comfortable listing the top~30 C in the league and calling them #1Cs.
Nobody will be comfortable listing the top~31 G in the league and calling them #1Gs.
I think the real definition of a #1C, #1D, or #1G is: "I don't know exactly how to define it, but I know one when I see one". Since the vast majority of posters on HF consistently watch 99% of only one team, how do you expect a consensus to be reached? Every person will hype up their own players and put down guys they have seen play play less than 10 games. The larger fanbases will just create an echo chamber.
Most people are comfortable listing the top~30 D in the league and calling them #1Ds. Most people are comfortable listing the top~30 C in the league and calling them #1Cs.
Nobody will be comfortable listing the top~31 G in the league and calling them #1Gs.
I think the real definition of a #1C, #1D, or #1G is: "I don't know exactly how to define it, but I know one when I see one". Since the vast majority of posters on HF consistently watch 99% of only one team, how do you expect a consensus to be reached? Every person will hype up their own players and put down guys they have seen play play less than 10 games. The larger fanbases will just create an echo chamber.
Last edited:
Mickey Marner
Registered User
Assuming you mean 'number 1 on a cup contender' quality, and not 'the guy who happens to be my team's best defenseman.' A number 1 defenseman can play against the opposition's best players at even-strength and win the matchup. He should also play and excel on at least one of your special teams #1 unit, if not both.
These.
Not all teams have one that qualifies, so I don't buy the top 31 argument (at least not automatically), just like I don't for centers. Some teams have more than one as well (Crosby + Malkin on the Pens, for example). If you have someone who is better in a top-4 role on a contender, you don't have a #1D
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,772
- 29,303
The Bruins are hilarious to me. They missed on some obvious draft picks in the first round the past couple of years (specifically the year they drafted three times in a row), yet still somehow have these great young guys coming up. I was looking forward to the Bruins going through a downswing, but I don't think it's going to be a long one.
It's going to be a non-existent one. They are still not even 100% healthy yet. Still missing Krejci, McQuaid, Bjork, Cheharlik, DeBrusk, literally our entire 2nd forward line was lost within 5 days of each other, just got Marchy and Backes back last night. This team gets 100% healthy and there is zero reason they can't make some serious noise this season. Never mind next season when our 7 rookies playing regular minutes every game now can put that experience into their game. It's going to be fun being a Bruins fan for the next 3-5 years. Don't care that we didn't get Barzal at this point, one piece does not complete a puzzle.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,772
- 29,303
I meant the time in the kind of middle of the pack - not even tank mode. Last season I would say qualifies, but I expected it to be a bit longer.
Rask needs to be consistent (I don't think Khudobin can handle the load for long - short goaltender with a track record isn't suddenly going to turn into a Vezina-level goalie), but if he can be stable between the pipes I think the Bruins can skate with anyone.
Tuukka definitely needs some regrouping within his head, if he can do that and Dobby can continue to give solid games, they'll be fine this year. Still not sure Tuukka can steal the games that he needs to still for them to make a deep run this year, but if they can get healthy they will for sure be there in the post season, which at least for me, is a year earlier than expected.
Hypothetically if you had a defenseman who was always top 3 in scoring including a few art rosses but sucked defensively(Paul Coffey?), would you consider that elite? On the flip side the world's greatest defensive defenseman but only gets like 25 points(later career Scott Stevens)
WingsMJN2965
Registered User
- Oct 13, 2017
- 18,106
- 17,699
Anyway you cut it there's 31 #1 defensemen; there's 31 defensemen in the world who can be at least one team's best defenseman in any roster situation.
First argument yes they'd still be number 1 D depending on how much the offensive upside outweighed any defensive downside. On the other side, 25 points with elite defensive game is actually really great but if they're putting up like 5 points a year then they wouldn't be a 1 D.
At the end of the day Lidstrom will always be the prime example of a 1D every team desires. Don't think we'll ever see anything like him again for a while.
Aladyyn
they praying for the death of a rockstar
A defenseman that can anchor a top pairing without the help of a top pairing partner.
Maukkis
EZ4ENCE
- Mar 16, 2016
- 10,589
- 7,317
All-situational
Produces points at a good rate
Excellent defensively
Good to very good at skating
Puck moving
> 20 minutes a night
Takes the toughest matchups out of all defensemen
Physical
Can create offense in the OZ
Some of those traits are more important than others, and I am probably missing a couple obvious ones, but in general, a 1D needs to tick most of those boxes.
Produces points at a good rate
Excellent defensively
Good to very good at skating
Puck moving
> 20 minutes a night
Takes the toughest matchups out of all defensemen
Physical
Can create offense in the OZ
Some of those traits are more important than others, and I am probably missing a couple obvious ones, but in general, a 1D needs to tick most of those boxes.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
I think it's either a guy who takes hard usage and actually outplays it, or in rarer cases, a guy that does take softer usage but dominates it to a ridiculous extent.
An example of the latter might be Seth Jones on Nashville. His usage was soft but he was literally like a 62% possession player. He ended up being a #1D even when his usage got harder.
Guys who take #1 usage and get killed are not #1's. They're just being used that way.
An example of the latter might be Seth Jones on Nashville. His usage was soft but he was literally like a 62% possession player. He ended up being a #1D even when his usage got harder.
Guys who take #1 usage and get killed are not #1's. They're just being used that way.
