| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Utemin |
Posted - 04/03/2010 : 12:39:04
Vote for the best Defenseman this year! Excuse the name spelling
(I expect Duncan Keith to win this poll)
|
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest8353 |
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 04:40:48
Alex
For all those reasons that is why Green wasn't on the Olympic team. I am sure there will still be people who say he is the best d man in the league.
Those same people will say Ovie is the best player. Not even close anymore. Sid is so far ahead of him it's not even funny. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/28/2010 : 23:08:58
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Let me pose a question which might(just might) have some people understand my perspective.
Based on this year's play alone, you can choose any NHL defensemen in the league to be on the ice for your team in the NHL finals playing against the team with both the best offense and best defense in the playoffs. You will encouter 2 situations in those finals with the series and Cup on the line. One situation you will be down one goal with 45 seconds left. The other situations you will be up one goal with 45 seconds left.
You can choose one, and only one defensemen that would be your go to guy in both of those situations.
Who do you pick????
Remember this question? Anyone see the Montreal / Washington game? Anyone see the winning goal? Anyone see who got outmuscled for the puck defensively? Granted, it wasn't the last 45 seconds, but that's a puck that Green HAS to win possesion of and not simply get bumped off it by a forward. He, if nothing else, has to at least make contact with the puck and not lose a battle at a time like that! I do think John Carlson was somewhat lazy in coming back to help. He could have easily skated hard and tied up Moore, who the puck went to, and prob stopped that goal! Regardless, and i know it wasn't in the last 45 seconds, Green came up short at a crucial time! |
| Guest6869 |
Posted - 04/20/2010 : 14:34:13
why do people think kaberle is a good defenceman ? his plus/minus is always terrible , year after year. |
| irvine |
Posted - 04/19/2010 : 21:47:23
Agreed Beans. I understand exactly what it is you are saying, and I agree.
The tropy (Norris) is given to the player who demonstrates the best overall ability in both offense and defense on the back end. Thus, as you said in your hypothetical, that the player who wins it should be a guy who you would put in to both situations (Offensive one or Defensive one) in a key situation. Not just one or the other.
You want the guy who will get you that much needed goal from the blueline, and who can go out and shutdown the oppositions top line, during a crucial part of the game.
Mike Green, to me, is not that guy. He's the guy you put in for a goal, when needed. But to me, he's not the guy you put out there with 30 seconds to go in a game, that you are leading 3-2. He does not have that shutdown ability. He has improved since last season, defensively. I will give Green that. But he's still certainly not the best defensive d-man in the league, nor is his offensive ability so far above the rest that he averages out to the best all around defensemen.
To me, the Norris goes to a guy who puts up solid numbers and shuts down teams more often than not.
But, what I am really getting at... is I agree with what you are getting at with your 'hypothetical'. It's about a guy you can utilize for both, and a guy who will succeed more often than not in both situations. Does not just excel at one of the two.
Irvine/prez. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/10/2010 : 12:11:24
This 'nonsense exteme situation' really proves everything, some just can't see a different perspective. It comes down to a players reputation based on what they do on a regular basis. If there is a defensemen who "demonstrates through out the regular season the greatest ALL AROUND ability in the position" than would it not make sense to think that playerswould be the choice for the most important offensive and defensive situations come the playoffs??
I guess this theory is just too complex to consider.
|
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 04/10/2010 : 10:31:40
Beans, the NHL's quote:
quote:
National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position
Yours deals with a hypothetical one-time situation, pitting offensive ability vs. defencive ability. If Keith played 5 games this season, would he still qualify for the Norris? Just proving using the nonsense extreme situations doesn't prove anything.
Also, you pointed to a playoff scenario, which obviously has even less to do with a regular-season award. Heres a better hypothetical: If you had a vote for the Norris trophy winner, who would you pick? That's the purpose of this thread, after all.
|
| Guest9947 |
Posted - 04/10/2010 : 08:07:32
While I wouldn't agree that the hypothetical is completely irrelevant, I might agree that it isn't the perfect test for who should be the Norris trophy winner. But then say that instead of making the ridiculous assertion that out of all the defencemen in the league, you'd want Mike Green in desperate up-one-goal situation.
It is indefensible to say that offense is the only consideration in choosing the Norris.
The real issue here is: how far is Mike Green behind other top d-men defensively compared to how far he is ahead offensively. Lets say, hypothetically we have two defencemen. Lets call them Mike and Duncan. Duncan is one of the elite shut down defencemen in the league, while Mike is only average defensively. However, Mike has 100 points on the season, while Duncan has 60. Then I would say "despite Mike's relative weakness defensively, he is so far ahead of the game offensively that I would have to choose him for the Norris over Duncan".
But lets say we have another entirely hypothetical situation. Duncan is still one of the elite shut down defencemen in the league, and Mike is still only average defensively. But now Mike has 75 points to Duncan's 68. Then I would say that the margin of advantage that Mike enjoys over Duncan is not enough to overcome his deficit in defensive ability, and I would choose Duncan over Mike for the Norris.
See where I'm going? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/10/2010 : 06:05:27
quote:
Originally posted by redneck76ca
quote:
Originally posted by polishexpress
Whoever wins, whether it be Keith, Green, or someone else, they will definitely be deserving of the trophy, regardless of what we post.
Green vs Keith: By The Numbers
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Steven-Hindle/Mike-Green-VS-Duncan-Keith---By-the-Numbers/98/27567
All due respect, this is a report written by a Caps beat writter and the 2nd paragraph says is all.
Arguments over defense aside, even as Green has improved leaps and bounds in his own end over seasons past, I feel a key to Mike’s success and one of the most under-rated attributes of his game is his ability to keep play out of his own end.
So he is good defensively because he doesn't have to do it as often??
Ultimately, that article was pretty much what Hugh has been posted all along. We all know the numbers offensive and we all know how that impacts Green's +/-.
The argument is not what the stats are, it's if you believe they are the key. Personally, I would rather have a defensemen that will add offensive but can be a pilar on defense as well. Others believe that a great offense is a good defense. |
| redneck76ca |
Posted - 04/10/2010 : 03:28:03
quote:
Originally posted by polishexpress
Whoever wins, whether it be Keith, Green, or someone else, they will definitely be deserving of the trophy, regardless of what we post.
Green vs Keith: By The Numbers
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Steven-Hindle/Mike-Green-VS-Duncan-Keith---By-the-Numbers/98/27567 |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 22:20:27
Whoever wins, whether it be Keith, Green, or someone else, they will definitely be deserving of the trophy, regardless of what we post. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 19:49:47
Hey Hugh, please explain to me what your definition of the
National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position
If it not the best player offenisvely and defensively, than what is it??
I'm really confused. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 18:01:46
Yes... except Bean's hypothetical situation has nothing to do with the Norris trophy, at all. |
| Guest9947 |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 16:38:26
Actually no, it's a total perversion of the original scenario. Beans was basically saying:
"you get to choose one defenceman for two extreme situations, one where defence is key and one where offence is key, who do you choose?"
The argument being that instead of picking the guy that is offensively gifted but a defensive liability (Green), you take a guy that, while perhaps not quite as offensively gifted, is far more defensively solid (Keith), in order to suceed in BOTH scenarios.
And this was converted into:
"Well, if we let in a goal on defence we could always score in o/t, and if we score on offence we will need to score in o/t. You need to score to win games, therefore you need the best offensive defenceman"
BUT you also would need to defend against the other team from scoring in o/t, or it's game over. That is why the logic is dubious and unconvincing. And besides, it is an unwarranted extension of the hypothetical. The question wasn't what d-man you would choose in these situations and other situations that may or may not arise subsequently, it was what d-man would you choose if you had to choose ONE d-man to play in BOTH situations. |
| Utemin |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 15:04:48
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Ha ha Beans, you really want to gear it into a defensive defenceman, eh? lol . . . changing scenarios even.
Well, doesn't matter - I still choose Green. When providing great offence, the natural result is good defence, because a team can't go on the offensive when they are defending.
Plus, no matter what, we need that goal to tie it, and then we need a goal to win the Stanley Cup. That's two goals in the final game . . . I'd want my A-1 defenceman for that.
So, logically, there is one situation with good defence needed (although good offence would help seal it with an empty netter), and two situations with a goal needed (to tie it, then win it).
Ipso facto bingo bango, you need Green! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Wow I can't defend Green better then that! |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 10:20:03
Ha ha Beans, you really want to gear it into a defensive defenceman, eh? lol . . . changing scenarios even.
Well, doesn't matter - I still choose Green. When providing great offence, the natural result is good defence, because a team can't go on the offensive when they are defending.
Plus, no matter what, we need that goal to tie it, and then we need a goal to win the Stanley Cup. That's two goals in the final game . . . I'd want my A-1 defenceman for that.
So, logically, there is one situation with good defence needed (although good offence would helkp seal it with an empty netter), and two situations with a goal needed (to tie it, then win it).
Ipso facto bingo bango, you need Green!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 08:18:01
Ah, but Slozo, one thing about Logic is that is it free from assumption. You assume that these situations both happen in the same game. In hindsight, this could have been better explained in my original question. Let me clarify.
Game 6, your team is down in the series 3-2 and are up in the game 1-0. 45 seconds left, up one goal.
Because of your standout defenseman pick, you team lives to fight on in Game 7.
Game7, you are tied 3-3 in the series and are down in the game 0-1. 45 seconds left, down one goal.
|
| Iceman778 |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 01:39:23
yes it good to know about that they played nice |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/08/2010 : 00:18:40
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Stevie Y also chose surprises Bergeron (dud), Doughty (golden), and Seabrook (very mediocre). It's easy to second guess and I wouldn't pretend to do any better - heck, anyone can pick a 'perfect' team and someone will not perform or play well - but just because he didn't choose Green doesn't mean anything more than him picking some of the guys we were all shocked/puzzled by.
A great hockey player doesn't make a great manager . . . and don't tell me that because he won the gold that it automatically makes him a genius - Cito Gaston was a crappy manager who won two world series, to make a baseball reference.
What you missed about my logic was the quantifiable part.
You need A situation (goal in remaining 45 seconds) to be successful, and you also need A(2) situation to be successful (goal in o/t afterward) otherwise B (45 seconds to hold lead) CANNOT HAPPEN.
Thus, even by switching the order of the situations, you absolutely need goals . . . but can actually still win by allowing great chances from bad D and even allowing a tying goal (means you go to o/t).
Because of this, logically, you need to get you absolute A1 offensively gifted D-man.
THAT'S the logic, Beans.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Wow Slozo, i hope it's the beers in me this midweek night that is confusing my thinking, cuz i don't get your "logic" explanation  !
As for the beginning of your post, i agree fully. I said from day 1, if Team Canada wins, Yzerman will be god. If they lose, he'll be the one blamed for picking the wrong players! Who knows, if he'd chosen Green and Penner and Carter and whoever else, maybe we go undefeated without so much as a scare? We'll never know!
I can tell you this much, i love and appreciate the fact that we won the gold, but i still don't understand the Bergeron pick!  |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 20:47:18
Stevie Y also chose surprises Bergeron (dud), Doughty (golden), and Seabrook (very mediocre). It's easy to second guess and I wouldn't pretend to do any better - heck, anyone can pick a 'perfect' team and someone will not perform or play well - but just because he didn't choose Green doesn't mean anything more than him picking some of the guys we were all shocked/puzzled by.
A great hockey player doesn't make a great manager . . . and don't tell me that because he won the gold that it automatically makes him a genius - Cito Gaston was a crappy manager who won two world series, to make a baseball reference.
What you missed about my logic was the quantifiable part.
You need A situation (goal in remaining 45 seconds) to be successful, and you also need A(2) situation to be successful (goal in o/t afterward) otherwise B (45 seconds to hold lead) CANNOT HAPPEN.
Thus, even by switching the order of the situations, you absolutely need goals . . . but can actually still win by allowing great chances from bad D and even allowing a tying goal (means you go to o/t).
Because of this, logically, you need to get you absolute A1 offensively gifted D-man.
THAT'S the logic, Beans.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 13:48:38
Here is what's wrong with the no Olympics means no Norris theory.
If Green really deserves the trophy for best defenseman, he should have clearly been on the Olympic team but Stevie Y obviously felt that Green was not well rounded enough to be one of Canada's top defenseman.
The Norris is a vote of sports writers. Arm chair guys like me and you who are more wordy, get better free seats, and watch a lot more hockey than us. Secondly, these fella's don't always think in terms of chemistry on a team and winning. They have the luxury of making a vote that will never matter on the ice.
Stevie Y' and Co's opinion is not the end all be all.
But it is Golden........
|
| Guest1757 |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 12:08:21
Wow that last post from 8353 really puts things in perspective. I'm a huge Mike Green fan but unfortunately have to agree with him not deserving the award. The fact that he didn't make the olympic team shows that he is lacking something to be considered the best. Not sure if he was invited to orientation camp this year but either way he started off with an awsesome season and still didn't get asked to play. If Green really deserves the trophy for best defenseman, he should have clearly been on the Olympic team but Stevie Y obviously felt that Green was not well rounded enough to be one of Canada's top defenseman. |
| Guest8353 |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 11:24:51
If Mike Green is so good why was he left off of the Olympic team.
Because he is a defensive liability.
A liberal is always confused with facts. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 11:06:55
Your logic and my logic is not always the same thing, hence my ability to disagree. This is not A+B=C kind of logic that is irrefutable fact. It is an individual opinion based on a logical thought process.
I do like your anaglogies however I think the Olympics significantlly clouded your judgement on Pronger. Also, for evey good thing Green could do, Pronger could also do. For every bad think Pronger could do, Green could also do.
But I was entertained!!! |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 10:19:56
How can you disagree with my logic?!? Nothing to do with me personally, it is LOGIC, period!
If there is only 45 seconds before my team loses, I 100% need a goal to be able to win the Cup. Conversely, if I have 45 seconds to hold a lead, I could technically score (win), hold the lead (win), or blow the lead (still have a chance to win it in regulation if time allows or O/T). See what I'm saying?
Maybe you don't. Here's a few scenarios with Green and with other defencemen who are supposedly better at D.
45 seconds left and we must score
1)
Our team gets a faceoff in the opposition circle with 41 seconds left and the goalie is pulled and an extra attacker is on the ice. Faceoff win, puck goes back to Green after a couple of passes, and Green (with his superior shot and great eye) gets a goal on a blast from the point . . . or, the goalie has it bounce off his pads and one of our forewards taps it in for the tying goal.
(What you didn't mention in your scenario is that after TYING the game, we'd need to WIN the game with another goal in O/T - and Green would be instrumental in constantly pressuring the opposition on offence into making mistakes)
2)
Pronger is in the same position as Green, but when he gets the pass he can't pull off the slapper fast enough and the shot gets blocked. Because he's so slow now, the opposition scores and it's game over. Either that. or his slapper is wide, the zone is cleared, and it's game over after that as they can't enter the zone (Pronger doesn't have the speed to fascilitate the forwards breaking through).
45 seconds left and we have the lead
1)
Defensive zone faceoff, and Green moves forward to stick-check his man at the boards. Because of his aggressiveness and speed, he gets it loose, and with a quick wrister finds a hole to pass it up to his centreman for an empty net goal.
OR
After playing good positional defence, Green and his teammates hold on for the victory after a couple of shots and saves.
OR
The other team scores with the extra man (not necessarily Green's fault on the goal, usually it's a forward who misses an assignment, and anyways, it's 6 on 5) but in o/t Green helps or provides the offence for an o/t goal and the win.
2) Pronger helps with a strong physical presence and prevents the other team from scoring.
OR
Pronger, because it's late in the game and he's tired and not as fast as he once was, allows some guy to get a good blast from the point to tie it by screening his goalie without blocking the shot. Then in O/T, he become the goat as his slow legs can't keep up with some fresh youngster, and his penalty (holding) allows the pp o/t winner.
OR
Pronger plays good D and gets in a scramble along the boards for the puck while the opposition has 6 men with the goalie pulled. Pronger tries to ice the puuck into the empty net but it misses, and right off the ensuing faceoff in the defensive zone they are scored on. Same scenario as last in O/T.
The defence rests!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 08:32:40
Well, that is clearly a difference between us. To me, playing defense in the down one goal situation is as important as the scoring a goal situation and there is not a hope in hell that I have Green or Streit on the ice in that situation. Above average or not(which is very debatable among many circles outside the the pickuphockey world), I want elite. I want Pronger or Keith or Markov(good pick I completely agree with) or Lidstrom or Erhoff*(I begrudgenlly agree his offensive upside is not enough to add him to the Norris list. That was permature of me. However, he has had an awesome season.)
Simple difference is some weigh offense significantly higher than defense. As my pals from the 80's Oilers will attest, it was only once they learned how to play a little defense than that started winning Cup.
I would also agree who heartedly that Green is the best scoring defensemen, but I still have not watched a defensemen in the NHL who can pass better than Chris Pronger. Passing is more than just in the offensive zone, which Pronger does very well. It is also the breakout pass, to which Pronger still does not have a peer. Green is pretty slick in the offensive zone and makes some magic passes on the PP. Also, he does seem to have some vision to be able to make a scoring chance out of something that most other defensemen would just dump into the corner.
Slozo, I appreciate and understand your logic, even if I disagree. Truly, I am happy that a response from the Green corner can come without citing his offensive stats. |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 06:49:00
The problem with your hypothetical, Beans, is that you have two defencemen on the ice, not just one . . . and, I have no idea who the forwards are.
But I'll play anyways.
So, the most important situation, obviously, is the 45 seconds left and down a goal . . . without scoring a goal, it's over, done - so we 100% absolutely must get that goal. The other situation, needing to keep the lead, is not quite as dire - the onus is on the other team to score, and you presumably have a goalie in net.
So, with that in mind, I absolutely must choose the A1 best offensive threat as a defenceman, and I choose MIKE GREEN. Not even a doubt in my mind, as he is well above average defensively but most importantly is the best passer and goalscorer as a d-man.
My second and third choices would be Streit and Markov.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/07/2010 : 05:49:39
Well Hugh, what one finds completely irrelevant, others can understand the reason why.
Ultimately, I was not expecting a single answer. My point was to put things into persepective which I believe I have done. I never said that the award was based on extreme hypotheticals but it's also not awarded for goals, assist, or +/-.
If you want to end the topic, feel free to leave at any time. No one is keeping you here. It's quite unfortunate that I do have to over dramatize simple points when they are not understood when the are simply stated. Let's take a quick look back at the thread.
Beans - The Norris should be the best 2 way defensemen
Others- Look at Mike Greens stats.
Beans - The Norris should be the best 2 way defensemen
Others- Look at Mike Greens stats.
Beans - The Norris should be the best 2 way defensemen
Others- Look at Mike Greens stats.
Beans - The Norris should be the best 2 way defensemen
Others- Look at Mike Greens stats.
Beans - The Norris should be the best 2 way defensemen
Others- Look at Mike Greens stats.
Beans - The Norris should be the best 2 way defensemen
Others- Look at Mike Greens stats.
Should I continue?????
*Please don't assume that you are automatically part of the 'others' catagory. Some did talk about his play and what they watched. |
| redneck76ca |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 22:59:12
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
ok, couple of things.
Quick math Lesson.
In the past 20 years, Coffey, Leetch, and MacInnis are a logical argument for players who won the Norris Trophy based largely on offensive abilities and not on what one would consider standout defensive abilites.
Last time I checked, 3 out of 20 works out to be 15%.
Call me a liar if I am wrong.
Let me pose a question which might(just might) have some people understand my perspective.
Based on this year's play alone, you can choose any NHL defensemen in the league to be on the ice for your team in the NHL finals playing against the team with both the best offense and best defense in the playoffs. You will encouter 2 situations in those finals with the series and Cup on the line. One situation you will be down one goal with 45 seconds left. The other situations you will be up one goal with 45 seconds left.
You can choose one, and only one defensemen that would be your go to guy in both of those situations.
Who do you pick????
Markov. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 22:57:27
quote:
Based on this year's play alone, you can choose any NHL defensemen in the league to be on the ice for your team in the NHL finals playing against the team with both the best offense and best defense in the playoffs. You will encouter 2 situations in those finals with the series and Cup on the line. One situation you will be down one goal with 45 seconds left. The other situations you will be up one goal with 45 seconds left.
You can choose one, and only one defensemen that would be your go to guy in both of those situations.
Who do you pick????
I'd pick 'Irrelevant nonsense for $1000, Alex. (Trebek, btw, not the poster). I didn't realize they awarded regular-season awards for extreme hypothetical playoffs situations Beans. We all get your opinion, stop overly dramatizing things to illustrate rather simple points. The Norris goes to the best regular season by a defencemen. Nothing more, nothing less. Your claim is at least 3 other D-men are having a better season, my claim is that 'maybe' 1 is (Keith). We are both entitled to our opinions. Now we can end this stupid thread. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 22:47:27
Me, me, me Beans! Pick me! Okay, i'll answer for you. "Based on this years play alone", i'd have to select Norris favorite, Duncan Keith!
BTW, while MacInnes wasn't necessarily the best defensive defenseman on his team many years, he wasn't ever fully appreciated for his defense either (imo of course). He was much better defensively than he often got credit for! Leetch as well. Coffey, well, like Green, he as mostly about the offense, but as you've pointed out, he was so far and away ahead of his peers offensively, he couldn't be ignored for the Norris!
Not saying Green couldn't get there one day, but he's not there at this point. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 22:25:22
I found the game!!!!
Here is the ESPN NHL article. http://espn.go.com/nhl/recap?gameId=260129024
Funny thing is, I thought it was seconds, but Pronger scored with 0.3 seconds left, the article mentioned..... |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 22:20:30
CHRIS PRONGER.
(maybe not the norris winner this year, but I will never forget the 2006 playoffs, where he was instrumental, and his Cup win with Anaheim the next year.)
Also, I will never forget the regular season game in which Chris Pronger scored a goal less than 5 seconds left to tie the game, with rocket slap shot. It was an Edm-Phx game in 2006. |
| MrBoogedy |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 22:19:26
... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 22:12:03
ok, couple of things.
Quick math Lesson.
In the past 20 years, Coffey, Leetch, and MacInnis are a logical argument for players who won the Norris Trophy based largely on offensive abilities and not on what one would consider standout defensive abilites.
Last time I checked, 3 out of 20 works out to be 15%.
Call me a liar if I am wrong.
Let me pose a question which might(just might) have some people understand my perspective.
Based on this year's play alone, you can choose any NHL defensemen in the league to be on the ice for your team in the NHL finals playing against the team with both the best offense and best defense in the playoffs. You will encouter 2 situations in those finals with the series and Cup on the line. One situation you will be down one goal with 45 seconds left. The other situations you will be up one goal with 45 seconds left.
You can choose one, and only one defensemen that would be your go to guy in both of those situations.
Who do you pick???? |
| Guest9947 |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 20:01:31
Vs playing in front of Huet/ Theodore? I'd call that a wash (I realize you were comparing Ehrhoff at the time)
I'd also mention that Washington plays in the worst division in the league...
That being said, if I were a betting man (and I am), I would put my money on Keith winning the Norris and Green coming second in votes. |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 12:48:54
quote:
I don't have to agree to disagree. I simply believe that the Norris should go to a stand out defensemen on both sides of the puck and in the past, with the exception of Coffey, and maybe Leetch and MacInnis,the award has always gone to a standout on both sides of the puck.
Actually, by disagreeing with my opinion and offering your counter opinion, you are de facto agreeing to disagree, fyi. I have my opinion, you have yours. So your ultimate point is that your opinion on a subjective award is beyond reproach? Good for you, except you yourself admitted this wasn't the case up to 15% of the time (a number you admittedly made up on the spot).
Also, citing Ehrhoff as a potential candidate is fairly puzzling as well. He basically has 50% less points than Green, and there is no reason to suggest he's twice as good defensively (impossible to prove anyways) in order to make up the difference.
You admit you wouldn't be shocked if Green won, yet still would nominate Ehrhoff instead? For the same reason you argue Green's numbers are inflated, Ehrhoff's should be too because of the dominance of the Sedins this season, except Green still has twice the output. Also, playing in front of a top-flight goalie has to improve your numbers on your own side of the ice, no?
Playing in front of Theodore/Varlamov/Neuvirth on the other hand.... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 10:32:46
polishexpress.....Erhoff has been a stud for the Canucks. I don't expect him to get a nomination for the Norris as i think others are more deserving but he's been great! To give you an example, and i know it's only 1 game, he was +2 in an 8-3 loss tot he Kings last week. Now, i know the +/- thing is overblown often but i'm still impressed with that. Regardless of that game, he's played a ton of minutes, has put up good numbers and has a really nice first pass (breakout pass). Overall, he's been a huge aquisition for the Canucks and it's a massive concern around this city right now as he tweaked his knee the other night. Looks to be out till the playoffs and who knows how healthy he'll be by then even? With depth on D and an injured Willie Mitchell not looking anywhere nearer to a return, the playoff picture for the Canucks doesn't look as good as it did not long ago. Factor in that Salo's fragile body will most certainly get hurt to some degree either before or during the playoffs and it's easy to see the concern around here!
Again, still think he's on the outside looking in as far as the Norris when you consider the other names out there (Keith, Green, Doughty, Pronger, Lidstrom, Weber, etc....) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 09:13:07
Hugh, I have done exact what you think I have not. You say this and that about all the offensive numbers you want and it really doesn't put an argument to anything that I have said. I can only assume you will not go back and read all the posts again to see exactly what I have said time and time again, and I really don't want to waste my time or anyone else's time having to read it again.
For the record, I never ONCE disagreed with anyone's nod for Mike Green. I have simply said he would not be my pick, gave who my picks would be, and cited the rationale behind it using Mike Green as my 'control' if you will. Basically saying that if 'most' or 'many' people feel Mike Green is a worthy candidate, my picks are better comparated to Mike Green because X or Y or what ever else I said.
And of course my opinions are subjective. The entire award is subjective. I am not a moron and don't need to have it explained that Mike Green did the work. However, it is painfully obvious that my point was missed.
What do you think would happen if Drew Doughty was traded straight up for Mike Green?? Would Doughty's production increase by playing with a team that averages a goal a game more than the Kings?? Absolutely. Conversely, would Green's production drop if he played for say, Minnesota or Edmonton??? Definately.
Does that mean that Mike Green is no longer the best offensive defenseman in the game??? Maybe in your eyes, but not in mine.
I don't have to agree to disagree. I simply believe that the Norris should go to a stand out defensemen on both sides of the puck and in the past, with the exception of Coffey, and maybe Leetch and MacInnis,the award has always gone to a standout on both sides of the puck.
Could I be wrong this year. Absolutely. Would I be in utter shock and dismay if and when Green wins the award. Not really. One thing I did agree with Hugh on is that offensive players normally get preference in NHL awards. |
| polishexpress |
Posted - 04/06/2010 : 08:18:46
Ya, Alex, you are right. I concede that I cannot say that an opinion is wrong.
When I wrote the post, I was contemplating that it is quite an accomplishment to score that many points in the NHL, and wasn't really paying attention to the "But I would think" part of the quote.
I humbly retract my opinion bashing, but stand by my own opinion that Green should be nominated, though I don't think he should win.
Never thought about Ehrhoff, though, until you and Beans mentioned him. I know he is putting some significant points up, but how is his d? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 23:13:04
quote:
Originally posted by polishexpress
@Beans: you said "but I would think that a guy like Keith or Doughty would and could put up similar numbers playing with 2 of the top 5 and 3 of the top 16 scoring forwards in the NHL"
I like to think that your statement is true, but, sadly, it isn't. The truth is, it's just conjecture.
polishexpress..... Just curious, i have an opinion which is much like Beans' on this. I too think Keith or Doughty could/would put up similar numbers to Green playing on that Washington team in that system and in the same situations as Green is. Am i "wrong" to? I mean, it is just an opinion? Don't really think you can say it's outright WRONG? |
|
|
