Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Big minute Defenseman


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
44 replies to this topic

#1 cmpunk

cmpunk

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 11

Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:48 PM

After seeing LA win the cup and thinking back to past cup winners a lot of them have a certain defenseman that plays big minutes and is always counted on. Does not always have to be a norris trophy player but a guy that plays in all situations and plays solid defense minutes. This playoffs Doughty was this guy for the Kings playing a lot of minutes and one game I saw was over 30 mins.

I think we have this player that is capable of playing big hard minutes of playoff hockey in Dan Hamhuis. Hammer had another solid year of playing defense as shown by his plus minus. But what I don't get is why Hammer never played big minutes this playoffs and last year, although last year was a bit different story. I just think we have a very solid defenseman that is built for playing big minute playoff hockey and should be playing a lot minutes when he is capable of doing it. Should not worry about balancing ice time among defense in the playoffs.

Once playoffs start, Hamhuis is the guy we need to be playing the big minutes and shutting down top lines no matter how many minutes he has to play.
Posted Image
Credit to Vintage Canuck

#2 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,575 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:51 PM

He doesn't play 30 minutes because we have enough depth that he doesn't have to.
Posted Image

#3 cmpunk

cmpunk

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 11

Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:54 PM

He doesn't play 30 minutes because we have enough depth that he doesn't have to.


I'd rather have the reliable Hamhuis playing big minutes in the playoffs then balancing it out. Especially when he is very capable and reliabe. The Kings have a pretty solid top 6 as well but Doughty was thier go to guy.
Posted Image
Credit to Vintage Canuck

#4 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,970 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 12 June 2012 - 11:56 PM

I'd rather have the reliable Hamhuis playing big minutes in the playoffs then balancing it out. Especially when he is very capable and reliabe. The Kings have a pretty solid top 6 as well but Doughty was thier go to guy.


So you'd rather tire him out. :mellow:
Posted Image
______________Eat, Sleep,Posted ImageRave, Repeat

#5 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,575 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:00 AM

I'd rather have the reliable Hamhuis playing big minutes in the playoffs then balancing it out. Especially when he is very capable and reliabe. The Kings have a pretty solid top 6 as well but Doughty was thier go to guy.


I don't know if you've ever played hockey, but playing after playing more than 20 minutes even the most in shape guys will be absolutely bombed. Once you get upwards of 30 minutes the odds of them making a costly mistake are huge.
Posted Image

#6 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:05 AM

That one game went into over time so no wonder he played 30 mins. Most of his other games averaged around the 24 minute mark which is standard for a top 2 D man.

Canucks D do it by committee and they have to in order to be successful.
lZqI3g.gif

#7 WolfxHaley

WolfxHaley

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 10

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:06 AM

He doesn't play 30 minutes because we have enough depth that he doesn't have to.

Yes, and AV would NEVER think about taking away ice time from Rome. Haha :emot-parrot:

Posted Image


#8 DownUndaCanuck

DownUndaCanuck

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,143 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 07

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:09 AM

It's a recurring theme - big star defencemen win Cups.

2012 - Doughty (Norris nomination, Gold medal winner)
2011 - Chara (Norris winner)
2010 - Keith (Norris winner)
2009 - Gonchar (5-time All Star, coming off a 65 point season, playing at a 60-point pace prior injury)
2008 - Lidstrom
2007 - Neidermayer/Pronger

You have to go back to 2006 for the last time a defence without a true star won the Cup, and in that case Ward put on a clinic to win the Cup and Conn Smythe. Even the Tampa Bay Lightning didn't have a true #1 defenceman (Boyle and Kubina but not yet stars). Prior to the lockout the game was a bit different, but still...

2003 - Neidermayer/Scott Stevens/Rafalski (take your pick)
2002 - Lidstrom/Chelios
2001 - Rob Blake/Ray Bourque/Adam Foote
2000 - Neidermayer/Scott Stevens/Rafalski


Stars on defence have been the key to cup success, especially earlier on but now it only takes 1 or 2 defensive stars to go the distance. Our only chance is if Edler pans out to be a Doughty-like young defensive star, but I'd much rather trade one of our star goalies for a star defenceman around the league somewhere. We need a franchise defenceman and Hamhuis/Bieksa are far from that. Edler was voted 6th for defencemen by TSN, Ehrhoff was 9th in Norris voting a year ago but we have no one in that elusive top-3 that gives a club a real chance in the playoffs.
Posted Image

#9 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,992 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:16 AM

I have a different way of looking at things: While the offensive dynamo's get the credit for creating the scoring play, it's the Scuderi's, Greene's and Mitchell's next to the puck movers (Doughty, Voynov, Martinez) who provide the back end stability. They're not going to score much but they make the simple play, securing the ice in front of the net and pinning guys behind it, picking up the loose puck or freeing it for the more mobile and offensively talented partner, who then strings passes up for offense. These guys, with their size and okay mobility for their size, complement the smaller, agile guys really well, and without these defensive stabilizers the plays likely wouldn't go so well. How else do you think Quick can get his two or less goals against per game without that hulking wall in front of him?

Offense may help u win games by outscoring the other team, but in the end defense (and SKILLED size) gets it done and helps win championships. Doughty - Scuderi. Seidenberg - Chara. Keith - Seabrook. Niedermayer - Stevens way back when. That's how winning tandems go: skilled size to complement and cover mistakes for mobile guys. Sure hope the Canucks can get that rock to complement Edler and allow him to make the roving offensive plays (Wanting Garrison!)

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Jesus LOVES YOU!
2012, meet Matthew 24:36-47!

14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.


#10 LegionOfDoom

LegionOfDoom

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 414 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 07

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:02 AM

Comftorble with hamhuis bieksa and Edler in most situations

#11 cmpunk

cmpunk

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:36 AM

The way I look at it, some defensemen thrive on playing a lot of minutes and play better then playing average minutes. Duncan Keith is a guy who seems to play better when playing a lot of minutes.
Posted Image
Credit to Vintage Canuck

#12 juwanski

juwanski

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Joined: 23-November 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:58 AM

It's a recurring theme - big star defencemen win Cups.

2012 - Doughty (Norris nomination, Gold medal winner)
2011 - Chara (Norris winner)
2010 - Keith (Norris winner)
2009 - Gonchar (5-time All Star, coming off a 65 point season, playing at a 60-point pace prior injury)
2008 - Lidstrom
2007 - Neidermayer/Pronger

You have to go back to 2006 for the last time a defence without a true star won the Cup, and in that case Ward put on a clinic to win the Cup and Conn Smythe. Even the Tampa Bay Lightning didn't have a true #1 defenceman (Boyle and Kubina but not yet stars). Prior to the lockout the game was a bit different, but still...

2003 - Neidermayer/Scott Stevens/Rafalski (take your pick)
2002 - Lidstrom/Chelios
2001 - Rob Blake/Ray Bourque/Adam Foote
2000 - Neidermayer/Scott Stevens/Rafalski


Stars on defence have been the key to cup success, especially earlier on but now it only takes 1 or 2 defensive stars to go the distance. Our only chance is if Edler pans out to be a Doughty-like young defensive star, but I'd much rather trade one of our star goalies for a star defenceman around the league somewhere. We need a franchise defenceman and Hamhuis/Bieksa are far from that. Edler was voted 6th for defencemen by TSN, Ehrhoff was 9th in Norris voting a year ago but we have no one in that elusive top-3 that gives a club a real chance in the playoffs.



The offense on all those teams had a significant factor if not a biger one than the defence.

2012: Kopitar,Brown,RIchards,Carter>Doughty
2011:Lucic,Marchand,Bergereon,Thomas>Chara
2010:Kane,Toews,Byfulien,Ladd>Kieth
2009:Crosby,Malkin,stall,fleury>Gonchar
2008:Daytsuk,Zetterberg,Franzen>Lidstrom
2007:This is where your idea is true
prior to this i dont have a clear understanding from not watching the games.

#13 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,553 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:42 AM

He does not play 30 minutes because we have better offensive D than Hammer. If that means we have depth so be it, lets just call that the glass is half full.

Now lets credit where due as well. Hammer is a good to well above average puck mover (passer), is composed (but not overly talented) handling the puck, has an effective shot and is a very smart decision maker with the puck.

But its half, maybe 2/3rds full. No big shot, no breakout speed, no magical end to end rushes and most importantly > he's not the talent to push the puck through the neutral zone against pressure if he has no passing lane. He circles back and sets up the play again. Duncan Kieth, Pietrangelo, Letang, Campbell, Doughty, these guys all personally pick up the puck (and the team) and carry them up ice into the offensive zone. Heck, Chara and Weber dont blow past people, but they put them on their hip, protect the puck, start moving up ice and pass it when they draw the double team and a lane opens up.

What we desperately need is a full jug, not to give offensive minutes to Hamhuis ahead of better players for that role. How good would Hammer look with a guy like Doughty?

He doesn't play 30 minutes because we have enough depth that he doesn't have to.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 13 June 2012 - 04:51 AM.


#14 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,553 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 13 June 2012 - 05:00 AM

Please see the highlighted portion of a separate response of mine below. All those teams had a defensive player that put their premium offensive players in a position to score.

And for FTR, Marchand, nor Lucic can hold a hockey stick compared to Chara, Bergeron is close and Thomas his equal. NONE of those guys is as effective without Chara, who would be just as effective without them!

Your argument really only holds true with the Penguins amongst that list.

The offense on all those teams had a significant factor if not a biger one than the defence.

2012: Kopitar,Brown,RIchards,Carter>Doughty
2011:Lucic,Marchand,Bergereon,Thomas>Chara
2010:Kane,Toews,Byfulien,Ladd>Kieth
2009:Crosby,Malkin,stall,fleury>Gonchar
2008:Daytsuk,Zetterberg,Franzen>Lidstrom
2007:This is where your idea is true
prior to this i dont have a clear understanding from not watching the games.



He does not play 30 minutes because we have better offensive D than Hammer. If that means we have depth so be it, lets just call that the glass is half full.

Now lets credit where due as well. Hammer is a good to well above average puck mover (passer), is composed (but not overly talented) handling the puck, has an effective shot and is a very smart decision maker with the puck.

But its half, maybe 2/3rds full. No big shot, no breakout speed, no magical end to end rushes and most importantly > he's not the talent to push the puck through the neutral zone against pressure if he has no passing lane. He circles back and sets up the play again. Duncan Kieth, Pietrangelo, Letang, Campbell, Doughty, these guys all personally pick up the puck (and the team) and carry them up ice into the offensive zone. Heck, Chara and Weber dont blow past people, but they put them on their hip, protect the puck, start moving up ice and pass it when they draw the double team and a lane opens up.

What we desperately need is a full jug, not to give offensive minutes to Hamhuis ahead of better players for that role. How good would Hammer look with a guy like Doughty?


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 13 June 2012 - 05:05 AM.


#15 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,232 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 13 June 2012 - 05:28 AM

He does not play 30 minutes because we have better offensive D than Hammer.  If that means we have depth so be it, lets just call that the glass is half full.

Now lets credit where due as well. Hammer is a good to well above average puck mover (passer), is composed (but not overly talented) handling the puck, has an effective shot and is a very smart decision maker with the puck.  

But its half, maybe 2/3rds full. No big shot, no breakout speed, no magical end to end rushes and most importantly > he's not the talent to push the puck through the neutral zone against pressure if he has no passing lane. He circles back and sets up the play again.  Duncan Kieth, Pietrangelo, Letang, Campbell, Doughty, these guys all personally pick up the puck (and the team) and carry them up ice into the offensive zone. Heck, Chara and Weber dont blow past people, but they put them on their hip, protect the puck, start moving up ice and pass it when they draw the double team and a lane opens up.

What we desperately need is a full jug, not to give offensive minutes to Hamhuis ahead of better players for that role. How good would Hammer look with a guy like Doughty?


Hammer and Weber would be a better option. How good would that look.

#16 CB007

CB007

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,661 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 03

Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:13 AM

I don't know if you've ever played hockey, but playing after playing more than 20 minutes even the most in shape guys will be absolutely bombed. Once you get upwards of 30 minutes the odds of them making a costly mistake are huge.


Doesn't seem to be a problem for guys like Chara, Lidstrom, Niedermayer, Weber and a healthy Pronger. With the exception of Weber because he has been in a small market all his life, they have all won cups. Even Duncan Keith plays 25 +.
Posted Image

#17 RXnucks975

RXnucks975

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 12

Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:42 AM

I recall Hammy trying to bite off more than he could chew at the end of the LA series...let's have a balanced D built around Hammy Edler and KB and not put any added pressure on guys when we don't need to...(and who on LA are you talking about, Doughty? LA's D was a big team effort from vets like Scudri and Mitchell, and great play from their support guys Greene and Martinez. But that's not to say Doughty wasn't amazing against the Devils)

#18 Line Juggler

Line Juggler

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:07 AM

Comftorble with hamhuis bieksa and Edler in most situations

We need one more guy that is clearly a cut above those 3, I realize it is a tough request because they are all very good.

I don't know if there is anyone out there, we would have to pay them 7 million a year and Edler is already due for a raise.

Reality is we probably won't be getting a #1 or #2 guy via trade or free agency.
Posted Image

#19 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,351 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:37 AM

He doesn't play 30 minutes because we have enough depth that he doesn't have to.

I hate depth.

Can we trade everyone besides Hammer for Weber and play both of them 60 min a game?

Comftorble with hamhuis bieksa and Edler in most situations

Do you also skydive, fly fighter jets, ask women how old they are, and play in traffic?

Edited by Dogbyte, 13 June 2012 - 08:42 AM.

There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#20 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,048 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:38 AM

Not a fan of players playing big minutes. Edler at +25 and the Twins and Kesler at +22 is more a comment on the coaches concern that the rest of his lineup cannot get the job done. Not only can it led to discord in the roster but come playoffs these players can run out of gas. It also a bit of a cop out for the coaching staff if they leave it up to a few rather than coach the whole team to win.

#21 GPCanuck

GPCanuck

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:38 AM

This years playoffs...
Doughty played 25:26 minutes per 60 minutes, Mitchell played 24:39, Scuderi 21:10.
Bieksa played 24:26 minutes per 60 minutes, Hamhuis played 24:04, Edler 23:58

Last year the minutes were very similar for these three Canucks with Ehrhoff playing around 22 minutes. What would we have said about elite defensemen winning cups if we managed one more win last year? An elite defensemen obviously helps but it is not a formula for Stanley Cup success.

Doughty did not play "huge" minutes. Their D was very good and I think Mitchell and Scuderi had as much influence as Doughty for the Kings. We really miss the big shutdown D man like Mitchell.

#22 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,511 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:40 AM

Edler: He's the guy Gillis says will eventually win a Norris. Cheers.


TOML
Posted Image

#23 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,511 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:43 AM

LA dominated fenwick and corsi in the playoffs. You manage to do that and then you'll find that your top defenders can play top minutes far more easily.

The injury to Malhotra last season eliminated our ability to dominate fenwick and corsi for the playoffs. That's why we were inevitably destroyed by Boston in the finals. We wore out Kesler and then our defense started getting picked off. Hodgson wasn't effective and the returning Malhotra was useless. This team is cursed. Cheers.


TOML
Posted Image

#24 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:47 AM

I still think being able to stay fit in what is a war of attrition is the real key. LA stayed fit AND had big enough bodies to wear other teams down. The Devils were spent by the last game, just as we were. Call it luck, call it not pushing yourself to the PT or call it .............whatever but the winners always "seem" more healthy at the end of the day. It helps if you are also not playing past the 4/5th game.
Kevin.jpg

#25 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:48 AM

The way I look at it, some defensemen thrive on playing a lot of minutes and play better then playing average minutes. Duncan Keith is a guy who seems to play better when playing a lot of minutes.

Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook, looked pretty bagged this year in my opinion. They've played alot of hockey in the last three seasons.

#26 meh_wassup

meh_wassup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 12

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:53 AM

i think you might be on to something there

Edited by meh_wassup, 13 June 2012 - 09:54 AM.

Charlotte-McKinney-21-155x160.jpg


#27 CANUCKLELION

CANUCKLELION

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,078 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:36 AM

That one game went into over time so no wonder he played 30 mins. Most of his other games averaged around the 24 minute mark which is standard for a top 2 D man.

Canucks D do it by committee and they have to in order to be successful.


The Nuck's need to change the committee, Hammer is the Chair, Edler the first officer and the rest are dog shaat. Especially Bxa, lol
R.I.P, Rick Rypien Posted ImagePosted Image

#28 WolfxHaley

WolfxHaley

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 10

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:16 AM

The Nuck's need to change the committee, Hammer is the Chair, Edler the first officer and the rest are dog shaat. Especially Bxa, lol

Here we go again...

Posted Image


#29 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:22 PM

One thing those teams have in common also in terms of their big minute defenseman: THEY DRAFTED THE GUY.

Who the hell was our last defenseman we've drafted that we can say has honestly made a noticeable impact on the Canucks roster?

Edler. Eight years ago. That's some weak sht. And before him? Bieksa, a decade ago.
Posted Image

#30 GHL

GHL

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,639 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:28 PM

So you'd rather tire him out. :mellow:


Doughty got tired out and won a Cup? Chara got tired out and won a Cup? Pronger? Stevens?

Some teams have what we call a number one defenseman. The Canucks don't have one, nor do they have the mentality to go with it or acquire one. They will not win a Cup with a team based on Money ball and playing communist hockey.

It doesn't work.

Posted Image





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.