Caboose Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 TL;DR - Erik Karlsson is an elite NHL defender, and is deserving of the same great all-around rating that a veteran stud like Shea Weber would deserve, because he won the Norris last year. Except none of that is true, except that he won a Norris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I said before the Awards that I'd have considered it more logical that Karlsson get the Hart than the Norris. I love him, don't get me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 You make him sound he has the defensive capabilities of Brett Lebda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollarAndADream Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Well, even if his D is crap....I'd trust that he's going to score in the last minute when defending a 1 goal lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I hope I don't make it sound that way, because he (Lebda) is the worst. I love him. There's a number of reasons I wouldn't want him on in my last minute, and one of those reasons is that I would want my guys defending a lead to be willing to take a puck in the chest to do it. Karlsson isn't that kind of player. His SH TOI is low, but that's as much to do with the fact that he pulls 25m on average in ES and PP time. However, the players we're supposedly comparing him to, like Weber, would have played those minutes. Phaneuf too. Though I would never take Phaneuf on my team. Karlsson is a great guy to have on the blueline, he's just not the best option in your own zone. And since a defenceman's rating should be a little disproportionately balanced towards what they do in their own zone, I'm just saying it doesn't surprise me that he's low, and that anyone saying he's an elite defender is going a bit far. He's a wonderful kid. He's just not the best defender in the league, or his own team. Maybe not his own defensive pairing. That doesn't stop him from being exceptional as a PP QB or a puck mover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollarAndADream Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I've watched at least 25 Senators games this year. From what I've seen he's not as bad as you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Fair enough. I saw the same amount, maybe 5 less since I never making watching the Ottawa game a priority. I just don't ever see him as a Weber or Lidstrom, the kind of guy who is terrific on all sides of the puck. I see him more as a Subban/Byfuglien/Campbell type, where they're great with the puck and capable of not letting everyone score on them all the time. And I'd never put PK/Buff/Soupy on in the last minute either. Either way, I appreciate the respectful exchange of ideas with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollarAndADream Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 It's true he's no Weber, but I think a guy like Carle is an okay comparison for his defensive side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I'd say this as kind of a 'mathematical reasoning' A defenseman's job is... would you say, 80% to stop goals from getting in? I'd even say 90% of the time, but let's just say 80-20 as a D-O split. There's no denying he's elite offensively. I'd grade him a hypothetical 100 in it. Defensively, I'd maybe give him an 80. I'd give Carle maybe a 85, a little better, but far below guys like Weber (90ish) and Chara (100) and Pronger (100) So, 80% of his grade is D - 80% of his 80 rank = 64. 100% of his 20 potential points for rating off = 20 (obv) So, an 84 ranking. With potential. Seems right to me, right now. Comparatively, I'd never give Carle a 100 for his offensive work. Maybe, like, an 85-90. If we even give him an 85, then his adjusted ranking would also be around 85 including his D work, but with less potential to improve. It doesn't sound nearly as ridiculous that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollarAndADream Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Rationalize it however you want, I have my opinion and you have yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 lol that wasn't even in response to you, per se. Just the idle ramblings of an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollarAndADream Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 lol that wasn't even in response to you, per se. Just the idle ramblings of an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Kane Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 All Karlsson lacks is defensive awareness and strength in the game. Two of the biggest factors towards overalls. If EA weighed each overall equally, he would surely be 88+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I'd say this as kind of a 'mathematical reasoning' A defenseman's job is... would you say, 80% to stop goals from getting in? I'd even say 90% of the time, but let's just say 80-20 as a D-O split. There's no denying he's elite offensively. I'd grade him a hypothetical 100 in it. Defensively, I'd maybe give him an 80. I'd give Carle maybe a 85, a little better, but far below guys like Weber (90ish) and Chara (100) and Pronger (100) So, 80% of his grade is D - 80% of his 80 rank = 64. 100% of his 20 potential points for rating off = 20 (obv) So, an 84 ranking. With potential. Seems right to me, right now. Comparatively, I'd never give Carle a 100 for his offensive work. Maybe, like, an 85-90. If we even give him an 85, then his adjusted ranking would also be around 85 including his D work, but with less potential to improve. It doesn't sound nearly as ridiculous that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryanstorm Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Why are they rated differently on the demo that was just released? Like Malkin is an 89 in the demo and i'm not sure which is the real rating. Malhotra is like an 80 in the demo too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 HUT is a different rating system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Why are they rated differently on the demo that was just released? Like Malkin is an 89 in the demo and i'm not sure which is the real rating. Malhotra is like an 80 in the demo too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksCupHopes Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Lp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanIslander89 Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 How do you know? You can only be the Devils or Kings in the demo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 oh ya right... forgot about that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.