Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go Go Canucks Go

Jason Garrison so far?

973 posts in this topic

People keep bringing up Salo. Problem with him was, he was great at the beginning of every year, but always ended up getting injured, and in the last couple years (since his achilles injury) he wore down as the season went on.

In 2010-11, Salo came back strong after injury, scoring 3 goals and 3 assists in his first 14 games. But after that, he went cold offensively. There was that one game against San Jose where Salo got to tee them up on 5-on-3s for half the game. But if you take that one game out, Salo had only 3 points in 33 games. He was decent defensively, but far from a shutdown, minute-munching defenseman.

Then again in 2011-12, Salo started very strong. He had 6 goals and 8 assists in his first 24 games. But then, once again, he went cold. He had only 3 goals and 8 assists in his last 50 games, and had nothing in the 5 playoff games. By this point, even his defensive abilities were becoming suspect, and he was a team worst -3.

The facts show that, at his age, Salo gets less and less effective as the season wears on. Maybe he'll continue to maintain his game this year, with the longer offseason, shorter season, and easier travel in Tampa. However, when that contract was signed, the shorter season was an unknown. And next season? Who knows if he'll even play? But his cap hit will count regardless.

So anyone who claims that Salo was our best defenseman must have not been watching the games that mattered most. Also, anyone who says they would have rather given him a 2-year contract rather than sign on an up-and-coming D-man in his prime, who in his 3rd season scored more goals than Salo EVER managed to in ANY of his 13 years in the league...well, I would question their judgement.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe check that boxscore: http://canucks.nhl.c...m?id=2012020264

regards,

G.

Yeah boxscore didn't say so I watched the highlights. On for 4 Detroit goals (looked bad on 3 of them) and on for 2 Canucks goals where he contributed exactly nothing to the play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he was on for Tootoo's goal which may have been a fluke off Ballard but Garrison looked pretty flat footed after Tootoo got around him when Garrison stopped skating, then 2 of 3 PP goals (Cleary was his man and Cleary scored, then he fell and spun as the Detroit player scored the 3rd PP goal), then just standing there on the 8th goal where he skates over to cover a guy who is already covered.... Sure he was on for Sedin's second goal in which he was just standing there and didn't contribute to the goal so yay free +1, same thing with Higgins goal he was on ice but didn't contribute just standing at the blue line.

Now does this mean he is a bad player? No. But he sure had a bad game. Cause for concern? Maybe.

Ah, so you're happy to say he didn't contribute anything to our goals by being on the ice, but quick to point out how badly he looked on the Tootoo goal (despite doing his job and keeping Tootoo on the outside) even though it was a fluke deflection. No blame for Ballard and Luongo on that play too, since Ballard clearly shouldn't have been in the slot since it could be a potential shooting lane from the corner, and Luongo should have been able to react to it regardless? I'm sure the rest of your analysis is just as irrefutable.

People keep bringing up Salo. Problem with him was, he was great at the beginning of every year, but always ended up getting injured, and in the last couple years (since his achilles injury) he wore down as the season went on.

...

Absolutely, he'll see the same effects in Tampa due to this shortened season. He's doing great now, but potential for injuries was always there with us as was having to keep him fresh with reduced minutes or risk him wearing down when it came to playoffs.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy's not fitting into our system. Give him until the trade deadline and if he doesn't fit in, trade him. Easy as that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy's not fitting into our system. Give him until the trade deadline and if he doesn't fit in, trade him. Easy as that.

Forgetting the fact that it's not all that "easy" to trade players, it's a bad idea anyway. Even the trade deadline is too small a sample size to decide whether or not to keep a player. It took Ballard two years to make an impact with the Canucks.If Gillis had been as impatient as many here on CDC, (including "future GMs") he would have given Ballard up for virtually nothing.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so you're happy to say he didn't contribute anything to our goals by being on the ice, but quick to point out how badly he looked on the Tootoo goal (despite doing his job and keeping Tootoo on the outside) even though it was a fluke deflection. No blame for Ballard and Luongo on that play too, since Ballard clearly shouldn't have been in the slot since it could be a potential shooting lane from the corner, and Luongo should have been able to react to it regardless? I'm sure the rest of your analysis is just as irrefutable.

Umm he didn't contribute anything to either goal.

And he got caught flat footed on the Tootoo goal, stopped moving his feet and just reached in. All Ballard did was have the puck bounce in off his backside and from that angle yes Ballard should be in the slot because a Detroit player was there...it's called covering your man. Right play, bad bounce. Why blame Luongo at all for that he likely didn't have a chance with such a fluke deflection. It wasn't Garrison's worst play of the game by any means - as you say he did keep Tootoo to the outside...nevertheless if he had kept moving his feet Tootoo wouldn't have got around him and gotten a shot so easily.

You're pretty sure of yourself for not reading the rest of my argument. Garrison did not have a good game. If you think I'm wrong explain why he had a great game. I'm interested to know how someone can be on the ice for 4 goals a game and have it considered one of his good games...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy's not fitting into our system. Give him until the trade deadline and if he doesn't fit in, trade him. Easy as that.

He does have a cannon from the point. I like that he's not afraid to shoot. Even though he only has 2 goals in 18 games he's not afraid to get the puck to the net. Goals will go in eventually. I'm just hoping he settles in a little bit better on the back end. He hasn't been horrible this year but also not worth more than a couple million at most.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah boxscore didn't say so I watched the highlights. On for 4 Detroit goals (looked bad on 3 of them) and on for 2 Canucks goals where he contributed exactly nothing to the play.

Couldn't have been on for 4 against. The boxscore indicates that he was "0" for the game. If the Canucks only scored 3 goals then the most that Garrison could have been on for is 3.

Not disputing that he had a bad game (like a lot of other guys), just pointing out an inaccuracy. :)

regards,

G.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy's not fitting into our system. Give him until the trade deadline and if he doesn't fit in, trade him. Easy as that.

Yeah, if I recall, people used to say that about that Ballard guy. I also have a recollection that Salo had some question marks about him when he first got here.

regards,

G.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't have been on for 4 against. The boxscore indicates that he was "0" for the game. If the Canucks only scored 3 goals then the most that Garrison could have been on for is 3.

Not disputing that he had a bad game (like a lot of other guys), just pointing out an inaccuracy. :)

regards,

G.

correct me if im wrong, but plus minus don't include specialty team plays unless its a shorthanded goal so really Garrison could have been on for 6 goals

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't have been on for 4 against. The boxscore indicates that he was "0" for the game. If the Canucks only scored 3 goals then the most that Garrison could have been on for is 3.

Not disputing that he had a bad game (like a lot of other guys), just pointing out an inaccuracy. :)

regards,

G.

2 Detroit PP goals = 0

2 Detroit goals = -2

2 Canucks goals = +2

Net = 0

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy's not fitting into our system. Give him until the trade deadline and if he doesn't fit in, trade him. Easy as that.

Way to write someone off after a sub 20 game sample.

But lets just ignore that hes been a positive possession player, and posing positive fenwick numbers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm he didn't contribute anything to either goal.

And he got caught flat footed on the Tootoo goal, stopped moving his feet and just reached in. All Ballard did was have the puck bounce in off his backside and from that angle yes Ballard should be in the slot because a Detroit player was there...it's called covering your man. Right play, bad bounce. Why blame Luongo at all for that he likely didn't have a chance with such a fluke deflection. It wasn't Garrison's worst play of the game by any means - as you say he did keep Tootoo to the outside...nevertheless if he had kept moving his feet Tootoo wouldn't have got around him and gotten a shot so easily.

You're pretty sure of yourself for not reading the rest of my argument. Garrison did not have a good game. If you think I'm wrong explain why he had a great game. I'm interested to know how someone can be on the ice for 4 goals a game and have it considered one of his good games...

Did I say he had a good game? No one on the team really had a good game, but hat should be obvious in a 8-3 loss. You haven't read my posts, just like you didn't read the recent posts before your original comment.

What I have been saying all along is Garrison is not that bad at all, especially when people are lauding Ballard with praise despite him not being quite that fantastic to warrant it. The whole D have been bad at times. Garrison has been better defensively than people give him credit for and his offence (what offence people should expect from him, not offence equalling what he put up last year, particularly goals) will come as he gets used to the team.

Back to the Tootoo goal, he didn't get around Garrison and he didn't have an easy shot. Since when is it a bad play to allow a weak shot from the outside edge of the ice down closer to the goal line? Those are shots teams are happy to let through in the hopes they get possession and can clear the zone. It's better than trying to force a block or rush the player and potentially let him inside you for a much improved scoring chance. Those are shots you get out of the way of, unlike Ballard when he tipped one of the later goals on a shot from inside the blue line as the puck was still being moved up ice.

As far as what Ballard and Luongo should have done on the Tootoo goal, that was sarcasm in response to you expecting Garrison to do more on a play he handled pretty well. Ballard and Luongo shouldn't have been expected to do any more on that goal than what they did, and about all you could expect Garrison to do more on would be to have body checked Tootoo as he entered the zone. Hardly an error to make the safe play and keep him outside, expecting a weak shot (which it was) and an easy save (which it wasn't after a fluke deflection).

I really hate to keep using Ballard in my examples, since I think he has been good this year, but people keep saying he's been our best D-man (or one of our best) and Garrison has been so bad. In reality they aren't very far apart in performance. It may even be reversed slightly, considering Garrison has better points and +/- (along with other stats I detailed earlier), all against better opponents.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garrison= Willie Mitchell

Flat footed Canadians adept at clearing the net and swinging effectively with a long tree branch.Defensive stalwarts but not counted on for a smooth first pass out or scoring.

Salo = Jyrke Lumme

Smooth skating Europeans that transition the play seamlessly,continuously creating offense while being responsible at both ends. Coveted D men.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say he had a good game? No one on the team really had a good game, but hat should be obvious in a 8-3 loss. You haven't read my posts, just like you didn't read the recent posts before your original comment.

What I have been saying all along is Garrison is not that bad at all, especially when people are lauding Ballard with praise despite him not being quite that fantastic to warrant it. The whole D have been bad at times. Garrison has been better defensively than people give him credit for and his offence (what offence people should expect from him, not offence equalling what he put up last year, particularly goals) will come as he gets used to the team.

Back to the Tootoo goal, he didn't get around Garrison and he didn't have an easy shot. Since when is it a bad play to allow a weak shot from the outside edge of the ice down closer to the goal line? Those are shots teams are happy to let through in the hopes they get possession and can clear the zone. It's better than trying to force a block or rush the player and potentially let him inside you for a much improved scoring chance. Those are shots you get out of the way of, unlike Ballard when he tipped one of the later goals on a shot from inside the blue line as the puck was still being moved up ice.

As far as what Ballard and Luongo should have done on the Tootoo goal, that was sarcasm in response to you expecting Garrison to do more on a play he handled pretty well. Ballard and Luongo shouldn't have been expected to do any more on that goal than what they did, and about all you could expect Garrison to do more on would be to have body checked Tootoo as he entered the zone. Hardly an error to make the safe play and keep him outside, expecting a weak shot (which it was) and an easy save (which it wasn't after a fluke deflection).

I really hate to keep using Ballard in my examples, since I think he has been good this year, but people keep saying he's been our best D-man (or one of our best) and Garrison has been so bad. In reality they aren't very far apart in performance. It may even be reversed slightly, considering Garrison has better points and +/- (along with other stats I detailed earlier), all against better opponents.

I haven't noticed people saying Ballard has been much better than Garrison, but then again I haven't been on CDC in awhile. That surprises me to hear that though.

I never said Garrison made a bad play on the fluke goal, only that he was on the ice, and he got caught flat footed when he should have been able to take Tootoo out along the boards and keep pressuring him he stopped moving his feet and had to settle for reaching.

In anycase I just hope this isn't the best we see of him. He has potential and I hope he fulfills it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garrison= Willie Mitchell

Flat footed Canadians adept at clearing the net and swinging effectively with a long tree branch.Defensive stalwarts but not counted on for a smooth first pass out or scoring.

Salo = Jyrki Lumme

Smooth skating Europeans that transition the play seamlessly,continuously creating offense while being responsible at both ends. Coveted D men.

Both of those comparisons are poor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of those comparisons are poor.

That's being kind. I was thinking along the lines of abysmal...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't noticed people saying Ballard has been much better than Garrison, but then again I haven't been on CDC in awhile. That surprises me to hear that though.

I never said Garrison made a bad play on the fluke goal, only that he was on the ice, and he got caught flat footed when he should have been able to take Tootoo out along the boards and keep pressuring him he stopped moving his feet and had to settle for reaching.

In anycase I just hope this isn't the best we see of him. He has potential and I hope he fulfills it.

Like I said, you should scan through some of this thread. It's the new thing this year that Ballard is finally great but Garrison is the new whipping boy.

You're probably trying to present a more measured response to how he's been, but there have been plenty saying he'd be a candidate for a buyout or we should trade him or he's been a disaster. You're early posts meshed with that group of people not doing a good job of evaluating players, but you've been more reasonable since.

We can both agree we'd like to see more of him, and I'm optimistic that it'll happen versus some of the others around here.

Both of those comparisons are poor.

The Mitchell one has some merit, but Lumme and Salo?! Geez that's horrible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct me if im wrong, but plus minus don't include specialty team plays unless its a shorthanded goal so really Garrison could have been on for 6 goals

2 Detroit PP goals = 0

2 Detroit goals = -2

2 Canucks goals = +2

Net = 0

Oh you guys and your annoying facts and rules and stuff.

But at the end of the game, he was still even. So there.

regards,

G.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.