higgyfan Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Garrison had one of his better games tonight That's what everyone was saying last night. He's coming around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Numbers aren't everything, you have to watch their play. Ballard actually boxes out the player in front of our goalie and when a shots coming and he knows he can't block it or if the goalie can save it easily, he gets out of the way and lets the goalie take it. Don't take my post the wrong way, I'm not knocking Ballard. He's been good for us this year, but to say he's been better than Garrison overall isn't the complete picture. Each defender has had their moments good and bad, but I would say Garrison in his first season as a Canuck has so far done better than Ballard did in his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bieksa's Quote Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 I do get a kick out of how the naysayers disappear when they have obvious evidence against their arguments. Makes it easier when you've been arguing against their opinion all along. That's something that people have been saying about him, as well as having a hard shot he has a small wind-up where others with big shots take a lot longer to get the shot off due to pulling the stick back so far to generate power. I think the wind-up is almost as important as the strength of the shot, maybe even more so. Usually, wind-ups that take a lot of time aren't particularly effective. Although Salo was pretty good at that, but I think that had more to do with opposing players being scared s***less about his shot than anything .. they usually got out of the way if anything (for the few players who dove to block his shot, I'm not sure which is more true: whether they were brave or just plain stupid ). Garrison, otoh, clearly has a faster wind-up. He may never be the PP specialist Salo was, but I think he'd be better suited for quick one-timed shots than most in the league, and that's a nice asset to have, if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Using advanded stats is never smart . Plugging in inaccurate numbers no matter how perfect the equation, will still provide an inaccurate solution. Hard stats (goals, assists, points) are about the only numbers worth noting, although even they aren't always accurate. Nothing beats watching to see how well a player plays his position to see how well he is playing. In this case: Ballard > Everyone. Garrison is not playing better than Ballard but he is hardly the heel most seem to think he is. Numbers aren't everything, you have to watch their play. Ballard actually boxes out the player in front of our goalie and when a shots coming and he knows he can't block it or if the goalie can save it easily, he gets out of the way and lets the goalie take it. EXACTLY Don't take my post the wrong way, I'm not knocking Ballard. He's been good for us this year, but to say he's been better than Garrison overall isn't the complete picture. Each defender has had their moments good and bad, but I would say Garrison in his first season as a Canuck has so far done better than Ballard did in his. Ballard has been our most consistent defenceman this season. And while you point out that he faces weaker competition he also generally plays with weaker linemates too. It is tougher for a D to generate points playing with the bottom 6 and getting no PP time, wouldn't you agree? None of our D have done more with less opportunity than Ballard has this season.......and Garrison has also looked better since being paired with Ballard, just like every other D that has been paired with Ballard this season seems to suddenly look better. The only partner so far who seems to be able to feed Garrison for effective one timers is Ballard.......those two on the PP would put up some points I bet. But Ballard doesn't get those minutes so offense isnt going to come often. He does create a lot 5 on 5 though. Stats are fine but they do not tell the whole story. Watching the games with the understanding that not everything can be tracked as a stat certainly helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 What hell are you talking about? His offense WAS his major selling point and we bought it. Gillis didn't fork out 4.6 million for his +6 rating and his 18 points prior to that, I'll tell you that right now. And I don't think anyone ever stated around here that he was going to total or better his 16 goals from last season but we certainly sure as hell expected a lot better than a 15 point season over 82 games which he currently on pace for. Before you keep trying to evaluate players, you should probably learn what Corsi is. Here's a start: Link And here's a couple of links showing that Garrison is a very good defensive player: Link Link Garrison is a very strong defensive d-man. Just because you can't see that, doesn't make it untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdubuya Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Numbers aren't everything, you have to watch their play. Ballard actually boxes out the player in front of our goalie and when a shots coming and he knows he can't block it or if the goalie can save it easily, he gets out of the way and lets the goalie take it. Ballard is seriously overhyped these days. He got walked around by Stahlberg a few games ago. It was embarassing for any dman. If by boxing out you mean desperatly failing at playing the man while they are taking a shot, then sure... i see him do that a lot. Also his cross crease passes in front of our own net are downright scary. Isn't that a hockey/ soccer basic you learn at a young age. Dont pass the puck/ ball in front of your own net unless your damned sure it wont get picked? He makes me nervous whenever hes out there and does very little offensively aside from hard work and the occaisonal weak shot. Garrison is much more of a calming presence for me. Sure points wise hes been lacking, but hes a PP specialist who shoud be on our first unit til they figure out how to get him more shots. I know you have to earn your time on this team, but with the cannon he has theres no reason for him not to have more time. Newell Brown needs to figure his sheet out and get him the puck with space. Other teams seem to be able to get their point men the puck, yet I havent seen Garrison with too many oppurtunities to display his one time rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dildo Faggins Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 I know Garrison is gonna come around eventually. He is starting to find his game a bit more and he plays well with Ballard. Nice slap shot goal against the Stars. That huge slapper is gonna give the team a real punch when he starts unleashing it like he did in Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoosh Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 What hell are you talking about? His offense WAS his major selling point and we bought it. Gillis didn't fork out 4.6 million for his +6 rating and his 18 points prior to that, I'll tell you that right now. And I don't think anyone ever stated around here that he was going to total or better his 16 goals from last season but we certainly sure as hell expected a lot better than a 15 point season over 82 games which he currently on pace for. It's true that his good offensive stats were a part of his contract, but no GM is so simple minded that he ignores what he has when he signs a deal like that. We had one of the most offensively talented teams even before we signed him, top 5 in the league in most stats. Very offensive d-men before we added him. I don't think the management or coaching staff is unhappy with his offensive performance when so many others have gotten the job done. Bieksa 5 Edler 4 Garrison 2 Hammer 1 Tanev 1 That's pretty good production and offensive help. Probably more than the other teams have. Someone scores the goals. Garrison won't score the majority of them on a team like this. Then people would be upset with the Sedins, Burr, Kesler or someone else for not contributing... People are never happy with anything they have around here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 How many times do we have to point out that this is wrong? GIllis, thankfully, is smarter than you. He did not pay Garrison for his offense. Everybody who pays attention knew that Garrison was not going to score at a 16 goal pace, and that he is not going to rack up assists. What he is going to do, is play great shutdown defense, while chipping in on offense. He is already doing that, despite what CDC seems to think. That's why we paid him. If you're disappointed by Garrison's offensive production, you have no one to blame but yourself. Pay more attention next time. He isn't worth $4.5 million if we only got him to be great in defense (which he hasn't even shown that yet). Willie Mitchell is only making $3.5 million and brings a much better defensive game than Garrison. So in essence, we overpaid by more than $1 million to get his services. He should be making only $3 million/yr, especially with the cap going down next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 It's true that his good offensive stats were a part of his contract, but no GM is so simple minded that he ignores what he has when he signs a deal like that. We had one of the most offensively talented teams even before we signed him, top 5 in the league in most stats. Very offensive d-men before we added him. I don't think the management or coaching staff is unhappy with his offensive performance when so many others have gotten the job done. Bieksa 5 Edler 4 Garrison 2 Hammer 1 Tanev 1 That's pretty good production and offensive help. Probably more than the other teams have. Someone scores the goals. Garrison won't score the majority of them on a team like this. Then people would be upset with the Sedins, Burr, Kesler or someone else for not contributing... People are never happy with anything they have around here... Our defense before this year was even more dynamic with Salo and Ehrhoff. That meant when Bieksa and Edler would get injured, we would still be able to throw Salo and Ehrhoff on the ice to score goals. Who will score the goals this year if Bieksa and/or Edler get injured in the regular season or playoffs? Tanev? Ballard? Alberts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoosh Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Our defense before this year was even more dynamic with Salo and Ehrhoff. That meant when Bieksa and Edler would get injured, we would still be able to throw Salo and Ehrhoff on the ice to score goals. Who will score the goals this year if Bieksa and/or Edler get injured in the regular season or playoffs? Tanev? Ballard? Alberts? Hmmm... Garrison? Usually it's the forwards that should do it. And in that case they wouldn't lean on the D to make it happen. They'd change strategy a bit then. And in case of emergency, even Hamhuis and Ballard can do a few times it if they get top-pairing PP time and given the role to shoot a lot. It's not like our offensive production is up to our defenders to accomplish, they are just helping out. Secondary scoring if you will. Not buying it? Then don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 ... Ballard has been our most consistent defenceman this season. And while you point out that he faces weaker competition he also generally plays with weaker linemates too. It is tougher for a D to generate points playing with the bottom 6 and getting no PP time, wouldn't you agree? None of our D have done more with less opportunity than Ballard has this season.......and Garrison has also looked better since being paired with Ballard, just like every other D that has been paired with Ballard this season seems to suddenly look better. The only partner so far who seems to be able to feed Garrison for effective one timers is Ballard.......those two on the PP would put up some points I bet. But Ballard doesn't get those minutes so offense isnt going to come often. He does create a lot 5 on 5 though. Stats are fine but they do not tell the whole story. Watching the games with the understanding that not everything can be tracked as a stat certainly helps. That's a fairly simple statement, especially since Ballard has been paired with only Tanev until the recent line juggle when Garrison was moved to play with him. Prior to that it was Garrison/Edler and Hamhuis/Bieksa who were shuffled to Hamhuis/Edler and Garrison/Bieksa. Ballard and Tanev stayed the same in the lineup, even if there may have been some changes mid-game. Who's to say who made who better, Ballard or Tanev? Edler looked better with Tanev on his right side as well, is that because Edler goes back to his favoured left, or becaue Tanev is such a calming influence? You're right about him playing with lesser linemates as well, and I'm sure we've had this discussion before. At it's most basic, lesser competition should mean more shots but lesser linemates means a reduction in those shots. If Ballard really has been our most consistent D, doing more with less opportunity, and making the players with him better, then the lesser linemates wouldn't matter as much. Ballard particularly has the highest Corsi of our D, meaning he's generating more scoring chances than he's giving up than anyone on our team, yet it hasn't translated into offence. Some of that can be chalked up to his lesser linemates not finishing chances, but with the Canucks generally having been a better team than their opposition, I would like to see a little more noticeable effect on Ballard's boxscore each night. Again, I think we're getting off track. I haven't said Ballard's been bad, I"m saying in no way has Garrison been so much worse than Ballard they way people are talking about both. Both (along with the rest of our D) have been guilty of mistakes and aren't perfect. We can measure what they've done in stats to an extent, but of course it doesn't provide the whole picture. I'm watching games as well though, and what I'm seeing is supported by the stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnihilist Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 What hell are you talking about? His offense WAS his major selling point and we bought it. Gillis didn't fork out 4.6 million for his +6 rating and his 18 points prior to that, I'll tell you that right now. And I don't think anyone ever stated around here that he was going to total or better his 16 goals from last season but we certainly sure as hell expected a lot better than a 15 point season over 82 games which he currently on pace for. /disagree His first strength is his defensive ability. And his second strength is offensive potential. That is why he got the 4.6m. A year from now he will probably be on pace for 10 goals or so per season, in this more offensive-oriented team (than Florida). Well, as long as we do trend that way, we aren't scoring tons right now... Anyways, middle-tier players don't have an impact right away, they usually take time to fit in, especially on defence - a more difficult position to fit on a new team. If he was a Pronger, then his impact would be right away, cause those kind of players dominate. He is not that kind of player, he needs to fit into the "team" before you see him shine. He is not good enough to dominate. What part of that don't people understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Garrison's primary function is as an elite defensive defenseman. For that, he has met my expectations in spades. Ever since the 2nd/3rd game of the season, he has been a defensive rock. I have not noticed any "getting better" or "starting to look better", he's been great defensively for a while. Nice to see him pick up his 2nd goal, he should get a little more pp time now that Bieksa may be out. Not surprised at all to see he's +6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaydar Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Elite Garrison's primary function is as an elite defensive defenseman. For that, he has met my expectations in spades. Ever since the 2nd/3rd game of the season, he has been a defensive rock. I have not noticed any "getting better" or "starting to look better", he's been great defensively for a while. Nice to see him pick up his 2nd goal, he should get a little more pp time now that Bieksa may be out. Not surprised at all to see he's +6 Elite is a rather strong word for Garrison's defensive game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Elite Elite is a rather strong word for Garrison's defensive game Aptly used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 /disagree His first strength is his defensive ability. And his second strength is offensive potential. That is why he got the 4.6m. A year from now he will probably be on pace for 10 goals or so per season, in this more offensive-oriented team (than Florida). Well, as long as we do trend that way, we aren't scoring tons right now... Anyways, middle-tier players don't have an impact right away, they usually take time to fit in, especially on defence - a more difficult position to fit on a new team. If he was a Pronger, then his impact would be right away, cause those kind of players dominate. He is not that kind of player, he needs to fit into the "team" before you see him shine. He is not good enough to dominate. What part of that don't people understand? I know, "players take time to fit in". Fine, I get that, but how long is less than mediocre offensive output from a player of his stature acceptable for? I know some fans wear the rose coloured glasses all the time where as I only do for a while until it's too bloody obvious there's an issue. We're nearly half way through this season, and would be nearly a quarter through 82 games and there's no signs he picking it up. The point I am making is that he is not living up to his contract and if anyone disputes that then they are wrong because there are TWO ends of the ice to play and not one. Gillis isn't offering Garrison the contract he did if he had another 5 goal and 18 point campaign instead of his 16 goal 37 point season last year -- his offense was a massive pay day for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Before you keep trying to evaluate players, you should probably learn what Corsi is. Here's a start: Link And here's a couple of links showing that Garrison is a very good defensive player: Link Link Garrison is a very strong defensive d-man. Just because you can't see that, doesn't make it untrue. I never said he wasn't a strong player defensively so apply your strawman argument's elsewhere. All I'm saying is Garrison's huge selling point was his last season in Florida, offensively speaking, and as of now he is not living up to his current cotnract. There are TWO ends of the ice to play and not one and if anyone disputes that then they are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 I never said he wasn't a strong player defensively so apply your strawman argument's elsewhere. All I'm saying is Garrison's huge selling point was his last season in Florida, offensively speaking, and as of now he is not living up to his current cotnract. There are TWO ends of the ice to play and not one and if anyone disputes that then they are wrong. I agree, just because he can shoot hard doesn't mean he should be making that kind of money. His passing and skating look pretty weak also. If he wasn't good at defending then what would he be good at...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Garrison is adjusting to a new system. He has missed on 44% of his shot attempts. Last season he only missed on 32%. He also averaged 2.18 Shots per game to his 1.59 shots per game this season. If he could get his missed shots down to 35% and increase his attempts by .3 per game his goal output should look decent. Current: 2.8 shot attempts per game, 1.59 on net, 44% missed x 7.4 S% 2 goals Projected: 3.1 shot attempts per game, 2.02 on net, 36% missed x 7.4 S% 31 games remaining 4.622 goals - round up to 5 Projected 7 goals in 48 games 7 x 1.7 12 goals over an 82 goal season. Garrison's magic numbers or "KPI" for this season: 7 goals 12 assists 90 shots on goal 55 missed shots 65 hits 65 blocked shots + 12 In Florida he hit at twice the rate he is this year so I would expect his .9 pace would increase to around 1.35 (it was 1.8 in Florida). If he reaches these numbers I would say he meets his minimum standards given his past performance and contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.