Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Should The Canucks Have Gone After Matt Carle Instead of Garrison?

Pasific Coluseum

By Pasific Coluseum
in Canucks Talk

Recommended Posts

5minutesinthebox Abbotsford Star

5minutesinthebox

Posted
Posted

First, going from a bad team to a good team doesn't automatically mean a player's stats will improve. Playing on a deeper team often means you get less opportunity, and Garrison is getting 2 minutes less ice time a game so far.

Secondly, it is just incontrovertible that his shooting percentage in the first half of last year was unsustainable. In the first 37 games of last year, he shot 12.5% (11 goals on 88 shots.) That is basically impossible for a D-man to sustain over a full season. For comparison, here are the best shooting percentages for some notable defenseman. Remember, these are their single season bests, not career averages:

Shea Weber - 11.2% (06/07)

Zdeno Chara - 9.5% (01/02)

Nicklas Lidstrom - 11.1% (94/95)

Erik Karlsson - 9.7% (11/12)

Al MacInnis - 10.2% (87/88)

Chris Pronger - 7.8% (06/07)

Scott Niedermayer - 9.2% (07/08)

The only one of these players to have two years above 10% was Nick Lidstrom, who did it all of twice. In other words - Lidstrom, MacInnis, Pronger and Niedermayer combined played more than 75 years, and never once did one of them shoot as well as Garrison did to start last year. So either he got lucky last year, or he's an inherently better shooter than all of the players I listed above. I'm gonna say he was lucky.

Having said that, I think he is a good player, all I'm saying is that if you're basing your expectations on his 16 goals from last year, you will be very disappointed going forward. Even Hall of Fame players can't sustain what he did last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horvat x 53 Junior Prospect

Horvat x 53

Posted
Posted

Although having carle would be nice i don't think it could have happened. Carle makings 5.25 i believe and garrison makes 4.6

talking about resigning salo GM MG i dont think was looking at a 3.75 range rather than a 1-2 range

Don't forget luongo is still around and cap dips next season.

Ballard is playing well with Tanev as a steady partner, vice versa.

Mayray is one of our top goal scorers at the moment.

Garrison looks slow and shaky at times but it's only 12 games in and Van is 8-2-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boxiebrown Abbotsford Star

boxiebrown

Posted
Posted

Actually if you want proof that going from a bad team offensive team to a good one wont improve ones stats, look at half of the players the Canucks have brought in over the years. Ehrhoff, Samuelsson, Hamhuis, Higgins all had either career years or a complete resurgence after coming to the Canucks.

You can call it whatever you want, but luck isnt something that happens over that period of time. He just had more room to shoot earlier in the season, than he did once other teams started to focus on his shooting. That being said his assist numbers rose dramatically over the 2nd half of the season. So far we have barely seen anyone even set Garrison up with a a proper one timer at all, which is necessary in order to get a decent shot from the point.

Im not saying he will shoot 12% for his career, but he has a rocket and it is pretty damn accurate when it is utilized correctly. To think that he couldnt out match his previous season numbers while playing for this team is pretty narrow minded. He doesnt need to be nearly as accurate, he just needs to shoot more often. And being that he is on a shoot first offensive minded team like the Canucks, I would expect him to. WIll he do it this year? Probably not, but then I didnt expect him to jump right in and leave off where he ended last season. Thats just not realistic, but I gaurantee he will beat those point numbers with the Canucks eventually.

All of this is besides the point. What we do agree on (and why I liked the signing in the first place) is the fact that Garrison is an excellent defencemen. That to me is far more valuable to this team than potting the odd goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gurn Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Gurn

Posted
Posted

" I don't hate him or anything, i just know he's pretty much on the ice like 80% the time we're scored on the PP. "

Since the Canucks have only given up 3 or 4 short handed goals this problem you see in his play could just be a temporary statistical blip.

Also as he is not playing on the powerplay anymore I don't think this problem you see will continue to be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldnews Canucks Hall-of-Famer

oldnews

Posted
Posted

Carle

his -19.66 corsi is 16th on Tampa, -2 is tied for worst on Tampa

6 years 5.5

Garrison

+8.88 corsi is 7th on Vancouver, +7 is tied for best on the Canucks

6 years 4.6

has less points, must be a bust

fun thread, but no better than the "overhyped" blah blah already been done thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KING ALBERTS Canucks Prospect

KING ALBERTS

Posted
Posted

No matter which way you slice it folks its evident Jason Garrsion has been a bust with a measly 2 points in 12 games played for the Vancouver Canucks. Being a huuuge Free Agent acquisition everyone was expecting a difference maker, but it could be argued keeping Salo might have been the wiser choice.

I think the Canucks made a regrettable decision in signing Garrison and the brass were more enamored by the fact Garrison was a BC boy. Similiar to the Hamuis effect when they signed Dan during Free Agency a couple years ago.

It's looking more and more like another Florida Panther acquisition gone bad i.e Ballard, Duco, Reinprecht, Oreskevich etc.. Now if we re-signed Salo, signed Matt Carle and waived/traded/demoted Ballard, Malhotra, Raymond our power play would not suck like it does. Matt Carle is a stud and is an upgraded Christian Erhoff. Imagine him on our PP.. Suffice to say it would be lights out for the opposition.

Willing to give it a bit longer before I render my verdict on Jason but frankly it's not looking all rosy and sunny. I'm starting to get buyer's remorse on Garrison. Please don't let it be another Ballard situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
5minutesinthebox Abbotsford Star

5minutesinthebox

Posted
Posted

I agree that it's not impossible for him to score 16 goals again, but it will be very difficult. Even if you assume an 8% shooting percentage (which is still very good for a defenseman, but not impossible) he would need to get 200 shots to score 16 goals. Last year he had 168 in 77 games, so increasing that to 200 on a team in which he's not guaranteed PP time is a very tall order. So far this year he has 19 shots in 12 games, which is a slower rate than he had last year.

You make a good point about his assists and the second half, though, and it kind of illustrates how he was affected by puck luck. I would guess that a lot of those assists were off rebounds or deflections on the powerplay - shots that were going in for him in the first half. It shows that any drop in his shooting percentage should be partially compensated in more assists. Going forward, I think it's reasonable to expect between 5-10 goals and 30-35 points for Garrison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...