Yannick Weber Appreciation Thread

[Mattrek]

You missed my point.

The other poster had no real justification or standard for calling Weber and Clendenning 'horrible'. He made mention about Weber's limited offensive production, yet neither Stanton OR Corrado have shown it either when in the line up.

I just assumed that his rationale was offensive production - because even when Weber was out of the line and one or both were in the line up, they didn't do very much, if at all.

Stanton's a really good shot blocker, which I had already mentioned in the post, but he's not great with offensive nor has he been all that reliable with his slow speed and giveaways.

Nobody's perfect but people are/were overrating Corrado, who's basically just a rookie.

You stated very clearly that Stanton was a horrible player, I refuted it. There is nothing to misunderstand. The context does not change the meaning of the words. While I agree most are over-rated, Stanton is actually under-rated here. Blocking shots and a high plus minus (more goals scored for then against) is the only goals of a defenceman and by those metrics Stanton is the best defenceman on this team. Please show me the stats saying he's worse at giving away the puck then Weber, Clendening and Corrado, I'd love to see them. The point of a defenseman is to defend. If he gets that right that's all that should be expected. Offensive prowess is just a bonus. By your logic we should criticize the Sedins for not being defensive enough. He gets way too much hate on here and is a much less valued player for what he does for us day in and day out.

[Mattrek]

Double post.

[Boudrias]

Weber will be gone next year. His biggest strength is his skating but it is not enough to secure a spot. His d-zone coverage is not good. I think JB wants more size and physicality in the #5 or #6 spot. Utica call ups have shown there is enough young talent that can replace Weber on a cheaper basis and with upside.

[sting]

I've been really impressed with Weber's play this season.

I doubt he's in the plans going forward though?

JB needs some guys who play heavy in the 5-8 spots. Corrado and Clendening will be cutting teeth next season and there is also the conundrum with Bieksa. Our D could really use a Greene or Mitchell type in the group.

[Dazzle]

You stated very clearly that Stanton was a horrible player, I refuted it. There is nothing to misunderstand. The context does not change the meaning of the words. While I agree most are over-rated, Stanton is actually under-rated here. Blocking shots and a high plus minus (more goals scored for then against) is the only goals of a defenceman and by those metrics Stanton is the best defenceman on this team. Please show me the stats saying he's worse at giving away the puck then Weber, Clendening and Corrado, I'd love to see them. The point of a defenseman is to defend. If he gets that right that's all that should be expected. Offensive prowess is just a bonus. By your logic we should criticize the Sedins for not being defensive enough. He gets way too much hate on here and is a much less valued player for what he does for us day in and day out.

Make no mistake, every player has his weaknesses - even Ovechkin or even Crosby.

The giveaways are observable, especially the most recent of games. Stanton gets pressured (and so does Weber) and gives up the puck.

Sedins have lately been making awful giveaways, despite being supreme passers. Yes, mistakes are made and part of the game. It's not to hold the mistakes against them, but it's to see what they do to make up for it. Stanton blocks shots.

I don't "hate" Stanton, but it's silly to say that Weber/Clendenning are 'horrible' without any context, as you describe, but somehow Corrado or Stanton are above it.

[Mattrek]

Make no mistake, every player has his weaknesses - even Ovechkin or even Crosby.

The giveaways are observable, especially the most recent of games. Stanton gets pressured (and so does Weber) and gives up the puck.

Sedins have lately been making awful giveaways, despite being supreme passers. Yes, mistakes are made and part of the game. It's not to hold the mistakes against them, but it's to see what they do to make up for it. Stanton blocks shots.

I don't "hate" Stanton, but it's silly to say that Weber/Clendenning are 'horrible' without any context, as you describe, but somehow Corrado or Stanton are above it.

Did you even read my post? Of course every player has weaknesses, please point out where I said "Stanton has no weaknesses". I'm still waiting for evidence of these giveaways you say Stanton has. I've watched every game and I've seen no more giveaways then our other defenseman that rotate in and out. I'm not even talking about the Sedins. I was using them as an example of how dumb your logic is of having offense as a defenseman is necessary for him to be good. Offense is an added bonus. That's it. Also, please point out to me where I said "Weber and Clendening are horrible" and for that matter point out where I said "Corrado is better then Clendening and Weber. I deal in facts and stats, not opinions. If you want to argue with me, bring proof and read what I actually write.

[Dazzle]

Did you even read my post? Of course every player has weaknesses, please point out where I said "Stanton has no weaknesses". I'm still waiting for evidence of these giveaways you say Stanton has. I've watched every game and I've seen no more giveaways then our other defenseman that rotate in and out. I'm not even talking about the Sedins. I was using them as an example of how dumb your logic is of having offense as a defenseman is necessary for him to be good. Offense is an added bonus. That's it. Also, please point out to me where I said "Weber and Clendening are horrible" and for that matter point out where I said "Corrado is better then Clendening and Weber. I deal in facts and stats, not opinions. If you want to argue with me, bring proof and read what I actually write.

I see that there's a lost in translation going on here. My comment about Stanton being 'horrible' was actually tongue-in-cheek, because that poster was calling Weber and Clendenning horrible with no context. So, one (such as myself) could make a shallow argument that a player is horrible/good if you don't provide evidence.

Which leads us to your comments - your definition of defenceman is incomplete and overly simplistic. There are different kinds of defenseman, much like there are different kinds of forwards. It's not good enough that a defenseman just focusses on DEFENSE. Ideally, they should be two way, or specialize in a particular facet of the game. Of course, that doesn't mean that players are necessarily blocked off from the game due to their playing style.

Some forwards/defenseman just don't score often (like Hamhuis) - but they are specialists in what they do. Weber isn't good in any one facet, and neither is Stanton. They are both depth defenseman at this time, though Stanton might grow to a slightly higher ceiling due to being a younger player by one year.

Likewise, some defenseman are exceptional at offense, but sacrifice defense for it (ala Mike Green). It is debatable if these defenseman are "better" than others; it just depends on what you want out of the player. For sure, Green is a better offensive player than, say, Hamhuis. No doubt about it. But Hamhuis is certainly much better at keeping pucks out of net.

Therefore, your assumptions of a defenseman is incomplete, yet you have the audacity to bring up 'dumb logic'?

I'm amused by your rhetoric about how you are as a poster.

[Mattrek]

I see that there's a lost in translation going on here. My comment about Stanton being 'horrible' was actually tongue-in-cheek, because that poster was calling Weber and Clendenning horrible with no context. So, one (such as myself) could make a shallow argument that a player is horrible/good if you don't provide evidence.

Which leads us to your comments - your definition of defenceman is incomplete and overly simplistic. There are different kinds of defenseman, much like there are different kinds of forwards. It's not good enough that a defenseman just focusses on DEFENSE. Ideally, they should be two way, or specialize in a particular facet of the game. Of course, that doesn't mean that players are necessarily blocked off from the game due to their playing style.

Some forwards/defenseman just don't score often (like Hamhuis) - but they are specialists in what they do. Weber isn't good in any one facet, and neither is Stanton. They are both depth defenseman at this time, though Stanton might grow to a slightly higher ceiling due to being a younger player by one year.

Likewise, some defenseman are exceptional at offense, but sacrifice defense for it (ala Mike Green). It is debatable if these defenseman are "better" than others; it just depends on what you want out of the player. For sure, Green is a better offensive player than, say, Hamhuis. No doubt about it. But Hamhuis is certainly much better at keeping pucks out of net.

Therefore, your assumptions of a defenseman is incomplete, yet you have the audacity to bring up 'dumb logic'?

I'm amused by your rhetoric about how you are as a poster.

If it was tongue in cheek then I apologize. I thought you were calling him out.

There are all types of defenseman, you're right, but the job description of a defenseman is to be able to defend otherwise he would be a forward. It's great when a defenseman has a two way game, but that's not a necessity to make him good and that was my point. Let me ask you this: Is Tanev a good defenseman? He only is good at defense as is Stanton (not comparing the two, comparing the type of player), so by your logic he wouldn't be good right?

My only points here were:

1. Stanton is under-rated and a better defenseman then Weber, Clendening and Corrado

2. A defenseman does not need to have offense to be considered a good defenseman

[Dazzle]

If it was tongue in cheek then I apologize. I thought you were calling him out.

There are all types of defenseman, you're right, but the job description of a defenseman is to be able to defend otherwise he would be a forward. It's great when a defenseman has a two way game, but that's not a necessity to make him good and that was my point. Let me ask you this: Is Tanev a good defenseman? He only is good at defense as is Stanton (not comparing the two, comparing the type of player), so by your logic he wouldn't be good right?

My only points here were:

1. Stanton is under-rated and a better defenseman then Weber, Clendening and Corrado

2. A defenseman does not need to have offense to be considered a good defenseman

No apology needed. I wasn't very clear that it was tongue-in-cheek, with the way that I wrote it. I was making a sham statement, just like he was, as a way to mock him.

Stanton is under-appreciated too. Like I said, he blocks shots and is more mobile than Alberts was (no disrespect to Alberts; Alberts was bad when he was first traded from CAR but his game was elevated up until the point where he was injured/concussed). I think they're reliable stay-at-home defenseman and Stanton's only 25, but plays like he's 28-29 or something. He plays a mature game.

Yes, you're right with point number 2 - there's no much point in being a defenseman if you're substandard in that aspect UNLESS the offensive game seriously outweighs the disadvantages (i.e. Mike Green in previous years). These offensively-minded defenseman are very rare to find, obviously. It would seem like players like Hamhuis are more common (but not at his calibre).

[cyoung]

Vrbata is an artist with that damn puck

[Mattrek]

Vrbata is an artist with that damn puck

Wrong thread.

[Orka]

nice goal

[Lph]

Hugely underrated. By far our most talented offensive defenseman and plays passable defense. Very strong puck mover who has played admirably when put up the lineup.

Good on the bottom pairing and a great #7. Keep him around, he's much better than Sbisa.

[Riggs]

I've been a fan of Weber since he got here. He's a good skater and while not that tall, he's built like a tank so he can handle bigger players along the boards. Vancouver's blueline hasn't done much to contribute offensively this season but Weber is one guy who manages to score a few when he gets his chances. If the Canucks used his howitzer slapshot more often, their powerplay would be a hell of a lot more effective than it has been.

[alfstonker]

I've been a fan of Weber since he got here. He's a good skater and while not that tall, he's built like a tank so he can handle bigger players along the boards. Vancouver's blueline hasn't done much to contribute offensively this season but Weber is one guy who manages to score a few when he gets his chances. If the Canucks used his howitzer slapshot more often, their powerplay would be a hell of a lot more effective than it has been.

Agreed.

Weber and his contribution has been underestimated by a good few people on here. So what's new?

[Mr.53]

Much needed thread. The man is so underrated. He's a very versatile player.

• 5'11, 200 pounds, isn't exactly undersized.
• Good foot speed. Not a speed demon, but he can move.
• Has one of the harder and more accurate shots on the team.
• Can play up and down the lineup. One day he's with Hamhuis, the next Stanton, the next Edler etc.

His role is consistently changing throughout the team, and everywhere he goes, he proves he plays well. I'm not saying he's elite, but he is a consistent role player. The dude even played forward a bit for us last year. Granted that team was unspeakably abysmal, but still, he played solid and didn't look out of step. He's a reliable defensman with some offensive upside that you can plug anywhere in the top 6, and he will give you decent production. This combined with the ability to actually be useful on the PP unit, if not surely the second. I like Weber. I understand his days are most likely numbered here, but I think especially for 650,000, he is totally worth it.

(7G, 10A, 17P, 5+/-) in 55GP as a 7th defensman being paid 650,000. That's nothing to sneeze at.

[Orka]

another nice goal. so glad willie finally put him on the pp

[sockeye]

Much needed thread. The man is so underrated. He's a very versatile player.

• 5'11, 200 pounds, isn't exactly undersized.
• Good foot speed. Not a speed demon, but he can move.
• Has one of the harder and more accurate shots on the team.
• Can play up and down the lineup. One day he's with Hamhuis, the next Stanton, the next Edler etc.

His role is consistently changing throughout the team, and everywhere he goes, he proves he plays well. I'm not saying he's elite, but he is a consistent role player. The dude even played forward a bit for us last year. Granted that team was unspeakably abysmal, but still, he played solid and didn't look out of step. He's a reliable defensman with some offensive upside that you can plug anywhere in the top 6, and he will give you decent production. This combined with the ability to actually be useful on the PP unit, if not surely the second. I like Weber. I understand his days are most likely numbered here, but I think especially for 650,000, he is totally worth it.

(7G, 10A, 17P, 5+/-) in 55GP as a 7th defensman being paid 650,000. That's nothing to sneeze at.

I like what I saw from Weber last year and he has stepped up a notch this year. Very versatile D man and battles hard in our zone and has a wicked slap shot from the point on the power play. He's a solid 200 pounder at 5'11". He can play in the top 4 if needed and he provides great depth. Also, he is a right handed shot. I hope we keep him next year.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Weber is a much-improved player this year. At this point, he's pretty close to Bieksa on the right D depth chart, although they are very different players. I'd be happy enough to see him back next year, but with Tanev, Bieksa and Clendenning almost certainly on the roster, it would mean another year in Utica for Corrado. I'm not sure management is going to let that happen, but it would make sense from an organizational depth point of view. No question that Weber is great value for money and will land on his feet somewhere.

[coryberg]

.... with Tanev, Bieksa and Clendenning almost certainly on the roster, it would mean another year in Utica for Corrado. I'm not sure management is going to let that happen, but it would make sense from an organizational depth point of view.

Corrado is waiver eligible next season and wouldn't make it to utica. I'm hoping JB can snag a pick at the draft for Weber, there is just no room for him next season.