Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

I Think Alex Edler is a Liability


Drewismyname

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Lock said:

My point is it's not that easy. Torts got it out of luck. They were not in the same place as Tampa as Tampa had a young team with everything clicking right place right time. Even Torts has said that. It's not Vancouver's situation at all

So what's your point exactly?

I'm pretty sure the GM at the time was astute enough to bring the types of players together that would gel and have chemistry. As well, Torts did a great job of keeping the team focused and providing that fire to keep things going. And of course, the players were motivated by the big prize.

I agree that when players find that chemistry, it is fortuitous. I thought the idea that winning the Cup purely because of luck seemed presumptuous.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Drewismyname said:

Perfect, you're completing your voice of canucks nation moniker by believing in conspiracy theories when the proof is right in front of your face. Did Bettman tell Edler to let marchand walk him shorthandedly when his team was up 2 games to 0 in the finals? 2-0 in the Stanley cup finals is the right place at the right time. Alex was on the ice for at least the first three goals against in that game. What does that say about his ability to shut the door when it really matters? 

As others and myself have tried getting through to the mindless drones who call themselves fans, when the $&!# hits the fan and Edler needs to step up and take responsibility for his end of the ice, he withers like a limp noodle. That's the difference between Duncan Kieth and Alex Edler. They both suck at times, but only one of them sucks at the worst possible times and one of them rises to the occasion like a true winner does. 

Do I like Kieth for what he did to D Sedin? No, but I respect him for winning at all cost.

At the very least, I admire your conviction. Unfortunately, conviction tends to lead to stubbornness.

Mindless drones that call themselves fans, huh. Well, last I checked, a fan is someone who likes a team. Apparently, to you, there's something wrong with that. We're apparently not allowed to cheer for our team because we like Edler?

I don't get why you're so negative about it. The sky's not falling dude. It really isn't. Thanks for the laughs at least though. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

I believe they used similar words about Sutter. And about Tanev when they basically said they were out of the Hamonic discussion. They aren't saying he's a Norris trophy calibre D, just that he's who we have and one of the best we can build around. Give him a stronger supporting cast like we had in 2011 and it works out well.

You think they want to build the defense around Tanev?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

This team needs to either trade (and pay through the nose) for a true elite defenseman, or develop one through the draft. Edler isn't that guy.

AV knew it. Torts definitely knew it. And, well, Willie thinks he's real good. So.......

Exactly Phil. It's just sad though - because you know that the guy has the potential to be so good and yet for reasons that we may not be aware of, he's not getting it done. I hope he turns it around. It gets frustrating to watch him sometimes. Tanev is a good compliment to Edler so I'm glad that at least they got his d-partner right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I'm pretty sure the GM at the time was astute enough to bring the types of players together that would gel and have chemistry. As well, Torts did a great job of keeping the team focused and providing that fire to keep things going. And of course, the players were motivated by the big prize.

I agree that when players find that chemistry, it is fortuitous. I thought the idea that winning the Cup purely because of luck seemed presumptuous.

 


Actually, Jay Feaster, the GM at that time, fed on the previous GM, Rick Dudley's moves. Feaster was also in the right place at the right time as many of the pieces were already in place when he took over in 2002.

Ironically, and arguably, the only thing similar to the Canucks and the Lightning was that a GM took over when most of the pieces were already in place. Vancouver was a lot older though during their run. Everyone expected Vancouver to make a push. No one expected anything from the Lightning the start of their season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, shazzam said:

Edler is tied at #12 for points and at #11 for TOI/GP for all defenseman. He eats up very tough minutes on a very thin defensive team. He is under-appreciated.

No one is arguing his ability to eat up minutes. He's in excellent shape.

It's his ability to actually defend that's the question. He is caught out of position quite regularly and is not bringing the physical aspect of his game near enough. His point totals are decent, but when you have the Sedins as forwards to play with, you tend to benefit from that.

He's not under appreciated at all, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

You think they want to build the defense around Tanev?

You think they don't? He and Edler are the core D right now, and even Sbisa is in that conversation when you look at commentary by Benning. Hutton's putting himself there and Hamhuis is slipping out of it for the future core, but that shows what we have to work with and why Edler's doing the best with the cards he's given.

Sure, he's a two way defenseman with an offensive lean who pinches and looks for opportunities to score. He also plays a lot of defensive minutes and gets exposed occasionally like many other similar quality D. He may have been on the ice for 3 goals last night but he wasn't at fault for all of them (see my write up at the end of page 13 if you disagree).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Lock said:


Actually, Jay Feaster, the GM at that time, fed on the previous GM, Rick, Dudley's moves. Feaster was also in the right place at the right time as many of the pieces were already in place when he took over in 2002.

Ironically, and arguably, the only thing similar to the Canucks and the Lightning was that a GM took over when most of the pieces were already in place. Vancouver was a lot older though during their run. Everyone expected Vancouver to make a push. No one expected anything from the Lightning the start of their season.

And that Tampa team is similar to the Canucks 94 team. They meshed, they clicked. It required hard work on everyone's part to get it done and make it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, gforce31 said:

Exactly Phil. It's just sad though - because you know that the guy has the potential to be so good and yet for reasons that we may not be aware of, he's not getting it done. I hope he turns it around. It gets frustrating to watch him sometimes. Tanev is a good compliment to Edler so I'm glad that at least they got his d-partner right.

And that's the issue here - expectations are not the same as ability. People are expecting him to be a #1 PP quarterback who hits like a truck all the time and shuts down players defensively at all times. We've seen flashes of all those attributes, but that doesn't mean he's those things at all times (or at any time). Just because he's not living up to people's expectations he becomes a liability when in fact he's a good defenceman who does a lot and happens to be on the ice for a lot of goals (both ways).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

And that Tampa team is similar to the Canucks 94 team. They meshed, they clicked. It required hard work on everyone's part to get it done and make it happen.

Agreed. It is similar to 94.

My overall point with this is we can blame some of Edler's performance a couple of years ago to Torts, seeing as most of the team was playing poorly. Using Tort's cup as a way to counter that argument seems irrelevant to me. Different time. Different place. Same coach yet a completely different situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, elvis15 said:

And that's the issue here - expectations are not the same as ability. Just because he's not living up to people's expectations he becomes a liability when in fact he's a good defenceman who does a lot and on the ice for a lot of goals (both ways).

Agreed. I think it's his potential that frustrates us - every season you hope that he's going to hit it. Maybe the way he has been setup by the organization set our expectations of him unrealistically. However, you do see glimpses of it every now and then, which just teases us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, gforce31 said:

Agreed. I think it's his potential that frustrates us - every season you hope that he's going to hit it. Maybe the way he has been setup by the organization set our expectations of him unrealistically. However, you do see glimpses of it every now and then, which just teases us!

Yes, but the organization isn't trying to present him as that complete package worthy of a Norris trophy. He's just arguably the best we have, certainly as an all around defenceman, and people have to realize his game isn't perfect. That certainly doesn't make him a liability who's so bad we should immediately put him on waivers (or however you want to remove him from the lineup) as that will improve the team by subtraction alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

You think they don't? He and Edler are the core D right now, and even Sbisa is in that conversation when you look at commentary by Benning. Hutton's putting himself there and Hamhuis is slipping out of it for the future core, but that shows what we have to work with and why Edler's doing the best with the cards he's given.

Sure, he's a two way defenseman with an offensive lean who pinches and looks for opportunities to score. He also plays a lot of defensive minutes and gets exposed occasionally like many other similar quality D. He may have been on the ice for 3 goals last night but he wasn't at fault for all of them (see my write up at the end of page 13 if you disagree).

And after how many goals against with Edler on the ice does that stat become a realistic factor in valuing his defensive worth? In two months from now, what % will that number have to be, to call Edler out as a liability? 

Yes, I'll be keeping track on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

And that's the issue here - expectations are not the same as ability. Just because he's not living up to people's expectations he becomes a liability when in fact he's a good defenceman who does a lot and happens to be on the ice for a lot of goals (both ways).

Agreed. It's easy to point out every flaw in a player's game. You can do that with any player really. But, if Edler did nothing but make mistakes, he wouldn't be on this team. He'd be another Redden in the minors.

Edler does just as much good to counteract his mistakes. He helps set up goals. He does a lot of things right. Does he make mistakes? Of course; however, to say he doesn't do any good on this team is merely a prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, elvis15 said:

You think they don't? He and Edler are the core D right now, and even Sbisa is in that conversation when you look at commentary by Benning. Hutton's putting himself there and Hamhuis is slipping out of it for the future core, but that shows what we have to work with and why Edler's doing the best with the cards he's given.

Sure, he's a two way defenseman with an offensive lean who pinches and looks for opportunities to score. He also plays a lot of defensive minutes and gets exposed occasionally like many other similar quality D. He may have been on the ice for 3 goals last night but he wasn't at fault for all of them (see my write up at the end of page 13 if you disagree).

I don't know at this point. I've looked for commentary from Benning on what his vision is for the defensive corps going forward, and it's pretty vague. He signed Tanev to an extension so he's in for a few and part of the core going forward. Sbisa as well, based on the contract. Hutton can't be denied based on his natural ability.

As far as Edler though, I've only heard Linden talk about him in the capacity of being the team's number one. Haven't read anything Benning said about Edler.

I don't think Edler is really doing the best with the cards he's given though. His effort is lacking. He doesn't have the hustle that other players display. His errant blind passes aren't really an attribute I'd give to someone doing their best with what they have.

And yes, Shea Weber gets walked in his own end sometimes, as does Doughty, Hedman, Subban, Karlsson, and the like. However, and this is my opinion, these players respond far better to pressure than Edler does. While I am very quick to dismiss the "mental fragility" angle in reference to the team as a whole, I think that is an apt definition of Alex Edler's defensive game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Drewismyname said:

And after how many goals against with Edler on the ice does that stat become a realistic factor in valuing his defensive worth? In two months from now, what % will that number have to be, to call Edler out as a liability? 

Yes, I'll be keeping track on that.

So, you'll be keeping track of +/-, a team focused stat? Or just goals against when he's out there and ignoring when he's on the ice for goals for and the other time spent where he's breaking up plays? Or the percentage of his minutes, zone starts, quality of opponents, etc. that all factor into how likely he is to be on for a goal against? You know, just so we're clear, since as I pointed out at the end of page 13 he was most definitely not responsible for all the goals last night.

Context is important, and you're ignoring that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

No one is arguing his ability to eat up minutes. He's in excellent shape.

It's his ability to actually defend that's the question. He is caught out of position quite regularly and is not bringing the physical aspect of his game near enough. His point totals are decent, but when you have the Sedins as forwards to play with, you tend to benefit from that.

He's not under appreciated at all, in my opinion.

 

if he could do all of those things, he would be one of the highest paid D in the league. You need to understand he is NOT a #1 D but is being put into a role as one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

Agreed. It's easy to point out every flaw in a player's game. You can do that with any player really. But, if Edler did nothing but make mistakes, he wouldn't be on this team. He'd be another Redden in the minors.

Edler does just as much good to counteract his mistakes. He helps set up goals. He does a lot of things right. Does he make mistakes? Of course; however, to say he doesn't do any good on this team is merely a prejudice.

Bingo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

That certainly doesn't make him a liability who's so bad we should immediately put him on waivers as that will improve the team by subtraction alone.

Totally agree. Putting him on the waivers or trading him for the sake of a trade is a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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