Tech N9ne Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 guys take your feud to personal messages please. I came here to hear people bash edler not read you two squabbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Hey you keep coming back and stoking the fire but you have not come up with an either or. But fine moving with the Edler thread...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 2 hours ago, Drewismyname said: For what? Knowing how to argue without resorting to childish insults? If you think you're so right about Edler, try debating like an adult. ... Take a joke, rookie. You've ignored any relevant points I've made that don't fit your narrative so far, so why should I keep debating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewismyname Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 1 minute ago, elvis15 said: Take a joke, rookie. You've ignored any relevant points I've made that don't fit your narrative so far, so why should I keep debating? Okay so when you're wrong, you simply claim to have been joking. Perfect. Which relevant post was this? Right on queue. Another troll has arrived to take over the troll cause from the last one I eliminated with common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewismyname Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 5 minutes ago, gurn said: Hey you keep coming back and stoking the fire but you have not come up with an either or. But fine moving with the Edler thread...... You're just something aren't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 1 hour ago, Shift-4 said: Highly debatable. His caphit is #35 in the league (#1 on the Canucks) http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/rankings/cap-hit/defenseman/ Plus his actual salary this year is $6M (caphit $5M) Plus he has a NTC. This is where it gets subjective since we can't tell the $ value of a NTC. At least 5 defencemen above him on that list don't have a NMC or NTC http://www.thefourthperiod.com/no_trade_list.html (there is more than five but I stopped counting at Pietrangelo and Karlsson since we know for certain Edler is not at that level any way) All things being equal we take the NTC out of the equation he is top 30. That means he is getting paid #1 money. It also highly subjective using pay considering Keith is #20 on that list. Keith is easily considered top 10 in the league for defencemen. So as long as Edler is paid near the top 30 he is being paid like a #1. He is top 20 in ice time in the league. He gets the pay of a #1 and the icetime of a #1. He should play like a #1 but he is far from that. I have no arguments that there aren't better options (wth happened to Hamhuis?). But that means he should be showing more leadership and playing better on a consistent basis. Instead he flounders too often in the defensive zone, bobbles the puck, makes lousy passes and aims his shots right at shinpads. I know our d-corps needs a tonne of work. Hence why a rookie (Hutton) looks amazing. Or why an NHL call-up (Biega) looks impressive simply because he shows some drive. I would be quite happy if the rework of the d-corps started with Edler moving out. I really wished he was moved before that NTC kicked in but that ship has sailed. Instead I fully expect that I will continue to cringe while watching him play more often than not. Last night being a 'not' night. But this train of thought assumes all teams have a true #1 defenceman so that there are 30 in the league. Edler is our #1, but he's not a #1 if you catch my drift. Other teams are the same way, they have a defenceman that's their best, but that doesn't mean he'd be rated as a #1 on most teams in the league. There have been the odd teams with more than one as well: i.e. Neidermeyer and Pronger on Anaheim. Even with that there should really only be a handful of #1's, and you can cross off most of the list you supplied from #11 down. Even in the top 10, Campbell and Phaneuf aren't #1's, and Chara is 39 and counting. So, adding that up, there's maybe 10-12 #1 D-men in the league, and the ones that had that value when they signed their latest deals are getting paid like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I believe that while Drewismyname has the right to believe Alex Edler is a liability his belief is wrong. Edler plays more minutes than any other Canuck defenseman against the oppositions top players. "http://espn.go.com/nhl/team/stats/_/name/van/vancouver-canucks " Daniel Sedin, LW 27 12 17 29 6 18 19:00 5 6 0 1 100 12.0 Henrik Sedin, C 27 8 18 26 7 6 19:37 3 7 1 0 38 21.1 Jannik Hansen, RW 27 8 8 16 11 10 16:00 0 0 0 0 52 15.4 Alexander Edler, D 26 5 9 14 2 26 24:28 2 4 0 0 50 10.0 Radim Vrbata, RW 25 6 6 12 -15 8 16:48 3 4 0 0 90 6.7 Alex Burrows, LW 26 5 6 11 -5 16 15:53 2 3 0 0 51 9.8 Jared McCann, C 25 6 3 9 2 6 11:57 1 0 0 0 48 12.5 Ben Hutton, D 20 0 8 8 -6 4 17:43 0 2 0 0 29 0.0 Bo Horvat, C 27 2 6 8 -13 6 16:02 1 3 0 0 36 5.6 Brandon Sutter, C 16 4 4 8 4 2 18:53 1 0 1 0 36 11.1 Matt Bartkowski, D 26 2 5 7 0 22 18:45 0 0 0 0 25 8.0 Sven Baertschi, LW 22 2 5 7 -1 6 10:33 0 1 0 0 22 9.1 Derek Dorsett, RW 27 2 3 5 -5 70 12:19 0 0 0 0 37 5.4 Brandon Prust, RW 16 0 5 5 1 35 12:39 0 0 0 0 12 0.0 Adam Cracknell, RW 21 3 1 4 2 4 12:42 0 0 0 0 29 10.3 Yannick Weber, D 20 0 4 4 -9 10 19:33 0 4 0 0 35 0.0 Luca Sbisa, D 18 1 3 4 0 17 17:05 0 0 0 1 13 7.7 Chris Tanev, D 25 1 3 4 5 4 21:43 1 0 0 0 18 5.6 Jake Virtanen, RW 19 1 3 4 -3 15 9:50 0 0 0 0 25 4.0 Dan Hamhuis, D 24 0 3 3 5 8 19:58 0 1 0 0 27 0.0 Chris Higgins, LW 13 2 0 2 1 2 13:29 0 0 0 0 18 11.1 Brendan Gaunce, C 2 1 0 1 0 0 10:49 0 0 0 0 2 50.0 Hunter Shinkaruk, C 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:35 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ronalds Kenins, LW 1 0 0 0 -1 2 10:46 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 Andrei Pedan, D 1 0 0 0 0 0 3:54 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Alex Biega, D 3 0 0 0 2 0 17:11 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 Alex Grenier, RW So about 6 minutes and 40 seconds more than any other d. Would a math wiz please run a goals against per sixty minutes for all Canuck D men and add perhaps a calculation of strength of opposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 TL/Dr Edler is a plus d at this point of the year, playing huge minutes against quality opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 11 minutes ago, Drewismyname said: Okay so when you're wrong, you simply claim to have been joking. Perfect. Which relevant post was this? Right on queue. Another troll has arrived to take over the troll cause from the last one I eliminated with common sense. Wrong... OK, right... I'm not sure you understand what common sense is since your argument has been flawed every step of the way and all you do is change your tune any time someone points out how farcical your OP is. "Oh, I didn't mean to say we just drop Edler from the line up and get better." "Oh, I didn't mean that Edler is a liability all the time." "Oh, I didn't mean to completely ignore the posts that are actually about common sense and destroy my argument." I'll continue to reply to anyone with some common sense and debate the point, but I'll just ignore your blatherings going forward. 1 minute ago, gurn said: TL/Dr Edler is a plus d at this point of the year, playing huge minutes against quality opposition. Yup, everyone has the right to their opinion - but everyone has the right to be wrong as well. Regardless what anyone thinks of Edler, he's being used as the top D-man on this team and his mistakes aren't significantly more frequent or worse than most of the top D-men in the league. If he gets out of his own way mentally he can still play very well, but without more support he plays over his head a bit too often and does have errors - and despite that he still has a very good stat line in comparison this year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewismyname Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 2 minutes ago, elvis15 said: Wrong... OK, right... I'm not sure you understand what common sense is since your argument has been flawed every step of the way and all you do is change your tune any time someone points out how farcical your OP is. "Oh, I didn't mean to say we just drop Edler from the line up and get better." "Oh, I didn't mean that Edler is a liability all the time." "Oh, I didn't mean to completely ignore the posts that are actually about common sense and destroy my argument." I'll continue to reply to anyone with some common sense and debate the point, but I'll just ignore your blatherings going forward. Yup, everyone has the right to their opinion - but everyone has the right to be wrong as well. Regardless what anyone thinks of Edler, he's being used as the top D-man on this team and his mistakes aren't significantly more frequent or worse than most of the top D-men in the league. If he gets out of his own way mentally he can still play very well, but without more support he plays over his head a bit too often and does have errors - and despite that he still has a very good stat line in comparison this year! Feel free to show the the posts I have ignored that have destroyed my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewismyname Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 You call me out for editing my posts etc. This is straight from the video I created: Quote As a long standing Canucks fan, I have witnessed #23 Alex Edler drop the ball more times than I can count, at the worst possible moments, during the most important games. Have you ever wondered why every big comeback goal against your Canucks, always seems to end with a disinterested Alex Edler, skating to the bench with his head down? It is my belief that when the game is on the line, you need a #1D who has what it takes to win when the going gets tough. Who can weather the storm. Alex Edler is not that guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 1 hour ago, Shift-4 said: Edm is irrelevant to NHL discussions Top 30 in the league makes you a number one. Granted some teams may have more than one #1 (Mtl, Chi imo) Top 7-10 makes you elite. Unless you haven't noticed I am not very fond of Edler's play. Hence #3. As you say later: semantics. You're trying to say that every team in the league has a 'best' defender that they would call a #1 (well, except Edmonton as their irrelevant in the NHL, so it should be 29 teams) but then you can't equate that across the board to contract worth since those 'best' defenders will have significantly different values. Karlsson, Subban, Doughty, etc. are not the same value at all as someone like Jack Johnson, Phaneuf, or whoever the top D is on the Flyers. What J.R. and I are pointing out is the top D - regardless of team - generally get paid the top $$$ and only those with that skill level are a true #1. We aren't trying to include anyone who plays in the #1 slot but is really a #2 (or a #3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewismyname Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 30 minutes ago, gurn said: I believe that while Drewismyname has the right to believe Alex Edler is a liability his belief is wrong. Edler plays more minutes than any other Canuck defenseman against the oppositions top players. "http://espn.go.com/nhl/team/stats/_/name/van/vancouver-canucks " Daniel Sedin, LW 27 12 17 29 6 18 19:00 5 6 0 1 100 12.0 Henrik Sedin, C 27 8 18 26 7 6 19:37 3 7 1 0 38 21.1 Jannik Hansen, RW 27 8 8 16 11 10 16:00 0 0 0 0 52 15.4 Alexander Edler, D 26 5 9 14 2 26 24:28 2 4 0 0 50 10.0 Radim Vrbata, RW 25 6 6 12 -15 8 16:48 3 4 0 0 90 6.7 Alex Burrows, LW 26 5 6 11 -5 16 15:53 2 3 0 0 51 9.8 Jared McCann, C 25 6 3 9 2 6 11:57 1 0 0 0 48 12.5 Ben Hutton, D 20 0 8 8 -6 4 17:43 0 2 0 0 29 0.0 Bo Horvat, C 27 2 6 8 -13 6 16:02 1 3 0 0 36 5.6 Brandon Sutter, C 16 4 4 8 4 2 18:53 1 0 1 0 36 11.1 Matt Bartkowski, D 26 2 5 7 0 22 18:45 0 0 0 0 25 8.0 Sven Baertschi, LW 22 2 5 7 -1 6 10:33 0 1 0 0 22 9.1 Derek Dorsett, RW 27 2 3 5 -5 70 12:19 0 0 0 0 37 5.4 Brandon Prust, RW 16 0 5 5 1 35 12:39 0 0 0 0 12 0.0 Adam Cracknell, RW 21 3 1 4 2 4 12:42 0 0 0 0 29 10.3 Yannick Weber, D 20 0 4 4 -9 10 19:33 0 4 0 0 35 0.0 Luca Sbisa, D 18 1 3 4 0 17 17:05 0 0 0 1 13 7.7 Chris Tanev, D 25 1 3 4 5 4 21:43 1 0 0 0 18 5.6 Jake Virtanen, RW 19 1 3 4 -3 15 9:50 0 0 0 0 25 4.0 Dan Hamhuis, D 24 0 3 3 5 8 19:58 0 1 0 0 27 0.0 Chris Higgins, LW 13 2 0 2 1 2 13:29 0 0 0 0 18 11.1 Brendan Gaunce, C 2 1 0 1 0 0 10:49 0 0 0 0 2 50.0 Hunter Shinkaruk, C 1 0 0 0 0 0 9:35 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ronalds Kenins, LW 1 0 0 0 -1 2 10:46 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 Andrei Pedan, D 1 0 0 0 0 0 3:54 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Alex Biega, D 3 0 0 0 2 0 17:11 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 Alex Grenier, RW So about 6 minutes and 40 seconds more than any other d. Would a math wiz please run a goals against per sixty minutes for all Canuck D men and add perhaps a calculation of strength of opposition? How about the score when he is on the ice for a goal against? How about the series score of a playoff series matched with the score of the game? And then how many times over would a playoff liability moment trump a regular season liability moment? And then how many more times over would dropping the ball during the SCF trump other playoff failure moments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 How about the fact that he plays the most minutes and thus statistically he would be on the ice more at those times? Then how about the fact that he plays against the stiffest opposition for most of the time that he is on the ice, which as was pointed out is more than any other Canuck defensemen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewismyname Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 1 minute ago, gurn said: How about the fact that he plays the most minutes and thus statistically he would be on the ice more at those times? Then how about the fact that he plays against the stiffest opposition for most of the time that he is on the ice, which as was pointed out is more than any other Canuck defensemen? If he's on the ice the most wouldn't that mean he is likely to face more of the bad lines since there are four lines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewismyname Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 3 minutes ago, gurn said: How about the fact that he plays the most minutes and thus statistically he would be on the ice more at those times? Then how about the fact that he plays against the stiffest opposition for most of the time that he is on the ice, which as was pointed out is more than any other Canuck defensemen? And at what percentage does a D man play so many minutes that he would be on the ice more at those times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Only if ice time was distributed equally by the opposing coach, but strangely most coaches play their best players more than their worst.. Gee maybe that means Willie, Torts, Av believed Edler was their best D man for most of their coaching tenure here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 22 minutes ago, elvis15 said: As you say later: semantics. You're trying to say that every team in the league has a 'best' defender that they would call a #1 (well, except Edmonton as their irrelevant in the NHL, so it should be 29 teams) but then you can't equate that across the board to contract worth since those 'best' defenders will have significantly different values. Karlsson, Subban, Doughty, etc. are not the same value at all as someone like Jack Johnson, Phaneuf, or whoever the top D is on the Flyers. What J.R. and I are pointing out is the top D - regardless of team - generally get paid the top $$$ and only those with that skill level are a true #1. We aren't trying to include anyone who plays in the #1 slot but is really a #2 (or a #3). No I'm not (hence why I noted a couple of teams have more than 1). I am saying Edler gets the pay and opportunities of a top defenseman in the league yet he continually lets us down and therefore does not deserve it. I do not expect him to be elite. He fails miserably at trying to be a number 1 (aka top 30 in the league). Why would I ever expect him to be a Subban or Doughty? He makes me cringe a hell of a lot more than he makes me happy. I wouldn't miss him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 7 minutes ago, Drewismyname said: And at what percentage does a D man play so many minutes that he would be on the ice more at those times? Find a math wiz to say just how much time the Canucks spent at even score, a goal up or a goal down. Then compare that to Edler's total TOI, then run a comparison of Edler's TOI during those times of goal up goal down. But why are you asking a dyslexic to do math Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewismyname Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 7 minutes ago, gurn said: Find a math wiz to say just how much time the Canucks spent at even score, a goal up or a goal down. Then compare that to Edler's total TOI, then run a comparison of Edler's TOI during those times of goal up goal down. But why are you asking a dyslexic to do math I was showing you how flawed your argument of measuring TOI compared to GA is in figuring out whether Eddy is a liability or not. If you want to spend all your free time arguing when you are admitting yourself to having a learning disability, that's up to you. You have to live with your own actions as much as I or anyone else does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.