Edler or Tanev

[elvis15]

13 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I don't get the point your trying to make? Are you stating that Edler is just as dangerous on the PP as Karlsson?

Nope, I even started my post with me agreeing that Edler was less of a consideration to focus on during a PP than Karlsson. But if you can't see that Karlsson playing over 90% of his teams PP minutes would affect how many of his team's PP goals he plays a part in (and the same for Edler considering his much lower overall percentage of PP minutes) then I can't help you. All it is is a counterpoint to your stat, which was heavily skewed to paint Edler negatively (at least in comparison to Karlsson).

• Edler does contribute to the power play. In fact he contributed more goals to our PP than an 82 point elite offensive defenceman.
• Karlsson plays on almost all of his team's PP minutes. While he contributes a lot as a result, he couldn't make their PP any better than tied for 26th overall, the same as the Canucks.

J.R. and I don't see him as the 40 point Norris Trophy potential candidate he was in his prime, not anymore at least. It's clear he's taken a step down in his play, but that doesn't mean the Canucks giving him a better supporting cast (two players in Tanev and Gudbranson who can play significant shutdown minutes, and Hutton - and even Larsen potentially - who can help offensively) and allowing him to focus on playing a simpler, more intuitive game rather than playing all minutes everywhere will mean he drops even further offensively or is as noticeable defensively. Rather, we're saying he will see some improvements out of this, possibly countered by adjusted ice time and situational play, and we may see far less criticism of him this year while he can really help support the younger players in their growth.

[aGENT]

29 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

See that's where we differ. You still see edler as the 40 point player he was in 2011-13.  He used to be an emerging #1 D and was signed to a long term contract as one.  I don't see him being that anymore.  I view him more along the lines of an anchor on the second pairing,  A Hjalmarsson type.

 

I understand the situations of the team and how numbers and his play can dip, but most players on this team have rebounded, Are we just suppose to hold on to that hope, Edler took a 3 year dip and if everything goes well that Elder goes back to his 49 point days? We can make excuses all we want about why his play has declined, but we can all agree that he's been put in a situation that is too much for him to handle.  So lets accept him for what he is, a decent supporting role player. And considering what we have in the pipes, in two years do we have room for another expensive supporting role player? 

The entire team's quality and depth has declined around him! What players rebounded?! The Sedins #'s understandably have dipped because they're older for starters and haven't had secondary scoring support and no D PP QB to work in tandem with. Just as Edler hasn't. Hansen's #'s went up last year simply by playing with them. He's about the only guy who's 'rebounded'  Who else Burrows? 

 

You put Edler on a team as good as our 2010-12 teams were with a complimentary D partner today and yes, he'd be a 35-40 point or darn close to it, #2D. Just as if you were to put the Sedins on a team with some offensive D and secondary (or primary in the likely case THEY would be secondary) scoring, they'd likely go up in points per minute as well. 

 

Edit: To clarify, he'd still likely put up ~35+ points but as Elvis points out, he'd be a slightly older, slightly diminished version of his younger self. Just as the Sedins wouldn't likely put up 100+ points even under ideal conditions, Edler would be unlikely to put up 40-50 and be considered for Norris etc.

 

This isn't rocket science!  Our team has had no depth, no scoring, no PP QB on D and little push from youth until VERY recently. No matter how good the Sedins, Edler etc were playing, their numbers were going down in those circumstances. The team around them simply hasn't been good enough.

 

 

[aGENT]

Imagine if we'd just selected Karlsson in 2008, O'Reilly in 2009, Jenner in 2011 and Bourdon had never bought a motorcycle....

 

Pretty sure Edler and the Sedins would look just fine 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I really don't know what you two are arguing about, or the point your trying to make.  

We're all agreeing on the same things. 

 

Edler isn't the same player he once was? agreed.

Edler isn't a #1 D? agreed.

Currently he's still a decent D? agreed

In less than two years Edler will be replaced? agreed

 

You're just taking what I've stated and stating the exact same thing in your own words.  There's really no debate going on here just a rephrasing of words..

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I really don't know what you two are arguing about, or the point your trying to make.  

We're all agreeing on the same things. 

 

Edler isn't the same player he once was? agreed.

Edler isn't a #1 D? agreed.

Currently he's still a decent D? agreed

In less than two years Edler will be replaced? agreed

 

You're just taking what I've stated and stating the exact same thing in your own words.  There's really no debate going on here just a rephrasing of words..

Except we're not crapping all over him and claiming he's some shell of his former self 

[elvis15]

5 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Except we're not crapping all over him and claiming he's some shell of his former self 

Pretty much. Forsberg is claiming he'll continue to diminish since younger, better players will take his role and any changes will only negatively impact him and his point totals. But we're saying he could well see a resurgence with the additional support, or in the least be on the path to comparable points per game to last year (but hopefully without the injuries). We're also saying that while he isn't a true #1, he's still (and likely will continue to be this year) our #1.

 

We'll all have to see about what happens with respect to him moving on eventually, and how our younger core does to make his loss easier, but that's a much broader question than what we can see right now.

 

23 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Imagine if we'd just selected Karlsson in 2008, O'Reilly in 2009, Jenner in 2011 and Bourdon had never bought a motorcycle....

 

Pretty sure Edler and the Sedins would look just fine 

I couldn't get past Karlsson with all this comparison talk. That would have been a great pairing these last several years for us.

[VIC_CITY]

10 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Except we're not crapping all over him and claiming he's some shell of his former self 

In all fariness, Edler is not the player he used to be. Both physically and offensively.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, elvis15 said:

I couldn't get past Karlsson with all this comparison talk. That would have been a great pairing these last several years for us.

I almost weep for what could have been...

 

Just now, VIC_CITY said:

In all fariness, Edler is not the player he used to be. Both physically and offensively.

And a LOT of that is circumstantial. THAT is where Forsberg and my/Elvis' opinion differ that he seems to be missing.

 

Further to that draft post above... do you think we wouldn't look a LOT better right now if this was our current D core:

 

Edler, Karlsson

Hutton, Bourdon

Sbisa, Tanev

 

Tryamkin

 

Does anybody even think we'd still be having this conversation if THAT ^^^ was our present reality on D?!?!

[ForsbergTheGreat]

28 minutes ago, J.R. said:

I almost weep for what could have been...

 

And a LOT of that is circumstantial. THAT is where Forsberg and my/Elvis' opinion differ that he seems to be missing.

 

Further to that draft post above... do you think we wouldn't look a LOT better right now if this was our current D core:

 

Edler, Karlsson

Hutton, Bourdon

Sbisa, Tanev

 

Tryamkin

 

Does anybody even think we'd still be having this conversation if THAT ^^^ was our present reality on D?!?!

His play might have had some help regressing due to team circumstances but you also have admitted that he will not get back to the 2011-13 player he once was.  Be it age, be it injuries, it doesn't really matter, his play has taken a step back. 

Yes he is still a top 4 D, but he's no longer the #1 D he used to be and no matter what depth we build around him he still will never get back to that level he once was.   Will he improve?  Perhaps, but there's just as easy of an argument to say he wont.

 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

His play might have had some help regressing due to team circumstances but you also have admitted that he will not get back to the 2011-13 player he once was.  Be it age, be it injuries, it doesn't really matter, his play has taken a step back. 

Yes he is still a top 4 D, but he's no longer the #1 D he used to be and no matter what depth we build around him he still will never get back to that level he once was.   Will he improve?  Perhaps, but there's just as easy of an argument to say he wont.

 

He never was a #1D. Of course he won't get back to 4 years ago state. Who does?

 

He's likely regressed to a lesser #2D with age but he always was a #2D and continues to be one. At best I'll give you that he could have been briefly considered a #1B when he and the team were both at their peaks. 

 

And again a LOT of that was due to the team being graced with loads of talent and depth around him.

 

Circumstance, not ability.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

He never was a #1D. Of course he won't get back to 4 years ago state. Who does?

 

He's likely regressed to a lesser #2D with age but he always was a #2D and continues to be one. At best I'll give you that he could have been briefly considered a #1B when he and the team were both at their peaks. .

 

And again a LOT of that was due to the team being graced with loads of talent and depth around him.

He was considered a #1 D in 2011-13, and he was even in talk for Norris nominations for a couple years. 

 

But again what's the point you're trying to make, I've simply stated he's regressed as a player and will not be able to reach his level of play in the past, if you want to call that him being a shell of his former self, so be it.  It still means the same thing. 

[PhillipBlunt]

This war will rage forever!

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

But again what's the point you're trying to make

That most of his supposed 'regression' is circumstantial, not ability. Like 90% circumstance/10% age/ability.

 

I've stated it numerous times. I'm sorry you've missed it.

[elvis15]

6 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

He was considered a #1 D in 2011-13, and he was even in talk for Norris nominations for a couple years. 

 

But again what's the point you're trying to make, I've simply stated he's regressed as a player and will not be able to reach his level of play in the past, if you want to call that him being a shell of his former self, so be it.  It still means the same thing. 

But we aren't calling him that. We're saying he's a little older, but with a better supporting cast he could be a very effective player for us (and likely still our #1 even if he isn't one across the NHL).

 

I think we've exhausted this topic.

[PhillipBlunt]

This is CDC, where no topic can ever possibly be exhausted, spent, or beaten enough. This forum makes Scotland Yard look like rank amateurs!

[Shift-4]

17 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

This is CDC, where no topic can ever possibly be exhausted, spent, or beaten enough. This forum makes Scotland Yard look like rank amateurs!

but the OP promised this would settle it

 

[PhillipBlunt]

Just now, Shift-4 said:

but the OP promised this would settle it

 

Hmmmmmm.....I see....well.......pfft.....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[elvis15]

23 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

but the OP promised this would settle it

 

[VIC_CITY]

1 hour ago, Shift-4 said:

but the OP promised this would settle it

 

Haha clearly there is no such thing. If Edler scores opening night I'll get roasted beyond belief! But the pendulum is bound to shift back my way when Edler dislocates a rib sneezing. Or maybe he throws his back out picking up a cracker (true Canucks fashion!)

 

Which brings me to this article:

 

Top 10 craziest non hockey related injuries

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/crazy-injuries/

 

 

[Ray_Cathode]

On 19/08/2016 at 8:49 AM, Hortankin said:

Whoever picked Edler must not have watched the team since 2011

I don't think so, I think they rate defensemen strictly on the number of points they get.  Or they give Edler a plus for each set of opposition shin pads he blasts the puck into before it bounces back out past him and he does one of patented Edler stumbles.