Norris Talk

[cjm502 165]

Paul Crosty for Norris!

[Finnish Wing 110]

Name me a Stanley Cup team that lacked elite defensive players.

Without Backstrom and Schultz playing great defense, that Washington line is nowhere near as successful.

Sorry, you need both defense and offense to win games. I doubt you are really that much of a blithering idiot to deny it.

The point is that if you're good enough offensively you can win games with less defense. Never you can win games with only good defense. Yes, so they're both important.

But. What does it matter how you do it if you're obviously helping your team with your play? I think +/- 35 and +70 points is pretty good. Obviously it shows as they've been so good team.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Finnish Wing

[egroen 384]

The point is that if you're good enough offensively you can win games with less defense. Never you can win games with only good defense. Yes, so they're both important.

But. What does it matter how you do it if you're obviously helping your team with your play? I think +/- 35 and +70 points is pretty good. Obviously it shows as they've been so good team.

And if you are good enough defensively, you can win without as much offense.

But you will always need both.

You are making fine points if you want to completely ignore the definition of the Norris, which obviously includes actual defensive play.

Edited April 6, 2010 by egroen

[Finnish Wing 110]

And if you are good enough defensively, you can win without as much offense.

But you will always need both.

You are making fine points if you want to completely ignore the definition of the Norris, which obviously includes actual defensive play.

Yeah, I know that they're awarding it to the best all-around d-man.

1. Keith

2. Green

3. Pronger or Lidstrom

That was my list and it still is. I'm just thinking that maybe they should change the meaning of that award. Maybe it's just because I'm Finnish and here we award the best forward, the best d-man etc.

I mean swap Keith with Green for example. Would Washington be were they are now?

[dobbles 252]

Yeah, I know that they're awarding it to the best all-around d-man.

1. Keith

2. Green

3. Pronger or Lidstrom

That was my list and it still is. I'm just thinking that maybe they should change the meaning of that award. Maybe it's just because I'm Finnish and here we award the best forward, the best d-man etc.

I mean swap Keith with Green for example. Would Washington be were they are now?

thats what the norris is given out for. however, what other people are arguing, is that as a defenseman your primary concern should be defense. so that is why all around players, or defense first players are talked about more than mike green. additionally, to point out times that +/- fails as a stat, it was noted that ovechkin has an awesome +/- rating, but i think we all know he doesn't exactly excel at defense. unfortunately theres not black and white stats for a defenseman like there are forwards. its pretty easy to pick the best forward when someone scores 70 goals and has 150 points. but for defensemen, it can be tough' you can look at things like +/-, points, TOI, blocked shots, even strength goals against, etc, but often times you need to watch a lot of their games to get a good idea.

[toby91_ca 620]

I mean swap Keith with Green for example. Would Washington be were they are now?

They would be better, most likely.

[Carman 387]

Green is improving defensively, but the point difference between him and Keith/Doughty/Pronger/Lidstrom isn't large enough to cover his lack of defensive dominance. He's not a liability, but he certainly isn't a defensive anchor, he takes a lot of chances and risks which result in odd man rushes.

Washington would be a very scary team in the playoffs if they actually had a good coach. A lot of natural talent on that team.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Carman

[Theophany 110]

Doughty

Lidstrom

Keith

Won't look like that but I have a raging hard on for Doughty. I can't help it.

Completely agree. My guess is that it's Doughty, Green, Keith (not in that order), but I think Lidstrom deserves to be in the top 3.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

They would be better, most likely.

absolutely. Giving up maybe 10 points of offense for a much better defenseman.

Green is a great offensive defenseman, in a system that utilizes his talents well. That doesnt mean he's the best all around. To win the Norris in spite of his average defensive abilities, his offense should have to be in the Paul Coffey stratosphere, which it isn't.

It'd be nice for Lids to at least get a nomination this year. Keith should probably win it. But more and more sportswriters seem enamored by the points column, so there's a chance Green could in spite of it being a disservice to the spirit of the award. doughty should at least get a nomination, now that people on the east coast actually saw him play in the Olympics and realized how good he is.