• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
DickieDunn

Kronwall

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I keep seeing that he's not a real #1. Figure that not every team has a #1 and a couple might have 2 guys who qualify, there are maybe 25 #1 caliber D in the NHL. Assuming Kronwall isn't a #1, name 25 better. Or even 20. He is not elite, top 5 in the world. He is a #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we have this same conversation every year after we get eliminated.

I'm pretty sure you don't just feel like, but that we have this discussion about Kronner every year since Lidstrom left. You'd think that they would stop, at least after we shut down one of the best offenses in the NHL.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

He is the Wings number 1, like it or not. As I've said in the past, the issue with Kronwall is that he does everything generally well, but doesn't excel at any one aspect of the game to set him apart. He doesn't have the size, the speed, the strength, the shot. Another thing that hurts the perception of Kronwall is that other Nik guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The better question is this...

When the opposing team's best player (most hated player), say, Tyler Johnson just picked up the loose puck from the boards and is heading up their blueline and his head is down. His eyes are on the puck and he's speeding up. Who would be the defenseman you would want to meet him at that blue line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is the Wings number 1, like it or not. As I've said in the past, the issue with Kronwall is that he does everything generally well, but doesn't excel at any one aspect of the game to set him apart. He doesn't have the size, the speed, the strength, the shot. Another thing that hurts the perception of Kronwall is that other Nik guy.

You know what else hurts Kronwall? Errorson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we get a legit #2 guy, our D looks like this:

Kronwall - New Guy

DD - Qunicey

Eriksson - Marchenko or Smith

Erikkson would be an elite 3rd pairing guy, he just miscast. If this new guy can help Kronwall, I think Kronwall will prove to most he is a #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing that he's not a real #1. Figure that not every team has a #1 and a couple might have 2 guys who qualify, there are maybe 25 #1 caliber D in the NHL. Assuming Kronwall isn't a #1, name 25 better. Or even 20. He is not elite, top 5 in the world. He is a #1.

It doesn't work like that. Just because you're a good d-man or a number 1 on your team doesn't make you a true number 1. It's like ace starters, every team has a number 1 pitcher, not every team has an ace. In my opinion, a number 1 defenceman is an elite defenceman. Those guys are rare. I don't get the whole idea of lets label everybody. I'm going to use a baseball reference again, since baseball loves to label. A true number one is someone like Kershaw or a young Verlander, in other words a player who dominates. There are a lot of top defenceman in the NHL, but not a ton of true number 1 players. We love to put players in little boxes, marked with convenient numbers. Causing tags like 1 number defenceman to become overused. I guess it all depends on your opinion of a number 1. To me it means elite, to others it might mean very good. Is Kronwall elite? No is he very good? Yes. One other thing to take into account is that he isn't as good as he used to be. Not having Lids to play with has hurt him.

Edited by wings87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't work like that. Just because you're a good d-man or a number 1 on your team doesn't make you a true number 1. It's like ace starters, every team has a number 1 pitcher, not every team has an ace. In my opinion, a number 1 defenceman is an elite defenceman. Those guys are rare. I don't get the whole idea of lets label everybody. I'm going to use a baseball reference again, since baseball loves to label. A true number one is someone like Kershaw or a young Verlander, in other words a player who dominates. There are a lot of top defenceman in the NHL, but not a ton of true number 1 players. We love to put players in little boxes, marked with convenient numbers. Causing tags like 1 number defenceman to become overused. I guess it all depends on your opinion of a number 1. To me it means elite, to others it might mean very good.

This is all subjective, you cannot be proved right or wrong.

IMO, when you consider that there are 30 teams with 6 regular d-man which means 180 d-mean in the league. Being a #1 means you are good enough to be the best on a team (ie. top 30). Being top 30 out of 180 (or more if you count guys in the press box/minors) is pretty damn good.

I'm not going to touch "elite", had that argument, not care enough to have it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing that he's not a real #1. Figure that not every team has a #1 and a couple might have 2 guys who qualify, there are maybe 25 #1 caliber D in the NHL. Assuming Kronwall isn't a #1, name 25 better. Or even 20. He is not elite, top 5 in the world. He is a #1.

It doesn't work like that. Just because you're a good d-man or a number 1 on your team doesn't make you a true number 1. It's like ace starters, every team has a number 1 pitcher, not every team has an ace. In my opinion, a number 1 defenceman is an elite defenceman. Those guys are rare. I don't get the whole idea of lets label everybody. I'm going to use a baseball reference again, since baseball loves to label. A true number one is someone like Kershaw or a young Verlander, in other words a player who dominates. There are a lot of top defenceman in the NHL, but not a ton of true number 1 players. We love to put players in little boxes, marked with convenient numbers. Causing tags like 1 number defenceman to become overused. I guess it all depends on your opinion of a number 1. To me it means elite, to others it might mean very good. Is Kronwall elite? No is he very good? Yes. One other thing to take into account is that he isn't as good as he used to be. Not having Lids to play with has hurt him.

So there are only 5or 6. I think your definition is too narrow. At the least I think you need to say the top 10% which would be 21 (7 d a team 30 team =210 d in the league)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all subjective, you cannot be proved right or wrong.

IMO, when you consider that there are 30 teams with 6 regular d-man which means 180 d-mean in the league. Being a #1 means you are good enough to be the best on a team (ie. top 30). Being top 30 out of 180 (or more if you count guys in the press box/minors) is pretty damn good.

I'm not going to touch "elite", had that argument, not care enough to have it again.

Most of it is subjective. Since there is no specific criteria for the 1 label. It all depends on the criteria you use. I disagree with your statement of "Being a #1 means you are good enough to be the best on a team" that statement implies that every team has a number 1. Can we instead agree that Kronwall is a very good D-man, and labels don't mean s***?

This is going to open a whole can of s***, but here goes. Howard is a top 30 goalie in the NHL. Does that make him a true number 1 goalie? Or just a number 1 goalie on the team he plays on?

So there are only 5or 6. I think your definition is too narrow. At the least I think you need to say the top 10% which would be 21 (7 d a team 30 team =210 d in the league)

I don't disagree It might be too narrow, but yours might be too broad. Plus I don't think it needs a percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we do have this convo every year. No Kronwall is not a true #1 Dman. In fact he isn't even the best on the team anymore. Dekeyser has passed him defensively and is closing the gap offensively.

But we all know this. Now the convo will break down and everyone will start arguing with each other about which stats mean more, what is a defensemens job to do, etc.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of it is subjective. Since there is no specific criteria for the 1 label. It all depends on the criteria you use. I disagree with your statement of "Being a #1 means you are good enough to be the best on a team" that statement implies that every team has a number 1. Can we instead agree that Kronwall is a very good D-man, and labels don't mean s***?

This is going to open a whole can of s***, but here goes. Howard is a top 30 goalie in the NHL. Does that make him a true number 1 goalie? Or just a number 1 goalie on the team he plays on?

I don't disagree It might be too narrow, but yours might be too broad. Plus I don't think it needs a percentage.

Well, there is a logical specific criterion: 30 teams, 30 #1s. It makes sense. Now, if you want to qualify it further and say good #1 or #1 for a contending team, maybe you go top 15 or top 10, and maybe there Kronwall falls short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The better question is this...

When the opposing team's best player (most hated player), say, Tyler Johnson just picked up the loose puck from the boards and is heading up their blueline and his head is down. His eyes are on the puck and he's speeding up. Who would be the defenseman you would want to meet him at that blue line?

Seabrook

lol jk, im a huge kronwall supporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

Like what topic on this board hasn't been beaten to death ad nauseum? A topic that only comes up once a year? That's almost an original subject matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this