• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Hockeymom1960

Yzerman wins GM of Year (& other awards discussion)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Agreed. I was going to say something like this since the Norris has basically become for the defenseman with the most points..

Personally I think a purely offensive defenseman should be in the same category as some other point producers. That would greatly improve the Norris and actually make sure that guys who shouldn't even be in the conversation for the trophy won't take it away from much more deserving players . Or if that's not possible just split it into the best overall defender and the one with the most points that way everyone knows which award is the more important one for a ..defender.

I mean not even nominating Weber, Suter and Keith ? Too bad Giordano for hurt guy would have won otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erik Karlsson isn't all that bad defensively. That's just the go-to pejorative amongst hockey fans. Any guy that fans (personally) don't want becomes a "defensive liability" or is just generally knocked for having enough offense, but being "bad defensively".

"Well, sure Ovie scores 50 goals, but he's not great defensively". "Yandle plays 20 minutes a night for Dave Tippett, but he's not great defensively". "Gaborik will struggle in LA because he's not great defensively".

I don't really buy it. There are very few guys in the NHL who are just completely garbage defensively. It's too important for them to be that bad at it.

I watched quite a few sens games, and karlsson is pretty bad defensively.

He makes good plays, then the next shift he makes a Brendan smith in his first season plays.

Granted he has more of an excuse than smith, because most times he has to do it all himself, but his defense is way too inconsistent for a number 1 guy. I imagine he will get better, he's still young.

Honestly even if he was a train wreck defensively, it wouldn't be a death knell, simply because of the points he can put up.

But it really bothers me that he won the Norris, He was HORRIBLE the first 30games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erik Karlsson isn't all that bad defensively. That's just the go-to pejorative amongst hockey fans. Any guy that fans (personally) don't want becomes a "defensive liability" or is just generally knocked for having enough offense, but being "bad defensively".

"Well, sure Ovie scores 50 goals, but he's not great defensively". "Yandle plays 20 minutes a night for Dave Tippett, but he's not great defensively". "Gaborik will struggle in LA because he's not great defensively".

I don't really buy it. There are very few guys in the NHL who are just completely garbage defensively. It's too important for them to be that bad at it.

My thinking Karlsson shouldn't have won isn't because he's bad defensively, though honestly he is not as good as guys like Doughty, Suter, Weber, and Keith. He still makes some pretty awful coverage mistakes. He is an elite offensive defenseman, but he is not among the elite as a complete defenseman. Of course, he is still only 25.

But he had a really poor start to this season. Lucky for him hockey writers seem to barely do their jobs anymore so they remember the incredible run the Sens went on and forget Karlsson's poor play in the first three months of the season.

If you don't need to play great all season, then Giordano should have been in the conversation. He did play great all year long until he got injured.

Another part of it is just my beef with how lazy hockey writers seem to have gotten during a time when it is easier to watch games around the league than ever before. If Doughty played for a Canadian team there likely would've been endless stories about the huge minutes he was playing at a very high level. If Karlsson played for Nashville we'd probably just now be reading about how there's this defenseman for the Preds who's pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harold, I totally agree with you in terms of the writers having lost their minds a bit over the past several years. They do seem to totally ignore everything until the last 3rd of the season or so.

Another great example for me was a couple years ago 12-13 season. Ovechkin wins the Hart. He had 56 points in 48 games and Crosby had 56 points in 36 games. Both players missed significant chunks of the season, but with Crosby, it was due to injury (which happened to be at the end of the season I believe), with Ovechkin, he didn't miss any games, he just sucked in several of them and didn't really show up until the second half of the season.

Now, I wouldn't have voted for Crosby either because I do have a hard time awarding an MVP award to someone who's missed a lot of time (he did win the Lindsay, which makes sense). However, I think Ovechkin won mostly because he was very hot at the end of the year and was key in squeaking his team into the players.....but the voters seemed to ignore the fact that he sucked for the first half of the year and was a big reason why his team almost missed the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still think there should be 2 awards for best D-man. Offensive (The Orr Award) and Defensive (The Lidstrom Award).

Except Orr was great defensively and Lidstrom was great offensively. Also, consensus opinion does not say that Lidstrom was the best defenseman in his own zone. Certainly one of the best, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking Karlsson shouldn't have won isn't because he's bad defensively, though honestly he is not as good as guys like Doughty, Suter, Weber, and Keith. He still makes some pretty awful coverage mistakes. He is an elite offensive defenseman, but he is not among the elite as a complete defenseman. Of course, he is still only 25.

But he had a really poor start to this season. Lucky for him hockey writers seem to barely do their jobs anymore so they remember the incredible run the Sens went on and forget Karlsson's poor play in the first three months of the season.

If you don't need to play great all season, then Giordano should have been in the conversation. He did play great all year long until he got injured.

Another part of it is just my beef with how lazy hockey writers seem to have gotten during a time when it is easier to watch games around the league than ever before. If Doughty played for a Canadian team there likely would've been endless stories about the huge minutes he was playing at a very high level. If Karlsson played for Nashville we'd probably just now be reading about how there's this defenseman for the Preds who's pretty good.

My comment wasn't really directed at you, just to be clear. And I'm not even arguing that Karlsson should have won the Norris. I'm just saying that I hear "bad defensively" thrown around so often that I can't help but think it's a catch all criticism for guys we don't like, but don't really know why. I put very little stock in it, unless you're talking about a guy like Damien Brunner (who predictably isn't in the league anymore on account of his one way game).

I agree about the hockey writers though. Which is why I put very little stock in these awards. It's as much an intellectual exercise for them as anything else. Realistically, a handful of guys would win all the major awards because there aren't that many elite level superstars in the league. Ovechkin or Crosby should get all the offensive awards, Doughty or Keith should get all the defensive awards, and a goalie should probably get the MVP. Close curtain. Goodnight and drive safe folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when Lidstrom was winning Norris trophies, we loved the award. Now that Karlsson wins, the trophy is crap.

Am I following this thread correctly?

I don't think Karlsson is as bad as most contend, but I really can't believe Keith didn't get another. That guy was rel gud, and I hate the hawks as much as the next guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when Lidstrom was winning Norris trophies, we loved the award. Now that Karlsson wins, the trophy is crap.

Am I following this thread correctly?

If Kronwall would have won it, I would have said he didn't deserve it, because he doesn't.

Karlsson is a hell of a player, but I dont like the award for best all around defenseman just going to thedefenseman who puts up the most points per game.

I feel like adding another awards for best offensive defenseman would cheapen the rest of them, like I think the defenseman with the most points winning it cheapens the Norris.

Just my opinion.

I'm in no position to argue the merits of an NHL award, but I'd like to see it go to the best all around defenseman...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Erik karlsson.

My point wasn't that it was perfect now, it was that if you split it up it also wouldn't be perfect. IMO what hey should do is what I put in bold.

I like that in theory, but what I think would end up happening is we would have 2 very one dimensional winners. The offensive winner would be someone who scores a ton but could suck defensively, and the defensive winner could end up being a stay at home d-man who scores 6 points a year.

They should continue to do it the way they do it, but with more emphasis on the defensive side of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when Lidstrom was winning Norris trophies, we loved the award. Now that Karlsson wins, the trophy is crap.

Am I following this thread correctly?

False and false. I hate the Blackhawks with passion but I wouldn't have had a problem if either Keith or Seabrook won it. I've listed a bunch of people that I believe are more deserving because they are complete defenseman. Karlsson maybe does one thing better than everybody else = joining the rush but how often does he get caught and then Methot has to correct his mistakes ? Just look at the him at the start of the season with Methot out, guy didn't even play close to a number 1 defenseman but it seems the reporters are only looking at some stupid numbers, instead of the greater picture these days.

It's so funny when people in the media are mentioning but Niedermayer, Lidström were offensive defenseman too...yes they were but they've also played incredible well on the defensive end. I mean, even other forwards admitted how tough it was to play against Niedermayer or even more so against our #5. When I'm thinking of an offensive defender who is also responsible in his own end I'm thinking of guys like Doughty, Duncan Keith and Alex Pietrangelo but for sure not EK. When I'm thinking of players I'd like out there to protect a lead...well that's for sure not Eric Karlsson. When I'm thinking of a fourth forward yes than I'm thinking of EK.

Just mix offensive forwards with other forwards or split the Norris trophy it's a shame this trophy has been downgraded to the defender with the most points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when Lidstrom was winning Norris trophies, we loved the award. Now that Karlsson wins, the trophy is crap.

Am I following this thread correctly?

No, you're not.

they should poll the forwards and ask who is the hardest defenceman to play against.

karlsson's name would NEVER get mentioned.

It depends on how you interpret toughest to play against. He's certainly not the most physical or the toughest to beat defensively, but I think he'd be in the conversation. He's still scary to play against because he can kill you offensively.

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