DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted January 2, 2017 (edited) "I'll give you an example," he said. "We had a player that was supposed to be a great, shut-down defenseman. He was supposedly the be-all, end-all of defensemen. But when you did a 10-game analysis of him, you found out he was defending all the time because he can't move the puck. "Then we had another guy, who supposedly couldn't defend a lick. Well, he was defending only 20 percent of the time because he's making good plays out of our end. He may not be the strongest defender, but he's only doing it 20 percent of the time. So the equation works out better the other way. I ended up trading the other defenseman." -Dave Tippett Coffey was traded from Detroit because he was A ) getting older and B ) they had Lidstrom and Konstantinov, and C ) they moved him to get Shanahan But you're right, there are only 6 or 8 REAL #1 D in the entire NHL and guys who win the Norris aren't #1 guys. Edited January 2, 2017 by DickieDunn 2 kliq and krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted January 2, 2017 I completely agree with Dickie here. A #1 D-man by definition is a guy who is able to be the #1 D on his team, its no different then a starting goalie. Would you not call the 19th best goaltender in the NHL a starter? It would sound stupid to say if a goalie is not top 10 or 12 that he is not a starter. Its not different with #1 d-man, the definition really should be top 30. Rich what you sound like you are talking about is getting into "elite" d-men" or franchise d-men which is a completely different story. With your logic 18 teams dont have a "#1 d-man". 2 DickieDunn and krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted January 2, 2017 23 minutes ago, kliq said: I completely agree with Dickie here. A #1 D-man by definition is a guy who is able to be the #1 D on his team, its no different then a starting goalie. Would you not call the 19th best goaltender in the NHL a starter? It would sound stupid to say if a goalie is not top 10 or 12 that he is not a starter. Its not different with #1 d-man, the definition really should be top 30. Rich what you sound like you are talking about is getting into "elite" d-men" or franchise d-men which is a completely different story. With your logic 18 teams dont have a "#1 d-man". It goes beyond that even. If a guy can't be a shut down defender, and score, and hit, and skate, and be captain material, and do everything else, then he isn't a #1. By his own definition Lidstrom wasn't a #1 because he never made anyone pay or cleared the crease physically. 1 krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richdg 267 Report post Posted January 2, 2017 49 minutes ago, kliq said: I completely agree with Dickie here. A #1 D-man by definition is a guy who is able to be the #1 D on his team, its no different then a starting goalie. Would you not call the 19th best goaltender in the NHL a starter? It would sound stupid to say if a goalie is not top 10 or 12 that he is not a starter. Its not different with #1 d-man, the definition really should be top 30. Rich what you sound like you are talking about is getting into "elite" d-men" or franchise d-men which is a completely different story. With your logic 18 teams dont have a "#1 d-man". Do we have a #1 Dman? Nope. Many teams don't. Yes I use #1 and elite as the same. Every sport has this as well. Ace of the staff in baseball is a classic example. Many teams don't have an ace. They have their best pitcher, but that don't make him an ace. We have our best defenseman (I am really stretching the word best here) but that don't make him a #1. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted January 2, 2017 35 minutes ago, DickieDunn said: It goes beyond that even. If a guy can't be a shut down defender, and score, and hit, and skate, and be captain material, and do everything else, then he isn't a #1. By his own definition Lidstrom wasn't a #1 because he never made anyone pay or cleared the crease physically. Completely agree. what he's saying is ridiculous. 8 minutes ago, Richdg said: Do we have a #1 Dman? Nope. Many teams don't. Yes I use #1 and elite as the same. Every sport has this as well. Ace of the staff in baseball is a classic example. Many teams don't have an ace. They have their best pitcher, but that don't make him an ace. We have our best defenseman (I am really stretching the word best here) but that don't make him a #1. We do have a #1 d-man, DD is our #1. Should he be our #1....no. Going to your baseball analogy, ace and #1 are too different things. Do all teams in baseball have a #1...yes. Do they have an ace...no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted January 2, 2017 9 hours ago, joesuffP said: This is objectively wrong Really? How is Fowler better than Barrie? Ristolainen is emerging as one of the top scoring defensemen in the league, and plays huge minutes, all situations. Reilly is maybe the most debatable, but he plays a similar role and produces at a similar rate to Fowler. What makes you think Fowler is so much better? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
