[quote=burn]

Not reading things closely again. Big surprise.



But Phaneuf, the guy who either doesn't put up points or puts up points and is a huge defensive failure, is some how a legit #1 defender even though he hasn't really been up there in six years, when he was in Calgary.

Sure thing.

What's funny here is that you're just dying to prove that Phaneuf is a #1 defender. You don't care at all if he's an average or completely crap #1 defender, as long as you scrape something together to say he's #1.
- Two_For_Truth

You said he was a poor #2 and an average #3 (with the caveat that he needs a good #4 to bail him out).

20 teams, Uggie.

Just 20 teams.

Go.

There are plenty of guys in the NHL who are #1 by default. It doesn't make them good at what they do. Phaneuf is a #1 defender by default in Toronto. Doesn't mean he's a good #1 defender, especially when you consider what a legit #1 is and should be.
- Two_For_Truth

i considered your argument and although he does make a lot of bone head plays he would still be a no1 on many teams

there are other ways to use your size other than hitting, look at Sundin
- bobbyisno1

Sundin could have used his size more effectively. Probably would have been better off doing so too. A guy that big who plays that big is even harder to stop.

Have you ever considered that if Vanek tried to play like Neely, his body might break down and his scoring (the job Buffalo needs him to do) might suffer?
- Leeman4Gilmour

Poor Vanek, he might get hurt trying to compete harder...

Crosby doesn't play like Wendel Clark. To you honestly believe he'd be better off if he tried to do something so beyond his natural element?

Crosby isn't gifted with being 6'3" now is he...

Who said he was useless? Nobody except you right now.

Is he wasting talent? He sure is. If Vanek was more physical, he'd play the game a lot better. Probably become a little bit more consistent too.

Ovechkin played with an edge for years and it worked better. Then he lost his edge and now he doesn't score as much. Big surprise.

You take a two equally talented guys who are 5'10" and 6"4" and tell the bigger player not to use his size. What's the difference? A reach advantage? Weight advantage? Get that same 6'4" player to use his size in every way possible and now you have a distinct advantage.

I can't believe this needs to be explained; that a player who uses his size advantage is better because of it. It's unbelievable.
- Two_For_Truth

I agree. Look at Gilmour, he should be an inspiration for all players under 6'0. he didn't get the name killer for nothing. The guy is 5'9 soaking wet.He wasn't scared of anybody. I only wish that when Antropov & Poni were Leafs that they would have used their size. They were huge but didn't play physical.

as long as the puck ends up in the net... it's all that matters really
- Pecafan Fan

Like on Saturday night. Although I will admit, it's a whole lot more satisfying when they don't let the rats run free.

- jbold

He said he didn't say useless, you see anything?

Poor Vanek, he might get hurt trying to compete harder...



Crosby isn't gifted with being 6'3" now is he...
- Two_For_Truth

No, Crosby is 5'11" 200 lbs.

The exact same size as Wendel Clark. So, why can't he add Wendel's grit?

How about Stamkos? He's 6'1". Why isn't he more like Cam Neely?

You said he was a poor #2 and an average #3 (with the caveat that he needs a good #4 to bail him out).
- Leeman4Gilmour

You can't even get your story straight anymore. I said Phaneuf, at his best, could be a #2 guy depending on how good the #1 is at cleaning up his messes but he's probably best suited to be the #3 guy. The reason for that is because as the #3 guy he would get less ice time, which limits the mistakes he makes when he goes off on his Bobby Orr rushes and having a defensive #4 would help him when he does make mistakes.

You can't even get your story straight anymore. I said Phaneuf, at his best, could be a #2 guy depending on how good the #1 is at cleaning up his messes but he's probably best suited to be the #3 guy. The reason for that is because as the #3 guy he would get less ice time, which limits the mistakes he makes when he goes off on his Bobby Orr rushes and having a defensive #4 would help him when he does make mistakes.
- Two_For_Truth

If you say he's best suited to be a #3, I've got news for you: you think he's a #3.

Again, name the teams where Phaneuf is a #3. Name the teams where he is third on the depth chart.

C'mon, I don't even need 20. I'll take whatever you can muster.

i considered your argument and although he does make a lot of bone head plays he would still be a no1 on many teams
- bobbyisno1

"On many teams" means what? If he's the 20th best defender playing as your #1 guy, how does that help you win a Cup? Look at a team like the Kings or the Bruins who had Doughty and Chara. Clear cut, top of the league #1 defenders. Phaneuf isn't like that. He's a #1 by default. Doesn't mean he's a legit #1 guy who can anchor your team to winning what matters. What some people are trying to prove is that even if he's an average or bottom of the barrel #1 defender, that is still good enough. It's not.

No, Crosby is 5'11" 200 lbs.

The exact same size as Wendel Clark. So, why can't he add Wendel's grit?
- Leeman4Gilmour

What does being the same size as Clark have to do with a player having a size advantage and refusing to use it? Clark is an example of a guy who played bigger than he was. This isn't what is being discussed. What's being discussed is a guy who has the size but zero desire to take advantage of it.

How about Stamkos? He's 6'1". Why isn't he more like Cam Neely?

He had 100+ hits last year and could probably stand to hit more often. Probably wouldn't kill him to do so either but he weighs 190, not 200+.

If you say he's best suited to be a #3, I've got news for you: you think he's a #3.
- Leeman4Gilmour

If you say he's best suited as #1, I've got news for you; he's bad at it.

I am sure that this horse trains like a mother(frank)er, but if you want to impress me, remove the horse and lets see that little midget on his back make the jump...
- ShootingSemin

Oh yeah, equestrian is my pet peeve.

Why does the championship horse rider get the same gold medal the 100m champion gets.

His argument is that as long as Phaneuf is in the top 30 (even if that means 30th) that he's a #1 defender. What's the point of being the worst #1 defender in the league? Isn't the point to be one of the best #1 defenders in the league so that your team has a chance to actually win something? Phaneuf is not capable of being one of the best #1 defenders in the league and hasn't been for years.

Everybody loves to mention how Phaneuf plays so many minutes and shuts down players and yet McDonagh and Staal have done that for the Rangers far better than Phaneuf ever has.
- Two_For_Truth

I'd view d-men as guys I'd trade Phaneuf straight up for......

So my list would include:
Shea Weber
Ryan Suter
Erik Karlson
Duncan Keith
Drew Doughty
Alex Pietrangelon
Zdeno Chara

On the fence (would create a different problem)
Keith Yandle
Brent Seabrook
Dan Girardi
Alex Edler
Dan Boyle


Case could be made for:
Justin Schultz (potential)
Kimmo Timonen (too old)
Kevin Bieksa (same poop(
Mark Giordano
Kris Letang
Brent Burns (same poop)
Dimitri Kulikov (potential)
Tyler Myers (potential)
John Carlson (potential)
Kevin Shattenkirk
Andrei Markov
Viktor Hedman (potential)
OEL (potential)
PK Subban (potential)
Bryan Campbell (different type of poop)
Tobias Enstrom (different type of poop)
Dustin Byfuglien (but to me its the same poop)
Cam Fowler (potential)

Guys I bolded are clear upgrades now, guys with potentail could be better but as you know Phaneuf peaked as a 60 point d-man, so potential could go either way. So even if I concede and say all these guys are better than him, he'd still be 31st, making him the best #2 d-men in the league. A far cry from #3.

You can't even get your story straight anymore.
- Two_For_Truth

The verbatim quote from page 41:

"Phaneuf might be a #2 guy at his absolute best but he's still not smart enough to cover up for the mistakes of his partner because that's usually what the #2 guy has to be able to do. Phaneuf would be the #3 guy and need somebody as the #4 guy who can cover for him when he decides to shut his brain off."

-------------

Barely a #2, usually a #3 and "need" his #4 to cover for him. From your own words, not mine.

Now, I'm asking you to prove that asinine statement.

I'd view d-men as guys I'd trade Phaneuf straight up for......

So my list would include:
Shea Weber
Ryan Suter
Erik Karlson
Duncan Keith
Drew Doughty
Alex Pietrangelon
Zdeno Chara

On the fence (would create a different problem)
Keith Yandle
Brent Seabrook
Dan Girardi
Alex Edler
Dan Boyle


Case could be made for:
Justin Schultz (potential)
Kimmo Timonen (too old)
Kevin Bieksa (same poop(
Mark Giordano
Kris Letang
Brent Burns (same poop)
Dimitri Kulikov (potential)
Tyler Myers (potential)
John Carlson (potential)
Kevin Shattenkirk
Andrei Markov
Viktor Hedman (potential)
OEL (potential)
PK Subban (potential)
Bryan Campbell (different type of poop)
Tobias Enstrom (different type of poop)
Dustin Byfuglien (but to me its the same poop)
Cam Fowler (potential)

Guys I bolded are clear upgrades now, guys with potentail could be better but as you know Phaneuf peaked as a 60 point d-man, so potential could go either way
- mykokes

There is no more than 1 or 2 on that list I would not trade Phaneuf for. I am not a big fan. I might like him better if he wasn't the captain.

The verbatim quote from page 41:

"Phaneuf might be a #2 guy at his absolute best but he's still not smart enough to cover up for the mistakes of his partner because that's usually what the #2 guy has to be able to do. Phaneuf would be the #3 guy and need somebody as the #4 guy who can cover for him when he decides to shut his brain off."

-------------

Barely a #2, usually a #3 and "need" his #4 to cover for him. From your own words, not mine.

Now, I'm asking you to prove that asinine statement.
- Leeman4Gilmour

I'm of the opinion if you stick Phaneuf with an Enstrom, an Edler, a Suter....he'd be a 50 point player. The problem I see is when he takes on that role of being the guy who runs poop on the ice. It's like asking a first line RW to be the guy who handles poop in the offensive zone without a #1 centre.

There is no more than 1 or 2 on that list I would not trade Phaneuf for. I am not a big fan. I might like him better if he wasn't the captain.
- Aetherial

Now... how many of the teams with those players would trade them for Phaneuf???

I'd view d-men as guys I'd trade Phaneuf straight up for......

So my list would include:
Shea Weber
Ryan Suter
Erik Karlson
Duncan Keith
Drew Doughty
Alex Pietrangelon
Zdeno Chara

On the fence (would create a different problem)
Keith Yandle
Brent Seabrook
Dan Girardi
Alex Edler
Dan Boyle
- mykokes

Going back to what you said before about Niedermayer and Stevens, Phaneuf isn't good enough with or without the puck to be either type of guy. He can't carry it well enough to be the guy who controls the play and he doesn't have enough hockey IQ to be the defensively responsible one.

There are guys on the list there that can carry the puck and the play way better than Phaneuf and there are guys there that play way better defense. Phaneuf tries to do both but can't do it at a high enough level to be anywhere near the top defenders in the league and he hasn't been at that level in years.

If you say he's best suited as #1, I've got news for you; he's bad at it.
- Two_For_Truth

First of all, you've yet to show that there are more than 15 guys in the entire NHL better than him at D, so no, he's an average #1 at worst.

And can you not see that there is a world of difference between being a low-end #1 and a good #3?

Do yourself a favor and look "Hockey" up on Wikipedia.

There is no more than 1 or 2 on that list I would not trade Phaneuf for. I am not a big fan. I might like him better if he wasn't the captain.
- Aetherial

So if the Leafs traded phaneuf for marc staal, you'd be happy?
If the Leafs traded Phaneuf for Markov, you'd be happy?
If the Leafs traded Phaneuf for Brent Burns, you'd be happy?

Do that with every player on the list, insert them into our lineup and tell me you'd be happy.

I'm not a Phaneuf fan, never was, always thought he was overated even when he was a norris candidate. I prefer the Rafalski's, the Gardiners, the Coffeys, the fast d-men. But I do believe guys like Phaneuf, when with the right guys do exceptionally well. We saw it with Kaberle and McCabe.

Oh yeah, equestrian is my pet peeve.

Why does the championship horse rider get the same gold medal the 100m champion gets.
- Aetherial

Why does the hockey team get the same gold medal as a skier? Skier? Is that the proper spelling?