So nobody knows.
- robin_steele264

Haha. Well, there are a handful.

I was more poking fun at the whole “if you’ve watched him you know” argument that really is a whole lot of BS. I find it generally best to answer it with “well, if you watched the other guy, YOU would know”. It’s basically an argument that people make when they really have nothing.

Anyone read Esplens blog? Jesus..

Huberdeau was a -15, so by using your logic, there is no way he should have been nominated or considered either. Dumbass.
- ruttager17

I agree that Huberdeau should not have been nominated but my post was about Yakupov and Schultz, not Huberdeau......Dumbass!

Stay on topic, would ya!! Sheesh.

Yakupov should have won it you twat plain and simple...
- saskoil21

Debateable.
Id say nominated over saad for sure. But id've picked either huberdeau or gallagher ahead of him

Letang, Subban and Suter nominees for the Norris.

Hmmm....1, 2, 3 in defenseman scoring nominated for the best "defenseman".

So how again is the number 1 rookie scorer not even nominated?
- Iggysbff

Suter wins

please enlighten us as to why yakupov didnt deserve consideration....?

In your opinion; was it his lack of points? Lack of goals?.........
- hugefemale dog77

Yakupov only filled a gap in the Oiler offensive scheme. He lacked solid commitment to his defensive game, hence his -4. By contrast, guys like Gallagher and Galchenyuk put up similar point totals (with stiffer competition in their lineup) as Yakupov however clearly showed more defensive responsibility as shown by their +10 and +14, respectively. Even look at Saad in Chicago and his well rounded game and differential of +17!

That's why.

The fact that a guy like Huberdeau was placed before Galchenyuk is crazy nuts as well!

Anybody who watched the Panthers knows that whether he scored or not, he was the primary threat on the Panthers, and was easily the best offensive player of this rookie class. He should not only have been nominated, he should win it easily. As in, not even close.
- Dirte

Really? You're going to resort to this?

While watching the limited Florida Panther games I did, Huberdeau was present, but I didn't think he was a standout. Basically on a bad team he was a good player. That might win him the trophy, just because the voters will look at this stats and say "Wow, this guy put up good numbers on a horrible Panthers team." Guys like Saad and Gallagher played pivotal roles on their teams making it to the playoffs. Saad put up good points playing a top line, wasn't a defensive liability, and helped the Hawks win the President's Trophy. Gallagher, put up good points, and was arguably part of Montreal's best line throughout the season. Not only that, but he's a major pain in the ass to play against. Out of the three, sure if you base it solely on points, Huberdeau wins... but if you are looking at it in an all-around game, I honestly think he comes in third.

Really? You're going to resort to this?

- BruHAWK

Wait..... WHO is going to resort to "you have to watch them"? WHO is?

Yakupov only filled a gap in the Oiler offensive scheme. He lacked solid commitment to his defensive game, hence his -4. By contrast, guys like Gallagher and Galchenyuk put up similar point totals (with stiffer competition in their lineup) as Yakupov however clearly showed more defensive responsibility as shown by their +10 and +14, respectively. Even look at Saad in Chicago and his well rounded game and differential of +17!

That's why.

The fact that a guy like Huberdeau was placed before Galchenyuk is crazy nuts as well!
- MadManPaddy

This is just a stupid argument. Anyone with a brain knows that players on top 10 teams are going to have better +/- than players on bottom 10 teams. I guarantee you as the Oil move up the standings you will see all of their players +/- improve. It's more of a team stat.

Wait..... WHO is going to resort to "you have to watch them"? WHO is?
- Dirte

What the hell are you talking about? I basically said the phrase "If you watched" you turned it around, and then admitted that you did it because you thought that I have no knowledge of hockey. Read the rest of my post, and let's have a debate. That's how this works.

What the hell are you talking about? I basically said the phrase "If you watched" you turned it around, and then admitted that you did it because you thought that I have no knowledge of hockey. Read the rest of my post, and let's have a debate. That's how this works.
- BruHAWK

No, I did it because making statements that imply that if someone has a different opinion than you, then they "must not have watched" or can't be seeing things as clearly as you, is smug and arrogant.

I never said you have no knowledge of hockey. If you read what I said, it's because people who make those comments have nothing tangible to back up their opinion. You haven't backed up your opinion with anything thus far.

So nobody knows.
- robin_steele264

Pure gold! Haha. Panthers to qc!

Suter wins
- hugefemale dog77

Tough call, befor the habs melt down of the last games I would have pegged subban to win it no question. Butttt now I'm not so sure, it could go to any of the 3 for great reasons.

Tough call, befor the habs melt down of the last games I would have pegged subban to win it no question. Butttt now I'm not so sure, it could go to any of the 3 for great reasons.
- munky123

Voting was done before the playoffs. They already know who won.

No, I did it because making statements that imply that if someone has a different opinion than you, then they "must not have watched" or can't be seeing things as clearly as you, is smug and arrogant.

I never said you have no knowledge of hockey. If you read what I said, it's because people who make those comments have nothing tangible to back up their opinion. You haven't backed up your opinion with anything thus far.
- Dirte

Or I could have been saying "If you watched Montreal play this season and saw Gallagher...." And then proceeded to list of things that I have seen from watching this guy, it might help give someone who HASN'T watched the guy more of an insight as to why he's nominated.

And what exactly do you want me to back up my opinion with? Stats? The guy scored 28 points, was a plus 10. The stuff that makes him (in my opinion) the calder winner is the stuff that, as far as I know, the NHL doesn't keep stats on like how hard a guy plays, or how many penalties he draws, or how much of a pain in the butt he is to play against. And for the record, I hate Brendan Gallagher. I hate his smug smile, but I have to admit, the guy is effective.

Or I could have been saying "If you watched Montreal play this season and saw Gallagher...." And then proceeded to list of things that I have seen from watching this guy, it might help give someone who HASN'T watched the guy more of an insight as to why he's nominated.

And what exactly do you want me to back up my opinion with? Stats? The guy scored 28 points, was a plus 10. The stuff that makes him (in my opinion) the calder winner is the stuff that, as far as I know, the NHL doesn't keep stats on like how hard a guy plays, or how many penalties he draws, or how much of a pain in the butt he is to play against. And for the record, I hate Brendan Gallagher. I hate his smug smile, but I have to admit, the guy is effective.
- BruHAWK

Okay, then why do you take offense to me doing the same for Huberdeau? I was just giving you insight.

You're welcome.

Yakupov only filled a gap in the Oiler offensive scheme. He lacked solid commitment to his defensive game, hence his -4. By contrast, guys like Gallagher and Galchenyuk put up similar point totals (with stiffer competition in their lineup) as Yakupov however clearly showed more defensive responsibility as shown by their +10 and +14, respectively. Even look at Saad in Chicago and his well rounded game and differential of +17!

That's why.

The fact that a guy like Huberdeau was placed before Galchenyuk is crazy nuts as well!
- MadManPaddy

Yakupov played way better D than anyone gives him credit for.

Okay, then why do you take offense to me doing the same for Huberdeau? I was just giving you insight.

You're welcome.
- Dirte

I didn't... I took offense to you basically saying you did it to "put me in my place"

I didn't... I took offense to you basically saying you did it to "put me in my place"
- BruHAWK

When I said I poked fun at your answer? Wow, you're a sensitive one.

This is just a stupid argument. Anyone with a brain knows that players on top 10 teams are going to have better +/- than players on bottom 10 teams. I guarantee you as the Oil move up the standings you will see all of their players +/- improve. It's more of a team stat.
- Iggysbff

No, no it's not.

The other player's games are clearly more well-rounded and they showed better defensive responsibility that Yakupov did, all the while putting up similar point totals across the board.

If your argument was true, then every player on the top ten teams would all be in the + and we know that's simply not true. There is no reasonable argument for Yakupov (or Schultz for that matter) to be considered for this trophy.

Sorry, better luck next year.

Yakupov played way better D than anyone gives him credit for.
- robin_steele264

I can agree with this. On the Oilers, all considered, he likely did. But.....he was not as solid all around as someone like Gallagher or Saad (or even Galchenyuk.)

Yaks will be a good player for years to come but he just is not a Calder candidate no matter how you present it.

Buffalo Sabres hire Rolston as head coach

http://sports.yahoo.com/n...-head-131031702--nhl.html

Pure gold! Haha. Panthers to qc!
- munky123

Quebec City Panthers?

I didn't... I took offense to you basically saying you did it to "put me in my place"
- BruHAWK

Where exactly did I say that?

The fact that a guy like Huberdeau was placed before Galchenyuk is crazy nuts as well!
- MadManPaddy