Desjardins was a legit number one, though, at least for most of his time in Philly. Therien was a good, capable top four guy. Had a good, solid NHL career.
- Jsaquella

Desjardins was very good. He's close, so either opinion isn't wrong. And I agree Therien was a second pairing guy.

The guys I see as # 1 currently are:

Chara
Keith
Weber
Doughty

Letang (1A)
Seabrooke (1A)
Suter (1A)

Soon to be # 1
Pieterangelo
OEL
Subban
- PLindbergh31

I think you're naming elite guys, rather than valid number one defensemen.

The guys I see as # 1 currently are:

Chara
Keith
Weber
Doughty

Letang (1A)
Seabrooke (1A)
Suter (1A)

Soon to be # 1
Pieterangelo
OEL
Subban
- PLindbergh31

Tough grader

The guys I see as # 1 currently are:

Chara
Keith
Weber
Doughty

Letang (1A)
Seabrooke (1A)
Suter (1A)

Soon to be # 1
Pieterangelo
OEL
Subban
- PLindbergh31

Well there's the issue. You seem to be saying #1 as elite or potential Norris nominee. I'm saying #1 as in "would be the top defenseman on most teams." So it's a difference of definition is all. If that's the case, then few team ever have a string of #1 defensemen (except Boston, Orr>=Bourque>=Chara after a slight blip).

I think you're naming elite guys, rather than valid number one defensemen.
- Jsaquella

Yeah. When I think of a true #1 dman, I think an elite player.

Anyone who doesn't think Desjardins wasn't a legit #1 is out of their mind. He constantly went up against great talent on a nightly basis in an era that had a lot of physical talent (meaning big guys with little hands, who were tough as nails to take the puck from).

Good! I don't think there's enough of us to fill a row boat though.

Sad thing is we won't feel any satisfaction when everyone wants to trade Luke Schenn and JVR is lighting the lamp consistently and putting on his playoff face in T.O. We'll just be angrier.

- mayorofangrytown

I was a trade from a position of weakness, but it needed to be done.
Again, I bring up the ugly picture of 48 games of Kurtis Foster.

Tough grader
- PhillySportsGuy

Yeah that means very few teams have a legit #1 dman.

Yeah. When I think of a true #1 dman, I think an elite player.
- PLindbergh31

See. Now aren't you glad I asked that question.

It was overall philosophy that separated us.

We park our cars in the same garage
- KINGKENZO

That sounds... I don't know... kinda creepy?

Well there's the issue. You seem to be saying #1 as elite or potential Norris nominee. I'm saying #1 as in "would be the top defenseman on most teams." So it's a difference of definition is all. If that's the case, then few team ever have a string of #1 defensemen (except Boston, Orr>=Bourque>=Chara after a slight blip).
- jmatchett383

Yes. That's the thing. A teams best D-man, doesn't mean he's a # 1. The way I define a # 1 dman, a lot of teams don't have one.

Anyone who doesn't think Desjardins wasn't a legit #1 is out of their mind. He constantly went up against great talent on a nightly basis in an era that had a lot of physical talent (meaning big guys with little hands, who were tough as nails to take the puck from).
- KGBflyers10

Your double negative tricked me. I agree with you though

Edit: This era isn't easy to defend either. It's more of a speed league now though.

The guys I see as # 1 currently are:

Chara
Keith
Weber
Doughty

Letang (1A)
Seabrooke (1A)
Suter (1A)

Soon to be # 1
Pieterangelo
OEL
Subban
- PLindbergh31

So there are only 7 #1 d-men in the entire 30 team league. I think your making #1 D-man mean Elite D-man. You can be an Number 1 without being Elite. Heck, according to you there are more All-star defenseman then #1 defensemen.

The order should go:
Generational Defenseman: Like Orr, or Bourque.
Elite Defenseman: Best during thier era's like Lidstrom or Chara
All-Star Defenseman: Usually the top of the league like Weber or Doughty
Number 1 defenseman: Perrinial best defeseman per team. Like your Timonen's, Desjardins, Phaneufs. They are the best on your team, year after year.

Can you list all #1 defesnseman currently in the NHL. I want to see your level of expectations.
- PhillySportsGuy

Chara (maybe not quite anymore)
Keith
Doughty
Suter
Subban
Weber
one of McDonagh or Girardi?
Karlsson
Ekman-Larsson
Letang
Pietrangelo
Hamhuis?
Phaneuf?

See. Now aren't you glad I asked that question.

It was overall philosophy that separated us.
- PhillySportsGuy

Sure. I mean Bryce Salvadore is the Devils # 1 dman. Does that mean he's a true # 1? Not by my definition. It just means he's the best on the Devils.

Yes. That's the thing. A teams best D-man, doesn't mean he's a # 1. The way I define a # 1 dman, a lot of teams don't have one.
- PLindbergh31

Okay. Well, that's fine. When I say #1, I just mean a guy who's the anchor of a top pair on any team (excepting they don't have an "elite" one). For instance: Timonen, in his prime, would be a the top pair anchor on any team unless it was a team like Nashville that had Weber.

I was a trade from a position of weakness, but it needed to be done.
Again, I bring up the ugly picture of 48 games of Kurtis Foster.
- jmatchett383

It was on the front burner for a while before it was completed. I thought Homer was holding out for a better pick in addition. Obviously, I was wrong.

Yeah. When I think of a true #1 dman, I think an elite player.
- PLindbergh31

I'd loosen the definition to a guy who can give you 25+ mins if needed, impact the game at both ends of the ice, run a PP and elevate the level of his teammates play.

Even then, there's not enough of those kinds of guys out there for every team to have 1.

Sure. I mean Bryce Salvadore is the Devils # 1 dman. Does that mean he's a true # 1? Not by my definition. It just means he's the best on the Devils.
- PLindbergh31

Not it doesn't. "Best on a team" doesn't equate to #1. Same with the Flyers' current group.

He's certainly not the player he used to be. He's been in steady decline for a number of years. But he's still a pretty good player.
- MJL

Actually, Timonen's decline has been anything but steady. It's been quite erratic. For example. his production and icetime dipped after his first couple of years as a Flyer and then went back up...in the past couple of seasons Timonen's pts per game was higher than it had been the previous four seasons. It seems some had mistaken a slowing production rate a few years back as indicating an aging player in decline, but his resurgence in seasons after that seems to contradict that. I fear now though, that he's clearly hitting the wall. He's still a decent player, but I agree, he's not the player he used to be. I hope he can keep it together to get through the season without completely falling apart...I think he'll do that.

I was a trade from a position of weakness, but it needed to be done.
Again, I bring up the ugly picture of 48 games of Kurtis Foster.
- jmatchett383

Foster or Luke Schenn last season (they probably wouldn't have hung with Foster but I'm okay with proposal), what difference would it have made in the long run?

Schenn's actually been better than I thought he would and I still don't like the trade. Not only did we sell low on an injured JVR but we traded for a Defenceman that at the time had so soured the Leafs that he was getting limited ice time and being scratched for John Michael Liles.

Like I said, Schenn's playing better than I thought and this isn't to trash him as a player. It's about the trade and IMO it was a bad one made at a bad time for the asset we let go.

I'd loosen the definition to a guy who can give you 25+ mins if needed, impact the game at both ends of the ice, run a PP and elevate the level of his teammates play.

Even then, there's not enough of those kinds of guys out there for every team to have 1.
- Tomahawk

That's the definition of a # 1 dman to me. A guy who impacts the game on both sides of the puck, plays in all situations, and gives you 25 all-star caliber minutes per night.

IMO, if there are 15 of those guys in the NHL it's a lot.

That sounds... I don't know... kinda creepy?
- 77rams

I feel like I have to keep a closer watch on my wife.

Sure. I mean Bryce Salvadore is the Devils # 1 dman. Does that mean he's a true # 1? Not by my definition. It just means he's the best on the Devils.
- PLindbergh31

True, It's not a case where a guy is a legit number one because he's the best guy on a team.

But I do have a bit broader definition than you. I definitely think a guy like Phaneuf is a legit numer one, as are guys like Enstrom, Bouwmeester and Brian Boyle(although Boyle's decline might not have him at that level anymore). Hell, I even think an argument could be made for a guy like Brian Campbell as a legit number one.

But certainly, just because a Salvador level guys is the best on a particular team...

Foster or Luke Schenn last season (they probably wouldn't have hung with Foster but I'm okay with proposal), what difference would it have made in the long run?

Schenn's actually been better than I thought he would and I still don't like the trade. Not only did we sell low on an injured JVR but we traded for a Defenceman that at the time had so soured the Leafs that he was getting limited ice time and being scratched for John Michael Liles.

Like I said, Schenn's playing better than I thought and this isn't to trash him as a player. It's about the trade and IMO it was a bad one made at a bad time for the asset we let go.
- mayorofangrytown

Well, also remember the Flyers were coming off a year where they have a huge amount of offensive production, but we exposed for having a weak-at-best defensive game. JVR's contributions were minimal due to his injuries, and they still had tons of offensive output. Management probably figured they could more an area of strength (offense) for an area of weakness (defensive defense). Just didn't quite work out that they had the offense to spare.