Ed Stein: Reader Debate: Clayton Stoner Blog readers weigh in on Clayton Stoner.

Ed Stein: Reader Debate: Clayton Stoner
Blog readers weigh in on Clayton Stoner.
- Ed Stein

Lets wait til our season is over in June and decide.

I haven't seen Stoner play much, but what it sounds like is he is a lot like Adam McQuaid in Boston. Those can be really important players. Most teams don't have the luxury of playing 6 high quality defenseman. Would you rather have your sixth guy be a weak possession guy who puts his body on the line and is apt at keeping the puck out of the net or a guy whose strong offensively but struggles in his own end? On a team like the ducks, where they have a lot of undersized swift skating offensive d men, a guy like Stoner seems like a good fit.

I haven't seen Stoner play much, but what it sounds like is he is a lot like Adam McQuaid in Boston. Those can be really important players. Most teams don't have the luxury of playing 6 high quality defenseman. Would you rather have your sixth guy be a weak possession guy who puts his body on the line and is apt at keeping the puck out of the net or a guy whose strong offensively but struggles in his own end? On a team like the ducks, where they have a lot of undersized swift skating offensive d men, a guy like Stoner seems like a good fit.
- Shaundre93

Well put. I should have asked you to write this.

I haven't seen Stoner play much, but what it sounds like is he is a lot like Adam McQuaid in Boston. Those can be really important players. Most teams don't have the luxury of playing 6 high quality defenseman. Would you rather have your sixth guy be a weak possession guy who puts his body on the line and is apt at keeping the puck out of the net or a guy whose strong offensively but struggles in his own end? On a team like the ducks, where they have a lot of undersized swift skating offensive d men, a guy like Stoner seems like a good fit.
- Shaundre93

But should that sixth guy get 13 million dollars?

Well put. I should have asked you to write this.
- Ed Stein

haha, thanks I thought this was interesting though because with the new found fancy stats, people are starting to hate on the old warrior bottom pair D man. I think they still have a place in the game, but its all about finding that right niche for them

But should that sixth guy get 13 million dollars?
- selanne4pres

NO. But I hate judging players because of bad contracts. Its not like he played over his head for a year and reaped the benefits then came crashing back to earth (Clarckson). He is what he is, that contract is on the GM. Might as well get your moneys worth out of him

I haven't seen Stoner play much, but what it sounds like is he is a lot like Adam McQuaid in Boston. Those can be really important players. Most teams don't have the luxury of playing 6 high quality defenseman. Would you rather have your sixth guy be a weak possession guy who puts his body on the line and is apt at keeping the puck out of the net or a guy whose strong offensively but struggles in his own end? On a team like the ducks, where they have a lot of undersized swift skating offensive d men, a guy like Stoner seems like a good fit.
- Shaundre93

A lot of Ducks fans have been saying pretty much the same thing on here and it's fallen on pretty much deaf ears, at least Ed's and selanne4pres'. What I find incredulous is that they have completely written Stoner off after just 20 games in a brand new system. I love the Ducks young D-men but not one of them is a physical presence, in fact Sami Vatanen was knocked off of the puck two games ago by 98 pound weakling Johnny Gaudreau. Yeah, I know it's one play but it's still wouldn't inspire confidence in a seven game series against a team like LA or Boston.

I laughed at selanne4pres b!tching about Stoner's skating style. You know who else can't skate worth a damn, Corey Perry. Maybe the Ducks should get rid of him too.

A lot of Ducks fans have been saying pretty much the same thing on here and it's fallen on pretty much deaf ears, at least Ed's and selanne4pres'. What I find incredulous is that they have completely written Stoner off after just 20 games in a brand new system. I love the Ducks young D-men but not one of them is a physical presence, in fact Sami Vatanen was knocked off of the puck two games ago by 98 pound weakling Johnny Gaudreau. Yeah, I know it's one play but it's still wouldn't inspire confidence in a seven game series against a team like LA or Boston.

I laughed at selanne4pres b!tching about Stoner's skating style. You know who else can't skate worth a damn, Corey Perry. Maybe the Ducks should get rid of him too.
- duxcup07

Defenders need to be able to skate. Forwards can make up for it with other talents like stick handling. Anyway, you missed my point here. I'm more critical of Stoner's inability to change direction rather than his skating style. Ultimately that's what is most important.

A defender cannot move effectively if his body is not balanced, which allows skaters to skate to the outside and get around him. People may argue that Stoner is still able to block shots; however, this stat does not have a significant effect on the game. A shot is still a shot no matter if it gets through or not. Add in Stoner’s complete inability to pass to his own team and lack of hockey sense and you get a player that should put icing the puck on his resume.

A few things very wrong with this. !) As a defender you WANT the winger to skate to the outside. Going outside makes the attacker travel a longer distance to get to the net. It is certainly much, much better than if he were to skate thru the middle of the ice, which brings me to 2) this is a good example of good hockey sense. One the things Stoner does very well is control the gap away from the puck. To use a football analogy, think of a defensive back defending a wide receiver at the line of scrimmage. Without the contact of course, the closer a defender can get to his opponent, the harder it makes it for the opponent to run his route. Same thing as a defender in hockey. Stoner is very big, and a winger simply cannot skate thru him without the puck, he must go around. Stoner's positioning not only slows the attacker down, but forces him to go around via the outside. If he goes inside, it clogs the blue line and either forces the play offside or forces the player with the puck to dump it in. This eliminates the center lane drive as well as theoretically limiting shots against that come with a clean zone entry. This brings me to 3) Not all shots are the same. (I can't believe we have to argue this.) No center lane drive means no traffic, which means an easier save for the goaltender and fewer rebounds and fewer scoring chances. A blocked shot is no shot at all and much of the time becomes an offensive zone turnover.

Additionally, the Stoner/Manson pairing gives the Ducks a dedicated defensive pair, which they have not really had since Pronger/O'Donnell. (There was a short period with Beauchemin/Souray, but it didn't last long). It helped that Pronger was such a great passer, but that's why Stoner isn't close to Pronger's level.

All of your criticisms of Stoner are "on the puck," which are valid. He isn't great with the puck, but that doesn't make him useless. Part of the reason defensive players are valued less by fans is because so much of what they do is away from the puck and therefore is less seen by fans. Look no further than the rumors sections here to see what teams are asking for their middle pairing defense if you want to see how these players are valued by those that build teams.

Ed Stein: Reader Debate: Clayton Stoner
Blog readers weigh in on Clayton Stoner.
- Ed Stein

The Anti-Stoner arguement was weak and seemed more opinionated. Not to mention, most of the points referenced are misguided.

For example, Clayton Stoner skating "perpendicular" to the ice has nothing to do with players skating around him. Most players, especially bigger ones, learn to skate lower to the ice because they want to lower their center of gravity. I'm not going to get into a physics lesson as to why that's an advantage. But Stoner isn't going to magically become a more agile and quick skater by doing so more upright. He's slow, that's the facts. The idea is for players to skate around him; the key is in gap control, which Stoner is very good at.

Saying he's a slow, defensive dman who lacks skill is not a viable arguement.

The Anti-Stoner arguement was weak and seemed more opinionated. Not to mention, most of the points referenced are misguided.

For example, Clayton Stoner skating "perpendicular" to the ice has nothing to do with players skating around him. Most players, especially bigger ones, learn to skate lower to the ice because they want to lower their center of gravity. I'm not going to get into a physics lesson as to why that's an advantage. But Stoner isn't going to magically become a more agile and quick skater by doing so more upright. He's slow, that's the facts. The idea is for players to skate around him; the key is in gap control, which Stoner is very good at.

Saying he's a slow, defensive dman who lacks skill is not a viable arguement.
- mochoson

I chose to make my argument opinion based because I wanted to stir the pot. After all, that's the goal of this kind of discussion. I completely disagree with your take on his gap control though. If players slow down coming into the zone he simply falls back. This is becoming quite apparent in the last few games. And skating to the outside is all fine and dandy until they completely get around him and have an open shot on the goalie.

If you want me to strengthen my argument I definitely can. I can use most advanced stats out there to show that he's terrible. I just know that this site isn't quite receptive to them for some reason so I didn't want to lose the audience.

I totally respect you selanne4pres. But your argument is all related to salary.

If Stoner had just signed a 4-year $4,000,000 contract, you wouldn't even bother with him. Otherwise, how are Etem and Rakell getting past your "crappy player" radar?

I totally respect you selanne4pres. But your argument is all related to salary.

If Stoner had just signed a 4-year $4,000,000 contract, you wouldn't even bother with him. Otherwise, how are Etem and Rakell getting past your "crappy player" radar?
- yzermaneely

I tried to take a shot at the GM. I was hoping someone would pick up on that. You're right, I could have taken a different approach to my argument.

Hey, I was never asked about my feelings on any other players. Etem is kind of irrelevant to me at this point but Rakell is a little more interesting. I prefer centers that are playmakers especially on this team of shooters. Rakell likes to play an individual game which isn't ideal for centers. He even reminds me a bit of Bobby Ryan in that way. Still I wouldn't completely right him off until we give him a proper shot. Obviously he's not going to contribute playing on the fourth line. I'd be totally fine trading either player.

I think the biggest need for this team is a proven top six forward. A reclamation project like Borque isn't the answer. If Manson can keep playing at this high of a level then I think we can stand pat at defense. Stoner would be better served as a seventh defenseman but I can deal with him getting playing time now that Allen is gone.

I totally respect you selanne4pres. But your argument is all related to salary.

If Stoner had just signed a 4-year $4,000,000 contract, you wouldn't even bother with him. Otherwise, how are Etem and Rakell getting past your "crappy player" radar?
- yzermaneely

Which would be a valid argument if the Ducks were a cap team. They're not. Is Stoner over paid considering his skill set? If the Ducks had another one or two defensemen who could play physically, I suppose you could make that argument. When you consider that the Ducks needed a player of his type and there was a 4 team bidding war for him, what Stoner's salary is was purely defined by the market. Supply and demand, Econ 101. After what's happened this year to a lot of teams D corps, Clayton Stoner at $3 million or so is a bargain.

Lets wait til our season is over in June and decide.
- rubberduckies

April

Which would be a valid argument if the Ducks were a cap team. They're not. Is Stoner over paid considering his skill set? If the Ducks had another one or two defensemen who could play physically, I suppose you could make that argument. When you consider that the Ducks needed a player of his type and there was a 4 team bidding war for him, what Stoner's salary is was purely defined by the market. Supply and demand, Econ 101. After what's happened this year to a lot of teams D corps, Clayton Stoner at $3 million or so is a bargain.
- duxcup07

Internal budget. That's even more important to consider since we can't spend to the cap. And Stoner is a carbon copy of Allen and Fistric. That's why I was so critical of this signing. Just because four teams are bidding doesn't mean that the guy is a good option. I'm completely fine with finding a physical guy as long as he can skate. I think Beauch could fill that roll for the time being.

I chose to make my argument opinion based because I wanted to stir the pot. After all, that's the goal of this kind of discussion. I completely disagree with your take on his gap control though. If players slow down coming into the zone he simply falls back. This is becoming quite apparent in the last few games. And skating to the outside is all fine and dandy until they completely get around him and have an open shot on the goalie.

If you want me to strengthen my argument I definitely can. I can use most advanced stats out there to show that he's terrible. I just know that this site isn't quite receptive to them for some reason so I didn't want to lose the audience.
- selanne4pres

There's nothing wrong with a defensemen slowly sinking back if a player throws on the breaks coming into the zone. That's where forwards coming back who track well (not just "back checK" but "back track") come into play. Ultimately, the defensemen is responsible for the ice much deeper in his own zone. He can't be concerned with trying to cover the entire ice sheet, especially at the pace NHL games are played.

Again, I think Stoner is what he is; a solid if unspectacular defensive dman who is a lackluster skater. As a Flyers fan, I totally understand having to watch both Luke Schenn and Nick Grossman every game. It is my opinion that teams are best suited only icing one of these players at a time depending on how talented they are. I dont think Stoner is at all a bad option if he's your only guy that plays that defensive dman role. Ducks management seems to have echoed this sentiment after trading Bryan Allen.

I've watched Nigel Dawes (!!) undress Chris Pronger (in a ducks uniform, mind you) for a goal. It happens. Defensemen get a beat. For a guy that can't even sniff Prongers jock, I think Stoner does a pretty good job in his own zone all around. Every defensemen can get skated around here and there, but more often then not I've known Stoner as a guy who both angles forwards into the boards and controls gaps well.

The advanced stats comment is silly. You'd be hard pressed to find many players similar to Stoner with good advanced stats. They're very subjective and provide minimal uses IMO.

Which would be a valid argument if the Ducks were a cap team. They're not. Is Stoner over paid considering his skill set? If the Ducks had another one or two defensemen who could play physically, I suppose you could make that argument. When you consider that the Ducks needed a player of his type and there was a 4 team bidding war for him, what Stoner's salary is was purely defined by the market. Supply and demand, Econ 101. After what's happened this year to a lot of teams D corps, Clayton Stoner at $3 million or so is a bargain.
- duxcup07

Idk that he's a "bargin" now, but I can tell you as a Flyers fan I have absolutely no problem with Nick Grossman and his contract. These guys more than earn their money IMO. His cap hit is only 250k more than Stoner. You need to really have a strong grasp of the game and a more universal approach to your own teams structure to both respect and appreciate guys like Grossman/Stoner.

The reality is that we fans are not hockey management personnel. Defensive dmen like these earn their money doing things most fans don't notice. The bottom line is they help teams win games, and that's why the better ones are compensated handsomely for it. I myself have watched Flyers games where Nick Grossman wasn't playing, and I did not enjoy it. We are without question a better team when he's on the ice.

What seperates guys like Stoner/Grossman/Regehr/McQuaid from say, Deryk Engelland, is consistency. Stoner is what he is and compared to maybe more skilled defensmen or forwards that make comparable money, he seems over paid. The reality is the role he plays is still a necessary one in the NHL and when filled consistently, players in those roles are compensated well.

Stoner had a track record of playing consistently well for the Wild, where as a guy like Engelland was frequently scratched or used as a forward. Just trying to put into perspective that, if you're gonna analyze players like this by their salary, there's a lot that needs to be taken into consideration.

With the cap continuing to go up, in another year or two Stoner will have a salary consistent with exactly what he is; a roleplayer.

I tried to take a shot at the GM. I was hoping someone would pick up on that. You're right, I could have taken a different approach to my argument.

Hey, I was never asked about my feelings on any other players. Etem is kind of irrelevant to me at this point but Rakell is a little more interesting. I prefer centers that are playmakers especially on this team of shooters. Rakell likes to play an individual game which isn't ideal for centers. He even reminds me a bit of Bobby Ryan in that way. Still I wouldn't completely right him off until we give him a proper shot. Obviously he's not going to contribute playing on the fourth line. I'd be totally fine trading either player.

I think the biggest need for this team is a proven top six forward. A reclamation project like Borque isn't the answer. If Manson can keep playing at this high of a level then I think we can stand pat at defense. Stoner would be better served as a seventh defenseman but I can deal with him getting playing time now that Allen is gone.
- selanne4pres

We'll take both Rakell and Etem in Philly! Especially Etem; could desperately use that world class speed of his if nothing else.

We'll take both Rakell and Etem in Philly! Especially Etem; could desperately use that world class speed of his if nothing else.
- mochoson

They would both fit much better on an Eastern team. Now if we could only center a deal around them and Coots..

I love this cat fight between you TWO duck fans.

Who gives a shyt what the guys contract is. 1) you don't pay the salary 2) ducks DONT spend to the cap anyways, so it really doesn't matter

He's a lesser Greene. He can't skate but he does everything else.

Whenever a Greene type guy is in the box I cringe because of the fact he is a good defender and can handle his own in his own end. Just an example that it doesn't matter if they can't skate well. It's a matter of can he defend well?

Stoner is a good depth guy end of argument.

It's nice to discuss an issue in an open forum. Thanks for the debate.