Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio
I would prefer Gilmour over Kanzig and Morrison
|
First - this post is not just directed at you - just your post is a good example of something I think about.
On a straight head-to-head comparison between Kanzig and Gilmour? I think most would agree that Gimour is a better defencemen right now than Kanzig - and may be in the future.
However, Kanzig is not a roadblock to Gilmour. Gilmour is an undersized puck-mover with good IQ - Flames just traded away an undersized puck-mover with good IQ in Russell.
Who is competing with Gilmour? In no particular order: Giordano, Brodie, Hamilton, Wotherspoon, Kulak, Culkin, Hickey, Kylington, Andersson, Rafikov, Nakladal and Jokipakka (though the last 2-3 are what I would mostly call 'hybrid' defencemen who play a more physical game at times).
Now, who is competing with Kanzig? Bruce, Ollas-Mattsson (maybe) and Engelland.
Now, I am assuming your issue is that you either think:
1) Kanzig won't make it
or
2) There is no need for a Kanzig-type of player
First point may be arbitrary - second point I would argue is a relative need organizationally.
As for Kanzig himself, he has a really high IQ according to Todd Button, and every coach I have heard speak about him (and Feaster/Weisbrod - but I take everything with a grain of salt when it comes from them). Lowry really liked him. He also has really good top-end speed - just needs to get better at that first step, but compensates well with his long reach and IQ.
He is just a prospect that IF he continues to develop and pans-out, then you have a guy who you can use to help against the big centers and forwards in the division. I loved Russell and think he was extremely underappreciated here, but even I knew the Flames would move on when you see him trying to compete on the boards. There aren't many big-bodies on defence of the physical type. Flames for sure would sign and retain there behemoth of one for as long as he continues to show improvement.
So, having Kanzig in the system is not a roadblock to Gilmour. In fact, if the Flames were full of Kanzig-like prospects, Gilmour would suddenly find himself much higher in the Flames' plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Since1984
Wow....no one said he screwed over the Flames. The only thing said was his hockey IQ is terrible.
You may be the one acting like a 5 year old  |
Yeah, this is exactly how I understood MMF's comment as well.
Phanuef has always been a hugely polarizing player. Why?
He is the poster-boy for when people say: "Great tools, no toolbox". In my opinion, Phaneuf has all the tools not just to be a #1 defencemen, but a top-end #1 at that. So why isn't he?
Let's see what he checks off:
Nice big shot from the point? Check
Good skating ability? check
Good passer? Check
Can skate his way out of trouble carrying the puck? Check
Can play a physical game? Check
Can defend well? Check
Probably more checks in there. IMO, he literally checks-off everything you want in a #1 defencemen.
So why do so many people say he sucks? Why do so many people within a fanbase love him, while others hate him?
People see the tools and see the moments when he puts those tools together and has a huge impact on the game and say: "Wow, Phaneuf is so damn good!"
Other people will see how he makes the silliest mistakes at the most inopportune times, over and over, that you don't expect a 6th defencemen to make.
He just doesn't put his tools together consistently enough, and his brain seemingly shuts-off. He has lapses of pure ineptness, coupled with moments of sheer brilliance.
This is what people are saying about Nurse early on in his career thus far as well - Nurse has all the tools you ever want in a #1 defencemen, but his constant lapses are so obvious. They are both very gifted, but very dumb defencemen.
Put them on sheltered roles with a very reliable defensive partner, and they will shine. Put them as 'the' guy on a pairing, and suddenly his warts start coming out. Give him more minutes and responsibilities, and you will see both sides of the coin - the brilliance and the seeming idiocy - become even more apparent.
Every defencemen can look bad - heck, you can find clips of Lidstrom getting schooled on youtube. It is how often these lapses happen, and how infrequently they happen especially under pressure, that makes a guy with great tools be a legitimate top-pairing defencemen.
Contrast that with Brodie. In my opinion, Brodie has less 'tools' than Phaneuf, but he has a titanium toolbox. Yes, he is a better skater, and a better passer. Phaneuf isn't bad at either one - plus he is physical and has that huge shot. Brodie blows Phaneuf out of the water because he has high IQ.