You don't need to have a Weber, Suter or Keith on your team to win the Stanley Cup. It certainly makes it easier and is very ideal. However as long as the defensemen are well balanced and compitent they can do the job to support a deep group of forwards and ride the hot streak of a top goaltender.
In other words, the team needs to be well built and well coached from all aspects in order to be a serious contender. Focusing on having a #1 defenseman or one of the top centres or a Vezina caliber goalie won't get you far. Getting one of those pieces is a bonus that makes the road to the cup less bumpy but not essential. There is no guarantees that a top defenseman will get you a championship. Just ask the Ray Bourque, he didn't win until he was ready to retire and traded to a stacked team... and that just about didn't happen, he had to try a second year.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Buff For This Useful Post:
Therrien? Not to be mentioned with Weber, Chara, Pronger or even Seabrook.
If it is Therrien you are after a Luke Schenn might be had for a reasonable trade. Chris Butler got Regehr. who moved to LA for a couple of 2nd round picks.
If you figure you have to have a Chara / Weber /Pronger kind of guy...
Myers from Buffalo is currently overpaid for his play since Erehoff replaced Butler on his team...
He has the best chance of any young d-man to become Chara/Weber /pronger
You can't teach or train 6-8 227.
The other way to get someone like that is to draft them in the 2nd-3rd round 18 year olds like Kanzig Chara, Weber, Byfuglien (8th round) as 6-6 projects.
Myers and Pronger were absolute freaks of nature that were huge and good as 18 year olds.
It's a crap shoot with defensmen, Webber was drafted late enough that every team had a shot at him. Other than the top rated guys, you really don't know who's going to turn out to be a star like he is. I think this year if we get a top 5 pick we should use it on a potential franchise defensman and hope for the best. I also wouldn't be opposed to drafting heavy D next draft.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
It's a crap shoot with defensmen, Webber was drafted late enough that every team had a shot at him. Other than the top rated guys, you really don't know who's going to turn out to be a star like he is. I think this year if we get a top 5 pick we should use it on a potential franchise defensman and hope for the best. I also wouldn't be opposed to drafting heavy D next draft.
It's conventional wisdom that D and even moreso G are draft crap shoots. Are there any statistics to back that up? Not disagreeing just curious since there seem to be stats for everything these days
You don't need to have a Weber, Suter or Keith on your team to win the Stanley Cup. It certainly makes it easier and is very ideal. However as long as the defensemen are well balanced and compitent they can do the job to support a deep group of forwards and ride the hot streak of a top goaltender.
In other words, the team needs to be well built and well coached from all aspects in order to be a serious contender. Focusing on having a #1 defenseman or one of the top centres or a Vezina caliber goalie won't get you far. Getting one of those pieces is a bonus that makes the road to the cup less bumpy but not essential. There is no guarantees that a top defenseman will get you a championship. Just ask the Ray Bourque, he didn't win until he was ready to retire and traded to a stacked team... and that just about didn't happen, he had to try a second year.
When is the last team to win a Stanley Cup without a #1 defenseman - Pittsburgh? They had a young Letang as well as Gonchar. I guess the best (and potentially only) example from the post cap era is Carolina... Although they are pretty much the definition of a team that was able to catch lightning in a bottle.
Having a #1 defenseman and goaltender isn't going to win a Stanley Cup on it's own, but it is all but required in order to win.
It's conventional wisdom that D and even moreso G are draft crap shoots. Are there any statistics to back that up? Not disagreeing just curious since there seem to be stats for everything these days
Weber went 49th in the draft. That's a stat good enough for me. If anyone thought he'd be close to as good as he is, he probably would have gone in the top 5. The draft is a crapshoot because there are no real guarntee's, you have to take a chance on players and hope they'll pan out. The Flames lack that true #1 defensman and drafting defensemen seems to make the most sense.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
Why do we need a Shea Weber? That's like saying the Flames or any team can never be good with a top 5 D in the ENTIRE league. Basically a franchise D. Give me a couple high end D like Duncan Keith and I am more than happy.
Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
The thing about Keith is that he literally came from nowhere...a 54th overall pick that was thought of as undersized...Seabrook was the highly touted D prospect at the time, but, in 2005, Aucoin got hurt, Cullimore was ineffective, and the 'Hawks had to throw Keith, Seabrook, and Wisnewski into the deep end, being very weak at D. Amazingly, and with great thanks to Trent Yawney, he was able to bring all three along at the NHL level to be very good players.
The lesson here is that even NHL "experts" can't predict NHL success with 100% accuracy...Guys need a good try at the NHL level, and D-men need some patience to develop, the NHL learning curve for D-men being very steep.
You may actually already HAVE the next Bobby Orr...or you may have the next monumental bust, a al Cam Barker. It is a year with low expectation for your guys, I would hope that Flame leadership is smart enough to take advantage of that lack of expectation, and give extended tryouts at the top level, to evaluate and develop what you already have, rather than sell your future to get an alleged "franchise" D-man, and then find yourselves short of the ability to surround him with other successful players, due to cap issues. And even then, that "franchise" D-man may not work out anyway, the way injuries kept Aucoin from being a success during his Chicago tenure.
__________________ "If the wine's not good enough for the cook, the wine's not good enough for the dish!" - Julia Child (goddess of the kitchen)
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to thefoss1957 For This Useful Post:
Why do we need a Shea Weber? That's like saying the Flames or any team can never be good with a top 5 D in the ENTIRE league. Basically a franchise D. Give me a couple high end D like Duncan Keith and I am more than happy.
Duncan Keith is a franchise dman. Arguably top 5.
The Following User Says Thank You to IgiTang For This Useful Post:
Toronto....there was a time that Shea Weber was Nashvilles Dion Phaneuf
Maybe when Weber was 21. But Weber kept getting smarter and better defensively. Phaneuf stalled, and he's not a kid anymore. He has topped out at what he is - a pp specialist who can occasionally make a big hit.
Why do we need a Shea Weber? That's like saying the Flames or any team can never be good with a top 5 D in the ENTIRE league. Basically a franchise D. Give me a couple high end D like Duncan Keith and I am more than happy.
Give me a couple Norris winning D like Keith and I'd be more than happy too.
He has topped out at what he is - a pp specialist who can occasionally make a big hit.
Guess nobody told him that when he was leading the Play-off bound Leafs in minutes played while playing in all situations, particularly in tough match-ups.
But I guess some pathetic Flames fans while continually try to make up stuff about how awful he is to try and make up for some insecurities they have about the lack of talent on their own team.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to moon For This Useful Post:
I meant Chris Therien from 90s Flyers but you're right (and me probably drunk) as he certainly does not belong to that group - corrected. The rest is OK though.
What would possess you to include him on that list? That's so random, is he your cousin or something?
Guess nobody told him that when he was leading the Play-off bound Leafs in minutes played while playing in all situations, particularly in tough match-ups.
But I guess some pathetic Flames fans while continually try to make up stuff about how awful he is to try and make up for some insecurities they have about the lack of talent on their own team.
Nah, I was hacking on Phaneuf when he was still with the Flames and it was apparent he had a low hockey IQ and lacked the desire to improve his overall game. I said it then, and I'll say it again - no team with Phaneuf playing top minutes is going to accomplish much in the playoffs. He has too many holes in his game.
