Barkov is much better than Monahan, sadly for Panther fans, he's made of glass
This is nonsense. You can argue he's better for sure but "much better" is over the top. They are nearly identical in points per game so taking away the injuries Barkov still doesn't outscore him and while he's better defensively it's not like he's in the conversation for the Selke.
This is nonsense. You can argue he's better for sure but "much better" is over the top. They are nearly identical in points per game so taking away the injuries Barkov still doesn't outscore him and while he's better defensively it's not like he's in the conversation for the Selke.
Was 6th in Selke voting two seasons ago. As a 20 year old.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
it's not like he's in the conversation for the Selke.
He is when he's healthy. I don't really think there's any comparison. Monahan = goals, that's just who he is. He's therefore a better producer and probably will end his career with more points. Barkov's a more complete and therefore more valuable player.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
He is when he's healthy. I don't really think there's any comparison. Monahan = goals, that's just who he is. He's therefore a better producer and probably will end his career with more points. Barkov's a more complete and therefore more valuable player.
Barkov's game "may" be more complete, an arguable point in its own right, but the reality is he can't stay healthy. Based on missing 20 games a season I would argue that Monahan is a much more valuable player. It's hard to win games from the pressbox.
Here's my take on this debate, that seems to endlessly come up on this board. Part of it is that they were both drafted in the same year, so comparisons will always come up right away based on draft class.
I'm going to start by saying IN MY OPINION, so people don't get all cranky with me. Remember, I watched every Flames game since Monahan was drafted, and I've watched Barkov regularly since he was drafted (probably about 80-90% of the games). My opinion comes from regular viewings of both players.
Monahan is one of the better pure shooters in the game. He puts up a fair amount of goals, usually by being in the right place at the right time due to his high hockey IQ, but also just purely from his ability to shoot the puck. He's a better than average passer as well, and his hands are OK, but nothing spectacular. Acceleration is an issue, but he skates fast enough to get to his spots on the ice. He's Ok on the cycle, but is better suited to playing along the walls or in the slot.
Now Barkov has just about everything you want from a top line center. He's big, but not any more physical than Monahan. However, he's very, very good on the cycle and along the boards, deftly moving the puck for his linemates to do something off the wall. He's got elite vision and hockey sense, always in the right place and always knows where his line mates are. Here's a clip of a comeback against the Rangers where he is the biggest difference maker on the ice in back to back goals. It doesn't even start great because he happens to lose the face-off, but just follow him in this sequence and see what I see almost every time he plays. This isn't abnormal either, this is how he always plays. It's just the results aren't always there. He scores on a simple PP set up where the rebound comes to him at the side of the net and he simply buries it with little effort. He battles to win the next face-off in the zone, goes to the net to screen the point shot, works hard to gain control of the puck on the boards getting it to point man for a shot, goes right to the front of the net in a quiet zone when Jagr shoots and hits the pots (if there's any rebound there, he's going to score again), gets the puck again in the high slot and passes through 2 defender sticks to Jagr at the side of the net for the tying goal.
But those are 5 on 5 sequences during the game where he scales back on the fancy stuff quite a bit. In this clip you can see his incredible skills on display in the shootout.
But yet, you see his power and skill combination at times on plays like this (skip ahead of 0:50 mark to see his play, even though he does set up Huberdeau nicely on the first goal).
Unfortunately, nobody collects clips of defensive play, so I can't show you how well he does down low in his own zone, transitioning up ice to his line mates, but he's always good and sometimes he's dominant defensively. His Corsi and other advanced stats support this with a CF% of 55%.
I'm betting that it's just the lack of opportunity to watch Florida play that leads to the narrative that Monahan is better, but outside of having some injury problems, Barkov is better in almost every way.
That's coming from a guy who owns a Monahan jersey and loves the way he plays.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
He'll quietly go about winning the Selke and Conn Smythe and people will be like how the hell did that happen? And Flames fans will know. Our Sean is a gentle giant; quiet beast.
Seems like a lot of effort to come to the conclusion that good NHL teams need star players and decent supporting casts. You probably could've just asked literally anybody who knows anything about hockey.
Next week, do we come up with an advanced stat formula to determine that the teams that score a lot of goals win a lot of games?
What an ignorant post.
That's like telling researchers who conclude a study on pre-natal hypoxia related to the amount of blood-oxygen over time* that can lead to brain damage "well duh, people need air to survive. You could have asked literally anybody who breathes air about that."
You don't understand or appreciate the difference between flatly stating a conclusion and attempting to come up with a metric to explain and identify results or predictions based on that conclusion?
This might be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read on this board, and that's saying something.
* (I hope that sounded convincing. I'm the furthest thing from a doctor)
The Following User Says Thank You to Five-hole For This Useful Post:
Well, that has a lot to do with who's on your team, no? Would Barkov be the best player on this team? Nope.
Uhhh yeah he would be. Why do you think he wouldn't be? Don't know why people have to be homers on this issue. Monahan is great, Barkov is even better. It's no slight to Monahan. If you haven't watched Barkov a lot then you can't really say with any authority can you?
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 07-18-2017 at 12:02 PM.
Uhhh yeah he would be. Why do you think he wouldn't be?
Because Gaudreau's offence makes up for his lack of D so much so that he is better. Would you say Backlund is better than Gaudreau?
Because Giordano is, IMO one of the top all around defencemen in the league. And only a couple years removed from serious Norris discussions. IMO his play in the second half was as good as ever.
Maybe I'm underselling Barkov, but I don't think he's as good as those two guys.
eta: this isn't a Monahan v. Barkov comparison as your post suggests.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Because Gaudreau's offence makes up for his lack of D so much so that he is better. Would you say Backlund is better than Gaudreau?
Because Giordano is, IMO one of the top all around defencemen in the league. And only a couple years removed from serious Norris discussions. IMO his play in the second half was as good as ever.
Maybe I'm underselling Barkov, but I don't think he's as good as those two guys.
eta: this isn't a Monahan v. Barkov comparison as your post suggests.
Respectfully, I would trade Gaudreau for Barkov in an instant. I love his skill, but he's still small and is quite weak in his own zone. If the puck goes up the boards to his wing, it's often a struggle of herculean proportions just to get the puck out of the zone for him. Barkov has zero problems in his own zone, not to mention how much more valuable he is as a center than a winger, even one so talented as Gaudreau.
Gio is the only one who is on Barkov's level, but I like the overall package Barkov gives a bit more. He's still the better player in my eyes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Because Gaudreau's offence makes up for his lack of D so much so that he is better. Would you say Backlund is better than Gaudreau?
Because Giordano is, IMO one of the top all around defencemen in the league. And only a couple years removed from serious Norris discussions. IMO his play in the second half was as good as ever.
Maybe I'm underselling Barkov, but I don't think he's as good as those two guys.
eta: this isn't a Monahan v. Barkov comparison as your post suggests.
It's really hard to compare players like Barkov and Gaudreau as their skill sets are so different, but I'd wager than most GM's if given a choice would chose Barkov over Gaudreau if given the choice.
The value of a big defensively responsible centre who can score is just too great in todays NHL.
Respectfully, I would trade Gaudreau for Barkov in an instant. I love his skill, but he's still small and is quite weak in his own zone. If the puck goes up the boards to his wing, it's often a struggle of herculean proportions just to get the puck out of the zone for him. Barkov has zero problems in his own zone, not to mention how much more valuable he is as a center than a winger, even one so talented as Gaudreau.
Gio is the only one who is on Barkov's level, but I like the overall package Barkov gives a bit more. He's still the better player in my eyes.
Fair enough - you are a bigger expert. I doubt I make those trades.
I agree that a centre is way more valuable than a wing. I was comparing player versus player though, so took position and team building out of it. And I agree that Gaudreau's defence is almost non-existent, but for the odd pocket-picking from time to time. But Johnny can be a PPG player. He scored 64 as a rookie. Maybe Barkov can get there, but I'm pretty unsure of that.
If I'm putting together an all-star team Johnny and Gio get more consideration from me than Barkov. That may be because there are more great centres, I guess.