Captain Phaneuf

[Rebel_1812]

When are some of you going to see that Phaneuf plays against the oppositions top ofensive players. That is going to effect his plus minus. He is probably the leafs top all round defenceman. He has also demonstrated great leadership as captain. Not everybody is going to be a Scott Stevens or Bobby Orr.

I think if you say the same thing for a 3rd time, most people will start to realise.

I think trolls will try to make smart ass remarks no matter how true a statement is nor how often it is repeated.

Are you really calling me a troll rebel?

Give me a break.

I simply commented on an asinine comment that's been repeated twice now that makes no sense as no one here has asked him(Phaneuf) to be/or expects him to be a Bobby Orr or Scott Stevens.

if you call a comment "asinine" when he merely points out that phaneuf has faults to his game unlike Orr or Stevens; your in troll country.  He isn't generational talent; nor did we pay that kind of price to accquire him; so stop harping on his faults.  To make those faults seem bigger then they are, and please don't belittle people who give a dose of common sense; even if they give it twice.

 

[proteus2000]

This conversation has become redundant. Phaneuf is overpaid. He makes dumb mistakes sometimes. But he is still by far the best guy we have on defense for the PP, is our most physical presence on the back end, and he plays as hard as he can 30 min/night against the opposing best lines every night.

Being overpaid led to us trading a bunch of easily replaceable pieces for him. At this point we can't do better for a #1 D. We wouldn't get anything good in a trade nor could we use the cap space to sign a better D as a UFA. I don't care for him but godspeed Phaneuf, we need him to play well.

 

[bustaheims]

Are you guys joking?  IF Phaneuf captains this team to the Cup, unless he's injured the entire playoff run he'll be a huge part of that. Suggesting a Cup winning captain won't we as highly regarded as someone who never won one is ludicrous. I'll be chiseling the statue of Phaneuf myself if he ever wins a Cup here. 50 years or so of drought tends to put perspective on winning one.

If he leads the team to a Cup, he'll enter the conversation. If he just happens to be the captain of a Cup winning team . . . not so much.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

When are some of you going to see that Phaneuf plays against the oppositions top ofensive players. That is going to effect his plus minus. He is probably the leafs top all round defenceman. He has also demonstrated great leadership as captain. Not everybody is going to be a Scott Stevens or Bobby Orr.

I think if you say the same thing for a 3rd time, most people will start to realise.

I think trolls will try to make smart ass remarks no matter how true a statement is nor how often it is repeated.

Are you really calling me a troll rebel?

Give me a break.

I simply commented on an asinine comment that's been repeated twice now that makes no sense as no one here has asked him(Phaneuf) to be/or expects him to be a Bobby Orr or Scott Stevens.

if you call a comment "asinine" when he merely points out that phaneuf has faults to his game unlike Orr or Stevens; your in troll country.  He isn't generational talent; nor did we pay that kind of price to accquire him; so stop harping on his faults.  To make those faults seem bigger then they are, and please don't belittle people who give a dose of common sense; even if they give it twice.

It's funny, I didn't say asinine until you accused me of something that simply did not take place.

Using the same argument twice, regardless of how ridiculous it is and regardless of how little merit it holds in the conversation does not give a 'dose of common sense'.

It would be like people defending Kessel by saying "He's no Wayne Gretzky or Pavel Bure"...Yeah, of course he isn't..and your point?

No one expects Phaneuf to resemble Bobby Orr, or Scott Stevens. He will never be a top defensive dman. I have little problem with his offensive play but I don't expect him to be Bobby Orr...Nor does anyone around here...Well atleast I'd hope not.

When Dion is sheltered, he is fine defensively. When he has someone to lean on, he is fine defensively. When Phaneuf plays outside himself and tries to be a defensive stalwart, his weaknesses are exposed. Is this necessarily Dion's fault? No, not really. But most people who play a strong game in and out, have the consistency to play 'within themselves.'

If you take a look back, this has been my stance all along. I realise why he plays 26 minutes a game. The Leafs have no better option.

But, because the Leafs have no better option, does not remove him from criticization. Much like the goalies were criticized despite the Leafs having no better option.

So do me a favour, next time you want to call me names and take down the thread, do it in a private message. Oh and look up the meaning of troll while you're at it. I may not post in a style that you or many enjoy, but I do not intend to troll.

 

[Frank E]

I think Phaneuf is a very good defenseman.

Playing half the hockey game can lead to making a couple of boners, but the other 30 plays you properly complete don't get talked about. 

 

[Kin]

I think Phaneuf is a very good defenseman.

Playing half the hockey game can lead to making a couple of boners, but the other 30 plays you properly complete don't get talked about.

Exactly. Nobody ever talked about the fact that Andrew Raycroft stopped 89 out of the 100 shots he'd face, they just cynically focused on the eleven he didn't.

 

[Kin]

On a sort of side note one of the things I've been wondering with regards to Phaneuf is the question of his ice time. It's one of the more frequent numbers thrown around in his favour when trying to weigh his value to the club and, to be fair, Phaneuf is ranking among the league leaders in ice-time, ranking 7th among defensemen at 26:06 a game.

I think the problem with that narrative, though, is two-fold. For starters if you look at the rest of the league leaders, the top 15 or so, it's definitely a group that has a great deal of elite talent, guys like Letang and Weber and Karlsson but it also has guys who I think most would agree are of substantially less value like Jack Johnson, Dennis Wideman and Brian Campbell.

Then there's the issue of the extent to which the leaders of the pack separate themselves from the rest. It seems like there's around 30 or so defensemen who play around 24 minutes or more and 50 or so who play in the vicinity of 23 minutes or more. So when we're talking about Phaneuf playing 26 minutes a game, or anyone really, what we're talking about is the value that exists in playing a couple minutes more than what seems to be the sort of standard for a #1 defenseman. I don't know what that value is and so I'm not dismissing it but I do think it's not the clearest of pictures that being where Phaneuf is in terms of ice-time necessarily equates to a ton of value.

 

[Boston Leaf]

I thought Dion played one of his best games as a Leaf last night

 

[losveratos]

I think Phaneuf is a very good defenseman.

Playing half the hockey game can lead to making a couple of boners, but the other 30 plays you properly complete don't get talked about.

This argument is ridiculous. Of course we will talk about any and all mistakes and the amount of time or quality of play outside of that mistake makes no difference on whether or not the mistake should have happened.

Exactly. Nobody ever talked about the fact that Andrew Raycroft stopped 89 out of the 100 shots he'd face, they just cynically focused on the eleven he didn't.

And you... grow up and stop using this approach to all arguments. In my opinion its childish and one of the weakest forms of convincing dialogue.

I swear, you're getting worse and more sarcastic with every passing year and each and every loss. Grow up and prove you can be a leader on this board with your 10million posts instead of just belittling the opinions of those that don't agree with you.

There are much better ways to argue.

P.S. If you're going to quote someone quote them properly. Your signature has a major mistake. And if it's not a mistake and rather a joke about how democracy is dictatorship now... take that persons names off that you're quoting.

 

[Frank E]

I think Phaneuf is a very good defenseman.

Playing half the hockey game can lead to making a couple of boners, but the other 30 plays you properly complete don't get talked about.

Exactly. Nobody ever talked about the fact that Andrew Raycroft stopped 89 out of the 100 shots he'd face, they just cynically focused on the eleven he didn't.

Now you're just picking on me.

Phaneuf executes plays with an excellent success rate, given his opponents, and so much so that he plays the toughest and longest minutes on the team.  He is among the league leaders in ice-time on a surprising playoff contending team...and Andrew Raycroft didn't execute at a rate that is expected of an NHL starting goalie.

So other than that, sure, your comparison works.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Exactly. Nobody ever talked about the fact that Andrew Raycroft stopped 89 out of the 100 shots he'd face, they just cynically focused on the eleven he didn't.

And you... grow up and stop using this approach to all arguments. In my opinion its childish and one of the weakest forms of convincing dialogue.

I swear, you're getting worse and more sarcastic with every passing year and each and every loss. Grow up and prove you can be a leader on this board with your 10million posts instead of just belittling the opinions of those that don't agree with you.

There are much better ways to argue.

P.S. If you're going to quote someone quote them properly. Your signature has a major mistake. And if it's not a mistake and rather a joke about how democracy is dictatorship now... take that persons names off that you're quoting.

I don't see how that approach is incorrect. I'd say it's exactly what is happening with Phaneuf and what never happened with Raycroft or Telqvist.



As a side note, I'd say his quoting of Bukowski is pretty darn close.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/54787-the-difference-between-a-democracy-and-a-dictatorship-is-that

 

[Frank E]

I think Phaneuf is a very good defenseman.

Playing half the hockey game can lead to making a couple of boners, but the other 30 plays you properly complete don't get talked about.

This argument is ridiculous. Of course we will talk about any and all mistakes and the amount of time or quality of play outside of that mistake makes no difference on whether or not the mistake should have happened.

Well, I think you're wrong...and exactly what part was ridiculous?  The part about Phaneuf being good, or the part about that he makes a few mistakes and his good plays don't really get talked about?

Statistically speaking, the more time you play, the more likely you are to make a mistake - all else remaining constant.

 

[Bullfrog]

On a sort of side note one of the things I've been wondering with regards to Phaneuf is the question of his ice time. It's one of the more frequent numbers thrown around in his favour when trying to weigh his value to the club and, to be fair, Phaneuf is ranking among the league leaders in ice-time, ranking 7th among defensemen at 26:06 a game.

I think, if anything, it's simply his abilities compared to his teammates. He's the best all around defenseman on the team, so he's going to have the most minutes. I haven't reviewed the other ice-time leaders' situations, but his high minutes are evidence of the gap in talent compared to the other defensemen on the team where some of the other defenders who are better than him might also have teammates closer in ability that they can share minutes with.

 

[losveratos]

Exactly. Nobody ever talked about the fact that Andrew Raycroft stopped 89 out of the 100 shots he'd face, they just cynically focused on the eleven he didn't.

And you... grow up and stop using this approach to all arguments. In my opinion its childish and one of the weakest forms of convincing dialogue.

I swear, you're getting worse and more sarcastic with every passing year and each and every loss. Grow up and prove you can be a leader on this board with your 10million posts instead of just belittling the opinions of those that don't agree with you.

There are much better ways to argue.

P.S. If you're going to quote someone quote them properly. Your signature has a major mistake. And if it's not a mistake and rather a joke about how democracy is dictatorship now... take that persons names off that you're quoting.

I don't see how that approach is incorrect. I'd say it's exactly what is happening with Phaneuf and what never happened with Raycroft or Telqvist.



As a side note, I'd say his quoting of Bukowski is pretty darn close.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/54787-the-difference-between-a-democracy-and-a-dictatorship-is-that

I meant his unbelievable over use of sarcasm to essentially call anyone and everyone an idiot passive aggressively.

And no his quote is very wrong.
Nik: The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is in a dictatorship you vote first and take your orders later; in a dictatorship you don't waste your time voting
-Charles Bukowski
He mentions dictatorship twice.

 

[x.jr.benchwarmer]

I thought that Phaneuf had his best game this year last night against the Penguins.

He played physical, in an intelligent way.  He got rid of the puck quicker than he has in the past, especially on the power play.

Yet, because of the really weak goaltending, he was a 0, in the plus-minus category, notwithstanding his 3 assists.

It seems to me that the Leafs would be better off bringing Gardiner up to play more on the power play, because the minutes that Phaneuf plays seem to be counter-productive to his overall value to the Leafs.

And speaking about solid games for a defenceman, I thought that Gunnar was just terrific.  He blocked something like 4 shots, and was really good at shutting down the forwards.  I think that the Leafs would benefit by giving him more shifts as well.  In fact, it might make better sense to have the top 4 defencemen on the first 2 pairings, rather than dilute the talent  (i.e.  Holzer on the first line).

 

[losveratos]

I think Phaneuf is a very good defenseman.

Playing half the hockey game can lead to making a couple of boners, but the other 30 plays you properly complete don't get talked about.

This argument is ridiculous. Of course we will talk about any and all mistakes and the amount of time or quality of play outside of that mistake makes no difference on whether or not the mistake should have happened.

Well, I think you're wrong...and exactly what part was ridiculous?  The part about Phaneuf being good, or the part about that he makes a few mistakes and his good plays don't really get talked about?

Statistically speaking, the more time you play, the more likely you are to make a mistake - all else remaining constant.

The ridiculous part is that you can play 59minutes and 59 seconds of perfect hockey as a goalie. But if just before overtime starts you let in a 200 foot goal like toskola did in that one game that bounced over his glove... then I believe he deserves all the criticism he gets. Now obviously that game wasn't a 0-0 game or anything like that. This is a fictional creation. But I believe any mistake no matter how amazing you do everything around it, deserves any and all questioning and complaint.

Even after a strong win or a shutout I'm sure Randy doesn't go in the locker room and tell everyone that nothing was done wrong and no improvements can be made.

 

[L K]

Exactly. Nobody ever talked about the fact that Andrew Raycroft stopped 89 out of the 100 shots he'd face, they just cynically focused on the eleven he didn't.

And you... grow up and stop using this approach to all arguments. In my opinion its childish and one of the weakest forms of convincing dialogue.

I swear, you're getting worse and more sarcastic with every passing year and each and every loss. Grow up and prove you can be a leader on this board with your 10million posts instead of just belittling the opinions of those that don't agree with you.

There are much better ways to argue.

P.S. If you're going to quote someone quote them properly. Your signature has a major mistake. And if it's not a mistake and rather a joke about how democracy is dictatorship now... take that persons names off that you're quoting.

I don't see how that approach is incorrect. I'd say it's exactly what is happening with Phaneuf and what never happened with Raycroft or Telqvist.



As a side note, I'd say his quoting of Bukowski is pretty darn close.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/54787-the-difference-between-a-democracy-and-a-dictatorship-is-that

I meant his unbelievable over use of sarcasm to essentially call anyone and everyone an idiot passive aggressively.

And no his quote is very wrong.
Nik: The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is in a dictatorship you vote first and take your orders later; in a dictatorship you don't waste your time voting
-Charles Bukowski
He mentions dictatorship twice.

Someone needs to sit in the timeout chair for a while.  Calm down.

 

[Kin]

Now you're just picking on me.

Phaneuf executes plays with an excellent success rate, given his opponents, and so much so that he plays the toughest and longest minutes on the team.  He is among the league leaders in ice-time on a surprising playoff contending team...and Andrew Raycroft didn't execute at a rate that is expected of an NHL starting goalie.

Well, the dispute about Phaneuf is that a lot of people don't think his success rate is excellent when compared to other top pairing defensemen, as opposed to simply comparing him to the fairly limited talent pool that makes up the Leafs defense group.

So, you know, my comparison is alright.

 

[Kin]

P.S. If you're going to quote someone quote them properly. Your signature has a major mistake. And if it's not a mistake and rather a joke about how democracy is dictatorship now... take that persons names off that you're quoting.

Thanks! I hadn't noticed the typo until now. Corrected!

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

P.S. If you're going to quote someone quote them properly. Your signature has a major mistake. And if it's not a mistake and rather a joke about how democracy is dictatorship now... take that persons names off that you're quoting.

Thanks! I hadn't noticed the typo until now. Corrected!

I'd read it more than once and never noticed.