seventieslord
Student Of The Game
even 6'1" is below average for a defenseman nowadays.
Flaman was about average height, but heavy.
ATD 2011 Draft Thread IV
- Thread starter Sturminator
- Start date
- Status
even 6'1" is below average for a defenseman nowadays.
Flaman was about average height, but heavy.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
I guess it's about time I weigh in on my selection of Sergei Zubov.
First off. Saying he is weak or questionable defensively is just flat out wrong. His first few seasons he played in major media markets on offence first teams. He built a bad rep in those three and a half seasons. But, there's two problems.
1. He was a young defenceman new to the NHL, defencemen who didn't make gaffs in their own end early in their career are few and far between. Many highly respected ATD worthy defensive defencemen were mistake prone early in their career. We can't punish young players for being young.
2. He was on offensive teams who asked him to be an offensive defenceman. So he focused his game on offence. Scoring 222 points in 229 games. We can't punish coachable players for doing what their coach asks.
And while obviously we can't say everyone who played on an offensive team could have played good defence if asked. But the difference is that he spent 11 seasons on a defensive team. Not a short blip on the radar, 78% of his career. And what did he do on one of the most notoriously defence first teams? Fit like a glove.
I read mentioned that he was shielded from top forwards in Dallas. To that I say, he averaged 29 minutes a game in the playoffs for Dallas. You cannot play a player 29 minutes a game and protect them. On the road you'd have to hold him below 20, even at home, 29 is just not possible. There is no way he was shielded.
It was also said that he is a player who benefited from the lockout and people projecting modern memory on his whole career. This is not only true, but it is an accurate look at his career. Here is why.
Sergei Zubov is not a great defensive d-man. He is limited in his own zone. But how he is limited is the critical part of understanding Zubov. Zubov has great mobility and hockey sense, but most importantly, a very active stick. I have witnessed him turn some of the best puck cyclers in the league into ineffectual players by disrupting pass lanes. On the other hand, he's not physical. He does not clear the crease, he does not lay people out in open ice, he doesn't win battles on the boards and he isn't a great shot blocker. So basically, every highlight reel play, he doesn't do. Most importantly, he's not well suited to clutch and grab hockey.
What this means is that post-lockout, Zubov's defensive skills have gone way up in value, but, those skills were always there. His game didn't improve, it simply became recognized. Because he didn't play physical defence, wasn't dominant defensively (like Lidstrom) and played poor defence early in his career, he was written off defensively. Then the lockout came, rules changed and Zubov's skill set became coveted. Sergei Zubov's defensive game didn't change or improve because of the lockout, people finally recognized the skills he brought to the table.
|Dallas's Penalty kill rank|Sergei Zubov's PK minutes
98-99|8th|2:08
99-00|1st|3:17
00-01|4th|3:15
01-02|26th|2:35
02-03|5th|3:06
03-04|4th|2:25
05-06|11th|4:28
06-07|11|3:15
07-08|2nd|3:08
Now, I'm not saying he was the key, just saying that he was an important part of a consistently strong penalty kill.
Zubov is like a tactical weapon on defence, he has limitations, but he is a playmaker's nightmare. One of the best of his generation at disrupting passing lanes. Unfortunately, only his coaches recognized this before the lockout.
As for the comparison to Blake. I;d take Blake over him too. But it is close.
1. Zubov is actually the superior PP player. overpass' breakdown of adjusted average powerplay production has him at 35 pts a season vs 30 for Blake. The big difference is how they got there. Zubov: 7-28-35, Blake: 12-18-30. Zubov is a true powerplay QB, while Blake is an elite level point shot, but not a true QB. Also, Zubov twice lead the league in PP goals on ice for, while Blake never finished top 5. Interesting note: In 01-02, Zubov lead the league in PPg on ice for, and yet, no teammate finished top 20.
2. Durability, Zubov had 10 straight seasons of 70+ games, while Blake often battled injuries.
That said, Blake, in the right system, had the ability to be a true game breaker. His questionable hockey sense meant he needed the right puzzle to be a great piece, but what a piece he could be. While Zubov is much more unassuming. Irregardless of context, he is what he is, a quietly productive two-way d-man whose offence was more impressive than defence.
Some more interesting stats:
-Sergei Zubov only missed the playoffs once in his 15 full seasons.
-In his first 9 playoffs, he only once was eliminated in the first round.
First off. Saying he is weak or questionable defensively is just flat out wrong. His first few seasons he played in major media markets on offence first teams. He built a bad rep in those three and a half seasons. But, there's two problems.
1. He was a young defenceman new to the NHL, defencemen who didn't make gaffs in their own end early in their career are few and far between. Many highly respected ATD worthy defensive defencemen were mistake prone early in their career. We can't punish young players for being young.
2. He was on offensive teams who asked him to be an offensive defenceman. So he focused his game on offence. Scoring 222 points in 229 games. We can't punish coachable players for doing what their coach asks.
And while obviously we can't say everyone who played on an offensive team could have played good defence if asked. But the difference is that he spent 11 seasons on a defensive team. Not a short blip on the radar, 78% of his career. And what did he do on one of the most notoriously defence first teams? Fit like a glove.
I read mentioned that he was shielded from top forwards in Dallas. To that I say, he averaged 29 minutes a game in the playoffs for Dallas. You cannot play a player 29 minutes a game and protect them. On the road you'd have to hold him below 20, even at home, 29 is just not possible. There is no way he was shielded.
It was also said that he is a player who benefited from the lockout and people projecting modern memory on his whole career. This is not only true, but it is an accurate look at his career. Here is why.
Sergei Zubov is not a great defensive d-man. He is limited in his own zone. But how he is limited is the critical part of understanding Zubov. Zubov has great mobility and hockey sense, but most importantly, a very active stick. I have witnessed him turn some of the best puck cyclers in the league into ineffectual players by disrupting pass lanes. On the other hand, he's not physical. He does not clear the crease, he does not lay people out in open ice, he doesn't win battles on the boards and he isn't a great shot blocker. So basically, every highlight reel play, he doesn't do. Most importantly, he's not well suited to clutch and grab hockey.
What this means is that post-lockout, Zubov's defensive skills have gone way up in value, but, those skills were always there. His game didn't improve, it simply became recognized. Because he didn't play physical defence, wasn't dominant defensively (like Lidstrom) and played poor defence early in his career, he was written off defensively. Then the lockout came, rules changed and Zubov's skill set became coveted. Sergei Zubov's defensive game didn't change or improve because of the lockout, people finally recognized the skills he brought to the table.
98-99|8th|2:08
99-00|1st|3:17
00-01|4th|3:15
01-02|26th|2:35
02-03|5th|3:06
03-04|4th|2:25
05-06|11th|4:28
06-07|11|3:15
07-08|2nd|3:08
Now, I'm not saying he was the key, just saying that he was an important part of a consistently strong penalty kill.
Zubov is like a tactical weapon on defence, he has limitations, but he is a playmaker's nightmare. One of the best of his generation at disrupting passing lanes. Unfortunately, only his coaches recognized this before the lockout.
As for the comparison to Blake. I;d take Blake over him too. But it is close.
1. Zubov is actually the superior PP player. overpass' breakdown of adjusted average powerplay production has him at 35 pts a season vs 30 for Blake. The big difference is how they got there. Zubov: 7-28-35, Blake: 12-18-30. Zubov is a true powerplay QB, while Blake is an elite level point shot, but not a true QB. Also, Zubov twice lead the league in PP goals on ice for, while Blake never finished top 5. Interesting note: In 01-02, Zubov lead the league in PPg on ice for, and yet, no teammate finished top 20.
2. Durability, Zubov had 10 straight seasons of 70+ games, while Blake often battled injuries.
That said, Blake, in the right system, had the ability to be a true game breaker. His questionable hockey sense meant he needed the right puzzle to be a great piece, but what a piece he could be. While Zubov is much more unassuming. Irregardless of context, he is what he is, a quietly productive two-way d-man whose offence was more impressive than defence.
Some more interesting stats:
-Sergei Zubov only missed the playoffs once in his 15 full seasons.
-In his first 9 playoffs, he only once was eliminated in the first round.
jkrx
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2010
- 4,337
- 21
I think that the average height amongst defensemen is 6'1 actually. Don't have the numbers though.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Joe Thornton:
-In terms of regular season offense, he's better than a lot of centers who have been picked..... Hawerchuk, Savard, Ratelle, and propably even Perreault.
-I wouldn't want to defend him in the play-offs though.
Tommy Phillips:
-I think he gets a lot of mileage out of those Ultimate Hockey things.
-In terms of regular season offense, he's better than a lot of centers who have been picked..... Hawerchuk, Savard, Ratelle, and propably even Perreault.
-I wouldn't want to defend him in the play-offs though.
Tommy Phillips:
-I think he gets a lot of mileage out of those Ultimate Hockey things.
Leaf Lander
Registered User
hawerchuck was an awesome offensive player in the regular season and i think he was better then thorton i would even say savard was too in his prime.Savard was def the more exciting of the trio
Leaf Lander
Registered User
Try and check the draft in the morning before work / school before bed at dinner whenever possible.
Always make sure to check the draft more often especially when your draft position is coming up
Feel free to add me to facebook
http://www.facebook.com/PaulCapstick23#!/PaulCapstick23
Always make sure to check the draft more often especially when your draft position is coming up
Feel free to add me to facebook
http://www.facebook.com/PaulCapstick23#!/PaulCapstick23
Dreakmur
Registered User
They might beat him out in longevity, since he's only half done his career, but Thornton definately has the best peak. 5 top-2s in assists is pretty scary.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,354
- 4,626
Yup.
I find it interesting how Gainey's stock keeps dropping over time.
People who saw him play a lot, and those who played with and against him, have a vastly higher opinion than people since.
The reason for that being his stats, of course. Yet everyone should know that the stats don't tell the story with him. That is what all the contemporaries told us about him. Now it is just dismissed.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,354
- 4,626
I'd take Hawerchuk over Thornton any day of the week.
Savard would be cointoss for me but he was definitely the more exciting player to watch like LL pointed out.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,059
- 13,988
Savard playoff resume is what put him on top imo.
He's got 175 pts in 169 games in the playoff with 66 goals.
Those are quite big numbers , Hawerchuk had the same pace but only about half of those points and games
He's got 175 pts in 169 games in the playoff with 66 goals.
Those are quite big numbers , Hawerchuk had the same pace but only about half of those points and games
I could have done that. I'm an expert. But then some other person had to go and pick him. What a waste
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,059
- 13,988
I could have done that. I'm an expert. But then some other person had to go and pick him. What a waste
You can MAYBE defend him on whether he's a choker or not, but you can't defend him against Savard and Hawerchuk.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,354
- 4,626
True.. its too bad Hawerchuk was logjammed behind the Flames and Oilers in his prime years before his hip slowed him down.
overpass
Registered User
I could have done that. I'm an expert. But then some other person had to go and pick him. What a waste
You should offer him a trade. He already has enough work in the playoffs with Marcel Dionne on his team.
EagleBelfour
Registered User
You absolutely CAN make an argument for Thornton, even though you don't own him. That's the spirit of the ATD.
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
Are we still trying to convince ourselves of things like this? It's a competition, through and through. I chip in with little tidbits here and there myself when I come across them, but I personally am too busy to put time into things I don't have a vested interest in over here.
EagleBelfour
Registered User
EagleBelfour
Registered User
I really hate that attitude, but to each their own. I'm also here for the competition, but I couldn't careless if I help the other teams in my own division. It's a learning process first and foremost.
EagleBelfour
Registered User
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
For me, it's about time constraints. I go to school and on weekends I have responsibilities at my work to fulfill. I probably won't have as much time to put into my own bios as I would like to either. I don't know how it is for other people, but that's just the reality of it. I mean, in a real game, are you gonna go to the other team's coach and tell him that your goalie's glove side is especially weak?
EagleBelfour
Registered User
Time constraint is a very fine reason for not fighting other peoples battle. I thought it was because winning was more important for you than learning.
And for the record, were not playing a real game
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
On a curious note, I actually looked it up, and 206 defensemen that have played a game in the NHL this year are at least 73 inches tall (6 feet 1 inch). This actually puts Flaman below average for a defenseman in height if he adjusts to 6'1, as there are only 276 defensemen listed on NHL.com's bio sheets.
EagleBelfour
Registered User
For all I care he could adjust to 5'6'' and it wouldn't matter. He was one of the greatest bodychecker of All-Time, one of the toughest and he was one of the most feared pugilist of his generation. His 'adjust' size dosn't interest, nor bother me one bit.
- Status
