Captain Phaneuf

[Bonsixx]

Phaneuf is a guy who, if you put him on Detroit, he's suddenly amazing. I think Leaf fans give him too hard of a time. No, he isn't perfect, and it would certainly be helpful if our main power-play cannon could hit the net consistently, but for the minutes he plays and the opposition he plays against, he's pretty solid.

He's by far the best defenceman on the Leafs right now. By FAR.

That is exactly what happened with Ian White.

To be fair, I loved Ian White. I always thought he played a very smart, minimum-mistake game and I was sorry to see him go. I even re-acquired him in my NHL 13 GM mode.

That said, he's not the player Phaneuf is.

 

[Kin]

I'm not suggesting he's a no.1 guy on every team, but he's a top pairing defenseman, no doubt.

I really don't think that's true. I don't think he'd be on the top pairing for most of the better clubs in the league and ultimately that's the measurement you need to be using.

 

[Peter D.]

Ever since the trade, I have expected more from Phaneuf.  As a former Norris candidate, I have been looking for him to play a more refined game.  Instead, he has been prone to some poor decisions more than I would like and I believe he could be more of a "rock" on the back end.

As for his captaincy, I'm still waiting for him to put this team on his back and carry it out of this abyss.  With the previous captains, you knew that Clark, Gilmour and Sundin could provide that big goal or huge play and get these guys on the right track for a sustained period.  I can't think of an instance where Phaneuf has been able to do that.  The lack of talent is obviously a factor, but I don't believe that should excuse him completely. 

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm not suggesting he's a no.1 guy on every team, but he's a top pairing defenseman, no doubt.

I really don't think that's true. I don't think he'd be on the top pairing for most of the better clubs in the league and ultimately that's the measurement you need to be using.

We'll just have to disagree then. I had previously looked through all of the rosters and would still put him on the top pairing on most teams in the league.

 

[Kin]

Or on a second pairing, which is where he belongs.

Based on what?  I think he's clearly a top 60 d-man in the league.

But if someone is the 59th defenseman in the league, for argument's sake, then wouldn't it be likely that their presence on a team's top pairing is almost a sure sign that a team's top pairing isn't very good relative to most other teams? And that if that player is going to be part of a winning team either A) He'd have to be on the second pairing or B) the team is good enough in other areas that they can make up for a below average top pairing?

I'm not saying Phaneuf is the 59th best defenseman in the league but that there is sort of the issue with Phaneuf. He has to be measured against other teams top defensemen, not to the general pool of defensemen.

 

[Kin]

We'll just have to disagree then. I had previously looked through all of the rosters and would still put him on the top pairing on most teams in the league.

But are you doing that with any actual regard to the way a defensive pairing is put together or is that just sort of an arbitrary ranking based on "talent"?

Like, use the Cup winning Kings as an example. I think most would agree that Phaneuf isn't better than Doughty. But is Phaneuf better than Willie Mitchell? Obviously that's an issue that boils down to the shaky way we examine defensive talent but I don't think it matters as much as whether or not Phaneuf is a better match for Drew Doughty. I think in that respect, 30 out of 30 GM's would choose a more defensively solid stay-at-home type to pair with their more offensive defenseman.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Ever since the trade, I have expected more from Phaneuf.  As a former Norris candidate, I have been looking for him to play a more refined game.  Instead, he has been prone to some poor decisions more than I would like and I believe he could be more of a "rock" on the back end.

As for his captaincy, I'm still waiting for him to put this team on his back and carry it out of this abyss.  With the previous captains, you knew that Clark, Gilmour and Sundin could provide that big goal or huge play and get these guys on the right track for a sustained period.  I can't think of an instance where Phaneuf has been able to do that.  The lack of talent is obviously a factor, but I don't believe that should excuse him completely.

I think your expectations were very unrealistic.

Phaneuf was a disappointment in Calgary his final 1.5 years.

 

[Bullfrog]

We'll just have to disagree then. I had previously looked through all of the rosters and would still put him on the top pairing on most teams in the league.

But are you doing that with any actual regard to the way a defensive pairing is put together or is that just sort of an arbitrary ranking based on "talent"?

Like, use the Cup winning Kings as an example. I think most would agree that Phaneuf isn't better than Doughty. But is Phaneuf better than Willie Mitchell? Obviously that's an issue that boils down to the shaky way we examine defensive talent but I don't think it matters as much as whether or not Phaneuf is a better match for Drew Doughty. I think in that respect, 30 out of 30 GM's would choose a more defensively solid stay-at-home type to pair with their more offensive defenseman.

It was done mostly in an arbitrary comparison of overall talent. Given that the Leafs are currently running with Kostka on the top line, you can't just look at the pairings. So it's more on the line of, "is he in the top 60 or so defensemen in the league," and I think he is.

And I disagree that he has to be ranked against the other top players in the league. Rather, it should be against the general pool of players. And against the general pool, he's in the upper echelon. Whether that's top 60, or top 50, I'm not sure it really matters.

 

[Kin]

It was done mostly in an arbitrary comparison of overall talent. Given that the Leafs are currently running with Kostka on the top line, you can't just look at the pairings. So it's more on the line of, "is he in the top 60 or so defensemen in the league," and I think he is.

I think the problem with that, though, is that "talent" is such a nebulous concept when it comes to defense where stay-at-home guys tend not to get credit as being strictly talented players as opposed to being good defensively through things like hard work or grit or whatever. "Talent" tends to be reserved for offensively gifted players which throws the whole thing out of whack when you're just looking at who's on a top pairing.

I mean, right now, the guy Nashville has paired up with Shea Weber, who's getting 25+ minutes a night is a 22 year old named Roman Josi. I'll be honest, I'd never heard of the guy. But is he more or less talented than Phaneuf? Is he playing better defensively? I have no idea and, unless you're watching a lot of Predators hockey, I doubt you do either.

And I disagree that he has to be ranked against the other top players in the league. Rather, it should be against the general pool of players.

But I think that renders it ultimately meaningless when it comes down to the central issue of whether or not Dion Phaneuf is helping the Leafs win. A hockey team wins by virtue of doing things better than the other team. That can be offense or defense or goaltending or any combination of the three but ultimately you're being judged against the other team.

If Dion Phaneuf is the #24th best defenseman in the NHL that's tremendous. But if he's the Leafs #1 defenseman being the #24th best defenseman in the league really just means that on most nights the Leafs #1 defenseman is probably going to be not as good as the other team's #1 defenseman. If, as I say above, a team wins on the virtue of being better than the other team, that already puts them in a hole.

I mean, if a goalie is the 20th best goaltender in the league he's a legitimate #1 goalie in the same sense but it still leaves the club with bottom 3rd goaltending and a team shouldn't be satisfied with that. Ideally, that #20 goalie would be a back-up. I think the same thing applies to Phaneuf.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Ever since the trade, I have expected more from Phaneuf.  As a former Norris candidate, I have been looking for him to play a more refined game.  Instead, he has been prone to some poor decisions more than I would like and I believe he could be more of a "rock" on the back end.

I think he was really a Norris candidate solely due to his big offensive numbers, which were also probably unsustainable.

 

[Peter D.]

I think he was really a Norris candidate solely due to his big offensive numbers, which were also probably unsustainable.

While true the offensive numbers led to his Norris candidacy, I don't think 50 to 60 points from Phaneuf as a Leaf is unattainable.

And that Phaneuf I remember as being an extremely hard-hitting, absolute beast of a d-man at both ends of the rink.  I'm assuming others were also hoping he'd rediscover that with the change of scenery.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think he was really a Norris candidate solely due to his big offensive numbers, which were also probably unsustainable.

While true the offensive numbers led to his Norris candidacy, I don't think 50 to 60 points from Phaneuf as a Leaf is unattainable.

And that Phaneuf I remember as being an extremely hard-hitting, absolute beast of a d-man at both ends of the rink.  I'm assuming others were also hoping he'd rediscover that with the change of scenery.

But I don't believe he was a beast in his own end.

 

[Kin]

But I don't believe he was a beast in his own end.

I agree. I think he earned that reputation because there are a lot of people who falsely equate throwing big hits with being a good defender but when the trade was made a lot of people were saying that he left a lot to be desired in his own end.

 

[Bullfrog]

If Dion Phaneuf is the #24th best defenseman in the NHL that's tremendous. But if he's the Leafs #1 defenseman being the #24th best defenseman in the league really just means that on most nights the Leafs #1 defenseman is probably going to be not as good as the other team's #1 defenseman. If, as I say above, a team wins on the virtue of being better than the other team, that already puts them in a hole.

I mean, if a goalie is the 20th best goaltender in the league he's a legitimate #1 goalie in the same sense but it still leaves the club with bottom 3rd goaltending and a team shouldn't be satisfied with that. Ideally, that #20 goalie would be a back-up. I think the same thing applies to Phaneuf.

I don't disagree with any what you state here, all of which is logical. However, if I may dumb it down, I thought we were essentially just discussing whether he was one of the better defensemen in the league, by whatever subjective criteria we're going to use.

Ideally, it would be nice to have the 20th best goalie as the backup, but in reality, there's 30 NHL teams and not everyone can have the best goalie.

Unfortunately, the leafs are in that category and the other categories (#1D-man, #1 centre, etc.) are also in that category.

 

[Zee]

Jonas Siegel ‏@jonasTSN1050
Carlyle conceded today that he overplayed Phaneuf and Kostka on Saturday. Both played over 30 mins. Gunnarsson only other D with 20+.

Gee, thanks Randy.  I don't have a major problem with Phaneuf when he's utilized correctly.  He can't play that many minutes in a game and be effective.  His -4 on Saturday can be laid right at the feet of Carlyle.  He put him in a position to fail, and fail he did.

 

[Kin]

I don't disagree with any what you state here, all of which is logical. However, if I may dumb it down, I thought we were essentially just discussing whether he was one of the better defensemen in the league, by whatever subjective criteria we're going to use.

Well, the thing in your post I was responding to was the notion of Phaneuf as a "top-pairing" defenseman. To my mind, like the aforementioned hypothetical goalie, that's only really a fair categorization on a club that just doesn't have better options.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters

Carlyle says Phaneuf TOI was result of wanting him on the ice for every d-zone draw & then not controlling puck off draws & getting trapped

And the team has had a terrible SH% when he's on the ice (AKA, should even out) - no wonder where the bad +/- comes from.

 

[Leafaholic99]

At least Carlyle is accepting the blame, good on him for that.

 

[Zee]

At least Carlyle is accepting the blame, good on him for that.

Yeah I give him credit for that.  It's such a fine line.  I think Carlyle got enamored with the big minutes for those two guys because it was working through 2 periods.  Had the Leafs gotten a 3rd goal early in the third or held on for the win I guess he'd look like a genius today with the big "shutdown pair".  Oh well.

 

[Leafaholic99]

At least Carlyle is accepting the blame, good on him for that.

Yeah I give him credit for that.  It's such a fine line.  I think Carlyle got enamored with the big minutes for those two guys because it was working through 2 periods.  Had the Leafs gotten a 3rd goal early in the third or held on for the win I guess he'd look like a genius today with the big "shutdown pair".  Oh well.

Yea I agree. We aren't going to win the cup this year, so I'm ok with him doing things like this to learn his players, as well as his players to learn his coaching style, its a learning season.