Claude Giroux - Top 10 on TSN

[brelic]

This is from last April, but I'm sure no one minds watching the Claude Giroux Top 10.

He is the best player in the world, after all

Man, he is so fun to watch. We need the Flyers NOW!

[Polaris922]

He is the best player in the world, after all

Ha ha ha ha! Trying to stir the pot I see! Good video montage though.. great skill.

[brelic]

Ha ha ha ha! Trying to stir the pot I see! Good video montage though.. great skill.

Hey, if Laviolette said it, it must be true! He's not biased at all!

In all honesty, he's top 3 in the NHL for my money. He's as complete a player as they come.

Now his personality could use a little work...

[Philly29]

It's good "beep"

LOL ******* right Rooo

Edited November 17, 2012 by Philly29

[Polaris922]

Hey, if Laviolette said it, it must be true! He's not biased at all!

In all honesty, he's top 3 in the NHL for my money. He's as complete a player as they come.

Now his personality could use a little work...

I'll go top ten... maybe top 5, he's right there. Great all around player I agree.

[brelic]

I'll go top ten... maybe top 5, he's right there. Great all around player I agree.

Ok, I'll bite. Who would you (honestly) select above Giroux? And I'm talking *complete* player.

My top 5 would be

Giroux

Toews

Stamkos

Hossa

Zetterberg

[flyercanuck]

@brelic

I'd take Crosby or malkin over Hossa anyday.

[brelic]

@brelic

I'd take Crosby or malkin over Hossa anyday.

Definitely points-wise, but Hossa is a more complete player. I've watched him quite a bit last year and his defensive game is impressive.

[jammer2]

@brelic I'd take Datsuyk over Zetts also.

[Polaris922]

Definitely points-wise, but Hossa is a more complete player. I've watched him quite a bit last year and his defensive game is impressive.

Crosby's defensive game is huge. On par with Hossa, but with better playmaking and point production. At this point if I had to choose top guysa in the league I would put Crosby, Datsyuk, Malkin, Stamkos, Henrik Sedin, Toews and Parise. I would probably have Tavares, and Giroux next... though not sure of the exact order. I think either Giroux or Tavares at #8... I think they are very comparable players. I think G is more attentive defensively but Tavares has more of a knack for getting into that soft spot for scoring. Yeah so G then Tavares, though I would love to see what Tavares could do with a real supporting cast.

I am shocked that you wouldn't have Crosby OR Malkin in your top selections. Malkin doesn't pay attention to defense so much until someone pisses him off I'll grant you, but when he does he is incredible on the puck. His plus/minus was dead equal to Hossa's, but with much more scoring. Crosby always pays attention to defense. I actually think he picked that up from Hossa in their time together. Though I respect the effort Hossa puts in his game, I watched him here in Pittsburgh and feel he is so streaky you can't rely on him night in and night out. His +/- equaling Malkin with fewer points would generally indicate better defensive awareness, but I would't trade 21 goals and 11 assists for a few better stick checks. Zetterbeg is a great all around player, but there are a number of guys I would take before him because his point production has trailed off a lot.

I think your exclusion of Crosby and Malkin is just competitive disdain for them, but hey to each his or her own.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Polaris922

[brelic]

@brelic I'd take Datsuyk over Zetts also.

Yeah, I love Datsyuk too... but I think his age now puts him a little lower.

I remember Giroux being flattered that he was compared to Datsyuk.

[brelic]

I think your exclusion of Crosby and Malkin is just competitive disdain for them, but hey to each his or her own.

Maybe a bit I took your bait, so I wanted to see if you'd take mine, lol. Just having some friendly hockey chat!

In all honesty, Malkin would not make my top 5 list of 'complete' players. He's very selective on when he plays defensively *and* offensively. I don't know if he lets emotions get to him or something, but he's not a 'night in and night out' guy, though admittedly I don't watch him nearly as much as you probably do.

For Crosby, as talented as he is, the only reason he wouldn't make my top 3 right now is because of his noggin. He may never have a problem in his career again, and for his sake, I hope that's true. It must be insanely difficult for a guy who is so competitive to have to sit through that. Without that question mark, it would be Crosby, Giroux, and Toews for me.

Again, I'm talking complete player. If we';re just focused on offense, then Toews drops out and guys like Malkin and Stamkos are tops.

Anyway, please don't take offense. I was just having some fun

[flyercanuck]

@brelic

OK, your points on Malkin and Crosby make sense. But putting Stamkos ahead of them doesn't. He's getting better all the time but he's no 5 tool player.

[brelic]

@brelic

OK, your points on Malkin and Crosby make sense. But putting Stamkos ahead of them doesn't. He's getting better all the time but he's no 5 tool player.

That's true about Stamkos. Once upon a time, Mike Richards would have been pretty high on that list too... maybe he still is. He had a pretty bad regular season last year (at least points-wise), but turned it on when it counted. When he's on his game, he's right up there with G and Toews as far as complete players.

[flyercanuck]

@brelic

Agree. When Richards is on he's about as good an all around player as there is.

[Polaris922]

Maybe a bit ;)/> I took your bait, so I wanted to see if you'd take mine, lol. Just having some friendly hockey chat!

In all honesty, Malkin would not make my top 5 list of 'complete' players. He's very selective on when he plays defensively *and* offensively. I don't know if he lets emotions get to him or something, but he's not a 'night in and night out' guy, though admittedly I don't watch him nearly as much as you probably do.

For Crosby, as talented as he is, the only reason he wouldn't make my top 3 right now is because of his noggin. He may never have a problem in his career again, and for his sake, I hope that's true. It must be insanely difficult for a guy who is so competitive to have to sit through that. Without that question mark, it would be Crosby, Giroux, and Toews for me.

Again, I'm talking complete player. If we';re just focused on offense, then Toews drops out and guys like Malkin and Stamkos are tops.

Anyway, please don't take offense. I was just having some fun ;)/>

It's ALL fun bud. If that stops I'll be retiring from forums. I think using the possibility if injury to eliminate a player is lame. Said it many times here and I'll stick to it. This is (or was) NHL hockey. EVERY player is one hit away from retirement. The idea if snubbing one man's talents, arguably the best in the world, over coulda shoulda woulda's is ridiculous.

As for Malkin and Stamkos, I agree both are on again off again on defense, but they're both on enough for me that the additional offense they provide offsets it. You don't have to play so much defense when you carry the puck end to end and score.

I think we should do a fantasy line topic and have everyone put their choice of top three forwards and top two defenseman in a post. Then maybe see how they perform IF there should be a season. Could be fun to compare!

[brelic]

I think using the possibility if injury to eliminate a player is lame. Said it many times here and I'll stick to it. This is (or was) NHL hockey. EVERY player is one hit away from retirement.

I disagree. I see what you're getting at, but it's more than using the 'possibility' of an injury... it's looking at injury history. A guy who misses more than a season of hockey has a significant injury. There's no other way to slice it. I know every player is one hit away from serious injury, but some guys tend to be more injury-prone than others. Gaborik, Havlat, DiPietro, Forsberg, Lindros, Markov. All of those guys are excellent players, but they all have injury histories that, if I were a GM, would give me reason to pause and really evaluate what I'm getting.

I know it's popular to hate Crosby - especially if you're a Flyers fan - and to a certain extent, I'm in that boat too. But I would never deny the immense talent he has. At his peak (and theoretically, he should still have some 'climbing' to do before he hits his peak), he's the best in the game, no question. He makes the players around him better. That's pretty special, and every team wants a player like that. Plus, he's from my neck of the woods. Saw him play in junior, and you could just tell he was head and shoulders above everyone else.

[mojo1917]

I think we should do a fantasy line topic and have everyone put their choice of top three forwards and top two defenseman in a post.

that sounds fun

one question though, with regard to defensmen, would defense count ? if not, why not make it 5 forwards ?

[Polaris922]

I disagree. I see what you're getting at, but it's more than using the 'possibility' of an injury... it's looking at injury history. A guy who misses more than a season of hockey has a significant injury. There's no other way to slice it. I know every player is one hit away from serious injury, but some guys tend to be more injury-prone than others. Gaborik, Havlat, DiPietro, Forsberg, Lindros, Markov. All of those guys are excellent players, but they all have injury histories that, if I were a GM, would give me reason to pause and really evaluate what I'm getting.

I know it's popular to hate Crosby - especially if you're a Flyers fan - and to a certain extent, I'm in that boat too. But I would never deny the immense talent he has. At his peak (and theoretically, he should still have some 'climbing' to do before he hits his peak), he's the best in the game, no question. He makes the players around him better. That's pretty special, and every team wants a player like that. Plus, he's from my neck of the woods. Saw him play in junior, and you could just tell he was head and shoulders above everyone else.

I see the Crosby injury as two back to back incidents leading to two injuries, one diagnosed correctly the second missed for a full year. I don't think it factors in, and by the way he played after getting proper treatment for the neck injury and returning I'd say he doesn't either. I've never held any player to the standard that if they're hurt once they're undesirable unless the injury is obviously reflected in their performance. 1.68 points per game is NOT reflecting any ailments.

I respect that you do, even if I can't understand why. All good!

@mojo1917

I'll make a topic tonight to juggle the idea. And yes defense has to count. Maybe a multiplier for plus/minus and points for checks or something.

[radoran]

It's ALL fun bud. If that stops I'll be retiring from forums. I think using the possibility if injury to eliminate a player is lame. Said it many times here and I'll stick to it. This is (or was) NHL hockey. EVERY player is one hit away from retirement. The idea if snubbing one man's talents, arguably the best in the world, over coulda shoulda woulda's is ridiculous.

I would say that, when on the ice, Crosby is one of the top players in the league without question. One could say the same thing about Eric Lindros.

Lindros was making $8.5M the year before he lost a season to concussion.

When he came back he made $2.1M, $2.7M, $3.3M and then a pair of $1.550M contracts after the lockout.

His game changed and his impact on the game changed because of the possibility of injury.

That's an indication that a player's value is affected by his proclivity for injury.

One might argue that Crosby's mega-contract would underpay him over the course of the deal - assuming one believes he has any intention of finishing it - and that it is something of a hedge for both Crosby and the Penguins.

But there is no question that his proclivity for injury - given that we know people with previos concussions are more likely to suffer them again and with a likelihood of increased severity - affects his overall standing.

This from a fan of team that has had Eric Lindros, Keith Primeau and Chris Pronger lost - as captains - to concussion.

[mojo1917]

@radoran and @brelic

i think rad hit our reservation about Crosby dead on with this; This from a fan of team that has had Eric Lindros, Keith Primeau and Chris Pronger lost - as captains - to concussion.

Since Sidney's lost season was from back to back concussions, and the fact that since then, there has been a lot more information regarding head injuries in the media , that highlight studies showing that TBI are cumulative and more severe with each incident, the concern regarding his health going forward is legitimate. it is not like he broke his ankle and then tore his MCL and that caused a season to be missed. it was back to back shots to the his head and one of those was a rather harmless looking collision along the boards; no elbows raised or shoulder to the jaw but still resulted in a dreaded coup contre coup type injury.

i think he will need to be careful going forward or he will wind up exactly like Prims, Big E and Pronger. there is too much life left after the game to suffer the way those guys suffer.

[Vanflyer]

Maybe a multiplier for plus/minus and points for checks or something.

Yahoo does a real nice job of tracking hits, blocked shots, etc (significantly better than NHL.com). What I would say is use the same set of categories for all players without a multiplier.

Goals (ES, SH, PP, GW, GT)

A (ES, SH, PP)

+/-

Hits

Blocked shots

Minutes played

Those are the categories that I believe really reflect a players all-around play.

[Polaris922]

@radoran

@mojo1917

I understand except that information is incorrect. He has one concussion. The second injury was actually never healed from the first collisions. It was soft tissue damage to the neck and spine. It had gone untreated the entire time he sat out because the medical "professionals" believed it was just concussion symptoms they were dealing with. There was no second concussion according to the official releases, anyway. It took them awhile to sort that out.

I understand the hesitance to buy into a player if there is a likelihood to reinjure. I don't see ignoring his talents when you talk about the best players when he is playing the game. He's not retired. And I would bet donuts to dollars when Lindros was out Flyers fans still argued he was among the best in the game until it became evident he would not be returning.

Overall it doesn't matter much if some Flyers fans ignore him in their lists. I just argue the point to show why I don't ignore him. IF they play this year, I think he will be even more of a factor than he has been in the start of his career, and I'll either be proven right or wrong based upon that and that alone I suppose.

@Vanflyer

I'm thinking that's a great idea except for minutes played because you can play a lot of minutes and still suck. LOL

Edited November 20, 2012 by Polaris922

[Polaris922]

Giroux has a neck/head injury! You have to remove him from your top 5 list! We all know how these things recur....

[Vanflyer]

I'm thinking that's a great idea except for minutes played because you can play a lot of minutes and still suck. LOL

True, but as an index combined with the other indexes, I think it is an important factor on achieving overall value- particularly with defencemen.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Vanflyer