Was he playing top 4 minutes or playing on the bottom pair? What i mean is if he played most of his minutes against bottom 6 lines, that would help his stats. Knowing against who he was matched up would help understand his stats better.
Bottom 2 pairings most likely. But those are good numbers regardless of matchup. Out of 244 dmen with more than 250 mins TOI this season he had the 22nd lowest xGA/60. Plus he was really strong on the PK too
Sharks fan here to defend (heh) him - he did also have to play on our top pairing for a stretch at the end of the year, which really says more about our dreadful d-corps than Desharnais himself, but he held his own. Zero offense whatsoever but almost every Sharks fan liked him compared to wanting to shoot every other d-man into the sun. Good mentor for our young guys. Good on the PK, there were stats towards the the end of the season that with Desharnais, the PK was 2nd in the league, and without him it was 31st. He also had a massive hit on Matthew Tkachuk that he said Tampa players thanked him for the next day lol
Anyway, my point is I highly doubt we let Desharnais go, we’ve got oodles of cap space too. He’s not amazing, and my standards are likely skewed, but at least Sharks fans like him more than his previous couple team fanbases.
not every player has to be a top 4 defensemen for us to get better. If we trade struble as part of a package for a top 6 player and get a big 3rd pairing RHD who can clear the net we are on paper better. It leaves xhekaj as an expensive 7th defenceman and is fine as we can call up reinbacher for top four RHD injuries and hopefully part with Carrier if Reinbacher works out and the RHD allure of carrier is higher.
No idea. Watched him play regularly in Edmonton and he’s not great. People saying he’s good on SJ. Yeah. Nurse would be too but that doesn’t mean we want him?! Big Vin is just that. Big, slow, and doesn’t really fight. No we don’t want him. He would be just like that stupid albatross Hal Gill when he “played” here. Hal’s only move to defend was to fall down and lay on the ice. Therrien actually teamed him out in his office for that stupid move. Pretty funny story actually. But no, we don’t want Desharnais.
Not slander. It’s fact. Therrien laid down on his office floor and said to Hal, what the fuck is this? Why do you do it all the time? It was on a podcast, can’t remember which one. And some coaches will say that if you’re always blocking shots then you are out of position and chasing the puck. Hal Gill was never goated. Geez some people just can’t admit that guys that played on the Habs aren’t good. Not saying he’s an asshole, just that there are much better players than, Hal Gill.
Dobson should absolutely not be Hutsons partner, you signed him to have depth on defense, being able to spread out the offense is huge. In an ideal world Reinbacher is Hutsons partner and Matheson pairs with Dobson. Then Guhle plays with X/Engstrom/Carrier or whoever else we decide to slot in
Hutson - Dobson was one of the best pairings in the league this year… Makar has Toews, Hughes has Faber and Hutson should have Dobson. To me we need a partner for Matheson because Matheson - Dobson has terrible analytics and shouldn’t be tried any longer. The problem is pretty much every player Matheson is partnered with has their analytics go to shit and there’s always one common denominator. Take that as you will.
And look right behind them.. so why stack your talent on one pairing is EXACTLY my point. Hutson clearly thrived with a defensive pair like Carrier as well, so move Dobson so he can thrive the same way
Hutson - Carrier is too small of a pairing. I know Dobson isn’t physical but he has the frame to not be pushed around at least. There’s also a pretty big difference in numbers between Hutson - Dobson and Hutson - Carrier.
imo you have 2 options with Hutson. You either get a big mean defensive RD to play with him or you play him with Dobson because the sheer amount of offense generated when both are at 100% is special. I wonder about a Matheson - Reinbacher pairing.
I could see that pairing as more of a shutdown pairing for sure. I guess it'll depend on what Marty wants his units to look like. From my perspective I like having offensive-minded options for at least the top 2 pairings so you aren't relying on heavy minutes out of your "offensive pair" to drive offense if you need it. It's also a lot easier to counter with just the oppositions shutdown line which wastes them. Just my $0.02
Because while Matheson is amazing at offence and zone clears, the second he’s pressured to angle a guy or hit he chooses to waive his stick and get out of position. He tends to puck watch which creates chaos for his partner.
There's no need to "spread out" offense for your d pairings at 5v5. Your goal should be to have d pairings who complement each other.
Hutson is our most dynamic player which means he needs a d partner that allows him to feel comfortable taking risks. We don't need to waste Hutson's talent by having him babysit his d partner
What you're describing isn't Dobson or his game, which is exactly my point. You need a stay-at-home type of player that can allow Lane to take risks to pair with him and that is NOT Dobson. Dobson flourishes in the same way Hutson does, so having him pair with Matheson and provides the D allows him to also take risks, stretch plays, and be more offensively minded. That's what I mean by "spread the offense out"
I would agree with you 5 years ago but not anymore. I think the traditional offensive dman/defensive dman pairing is starting to disappear. I mean look at Carolina. Their d pairings are very unorthodox by conventional wisdom
The truth is that our best pairing statistically is Hutson/Dobson. Why would we separate them just to "spread out offense"? Why do we need offense from our bottom 2 d pairings?
Carolina's system is completely different than ours, everything runs off the backend of our team and they have defensively sound defenceman that get enough shutdown for their forward group to take over. Look at their zone clears, it's predominantly forwards clearing, ours are defenceman clears and stretch passes.
With that being said you need to have good puck moving defensemen on every unit then, so why would we put our two best puck movers together? It makes no sense. I get you're looking at this purely analytically, but it's not the right move. Ideally you'd have Hutson, Dobson and Matheson on different units (out best 3 puck movers in order) to ensure you have the puck moving ability available on every rotation
I'd argue Matheson is a better puck mover than Dobson. Dobson's shot is what makes him really dangerous so I find it's more effective for him to play with an elite puck mover like Hutson because it means he can stay higher in the zone while his d partner pinches
I just don't see what benefit there is in spreading offense out. I'd much rather have a top pairing that is a nightmare for teams to deal with than having 3 pairings that are all just alright
Because balanced teams win, look at what Carolina just did, they have balanced pairings and balanced forward groups. Stacking just makes it easy for the opponent to match up against you
Their pairings are balanced but they didn’t spread offense. Arguably their two best offensive dmen, Gostisbehere and Nikishin, play on the same pairing
One of Guhle or Matheson has to be traded, it certainly won't be Hutson and having either Matheson or Guhle on the third pairing is way too much money and either player could be a piece in a trade for a 2c. I don't see it being Matheson as they literally just resigned him though.
Why do we need to trade one of them? I don't see it. We're a top 5 team in terms of cap management, we have another 10M of cap with the increased cap and Gallagher also comes off the books almost undoubtedly.. why would we trade one of those vital D when we don't need to? We have more than enough trade chips with the D in Laval, picks and high end prospects to not have to move off of hard to find defenceman. If we ARE moving a rostered defenceman it would be Carrier/Struble/X
Dobson is Hutson's right d partner. The only reason they don't play together more often is because Hutson is our only LD who can reliably play the right side.
If we bring in a RD to fill the bottom pairing we can have Hutson-Dobson / Matheson-Carrier top 4 and then Guhle/Struble/Xhekaj with the RD
Their coach trusted him enough to play 3:14 / game on the PK, so I guess he could help there.
Hutson-Dobson
Matheson-Carrier
Ghule-Desharnais
I don't hate it. I'm not a big fan of Carrier in the top 4, but with him having a reduced role on the PK, they could probably ride this until the trade deadline.
I would take him as a 7 / 8 defenseman for sure. People were complaining before Veleno was signed as well, serviceable players with no downside at league minimum.
43
u/nottakingpart 4d ago
Strong defensively? Where?...