Who is the first after the big tree?

[Maaaasquito]

You also have to take into the fact that everyone those days were scoring tons of goals... I mean Gretzky put up 212 points in 81-82, then 196, 205, 208 and 215... Malkin isn\'t anywhere near those points and it\'s almost half of the totals that Gretzky had back in the day. So when you\'re comparing Green to Coffey, it\'s comparing apples to oranges.

The best way that I can look at it is comparing him to a player in the same era. Lidstrom... if Lidstrom can barely break 80, is it really fair to assume Green can hit 80? I mean Lidstrom already flucuates from 80-60-80-60... To assume that Green\'s going to go up from 73 I think it\'s a bit of a reach.

[doulos]

Yeah there are lots of factors. My only point is that highly skilled players can many times break out of the rules system that we can construct for them.

Whatever happens it\'ll be interesting to watch next year.

[Maaaasquito]

For sure, I mean Ovechkin potting 65 definitely made some people rethink things about limits, but then there were huge expectations for him this season and some whispers of 70+ for him this year and he ends up with 56... so I mean for sure sometimes superstars impress us, but I think we sometimes need to take things as is and that a good season is a good season... Maybe 2 seasons in a row of solid production then expect bigger numbers?

[BrianSTC]

Gotlaid wrote:

For sure, I mean Ovechkin potting 65 definitely made some people rethink things about limits, but then there were huge expectations for him this season and some whispers of 70+ for him this year and he ends up with 56... so I mean for sure sometimes superstars impress us, but I think we sometimes need to take things as is and that a good season is a good season... Maybe 2 seasons in a row of solid production then expect bigger numbers?

I have no problem with people who expect Green\'s totals will go down next season. However, when some people are saying he had a career year at age 22...that\'s just plain nonsense.

You used Ovechkin as an example...well what if people started say that Ovechkin will never break 65 goals because \"there has to be limits\"

Sounds silly doesn\'t it?

Well it is the same for Green. Yeah, maybe his point production may fall next year (or go up for that matter) but to say he will NEVER break 73 points is just silly.

[Maaaasquito]

BrianSTC wrote:

Gotlaid wrote:
I have no problem with people who expect Green\'s totals will go down next season. However, when some people are saying he had a career year at age 22...that\'s just plain nonsense.

You used Ovechkin as an example...well what if people started say that Ovechkin will never break 65 goals because \"there has to be limits\"

Sounds silly doesn\'t it?

Well it is the same for Green. Yeah, maybe his point production may fall next year (or go up for that matter) but to say he will NEVER break 73 points is just silly.

Yeah for sure, but for me it\'s the opposite, cause to me a few people were sounding like Green is definitely going to improve because he tallied 73 last season while missing 14 games and there\'s nothing but pointing up. What I think people have to consider is that have 73 for a defenseman is already a pretty damn good feat and to head into the season expecting a pretty damn good feat to be much better is asking for a lot.

It\'s like Ovechkin\'s 65, after he potted 65 people started questioning what\'s the limit? If he\'s capable of 65 shall we up that ante to 70? 75? and guess what he followed it up with only 56 this season, so all of those people who were expecting him to produce at a higher rate than last year were disappointed. I guess we just have to realize whether a feat is legitimate or just a one hit wonder... and to be honest there isn\'t a right or wrong answer until we can see the results in hindsight.

[MXHockey]

I can\'t believe this thread died. That was one of the most interesting reads on these forums ever IMO.

Many solid points and I feel the need to add some tidbits:

1) Lidstrom had back to back 70pt seasons. But he wasn\'t playing with Ovie, Semin, and BAckstrom on the PP. The most lethal PP in the league in my opinion, so 80pts for Green is possible (but so a drop to 65pts shouldn\'t be a surprise either).

2)Gotlaid makes a sound point about Green\'s shooting percentage (12.2) this season which was higher than even Ovie\'s. I think Green hitting 30 goals this year was remarkable and it my be a lot to expect him to accomplish this again even when taking the missed games into account.

3)The Effective Value (EV) argument presented by \"the geek\" is sound, especially when adding in Pudge\'s logic. Winning pools is about the most points, which you get by drafting the players that net you the largest margin or gap over the other players at their respective position. A 75pt dman over a 60pt dman gives you a higher final total than a 105pt goalie over a 95pt goalie. I\'ve seen this argument presented a few times, and it\'s unfortunate that some are missing what is a very valid point.

If it was me in a 1 year league I would draft Nabby or Green, but would likely lean on Green. Expecting Green to reach his upside is a tad more risky, but it\'s the risk that will give you a substantial edge in your pool. AS hockeypoolgeek mentioned though, it is closer than many think. In fact it would be fair to suggest that the goalie vs Green debate is within 5-10pts at most.

Still I would suggest Green does give you that edge in points over his competitors (Gonchar, Lidstrom, Markov), whereas there are a number of goalies who can finish within 10pts of the top producer (Nabby, Lundy, Luongo, Kipper, Ward, Miller, Price, Thomas, Varly/Theo, S. Mason, Brodeur) - and reality is Green is most likely to be the top producing Dman who gives you that edge, whereas one of 5-7 of the goalies mentioned could end up being the highest producing goalie. The choice of Green is obvious, whereas the choice of goalie is a bit of a crapshoot. For example, the way Maurice rode Ward during the 2nd half of the year gives Ward a chance of being a top 5 goalie if he plays well.

Anyways, that\'s the end of my ramble. At the end of the day,

Pools aren\'t typically won by who you select in the first 3 rounds. They\'re won by 1) adjusting your draft strategy to what\'s happening 2)your picks in the middle and late rounds 3) avoiding the injury bug 4)some luck along the way.

If I had 4th pick I would take Green, and then a goalie on the way back. After that you\'re obviously adjusting your picks according to theme of the draft in each round (and it wouldn\'t hurt to have the EV spreadsheet beside you as i think poolgeek is onto something there that makes a lot of sense).

All in all, Nice thread guys. Sorry for chiming in a day and a half later, but it was just that good. My intent isn\'t to start some fireworks, just wanted to post some thoughts.

Cheers.

[BrianSTC]

The thing that kills me about this thread is that all the Green naysayers base their argument on Green\'s totals going down...but they don\'t take into account that the goalie they select just might have a bad year as well (see: Turco, Giguere).

What if you pick Luongo, and he has a bad year...or gets injured again. Or you pick Nabokov and he plays like he played in this year\'s playoffs? Your 100 point goalie turns into a 70 or even 60 point guy and its game over...

Whereas Green, even if he did drop to 65 points, would still rank first in defense...you would still have an edge at that position.

I also think that there are several goalies capable of giving you that 90-100 point production, and it is likely that there would be one of these goalie available with the second pick.

[Dobber]

I can\'t believe this thread was brought back to life. Let it die. For the sake of my sanity, start a new thread called \"Green vs. Luongo - who is No. 4?\"

[doulos]

Hey, at least this conversation generally has some good points from a bunch of people instead of one big giant pissing contest.

[joos]

haha, I am sure this thread will be brought back to life again next season once we see Greens point total drop...LOL...i kid i kid.

Great discuss... I can see much better why Green is a valid #4 pick.