I'd like to know the top ten players/coaches who have made the biggest impact in the shortest time. I suppose Pronger would be on the top of my list. Then Hitchcock and Forsberg would be a close second.
- dingo8urbaby

I think, for my generation, Lindros would be at the top. People around me were always big Phillies fans. As soon as they acquired Lindros, hockey became exponentially more popular, and a lot more kids started to play hockey. If it wasn't for him, I may not be a hockey fan. So maybe not impact on the team as much as impact on the fanbase.

Good post, Bill.....

I like the approach of not trying to pigeon hole Cousins. Far, far too often, you see scouting reports who compare these kids to some player we all know and that's what we (and probably management to an extent) end up expecting.

Lappy is right; sounds like there is much in the way of nuts and bolts this kid needs to work on before any assessment can be made of where he'll end up at the Pro level.

I think, for my generation, Lindros would be at the top. People around me were always big Phillies fans. As soon as they acquired Lindros, hockey became exponentially more popular, and a lot more kids started to play hockey. If it wasn't for him, I may not be a hockey fan. So maybe not impact on the team as much as impact on the fanbase.
- jmatchett383

Lindros was the face of the franchise and helped get the Wells Fargo Center built and all of those fancy suites sold, Day 1.

Giroux has never been a stellar defensive player. He has occasional moments. But over all he is average to below average defensively. He is good on faceoffs and solid on the PK. But his overall defensive game has a lot of room for improvement.
- MJL

Troll.

Troll.
- Coburns_Nose

Yes, but his assessment is pretty accurate.

Yes, but his assessment is pretty accurate.

- MBFlyerfan

Giroux will never win a Selke, but when he dedicates himself, he CAN be a good defensive player. But yes, he has a lot of room for improvement.

I think, for my generation, Lindros would be at the top. People around me were always big Phillies fans. As soon as they acquired Lindros, hockey became exponentially more popular, and a lot more kids started to play hockey. If it wasn't for him, I may not be a hockey fan. So maybe not impact on the team as much as impact on the fanbase.
- jmatchett383

As far as gaining interest in the sport you could put Lindros at the top of the list but for as solid a player as Lindros was, he was here along time and I feel Lindros best years came when LeClair was traded to Philly. I'm talking a players who made an impact on the ice bit their time here was cut short.

As far as gaining interest in the sport you could put Lindros at the top of the list but for as solid a player as Lindros was, he was here along time and I feel Lindros best years came when LeClair was traded to Philly. I'm talking a players who made an impact on the ice bit their time here was cut short.
- dingo8urbaby

For on-ice contributions, I may put Forsberg. He turned Gagne from a good player to a premier goal scorer. You could argue Pelle easily. Even Jason Smith could be argued for, as many players said they learned a lot about playing through pain after watching him suit up for every playoff game with 2 separated shoulders.

As far as gaining interest in the sport you could put Lindros at the top of the list but for as solid a player as Lindros was, he was here along time and I feel Lindros best years came when LeClair was traded to Philly. I'm talking a players who made an impact on the ice bit their time here was cut short.
- dingo8urbaby

In defense of Lindros, his first two season in the league were the only ones prior to LeClair.

In those two seasons he posted 172 points in 122 games. He was just as dominant with LeClair as he was with out.

Giroux will never win a Selke, but when he dedicates himself, he CAN be a good defensive player. But yes, he has a lot of room for improvement.
- jmatchett383

Yes he can. His problem is that he needs to be more consistent in his own end. From what I have seen, he is less than stellar more often than he is good in his own end. If he can start to swing that in the other direction, my opinion will change.

It always bothers me (in general) when highly skilled players are not very good in their own end. Most of the time it tells me they just don't care, rather than it being about ability. Usually they are better skaters, have better hockey sense, etc etc. You would think they would take pride in being good at all aspects of their game.

I don't see Giroux as one of those types. I see Giroux as a guy who knows he needs to improve in that area and will continue to work hard at it. He has the pride....we have seen that on some of his monster shifts he turns in after making a defensive gaffe. I would rather he just cut down on the gaffes. IE, drifting back in to his zone, making low percentage passes, losing his man, etc etc etc.

Yes he can. His problem is that he needs to be more consistent in his own end. From what I have seen, he is less than stellar more often than he is good in his own end. If he can start to swing that in the other direction, my opinion will change.

It always bothers me (in general) when highly skilled players are not very good in their own end. Most of the time it tells me they just don't care, rather than it being about ability. Usually they are better skaters, have better hockey sense, etc etc. You would think they would take pride in being good at all aspects of their game.

I don't see Giroux as one of those types. I see Giroux as a guy who knows he needs to improve in that area and will continue to work hard at it. He has the pride....we have seen that on some of his monster shifts he turns in after making a defensive gaffe. I would rather he just cut down on the gaffes. IE, drifting back in to his zone, making low percentage passes, losing his man, etc etc etc.
- MBFlyerfan

I think G's biggest problem is that he doesnt think as cleanly defensively. His offensive instincts are off the chart. He dictates play, reacts fluidly, and has that "I know whats going to happen 4 steps from now" gift. Defensively, its the opposite. He rarely dictates, he isnt so fluid, and is often out of position because he is just reacting, as opposed to reading the play and reacting. I am confident that he will improve, but he will never (IMO) be in the top end defensively.

For on-ice contributions, I may put Forsberg. He turned Gagne from a good player to a premier goal scorer. You could argue Pelle easily. Even Jason Smith could be argued for, as many players said they learned a lot about playing through pain after watching him suit up for every playoff game with 2 separated shoulders.
- jmatchett383

I will use Pronger for example. When we gained him for one full season it changed the outlook we all have on the defense. For along time we were okay with settling for just having Eric Desjardins back there. Pronger gets here and I feel he was the key ingredients as to why we made it to the Stanley Cup final. His play, his leadership, he was a winner but his time here was cut way too short. I don't feel that Eric lindross was your age real short time but he could have been here a lot longer.

In defense of Lindros, his first two season in the league were the only ones prior to LeClair.

In those two seasons he posted 172 points in 122 games. He was just as dominant with LeClair as he was with out.
- jak521

And those first two seasons, he fought knee injuries.

I think G's biggest problem is that he doesnt think as cleanly defensively. His offensive instincts are off the chart. He dictates play, reacts fluidly, and has that "I know whats going to happen 4 steps from now" gift. Defensively, its the opposite. He rarely dictates, he isnt so fluid, and is often out of position because he is just reacting, as opposed to reading the play and reacting. I am confident that he will improve, but he will never (IMO) be in the top end defensively.
- jak521

I think if he is just adequate, defensively, and can win draws consistently, that's enough, given his other (high end) skill sets.

I think if he is just adequate, defensively, and can win draws consistently, that's enough, given his other (high end) skill sets.
- johndewar

No doubt about it. I just would like him to cut down on losing his guy. If he can do that and maintain the rest of his game... it will be great.

No doubt about it. I just would like him to cut down on losing his guy. If he can do that and maintain the rest of his game... it will be great.
- jak521

Let's not forget that he can't turn the puck over to OV while on the PK in his own zone.

I think G's biggest problem is that he doesnt think as cleanly defensively. His offensive instincts are off the chart. He dictates play, reacts fluidly, and has that "I know whats going to happen 4 steps from now" gift. Defensively, its the opposite. He rarely dictates, he isnt so fluid, and is often out of position because he is just reacting, as opposed to reading the play and reacting. I am confident that he will improve, but he will never (IMO) be in the top end defensively.
- jak521

Datsyuk didn't look like a Selke guy right off the bat, either.

Playing defense is a lot less instinctual than playing on the other side of the puck... as long as the desire is there to work harder, study opponents, and there's a brain present that's able to continually learn from mistakes, no player is really limited in how good they can become defensively.

Look at guys like Lappy and Talbot... scorers at the lower levels, worked their butts off, and eventually they evolved into very good defensive players. No reason why G can't do the same.

Datsyuk didn't look like a Selke guy right off the bat, either.

Playing defense is a lot less instinctual than playing on the other side of the puck... as long as the desire is there to work harder, study opponents, and there's a brain present that's able to continually learn from mistakes, no player is really limited in how good they can become defensively.

Look at guys like Lappy and Talbot... scorers at the lower levels, worked their butts off, and eventually they evolved into very good defensive players. No reason why G can't do the same.
- Tomahawk

Lappy and Talbot had extra motivation... they needed to evolve in order to have a career in the NHL. Giroux doesnt need to do anything and will be paid handsomely regardless.

Lappy and Talbot had extra motivation... they needed to evolve in order to have a career in the NHL. Giroux doesnt need to do anything and will be paid handsomely regardless.
- jak521

Does Giroux look like somebody who's content resting on his laurels?

It seems to me that he has that rare all-consuming hatred of losing that you don't find in many supremely gifted players. Like Crosby, he's completely self-motivated to get better.

Does Giroux look like somebody who's content resting on his laurels?

It seems to me that he has that rare all-consuming hatred of losing that you don't find in many supremely gifted players. Like Crosby, he's completely self-motivated to get better.
- Tomahawk

I dont think he is content to rest on his laurels, but I also dont think he would have the same motivation to enhance his defensive games as guys who need to in order to have a job.

Giroux literally doesnt need to improve anywhere in order to maintain his job. Not saying he wont continue to improve, but its not like he has a career at stake.

There is a ton of improvement needed in order for him to even be mentioned in a sentence with Datsyuk

Yes he can. His problem is that he needs to be more consistent in his own end. From what I have seen, he is less than stellar more often than he is good in his own end. If he can start to swing that in the other direction, my opinion will change.

It always bothers me (in general) when highly skilled players are not very good in their own end. Most of the time it tells me they just don't care, rather than it being about ability. Usually they are better skaters, have better hockey sense, etc etc. You would think they would take pride in being good at all aspects of their game.

I don't see Giroux as one of those types. I see Giroux as a guy who knows he needs to improve in that area and will continue to work hard at it. He has the pride....we have seen that on some of his monster shifts he turns in after making a defensive gaffe. I would rather he just cut down on the gaffes. IE, drifting back in to his zone, making low percentage passes, losing his man, etc etc etc.
- MBFlyerfan

I agree. It's not a question of laziness or lack of effort with Giroux. He certainly makes an effort in that area. He just needs to get better.

Datsyuk didn't look like a Selke guy right off the bat, either.

Playing defense is a lot less instinctual than playing on the other side of the puck... as long as the desire is there to work harder, study opponents, and there's a brain present that's able to continually learn from mistakes, no player is really limited in how good they can become defensively.

Look at guys like Lappy and Talbot... scorers at the lower levels, worked their butts off, and eventually they evolved into very good defensive players. No reason why G can't do the same.
- Tomahawk

Agree 100%.

I dont think he is content to rest on his laurels, but I also dont think he would have the same motivation to enhance his defensive games as guys who need to in order to have a job.

Giroux literally doesnt need to improve anywhere in order to maintain his job. Not saying he wont continue to improve, but its not like he has a career at stake.k
- jak521

So you're saying that players are only motivated by job security and only do as much as will guarantee them their current spot in the lineup?

I'm sure that's true in a good number of cases, but Giroux doesn't strike me as one of those guys that the coaches constantly need to light a fire under to get them to play at the level they're capable of (hello Hartsy). He also seems to live a pretty low-key off-ice life, so the Mike Richards factor isn't really there.

By all accounts, the kid is self-motivated, genuinely hard-working, and a coach's dream to work with.

So you're saying that players are only motivated by job security and only do as much as will guarantee them their current spot in the lineup?

I'm sure that's true in a good number of cases, but Giroux doesn't strike me as one of those guys that the coaches constantly need to light a fire under to get them to play at the level they're capable of (hello Hartsy). He also seems to live a pretty low-key off-ice life, so the Mike Richards factor isn't really there.

By all accounts, the kid is self-motivated, genuinely hard-working, and a coach's dream to work with.
- Tomahawk

Way to put words in my mouth.

There is a big difference in a guy who needs to become a different player in order to fulfill his dream at being an NHLer and a guy who is an offensive gift, and top NHL talent, who could stand to improve a bit defensively. Im not saying guys ONLY improve to the minimum threshold. I am not saying Giroux wont improve. I think the likelihood of him becoming a Selke Trophy finalist are pretty much slim to none... unless he improves leaps and bounds. Does he have the desire, I dont know. Who knows what he wants to improve on.

Ill be honest, I wouldnt be surprised if it isnt even discussed with him. "Keep doing what you are doing Claude" is probably a ton more likely to be said than "You need to significantly increase your defensive game"

In defense of Lindros, his first two season in the league were the only ones prior to LeClair.

In those two seasons he posted 172 points in 122 games. He was just as dominant with LeClair as he was with out.
- jak521

Before the concussions, Lindros certainly made others better. He helped Brent Fedyk become a two time 20 goal scorer. When LeClair joined the Flyers, he went from being a tantalizing mix of size and skill into a 50 goal scoring machine. Not sure that happens without Lindros.