Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
rocheccw

Hurricanes Agree Terms with Andrew Alberts

Recommended Posts

Anything is better than Babs who treats the puck like a hot potato when he gets it. As soon as he gets it, he dumps to the nearest guy. Plus no physical play from Babs. Who cares if he can take the head off of a forward within 4 feet of the goal.

The same thing is said of Alberts. To take a couple quotes from the Philly fans:

Alberts is a definition 3rd pairing guy. Great physically, not too slow to play, can make good choices in O zone. Struggles with puck handling under pressure and sometimes makes you go WTH! but at 1 mil per and 15 minutes he is a great addition

Great signing, excellent bottom pairing guy who could be a solid #4 imo if he could get the puck out of the zone. I can't how many times he would get a takeaway in the defensive zone then turn the puck over passing it, that was my one real problem with his game.

Sounds to me like he's got just as much trouble under pressure as Babchuk has. It's like I said before, this guy is Babchuk in every way, except he trades in Babchuk's shot for physical play. Which is favorable, if he turns out as planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds to me like he's got just as much trouble under pressure as Babchuk has. It's like I said before, this guy is Babchuk in every way, except he trades in Babchuk's shot for physical play. Which is favorable, if he turns out as planned.

I cant see how you can even think to compare these two players, their game is completely different. Take a look at his whole career, don't just take what the Philly fans say for face value. He was a big presence in Boston and before the Hartnell hit, he played a major role on their blue line.

I know Babchuk was your guy and your disappointed the way things appear to have gone with him but we need the tough stay at home guy more than another offensive minded dman which we are already in surplus of. JR is re-building this blueline as promised one piece at a time so as not to put us in total rebuild mode and keep us competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Sounds to me like he's got just as much trouble under pressure as Babchuk has. It's like I said before, this guy is Babchuk in every way, except he trades in Babchuk's shot for physical play. Which is favorable, if he turns out as planned.

It's true we will be giving up Babchuk's cannon from the Blue Line. In return from what I read is we are getting a

solid Dman who plays well in both ends. He adds some grit and I expect will be good in front of our net. The only

flaw I find is he can sometimes be beaten by speed. I think he is a good add but we won't really know until he

skates with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Sounds to me like he's got just as much trouble under pressure as Babchuk has. It's like I said before, this guy is Babchuk in every way, except he trades in Babchuk's shot for physical play. Which is favorable, if he turns out as planned.

It's true we will be giving up Babchuk's cannon from the Blue Line. In return from what I read is we are getting a

solid Dman who plays well in both ends. He adds some grit and I expect will be good in front of our net. The only

flaw I find is he can sometimes be beaten by speed. I think he is a good add but we won't really know until he

skates with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's true we will be giving up Babchuk's cannon from the Blue Line. In return from what I read is we are getting a

solid Dman who plays well in both ends. He adds some grit and I expect will be good in front of our net. The only

flaw I find is he can sometimes be beaten by speed. I think he is a good add but we won't really know until he

skates with us.

Its okay, we still have the Corvo Cannon, and the Pit-KANNON.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cant see how you can even think to compare these two players, their game is completely different. Take a look at his whole career, don't just take what the Philly fans say for face value. He was a big presence in Boston and before the Hartnell hit, he played a major role on their blue line.

I know Babchuk was your guy and your disappointed the way things appear to have gone with him but we need the tough stay at home guy more than another offensive minded dman which we are already in surplus of. JR is re-building this blueline as promised one piece at a time so as not to put us in total rebuild mode and keep us competitive.

No, I can compare the two players, because while their game is completely different, their skill set isn't as far off as some seem to think. Both are slow defenseman that tend to strain under pressure (as young defensemen tend to do), but for whatever reason, that's a fault of Babchuk and completely ignored when it comes to Alberts.

Now, I can understand that he's a shiny new acquisition and most have high hopes, want to give him a chance, don't want to get too down on him, etc., but he's not the answer most seem to be building him up to be. Yes, we need another tough, stay at home guy, but we needed one that could play in the Top 4. As I stated before, he's a Wallin-clone. Slow, physical, and not talented enough to make an impact on the game.

I want him to work out as much as the next person (especially considering his salary jumps 500k next season), but with the talk of him "solidifying our defense" and "jumping into the Top 4", it worries me. This guy's not a Top 4 defenseman any more than Babchuk was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I can compare the two players, because while their game is completely different, their skill set isn't as far off as some seem to think. Both are slow defenseman that tend to strain under pressure (as young defensemen tend to do), but for whatever reason, that's a fault of Babchuk and completely ignored when it comes to Alberts.

Stay at home, physical D-men arent typically the most adept puckhandlers. There job would be to cause the turnover and either throw it up the boards or let the other D-man or low forward pick up the puck. Babchuk being the O-D-man seems lost with or without the puck in his own zone. To say that they both "strain under pressure" is understandable for one but not the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stay at home, physical D-men arent typically the most adept puckhandlers. There job would be to cause the turnover and either throw it up the boards or let the other D-man or low forward pick up the puck. Babchuk being the O-D-man seems lost with or without the puck in his own zone. To say that they both "strain under pressure" is understandable for one but not the other.

Sorry, I don't buy that. It's more understandable for an offensive-minded defensman to turn the puck over, since they're offensive-minded and aren't exactly known for their defensive prowess. If we're making Alberts out to be a stay at home, defensive defenseman, he should be more adept to handling the pressure of on-coming forwards. If he's turning the puck over in his own zone, he's not a good defensive defenseman.

Not to mention, there are different types of offensive defenseman. There are those that are the setup men, the ones that make the outlet pass and find the open man in the offensive zone. They're the adept puckhandlers, and making the outlet pass, the ones that shouldn't be straining under pressure. Pitkanen, and Kaberle to an extent, would be those defensemen on our team. The other type would be your cannon from the point, your Corvos and Babchuks. They're not suppose to have the puck on their stick long enough to worry about an outlet pass. Their job is to either pass it to the defensive partner in the defensive zone or fire it from the point in the offensive zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't that when he was hit while he was on his knees?

Yeah someone posted the link earlier in this thread. Hartnell "finished his hit" by driving his knee/hip into Alberts' head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I don't buy that. It's more understandable for an offensive-minded defensman to turn the puck over, since they're offensive-minded and aren't exactly known for their defensive prowess. If we're making Alberts out to be a stay at home, defensive defenseman, he should be more adept to handling the pressure of on-coming forwards. If he's turning the puck over in his own zone, he's not a good defensive defenseman.

When you have the puck youre not on defense, thanks for playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you have the puck youre not on defense, thanks for playing.

Going to have to clear that up for me, because that's got nothing to do with what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going to have to clear that up for me, because that's got nothing to do with what I said.

no offense, but what you said made absolutely no sense. Defensive defensemen should be good with the puck and O-D-men shouldnt be in their own zone? If you control the puck you are on offense which would suit an offensive d-man regardless of what category you want to put them in. You can give all the knitty gritty details to try to talk your way around it but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I don't buy that. It's more understandable for an offensive-minded defensman to turn the puck over, since they're offensive-minded and aren't exactly known for their defensive prowess.

WHEN YOU HAVE THE PUCK YOU ARE NOT ON DEFENSE, so what does defensive prowess have to do with an O-D-man turning the puck over?

If we're making Alberts out to be a stay at home, defensive defenseman, he should be more adept to handling the pressure of on-coming forwards. If he's turning the puck over in his own zone, he's not a good defensive defenseman.

Again, Alberts (a defensive D-man) wouldnt be on defense if he had the puck so why would he be adept at handling pressure from oncoming forwards when defensive D-men arent normally great puck handlers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no offense, but what you said made absolutely no sense. Defensive defensemen should be good with the puck and O-D-men shouldnt be in their own zone? If you control the puck you are on offense which would suit an offensive d-man regardless of what category you want to put them in. You can give all the knitty gritty details to try to talk your way around it but it is what it is.

It's real simple. No defenseman should crack under pressure and give up the puck. However, if a defenseman does, it's a bigger fault in defensive defensemen than it is in offensive defensemen, because at least offensive defenseman have the offensive tendencies to offset these mistakes. If a defensive defenseman constantly turns the puck over because of pressure, he's not a good defensive defenseman. So when you say this:

Stay at home, physical D-men arent typically the most adept puckhandlers. There job would be to cause the turnover and either throw it up the boards or let the other D-man or low forward pick up the puck. Babchuk being the O-D-man seems lost with or without the puck in his own zone. To say that they both "strain under pressure" is understandable for one but not the other.

It makes no sense. So you're saying if Gleason turns the puck over in his zone and it leads to a goal, it's more acceptable than if Corvo did the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes no sense. So you're saying if Gleason turns the puck over in his zone and it leads to a goal, it's more acceptable than if Corvo did the same thing?

Actually less acceptable because Gleason shouldnt have the puck long enough to cause a turnover. I'll provide examples of what I deem defensive play by a defensive D-man: Hit the puck carrier and knock him off the puck and move the puck quickly yet safely if necessary. There other job would be to protect the front of the net. Apparently you think they should be able to handle the puck like Matt Cullen in their own zone since it is technically the defensive zone and they are a defensive Defensemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually less acceptable because Gleason shouldnt have the puck long enough to cause a turnover. I'll provide examples of what I deem defensive play by a defensive D-man: Hit the puck carrier and knock him off the puck and move the puck quickly yet safely if necessary. There other job would be to protect the front of the net. Apparently you think they should be able to handle the puck like Matt Cullen in their own zone since it is technically the defensive zone and they are a defensive Defensemen.

You say that, and that's what I'm talking about. They hit the puck carrier and now they have the puck. If they turn over the puck when they're moving the puck out of the zone (ie: Not safely), it's a bad defensive play. And before you say the other team will be playing defense because they don't have the puck, all teams keep a forechecker to pressure the puck carrier. If Alberts turns over the puck on that forecheck, it's a bad defensive play.

And of course, there's always the offensive zone set up as well. Both defenseman are at the point, the puck comes to Alberts, and he's immediately pressured by a forward. If he turns over the puck, it could lead to a 2-on-1 or a breakaway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow everyone sure seems to be on the defensive today,,,and thats kinda offensive!!!! :blink::blink::blink::rolleyes::lol:

Because i know i have never offended anyone on here!!!lol,,,well not in the last week or so anyhow.. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say that, and that's what I'm talking about. They hit the puck carrier and now they have the puck. If they turn over the puck when they're moving the puck out of the zone (ie: Not safely), it's a bad defensive play. And before you say the other team will be playing defense because they don't have the puck, all teams keep a forechecker to pressure the puck carrier. If Alberts turns over the puck on that forecheck, it's a bad defensive play.

And of course, there's always the offensive zone set up as well. Both defenseman are at the point, the puck comes to Alberts, and he's immediately pressured by a forward. If he turns over the puck, it could lead to a 2-on-1 or a breakaway.

Like I said originally in response to your comparison of Babchuk and Alberts, Babchuk should be good handling the puck and limit his turnovers in every zone, which he doesnt. Alberts MO should be to protect the front of the net and be physical, knocking guys off the puck. What he does if and when he has the puck wouldnt be his strong suit being a defensive D-man. This is the main reason I dont want Babchuk in the top 4 because you need a balance of a D-D-man and an O-D-man, or somebody who provides a good outlet. In my perfect world the defensive guy would knock the player off the puck and the O-guy would pick it up and outlet it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow everyone sure seems to be on the defensive today,,,and thats kinda offensive!!!! :blink::blink::blink::rolleyes::lol:

Because i know i have never offended anyone on here!!!lol,,,well not in the last week or so anyhow.. :wacko:

you must have been on vacation!! :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I want him to work out as much as the next person (especially considering his salary jumps 500k next season), but with the talk of him "solidifying our defense" and "jumping into the Top 4", it worries me. This guy's not a Top 4 defenseman any more than Babchuk was.

Have to agree with the Frog, He won't jump to top 4 d. I don't think that is the intent. We still need to make a move for

a top four. Alberts does give us some options to replace Babs or Kab. He also seems to be solid on D.

I also agree that it doesn't matter what zone your in if you turn over the puck. It's a turnover and it is going to hurt. Offensive

D men still have to play D first and be smart enough to know when to join the rush or pinch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I want him to work out as much as the next person (especially considering his salary jumps 500k next season), but with the talk of him "solidifying our defense" and "jumping into the Top 4", it worries me. This guy's not a Top 4 defenseman any more than Babchuk was.

Have to agree with the Frog, He won't jump to top 4 d. I don't think that is the intent. We still need to make a move for

a top four. Alberts does give us some options to replace Babs or Kab. He also seems to be solid on D.

I also agree that it doesn't matter what zone your in if you turn over the puck. It's a turnover and it is going to hurt. Offensive

D men still have to play D first and be smart enough to know when to join the rush or pinch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're in agreement that he's not going to be one of our top 4 D men, but what worries me is who we pair him with. Wallin has been holding down that 3rd pairing spot for a while now, would paring them together be the best idea? If we don't pair him with Wallin, all of our other options are top 4 or River Rats, which would push Wallin into the top 4. If we could get someone that was proficient at moving the puck out of the zone to pair with him, that'd be great, but where does that leave Wallin and our other parings? Just something I've been thinking about since the signing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I don't buy that. It's more understandable for an offensive-minded defensman to turn the puck over, since they're offensive-minded and aren't exactly known for their defensive prowess. If we're making Alberts out to be a stay at home, defensive defenseman, he should be more adept to handling the pressure of on-coming forwards. If he's turning the puck over in his own zone, he's not a good defensive defenseman.

Not to mention, there are different types of offensive defenseman. There are those that are the setup men, the ones that make the outlet pass and find the open man in the offensive zone. They're the adept puckhandlers, and making the outlet pass, the ones that shouldn't be straining under pressure. Pitkanen, and Kaberle to an extent, would be those defensemen on our team. The other type would be your cannon from the point, your Corvos and Babchuks. They're not suppose to have the puck on their stick long enough to worry about an outlet pass. Their job is to either pass it to the defensive partner in the defensive zone or fire it from the point in the offensive zone.

I know Im jumping in here late but.....Can you tell us where exactly you're getting all your info about Alberts? That he folds under the pressure of on-coming forwards, turns the puck over in his own zone and is generally not a good defensive defenseman?

Our scouting and GM must be pretty bad at what they do. I havent read anywhere, except from some fans guessing, that Alberts is slotted as a top 4 guy. JR said he could play up if needed but so could Wallin for short periods of time and no one is claiming him to be top 4. Wallin's contract is done next season and outside of Gleason who does play top 4, there was a need to fill the stay at home role with an experienced NHLer in the coming season and years to come. JR has made it clear he knows he still needs a top 4 guy and it sounds like Seidenberg will still have his chance, or he'll sign another free agent. I wouldnt worry that Alberts is going to be playing 25 minutes a night which sounds like your biggest concern, unless someone gets injured in the top 4.

I may be wrong but it sounds like your opinion is based on comments from other fan boards. You've quoted us what Philly fans have to say from last year but what about the Bruins fans who watched him for years? Or better yet, take a look at his career.

As for the offensive dman education, if Babchuk is the "cannon from the point" type of dman, I would think that receiving the puck, being in good position to receive the puck and being able to get the shot off all while under being pressure are important traits he should have. If Babchuk possesses these traits, and they're the polar opposite of the traits for a stay at home dman like Alberts is which we all seem to agree on (along with our GM and scouts), Im still not seeing where the comparison of Babchuk and Alberts can be made. Of course they both are defenseman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...