Truth.

Unfortunately, hockey decisions aren’t made solely based on the eye test. Even if that’s not your strength, the analytical side can’t simply be ignored. Beyond the case of Girard, you make numerous assumptions that often seem to stem from very little actual reflection. The Landeskog situation is just one example among many.

Let me remind you once again: Girard was playing in the NHL at age 19. Just imagine how talented a small-statured “defenseman” has to be to make the NHL at only 19 years old. Girard was named the best offensive defenseman in Canadian junior hockey (and Canada isn’t Latvia), as well as the best defenseman in his league. Don’t you think it takes a significant amount of talent to achieve that at such a level? I may be repeating myself, but it’s only to encourage you to think a little more before you write. Toews began his NHL career at 24. Did he become a good player overnight? Obviously, not all players develop at the same pace, but Girard still started his NHL career five years earlier than Toews. That brings us back to the issue of opportunity.

It’s very possible Toews didn’t have the same opportunities early in his career. Nichushkin developed later, and when he arrived in Colorado, he wasn’t given the chance to play on the top two lines. His offensive stats weren’t impressive during his first two seasons with the Avalanche either. Toews also didn’t have highly offensive seasons until he started playing regularly with Makar. And let’s be honest, many defensemen would look good playing alongside Makar, without taking anything away from Toews.

In professional sports, opportunity often makes all the difference. Martin St-Louis began his career with the Calgary Flames around age 23, bouncing between the AHL and NHL and playing on the fourth line. Without opportunity, St-Louis, like many others, wouldn’t have had the NHL career he ended up having. How many players have surprised us once they were given a real chance?
Why couldn’t Girard be one of them? But you think you know everything based strictly on the eye test.

You’re talking in circles & around a lot of the arguments I made including referencing concrete statistics. And you just keep wanting to come back to how proficient he was in juniors (which is irrelevant since we’re talking about them as pros). And that he doesn’t get power play time. Which I acknowledged helps with most any players pt totals. And honestly even if Makar wasn’t on the team. Girard STILL wouldn’t be on the top unit. Because Toews is/would be a much better PP QB than Girard too. But I digress…

I’m still a firm believer in the eye test. And the best way to gauge a players strengths & weaknesses is to watch them play. I’m not a big analytics person. Which I’m going to assume you are? Analytics are mainly nonsense. I’ll just say that & be direct. I lowkey hate them. Not because I haven’t taken the time to look into them. But because they’re mostly an amalgamation of made up quantifiers & bs. That amount to a whole lot of nothing. But I guess that’s a separate conversation. And I’m also making an assumption regarding you, based on some of the language you use.

I’ve never been a huge trade Girard guy. But part of me is hoping he gets dealt to a team where he gets PP1 time. And shares the ice predominately with a teams top line/forwards. So you can see that you are greatly overvaluing his offensive abilities lol. As a matter of fact I think there’s a far stronger argument to be made that his pt totals would be even LOWER on most other teams. Because most don’t have the high end skill the Avs have. And his skating & puck moving perfectly fits with the Avs/Bednar’s preferred play style. Plop him on FL, Vegas, etc. And he doesn’t flourish offensively or make them more formidable on the PP, if put on their top units. He’s just not that guy.

What you present as a demonstration is, in reality, a juxtaposition of decontextualized statistics and personal interpretations. You claim that “many players excel statistically in junior” as if that automatically invalidates the relevance of Girard’s performance at that level. But just because some players fail to transition successfully to the NHL doesn’t mean all high-performing junior players should be considered overrated. Girard not only dominated in the QMJHL, he also made the jump directly to the NHL at age 19, which in itself speaks volumes about his level.

You compare his production to Barrie’s without ever accounting for usage context. Barrie was the power-play quarterback on PP1 for years on teams where he didn’t have a Cale Makar ahead of him. He played alongside superstars like McDavid, Matthews, and MacKinnon and you seriously claim that “doesn’t make a difference”? Girard wasn’t going to pad his stats playing on the second power-play unit with 30 seconds of ice time and depth players. Access to PP1 is a decisive factor in a defenseman’s offensive production, and you choose to ignore it.

You then attempt to validate your point with a “visual test,” which is by definition subjective and unquantifiable. Girard is more of a playmaker than a shooter, that’s a feature of his style, not a flaw. He’s always leaned toward distributing the puck rather than firing it on net, and that doesn’t make him any less effective. Morgan Rielly, for example, has had great success in Toronto despite relatively modest goal totals. Offensive efficiency isn’t measured solely by shot volume. And let’s be clear, it’s significantly easier to generate shots on goal when playing on the power play.

Finally, you conclude by saying Girard is “very limited offensively” while acknowledging that he plays in the top four on one of the most offensively talented teams in the league. That contradiction highlights the lack of consistency in your argument. For several seasons, Bednar has heavily relied on MacKinnon, Rantanen, Makar, and Toews and guess who MacKinnon and Rantanen spent most of their ice time with? Makar and Toews. Bednar was trying to boost MacKinnon’s stats for the Hart/Art Ross and Makar’s for the Norris. That’s why he kept playing them together so often. It wasn’t about winning games LOL! The lack of depth on the other lines certainly didn’t help the even-strength stats of defensemen like Girard.

In short, your comment relies more on impressions than on structured analysis. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, neither factually nor contextually. Girard is a modern, efficient transition defenseman who has been underutilized in key offensive situations, and your analysis fails to recognize that.

This is ridiculous. LOTS of guys kill it statistically in juniors. And then produce a fraction of that in the NHL.

So your argument is Girard is just as gifted or more offensively than Barrie. Because he had superior junior numbers & doesn’t get PP1 time?

This argument doesn’t hold water. Girard has never cracked 50 pts. Barrie did this numerous times. Girard has had more than 5 goals in a season once. Barrie cracked double digits in goals 6 times. The discrepancy in offensive production can’t all be chalked up to Girard’s lack of power play mins.

Lastly lets just use the eye test. Girard has no shot, rarely tries to shoot. And has a difficult time getting shots through from the point period. Barrie had a tremendous shot & far superior on ice vision. Which is the reason he was the QB on the power play for many years in MULTIPLE places.

I get that you’re a big Girard guy. But he’s very limited offensively. And even if he was being misused. He’s still a top 4 defenseman on a very skilled offensive team. For the last 3 years Bednar has ran his top forwards into the ground. So it’s not as if Mack, Mikko, Necas, etc. Have exclusively shared the ice with Toews & Makar. And Girard has topped out around 30 – 35 pts in his best seasons. Yes he would have a few more pts if he got consistent PP mins. But it would be to the detriment of the overall effectiveness of the PP.

Oh but of course, how could I forget, 7 playoff games at nearly 18 minutes a night clearly qualifies as “not helping at all.” He was probably just there to decorate the ice, right?

Because apparently, playing top-4 minutes in the playoffs is the equivalent of figure skating with zero impact. Let’s also pretend his injury didn’t force the team to completely reorganize the defense… and that Byram didn’t directly inherit his responsibilities.

And while we’re at it, let’s forget he played over 60 regular season games that year, stabilizing the blue line for months. But no, of course, the Stanley Cup is only won by those who score in the final. The rest? Just background props.

Cool bro. Neither player helped the Avs win a cup.

People need to stop comparing Samuel Girard’s NHL stats to Tyson Barrie’s without context. Girard plays on a team where Cale Makar owns the #1 power-play quarterback role, obviously that limits his offensive opportunities. Barrie, meanwhile, had free rein in that role for years in Toronto, Colorado, etc.

But if you look at their junior careers, it’s a whole different story. Girard averaged over a point per game in the QMJHL (192 points in 190 games), was named the league’s top defenseman and the best offensive defenseman in Canada in 2016. Barrie never earned those kinds of honors in the WHL. Girard was a pure offensive talent, nationally recognized.

So no, Girard isn’t “less offensively gifted”, he just plays a different role in the NHL. The talent has always been there.

You’re all over the place. Not sure what you’re argument is? Barrie was a much more talented offensive player than Girard. That’s pretty irrefutable. However he was a liability defensively. I don’t think even Girard haters would advocate for Barrie being the more reliable defender.

They really don’t have much in common. Outside of their size & skating ability. Which is why they often get compared to each other.