Kritty
Registered User
Non-Jackets fan here. Just curious if Ryan Murray is still viewed as a 2nd pairing dman or if his future is now seen as a 3rd pairing guy. I know he is still young but just curious if the view on him has changed.
Ryan Murray = 2nd pairing dman?
- Thread starter Kritty
- Start date
OldGoaltender
Registered User
Easily a second pairing. We just happen to be deep on the blue line. I can tell you as a goalie Murray was the kind of player I loved being in front of me. I might be in the minority but to me he has 1st line potential and I hope we don't trade him.
I see him getting a long look at 2nd pairing early this year with Savard since JJ is on the last year of his contract. If he fits in on the 2nd pair, we have a good top 4 locked up for a few more years, if he doesn't he can be traded at the deadline.
I fully expect him to do well on that pairing though. Murray has always seemed like he can fit into any role that the team needs him to step up on. He's been all over, from top to bottom and does it all well and has never really looked out of place.
I fully expect him to do well on that pairing though. Murray has always seemed like he can fit into any role that the team needs him to step up on. He's been all over, from top to bottom and does it all well and has never really looked out of place.
CBJFan827
I hate you Brad Marchand
- Jul 19, 2006
- 1,646
- 325
I agree that Murray has been excellent in the babysitter role all the way back to being a rookie with Wiz, but I don't agree with Murray-Savard being successful at all. They played together for a stretch in the last two years (I can't remember exactly when) and they were TERRIBLE together. That's the only time I've found Murray disappointing. Otherwise, he's that calming safe presence with whomever he's paired.
I still view him as a solid 2/3, which all teams need. He isn't always flashy, but he doesn't need to be.
Murray-Savard has always been a train wreck of a pairing, they just seem to not have chemistry together (now that doesn't mean neither are fit for a top-4 role because that notion is simply wrong).
I'd rather see Murray-Jones / Werenski-Savard as the top-4 going forward if #27 isn't traded for a center
I'd rather see Murray-Jones / Werenski-Savard as the top-4 going forward if #27 isn't traded for a center
Hello Johnny
Registered User
- Apr 13, 2007
- 13,208
- 1,142
It's entirely plausible that Werenski struggles and Murray needs to step in on the first pair, which I have no worries about.
Crede777
Deputized
- Dec 16, 2009
- 14,636
- 4,159
This. Or injuries.
Jackets blueline is as follows:
Werenski [19] (#1/2) - Jones [22] (#1/2)
Johnson [30] (#3/4) - Savard [26] (#2/3)
Nutivaara [23] (#4/5) - Murray [23] (#2/3)
Carlsson [20] (#4/5)
Harrington [24] (#6/7)
Key: [Age] (Defensive role)
Average age: 23
2 #1/2 defensemen
2 #2/3 defensemen
1 #3/4 defenseman
2 #4/5 defensemen
1 #6/7 defenseman
Last edited:
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
I don't think either are 4s now. I would call them both 5/6s with 3/4 potential.
As far as Murray goes, I think he is a 3 with 2 potential. How anyone can consider him a 3rd poring guy is beyond me. I would feel very comfortable with putting he and Jones together permenantly, if we wanted to spread out the offensive production back there.
I think the general public is getting caught up too much that he played on the 3rd pair last year. There are countless examples of players around the league on lines that don't match their ability, so I won't get into that.
I put him at 3rd on our defensive depth chart long term. I'm sure not that many people agree.
Murray as a 2nd pairing would be his absolute ceiling.
Let me guess: you posted this thread because you heard about Jenner+Murray for Duchene?
Let me guess: you posted this thread because you heard about Jenner+Murray for Duchene?
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,558
- 6,475
His skating is below average. His shot is weak. He is soft physically.
He generates little to no offense and has team low Corsis over a 3 year period.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...nse&minutes=1000&disp=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC
He is still viewed as a potential top pairing by more than a few on this board. It's due to an insane need to justify failed former GM Scott Howson selection of him as a #2 overall pick in 2012 for a select few. For others, I think they're putting too much stock in the draft pedigree as well, albeit for different reasons.
He's the Yakupov of defensmen. Could easily be out of the NHL in two or three years.
He generates little to no offense and has team low Corsis over a 3 year period.
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...nse&minutes=1000&disp=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC
He is still viewed as a potential top pairing by more than a few on this board. It's due to an insane need to justify failed former GM Scott Howson selection of him as a #2 overall pick in 2012 for a select few. For others, I think they're putting too much stock in the draft pedigree as well, albeit for different reasons.
He's the Yakupov of defensmen. Could easily be out of the NHL in two or three years.
Hello Johnny
Registered User
- Apr 13, 2007
- 13,208
- 1,142
His usage in no way reflects his talent or ability. He'd be a first-pair guy on probably two-thirds of the teams in the league.
Cowumbus
Registered User
I think that's a little harsh. He's a solid #4 but I still think he could be a #2 one day.
Kington91
Registered User
It's a mean way of putting it but it's one way of pointing out that too many people here over rate him.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,558
- 6,475
I was high on the kid initially. I had talked to a former teammate of his in Everett who was playing for the Cincinnati Cyclones and he compared him to Scott Niedermayer. That player, Josh Birkholz, said that Murray did everything well but nothing spectacularly.
I remember watching him early on thinking that Murray was really poised and was very impressed with his decision making on the ice-he didn't seem to have that jumpyness, if you will, of most younger NHL defensemen. I thought he would develop into a solid 2D and certainly a second pairing at worst.
But he hasn't built upon what I thought was a decent career start. His skating, which was never stellar (I would have called it "smooth") seems to have taken several steps backward. His playmaking skills aren't anything to write home about and his shot is below average.
Add in his disdain of physical play and his unwillingness to back a teammate (ask Nick Foligno about Buffalo) and I just don't see what makes him anything above a bottom pairing guy. I could be missing something, but I don't think so.
So there you have it: nobody agrees. He is a very polarizing player. He would be one of the last players on the team that I would move. Some people don't think he belongs in the league. Only time will tell. I think I'm right.
MoeBartoli
Checkers-to-Jackets
- Jan 12, 2011
- 14,049
- 10,230
Heck, at times I haven't been able to agree with myself on Murray. Where I envisioned him after his first year vs now is certainly different (though not an all world vs out of the league variance). But when I weigh skills - e.g. speed, general skating, physicality, shot, offensive prowess, grit - I'm left to ask "What is it that make some feel he's a first pairing guy?"
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
I'm not sure if I'd go with "nobody agrees". I see about eight or nine folks going along with the "second-pairing player" assessment, and all of two people insisting he sucks (and at least one of those two is notorious for making rather extreme statements about players he's come to dislike). That sure looks like a majority consensus to me.
One, I can think of a lot of players on this team who are better than him.
Two, I don't think anyone thinks he doesn't belong in this league.
CBJFan827
I hate you Brad Marchand
- Jul 19, 2006
- 1,646
- 325
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
