Tomas Jurco (Re-signed to two year deal, post #301)

[Actual Thought*]

You talk about wildly misrepresenting an argument, but in your previous paragraph accuse Bench of saying that all coaches should be muzzled and allow any player to do what they want?

Come on, HD. Bench used hyperbole to make a point regarding people's expectations of a translated interview during the offseason with a loaded question about Blashill and Babcock. Basically "If it doesn't conform to exactly what I want to hear, then it is a problem." Do people forget the infamous Franzen "having fun" quote in 2012 which people completely stripped of context to bash the guy? Same exact thing.



Successful as in team accomplishments? Or are we talking individual accomplishments?

As in staying in the league more than 3-4 years. I will be surprised if either receive another contract.

 

[Frk It]

I have no idea what you are even talking about.

Prediction. Jurco's career will never be as successful as Cleary's. Blashill's will never win a cup. Both will be forgotten in 3-5 years but will be great friends for many years.
Babcock will go the the HHOF on the 1st ballot.

How?

Babcock said he doesn't confuse the player with the person.

Yet he gave Dan Cleary preferential treatment at every possibility despite looking like utter garbage on the ice 2 years in a row. That whole thing was clearly personal and not about hockey.

So that quote is a bunch of BS.

You're saying you want Blashill to do what Babcock said, but Babcock didn't even do what Babcock said.

 

[Actual Thought*]

How?

Babcock said he doesn't confuse the player with the person.

Yet he gave Dan Cleary preferential treatment at every possibility despite looking like utter garbage on the ice 2 years in a row. That whole thing was clearly personal and not about hockey.

So that quote is a bunch of BS.

You're saying you want Blashill to do what Babcock said, but Babcock didn't even do what Babcock said.

Jurco got far more opportunity than Cleary and he produced less. I have to disagree with your assessment. Cleary accepted whatever role he was asked to play. Jurco expected to receive a role he failed to execute. I would compare Glenda to Cleary but not Jurco. Glenda is a character guy who embraces whatever role he is given just like Cleary did. Jurco thinks he knows better than the coach. I will take character over youtube skill any day. Hopefully I am wrong and you are right. Blashill's hand holding daddy figure approach will make every prospect amazing and in doing so will get the respect of the vets. I doubt it but I hope so.

 

[Frk It]

Jurco got far more opportunity than Cleary and he produced less. I have to disagree with your assessment. Cleary accepted whatever role he was asked to play. Jurco expected to receive a role he failed to execute. I would compare Glenda to Cleary but not Jurco. Glenda is a character guy who embraces whatever role he is given just like Cleary did. Jurco thinks he knows better than the coach. I will take character over youtube skill any day. Hopefully I am wrong and you are right. Blashill's hand holding daddy figure approach will make every prospect amazing and in doing so will get the respect of the vets. I doubt it but I hope so.

Cleary did embrace whatever role he was given. Cleary was also given roles he never should have been given when he was no longer an effective hockey player. Like top 6 and PP time when he was embarrassingly bad on the ice. They seemed to be just as buddy-buddy as you are accusing Blashill of being with Jurco.

Hand-holding daddy approach??? Do you honestly believe that is his approach? It's such an interesting spin to me. Most people would consider the players liking you and taking the time to learn what motivates your players on an individual basis good traits in a head coach. But somehow you are spinning it like Blahill is everyone's BFF and holds no one accountable. And literally every quote from Holland or Blashill himself says exactly the opposite of those things.

He may fail or succeed, none of us know either way right now, but this depiction of him is just so off of what literally every scouting report on him as a coach. It's just a whole lot of conjecture.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Jurco got far more opportunity than Cleary and he produced less. I have to disagree with your assessment. Cleary accepted whatever role he was asked to play. Jurco expected to receive a role he failed to execute. I would compare Glenda to Cleary but not Jurco. Glenda is a character guy who embraces whatever role he is given just like Cleary did. Jurco thinks he knows better than the coach. I will take character over youtube skill any day. Hopefully I am wrong and you are right. Blashill's hand holding daddy figure approach will make every prospect amazing and in doing so will get the respect of the vets. I doubt it but I hope so.

You are just making things up about Jurco and Blashill at this point.

 

[Henkka]

Interesting thing is, that at Jurco's current age Cleary had 35 NHL points. Jurco has 33 points.

Cleary was a lazy-ass 1st round pick who understood how to be pro until he came to Detroit.

Somewhat crazy to predict anything at this point. And also wonder this hate against our youngest player on the roster.

 

[Electric Eric]

Didn't Cleary vent about not playing/getting enough ice time through St James last season? And lo and behold he ended up playing soon after? Almost like Babcock wanted to appease his friend.

 

[SoupNazi]

Let's move the discussion back to Jurco, instead of Blashill.

 

[Actual Thought*]

What do people expect his numbers to be this year? Maybe he triple+'s his production and puts up 9-11 goals and a little D? He doesn't seem willing to accept that kind of role. So does he increase his output tenfold and score 30? What are people really expecting at this point?

 

[Laser Rayzor]

What do people expect his numbers to be this year? Maybe he triple+'s his production and puts up 9-11 goals and a little D? He doesn't seem willing to accept that kind of role. So does he increase his output tenfold and score 30? What are people really expecting at this point?

If he can remain healthy all year I'd hope to see him in the high 30s/low 40s for points and maybe come near 20 goals. But that would be my best case scenario, more likely around 30 pts and maybe he'll pot 12-15 goals.

 

[Frk It]

What do people expect his numbers to be this year? Maybe he triple+'s his production and puts up 9-11 goals and a little D? He doesn't seem willing to accept that kind of role. So does he increase his output tenfold and score 30? What are people really expecting at this point?

Assuming he's not on the 4th line...

10-15 goals, 15-20 assists. Probably right about ~30 points

Career numbers would say over 82 games - 9.11 goals, 18.22 assists, 27.33 points is what you can expect.

I think he will improve on those next year, just a matter of how much.

 

[RedHawkDown]

Mark my words - Jurco will score 50 points this year.

 

[HockeyinHD]

You talk about wildly misrepresenting an argument, but in your previous paragraph accuse Bench of saying that all coaches should be muzzled and allow any player to do what they want?

That was the point. Complaint about a tactic via illustration of said tactic in use.

Come on, HD. Bench used hyperbole to make a point regarding people's expectations of a translated interview during the offseason with a loaded question about Blashill and Babcock.

As did I, when I employed it to paint the contrary position as irrational and silly, as Bench did with his 'seppuku' remark, as though anyone's made any statements anywhere even remotely approaching that. Just like no-one has made any statements remotely approaching muzzling all coaches and allowing all players free rein.

I'm merely illustrating that hyperbole as a rhetorical device is singularly deconstructive to rational discussion.

Basically "If it doesn't conform to exactly what I want to hear, then it is a problem." Do people forget the infamous Franzen "having fun" quote in 2012 which people completely stripped of context to bash the guy? Same exact thing.

I'm not 100% sure you're even responding to anything I've said, though.

For instance, what's the most negative thing I've said about Jurco in this thread? Pick the meanest, most denigrating comment I've made. I think it's probably when I said "There's nothing there taking responsibility for his play. Nothing about learning, or doing different things or getting better. Translation, context, there are a lot of explanations for that absence, but it could also be that Jurco's the next coming of Dick Axelsson or something."

Thankfully you guys stopped me before I started trying to find directions to his house to really get my revenge. I've obviously got a huge, huge problem with him.

Just pointing out I'm not a big fan of the tone, fellas. Not stuff I'm thrilled to be hearing.

Now granted, it is true that I want all players who use improper tone to commit a highly stylized form of ritual suicide as Bench adroitly ascertained, the devilish little mindreader they apparently are, but since I'm willing to allow that hockey players offing themselves after a poorly-worded comment is perhaps a bit too much of a drain on the league wide talent pool I suppose I'm willing to retreat to an expectation that their interviews sound at least a skosh bit like they are more concerned about how their team does than how they do.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I'm not 100% sure you're even responding to anything I've said, though.

For instance, what's the most negative thing I've said about Jurco in this thread? Pick the meanest, most denigrating comment I've made. I think it's probably when I said "There's nothing there taking responsibility for his play. Nothing about learning, or doing different things or getting better. Translation, context, there are a lot of explanations for that absence, but it could also be that Jurco's the next coming of Dick Axelsson or something."

Thankfully you guys stopped me before I started trying to find directions to his house to really get my revenge. I've obviously got a huge, huge problem with him.

Just pointing out I'm not a big fan of the tone, fellas. Not stuff I'm thrilled to be hearing.

Not sure it consistutes "alarm bells" in any case, nor a comparison to Dick Axelsson. Plus, you having any issue with him not saying something YOU expect him to be saying is exactly what I was arguing against.

"If it doesn't conform to exactly what I want to hear, then it is a problem."

 

[HockeyinHD]

What do people expect his numbers to be this year? Maybe he triple+'s his production and puts up 9-11 goals and a little D? He doesn't seem willing to accept that kind of role. So does he increase his output tenfold and score 30? What are people really expecting at this point?

It's honestly impossible to guess. If everyone in front of him stays relatively healthy I just don't see where he'll be able to get enough IT in scoring situations to have a major statistical impact.

I think in the absolute best case scenario for Jurco out of camp he'll be on a 3rd line with Richards/Sheahan and Helm. If he can get that role and hold it I'd imagine he would be able to put up 8-10 goals and 30ish total points... which is a lot since I'd imagine pretty much all of those will be ES points.

In the worst case scenario for him, he comes out of camp passed by Pulkkinen and ends up futzing around on a 4th line with Glendening and Miller, in which case I think he ends up being a healthy scratch by the midpoint of the year.

If the injury bug crops up, who knows? Depending on who is left standing Jurco could either end up playing with Datsyuk and Nyquist a bunch and piling up an Abdelkaderian amount of tagalong points or he could end up trying to face the other teams top defensive lineups with Sheahan and Tatar and praying for the clock to go faster.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Plus, you having any issue with him not saying something YOU expect him to be saying is exactly what I was arguing against.

Serious question: why? Is it your position that fans can't have preferences with how they want their athletes to sound?

I prefer athletes to think and speak in a generally more team-first manner. In what way is that expectation unfair or impeachable?

Surely even you have some bounds you'd place on how an athlete responds to questions as it concerns their tone and intent, yes? If that's the case then it's not the presence of a preference of speech that concerns you, but rather where said preference substantially differentiates from yours.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Serious question: why? Is it your position that fans can't have preferences with how they want their athletes to sound?

You can have your preferences. I never said otherwise.

I prefer athletes to think and speak in a generally more team-first manner. In what way is that expectation unfair or impeachable?

I believe that when you think it is a problem when it doesn't conform to what you personally prefer, then I will argue against your line of thinking. Many players have different attitudes, responses, and ways of dealing with things. There is no one right answer.

Surely even you have some bounds you'd place on how an athlete responds to questions as it concerns their tone and intent, yes? If that's the case then it's not the presence of a preference of speech that concerns you, but rather where said preference substantially differentiates from yours.

Sure, but I don't think what he said means there is an underlying problem, here.

There is a difference between "I wish he didn't say that" and "the alarm bells are ringing." I think I have made my point on this quite clear. Alarm bells indicates there is a problem in context of him as a Red Wing. I don't see it, there.

 

[Chex LeMeneux]

What is 'misuse', exactly? Is it possible to have a system where "properly using" a player actually becomes detrimental to the teams play as a whole?

I think it is. If you are a team that has a moderately defensive system, allowing players who are "best" used by just freewheeling around on the ice like they are Brett Hull in 1991 wrecks that system by creating holes and weaknesses elsewhere.

It is not about doing what is best for this player or that player or even that group of 3-5 players. It is about doing the things that are best to make the whole team better.

If we had some degree of evidence offensive hockey and substantial individual offensive freedom was a winning strategy in the modern NHL I'd be less opposed to it in general and less concerned by individual players plaintively requesting that freedom in specific.

But we don't, so I am. I completely understand why Jurco, as an offensive player, wants a bunch of offensive freedom. I also completely understand that on pretty much any winning team that kind of freedom a) doesn't exist, and b) surely bleeping does not exist for 22 year old second year forwards.

If Jurco is able to sublimate his need for significant offensive freedom for the betterment of the team, great. When I read those quotes, however, the impression I got from him was it's something he's had a problem with for more coaches than just Babcock.

See that's where I disagree. Good prospect development is about finding how a young kid fits into a system. You don't let him free-wheel, no one wants to see that for any of our prospects. But on the other hand, you don't put them in a position where their skills can't be effectively utilized either. That is what I consider misuse.

Smith, for example, is a guy that's excelled on the PP at every level til now, but he's also been prone to defensive mistakes. So you give him appreciable minutes on the PP (aka. not 30 seconds once in a blue moon) so we get an honest assessment of what Smith brings. If he can't hack it fine, that tells us all we need to know about him. What you don't do is partner him with an equally defensively inept partner, refuse to give him any PP time because your rationale is that he takes too many risks, then proceed to put him on the PK, where his tendency to take risks will literally result in goals against. That's not telling a prospect to play within a system, that's improperly identifying a prospect's strengths and weaknesses, and then misusing that prospect.

For Pulkinnen, don't put a guy with that shot in front of the net where he can't use it. With Jurco, Babcock's biggest mistake wasn't that he didn't gift him a spot in the top 6, it's that he put a skilled offensive player on the 4th line instead of sending him back to Grand Rapids. As a skilled player, Jurco no doubt wants to score goals. His confidence likely relies on it. He probably doesn't get off on being an ace PK specialist. Instead, he belongs on a line with consistent linemates who have a modicum of offensive skill, where he has a chance to contribute on the scoresheet. If he isn't ready to do that here, fine, send him back down to the AHL. But don't stick him on the fourth line where he essentially has to create offense for himself, which he's too inexperienced to do at this level. That's misuse, and I absolutely don't blame Jurco for being a little irritated about it.

It is a question of whether he is able to be productive within a system or whether his offense requires him to have complete autonomy out on the ice. The former is very useful, the latter is substantially less so.

Perhaps Blashill will employ a more open offensive system which is more to Jurco's liking in the short term. My hope in that case would be that when they see that system get pantsed in the playoff like that system always gets pantsed in the playoffs, they keep in mind what they were totally cool with players advocating (and I assume getting) now.

Every GR game I've seen and everything I've read has suggested Blashill's system is very similar to Babcock's, or at least what Babcock's system has evolved into over the last couple years. I don't think we need to worry about suddenly turning into a run-and-gun team overnight if that's what you're worried about.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Every GR game I've and everything I've read has suggested Blashill's system is very similar to Babcock's, or at least what Babcock's system has evolved into over the last couple years. I don't think we have to worry turning into a run-and-gun team overnight if that's what you're worried about.

I personally don't know where all the stuff about Blashill having a more run-and-gun or offensive style comes from.. all kids that have come up from GR have fit right into Babcock's system, indicating that they're asked to do many of the same things. Blashill may have more faith in Jurco as top 6/top 9 guy, but he isn't going to tell everyone to forget about defense and focus on scoring goals.

 

[Bench]

As did I, when I employed it to paint the contrary position as irrational and silly, as Bench did with his 'seppuku' remark, as though anyone's made any statements anywhere even remotely approaching that. Just like no-one has made any statements remotely approaching muzzling all coaches and allowing all players free rein.

It was absurd, intentionally, because it involves the idea that you won't be happy unless he feels such shame about his play ("taking responsibility") that he jams a sword into his stomach and kills himself. That's the joke. It's not meant to be taken literally but instead poke fun at the idea he isn't hard enough on himself.

So you're right, nobody "remotely approached" Jurco killing himself in shame. You got me there. But the point of the comment remains that I think it's silly that people expect him to "take responsibility for his play" based upon the comments he made.

Like most threads about media quotes, wildly different interpretations are reached using limited information. You hear alarm bells. I hear the sound of one hand clapping.

 

[HomersWorld]

I knew Blashill was too soft on Jurco after he followed up being 3rd on the Griffins in playoff goals enroute to a Calder Cup in his first season as a pro by going a point per game the next season

 

[Henkka]

Nice long discussion based on article George Malik translated from slovakian language with a Google translator.

 

[HockeyinHD]

You can have your preferences. I never said otherwise.

"Plus, you having any issue with him not saying something YOU expect him to be saying is exactly what I was arguing against."

So, I can have a preference but if I express it you're going to argue with me about my preference?

I believe that when you think it is a problem when it doesn't conform to what you personally prefer, then I will argue against your line of thinking. Many players have different attitudes, responses, and ways of dealing with things. There is no one right answer.

Obviously. I'm confused why you think that's an issue which requires argument, though. If you're correct (and I think you are), that there is no one right answer why would you argue about someone elses answer?

Sure, but I don't think what he said means there is an underlying problem, here.

"Translation, context, there are a lot of explanations for that absence, but it could also be that Jurco's the next coming of Dick Axelsson or something."

Was that comment of mine unclear? I don't think that comment means there's an underlying problem, either. But it could. We'll see if that tone carries through subsequent interviews or not and see.

There is a difference between "I wish he didn't say that" and "the alarm bells are ringing." I think I have made my point on this quite clear. Alarm bells indicates there is a problem in context of him as a Red Wing. I don't see it, there.

I think you're splitting hairs here. You've made your real point, namely that when someone has a different expectation of conduct than you do you'll argue with them about it. That's what I think is actually happening here.

 

[HockeyinHD]

See that's where I disagree. Good prospect development is about finding how a young kid fits into a system. You don't let him free-wheel, no one wants to see that for any of our prospects. But on the other hand, you don't put them in a position where their skills can't be effectively utilized either. That is what I consider misuse.

That doesn't really address my point though. Is it possible to have a situation where the best use of a prospect is actually something that's detrimental to a teams system?

If you've got a guy who doesn't want to play defense (this isn't about Jurco specifically, just hypothesizing generally) but you've got a team system that requires defensive commitment, are you 'misusing' that player by asking them to emphasize a part of their game they either don't want to/can't/aren't good at?

Sure you are. That player would be most effective in an open system with fewer defensive responsibilities... but in order to maximize that player you'd have to exempt them from the system. Moving back to Jurco specifically, I think it's established he has some solid offensive skills. The question of the moment is whether he can still apply those offensive skills when his role is less than wholly offensive.

Smith, for example, is a guy that's excelled on the PP at every level til now, but he's also been prone to defensive mistakes. So you give him appreciable minutes on the PP (aka. not 30 seconds once in a blue moon) so we get an honest assessment of what Smith brings.

This is the time honored chicken or the egg debate with regards to role and responsibility. Do you give the role first or do you make the player earn up into it? You seem to believe in the former. If a guy is an X, when you call him up make him an X and see if he can do it. I (and I think the Wings organization) believe in the latter, for the most part. When the guy comes up if he succeeds in a small role then give him a larger one. As he continues to succeed expand the responsibility until he starts breaking, then back him off a notch.

For Pulkinnen, don't put a guy with that shot in front of the net where he can't use it. With Jurco, Babcock's biggest mistake wasn't that he didn't gift him a spot in the top 6, it's that he put a skilled offensive player on the 4th line instead of sending him back to Grand Rapids.

This is a point of overlap for our largely conflicting prospect preferences. I also think calling up scoring guys and having them on defensive roles (or the inverse) is counter productive... but I'm not sure Jurco was asked to be a defensive forward per se last year, merely to produce offensively while being more responsible defensively.

As a skilled player, Jurco no doubt wants to score goals. His confidence likely relies on it. He probably doesn't get off on being an ace PK specialist. Instead, he belongs on a line with consistent linemates who have a modicum of offensive skill, where he has a chance to contribute on the scoresheet. If he isn't ready to do that here, fine, send him back down to the AHL. But don't stick him on the fourth line where he essentially has to create offense for himself, which he's too inexperienced to do at this level. That's misuse, and I absolutely don't blame Jurco for being a little irritated about it.

22.85% EV 41 GLENDENING,LUKE - 26 JURCO,TOMAS - 20 MILLER,ANDREW
14.27% EV 26 JURCO,TOMAS - 15 SHEAHAN,RILEY - 21 TATAR,TOMAS
7.28% EV 26 JURCO,TOMAS - 14 NYQUIST,GUSTAV - 40 ZETTERBERG,HENRIK
6.58% EV 18 ANDERSSON,JOAKIM - 26 JURCO,TOMAS - 20 MILLER,ANDREW
4.81% EV 17 CLEARY,DANIEL - 43 HELM,DARREN - 26 JURCO,TOMAS
4.58% EV 13 DATSYUK,PAVEL - 26 JURCO,TOMAS - 21 TATAR,TOMAS
3.22% EV 43 HELM,DARREN - 26 JURCO,TOMAS - 21 TATAR,TOMAS
3.03% EV 43 HELM,DARREN - 26 JURCO,TOMAS - 49 NESTRASIL,ANDREJ

I don't know. Looks like he got a decent percentage of his time with some top tier offensive players. Approaching 40% of your ES IT (if you go all the way down the list) with Datsyuk, Z, Tatar, Nyquist.

Had he been more successful with that time he'd have gotten more of it. He wasn't, so he didn't. I suppose you can make the claim that the trigger to reduce that quality IT was pulled too soon, but at some point we have to realize we're dealing with a finite resource here. If you keep running Jurco out there that's a quality lineup spot that Abdelkader, Nyquist, Tatar, D or Z or Sheahan isn't getting.

Every GR game I've seen and everything I've read has suggested Blashill's system is very similar to Babcock's, or at least what Babcock's system has evolved into over the last couple years. I don't think we need to worry about suddenly turning into a run-and-gun team overnight if that's what you're worried about.

I'm not worried about it per se, mostly because it's not like it's worked in the NHL lately anyway so even if Blashill did implement it that kind of system would likely be unimplemented in a reasonably short term.

I suppose my concern, then, is that if Blashill's system is so similar to Babcock's and Jurco didn't like Babcock's... why would he like Blashill's more? Was it just a matter of being a larger part of it in GR as opposed to a bit player in the same environment in Detroit? I can't possibly imagine how that's going to substantively change in 2016 given the roster in front of Jurco, so I'm left to wonder if he's just going to be continually dissatisfied with his role.

 

[The Zermanator]

Mark my words - Jurco will score 50 points this year.

I agree with you. Not necessarily that he'll get 50 points, though I'm interested in seeing how he'll play with Brad Richards. I could see those 2 playing well together.

These may just be the early trials of a good/great player. Remember, he's very young. I still see a lot of potential in him.