About the defense ...

[tarheelhockey]

TOI for our defensemen so far:

Justin Faulk - 20:08 (Shea Weber)
Andrej Sekera - 19:38 (Christian Ehrhoff)
Ron Hainsey - 19:04 (Duncan Keith)
Brett Bellemore - 17:41 (Johnny Boychuk)
Jay Harrison - 12:37 (John Moore)
Ryan Murphy - 12:01 (Sheldon Brookbank)

The players in parentheses had similar average ice time in 2012-13.


I post this to illustrate a problem with our current defensive setup -- we're dramatically overplaying our top two pairings so that we can dramatically underplay our third pairing.

1) We will not be able to continue to do this because we are going to end up on the road, where we can't control the matchups as closely. So that third pairing (Murphy) WILL be exposed sooner or later.

2) Faulk < Weber, Sekera < Ehrhoff, Hainsey < Keith, Bellemore < Boychuk
We have four defensemen playing what would be considered ludicrous minutes on most teams. That will also be exposed sooner or later. Even Faulk's ~20 a game, as good as he has been, is absurd for a player of his ability. It's only a matter of time before fatigue and batch matchups catch up with him, and we're all asking what ever happened to the awesome Faulk from the beginning.

Adding Gleason does not cause a TOI problem, even if it means going to 7 defensemen... in fact, 7 defensemen is probably the ideal solution (as we near-unanimously agreed in the offseason). It allows us to do something like this:

Faulk - 18:00
Sekera - 18:00
Hainsey - 16:00
Gleason - 16:00
Harrison - 14:00
Bellemore - 10:00
Murphy - 10:00

Nobody gets overplayed, everyone operates within their own abilities according to situation and matchup, and we aren't really going to miss a guy like Bowman from the lineup in order to make it happen.

The question is whether Muller is up to the challenge of juggling this kind of lineup properly. It requires a more intense level of coordination from the coaches.

 

[Vagrant]

Why the sudden infatuation with Brett Bellemore? I can't figure it out. He's a lot like Jay Harrison. Plays almost the exact same game but with less puck skill. Why are we anointing him the second coming? He's been serviceable, but Brett Carson was serviceable at times here too. He's a capable hand, but let's not fall in love with how this defense is oriented right now. There is plenty to figure out.

Tim Gleason hasn't been great, but I don't believe in advanced statistics either. Hockey is a lot more complex than advanced metrics would have you believe. There is no way to quantify good plays and bad plays in a vacuum, much less to not evaluate them individually for merit. Too many variables. Even our "subjective plus minus", is riddled with opinions. It's the nature of ....subjectivity. Everyone derides plus minus, but praises these advanced metrics has to be off it. It's the same concept on an even more complex scale.

At the end of the day, it comes down to does player X make more positive contributions when he's playing than negative impacts. I think the answer to that for Gleason is that he does. I think he has been doing it longer than a lot of these guys and I think he was done a disservice being hailed as an Olympic worthy defender, which he never was. He's a solid Top 4 guy and that's it. Harrison isn't and neither is Bellemore. Hainsey is right in the same wheelhouse. Murphy is a stylistic need, but if that weren't the case any of those four would sit for Gleason. Hainsey only by Gleason's seniority.

Faulk is the best defender we have right now. Sekera has been Sekera, which is what we knew we were getting. A solid three. When we get the ability to have Gleason back and not have to play him over his role we'll be a better defense for it. Truth is that Bellemore/Harrison/Murphy/Komisarek are going to likely be in and out of the lineup based upon who's going. Murphy wouldn't even be in that mix if he wasn't required on the PP and if playing him there somewhat exclusively wouldn't stunt his development. He's still only surviving in the defensive zone. But keep heart, having four guys in our top four that should be in a team's top four is an improvement based upon recent history.

 

[Vagrant]

The question is whether Muller is up to the challenge of juggling this kind of lineup properly. It requires a more intense level of coordination from the coaches.

I agree with your basic premise, but feel that we'll probably send Murphy down before we relegate him to Andrew Hutchinson duty. He's too viable to write him off that way. We could probably stand to use Mark Flood in that capacity for the time being despite it being likely a drop off in competency.

 

[Vagrant]

Additionally, Harrison is having his minutes usurped by Bellemore only because Murphy needs Harrison. Harrison works well with most anyone and his drop in minutes in not reflective of a lower quality in play, but rather the need to shelter Murphy and that Murphy and Harrison are a package. Harrison would comfortably slide back into his regular minutes when the defense is stabilized upon Gleason's return and Murphy's situation is resolved one way or another. We either start to trust him enough to give him the extra few minutes at even strength or we demote him in my opinion. It would be something of a waste to play him as our 7th, despite the knowledge that we do need a powerplay hand.

 

[My Special Purpose]

I don't get the myth of Tim Gleason. The team gets consistently shelled with him on the ice and yet he gets lauded because he plays "shutdown minutes", as if poor performance is somehow excused by having to play against good players. Harrison was laughably bad when he was in that role last year and everybody knew it and talked about how he was way over his head, but with Gleason he can just suck as much as he wants and he's still some great shutdown defenseman because he plays the tough minutes.

Did you find this in one of my posts from two years ago?

I happily pass the "truth about Gleason" baton to you, AJJ. I haven't been able to get far, as you can tell. I still think some of the posters here are wrapped up in writing the lineup down in a game-day thread, and seeing "Gleason" somehow makes them feel better than seeing "Bellemore." But the stats -- and my eyes -- tell a different story.

I watched Bellemore *a lot* in the second and third period of the Detroit game that I attended because I was surprised at how many times he caught my eye in the first period. I think calling him "serviceable" based on the first two games this season is dismissing him based on reputation and not acknowledging what's actually going on. I was skeptical as well when management came out with their Bellemore love, but I get it now, and I'm on board.

I'm really impressed with the smarts of our current group, and Gleason is going to do nothing but hurt that aspect. On the plus side, I think Muller has control enough to give minutes based on play. He's not going to lose the room if he divides everything up and we continue to win. At least, I'm hoping.

 

[Zezima]

Sekera-Faulk
Hainsey-Bellemore
Harrison-Gleason
Murphy

The Harrison/Murphy pairing is noticeably frail and Gleason is a defensive upgrade from Murphy. Keep Murph around to see if he can turn into a serious NHL PP point man. If he isn't showing progress after a fair amount of time send him to Charlotte. If he looks like he deserves more minutes, sit Harrison and play Murph with Gleason.

I am in no way a Gleason fan or even supporter. When was the last time anyone said "good game from Gleason" around here? He's slow/physically declining and just really doesn't do much when on the ice. An enforcer defenseman who is unable to clear his own crease. However he is probably still an improvement over Harrison. Realistically I see Gleason as an okay 4/5 guy.

I could also see a scenario where Bellemore and Gleason are switched because of the ongoing "Harrison is good with rookies" storyline. For a guy so well-regarded as a veteran presence, Harrison has only played 250 games. Bellemore is benefiting from playing with a guy as competent as Hainsey and moving him anywhere else at this point would be a mistake.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree with your basic premise, but feel that we'll probably send Murphy down before we relegate him to Andrew Hutchinson duty. He's too viable to write him off that way.

I agree it might not be good for Murphy to play as the #7, but it would probably be a short term arrangement (pending our next round of devastating injuries) and he plays such a specific offensive role that I'm not sure we could just hand it off to any of our other options. We really do need a competent PP quarterback if nothing else.

 

[What the Faulk]

Why worry about this? Gleason isn't even practicing yet. Things will sort themselves out over the next few weeks.

 

[Vagrant]

I agree it might not be good for Murphy to play as the #7, but it would probably be a short term arrangement (pending our next round of devastating injuries) and he plays such a specific offensive role that I'm not sure we could just hand it off to any of our other options. We really do need a competent PP quarterback if nothing else.

Mark Flood firing pucks past AHL goaltenders might make him get a look there. He has been a good hand on the PP during his career. Came back from what was likely decent money in the KHL to sign here. I don't think Carolina anticipated Bellemore showing as well as he has to his credit. It would have been *much* easier for Carolina to have Komisarek play with Murphy and Harrison with Hainsey so that nobody got jobbed on minutes while protecting Murphy, but Bellemore earned his ice like anybody. We just have to see how long it lasts. We could have shuffled Komisarek meekly back to the pressbox when Gleason returned and evaluated Murphy again when Harrison was kicked back to him. Bellemore gave us a good problem here in the early stages. But let's not Wally Pipp on Tim Gleason yet.

 

[Ole Gil]

There is a wide gap between asking a player to shutdown the best in the world with an aging Joe Corvo at his side (now out of the NHL), and playing with Ron Hainsey on the 2nd pair or Ryan Murphy on the 3rd.

If Bellemore and Harrison are better than Tim Gleason, so be it. But I'm quite skeptical that is the case, yet.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

There is a wide gap between asking a player to shutdown the best in the world with an aging Joe Corvo at his side (now out of the NHL),

Corvo is with Ottawa, no? (or did I miss something)

 

[Ole Gil]

Corvo is with Ottawa, no? (or did I miss something)

My bad, I thought I saw him get waived and assigned to the AHL. Looks like he's their #7.

 

[Dishface]

UH OH Carolina Hurricanes learned how to play defense

Small sample size

 

[Anton Babchuk]

There is a wide gap between asking a player to shutdown the best in the world with an aging Joe Corvo at his side (now out of the NHL), and playing with Ron Hainsey on the 2nd pair or Ryan Murphy on the 3rd.

If Bellemore and Harrison are better than Tim Gleason, so be it. But I'm quite skeptical that is the case, yet.

I think it's more like Joe Corvo was asked to shutdown the best in the world with a slow, dumb, useless Tim Gleason at his side. If we look at things objectively rather than fawn over Gleason's grit and third-pairing Olympic non-heroics it could be reasonably stated that he wasn't much better than Corvo during their time together.

Also Gleason played almost as much with Faulk as he did with Corvo last year.

 

[Ole Gil]

I think it's more like Joe Corvo was asked to shutdown the best in the world with a slow, dumb, useless Tim Gleason at his side. If we look at things objectively rather than fawn over Gleason's grit and third-pairing Olympic non-heroics it could be reasonably stated that he wasn't much better than Corvo during their time together.

Also Gleason played almost as much with Faulk as he did with Corvo last year.

Early in the season, when Gleason was playing with Faulk, they were quite effective. Playing the toughest minutes, they weren't taking any penalties, and they were getting the job done. People were begrudgingly talking about how Gleason was playing like the Gleason of old.

Of course, Sangs and McBain were so bad, it's easy to forget that we had one pairing that was working.

Tarheel's subjective +/- I think highlights that.

Just like the Gleason-Allen pairing worked when they were together.

I don't think anybody is claiming Gleason is a world beater, but you put him and another pretty good dman together, and they'll do a pretty good job.

 

[nobuddy]

I don't think anybody is claiming Gleason is a world beater, but you put him and another pretty good dman together, and they'll do a pretty good job.

And if you put him and another pretty terrible dman together, they'll do a pretty terrible job. Do we really want to be heavily dependent upon a defenseman who is only as good as his partner?

 

[Blueline Bomber]

And if you put him and another pretty terrible dman together, they'll do a pretty terrible job. Do we really want to be heavily dependent upon a defenseman who is only as good as his partner?

All defensemen are only as good as their partners. Do you think Faulk would play nearly as well if he were paired with Sangs?

 

[nobuddy]

All defensemen are only as good as their partners. Do you think Faulk would play nearly as well if he were paired with Sangs?

Faulk played just as well with Harrison as he did with Gleason and with Sekera.
Pitkanen played very nearly as well with McBain as he did with Seidenberg.
Suter plays just as well with whoever Minnesota has put with him (though Brodin is a stud in his own right) as he did with Weber.

 

[Vagrant]

I think that one guy playing badly can make a pairing look bad, but it can't make the other play badly. If that makes sense I am now inside your head at the controls.

 

[Ole Gil]

Faulk played just as well with Harrison as he did with Gleason and with Sekera.
Pitkanen played very nearly as well with McBain as he did with Seidenberg.
Suter plays just as well with whoever Minnesota has put with him (though Brodin is a stud in his own right) as he did with Weber.

Faulk-Harrison was a disaster when they tried to be the #1 pairing for a short stint. It's what led to Gleason-Allen taking over the role, and sending them to the more appropriate #2 pairing where they did fine.

There are guys like Chara/Weber/Suter who are good enough to handle their own, and half of their partners at the same time. Gleason isn't that guy. But I'm not sure even the All-stars would look great next to Joe Corvo. But nowhere else in the universe outside of our wonderful PNC Arena does Joe Corvo find himself on the top pairing, so we'll probably never know.

I think that one guy playing badly can make a pairing look bad, but it can't make the other play badly. If that makes sense I am now inside your head at the controls.

I think of it like a goalie who has no faith in his defense playing a 2 on 1. You try to do two jobs, and end up doing neither effectively.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think that one guy playing badly can make a pairing look bad, but it can't make the other play badly. If that makes sense I am now inside your head at the controls.

This is true to a point. Once you get down to Sanguinetti-type partners, or perhaps a team which is swirling the toilet bowl as a whole, the sheer difficulty of the circumstances can lead a player into bad habits and bad decisions. There's a reason we don't see a lot of stud defensemen developing out of schizo organizations.

 

[bluedevil58*]

Losing McBain, Corvo, and Sangs was a major improvement. I am starting to think that we may have one of the most if not the most underrated blue line in the NHL. Not the best but just underrated.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Why the sudden infatuation with Brett Bellemore? I can't figure it out. He's a lot like Jay Harrison. Plays almost the exact same game but with less puck skill. Why are we anointing him the second coming? He's been serviceable, but Brett Carson was serviceable at times here too. He's a capable hand, but let's not fall in love with how this defense is oriented right now. There is plenty to figure out.

This is a guy nobody knew anything about. He was drafted before most of the people currently present joined this board.

So the expectations were slim to nil. He's exceeding them currently, which isn't very hard to do.

Further, on the defensive side of the puck, he is bringing a steady, physical game. He was put against players like Johan Franzen and Claude Giroux, and didn't look like a career AHL'er.

I won't say that he has replaced Gleason, but I certainly am impressed with his game so far. *If* he can keep it up, he looks like a physical #4 or 5 guy. Getting carried by a better player on the 2nd pairing (which is what is happening now IMO), or the better player on a bottom pairing.

But since this is two games in...

 

[bluedevil58*]

Defense is what can win championships. Here is a great read and guess what? it's about us.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...king-and-positioning-much-improved-in-2013-14

Sorry if this has already been posted.

 

[DaleCooper]

Great an article taking stats from 2 games and comparing them to full seasons.