GDT: Back to Criticality | Jackets vs Bruins | 7 PM | 3/12/19

[mikeyp24]

YES.

One game forgives all.

Let's ignore the 20 game stretch of poor play.

Hey he had a great game tonight, all is forgiven.

Seriously? Did you watch the game? He was the direct reason why Marchand scored his 4th goal with half ass attempt to block the shot. Even his good games are not all sunshine and butterflies.

he didnt understand why the puck was dropped and was caught off gaurd because we didnt have our line up set yet... and even then still not half assed he lined up right in front of the shot and just missed. And you said we had holes in the D starting with Z talking about last night and last night he was playing great. Also his offense has been shakey 20 games sure but his play has been a solid #3 Imo. I wouldnt think that reading through our game day threads though because if you judge our team based on how our fans talk about the players mid game we would be 1st 8n line for Hughes this year and be tanking for at least 8 more years.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

YES.

One game forgives all.

Let's ignore the 20 game stretch of poor play.

Isn't focusing on the 20 game stretch of poor play ignoring all the good that came before that?

 

[CBJWerenski8]

YES.

One game forgives all.

Let's ignore the 20 game stretch of poor play.

Hey he had a great game tonight, all is forgiven.

Seriously? Did you watch the game? He was the direct reason why Marchand scored his 4th goal with half ass attempt to block the shot. Even his good games are not all sunshine and butterflies.

I'm sorry, but that goal isn't on Werenski. There are far better examples you can give where he was actually at fault. It's a bang-bang faceoff play while playing willingly short handed (and he admitted post game he only noticed they were short as the puck was dropped after calling a faceoff play. It probably staggered him for the faceoff).

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Isn't focusing on the 20 game stretch of poor play ignoring all the good that came before that?

People often forget he was literally carrying our defense to start the year when Jones was out with injury. He was even better than Murray. Once Jones came back, his play dipped (and kept dipping) and Murray ascended. Even through his struggles here this year, Z hasn't been as bad as people around here tend to think. I think his defense has improved as the year went on (still has his lapses, but he will probably never be elite defensively) and his offense has fallen a bit back because of it (and in general our defenseman aren't scoring as much this year).

 

[Columbus Mike]

I thought there was a rule that you couldn't have a face off with fewer players than the maximum. This was to prevent a team playing with 4, winning a face off in their defensive zone, then making a long pass to a player jumping off the bench.

 

[cslebn]

I'd like to see an experiement with Boone - Wennberg - Bjork as a line, taking pieces from various times of Wennberg being successful.

Then your 4th line is something like Fligs - Dubi - Nash (Beer, Robinson) for heavy hitters. I really wish Robinson could get in the line up more.

 

[Columbus Jack]

he didnt understand why the puck was dropped and was caught off gaurd because we didnt have our line up set yet... and even then still not half assed he lined up right in front of the shot and just missed. And you said we had holes in the D starting with Z talking about last night and last night he was playing great. Also his offense has been shakey 20 games sure but his play has been a solid #3 Imo. I wouldnt think that reading through our game day threads though because if you judge our team based on how our fans talk about the players mid game we would be 1st 8n line for Hughes this year and be tanking for at least 8 more years.

His play has not been solid. He has been an utter disaster in the defensive zone. He is the worst plus minus on this team from a defenseman that's been on the team all year by 8 points. The next worst is Nuti at -3. (inb4 +/- doesn't mean anything BRO!). It means a lot when you're consistently failing the eye test defensively and consistently lackadaisical. He is worth much more in a trade to land a big time forward.

Isn't focusing on the 20 game stretch of poor play ignoring all the good that came before that?

If you believe that 20 games before was actually good. To be blunt, he hasn't looked the same since his Rookie Year. Probably just a "me thing" and Zach being my "whipping boy" though right?

I'm sorry, but that goal isn't on Werenski. There are far better examples you can give where he was actually at fault. It's a bang-bang faceoff play while playing willingly short handed (and he admitted post game he only noticed they were short as the puck was dropped after calling a faceoff play. It probably staggered him for the faceoff).

How is refusing to commit to blocking a shot "not his fault"? I agree, it's not the best (or worst) example of Zach Werenski in the defensive zone but my god Jones blocks that shot. So does Harrington. And Savard. My problem with Werenski is the utter lack of intensity in his game. You can call that whatever you like, but if you cannot see the consistent lack of urgency that leads to problems, there is no point in having a discussion.

 

[JKinCLE]

My problem with Werenski is the utter lack of intensity in his game. You can call that whatever you like, but if you cannot see the consistent lack of urgency that leads to problems, there is no point in having a discussion.

I love Zach, but this bothers me as well. Johansen got criticized for the same lackadaisical appearance. His laidback personality definitely comes through on ice. He's just 21 though, so hopefully he grows out of it.

By no means do I think he is bad, but I do think he has more to offer.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

If you believe that 20 games before was actually good. To be blunt, he hasn't looked the same since his Rookie Year. Probably just a "me thing" and Zach being my "whipping boy" though right?

I wasn't going to say that but you do seem angry.

It just didn't make sense to me when you suggested one good game doesn't make up for 20 bad ones when before 20 bad ones were a lot more good ones. There's a full picture there and it's fine to differ on how that full picture shapes up but the way you phrased it confused me.

 

[Columbus Jack]

I wasn't going to say that but you do seem angry.

It just didn't make sense to me when you suggested one good game doesn't make up for 20 bad ones when before 20 bad ones were a lot more good ones. There's a full picture there and it's fine to differ on how that full picture shapes up but the way you phrased it confused me.

No anger, I just think, forever how comical it is, that is the response for some when the board's consensus favorite players get criticized.

I think that Zach Werenski has not been as good as everyone says he is for quite some time. Has he had good games? Of course. I'm not saying he is not a valuable defenseman, he is very valuable. I just don't like his current, in my opinion, "decline". I think we should sell high.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

No anger, I just think, forever how comical it is, that is the response for some when the board's consensus favorite players get criticized.

Do you just want people to agree with positions they don't hold? Is that what people want when they post things like this?

I think that Zach Werenski has not been as good as everyone says he is for quite some time. Has he had good games? Of course. I'm not saying he is not a valuable defenseman, he is very valuable. I just don't like his current, in my opinion, "decline". I think we should sell high.

I disagree and have posted such. I think he's been bad for a long stretch this season and have posted such.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

How is refusing to commit to blocking a shot "not his fault"? I agree, it's not the best (or worst) example of Zach Werenski in the defensive zone but my god Jones blocks that shot. So does Harrington. And Savard. My problem with Werenski is the utter lack of intensity in his game. You can call that whatever you like, but if you cannot see the consistent lack of urgency that leads to problems, there is no point in having a discussion.

He's not refusing to block the shot. You can even see he made an effort to. He was caught off guard by not having his other forward out there (and admitted as such), and as soon as he realized he didn't have the option he was wanting, the puck was dropped. For example, if you're waiting online to buy tickets to a game because you know the ticket sales open at midnight, and you have the browser open to the site waiting to refresh at midnight, and right before the clock hits midnight your friend knocks on your door. You'll likely take your attention off of the computer for even a split second, and in that split second you might miss out on your ticket, or at least be behind what you would have been if you were able to keep your attention on just your computer.

It's not a lack of intensity, on this goal at least, it was a coach/player error that confused the team. I agree he's had issues here this year. But blaming this goal on him is just missing the mark.

No anger, I just think, forever how comical it is, that is the response for some when the board's consensus favorite players get criticized.

I think that Zach Werenski has not been as good as everyone says he is for quite some time. Has he had good games? Of course. I'm not saying he is not a valuable defenseman, he is very valuable. I just don't like his current, in my opinion, "decline". I think we should sell high.

Literally everybody has been critical of Werenski this season. Everyone. If anything, he's been the second most maligned player this season behind Bobrovsky. He's earned some of that, but I feel like I'm one of the only ones, at least IMO, who have gone to bat for Werenski when he's played well.

 

[majormajor]

I bet most of the comments on Werenski this year have been negative.

My take is that he hasn't been that good, kind of a drag defensively, but his upside remains sky high. He showed big improvements defensively from the second quarter to the third. I'm not one of those who thought his first year was better. He always had big defensive issues and guys like Bob, Jones, and Savard had to bail him out. What's changed is that they haven't been bailing him out as much this year. His technical game is pretty darn good for a 21 year old. Even defensively he has a lot of skill, you can see him using his frame to ward off attackers, take two strides and make a great first pass. Those are great gifts. Without the puck I like a lot of his reads and he has good reach and a great stick to break up plays.

I question his conditioning and professionalism. No big deal, he's 21, but he's not always prepared and dialed in. He gets gassed more than you'd like for a big minutes player. His top heavy build is maybe not ideal - he needs to train with more focus on core strength, balance, and lateral mobility. Put away the dumbbells, stick with lunges. You want to see him able to get down and up off the ice a lot faster. When he gets a bit out of position he struggles to pull himself back into place.

 

[Columbus Jack]

Do you just want people to agree with positions they don't hold? Is that what people want when they post things like this?

Nope I just would like to see people be honest with themselves when assessing players. He has been objectively bad this season yet I've had arguments multiple times with people believing he is on the projection of "HOF Defenseman". But hey, to each their own I guess.

I disagree and have posted such. I think he's been bad for a long stretch this season and have posted such.

Do you really? I'm not here to tell you what to think but what is it? Was he good before the 20 game stretch or has "been bad for a long stretch this season"? Just want to clarify.

 

[Columbus Jack]

He's not refusing to block the shot. You can even see he made an effort to. He was caught off guard by not having his other forward out there (and admitted as such), and as soon as he realized he didn't have the option he was wanting, the puck was dropped. For example, if you're waiting online to buy tickets to a game because you know the ticket sales open at midnight, and you have the browser open to the site waiting to refresh at midnight, and right before the clock hits midnight your friend knocks on your door. You'll likely take your attention off of the computer for even a split second, and in that split second you might miss out on your ticket, or at least be behind what you would have been if you were able to keep your attention on just your computer.

It's not a lack of intensity, on this goal at least, it was a coach/player error that confused the team. I agree he's had issues here this year. But blaming this goal on him is just missing the mark.

Come on man, this is quite the excuse. They are receiving millions of dollars to be adept at playing hockey. One of those things includes awareness when the puck is going to drop. Are we really resorting to this to defend him? I will he had a good game offensively last night, but if he isn't being effective offensively, he just isn't effective.

Literally everybody has been critical of Werenski this season. Everyone. If anything, he's been the second most maligned player this season behind Bobrovsky. He's earned some of that, but I feel like I'm one of the only ones, at least IMO, who have gone to bat for Werenski when he's played well.

There are few that see that potential long term downfall of his defensive play. I think as an asset he can only depreciate if he continues down that path. Honestly, I would try him as a winger some time next year in preseason to see how he does.

 

[NotWendell]

If you can't be happy after thumping a really good team 7-4 at home, I can't help you.

 

[majormajor]

There are few that see that potential long term downfall of his defensive play. I think as an asset he can only depreciate if he continues down that path. Honestly, I would try him as a winger some time next year in preseason to see how he does.

This is super premature. Werenski is 21. I expect in his prime he'll be an above average defender.

Think about it this way - there's D around his age who will be all-stars someday, who are currently climbing their way through the AHL.

There's lots to complain about with Werenski but his future is not one of those things.

 

[Jyrki]

Other teams are wondering whether their blueline prospects could pan out like Werenski, and here we are taking a dump on him at every opportunity.

 

[Columbus Jack]

This is super premature. Werenski is 21. I expect in his prime he'll be an above average defender.

Think about it this way - there's D around his age who will be all-stars someday, who are currently climbing their way through the AHL.

There's lots to complain about with Werenski but his future is not one of those things.

Michael Del Zotto sure looked amazing at 21 too. Can we not assume he's just going to "figure it out"? Because that is far from a given. I realize that is the Ace in the Hole counter argument but it is certainly no guarantee.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Nope I just would like to see people be honest with themselves when assessing players. He has been objectively bad this season yet I've had arguments multiple times with people believing he is on the projection of "HOF Defenseman". But hey, to each their own I guess.

This is funny from someone claiming to have had their opinion dismissed out of hand. So you actually do just want people to agree with you, because you're so obviously right and they're so obviously wrong. Got it.

Do you really? I'm not here to tell you what to think but what is it? Was he good before the 20 game stretch or has "been bad for a long stretch this season"? Just want to clarify.

I disagree he should be traded before he's somehow exposed. I'mnot sure why we're limiting the discussion to specifically 20 games. He's been both good an bad this season, more recently bad, and I've said so. I also haven't posted at all how good I think he's looked for the past 3 games.

Thanks for the open and respectful dialogue.

 

[EDM]

I do not like the trend that puts Bjork back on the 4th line. Bjork is a 2nd line guy. He was showing he could play at that level. And then Torts undercuts him.

 

[majormajor]

Michael Del Zotto sure looked amazing at 21 too. Can we not assume he's just going to "figure it out"? Because that is far from a given. I realize that is the Ace in the Hole counter argument but it is certainly no guarantee.

For me it's not so much an assumption as it is a gambit you have no choice but to take with young players. Just about all of them have growing pains and you don't know how it will all turn out.

I know some don't make it but I don't see the warning signs with Werenski that you do. To me he has about the normal level of inconsistency and dysfunction that I associate with players at his age. Same thing for Dubois.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Come on man, this is quite the excuse. They are receiving millions of dollars to be adept at playing hockey. One of those things includes awareness when the puck is going to drop. Are we really resorting to this to defend him? I will he had a good game offensively last night, but if he isn't being effective offensively, he just isn't effective.



There are few that see that potential long term downfall of his defensive play. I think as an asset he can only depreciate if he continues down that path. Honestly, I would try him as a winger some time next year in preseason to see how he does.

I don't like the ganging up going on here. So I'll stop, but I cannot disagree more.

 

[EspenK]

I do not like the trend that puts Bjork back on the 4th line. Bjork is a 2nd line guy. He was showing he could play at that level. And then Torts undercuts him.

100 likes. WTF? Because the Andy-Duchene-Dzingel line appears to be clicking I'd put him on the Foligno-Jenner line. Of course that would last about 5 minutes before Torts spins the dial.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

100 likes. WTF? Because the Andy-Duchene-Dzingel line appears to be clicking I'd put him on the Foligno-Jenner line. Of course that would last about 5 minutes before Torts spins the dial.

Agreed, but as was said earlier, Nash actually worked with Boone and Nick, so... Thus my "guys I don't have a spot for" rather than "spare parts" comment.

If it keeps working, I guess it's a nice problem to have. But I think the team needs what Bjork has shown he can be and we're not going to get it with him playing where he is.