I keep hearing defence wins championships. If this is true, I wonder what you think of this as a Winnipeg Jets fan.
A hockey team seems to be built on the premise that you have three levels - a goaltender who stops pucks, a defence which assists the goaltender and prevents goals from being scored and a forwards who provide offence. This Winnipeg roster is not equipped to do this.
Pavelec, who is our consensus starting goaltender (who we recently signed to a multi-year deal) was among the lowest ranked goaltenders in the league as it correlated to save percentages and goals against average. This multi-year deal tells me as a fan that we did not need to upgrade the position. A 1-2 year deal is a stop gap, 4-5 years to me suggests that this player is a franchise player.
Our defensive players are led by Enstrom and Byfuglien. Both players were given long term contracts by Winnipeg and Atlanta respectively. Both are offensive defencemen and historically are/will be out of position to transition the puck from our defensive zone. How can a coach suggest we play stronger defensive hockey when 2 of our best defencemen are attempting to play a rover position? More importantly, Wouldn't it be wise to put these players on different lines or simply on the power play? Wouldn't it be wise to pair them with defensive minded players who can make up for their defensive shortcomings? We don't seem to do either of these. Ironically, Noel is preaching defence but he does not admonish either of these players for their defensive play. Clitsome, Redmond, Postma and even Bogosian have been considered offensive defencemen at one time or another. Our newest draft selection, Trouba is another offensive defenceman. Stuart and Hainsey could be considered stay at home defencemen but are paired with one another. How can you preach defence when you are acknowledging the accomplishments and roaming skills of the offensive minded players?
Last year, I thought the best defenceman on the power play was Stapleton. In many respects, I felt that Glass, Slater, Thorburn, Burmistrov and Wellwood were better defencemen than forwards. I can appreciate the back check however, these players are primarily paid to score goals and/or forecheck, not play defence.
Simply put, under the coaching direction of Noel and player personnel GM Chevaldaeoff, I do not expect this to change. They seem to agree with this philosophy. I wonder if I am the only person who notices this and does not accept the premise of what Noel is philosophizing/preaching versus what he does in practice/strategy. If we preach defence, shouldn't we try to do it? If we are preaching defence, wouldn't it be wise to identify and sign defensive defencemen?
just a thought...
A hockey team seems to be built on the premise that you have three levels - a goaltender who stops pucks, a defence which assists the goaltender and prevents goals from being scored and a forwards who provide offence. This Winnipeg roster is not equipped to do this.
Pavelec, who is our consensus starting goaltender (who we recently signed to a multi-year deal) was among the lowest ranked goaltenders in the league as it correlated to save percentages and goals against average. This multi-year deal tells me as a fan that we did not need to upgrade the position. A 1-2 year deal is a stop gap, 4-5 years to me suggests that this player is a franchise player.
Our defensive players are led by Enstrom and Byfuglien. Both players were given long term contracts by Winnipeg and Atlanta respectively. Both are offensive defencemen and historically are/will be out of position to transition the puck from our defensive zone. How can a coach suggest we play stronger defensive hockey when 2 of our best defencemen are attempting to play a rover position? More importantly, Wouldn't it be wise to put these players on different lines or simply on the power play? Wouldn't it be wise to pair them with defensive minded players who can make up for their defensive shortcomings? We don't seem to do either of these. Ironically, Noel is preaching defence but he does not admonish either of these players for their defensive play. Clitsome, Redmond, Postma and even Bogosian have been considered offensive defencemen at one time or another. Our newest draft selection, Trouba is another offensive defenceman. Stuart and Hainsey could be considered stay at home defencemen but are paired with one another. How can you preach defence when you are acknowledging the accomplishments and roaming skills of the offensive minded players?
Last year, I thought the best defenceman on the power play was Stapleton. In many respects, I felt that Glass, Slater, Thorburn, Burmistrov and Wellwood were better defencemen than forwards. I can appreciate the back check however, these players are primarily paid to score goals and/or forecheck, not play defence.
Simply put, under the coaching direction of Noel and player personnel GM Chevaldaeoff, I do not expect this to change. They seem to agree with this philosophy. I wonder if I am the only person who notices this and does not accept the premise of what Noel is philosophizing/preaching versus what he does in practice/strategy. If we preach defence, shouldn't we try to do it? If we are preaching defence, wouldn't it be wise to identify and sign defensive defencemen?
just a thought...
