Does elite offensive talent make defensive effort/effectiveness a moot point?

[daver]

Some argue that a player's defensive ability can make up the difference in offensive production. I would argue that when talking about generational offensive abilities, playing a responsible defensive game is all that is needed to make any kind of talk about an elite defensive game meaningless. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. For players like Jagr or OV or Mario, reducing or relinquishing them of their defensive responsibilities was a good strategy as they were such offensive threats it was worth the potential risk on the defensive side.

Click to read more...

 

[93LEAFS]

Some argue that a player's defensive ability can make up the difference in offensive production. I would argue that when talking about generational offensive abilities, playing a responsible defensive game is all that is needed to make any kind of talk about an elite defensive game meaningless. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. For players like Jagr or OV or Mario, reducing or relinquishing them of their defensive responsibilities was a good strategy as they were such offensive threats it was worth the potential risk on the defensive side.

Has it really paid off for Ovi and Jagr? Although, you can shield wingers better. The best example of this is how the Blackhawks have deployed Kane, but you need a very strong center to anchor the 2nd line such as Toews (1st line center, but rarely played with Kane) or Ron Francis to make it work.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Some argue that a player's defensive ability can make up the difference in offensive production. I would argue that when talking about generational offensive abilities, playing a responsible defensive game is all that is needed to make any kind of talk about an elite defensive game meaningless. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. For players like Jagr or OV or Mario, reducing or relinquishing them of their defensive responsibilities was a good strategy as they were such offensive threats it was worth the potential risk on the defensive side.

no because of playoffs.

things tighten up to where good defense becomes a bigger factor and good offense is able to be neutralized. also, every mistake counts much more than in the regular season.

With the goal of winning the Cup, give me a team of guys that score 3 and allow 1 over guys that score 5 and allow 4

 

[daver]

Has it really paid off for Ovi and Jagr? Although, you can shield wingers better. The best example of this is how the Blackhawks have deployed Kane, but you need a very strong center to anchor the 2nd line such as Toews (1st line center, but rarely played with Kane) or Ron Francis to make it work.

In what sense?

 

[Nizdizzle]

If you are truly elite offensively, you won't have to play defense very often. It doesn't negate the impact of being a liability defensively, but it makes it much less impactful. There were tons of times the Caps and AO were criticizes because AO was caught floating in the defensive zone. His amazing ability to score clearly didn't absolve him of his defensive effort shortcomings back then.

I get the feeling you are somewhat talking about players "cheating" the defensive zone, which I think if the player is good enough then it is a fine strategy. The Oilers/Leafs game there was a brief 5v3 for the Leafs, and the Oilers had McDavid take the defensive zone faceoff. This is risky because McDavid isn't very good at faceoffs (putting it lightly), and isn't terribly strong defensively. It was a smart move though, because McDavid's speed and insane offensive ability make him a huge threat which backs off the opposition from pressing too hard. If you mess up, McDavid will make you pay.

 

[93LEAFS]

In what sense?

No team built around them has won the cup (Jagr was a secondary piece for the Pens cups), which is the ultimate goal. They put up lofty totals and got individual accolades, but its hard to say the risk/reward paid off for the teams. In recent times, the best example of this paying off is Patrick Kane, but you need a very strong center to anchor a 2nd line to make this risk-reward pay-off as a team-building exercise. Brett Hull was an offensive only guy, and never truly won much until he reigned in his game in Dallas.

 

[daver]

no because of playoffs.

things tighten up to where good defense becomes a bigger factor and good offense is able to be neutralized. also, every mistake counts much more than in the regular season.

With the goal of winning the Cup, give me a team of guys that score 3 and allow 1 over guys that score 5 and allow 4

Sure who wouldn't want that. But this is discussing generational offensive talent so your scenario is not very realistic. Would you want a team of Crosby's or team of Toews? Or a team of Greztky's vs. a team of Trottiers?

I am saying a player like Crosby only has to play a responsible defensive game as his offensive game is so good and can have such a direct impact on his team's fortunes it tilts the ice. Elite defense is great but it cannot make up for a 20% to 30% gap in offence.

 

[daver]

No team built around them has won the cup (Jagr was a secondary piece for the Pens cups), which is the ultimate goal. They put up lofty totals and got individual accolades, but its hard to say the risk/reward paid off for the teams. In recent times, the best example of this paying off is Patrick Kane, but you need a very strong center to anchor a 2nd line to make this risk-reward pay-off as a team-building exercise. Brett Hull was an offensive only guy, and never truly won much until he reigned in his game in Dallas.

I think this a different concept that what I saying, and you are focusing too much on Jagr and OV. Players like Wayne, Mario, Crosby, McDavid are also ones I would argue fall into this category.

 

[daver]

If you are truly elite offensively, you won't have to play defense very often. It doesn't negate the impact of being a liability defensively, but it makes it much less impactful. There were tons of times the Caps and AO were criticizes because AO was caught floating in the defensive zone. His amazing ability to score clearly didn't absolve him of his defensive effort shortcomings back then.

I get the feeling you are somewhat talking about players "cheating" the defensive zone, which I think if the player is good enough then it is a fine strategy. The Oilers/Leafs game there was a brief 5v3 for the Leafs, and the Oilers had McDavid take the defensive zone faceoff. This is risky because McDavid isn't very good at faceoffs (putting it lightly), and isn't terribly strong defensively. It was a smart move though, because McDavid's speed and insane offensive ability make him a huge threat which backs off the opposition from pressing too hard. If you mess up, McDavid will make you pay.

This is what I feel too except I am not necessarily saying these players are defensive liabilities, they just do not have the recognized defensive game of some of their peers at the same position.

 

[93LEAFS]

I think this a different concept that what I saying, and you are focusing too much on Jagr and OV. Players like Wayne, Mario, Crosby, McDavid are also ones I would argue fall into this category.

Except those are 2 of the 3 guys mentioned in OP. I don't think Crosby or McDavid are really put in situations where they can slack defensively. They both play complete games, they aren't Bob Gainey or Bobby Clarke, but they are more than competent. Plus, for both Crosby and McDavid (especially McDavid), a bunch of his offense comes off of defensive plays creating breakouts. Do you allow McDavid to play a more high-risk game defensively to do this absolutely, but I don't think that's letting him slide of defensive duties or float.

Mario is an all-time great, and was huge, but to accomplish what you are doing, he needed Francis who was an elite defensive center to allow him to be used in the way you are recommending, and finding Ron Francis level players isn't easy.

 

[MR4]

I'd rather a player with 10/10 offense and 2/10 defense than the opposite. Much easier to complement the offensive player to make the line great compared to the 2/10 offense, 10/10 defense player.

 

[3rdLiner]

I think this a different concept that what I saying, and you are focusing too much on Jagr and OV. Players like Wayne, Mario, Crosby, McDavid are also ones I would argue fall into this category.

I hate the Pens and I dislike Crosby. But you can't say he is bad defensively. The guy works his tail off on both ends of the rink.

 

[TGWL]

no because of playoffs.

things tighten up to where good defense becomes a bigger factor and good offense is able to be neutralized. also, every mistake counts much more than in the regular season.

With the goal of winning the Cup, give me a team of guys that score 3 and allow 1 over guys that score 5 and allow 4

In my opinion, over the last few years were seeing a bit of a shift here where offense looks to overpower defense. The players are so fast and the defense is struggling to keep up with them. Team defense, I agree with.

 

[rent free]

yah. people only care about offense. the norris trophy is essentially for which dman gets the most points. also, the selke is for the player who gets a lot of points and plays good defense, not the best defensive forward. 4th line pk specialists should get the award if it lived up to its name

 

[Agent Zub]

What people don't understand is that a great offensive player drives the play so that they are forcing the other team to defend.

Which is how you want to be defending.

It's why shut down d-men end up useless so much of the time.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

yah. people only care about offense. the norris trophy is essentially for which dman gets the most points. also, the selke is for the player who gets a lot of points and plays good defense, not the best defensive forward. 4th line pk specialists should get the award if it lived up to its name

maybe in the past, but not recently.

go ahead and name all these 4th liners that are better defensively than Bergeron...I'll wait

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

It's a net game.

You still have to outscore the opposition.

If you're elite offensively, but still getting outscored, it's a moot point because you've been neutralized defensively.

It's why Kopitar, Bergeron, Toews have been elite despite less-than-eye-grabbing point totals. That 100 point scorer on the other side becomes a 60 point scorer vs. a 70 point scorer.

I know it's being presented as a binary--you're elite offensively OR defensively--but it's not. There's a bit of a scale here where the best defensive players in the league that are also very good offensively can still win for that reason. In other words, no, simply 'overwhelming offense' isn't a good strategy most of the time, though if you're talking strictly about deployment of specific players I suppose it could be effective to some degree.

 

[GreatGonzo]

You truly need both to excel in the end.

The Hawks, kings, and Bruins not only have great defensive centers, but great offense along with many complimentary pieces. They also all have some of the best Defensemen in the league with great-elite goaltending. The Hawks had guys like Kane and Sharp. LA had guys like Williams, Gaborik, and Carter. While Boston had guys like Krejci and Marchand. Defense is hardly the number one piece to a successful team. Even guys like Gretzky had Kurri and Tikkanen. Lemieux had Francis. Yzerman had a whole lot of great defensive support, but all three also brought a huge level of offense.

Crosby and Malkin have 3 stanley cups now, and that teams main core isn't in their defense, it's in their ability to excel offensively while not being liabilities. You simply need that in this era of the game. The reason why Ovechkin doesn't have any playoff success isn't because he isn't great defensively, it's because he has little to no help from any secondary scoring, the teams defense is subpar, while their goaltending tends to get shaky in the playoffs. All three of those teams didn't have any of these problems. Boston rode the wave all the way to the championship that was Tim Thomas. LA had great complimentary players like Williams, with Quick playing amazing. And the Hawks at their peak simply had everything, they were a well oiled machine.

 

[RebuildinVan]

Isnt that how PK won a Norris?

 

[Pip]

It’s all about differential. As long as you’re producing more than you give up then it doesn’t matter how you get it done. Elite offensive players may have more plays where their poor defense leads to goals against, but typically they spend a lot less time defending so it evens out.

 

[possesthepuck]

Any one player can be shut down for a series, it is impossible to shut down a team.

 

[TheAngryHank]

Ask Pittsburgh from 1995 till lockout.

 

[traparatus]

Just don't be a full-on liability. I think once your coach has to come up with a master plan of how to shield your incompetence from the opposing team, you cross into negative no matter how much offense you provide.

We have a first back-to-back Stanley Cup champion in god knows how long with massive contributions from Kessel and Malkin. There's a couple of defensive stalwarts for you.