Is there a stigma against young offensive defensemen ?

[Montreal Shadow]

Karlsson, Subban, Letang, Schultz, Shattenkirk, Gostibhere. These are just a couple of defensemen who were gifted offensively from the moment they stepped foot in the NHL. All of them were labeled as bad defensively, that is, bad even for their age. Even after several years, a few of them are still considered below average defensively.

Is there a stigma against these type of defensemen who just come in the league with a lot of offensive upside? It seems people call them bad defensively as if it's impossible for a young defenseman to be good at both sides of the puck upon entering the big league. It also takes year to shake off the perception and at times, it is never completely shaken off.

At the opposite side of the spectrum we have other young defensemen who aren't as good with offense but are said to be good defensively with usually very little to back it up. I mean, if they don't produce, are young but still sitck around they must be good at something right? I'm talking about guys like Hedman or McDonagh.

Am I completely out to lunch or do many people just assume good young offensive defensemen are bad defensively?

Click to read more...

 

[guzzy]

I would much rather have Doughty as my number one than any of the above. Offensive skills are one thing but you will seldom see the above list on the ice in the final two minutes of a game protecting a lead. Doughty produces less offence than Karlsson but i will take a slight reduction for his focus and skill in the defensive zone. Youi can build a team around Karlsson but it will always be a game plan built around possession and offence. It would never be a defensive minded team or system. If you put Karlsson in LA or Anaheim or another defensive minded system he would be exposed for what he is, a glorified winger who struggles defensively.

I can't comment on the others except for Letang. What i have seen defensively in the playoffs from Letang this far, he has looked strong in his own end.

I don't think all young offensive dmen get branded poor defensively, they have to earn that.

 

[Patmac40]

There definitely is that stigma. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it isn't. What a lot of the high-end offensive defensemen have in common is the ability to be very quick on transition and maintain offensive zone-time which leads to better shot suppression for their team. This in itself helps the team defensively.

There are times that perhaps the offensive mindset that they have causes them to "cheat" defensively when trying to predict a chance that will go the other way, leading to more high risk plays in their own end. Live by the sword, die by the sword. But most of them also have excellent ability with their sticks whether it be getting it into the lane or stripping the opposing player of the puck along with great skating ability to get themselves back into position.

There will likely be some videos posted in this thread of Karlsson getting walked in the defensive zone off the rush or Subban out of position with a rush coming the other way, however there are plenty of "defensive defensmen" that have the same done to them but can't generate anything going the other way.

There is no doubt to me that their ability to quickly transition offense, enter the zone, maintain zone time, and create offense has a net positive effect on their team despite having some off moments defensively.

 

[MXD]

I would much rather have Doughty as my number one than any of the above. Offensive skills are one thing but you will seldom see the above list on the ice in the final two minutes of a game protecting a lead. Doughty produces less offence than Karlsson but i will take a slight reduction for his focus and skill in the defensive zone. Youi can build a team around Karlsson but it will always be a game plan built around possession and offence. It would never be a defensive minded team or system. If you put Karlsson in LA or Anaheim or another defensive minded system he would be exposed for what he is, a glorified winger who struggles defensively.

I can't comment on the others except for Letang. What i have seen defensively in the playoffs from Letang this far, he has looked strong in his own end.

I don't think all young offensive dmen get branded poor defensively, they have to earn that.

I'll comment only on Subban.
He's usually on the ice with 2 mins left, protecting a lead, and if he's not, it's because :
- He's not available for whatever reason.
- He was on the ice just before, and cannot spend 3 mins on the ice at ES.

He was also better defensively than offensively at 5v5 when he came in.

On topic, yeah. There's some kind of stigma that offensive-minded Young D-Men are bad defensively. Probably due to rationalizing the fact the player was in the AHL/otherwise not in the NHL, all the while being amply good enough at the offensive side of the game.

 

[Roboturner913]

Yes there is.

Even as recent as a couple days ago, somebody here said Justin Faulk is "pretty bad defensively". I mean, come on. It's funny how two-way forwards are generally lauded for their defense, but two-way defensemen get trashed for their defense.

 

[joe89]

At the opposite side of the spectrum we have other young defensemen who aren't as good with offense but are said to be good defensively with usually very little to back it up. I mean, if they don't produce, are young but still sitck around they must be good at something right? I'm talking about guys like Hedman or McDonagh.

Weird players to put at the other side of the spectrum, because they're not, more like in between. Hedman is not a Karlsson but certainly offensively gifted in the mold of Weber and Doughty. McDonagh is above average, too. That they are great defensively we know. Little to back it up? Wut.

The other side of the spectrum would be Larsson, Gudbranson, Murray etc. guys who entered the league with a lot of promise but can't play electrifying offense. I think we can add Jones there too.

And yes, I think there is a stigma, failing to realize that offense is the best defense. Offense is a lot harder to play, all of NHL play defense but few play offense(at a high level)

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

Karlsson, Subban, Letang, Schultz, Shattenkirk, Gostibhere. These are just a couple of defensemen who were gifted offensively from the moment they stepped foot in the NHL. All of them were labeled as bad defensively, that is, bad even for their age. Even after several years, a few of them are still considered below average defensively.

Is there a stigma against these type of defensemen who just come in the league with a lot of offensive upside? It seems people call them bad defensively as if it's impossible for a young defenseman to be good at both sides of the puck upon entering the big league. It also takes year to shake off the perception and at times, it is never completely shaken off.

At the opposite side of the spectrum we have other young defensemen who aren't as good with offense but are said to be good defensively with usually very little to back it up. I mean, if they don't produce, are young but still sitck around they must be good at something right? I'm talking about guys like Hedman or McDonagh.

Am I completely out to lunch or do many people just assume good young offensive defensemen are bad defensively?

Except for the bolded, I kind of understand where you're coming from, but there is a reason for most of those perceptions. Some of the players listed had real struggles in their own zone at different times. I can't say that Letang (much as I hate him) has ever struck me as poor defensively, though. Subban and Karlsson make too many errors, but in general are good in their own end. As for Ghost, he has earned a place on that list with some very questionable d-zone plays, but he's still a huge asset.

I think more often than not, these perceptions are based on reality. Yandle had a good season this year, but he can still produce dumb mistakes, partly because he is thinking of offense a lot more often than more defensive dmen.

For me, Hedman and McDonagh have entirely backed up the belief that they are good defensively. They do an excellent job and I don't know why that should be questioned at all. I find the bolded paragraph you out to lunch, yes .

I personally prefer all rounders. By that I mean guys who are very good defensively and good offensively too. Weber, Keith, Doughty, Hedman, McDonagh, and a number of others (including Letang) are preferable to me than dmen who I find less trustworthy. That said, the list you made are exceptional players.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Am I completely out to lunch or do many people just assume good young offensive defensemen are bad defensively?

There aren't many players that are great at everything at the pro level. Everyone usually has a hole in their game somewhere. It's give and take.

I don't think people in the business assume things about players. Scouts have watched these guys for years before they hit the NHL, or even get drafted. Is there a stigma against players who don't have a ton of offensive talent? No, it's just what they are. Look around the league. Who gets the most money? Mostly, it's guys that produce the most.

Most of everything is just perception. We call the position defenseman. Defense is in the name. It might be unfair, to name a general spot on the ice something that specific, but, if they're not great defensively, it'll be perceived in a certain way. If you're a goaltender, but can't stop a shot, what will you be seen as? We say left wing, center, right wing, or just forwards for forwards. There might be more leeway with them.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

Ofcourse tjats the stigma... just like huge dmen are bad offensively

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Weird players to put at the other side of the spectrum, because they're not, more like in between. Hedman is not a Karlsson but certainly offensively gifted in the mold of Weber and Doughty. McDonagh is above average, too. That they are great defensively we know. Little to back it up? Wut.

I'm talking about when they first came into the league years ago. Not right now.

For me, Hedman and McDonagh have entirely backed up the belief that they are good defensively. They do an excellent job and I don't know why that should be questioned at all. I find the bolded paragraph you out to lunch, yes .

I personally prefer all rounders. By that I mean guys who are very good defensively and good offensively too. Weber, Keith, Doughty, Hedman, McDonagh, and a number of others (including Letang) are preferable to me than dmen who I find less trustworthy. That said, the list you made are exceptional players.

It was just several examples of a couple of defensemen being excellent offensively at a young age and considered bad defensively. There are more than that but those stood out.

As for Hedman and McDonagh, I'm simply saying young defensemen who score around 20pts in their first few years are seldom said to be bad defensively. If they stick around the NHL it seems people will just assume they are good or great defensively. As of 2016, yes they have earned their stripes but were they really exceptional or good defensively in 2012?

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

I'm talking about when they first came into the league years ago. Not right now.

It was just several examples of a couple of defensemen being excellent offensively at a young age and considered bad defensively. There are more than that but those stood out.

As for Hedman and McDonagh, I'm simply saying young defensemen who score around 20pts in their first few years are seldom said to be bad defensively. If they stick around the NHL it seems people will just assume they are good or great defensively. As of 2016, yes they have earned their stripes but were they really exceptional or good defensively in 2012?

I can't say I saw enough of Hedman in the very beginning to be completely sure, but certainly with McDonagh he was always very good in his own zone and my perception was much the same for Hedman.

 

[KevinRedkey]

People claim to watch a lot more hockey than they actually do. They look at stats and see low point totals, but also hear those players are good... so they must be good defensively. They see high point totals and aren't hearing that they are the best player in the league, so they assume it's because of defensive liabilities.

If a player's defensive shortcomings outweigh their offensive prowess, the fans of that team will dislike that player. Justin Schultz in Edmonton for example. When someone like EK or Ghost get attacked for being a "defensive liability", the fans generally fight back because they know their offense heavily outweighs their defensive shortcomings.

This stigma causes many arguments. lol

 

[Territory]

Whenever there is a really good offensive player, forward or defense, people say they suck defensively as a way to bring the player down a little bit. It's stupid, and comes from bias.

People are naturally jealous of other teams good players/prospects and often find ways to get little digs in to make themselves feel better about that player being on another team.

 

[HarrisonFord]

The stigma is there because none of them have won anything.

 

[Sureves]

Short answer is yes.

I've said it many times before, it's not complicated really:

Say you are someone who watches Doughty play a lot and have determined that he is the best defenseman in the NHL.

Then this new guy comes into the league like Ghost, and he's putting up significantly more points than Doughty. You have two options here: conclude that Doughty's defensive superiority is greater than Ghost's offensive superiority (relative to each other) or two, change your mind as to who the best defenseman in the NHL is.

Everyone chooses option 1, which results in them exaggerating how bad defensively the compared player is, then, when they watch that player play they are actively watching for defensive mistakes, and through confirmation bias - or sometimes straight up delusion - notice every single mistake they make and amplify how big of an error it was by a thousand, all the while ignoring similar mistakes by Doughty.

I'm just using Ghost as a hypothetical example here, not suggesting he's better than Doughty or that he scores significantly more points.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Well there's definitely a stigma against poor defensemen like Schultz.
I'm not sure how his name got thrown in with these other guys.

 

[PensBandwagonerNo272*]

Sometimes, although aside from Schultz you only really listed elite guys.

Transitioning to the NHL game is difficult for a lot of players in terms of their defense because the game is faster and the players bigger. You can't have guys on defense that are bad defensively.

An example of this is Derrick Pouliot. All the tools, I am near positive he will be a top pairing dman some day, but the transition to the NHL caliber defensive game is still a work in progress.

 

[ChiHawk21]

offensive defenseman as your number one havent won any cups for a long time. its not the same as defensive forwards because they seem to win every year

 

[skillhockey]

Yes there is. League is just slow moving forward. It's bit same as player size that by any article/study i've read, gives no edge in NHL. Smaller players are being drafted/used but it's still early for that change too.

 

[edinson]

There definitely is that stigma. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it isn't. What a lot of the high-end offensive defensemen have in common is the ability to be very quick on transition and maintain offensive zone-time which leads to better shot suppression for their team. This in itself helps the team defensively.

There are times that perhaps the offensive mindset that they have causes them to "cheat" defensively when trying to predict a chance that will go the other way, leading to more high risk plays in their own end. Live by the sword, die by the sword. But most of them also have excellent ability with their sticks whether it be getting it into the lane or stripping the opposing player of the puck along with great skating ability to get themselves back into position.

There will likely be some videos posted in this thread of Karlsson getting walked in the defensive zone off the rush or Subban out of position with a rush coming the other way, however there are plenty of "defensive defensmen" that have the same done to them but can't generate anything going the other way.

There is no doubt to me that their ability to quickly transition offense, enter the zone, maintain zone time, and create offense has a net positive effect on their team despite having some off moments defensively.

Good post. I agree with all of this.

 

[PensBandwagonerNo272*]

I don't think it's so much about them cheating offensively (unless they simply do not respond to coaching, in which case that is a whole other issue) than it is simply being able to preform well defensively at the pro level since they are defensemen.

 

[CanadienShark]

There definitely is that stigma. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it isn't. What a lot of the high-end offensive defensemen have in common is the ability to be very quick on transition and maintain offensive zone-time which leads to better shot suppression for their team. This in itself helps the team defensively.

There are times that perhaps the offensive mindset that they have causes them to "cheat" defensively when trying to predict a chance that will go the other way, leading to more high risk plays in their own end. Live by the sword, die by the sword. But most of them also have excellent ability with their sticks whether it be getting it into the lane or stripping the opposing player of the puck along with great skating ability to get themselves back into position.

There will likely be some videos posted in this thread of Karlsson getting walked in the defensive zone off the rush or Subban out of position with a rush coming the other way, however there are plenty of "defensive defensmen" that have the same done to them but can't generate anything going the other way.

There is no doubt to me that their ability to quickly transition offense, enter the zone, maintain zone time, and create offense has a net positive effect on their team despite having some off moments defensively.

/thread

You said it perfectly.

 

[Menzinger]

Yes.

Way too many people seem to think that "clearing the front of the net" is the main job of a defencemen.

If you're team controls the puck for most of the game you don't have to worry about that job.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

The stigma is there because none of them have won anything.

You can't win a cup with one player.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

I would much rather have Doughty as my number one than any of the above. Offensive skills are one thing but you will seldom see the above list on the ice in the final two minutes of a game protecting a lead. Doughty produces less offence than Karlsson but i will take a slight reduction for his focus and skill in the defensive zone. Youi can build a team around Karlsson but it will always be a game plan built around possession and offence. It would never be a defensive minded team or system. If you put Karlsson in LA or Anaheim or another defensive minded system he would be exposed for what he is, a glorified winger who struggles defensively.

I can't comment on the others except for Letang. What i have seen defensively in the playoffs from Letang this far, he has looked strong in his own end.

I don't think all young offensive dmen get branded poor defensively, they have to earn that.

"A glorified winger who struggles defensively". This is exactly what the OP is talking about.

You'd have no idea how it'd work out, because he isn't an LA King, or an Anaheim Duck. It's easy to make assumptions as to what might happen, but the reality is that you would never know, despite what you might think would happen.

And he's not a winger. the position he plays in the NHL is defenseman. Therefore, he is a defenseman.

Offensive skills are something you can not teach. Especially for a defenseman. You can teach how to protect a lead with two minutes left, especially since there are 5 other guys on the ice helping you do so.