Is there a stigma against young offensive defensemen ?

[HarrisonFord]

Uhh...

2009 Playoffs: 24GP 4G 9A 13PTS



Scotty Bowman - May 22, 2008

http://triblive.com//x/pittsburghtrib/sports/penguins/s_568728.html

I think Letang was the 2nd best defenseman on his team in that playoff run

 

[ManofSteel55]

lol. That's why you'll spend the rest of Karlsson's career wondering why he scored so many points, yet your team is still in the bottom 5 in goals against year after year and not winning anything

If the Senators don't improve Karlsson's supporting cast, then nobody will ever question why they are always bottom 5 in goals against. Karlsson can't prevent goals for an entire 60 minute game, and he can't make up for the overall team being unsuccessful. Swap him out with Duncan Keith and the Hawks probably have just as many cups and the Senators still have none.

 

[Sens Rule]

Maybe part of the problem is that the position is called defenseman, so the perception gets locked in. Defense is in the name. We call forwards left wings, centers, right wings, or just forwards. Maybe the idea of a rover needs to be brought back into the hockey lexicon.

No top offensive defencemen play like rovers or forwards.

Saying they do is ignorant and stupid.

Not being as good as some defenceman are once the other team has possession in your zone is not "being a rover". Karlsson's weakest skill is defending the front of his net. Is Karlsson being a "rover" when he is standing 4 feet in front of his own goalie?

Anyone calling Karlsson a "rover" or "winger" or "forward" really should have all their opinions discounted. Any limitations to Karlsson's game are not from him being too aggressive offensively, or cheating, or being out of position because he is trying to score, it is in his own zone, when he is playing very typical defence, like every other defenceman in the league.

It is easy to tell who doesn't watch players play, or just want to make a ridiculous hot take by those that say that many offensive defencemen are "rovers" or "forwards".

 

[Micklebot]

I think Letang was the 2nd best defenseman on his team in that playoff run

Strangely, to another guy that never really shook the stigma of having been a young offensive Dman.

edit: wait a sec, look who I'm talking to, you probably meant orpik...

 

[HarrisonFord]

Strangely, to another guy that never really shook the stigma of having been a young offensive Dman.

edit: wait a sec, look who I'm talking to, you probably meant orpik...

You know I meant Gonchar.

I just find it mind boggling that people can call good defending "overrated". Like, how does that even manage to make it through somebody's brain? Jesus. Why even draft defensemen to begin with? Just get a bunch of forwards, and the ones who aren't good enough to play in the top 6 we just convert them to defense.

This topic just pisses the **** out of me, how some people can look at the actual facts and look at the kinds of defensemen who are actually anchoring Stanley Cup winning teams and say that defense is overrated while they have their heads so firmly lodged in the sand

 

[HarrisonFord]

If the Senators don't improve Karlsson's supporting cast, then nobody will ever question why they are always bottom 5 in goals against. Karlsson can't prevent goals for an entire 60 minute game, and he can't make up for the overall team being unsuccessful. Swap him out with Duncan Keith and the Hawks probably have just as many cups and the Senators still have none.

Yeah, either that or they don't. Gotta love when someone is using the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.

 

[KingsFan7824]

No top offensive defencemen play like rovers or forwards.

Saying they do is ignorant and stupid.

Not being as good as some defenceman are once the other team has possession in your zone is not "being a rover". Karlsson's weakest skill is defending the front of his net. Is Karlsson being a "rover" when he is standing 4 feet in front of his own goalie?

Anyone calling Karlsson a "rover" or "winger" or "forward" really should have all their opinions discounted. Any limitations to Karlsson's game are not from him being too aggressive offensively, or cheating, or being out of position because he is trying to score, it is in his own zone, when he is playing very typical defence, like every other defenceman in the league.

It is easy to tell who doesn't watch players play, or just want to make a ridiculous hot take by those that say that many offensive defencemen are "rovers" or "forwards".

I like how you brought up Karlsson. I didn't. You can call Doughty a rover for all I care. I try my best to not get involved in specific names, because as fans we're all emotionally tied to logo's. I'm of the opinion that if Karlsson, Doughty, Subban, etc, etc, were on different teams, most people arguing who the best is would change their opinion depending on which teams they were on. Or if Doughty was Swedish, and Karlsson was Canadian, everything would flip. Everybody can't even agree that Gretzky was the best player ever, despite his massive numbers, so subjective arguments only go so far.

I'm just talking about the title of a player's position. Take the NBA as an example. They have specific names for each position, yet more and more of the players change positions from one moment to the next. It's much more fluid than it used to be. The center was a center, not a guy that can shoot 3 pointers. The point guard was a little guy who could dribble and pass. The Magic Johnson came along, and now LeBron is everything to everyone.

No need to be so defensive about it. Maybe it's time to change the language is all I said. I didn't even say rover was a negative term. I mean, depending on which zone a team is in at a given time, who would you call what? On a PP, most of the time a guy who is normally a center is playing on either wing as a play sets up. All of a sudden, you could technically call that player a left or right winger. If there's a forward at the point on a PP, is he a defenseman? That's where defensemen usually are, so he must be.

 

[Micklebot]

You know I meant Gonchar.

I just find it mind boggling that people can call good defending "overrated". Like, how does that even manage to make it through somebody's brain? Jesus. Why even draft defensemen to begin with? Just get a bunch of forwards, and the ones who aren't good enough to play in the top 6 we just convert them to defense.

This topic just pisses the **** out of me, how some people can look at the actual facts and look at the kinds of defensemen who are actually anchoring Stanley Cup winning teams and say that defense is overrated while they have their heads so firmly lodged in the sand

I think part of the problem is that you're taking the argument to an extreme. Someone like Sureves saying Defense is getting overrated isn't saying it's unnecessary, just that the gap between a Doughty and a Karlsson, as well as the affect that gap has on the outcome of games is getting exaggerated. There's certainly a case to be argued there.

As for the kind of dmen anchoring SC winning teams, well, there's also Gonchar, Boyle, Hedican/Kaberle, but we conveniently ignore those guys.

The reality is that there is no one winning formula. There is however a couple teams that happen to have been powerhouses because the team as a whole is elite that represents 5 of the last 6 cups.

Yeah, either that or they don't. Gotta love when someone is using the argument from ignorance logical fallacy.

While we can't say for certain, it's hard to argue that if Keith or Doughty played for Ottawa, they'd have no cup rings to their names. The flip side is much more difficult to predict, Karlsson could have none with either of those teams, he could have the same number, he could even have more. The point though, is that those teams are contender caliber teams built around a top end Dman. Swapping out one piece for another similar quality piece doesn't always equal the same result, but they'd still be contending quality teams with Karlsson vice Doughty/Keith; to suggest otherwise imo is frankly absurd.

We only see these types of arguments presented though, because of the equally ridiculous arguments based around team achievements; you've been guilty of these before, so I'd caution you not to throw stones in glass houses.

 

[nmbr_24]

I don't think it's so black and white, you can't judge player just by how few mistakes he makes. It depends what good he does also. These so called good stay home d-men often just throw pucks out of own zone under pressure, causing own team do nothing but defend. If there ever was statistics for the damage that causes, i wanna read that.

Anyhow, it should be more about overall result on ice. Picking on one mistake out of 10 good plays on ice is really shortsighted. I know, the bad plays end up on highlights and these players get picked by ppl. I seen plenty of pylon highlights of doughty and keith too.

But we can and do judge players by how many mistakes they make. You are talking about whether a player balances the scales with his play which is not the same issue as being bad defensively. Karlsson might tip the scales in his favor as a very good player but he can still be pretty bad defensively. Balancing the scales certainly doesn't make him good defensively. Playing solid defense will change people's minds about him though even if it takes some time.

 

[bob27]

On the contrary. There's a stigma for old defensive defencemen.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I think Letang was the 2nd best defenseman on his team in that playoff run

So...is this gonna be one of those ad hoc discussions where you add new conditions every time somebody provides a counter-argument?

Just tell me now so I won't waste time.

The topic was how there was a stigma against the aforementioned defensemen because none of them had won. Well, Letang has, and he was a crucial part of it.

 

[JayKing]

I think Letang was the 2nd best defenseman on his team in that playoff run

Gonchar still works tho (except for being young)

 

[Nithoniniel]

Defense is overrated in the sense that we used to see things as defense or offense, and there seems to be a growing awareness that we should include transition for a trinity of aspects.

What I think is necessary is to challenge what it actually means to play defense. I talk way too often with hardcore fans whose idea of defensive play for a D-man is just to clear the net and winning board battles. Those are of course important things, but defense is so much more.

That ties into the subjects here. Does Karlsson or Letang have flaws in their defensive game? Sure, but Karlsson has absolutely superb stick work and Letang could be used as an instruction video for gap control. I have these discussions on the Leafs board too, and I sometimes reference how Gardiner uses his speed to keep his stick almost constantly on the ice and in passing lanes. That's also great defensive work.

Do you need to be tough, punishing and a beast at winning board battles? Well, it helps. But if you are not, you can simply be smarter than your opponents, read the play and be first to the puck, like Letang has done over and over these playoffs.

The most overrated thing about defensive play is the idea that it's of interest without looking at transition. That's just outright false. In a general sense, the best way to play defense is influence how much the puck is in your zone. The actual situations at even strength where that is not a factor are rather limited, like last minute stands and such. What makes Doughty great defensively is that he can complement competent play in his own zone with superb transition game. If you have a defensive game without the transition, you end up being Marc Staal.

 

[Beerfish]

Not just against offensive Dmen but against all offensive players who are viewed as having one dimension. There has been a bias against those type of players for years and in some cases these players are ruined by having defense pounded into their skull.

People, fans, teams, coaches, media all seem to love the try hard 3rd liner who checks like crazy but always peels back early and has very little offensive talent. If one of these players totally fails consistently on offense they are patted on the head, if an offense player fails to execute a back check he is lambasted to the end of the earth and back again.

There is a heavy bias against offensive players in general other than the true elite top scorers.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

If the Senators don't improve Karlsson's supporting cast, then nobody will ever question why they are always bottom 5 in goals against. Karlsson can't prevent goals for an entire 60 minute game, and he can't make up for the overall team being unsuccessful. Swap him out with Duncan Keith and the Hawks probably have just as many cups and the Senators still have none.

Can't say that I agree with that. Keith was the most important player for at least one of those runs and some even argue he deserved it over Toews. Swapping him out for Karlsson would have produced different results and not for the better I think.

 

[613Leafer]

If the Senators don't improve Karlsson's supporting cast, then nobody will ever question why they are always bottom 5 in goals against. Karlsson can't prevent goals for an entire 60 minute game, and he can't make up for the overall team being unsuccessful. Swap him out with Duncan Keith and the Hawks probably have just as many cups and the Senators still have none.

Karlsson had the WORST goals against per 60 minutes of any Ottawa defender, while also having the LEAST amount of defensive zone starts. Keith had the second best goals against per 60 minutes among Chicago defencemen, while also having the MOST defensive zone starts.

Karlsson cant prevent goals for an entire 60 minutes? If Karlsson could magically play 60 minutes, Ottawas goals against would have gone up, not down.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...500&teamid=21&type=goals&sort=A60&sortdir=ASC

 

[Keeptdos]

I often compare them to one of the top D called Lidstrom who did both extraordinary. Maybe there are too high expectations for offensive Ds. Non the less those young guys mentioned are bad defensively at all, it just points out when they are rushing with the puck and make a turnover and are out of position which doesn't happen too often though. People just love to call out oppositions best players.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Pop into any Sami Vatanen trade thread and you'll be sure to see multiple posts referring to him as a "third pairing PP specialist" (which is very far from the truth). Being good on offense makes misinformed people assume that he's bad defensively.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Pop into any Sami Vatanen trade thread and you'll be sure to see multiple posts referring to him as a "third pairing PP specialist" (which is very far from the truth). Being good on offense makes misinformed people assume that he's bad defensively.

Most ideas around here can be shortened down to "Misinformed people assume things", to be honest.

 

[LeafFever]

There is a stigma against all players not known as defensive studs. Do people watch hockey? Scoring is in the toilet. Offensive play is so important.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

What's also funny is that I read (quite often) that if player X didn't have a "leash" on them and were allowed to roam the ice that they'd get same amount of points as player Y.

So pretty much offensive defenceman are bad defensively and defensive defenceman don't score as much points because they aren't allowed to.

 

[Nithoniniel]

What's also funny is that I read (quite often) that if player X didn't have a "leash" on them and were allowed to roam the ice that they'd get same amount of points as player Y.

So pretty much offensive defenceman are bad defensively and defensive defenceman don't score as much points because they aren't allowed to.

Always been a bad argument. If a coach thought one of their D-men could produce like a Karlsson, they would be all over that as such an impact on offense would be a huge boon to their team. You build around offensive talent like that, and if that means more chance taking then you make sure the other players adjust.