Is there a stigma against young offensive defensemen ?

[JS19]

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?

Interesting point. It's worth noting that it doesn't just apply to hockey players, but to sports as a whole. There's always a stigma when someone plays differently from the expected norm that the position entails. Young offensive d-men like those you mentioned are always viewed so differently because they're more offense-oriented than defense, which means it crushes the expectation that a defenseman should either solely be defensive or have a balanced offense-defense approach.

 

[Sens Rule]

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.

Protecting a lead in a close important game would see both Karlsson and Letang play about 4 minutes of the last 5 minutes.

The idea that either one aren't by far the best defencemen on their teams and used in all key situations to an extreme extent is absurd.

Is Doughty better defensively? Perhaps. But saying that Karksson and Letang aren't used in the last two minutes with a lead is just wrong. Good chance both play virtually the entire two minutes.

But hey Doughty is Scott Stevens and Karlsson and Letang are the new M A Bergeron.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

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

Uhh...

2009 Playoffs: 24GP 4G 9A 13PTS

"Pittsburgh's defensemen are way under the radar, I think," Bowman said Wednesday in a phone interview. "They're making good plays at the offensive point, quick decisions. They're not careless. That's probably the biggest improvement I've seen with the team."

Not the first thing you'd normally hear in a Penguins analysis, is it?

Bowman continued: "I think they had a big change -- a lot of people maybe haven't said it - when they got the young kid (Kris) Letang in the lineup."

Scotty Bowman - May 22, 2008

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

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Uhh...

2009 Playoffs: 24GP 4G 9A 13PTS



Scotty Bowman - May 22, 2008

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

Pfft! Scotty Bowman. What the hell has that guy ever won?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

As for the OP, I sure as hell hope there's a stigma against offensive d, so Pittsburgh can keep buying low on them and other teams can keep wondering how they're losing to a team with so many "defensively liable" defensemen who skate like the wind and transition the puck very well.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Pfft! Scotty Bowman. What the hell has that guy ever won?

I didn't bother to check his track record. He's probably just some crumb bum.

 

[Daz28]

I don't think there's a "stigma". Young defensemen are suppose to struggle at defending, especially those that have specifically honed their offensive aspect.

 

[LordZapp]

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?

The day hedman gets the respect he deserves.. One day.

 

[LordNeverLose]

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.

Not comparable.

The comparison should be TWD's defense and TWF's offense.

 

[613Leafer]

Hmm I don't know. When Pietrangelo, Hedman, Josi, etc put up ~50+ points in the past, people haven't called them weak defensively.

 

[Raspewtin]

Not even young. Offensive defensemen in general.

The old boys club that runs this league love worthless grinders that give 100% effort but have no talent and it trickles down to coaches and analysts alike.

 

[JayKing]

Well I mean, if you want to compare a guy like Keith's or Doughty cup winning rosters to the rosters Karlsson has gotten, then go right ahead.

Same goes with Subban. Especially the point production for the forwards

 

[DaveG]

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.

Yeah I'd say the stigma is FAR more among fans. Especially when it comes to players that don't really get much exposure due to the teams they play for. The number of inaccurate statements I've seen about guys like Faulk or (until the past year or so) Ellis is flat out laughable at this point.

 

[nmbr_24]

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?

When young offensive defensemen go on the offensive and do not take care of their defensive responsibilities people really notice when it costs the team. When the young player doesn't seem to learn and keeps repeating the same mistake over and over again then they get a reputation as being bad defensively. Subban made his fair share of mistakes as did every player on your list but Subban and Letang seem to have actually learned when they will get taken advantage of when they go on the offensive. Gost is still young so he has plenty of time to learn but the rest have earned their reputation.

The emphasis today is on well rounded players who don't or very rarely cost their team, offensive defensemen can be great and they can cost their team too, so can players like Kessel who is a big liability if he is on the ice and the opposition has the but in his team's defensive zone.

If someone is good defensively it will become known, if someone can be taken advantage of it will also become known. Players earn their reputation over time and initial opinions of them can change. People used to say Zdeno Chara was nothing more than a huge bottom pairing defender, it took years but he changed people's opinions of him.

 

[skillhockey]

When young offensive defensemen go on the offensive and do not take care of their defensive responsibilities people really notice when it costs the team. When the young player doesn't seem to learn and keeps repeating the same mistake over and over again then they get a reputation as being bad defensively. Subban made his fair share of mistakes as did every player on your list but Subban and Letang seem to have actually learned when they will get taken advantage of when they go on the offensive. Gost is still young so he has plenty of time to learn but the rest have earned their reputation.

The emphasis today is on well rounded players who don't or very rarely cost their team, offensive defensemen can be great and they can cost their team too, so can players like Kessel who is a big liability if he is on the ice and the opposition has the but in his team's defensive zone.

If someone is good defensively it will become known, if someone can be taken advantage of it will also become known. Players earn their reputation over time and initial opinions of them can change. People used to say Zdeno Chara was nothing more than a huge bottom pairing defender, it took years but he changed people's opinions of him.

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.

 

[darglor]

People generally don't watch other teams unless they're playing against their own team, so sample size is very small outside of highlights, which is the root of the problem because highlights are meant to entertain. Watching someone who takes the safe play most of the time doesn't titillate, whereas a highlight of a player with some offensive flair is more interesting - both when it works and when it doesn't. So that's what the highlight reels show.

Because of that, you get people thinking that Karlsson/Subban/whatever are tire fires defensively and great offensively. In reality, they're both very good defensively the vast majority of the time. The highlights only show them at their best/worst, as opposed to what they truly are. Heck, you still have people posting about how Karlsson's a glorified winger or how Letang's a liability. At least it puts an underwriting of "I have no clue what I'm talking about and you can safely discount what I'm saying" to their post.

 

[Six Assets]

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

Letang has a cup. EK and PK have won Norrisses, unlike Doughty. Guess he'll get his lifetime one this year.

How is it their fault they play for mediocre teams? Also defenceman like Doughty, such as Weber, Hedman, Giordano, Suter, Carlson, OEL, etc haven't won anything either...

Winning is a team accomplishment, especially in hockey.

 

[Six Assets]

People generally don't watch other teams unless they're playing against their own team, so sample size is very small outside of highlights, which is the root of the problem because highlights are meant to entertain. Watching someone who takes the safe play most of the time doesn't titillate, whereas a highlight of a player with some offensive flair is more interesting - both when it works and when it doesn't. So that's what the highlight reels show.

Because of that, you get people thinking that Karlsson/Subban/whatever are tire fires defensively and great offensively. In reality, they're both very good defensively the vast majority of the time. The highlights only show them at their best/worst, as opposed to what they truly are. Heck, you still have people posting about how Karlsson's a glorified winger or how Letang's a liability. At least it puts an underwriting of "I have no clue what I'm talking about and you can safely discount what I'm saying" to their post.

No one would say Karlsson and Subban are liabilities if they saw the way they played in last year's playoffs. Both of them were dominant at both ends of the rink. In this year's playoffs, Letang has been nothing short of a beast.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Not even young. Offensive defensemen in general.

The old boys club that runs this league love worthless grinders that give 100% effort but have no talent and it trickles down to coaches and analysts alike.

Yet the guys with the most talent are the ones getting most of the big contracts. Weird. Talk about a stigma though; the worthless grinder with no talent that gives 100%.

 

[JWells16]

It's funny how two-way forwards are generally lauded for their defense, but two-way defensemen get trashed for their defense.

So much of this.

 

[WesMcCauley]

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.

Well LA is built around possesion so you what you are saying dont make sense....

 

[WesMcCauley]

People generally don't watch other teams unless they're playing against their own team, so sample size is very small outside of highlights, which is the root of the problem because highlights are meant to entertain. Watching someone who takes the safe play most of the time doesn't titillate, whereas a highlight of a player with some offensive flair is more interesting - both when it works and when it doesn't. So that's what the highlight reels show.

Because of that, you get people thinking that Karlsson/Subban/whatever are tire fires defensively and great offensively. In reality, they're both very good defensively the vast majority of the time. The highlights only show them at their best/worst, as opposed to what they truly are. Heck, you still have people posting about how Karlsson's a glorified winger or how Letang's a liability. At least it puts an underwriting of "I have no clue what I'm talking about and you can safely discount what I'm saying" to their post.

This is so true. I asked in a thread this winter how many games your team dont play do you watch a week and do you think you watch every team enough to actually have an opinion that is reliable. Very few people watched alot of other teams but still, almost everyone on this forum have tons of opinions on Karlsson, Letang, Burns, OEL etc defensive game and usually its not positive... I certainly dont watch enough of Ottawa, San Jose and Arizona to have a strong opinion on their twoway. OEL and Karlsson ive watched alot in international tournaments and its funny how their defense isnt a problem at all in those tournaments. Mainly because their team is as good or even better than the other teams when they play for Sweden. Looking at Ottawa or Arizona and comparing Karlsson and OEL to Doughty and Keith is pretty unfair when the difference between the teams are as big as they are.

 

[KingsFan7824]

So much of this.

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.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Not even young. Offensive defensemen in general.

The old boys club that runs this league love worthless grinders that give 100% effort but have no talent and it trickles down to coaches and analysts alike.

This.

 

[HarrisonFord]

I can't believe there are people like you who disagree with his statement.

Defensive play is MASSIVELY overrated on HF. It's actually bordering on delusion at this point.

It's not to say that defensive play isn't important - it is - but holy smokes people take it a football field too far.

I mean there are people that used to think that Toews was better than Kane. Hell there still are. It's insanity. Insanity.

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