Player Discussion Jake DeBrusk IV: The debate rages forth

SPLBRUIN

Registered User
Mar 21, 2010
11,490
10,936
Warts and all I hope he returns next game, that third line needs talent, not 4th liners like Frederick and Kuraly.
 

Fenian24

Registered User
Jun 14, 2010
10,321
13,302
Warts and all I hope he returns next game, that third line needs talent, not 4th liners like Frederick and Kuraly.
I agree the 3rd line needs talent, DeBrusk hasn't shown any of that this year.

Thought the 3rd line played much better with Coyle on RW than center. I have always believed that Coyle should be a center but as bad as he has been this year moving him to wing for a while may be needed.
 
Last edited:

MattFromFranklin

Fire Sweeney and Neely
Jun 19, 2012
4,128
3,068
Franklin, MA
If Hall signs an extension here, DeBrusk isn’t really worth keeping long-term unless he can play the right side. You don’t go out of your way and bend over backwards to keep a 3rd line LW. I don’t think he gets dealt, but I think he signs another 2 year bridge deal.
 

RHR37

Registered User
Dec 24, 2019
940
1,738
At the end of the day Debrusk and Coyle need to get going. Coyle got started last night and hopefully debrusk can follow. When playing well this 3rd line should present a lot of match up issues for other teams.

Kurarly on the 3rd line is not a solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: inactive user

mikelvl

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
5,899
2,063
Newton, MA
If Hall signs an extension here, DeBrusk isn’t really worth keeping long-term unless he can play the right side. You don’t go out of your way and bend over backwards to keep a 3rd line LW. I don’t think he gets dealt, but I think he signs another 2 year bridge deal.

Kuraly's gone after this year. It's either him or Ritchie on the 3rd line if they can afford his cap hit after all of the extensions that we are hoping for (Krecji, Hall, Tuukka, Reilly). I would take him over Ritchie for the long haul. Imagine having three left wings who can put the puck in the net (except for this year).
 
  • Like
Reactions: inactive user

MattFromFranklin

Fire Sweeney and Neely
Jun 19, 2012
4,128
3,068
Franklin, MA
Kuraly's gone after this year. It's either him or Ritchie on the 3rd line if they can afford his cap hit after all of the extensions that we are hoping for (Krecji, Hall, Tuukka, Reilly). I would take him over Ritchie for the long haul. Imagine having three left wings who can put the puck in the net (except for this year).
I think Ritchie might get protected but could be dealt after the expansion draft.
 

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,281
21,610
What have you done for me lately mentality.

He’s having a down year. No doubt.

20-30 goal scorer prior that.

Big goals in playoffs.

Talent is still there. Scoring will eventually come back.

Once. He did that once. You make it sound like he was a consistent 25-30 goal scorer for many years.

Since February of last year he's produced like a 4th line winger. This isn't a slump anymore. For whatever reason Jake Debrusk simply isn't as effective an NHL player as he once was. He could be again, but there are no guarantees. That one big goal scoring year could end up an anomaly when its all said and done.
 

Over the volcano

Registered User
Mar 10, 2006
34,053
18,246
Watertown
Once. He did that once. You make it sound like he was a consistent 25-30 goal scorer for many years.

Since February of last year he's produced like a 4th line winger. This isn't a slump anymore. For whatever reason Jake Debrusk simply isn't as effective an NHL player as he once was. He could be again, but there are no guarantees. That one big goal scoring year could end up an anomaly when its all said and done.
Pretty tough criticism for a guy who's only been in the league for two full seasons.

Hope he gets right and finds a positive mental space as he's been sitting. A break, with the right kind of supports, might be the best thing for him as a person and for his game
 
  • Like
Reactions: inactive user

Jean_Jacket41

Neely = HOF
Jun 25, 2003
25,502
13,735
With the smurfs
Once. He did that once. You make it sound like he was a consistent 25-30 goal scorer for many years.

Since February of last year he's produced like a 4th line winger. This isn't a slump anymore. For whatever reason Jake Debrusk simply isn't as effective an NHL player as he once was. He could be again, but there are no guarantees. That one big goal scoring year could end up an anomaly when its all said and done.

Rookie season: 16 goals in 70 games, 43pts

2nd season: 27 goals in 68 games, 42pts

3rd season: 19 goals in 65 games, 35pts

That may not be the case to you but to me, this is a 20-30 goal scorer based on his first 3 years.

This year: 4 goals in 34 games, 11pts

Way off his average. Poor production.

Huge goals in the past few years in the playoffs.

He gets a pass from me for this anormal Covid season. Can still redeem himself when it counts in the playoffs.

If subpar production continues next year, then I could be worried.

Skills still there. He’s not 45 and in decline. Scoring will be back. Even if it’s at a reduced 3rd line option.

Writing him off is foolish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: inactive user

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,281
21,610
Rookie season: 16 goals in 70 games, 43pts

2nd season: 27 goals in 68 games, 42pts

3rd season: 19 goals in 65 games, 35pts

That may not be the case to you but to me, this is a 20-30 goal scorer based on his first 3 years.

This year: 4 goals in 34 games, 11pts

Way off his average. Poor production.

Huge goals in the past few years in the playoffs.

He gets a pass from me for this anormal Covid season. Can still redeem himself when it counts in the playoffs.

If subpar production continues next year, then I could be worried.

Skills still there. He’s not 45 and in decline. Scoring will be back. Even if it’s at a reduced 3rd line option.

Writing him off is foolish.

I'm not writing him off, but I'd also say counting on his production going back up (even if he never reaches his peak levels again) is also kind of foolish. This is a fairly flawed hockey player IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff

MattFromFranklin

Fire Sweeney and Neely
Jun 19, 2012
4,128
3,068
Franklin, MA
Rookie season: 16 goals in 70 games, 43pts

2nd season: 27 goals in 68 games, 42pts

3rd season: 19 goals in 65 games, 35pts

That may not be the case to you but to me, this is a 20-30 goal scorer based on his first 3 years.

This year: 4 goals in 34 games, 11pts

Way off his average. Poor production.

Huge goals in the past few years in the playoffs.

He gets a pass from me for this anormal Covid season. Can still redeem himself when it counts in the playoffs.

If subpar production continues next year, then I could be worried.

Skills still there. He’s not 45 and in decline. Scoring will be back. Even if it’s at a reduced 3rd line option.

Writing him off is foolish.
The issue is that he's not doing the one thing that makes him fairly productive - constantly standing around the net. That's pretty much the only way he scorers goals (tipped shots, rebounds, crashing the net, etc.). I watched tape of his 27 goals from 2 seasons ago and all but a handful were when he wasn't a few feet/inches from the net. Now, those 27 goals may have been inflated. There were about 3-4 that were because of a fluke bounce or when his stick hit a puck that was going to be going in anyway.

I know his hockey IQ isn't great, but I can't understand how Jake doesn't realize he needs to be near the net the entire time the puck is in the offensive zone. He's a one-dimensional/flawed goal scorer, so why can't he do this one thing? Even back in Juniors the thing on him was that he was good around the net but average/mediocre when he was on the perimeter.

If I were Cassidy, I'd staple his skates right outside the crease.
 

ODAAT

Registered User
Oct 17, 2006
52,169
20,199
Victoria BC
Rookie season: 16 goals in 70 games, 43pts

2nd season: 27 goals in 68 games, 42pts

3rd season: 19 goals in 65 games, 35pts

That may not be the case to you but to me, this is a 20-30 goal scorer based on his first 3 years.

This year: 4 goals in 34 games, 11pts

Way off his average. Poor production.

Huge goals in the past few years in the playoffs.

He gets a pass from me for this anormal Covid season. Can still redeem himself when it counts in the playoffs.

If subpar production continues next year, then I could be worried.

Skills still there. He’s not 45 and in decline. Scoring will be back. Even if it’s at a reduced 3rd line option.

Writing him off is foolish.
for me, production is needed but it`s not just about him finding the back of the net or creating opportunities for others, it`s watching him literally float and/or be completely stationary as he waits for a puck to come to him. Does flybye`s when forechecking more than any other Bruin rather than engage and force the opponent to make a decision that might not be wise.

When he is playing focused, he doesn`t do those things, he can play better, we have all seen it, the very things people here slammed Bjork on are eerily similar to what JDB does the majority of times but fans excuse him too often

When he returns to the lineup, if he doesn`t play motivated having watched a team win in his absence and bring that game to the playoffs, I`ll be livid
 

BadBruins

Registered User
Aug 10, 2005
9,933
1,532
PEI
Once. He did that once. You make it sound like he was a consistent 25-30 goal scorer for many years.

Since February of last year he's produced like a 4th line winger. This isn't a slump anymore. For whatever reason Jake Debrusk simply isn't as effective an NHL player as he once was. He could be again, but there are no guarantees. That one big goal scoring year could end up an anomaly when its all said and done.

From the time he made his debut in 2017 to through February 1st of last year, DeBrusk had 60 goals/117 points in 186 career regular season games. 70 goals/136 points in 222 games if you include playoffs.

Since that point he has 6 goals/14 points in 51 games. Generally with top-6 minutes and some PP time. As you said, 4th line wing production. Basically Anders Bjork.

I'd still like to think that big chunk of 222 games to start his career is the real Jake DeBrusk. That's basically a 25 goal/50 point player over a good sample size at a young age. I am legitimately concerned however.

I would be willing to bet the last 50 odd regular season games are the bigger anomaly just based on his own shooting percentages and overall abnormal circumstances around the league and world.
 

trenton1

Bergeron for Hart
Dec 19, 2003
13,504
8,611
Loge 31 Row 10
I think if they re-sign Hall and Jake doesn't somehow become an indispensable asset to the Bruins this spring/summer, then a change of scenery trade can possibly net the Bruins a solid top 4 defenseman (like Ekholm) after the expansion draft.
If it weren't for the expansion draft, I think such a trade would have already happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gordoff and sarge88

inactive user

Registered User
Aug 20, 2020
4,942
7,360
The issue is that he's not doing the one thing that makes him fairly productive - constantly standing around the net. That's pretty much the only way he scorers goals (tipped shots, rebounds, crashing the net, etc.). I watched tape of his 27 goals from 2 seasons ago and all but a handful were when he wasn't a few feet/inches from the net. Now, those 27 goals may have been inflated. There were about 3-4 that were because of a fluke bounce or when his stick hit a puck that was going to be going in anyway.

I know his hockey IQ isn't great, but I can't understand how Jake doesn't realize he needs to be near the net the entire time the puck is in the offensive zone. He's a one-dimensional/flawed goal scorer, so why can't he do this one thing? Even back in Juniors the thing on him was that he was good around the net but average/mediocre when he was on the perimeter.

If I were Cassidy, I'd staple his skates right outside the crease.
Maybe he just doesn’t want to pay the price of being in front of the net.
 

The National

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2017
29,112
31,730
Los Angeles
I think if they re-sign Hall and Jake doesn't somehow become an indispensable asset to the Bruins this spring/summer, then a change of scenery trade can possibly net the Bruins a solid top 4 defenseman (like Ekholm) after the expansion draft.
If it weren't for the expansion draft, I think such a trade would have already happened.
I agree, unless Seattle takes Ritchie. That would help solve the 3LW situation a bit.

If not, I still don’t think they move on from Jake for some reason. I think they look at this year as a fluke year and aren’t willing to move him because of it. Just a hunch I have.

I’d love for them to move Jake if a decent middle 6 RW is coming back for that 3RW slot. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they hang on to him.

Maybe Virtanen, although he’s not have a much better year. Garland if you can pull it off, but will need to sweeten the deal and find a way to fit his new contract.
 

member 96824

Guest
That’s how I feel. Of course, he could have peaked and just lost it, but I’m leaning towards a rebound.

IMO "peaked" probably isn't the right word for what 2018-19 was. More like an outlier. He'll have one or two more of those seasons..as players in his range tend to do. He'll also have outliers on the downside, like this year. Maybe not as bad, but definitely seasons where shooting % falls. The same way Tyler Toffoli is neither a 13 goal scorer(2019) when he was shooting 5% or a 45 goal scorer(which is his per 82 pace this year) when he's shooting closer to 18%

Last years numbers align with his averages and what I would expect Jake to do consistently. When you total up all of his games, reg season and playoffs, you net out about there. 22-24 goals on a per 82 basis.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->