Jalen Chatfield: Thoughts?

[chaputonyou]

Having watched Chatty for a number of games....I'm pleasantly surprised. Calm, reliable, quick, aggressive, this is a guy who should be playing in the Canucks top 6, and eventually killing penalties regularly.

One of the things I like about Chatfield: he doesn't try to do too much. He plays his game, and doesn't try to keep it too simple either - he actually tries to move the puck up the ice with good passes as opposed to just banking a puck out of his zone off the glass. He doesn't go out of his way to be overly aggressive and take penalties, but he's not afraid to stick up for a teammate, like he did when he leveled Brady Tkachuk with the Canucks up 4-1 in the third period.

Everyone rolled their eyes whenever Benning brought up Chatfield, pointing to Rafferty or Rathbone as the next defenseman to play in the top 6 or 7. Chatfield has looked better than either one of them.

What do you guys think? I'd hate to see Chatfield in the press box/taxi squad once Hamonic heals up.

Chaput

Click to read more...

 

[Canuck Luck]

You haven't even seen Rathbone in a NHL game, none of us have, how can you say Chatfield has looked better than him?

 

[Pip]

I think he’s a pretty limited player. Can skate and brings an edge but his play with the puck and general smarts aren’t quite there. Could work in a pinch but not a regular IMO

 

[Fatass]

Having watched Chatty for a number of games....I'm pleasantly surprised. Calm, reliable, quick, aggressive, this is a guy who should be playing in the Canucks top 6, and eventually killing penalties regularly.

Everyone rolled their eyes whenever Benning brought up Chatfield, pointing to Rafferty or Rathbone as the next defenseman to play in the top 6 or 7. Chatfield has looked better than either one of them.

What do you guys think? I'd hate to see Chatfield in the press box/taxi squad once Hamonic heals up.

Chaput

I like him too, but he has stone hands. He handles the puck like it’s a hot potato.

 

[chaputonyou]

You haven't even seen Rathbone in a NHL game, none of us have, how can you say Chatfield has looked better than him?

Good point - I only saw scrimmage footage of Rathbone. I did see Rafferty play - he didn't look great early on in Montreal game, but settled down.

 

[82Ninety42011]

I liked that he stuck up for teammate against Tkachuk however I wouldn't get too excited about him. He's a stable depth guy that I wouldn't want to play higher than 3rd pairing. He plays a simple game and that role is best on 3rd pairing slash 7th Dman. That he's a righty will help him stay in the league though as long as he sticks to his game.

 

[Pip]

Rafferty was put in a pretty tough situation and hasn’t been given another opportunity. I thought after the first period he was looking much better

 

[canuckking1]

Plays too conservative for my liking. The one time he even thought about half committing to the offence he froze and coughed up the puck.

 

[MS]

He's the sort of guy who won't hurt you much in a couple-game cup of coffee in an injury crunch because he generally keeps things simple and is positionally sound.

In the bigger picture, he's too limited to ever envision as a regular NHL defender. The play is simply in his zone too much and goals will bleed because he can't transition the puck well enough.

 

[Lupuls Grit]

The fact he's better than I expected doesn't mean I think he's a top 6 defenceman. I don't see him as anything other than a depth guy. He may work better for Green's preferred LH and RH alignment, but I believe Juolevi not only has more upside but is currently more valuable in the 6D role. Of course, Stecher is significantly better than both of them...

 

[rypper]

Plays too conservative for my liking. The one time he even thought about half committing to the offence he froze and coughed up the puck.

I've noticed this as well, seem his default is to dump it in and change, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (usually the safe play. ) Maybe as he gets comfortable he'll look at other options.

 

[Fatass]

He's the sort of guy who won't hurt you much in a couple-game cup of coffee in an injury crunch because he generally keeps things simple and is positionally sound.

In the bigger picture, he's too limited to ever envision as a regular NHL defender. The play is simply in his zone too much and goals will bleed because he can't transition the puck well enough.

I see a lot of Biega in Chatfield.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Does he actually bring better play than we've gotten from Biega, Schenn, or even a Fantenberg or Brisebois? I personally don't see it. He's very vanilla without any standout features like size, plus skating, plus physicality, to balance out his minus hands and minus awareness.

 

[Nucker101]

I don’t mind him defensively but he sucks at moving the puck which is a big problem. Strong forechecking teams will eat him alive. His size will also be a problem against bigger teams.

 

[David71]

he's tanev-lite but with the added physicality. and moves the puck pretty well. can play PK and stick to being simple. other than that hes alright.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

My expectations were very low - so he has definitely exceeded them. I'd say it's a pleasant surprise how solid he has been. I didn't have him pegged as having an NHL future, to be honest, but now I think he could be a serviceable 5/6/7 guy.

Certainly appreciate his effort level. He's a hard working guy who plays it safe.

 

[JAK]

Pair him with Quinn with the sole task of, give the puck to Quinn and defend him if needed.

 

[VanJack]

I guess we were prepped by some of the Utica posters who were underwhelmed with his play in the AHL.....That, and the fact that he seemed to chronically injured. And with just four assists in the 38 games he did play, how could you possibly project the guy as an NHL d-man?

But I'd say that his entry into the Canucks lineup has been a pretty low-event situation. Expectations weren't high and he's clearly surpassed them. And the fact he's a right-shot d-man has helped him a lot.

But the fact that he appears to have surpassed both Juloevi (a fifth overall pick) and Rafferty (who was light-years better in the AHL last season) on the depth chart, can't be considered 'a positive', can it?

 

[Diversification]

I guess we were prepped by some of the Utica posters who were underwhelmed with his play in the AHL.....That, and the fact that he seemed to chronically injured. And with just four assists in the 38 games he did play, how could you possibly project the guy as an NHL d-man?

But I'd say that his entry into the Canucks lineup has been a pretty low-event situation. Expectations weren't high and he's clearly surpassed them. And the fact he's a right-shot d-man has helped him a lot.

But the fact that he appears to have surpassed both Juloevi (a fifth overall pick) and Rafferty (who was light-years better in the AHL last season) on the depth chart, can't be considered 'a positive', can it?

Has he surpassed Juolevi? Or is it more the case that Green opts to play him over OJ?

To my eye, Chatfield is a pleasant surprise in that it's reassuring to know he's there to slot in for a few games in case of injury. But OJ has definitely looked more dynamic - better puck skills, outlet passing, more physical. As a longer term goal, I would try and ease OJ into more games because he appears to have an upside (#4 as his ceiling) that Chatfield does not.

 

[JumpierPegasus]

I'm shocked with the fact he's been better than I expected. However, I don't see him ever being better than a #7 at the NHL level. He's low event and doesn't really do anything positive or negative, which is good for a guy coming into the lineup for an injury. But I don't see him ever being a lineup staple

Nothing wrong with him being a cheap #7 option though, that's a win for an undrafted guy

 

[Peen]

I'm shocked with the fact he's been better than I expected. However, I don't see him ever being better than a #7 at the NHL level. He's low event and doesn't really do anything positive or negative, which is good for a guy coming into the lineup for an injury. But I don't see him ever being a lineup staple

Nothing wrong with him being a cheap #7 option though, that's a win for an undrafted guy

I think a #7 is a bit of a stretch but quote me if I'm wrong in two years.

 

[orcatown]

Kind of junk yard dog of a player. Has enough speed to get to the play and then scrum hard enough to keep play along the boards or to the outside. Biggest improvement has been an increased ability to make a pass and then move up quickly to support the player getting the pass. Puck comes loose and he's there to bang the puck out or to get the puck into the offensive zone.

Down side is his stick work and lack of offensive up side. Little like Benn in this area but may have better speed than Benn.

Has provided some physical presence although I'm not sure he can scrape well enough to back up some of his aggressiveness. One quality I think is best to like is that he is here to get a job and will do what he has to get that job. There has been IMO nothing tentative about his play.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Kind of junk yard dog of a player. Has enough speed to get to the play and then scrum hard enough to keep play along the boards or to the outside. Biggest improvement has been an increased ability to make a pass and then move up quickly to support the player getting the pass. Puck comes loose and he's there to bang the puck out or to get the puck into the offensive zone.

Down side is his stick work and lack of offensive up side. Little like Jamie Benn in this area but may have better speed than Benn.

Has provided some physical presence although I'm not sure he can scrape well enough to back up some of his aggressiveness. One quality I think is best to like is that he is here to get a job and will do what he has to get that job. There has been IMO nothing tentative about his play.

Agreed with everything here - except I’m guessing you meant Jordie Benn.

 

[GermanSpitfire]

he’s been playing against Ottawa in all fairness.

 

[orcatown]

Agreed with everything here - except I’m guessing you meant Jordie Benn.

Yup