Player Discussion Josh Mahura

lakai17

Registered User
Aug 10, 2006
20,917
1,325
One of my favorite rookies the Ducks have today. He went under the radar league wide as a prospect.

He was definitely a reason that made Pettersson expendable. What are your thoughts and expectations out of him for this season and for the future?
 

paine

Registered User
Jun 4, 2007
6,915
168
The way he uses his body and positioning to win puck battles is remarkable for his age. He'll become a top pairing defenseman, IMO.
 

Anaheim4ever

Registered User
Jun 15, 2017
8,824
5,400
If he reaches his ceiling or exceeds it he'll eventually make Fowler expendable especially considering how soft Fowler is & doesn't produce 50 points a year for a guy who never hits.
All the other Ducks D-men are hitting machines compared to Cam.
 

Duck Off

HF needs an App
Oct 25, 2002
20,909
5,287
Oklahoma
If he reaches his ceiling or exceeds it he'll eventually make Fowler expendable especially considering how soft Fowler is & doesn't produce 50 points a year for a guy who never hits.
All the other Ducks D-men are hitting machines compared to Cam.

holy f***. do you have to bring up why you hate Fowler every thread? He drives me crazy too, but I don't feel the need to flood every thread about it.

For the OP's question: You're absolutely right in that he (and Larsson) made Marcus expendable. I think he's got #1 level potential, but definitely no lock to be that. For this season; I'd like to see him stay up until Fowler is healed on that bottom pair. Insider trading panel said we were looking for a LHD. If we get one, that likely pushes Mahura back to the minors. I'm hoping we just roll with current D and Mahura is 1st call up.
 

kroypuck

Registered User
Mar 23, 2018
360
280
If he reaches his ceiling or exceeds it he'll eventually make Fowler expendable especially considering how soft Fowler is & doesn't produce 50 points a year for a guy who never hits.
All the other Ducks D-men are hitting machines compared to Cam.

dirk?
 

Duck Off

HF needs an App
Oct 25, 2002
20,909
5,287
Oklahoma
Happy for him. This kid has been arguably my favorite prospect for some time now. He was horrible against the Rangers, and was struggling against Boston in what I saw. Hopefully this is a confidence booster for him.
 

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,162
13,178
I don’t rate him defensively but you can see the offensive upside is there.
 

ADHB

Registered User
Sponsor
Apr 9, 2012
3,906
4,583
The Fowler injury sort of messed up the timeline, but you can see the talent is there. It only shows up in brief stretches, but you can tell he has instincts that a lot of young d-men don't.
 

Hockey Duckie

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
17,093
12,041
southern cal
It's weird, but I see Mahura more as an offensive forward or someone trying to follow the footsteps of Ozolinsh. He's got a lot of offensive instincts, but defensively... I can see why Pettersson rated higher than Mahura.
 

tomd

Registered User
Apr 23, 2003
9,062
4,659
Visit site
Mahura gets into trouble a lot in the offensive and neutral zones when he tries to be too aggressive making pinches or trying to hold the puck in the zone. Constantly leads to 3-2 2-1 rushes the other way. Hopefully, he'll learn over time when to make those plays and when to back off.
 

70sSanO

Registered User
Apr 21, 2015
2,167
1,548
Mission Viejo, CA
I think it would be easier for a young d-man to improve on the defensive end than the offensive side. He may never be a really good defensive d-man, but I’d rather have a player with more offensive upside.

John
 

Hockey Duckie

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
17,093
12,041
southern cal
I think it would be easier for a young d-man to improve on the defensive end than the offensive side. He may never be a really good defensive d-man, but I’d rather have a player with more offensive upside.

John

I'd like a defenseman to know how to play defense first. They're a far more reliable commodity since, you know, they play defense. Again, this is my preference. To me, Lindholm >> Theodore. I'll take three sets of Lindholm-Manson over a set of Theodore-Justin Schultz every day and twice on Sundays.
 

AngelDuck

Rak 'em up
Jun 16, 2012
23,077
16,555
I'd like a defenseman to know how to play defense first. They're a far more reliable commodity since, you know, they play defense. Again, this is my preference. To me, Lindholm >> Theodore. I'll take three sets of Lindholm-Manson over a set of Theodore-Justin Schultz every day and twice on Sundays.
Weird comparison since Theodore/Schultz are far inferior players in general. I think anyone would prefer Lindholm-Manson there

A better question is do you take them over 3 sets of Torey Krug-John Carlson. Or something like that
 

eternalbedhead

Let's not rebuild and say we did
Aug 10, 2015
1,912
684
Corona, CA
Weird comparison since Theodore/Schultz are far inferior players in general. I think anyone would prefer Lindholm-Manson there

A better question is do you take them over 3 sets of Torey Krug-John Carlson. Or something like that
Ideally, there needs to be a balance, so that there are Torey Krugs AND Josh Mansons. We don't have to have three pairings of either type. A good defensive core has the dynamic offensive types, like Carlson, as well as the defensive stalwarts, like Lindholm. Puck-moving ability is required all around, but there are plenty of things that Krug brings to the table that Manson doesn't, and vice versa.

Josh Mahura becoming a Torey Krug would be great for this team. We have Lindholm, Manson, Larsson, and Dotchin who are all roughly in the same mold of defensively-oriented TWD, and a couple people in the system who could contribute in third-pairing roles. In terms of offensively-minded defensemen, we have Montour and maybe Fowler, and nobody in the system. Mahura at an ideal peak would be an amazing addition to our blue line, which is maybe lacking that decisive offensive punch.
 

Hockey Duckie

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
17,093
12,041
southern cal
Weird comparison since Theodore/Schultz are far inferior players in general. I think anyone would prefer Lindholm-Manson there

A better question is do you take them over 3 sets of Torey Krug-John Carlson. Or something like that

Ummm... we drafted Theodore, Schultz, Lindholm, and Manson. Maybe that's part of the reason why you'd think it's an odd question.

Theo-Schultz are inferior defensive d-men; they not inferior offensive D-men. The scope here, it seems people lack the continuity, was that people would draft offensive d-men over defensive d-men b/c "it's easier for young d-man to improve on the defensive end than offensive end."

With that AngelDucks' quote, it's disproving the OP thesis and proving mine.

Now, being a Ducks fan, we should know that our defense is usually a pairing of a stay-at-home defenseman with an offensive d-man. That usually works best in games. Then when it comes time to shut down in latter parts of the team to secure a lead, we know it's going to be two defensive d-men together. Hence, Lindholm-Manson.

The Ducks don't draft one or the other. It's whoever falls into their lap in their scouting ranks. We all know Theo has flaws, but he's very good at offense and we can pair him up with a defensive guy. But you have a defensive guy. The Ducks have been fortunate to have drafted Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, and Larsson as defensive guys. The team has drafted Vatanen, Theodore, Welinski, Montour, and Mahura as offensive guys. I don't see Fowler as an offensive machine, just a d-man who skates fast. Montour surpasses Fowler.

Right now, the team needs a Mahura to give the team a spark. To me, Mahura gambles too much offensively and his defense is meh. I still think Welinski is the more defensive-minded offensive guy. Welinski doesn't have what Mahura has right now... confidence. Welinski has confidence in the AHL (already an all-star from last year), but hasn't made that confidence jump at the NHL level yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beretta 390

eternalbedhead

Let's not rebuild and say we did
Aug 10, 2015
1,912
684
Corona, CA
Theo-Schultz are inferior defensive d-men; they not inferior offensive D-men.
The point was that Theodore or Schultz are not offensively of the same caliber that Lindholm or Manson are defensively. They're slightly better offensively than Lindholm and Manson and miles behind in their own zone. There's no equivalence at all. It's like comparing 2015 Kesler to say, Rickard Rakell. Rakell might have a mild-to-moderate edge offensively, and he might be flashy and all, but 2015 Kesler is so much better defensively that there's really no comparison.

That's why Torey Krug and John Carlson are better comparisons. In terms of offensive skill, they aren't necessarily perennial Norris contenders, but they're elite offensive defensemen nonetheless. That compares a lot better to Lindholm's/Manson's defensive acumen.

And regardless, Mahura isn't ready for the NHL just yet. There's clearly a lot of potential, but he shouldn't be up here right now.
 

cheesymc

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
3,683
1,487
Irvine
Visit site
He showed some good vision and passing. He’s still below average defensively but blocked some shots. I hope he continues to improve his skating. That would help him be stronger on his skates and be more explosive, which would help him be a good offensive Dman and at least average defensively. I was getting worried that he was regressing and was surprised that there’s still hope in his development.

One thing is that he didn’t scare me as much as Guhle... he has better positioning (or didn’t turn it over as bad, and didn’t let opponents walk around him with the puck).
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnfinishedBusiness

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->