League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) - COVID Offseason Edition

[Hivemind]

Agreed. I don't care about either guy's paycheck. I'd rather have Mantha than a guy with Vrana's attitude issues. I hope he matures and puts all that behind him, but we were way beyond "Fool me once..." territory with him.

Except Mantha has those same issues. He's frequently accused of lazy play and streaky performances. He had zero goals in his last fifteen games with the Capitals last year (counting the playoffs). He's not a guy that really gets the jump after pucks and digs them out of corners, preferring instead of set up in the soft ice and let his teammates play puck retriever for him. He's not a defensive wiz or a PKer, either.

The "addition by subtraction" mentality of removing Vrana for his attitude only makes sense if the guy they bring back doesn't have the same concerns.

 

[Langway]

Vrana signs 3x $5.25M with the Wings. Told y'all he wasn't going to be $6M.

It only includes one UFA season so it's not all that much of a bargain either. The AAV is favorable for Detroit but that shouldn't be a tremendous concern for them. That they didn't go longer-term and soften on the AAV is the big takeaway here I think.

In three years he'll be able to cash in to a much greater extent if he can sustain quality top six production along with a lot more PP time. It's a much better contract for Vrana long-term provided he makes good offensively in a very pronounced role. I'm guessing he'll be moved at some point before it's up and perhaps that was the plan all along given that they're not really close to contention. It's good value for them but it's not a long-term pact.

 

[g00n]

Except Mantha has those same issues. He's frequently accused of lazy play and streaky performances. He had zero goals in his last fifteen games with the Capitals last year (counting the playoffs). He's not a guy that really gets the jump after pucks and digs them out of corners, preferring instead of set up in the soft ice and let his teammates play puck retriever for him. He's not a defensive wiz or a PKer, either.

The "addition by subtraction" mentality of removing Vrana for his attitude only makes sense if the guy they bring back doesn't have the same concerns.

I must've missed the part where Mantha keeps landing in the doghouse with coaches at every level and was even scratched twice in big games (the playoffs 2018 for Vrana)

 

[Hivemind]

It only includes one UFA season so it's not all that much of a bargain either. The AAV is favorable for Detroit but that shouldn't be a tremendous concern for them. That they didn't go longer-term and soften on the AAV is the big takeaway here I think.

In three years he'll be able to cash in to a much greater extent if he can sustain quality top six production along with a lot more PP time. It's a much better contract for Vrana long-term provided he makes good offensively in a very pronounced role. I'm guessing he'll be moved at some point before it's up and perhaps that was the plan all along given that they're not really close to contention.

It's almost exactly what evolving hockey had predicted ($5.28M for 3 years). It's pretty much equivalent or slightly better than most of the other similar RFA-to-UFA deals signed recently. Certainly a better value than Labanc, basically the same as Bjorkstrand (albeit Bjorkstrand's came with a M-NTC to lower AAV). The comments about price are mostly directed at the folks who have claimed that the Mantha deal would somehow save the Capitals cap space compared to Vrana's contract, which is now demonstrably false.

He can potentially cash in once he hits UFA, but I'm not reading much into Detroits intent at this point. Yzerman has exactly zero players on deals that last past 2o24 (when Vrana's expires). And even with the players they have under contract, they're barely over the salary floor. Detroit will certainly have that cap space to pay him if they determine he fits their window from rebuilding to contending, and they'll move him if he doesn't. Yzerman has maintained flexibility above all else in his roster construction.

 

[g00n]

It's pretty much exactly what evolving hockey had predicted ($5.28M for 3 years). It's pretty much equivalent or slightly better than most of the other similar RFA-to-UFA deals signed recently. Certainly a better value than Labanc, basically the same as Bjorkstrand (albeit Bjorkstrand's came with a M-NTC to lower AAV). The comments about price are mostly directed at the folks who have claimed that the Mantha deal would somehow save the Capitals cap space compared to Vrana's contract, which is now demonstrably false.

He can potentially cash in once he hits UFA, but I'm not reading much into Detroits intent at this point. Yzerman has exactly zero players on deals that last past 2o24 (when Vrana's expires). And even with the players they have under contract, they're barely over the salary floor. Detroit will certainly have that cap space to pay him if they determine he fits their window from rebuilding to contending, and they'll move him if he doesn't. Yzerman has maintained flexibility above all else in his roster construction.

"Cost certainty" was the main item, not necessarily saving cap space. I think gmbm even said this (a political answer if there ever was one...you can't say "we traded him because the coaches were sick of his shit") but I'm not going to waste time googling proof for someone who ignores everyone.

 

[Jags]

Except Mantha has those same issues.

The "addition by subtraction" mentality of removing Vrana for his attitude only makes sense if the guy they bring back doesn't have the same concerns.

I disagree. Mantha losing his mojo after years of cellar-dwelling isn't the same as Vrana being a headcase his whole hockey career and not being able to get it together for a contender that put his name on the Stanley Cup.

And the trade should send a message to Mantha -- "We got rid of this kid for being a shitheel. Please don't be a shitheel."

I'll take a clean slate with Mantha over more years of Vrana's bullshit. You're perfectly entitled to feel otherwise.

 

[Hivemind]

I disagree. Mantha losing his mojo after years of cellar-dwelling isn't the same as Vrana being a headcase his whole hockey career and not being able to get it together for a contender that put his name on the Stanley Cup.

And the trade should send a message to Mantha -- "We got rid of this kid for being a shitheel. Please don't be a shitheel."

I'll take a clean slate with Mantha over more years of Vrana's bullshit. You're perfectly entitled to feel otherwise.

I wouldn't view it as "losing his mojo after years of cellar-dwelling." Mantha's lazy reputation began right near the beginning of his career, and has been a constant. It wasn't really a progression/regression thing. It was Detroit fans wanting him to dominate games the way he's capable of when he fully asserts himself. But instead he played in a passive/lazy fashion far too often, and didn't grow out of it like they hoped he would.

 

[kicksavedave]

I wouldn't view it as "losing his mojo after years of cellar-dwelling." Mantha's lazy reputation began right near the beginning of his career, and has been a constant. It wasn't really a progression/regression thing. It was Detroit fans wanting him to dominate games the way he's capable of when he fully asserts himself. But instead he played in a passive/lazy fashion far too often, and didn't grow out of it like they hoped he would.

Where have I heard this tune before?

Its almost like, some athletes have an extra gear which they can summon occasionally, but not permanently. We have our own version already... I suspect most every team has 1 or 2 guys like this.

 

[Hivemind]

Where have I heard this tune before?

Its almost like, some athletes have an extra gear which they can summon occasionally, but not permanently. We have our own version already... I suspect most every team has 1 or 2 guys like this.

I fully agree. Which is why I don't agree with trading away Vrana because people were frustrated that he didn't find that gear consistently. All the complains about his defensive play and supposed lackluster effort levels would vanish while he was scoring consistently and creating his own offense.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I fully agree. Which is why I don't agree with trading away Vrana because people were frustrated that he didn't find that gear consistently. All the complains about his defensive play and supposed lackluster effort levels would vanish while he was scoring consistently and creating his own offense.

We know. You’d be the best GM, like, ever. Bar none.

Every bad move made, you’d have avoided. Every good move made, you’d have done earlier and done it ….. even better.

we are all so fortunate — on this Caps message board — to be able to witness your greatness and cheer your every success. Awestruck, Even?

we are all very excited to see your next brilliant move. Bated breath, really.

 

[Cappy76]

I fully agree. Which is why I don't agree with trading away Vrana because people were frustrated that he didn't find that gear consistently. All the complains about his defensive play and supposed lackluster effort levels would vanish while he was scoring consistently and creating his own offense.

It wasn't just that though. It was the fact that he wouldn't do what the coaches were asking continuously. Simply being frustrated that Mantha isn't the same player as Vrana is missing the mark. Mantha isn't the same player - the hope is that he turns a corner playing on a contender and not being the guy, while still putting up solid numbers and not being the liability that Vrana was on the ice and not being the headache to coaches. Vrana brought zero if he wasn't scoring. Mantha brings size and more toughness and better defensive play and doesn't come with the tag "difficult to coach".

 

[Hivemind]

It wasn't just that though. It was the fact that he wouldn't do what the coaches were asking continuously. Simply being frustrated that Mantha isn't the same player as Vrana is missing the mark. Mantha isn't the same player - the hope is that he turns a corner playing on a contender and not being the guy, while still putting up solid numbers and not being the liability that Vrana was on the ice and not being the headache to coaches. Vrana brought zero if he wasn't scoring. Mantha brings size and more toughness and better defensive play and doesn't come with the tag "difficult to coach".

The frustration is that Mantha has the same downsides as Vrana, combined with the larger trend on the team of becoming slower and lacking neutral zone transition threats.

Mantha brings physical size, but he doesn't really bring much of the toughness, grit, or defensive play that people stereotypically associate with size. He's physically big, but his effort level to use that size to assert his will on the ice is inconsistent at best. He doesn't use his size in the corners to win puck battles, instead preferring to find the soft ice and let his line mates feed him the puck for a scoring chance. He's like a far less talented Ovechkin in that respect (and thus why I thought they were poor when paired together on the same line), only that he doesn't bring the huge hits like Ovechkin. His effort level when backchecking is mediocre-at-best. He doesn't kill penalties. The only area he uses his size is getting in front of the net. Can Mantha be good for Washington? I definitely hope so, but I disagree with those who claim that he lacks the same downsides as Vrana.

The narrative of Vrana being a liability and not bringing anything when not scoring is overblown. Vrana was still the team's most dangerous transition threat, and second behind Kuzy in terms of gaining the opposite zone with puck possession. This is something the team sorely lacks now, and basically relegates every line on the team to having to play dump-and-chase hockey. He was also one of the better players on the team at dishing the puck, particularly when skating at speed. The Capitals didn't always present him with good seam passes to hit off the rush, but he found them when they existed. Fans, and sometimes coaches/management, get hung up on what a player doesn't do rather than seeing what a player does do. That's what happened with Vrana. You don't put a tow package on your sports car and treat it like a pick-up truck.

In a vacuum, the Vrana/Mantha trade could be a fine change of scenery trade (albeit, with a very expensive 1st & 2nd attached to it). But there's the larger picture to be considered. The Capitals have become systematically slower and more predictable with each passing season since the cup. Removing Vrana didn't do it alone, but the combination of aging/slowing star players with removing Vrana, Burakovsky, and Stephenson has. Any one of the trades can be defended on its own, but when you step back and look a the bigger picture it's obvious that the Capitals are old and the Capitals are slow. The Captials lone threat to gain the zone with possession against a trapping team is now Kuznetsov. The rest of the team is stuck playing chip-and-chase hockey or praying that the other team gets caught in a bad line change. The Capitals most likely winger to spring a breakaway or odd-man rush is now Wilson. Ovechkin, Mantha, Sprong (if the coaches trust him), and Carlson are dangerous if given space, but they don't have the wheels to back off defenders in the neutral zone or burn a Top 4 D out wide. The Capitals have become a one-note offensive team, and when the other team is able to prepare for it (like, say, in a playoff series) it stifles their ability to generate chances consistently.

 

[g00n]

Vrana was a breakaway specialist and a problem for the coaches. AAV and "inconsistency" aren't the only comparables between the two.

 

[Cappy76]

The frustration is that Mantha has the same downsides as Vrana, combined with the larger trend on the team of becoming slower and lacking neutral zone transition threats.

Mantha brings physical size, but he doesn't really bring much of the toughness, grit, or defensive play that people stereotypically associate with size. He's physically big, but his effort level to use that size to assert his will on the ice is inconsistent at best. He doesn't use his size in the corners to win puck battles, instead preferring to find the soft ice and let his line mates feed him the puck for a scoring chance. He's like a far less talented Ovechkin in that respect (and thus why I thought they were poor when paired together on the same line), only that he doesn't bring the huge hits like Ovechkin. His effort level when backchecking is mediocre-at-best. He doesn't kill penalties. The only area he uses his size is getting in front of the net. Can Mantha be good for Washington? I definitely hope so, but I disagree with those who claim that he lacks the same downsides as Vrana.

The narrative of Vrana being a liability and not bringing anything when not scoring is overblown. Vrana was still the team's most dangerous transition threat, and second behind Kuzy in terms of gaining the opposite zone with puck possession. This is something the team sorely lacks now, and basically relegates every line on the team to having to play dump-and-chase hockey. He was also one of the better players on the team at dishing the puck, particularly when skating at speed. The Capitals didn't always present him with good seam passes to hit off the rush, but he found them when they existed. Fans, and sometimes coaches/management, get hung up on what a player doesn't do rather than seeing what a player does do. That's what happened with Vrana. You don't put a tow package on your sports car and treat it like a pick-up truck.

In a vacuum, the Vrana/Mantha trade could be a fine change of scenery trade (albeit, with a very expensive 1st & 2nd attached to it). But there's the larger picture to be considered. The Capitals have become systematically slower and more predictable with each passing season since the cup. Removing Vrana didn't do it alone, but the combination of aging/slowing star players with removing Vrana, Burakovsky, and Stephenson has. Any one of the trades can be defended on its own, but when you step back and look a the bigger picture it's obvious that the Capitals are old and the Capitals are slow. The Captials lone threat to gain the zone with possession against a trapping team is now Kuznetsov. The rest of the team is stuck playing chip-and-chase hockey or praying that the other team gets caught in a bad line change. The Capitals most likely winger to spring a breakaway or odd-man rush is now Wilson. Ovechkin, Mantha, Sprong (if the coaches trust him), and Carlson are dangerous if given space, but they don't have the wheels to back off defenders in the neutral zone or burn a Top 4 D out wide. The Capitals have become a one-note offensive team, and when the other team is able to prepare for it (like, say, in a playoff series) it stifles their ability to generate chances consistently.

Then your issue isn't with the trade it's with the team as it's constructed - Right or wrong the team isn't made to be this a quick carry the puck in team. They're built as big players that force the play physically and grind you down. Vrana wasn't made for this team as constructed, Mantha is and you proved the point for me with your description of him being a large player. Looking at strictly the way the team is constructed Vrana doesn't fit. Mantha brings the size that the rest of the team has and the ability to play a heavier game. Vrana was nonexistent on the back check, Mantha is not. Vrana couldn't park in front of the net, Mantha can. Vrana is little more than a speedy goal scorer it isn't a knock on him it's just the facts. Add to it that at least 3 coaches had issues with getting him to buy in to the team philosophy and Mantha is the much better fit. You add the kicker of 1st and 2nd round picks as if the fact that the cap dump wasn't there in Panik as well.

It's so old getting on these boards and reading about what Trotz is doing whenever the Ilse are playing well. Vrana after his new deal. You bring up Burky and Stephenson - which I doubt very seriously anyone was clamoring over when they left. It sucked but was what we needed at the time. While were at it lets talk about trading Robert Lang when he was leading the NHL in scoring for that matter. Or trading Jagr for Anson Carter just to see him go put up 120 pt seasons. And in case someone isn't aware the last bit is

 

[g00n]

Maybe, just maybe, the coaches and GM know more about what's going on between them and the player than we do.

And maybe....MAYBE they were looking for the closest possible replacement value--not and upgrade per se--without losing their ass on a player they had to move. And all other judgments are pointless for that reason.

Maybe.

 

[Langway]

Yes yes yes. Now let's rehash Trotz again. More.

 

[Hivemind]

Then your issue isn't with the trade it's with the team as it's constructed - Right or wrong the team isn't made to be this a quick carry the puck in team. They're built as big players that force the play physically and grind you down. Vrana wasn't made for this team as constructed, Mantha is and you proved the point for me with your description of him being a large player. Looking at strictly the way the team is constructed Vrana doesn't fit. Mantha brings the size that the rest of the team has and the ability to play a heavier game. Vrana was nonexistent on the back check, Mantha is not. Vrana couldn't park in front of the net, Mantha can. Vrana is little more than a speedy goal scorer it isn't a knock on him it's just the facts. Add to it that at least 3 coaches had issues with getting him to buy in to the team philosophy and Mantha is the much better fit. You add the kicker of 1st and 2nd round picks as if the fact that the cap dump wasn't there in Panik as well.

Yes, my issue is how the roster is constructed. This trade is part of how the roster was constructed, and is emblematic of the removal of pace from this team.

Not every player has to play the exact same game. In fact, you actively don't want your roster to be 100% the same type of player. You want to be able to synergize, and find combinations that work well together. You need to present the opponent with more than one look, or else they can simply overload to counter your look. You need to have some speed through-out your roster to back guys off. This doesn't mean you aren't playing "heavy hockey." Heavy hockey benefits from having speed and skill to pair with your mucking players. The speed backs off the opposing D on the rush, and creates space to gain the opposing zone with possession. Having that speed creates options to distribute the puck as you gain the zone, and creates seams to feed the puck back to the weak side of the ice (and getting the puck to the weak side is something that Laviolette absolutely loves). Without that speed thru the neutral zone, you're stuck having to chase the play constantly, and your F3 is caught higher in the zone in defensive positioning as result.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll be believe Laviolette. Here's a presentation he gave in 2016 about creating offense. He lays out three over-arching offensive attacks, although the later two are basically variations on the same concept (one in which your player gets to the puck first and one in which the opponent gets to the puck first). His first, and preferred option, is to carry it in with speed. He literally says the phrase "I would love to see the puck with wide speed."


Being physically large doesn't mean you play large. Just like having straight ahead speed doesn't mean you are going to be a good fit on a fast team. Playing fast means you are able to execute plays in stride, and find seams for yourself and other players. Playing large means you have to use your size to create possessions. Mantha is very inconsistent in the usage of his size, both offensively and defensively. He very often plays a small man's game, trying to set up in a scoring area and let his line mates feed him the puck rather than dragging it out of the corner himself.

I want all the "heavy game" advocates to explain what they think a "heavy game" actually means. Not in platitudes about "playing big" or "wearing the opponent down." What's the actual system a heavy game entails? What forechecking scheme? Who do you envision being our F1s, F2s, and F3s under a nominal rush? How do they obtain and maintain puck possession? Who gains the zone and in what fashion? How do they beat a left wing lock? How do they beat a 1-2-2 trap? Give me specifics. Not platitudes or empty rhetoric.

Once you think thru the actual X-Os of playing heavy hockey, you'll quickly see the value of speed to this team.

This isn't some "ohh, look how good our former players are doing" post, so I'm going to ignore that paragraph. Vrana was brought up because he got a new contract, and I expanded on the point I had made previously during discussions of the trade that he wouldn't be more expensive than Mantha (something that supporters of the trade had claimed was a rationale behind the trade).

 

[txpd]

Yes yes yes. Now let's rehash Trotz again. More.

I vote for Forsberg

 

[txpd]

What is heavy hockey? It's the hockey version Joe Gibbs, John Riggins, Hogs football. Deliver a physical beating as a matter of course and force battles with big players(Backstrom and Eller qualify). The opponent. Gets beaten, broken and worn down. NFL defenses could stop Riggins in the 1st quarter but not in the 4th when game was to be won.

See the Caps cup run. Fall behind early. Win the series with late run of wins. Heavy hockey is exactly what happened to Tampa

 

[Hivemind]

What is heavy hockey? It's the hockey version Joe Gibbs, John Riggins, Hogs football. Deliver a physical beating as a matter of course and force battles with big players(Backstrom and Eller qualify). The opponent. Gets beaten, broken and worn down. NFL defenses could stop Riggins in the 1st quarter but not in the 4th when game was to be won.

See the Caps cup run. Fall behind early. Win the series with late run of wins. Heavy hockey is exactly what happened to Tampa

I asked for X-O specifics, not platitudes. You literally had to pick another sport as an analogy rather than giving specifics. You just gave platitudes once again.

How did your version of heavy hockey work against the Hurricanes, Islanders, or Bruins these past 3 years? Shouldn't they have done even better now that they're a "heavier" team when subtracting guys like Burakovsky, Vrana, and Djoos for guys like Mantha, Chara, and Hagelin? Or, you know, they could neither prevail in a long series (Hurricanes) nor even make the Islanders or Bruins series go long...

The "heavy hockey" that worked against Tampa had Burakovsky and Vrana and Stephenson. It had those transition threats. It had that speed and skill that enables the rush offense to work. Hell, Burakovsky potted 2 in game 7.

 

[Cappy76]

Yes, my issue is how the roster is constructed. This trade is part of how the roster was constructed, and is emblematic of the removal of pace from this team.

Not every player has to play the exact same game. In fact, you actively don't want your roster to be 100% the same type of player. You want to be able to synergize, and find combinations that work well together. You need to present the opponent with more than one look, or else they can simply overload to counter your look. You need to have some speed through-out your roster to back guys off. This doesn't mean you aren't playing "heavy hockey." Heavy hockey benefits from having speed and skill to pair with your mucking players. The speed backs off the opposing D on the rush, and creates space to gain the opposing zone with possession. Having that speed creates options to distribute the puck as you gain the zone, and creates seams to feed the puck back to the weak side of the ice (and getting the puck to the weak side is something that Laviolette absolutely loves). Without that speed thru the neutral zone, you're stuck having to chase the play constantly, and your F3 is caught higher in the zone in defensive positioning as result.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll be believe Laviolette. Here's a presentation he gave in 2016 about creating offense. He lays out three over-arching offensive attacks, although the later two are basically variations on the same concept (one in which your player gets to the puck first and one in which the opponent gets to the puck first). His first, and preferred option, is to carry it in with speed. He literally says the phrase "I would love to see the puck with wide speed."


Being physically large doesn't mean you play large. Just like having straight ahead speed doesn't mean you are going to be a good fit on a fast team. Playing fast means you are able to execute plays in stride, and find seams for yourself and other players. Playing large means you have to use your size to create possessions. Mantha is very inconsistent in the usage of his size, both offensively and defensively. He very often plays a small man's game, trying to set up in a scoring area and let his line mates feed him the puck rather than dragging it out of the corner himself.

I want all the "heavy game" advocates to explain what they think a "heavy game" actually means. Not in platitudes about "playing big" or "wearing the opponent down." What's the actual system a heavy game entails? What forechecking scheme? Who do you envision being our F1s, F2s, and F3s under a nominal rush? How do they obtain and maintain puck possession? Who gains the zone and in what fashion? How do they beat a left wing lock? How do they beat a 1-2-2 trap? Give me specifics. Not platitudes or empty rhetoric.

Once you think thru the actual X-Os of playing heavy hockey, you'll quickly see the value of speed to this team.

This isn't some "ohh, look how good our former players are doing" post, so I'm going to ignore that paragraph. Vrana was brought up because he got a new contract, and I expanded on the point I had made previously during discussions of the trade that he wouldn't be more expensive than Mantha (something that supporters of the trade had claimed was a rationale behind the trade).

First - Didn't watch the video it's over 5 years old and Lavi's idea of what worked then could have changed. I completed understand how speed works in the NHL. What I'm saying is that this isn't at all how the Caps play hockey based on what I see not a 5 year old video of our coach who's mind may have changed or adjusted based on current roster building. You say that heavy hockey benefits from having speed and skill to pair with the mucking players - what you don't take into account is that our "mucking players" are our skill guys. Ovechkin, Oshie, Wilson, ect. those are our skill guys but they're also our "heavy" guys as well.

A heavy game is being physical and "wearing the opponent down" I don't understand why this can't be the answer other than you just don't like it as the answer. Playing the heavy game in my opinion means you're "heavy" up and down your line up and you're forcing your opponents to make a quick decision on a play or get ran over. You're asking for schematics on how to coach a team as a heavy team I'm not going to take the time or the effort as it's not relevant to this discussion.

This was a 100% a "ohh, look how good our former players are doing" post, just as they are when Trotz, Forsberg, insert other ex cap. If he doesn't sign the contract you're not posting about it and whining that Mantha makes more, or begging for our justification as to why we're not getting out the pitch forks on GMBM. The simple fact is that BM indicated addressed a need to move on from a player that wasn't buying into the system.

GMBM flat out said that Mantha was part cost certainty he's signed for 4 years vs Vrana who at the time the number wasn't known. So now it comes down to Mantha 3 more years at 5.75 and Vrana 3 years at 5.25. To me taking the two players into account and forgetting everything to do with team building and what not since we can't seem to agree on that, you're looking at:

5.75 a year for a 6 year pro that is a larger player and shown an all around game. Has been deemed lazy at times

Vs

5.25 a year for a 5 year pro that has high end speed and shown the ability to finish has noted coaching issues, and has been deemed lazy at times.

 

[Hivemind]

First - Didn't watch the video it's over 5 years old and Lavi's idea of what worked then could have changed. I completed understand how speed works in the NHL. What I'm saying is that this isn't at all how the Caps play hockey based on what I see not a 5 year old video of our coach who's mind may have changed or adjusted based on current roster building. You say that heavy hockey benefits from having speed and skill to pair with the mucking players - what you don't take into account is that our "mucking players" are our skill guys. Ovechkin, Oshie, Wilson, ect. those are our skill guys but they're also our "heavy" guys as well.

A heavy game is being physical and "wearing the opponent down" I don't understand why this can't be the answer other than you just don't like it as the answer. Playing the heavy game in my opinion means you're "heavy" up and down your line up and you're forcing your opponents to make a quick decision on a play or get ran over. You're asking for schematics on how to coach a team as a heavy team I'm not going to take the time or the effort as it's not relevant to this discussion.

This was a 100% a "ohh, look how good our former players are doing" post, just as they are when Trotz, Forsberg, insert other ex cap. If he doesn't sign the contract you're not posting about it and whining that Mantha makes more, or begging for our justification as to why we're not getting out the pitch forks on GMBM. The simple fact is that BM indicated addressed a need to move on from a player that wasn't buying into the system.

GMBM flat out said that Mantha was part cost certainty he's signed for 4 years vs Vrana who at the time the number wasn't known. So now it comes down to Mantha 3 more years at 5.75 and Vrana 3 years at 5.25. To me taking the two players into account and forgetting everything to do with team building and what not since we can't seem to agree on that, you're looking at:

5.75 a year for a 6 year pro that is a larger player and shown an all around game. Has been deemed lazy at times

Vs

5.25 a year for a 5 year pro that has high end speed and shown the ability to finish has noted coaching issues, and has been deemed lazy at times.

If you understand how speed works in the NHL, give me the X-Os about heavy hockey that I asked for. This isn't "semantics," this is actually hockey analysis and hockey coaching. It is 100% what this discussion is about.

If you don't, maybe swallow your pride and watch the video. Trust me, even-strength hockey hasn't completely re-invented itself in the past 5 years.

You can certainly have skill and be heavy. You can certainly be fast and be heavy. In fact, most of the best heavy players ARE fast. But right now the Capitals don't have that speed anymore. They don't have anyone who can back-up the opponent in the neutral zone, and open up options to create plays with possession off the rush. They don't have that wide drive threat.

Ovechkin has never been much of a "mucker." He definitely hits people, but he's not the guy battling it out in the corner or establishing a down-low cycle game. Him screening the goalie ahs been a relatively new development, and it's still not all that common. He'd much rather prefer to find a soft spot in the defensive coverage and set up for a one-timer. We all know this.

Oshie isn't a speed guy. He has hands, but he's always been slow, and getting slower.

Wilson is the only one you mentioned that brings that pairing of speed, skill, and heavy gameplay. But as I mentioned in a previous post, if Wilson is your best bet at generating a wide rush on the team, that's not a great place to be in.

These heavy + skill guys are wearing down and getting slower and slower for the Capitals. The solution isn't to bring in more heavy, it's to bring in the speed that can compliment these players and create room for them to work with by forcing the defense to play on their heels. Speed forces the defense to react to you, rather than your forwards reacting to the defense.

Once again, this topic was brought up because another poster linked to a tweet about Vrana's arbitration asks. Then Vrana follows it up with the new contract shortly afterwards. This was about proving the notion that Vrana would be more expensive than Mantha was and is factually incorrect.

Trying to hang your hat on coaching issue as to why the price difference is there....
Red Wings coach Jeff Blashill calls out Anthony Mantha
https://detroitsportsnation.com/jef...nhl/detroit-red-wings-news/02/07/2021/244554/

 

[Cappy76]

If you understand how speed works in the NHL, give me the X-Os about heavy hockey that I asked for. This isn't "semantics," this is actually hockey analysis and hockey coaching. It is 100% what this discussion is about.

/

Nope I'm good with the breakdown I provided above in my last post. It's tiresome at this point

 

[Hivemind]

Nope I'm good with the breakdown I provided above in my last post. It's tiresome at this point

Empty platitudes from someone who doesn't understand hockey, got it.

 

[g00n]

Empty platitudes from someone who doesn't understand hockey, got it.

LOOK AT ME I CAN SAY "F1 AND F2" I KNOW HOCKEY NOT U

Great stuff