Observations XXV

[FossilFndr]

version XXIV was about 1000 posts ... so continue here.

Click to read more...

 

[jumb0]

At what point do we start to worry that we havent heard a Josi extension announced?

A year from now?

 

[PredsV82]

A year from now?

That's silly. Poile has said extending Josi is a priority. If it hasnt happened by training camp that's a worrisome sign that Josi wants a lot more than Poile is willing to pay. No way it ends well if this drags on into the season

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

That's silly. Poile has said extending Josi is a priority. If it hasnt happened by training camp that's a worrisome sign that Josi wants a lot more than Poile is willing to pay. No way it ends well if this drags on into the season

I'm not gonna get worried by a Josi extension. I mean, I go on and on about just about everything here. But that's one item that doesn't faze me one bit. Josi will sign 8x$8M as a honeymoon gift, I predict. But even if it takes a little longer than that, I have no fear whatsoever that it's coming.

 

[jumb0]

I'm not gonna get worried by a Josi extension. I mean, I go on and on about just about everything here. But that's one item that doesn't faze me one bit. Josi will sign 8x$8M as a honeymoon gift, I predict. But even if it takes a little longer than that, I have no fear whatsoever that it's coming.

All of this.

 

[PredsV82]

All of this.

Well fine but that's not what you said. You said next summer. Which is silly for the reasons I noted. I'll stretch my imagination that Poile would actually put Sissons and Grimaldis contracts before Josis but if Josi isnt extended by mid to late August, we have a problem.

 

[Montross]

I'm not gonna get worried by a Josi extension. I mean, I go on and on about just about everything here. But that's one item that doesn't faze me one bit. Josi will sign 8x$8M as a honeymoon gift, I predict. But even if it takes a little longer than that, I have no fear whatsoever that it's coming.

8x8? Sign me up!

 

[jumb0]

Well fine but that's not what you said. You said next summer. Which is silly for the reasons I noted. I'll stretch my imagination that Poile would actually put Sissons and Grimaldis contracts before Josis but if Josi isnt extended by mid to late August, we have a problem.

If nothing's done by next summer, then I would start to worry. I'm not going to worry now, because in my mind I see an 8x8 deal coming sometime this summer.
Poile may in fact put Sissons/Grimaldi "ahead" but only because of the hard dates for the arbitration hearings.

 

[GeauxPreds1]

I'm not gonna get worried by a Josi extension. I mean, I go on and on about just about everything here. But that's one item that doesn't faze me one bit. Josi will sign 8x$8M as a honeymoon gift, I predict. But even if it takes a little longer than that, I have no fear whatsoever that it's coming.

I also think well see poile give him a rare ntc.

 

[LCPreds]

I still have some scars from our last 2 big name D men going into UFA and then RFA. So I'll only be concerned if he isn't signed when the TDL comes and goes.

 

[LCPreds]

I've never played hockey (unless we can count NHL 'xx) so these may be rather ignorant questions. I did play competitive basketball and understand that, for the most part, it seemed as if you got slotted into your position based on height/size initially and then skill in certain areas. There was some separation, point guard/shooting guard might come down simply to which is better at protecting and distributing the ball. Small/Power forward were typically driven by size. Center is obviously size. But then of course you have freaks like Lebron, Durant, etc. who can play up or down the lineup regardless of traditional roles.

So that leads me to my questions about hockey.

Why are hockey players generally so pigeon holed into Forward vs. D-Man? Is it really that difficult to transition between the 2? I understand why one might not go from a Winger to a Center but fail to see why the opposite would be so difficult. I've seen all kinds of D-Men in all kinds of sizes and skillsets. Hell, Josi looks more like a F to me. So why is it you see so few players transition from F to D and vice versa? Buff comes to mind as a good example of this transition.

This basically came to mind as I continue to see increased concern surrounding our D depth (from #4 - #6).

 

[EXTRAS]

What you guys think the forward lines will look like this season?

 

[TitansVolsPreds615]

Didn't Ellis sign his extension right after he got married? Maybe Josi's contract will be a similar "wedding gift" from Poile.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I've never played hockey (unless we can count NHL 'xx) so these may be rather ignorant questions. I did play competitive basketball and understand that, for the most part, it seemed as if you got slotted into your position based on height/size initially and then skill in certain areas. There was some separation, point guard/shooting guard might come down simply to which is better at protecting and distributing the ball. Small/Power forward were typically driven by size. Center is obviously size. But then of course you have freaks like Lebron, Durant, etc. who can play up or down the lineup regardless of traditional roles.

So that leads me to my questions about hockey.

Why are hockey players generally so pigeon holed into Forward vs. D-Man? Is it really that difficult to transition between the 2? I understand why one might not go from a Winger to a Center but fail to see why the opposite would be so difficult. I've seen all kinds of D-Men in all kinds of sizes and skillsets. Hell, Josi looks more like a F to me. So why is it you see so few players transition from F to D and vice versa? Buff comes to mind as a good example of this transition.

This basically came to mind as I continue to see increased concern surrounding our D depth (from #4 - #6).

I think it's a bit down to the individual - some forwards or D are probably a little more capable of changing than others. But also the deltas are amplified as you get to higher and higher levels with more and more elite skill specialization. Like me, I'm always RW, and really there is no other place I could play (except LW of course) just because my skating isn't good enough. You have to be a really good skater especially at D. I'm also just not instinctively good at D - I always go for the puck and can't seem to handle gaps and body positioning properly playing D - even though I know in my head what I should do, I just don't do it instinctively enough to avoid getting torched on D. Maybe over time I could learn to do it better, but I don't have years of that time invested.

And that's just me playing rec pickup. In the NHL these guys are like PhD's in their super-elite areas of specialization, and while they're all geniuses at hockey, I don't know that it's fair to ask your expert in general relativity to write a paper in some advanced branch of biochemistry. Everything happens so fast they have to have their reactions so burned in, they can't take time to think things through on the ice.

I still think it's a bigger deal for any F switching back to D than vice versa, though. Being a 4th line winger, I reckon any D could do that if they had to. It's a low impact role where the basic skills are sufficiently transferable and the specialization isn't as big a deal. But anybody switching back to D is really where the challenge is. So much of the timing and positioning you just have to burn in with years and years of experience so even if you are a good enough skater I think that's got to be a tough thing to accomplish - and every shift and every game is so important at the NHL level no coach is going to make any investment or have patience for a learning curve at that level.

My rambling thoughts on it anyway. Somebody more experienced might see it differently or describe it better.

 

[triggrman]

I think that's a good explanation.

I've played mostly defense but have played center as well. I'm not a good winger, I'm just not as good as timing the passes coming from behind me, and I'm not comfortable being in front of the play in the neutral zone.

I also get bored easily if I'm not on defense. I like to control entries, breakouts etc. And still nothing better than catching a winger counting his change come across after a pass.

 

[NightowlPred]

instinctively

That is probably your key word right there.
I never played ice hockey on a competitive level. I am an innebandy (hello swedish friends) player and almost always play defense just because when I transitioned from juniors I had a coach who spotted that I am instinctively doing the right things on D (reading the play, gap controll but also communication skills). Just the same way there are guys who always seem to be in the right spot to score
If you know your strength, play towards it I guess..

 

[Predsanddead24]

I still think it's a bigger deal for any F switching back to D than vice versa, though. Being a 4th line winger, I reckon any D could do that if they had to. It's a low impact role where the basic skills are sufficiently transferable and the specialization isn't as big a deal. But anybody switching back to D is really where the challenge is. So much of the timing and positioning you just have to burn in with years and years of experience so even if you are a good enough skater I think that's got to be a tough thing to accomplish - and every shift and every game is so important at the NHL level no coach is going to make any investment or have patience for a learning curve at that level.

This is an interesting point for sure. I would imagine if you put someone like Josi up at forward he could probably be a top 6 winger, but even putting a pretty good defensive center like Johansen back on defense and I'm not sure he'd be capable of being a top 4 defenseman.

Your point about instinct is especially important too. Even in beer league hockey if you hesitate you're turning the puck over and that's amplified x1000 in the NHL. You basically have to have made the play before it even happens.

 

[PredsHead]

I've never played hockey (unless we can count NHL 'xx) so these may be rather ignorant questions. I did play competitive basketball and understand that, for the most part, it seemed as if you got slotted into your position based on height/size initially and then skill in certain areas. There was some separation, point guard/shooting guard might come down simply to which is better at protecting and distributing the ball. Small/Power forward were typically driven by size. Center is obviously size. But then of course you have freaks like Lebron, Durant, etc. who can play up or down the lineup regardless of traditional roles.

So that leads me to my questions about hockey.

Why are hockey players generally so pigeon holed into Forward vs. D-Man? Is it really that difficult to transition between the 2? I understand why one might not go from a Winger to a Center but fail to see why the opposite would be so difficult. I've seen all kinds of D-Men in all kinds of sizes and skillsets. Hell, Josi looks more like a F to me. So why is it you see so few players transition from F to D and vice versa? Buff comes to mind as a good example of this transition.

This basically came to mind as I continue to see increased concern surrounding our D depth (from #4 - #6).

I am in the same boat, have never played outside of video games and floor hockey and have wondered similar things myself. It sounds as though the game is moving into a more "hybrid" type system at least in the younger ranks, that doesn't use the standard positions and tries to encourage players to be more creative and well-rounded. I listen to several hockey shows and podcasts and have often heard the hosts make note of this when referring to their kids playing in midgets or other kids leagues. I think you can already see it with some of the young defensemen coming up. They play an almost a "rover" type position where they basically just watch the puck carrier then use their skill and awareness to turn any mistake into a rush the other way. Every time I was watching some of Cale Makar's highlights at UMass, I would find myself asking what position is he actually playing? I think you can see it in the forwards some as well, I could be wrong but there seem to be less "specialists" out there than say 10 years ago. It seems like every team had at least one guy who couldn't play a lick of defense and at least one who couldn't score to save his life. Now those guys are pretty rare and seem to be getting rarer. Laine doesn't just stand out because of his one timer, his complete lack of interest in anything happening in his own zone also makes him special.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I am in the same boat, have never played outside of video games and floor hockey and have wondered similar things myself. It sounds as though the game is moving into a more "hybrid" type system at least in the younger ranks, that doesn't use the standard positions and tries to encourage players to be more creative and well-rounded. I listen to several hockey shows and podcasts and have often heard the hosts make note of this when referring to their kids playing in midgets or other kids leagues. I think you can already see it with some of the young defensemen coming up. They play an almost a "rover" type position where they basically just watch the puck carrier then use their skill and awareness to turn any mistake into a rush the other way. Every time I was watching some of Cale Makar's highlights at UMass, I would find myself asking what position is he actually playing? I think you can see it in the forwards some as well, I could be wrong but there seem to be less "specialists" out there than say 10 years ago. It seems like every team had at least one guy who couldn't play a lick of defense and at least one who couldn't score to save his life. Now those guys are pretty rare and seem to be getting rarer. Laine doesn't just stand out because of his one timer, his complete lack of interest in anything happening in his own zone also makes him special.

There may well be defensemen who can play all over the ice and rush the puck nicely. That wasn't so rare in the old days either... there were a lot of D who put up big points and joined the rush a lot more than we have seen in the last couple decades. So in a way, it would be more reverting to previous norms than something totally new.

But I think in terms of playing D --- even playing D badly at the NHL level takes skating and some awareness of positioning and instincts that most forwards just haven't honed. You can choose to focus your attention in different areas, but when it still comes down to it, the guy who has played D for 10 years coming up through the ranks does have an advantage over the forward. But you can take a guy like Karlsson... he's an example where in Ottawa he just always had the green light to be wherever he wanted on the ice, and his high points totals and poor defensive reputation both reflect that. He's a lot more like the old time Housley/Coffey types and maybe the way the new Makar class wants to be. But for all that they may choose to play a more offensive style, I think they all also have the experience and instincts to do a better job defensively than a forward switched back would.

I don't think you have to look too hard to figure out where the Preds braintrust sits, though. Look at the picks lately... Del Gazio and Chystyakov are like 5'10/180, Stastney, Carrier, Girard, Farrance... picking up Davies, even signing Fortunato... they are definitely not loading up on bruisers on the blueline. The mobile skill guys definitely seem to be where the Preds are looking on D.

 

[triggrman]

There may well be defensemen who can play all over the ice and rush the puck nicely. That wasn't so rare in the old days either... there were a lot of D who put up big points and joined the rush a lot more than we have seen in the last couple decades. So in a way, it would be more reverting to previous norms than something totally new.

But I think in terms of playing D --- even playing D badly at the NHL level takes skating and some awareness of positioning and instincts that most forwards just haven't honed. You can choose to focus your attention in different areas, but when it still comes down to it, the guy who has played D for 10 years coming up through the ranks does have an advantage over the forward. But you can take a guy like Karlsson... he's an example where in Ottawa he just always had the green light to be wherever he wanted on the ice, and his high points totals and poor defensive reputation both reflect that. He's a lot more like the old time Housley/Coffey types and maybe the way the new Makar class wants to be. But for all that they may choose to play a more offensive style, I think they all also have the experience and instincts to do a better job defensively than a forward switched back would.

I don't think you have to look too hard to figure out where the Preds braintrust sits, though. Look at the picks lately... Del Gazio and Chystyakov are like 5'10/180, Stastney, Carrier, Girard, Farrance... picking up Davies, even signing Fortunato... they are definitely not loading up on bruisers on the blueline. The mobile skill guys definitely seem to be where the Preds are looking on D.

Poile has actually always stayed true to the more offensive type defensemen. Kimmo, Zidlicky, Suter, Josi, Ellis, even guys like Hamhuis, Berehoswky, Bouchard and Daignteault, were good skating defensemen.

 

[braindead]

Poile has actually always stayed true to the more offensive type defensemen. Kimmo, Zidlicky, Suter, Josi, Ellis, even guys like Hamhuis, Berehoswky, Bouchard and Daigneault, were good skating defensemen.

If getting good skating D wasn’t his inclination to begin with, I can assure that watching Bill Houlder and (no d) An*y *elmore skate would make you want to flush your eyes with bleach.

 

[predhead1]

If getting good skating D wasn’t his inclination to begin with, I can assure that watching Bill Houlder and (no d) An*y *elmore skate would make you want to flush your eyes with bleach.

This is a very bad trip down memory lane.

 

[Gh24]

But anybody switching back to D is really where the challenge is. So much of the timing and positioning you just have to burn in with years and years of experience so even if you are a good enough skater I think that's got to be a tough thing to accomplish - and every shift and every game is so important at the NHL level no coach is going to make any investment or have patience for a learning curve at that level.

Defending odd man rushes is a good example.

Pay attention how well Ellis plays those 2on1's. He's positioning himself nearly perfectly and effectively defend with his stick to have a high chance to intercept the pass, but is still close enough to the puck carrier to prevent him from driving the net. Closer to the net they get, lower the shooting angle is and more Ellis can favor blocking the pass.

Of course should the puck carrier pass, reacting to the situation also comes naturally. If you're still far from the net you just maintain your position between the two forwards trying to block another pass. You know your goalie has reacted to the first pass and may not be able to react to another one in time.

Closer to the net they get, more important it is to be able to block that pass. So while you're forcing a smaller shooting angle, a successful pass gets more dangerous as well. This is where you can - with few quick passes - make a defender look bad making pirouettes.

While forwards know how to defend 2 on 1 situation, it doesn't come naturally or instinctively. They often end up favoring pass or shooting lane too much providing an easier decision for the puck carrier. Favor the puck carrier, he passes the puck, you turn around and lose some speed so the initial puck carrier blows by you and it's a 2 on 0. Or even if you stick with the initial puck carrier it's a possible breakaway for the other forward.

As a dman, you don't think about your position. You've done it so many times you just "know". Doesn't apply to everyone and a more defensively minded forward may be better at this than an offensive dman who may very well be the reason that odd man rush developed anyway. Just an easy to picture example.

 

[braindead]

Reading an article yesterday about the Preds I stumbled across a fact that I had lost in the shuffle of our historically awful 18-19 PP: apparently the Preds had the second worst shooting percentage for a nhl team in the last twelve years. Maybe everyone and their brother knew that? I take some comfort from that, actually, since it should revert somewhere closer to the norm, even after taking into account non-random factors about this team that may contribute to the low percentage.

 

[PredsV82]

Reading an article yesterday about the Preds I stumbled across a fact that I had lost in the shuffle of our historically awful 18-19 PP: apparently the Preds had the second worst shooting percentage for a nhl team in the last twelve years. Maybe everyone and their brother knew that? I take some comfort from that, actually, since it should revert somewhere closer to the norm, even after taking into account non-random factors about this team that may contribute to the low percentage.

This is the kind of thing the analytics people use to explain unexpected performance. I remember a few years ago someone had an unusually high shooting percentage and sure enough their numbers came down.

I'm kind of amazed that the team was that bad as a whole because I assumed Arvy and Forsberg both shot pretty well to score as much as they did despite missing a lot of games