Should we consider a philosophical shift with how we play/construct defense?

[Frk It]

Read this quote today from Arizona's GM

"The philosophy is fairly simple. It's when we don't have the puck, recover the puck as quickly as possible. There are all kinds of different forms where you can gain possession of the puck, some of them are physical and some of them are non-physical, so I think you need a blend to have both. Once you get the puck back it's to transition the puck. Defense isn't about defending, it's about getting the puck in the forwards' hands and getting the puck moving into the offensive zone. It's about transitioning. That's the philosophy and that's been the theme behind the moves that we're making, let's get players who can get pucks back and get pucks up to forwards in an efficient and effective manner. We think we've taken strides here. We hope there is an improvement. We believe there will be an improvement. Now it's about continuing to look to tweak it. We also have Anthony DeAngelo on the back end. We traded for him and we think he's a real treat for forwards to play with because he gets them the puck in positions where they can be successful and he can join the rush himself. We're hoping for an impact from him at some point in this season. We're hopeful that the whole group can continue to grow together.

And this seems to be the way things are shifting, or have been shifting the last few years across the league.

I've always been in favor of true two way defenseman, that are good at both ends of the ice. Guys who don't get abused by forwards, but can also QB a PP and make plays in the offensive zone.

But you see the love affair and Norris trophies for guys like Erik Karlsson, who is an absolutely incredible offensive talent, but almost just looks at times like he isn't even interested in playing defense. (let's not turn this thread into a Karlsson debate, just trying to give a prominent example here)

The idea of prioritizing having the puck more, so you have to defend less, as opposed to being good at defending, is an interesting one to me. It almost makes me think of how D'Antoni coached the Suns, where he basically just told them to play half ass defense and focus on scoring.

What are your thoughts? Is this maybe why we haven't discovered any hidden gems on defense? Have we maybe shied away from guys with big offensive potential that can't defend?

Click to read more...

 

[ArGarBarGar]

It would help to get a defenseman somehow who is considered a top-pairing guy, period. Or even a #1. You can get an offense-first guy who can be incredibly valuable on the top pairing. Right now we are seeing some of our young forwards starting to grow but the defense has been stagnant for a couple of years at least.

Kronwall filled in admirably as a #1 guy for a time, but he isn't either of those things anymore, and I don't see DD becoming that either unless his offense takes an uncharacteristic boost. At this point I'll take what I can get, and I don't think the issue in our drafting is philosophy moreso than it is sometimes really difficult to get a top-pairing defenseman outside of the first round (and they come in defensive, offensive, and two-way, there really is no winning formula).

 

[njx9]

I don't think that a focus on defensive defensemen has anything to do with our inability to find high potential offensive defensemen. For example, Sproul was our highest touted guy for ages (seemingly) and he's certainly not a defense-first guy. I don't think Kindl was really a defensive specialist, either.

I think we've had two problems: we haven't drafted enough defensemen (15/64 in the last 7 years, with most of those at the bottom of the draft), and severe talent regression/injury issues (Ericsson and Kronwall, specifically). Further, we don't give minutes to our better offensive defensemen (Smith), instead making time for players like Ericsson who don't play physical or fast.

That said, I would happily embrace an organizational shift to guys who can actually pass to the forwards in a breakout, or at least do a little more than tie up opposing forecheckers with as little contact as humanly possible.

 

[Henkka]

There's something on this discussion.

Pittsburgh won the Stanley Cup with this kind of defensive thinking. Defence = transition. Mistake-machine Justin Schultz wasn't any kind of problem for them.

It was kind of also our game, when Lidström and Rafalski were around. Everybody remembers Rafalski, mistake-prone as hell, but man he was a transition-beast at the level of Karlsson.

But it still doesn't change the reality that some defensively sound guys are needed. It would more be a weighted change from, defensive TOP4 and 2 offensive specialists to ---> Offensive Top4 and 2 defensively solid guy, who can do something with the puck.

That would mean, Ericsson, Kronwall, Quincey one-by-one die off from the roster beucase of age regression. Keep DeKeyser and Marchenko, who fit on that defensive mold. Keep Green, who is all-offensive, bring in offensive kids (Russo, Saarijärvi, Cholowski, Sproul)

Probably transition in organizational thinking is already coming. We have drafted now highly skilled guys like Saarijärvi. He would fit on the Pittsburgh mold. Who cares less if he can't defend, if he keeps the puck all the time?

 

[Frk It]

Further, we don't give minutes to our better offensive defensemen (Smith), instead making time for players like Ericsson who don't play physical or fast.

That said, I would happily embrace an organizational shift to guys who can actually pass to the forwards in a breakout, or at least do a little more than tie up opposing forecheckers with as little contact as humanly possible.

This is interesting to me. How many guys like Ericsson, Quincey, do you need on a team? Do you even need any? We seem to like this safe, stay at home guys. I mean we even played Lashoff far more games at the NHL level than he ever should have seen.

Maybe it's not a factor for how we draft. We have drafted guys like Sproul, Saarijarvi, Almqvist who are one-dimensional, offensive guys. But I don't know if I could see us drafting someone like Jake Bean in the 1st, for example.

 

[njx9]

This is interesting to me. How many guys like Ericsson, Quincey, do you need on a team? Do you even need any? We seem to like this safe, stay at home guys. I mean we even played Lashoff far more games at the NHL level than he ever should have seen.

Maybe it's not a factor for how we draft. We have drafted guys like Sproul, Saarijarvi, Almqvist who are one-dimensional, offensive guys. But I don't know if I could see us drafting someone like Jake Bean in the 1st, for example.

Absolutely agree. If Ericsson would play physically and use his size, I think there's room for that kind of player, though probably not in the top pairing role he had for so long. But just big and slow? Non-additive. I think Quincey was at least defensively sound enough to have a role, but I'm not sure he'd have one on a team with some actual defensive talent.

Agree on Bean, though I've been surprised lately by our drafting. If we did draft him, I have a hard time believing he'd crack the NHL lineup without doing a lot to fundamentally change his game.

 

[Frk It]

Absolutely agree. If Ericsson would play physically and use his size, I think there's room for that kind of player, though probably not in the top pairing role he had for so long. But just big and slow? Non-additive. I think Quincey was at least defensively sound enough to have a role, but I'm not sure he'd have one on a team with some actual defensive talent.

Agree on Bean, though I've been surprised lately by our drafting. If we did draft him, I have a hard time believing he'd crack the NHL lineup without doing a lot to fundamentally change his game.

Interesting that Bean was taken by Carolina, who is one of the teams that is more into analytics than teams like us are I'd imagine. So maybe they don't even want him to fundamentally change his game, or maybe not nearly as much as a team like Detroit would want.

Kind of what I'm getting at here, it's an interesting thought to me. Should you ask players like that to fundamentally change?

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

Through a combination of faster forwards who back check harder, an incredible lack of interference calls, and very strong goaltending league-wide, the very purpose of the position of defenseman has changed. It's not very important to be a beast 1 on 1. But the Wings have been really slow in picking up on that, and it's burned them. They have a lot of resources tied up in shutdown defenders. And the few offensively-inclined guys they've got, they misuse.

It's really a bit of a mess right now. The Wings are out of step. For so long, they set the pace for the rest of the league, and teams copied them. Now, it's like they're too arrogant to copy others.

 

[Frk It]

I'd like to see Ryan Sproul implemented into the back end this year. Ideally, I'd love for him to take Ericsson's spot. I will live with his boo-boo's in the D zone, as long as he can generate offense and push the play up ice.

This also kind of ties to the stigma surrounding Smith. He does some dumb stuff, but his perception seems a lot more harsher than it really should be. I would be good with trying to get him back into the top 6 as well.

Maybe we need to be more open minded to pairings that could provide offense but also make mistakes in the D zone.

 

[obey86]

I've said it before on here, I think the Red Wings value the wrong attributes in defensemen.

 

[Flowah]

I don't see DD becoming that either unless his offense takes an uncharacteristic boost.

Is DK a good puckmover?

My eyes say he's not. My eyes say he's a simple player who gets the puck out but does little in the way of springing forwards or keeping the offense alive. I know his possession stats are bad, but is there another stat that tracks first passes out of the zone or something?

Because to me, more important than scoring more goals or getting more assists, is the quick transition. Few of our d-men seem capable of it. I think it's really hamstringing us.

 

[Frk It]

What pairings could we come up with that would put more of an emphasis on possession and having the puck more/offense?

If we could acquire Fowler, I would love something like

Fowler-Green
Dekeyser-Sproul
Kronwall-Marchenko

For some reason I think Dekeyser and Sproul could work very well together. Or switch him for Marchenko, if Sproul on the 2nd pair is too radical.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

I think you are over analyzing it. Talented players can make anything work.

Wings just don't have any.

 

[Yemack]

Read this quote today from Arizona's GM



And this seems to be the way things are shifting, or have been shifting the last few years across the league.

I've always been in favor of true two way defenseman, that are good at both ends of the ice. Guys who don't get abused by forwards, but can also QB a PP and make plays in the offensive zone.

But you see the love affair and Norris trophies for guys like Erik Karlsson, who is an absolutely incredible offensive talent, but almost just looks at times like he isn't even interested in playing defense. (let's not turn this thread into a Karlsson debate, just trying to give a prominent example here)

The idea of prioritizing having the puck more, so you have to defend less, as opposed to being good at defending, is an interesting one to me. It almost makes me think of how D'Antoni coached the Suns, where he basically just told them to play half ass defense and focus on scoring.

What are your thoughts? Is this maybe why we haven't discovered any hidden gems on defense? Have we maybe shied away from guys with big offensive potential that can't defend?

I think this is kinda what Wings have been trying to do it last season. We just did not execute well. Some of it due to personnel some of it due to other teams successfully forecheck and force mistake before we try to move it.

ONE of the reason why Wings have been making a lot of mistake is how we play defence. Under Babcock, Wings had forwards positioned lowerer in our zone to try to help out the D in board battle. It allows us to out number forecheckers along the wall and win the puck back. Also it was kinda essential given how our D weren't that big and needed help in that department. The problem is that since Wings have fowards down low in our zone, and Wings usually split our d zone in half and when Wings get the puck in our zone, we have harder time breaking out since 1) there are less forward up top and it allows the other teams D to be more aggressive in our zone 2) Wings do not have support on the other half of our D zone and Wings constantly have to move the puck against heavy traffic. Nevertheless, it was plan chosen by Babcock and it was a safe one. It was kinda grinding plan and was suited better for playoff than long grueling season.

Then Blashill came along and he put more premium on faster breakout by putting more Fowards high up which kinda made the opposite D aware of fast turnover and counter attack. I think that was the plan initially. The problem is, well... since Wings D isn't that big, when the other team flips the puck in and forecheck us to death, it's kinda hard to get the puck. Also Wings were not that effective at using side support when breaking out. A lot of you saw that in our offensive zone, the other team wins the puck and they pass it to other side in their zone and the pressure is relieved immediately since most teams can only apply fore checking pressure on only one side of the ice. I'm not a hockey coach but I dont know why are we not doing that? Is it because Wings are still splitting the ice in half and dont have support or just years one sided play just make Wings player not aware of open pass on the ice? or maybe since they were told to move the puck up as fast as possible that it was not an option? I dunno.

Anyways to comment on Coyotes GM. well everyone's got a plan until opposition forechecks start hitting your D. The other teams are not dumb and if the puck is not managed and his plan is not well executed from the start, it will have problems starting transition. Wings used to be super effective at taking care of dump ins and what not because we had Lidstrom and he always made right plays with the puck. D always have to spot the area where forechecking pressure is weak or non existent and they have to do it consistently against oppositions who constantly try to trick and exploit any hesitation or mistake. Can it be done systematically and any dumb players can do it? maybe but I think it's going to get figured out eventually. I wish Ive seen how Penguins play after they got a new coach but since everyone is talking about it, it must be real effective.

 

[Frk It]

Anyways to comment on Coyotes GM. well everyone's got a plan until opposition forechecks start hitting your D. The other teams are not dumb and if the puck is not managed and his plan is not well executed from the start, it will have problems starting transition. Wings used to be super effective at taking care of dump ins and what not because we had Lidstrom and he always made right plays with the puck. D always have to spot the area where forechecking pressure is weak or non existent and they have to do it consistently against oppositions who constantly try to trick and exploit any hesitation or mistake. Can it be done systematically and any dumb players can do it? maybe but I think it's going to get figured out eventually. I wish Ive seen how Penguins play after they got a new coach but since everyone is talking about it, it must be real effective.

Well, what they did at the draft all reflect this ideology. Acquired DeAngelo, and then drafted Chychrun and Dineen. All of these players play a style that fit this philosophy.

Plus they acquired Goligoski, who does as well. So it may be viable, but it will probably take him some time.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Yes. They need to stop wasting draft picks on dmen that can't skate or move the puck. Just because the size and dfence is good

We almost drafted Logan Stanley cause of this

 

[Yemack]

Well, what they did at the draft all reflect this ideology. Acquired DeAngelo, and then drafted Chychrun and Dineen. All of these players play a style that fit this philosophy.

Plus they acquired Goligoski, who does as well. So it may be viable, but it will probably take him some time.

We will see. I am not saying I know what's going to happen or anything like that. I'm just somewhat skeptical and think it's a lot easier said than done. But they do have some nice pieces back there.

 

[Claypool]

Yes. They need to stop wasting draft picks on dmen that can't skate or move the puck. Just because the size and dfence is good

We almost drafted Logan Stanley cause of this

Huh? They've spent plenty of draft picks over the years on defenseman that move the puck and can skate.

And I don't think they take Logan Stanley. Not sure where the Wings had interest in him is coming from.

 

[Pavels Dog]

That philosophy is nothing new in Detroit. Just because we haven't been succesful in identifying/acquiring the type of talent we need to play that style doesn't mean we're not trying. You can't build a defense out of 6 David Rundblads and expect to dominate the league, but if you have an OEL/Karlsson/Keith/Letang/Lidstrom/etc to build around, things get significantly easier. Then you can have a Lebda on the 3rd pair instead of more 'safe' players like Ericsson/Marchenko/Quincey.

 

[HockeyinHD]

Read this quote today from Arizona's GM

I would be interested in reading said GM's quotes after his first playoff experience with that kind of roster.

You can do that in the regular season. We've seen Detroit teams do that in the regular season and win President Trophy's with that style.

Then we've seen those teams get the bleep kicked out of them by aggressively forechecking playoff teams that just roll up a pass-heavy system by hammering every player who touches the puck and eventually slowing that system down.

The real answer here is: both things can be true. Yes, obviously, teams need to be able to play a puck possession game when circumstances allow but they also have to be competent with tighter, grittier styles because that's what the playoffs typically are.

That's what Babcock brought to the team, and that's what won them a Cup... being able to do both things. When he came to the team they had been playing a 'puck possession' game like what the Arizona kid is talking about for 15 years and had refined it to an incredibly impressive degree and had some of the most skilled offensive players of all time running it... and fans here were (justifiably) hammering the team after really weak playoff losses to the Kings, Flames and Oilers which highlighted how that kind of system could be exploited in a postseason format.

And this seems to be the way things are shifting, or have been shifting the last few years across the league.

I haven't seen much of an overall shift in the style of hockey being played, just the level of hockey being played. I don't think teams have been doing anything stylistically unique in the NHL, it's mostly been a roster battle.

Have we maybe shied away from guys with big offensive potential that can't defend?

Oh, absolutely yes. Detroit doesn't have any interest in drafting one-way offensive players on defense. None. They are much more likely to draft an 80/20 defensive guy on the blue line than they are to draft an 80/20 offense guy there.

 

[Heaton]

That philosophy is nothing new in Detroit. Just because we haven't been succesful in identifying/acquiring the type of talent we need to play that style doesn't mean we're not trying. You can't build a defense out of 6 David Rundblads and expect to dominate the league, but if you have an OEL/Karlsson/Keith/Letang/Lidstrom/etc to build around, things get significantly easier. Then you can have a Lebda on the 3rd pair instead of more 'safe' players like Ericsson/Marchenko/Quincey.

Trying and failing doesn't garner any gold stars. The wings are one of the worst defensemen drafting teams in the league. Who are the best drafted defensemen since Lidstrom? Kronwall and Fischer?

 

[Reddwit]

I've said it before on here, I think the Red Wings value the wrong attributes in defensemen.

This post is hard evidence that the Wings spin doctors have done their job well.

When the Wings had Lidstrom and Raffi. Or brought in Schneider, Murphy, Chelios. Or drafted Kronwall, Kindl, Smith, Sproul, it was all about possession and pick-moving D. I remember when they signed Lilja; Holland highlighted that despite his size and role, Lilja moved the puck well. They made that claim with Ericsson as well.

Then - oops - like the gem-mining of small but incredibly talented Europeans, other teams took note of the Wings winning system. Boom. All of a sudden, everyone is looking for the next players to establish a Lidstrom-Rafalski tribute. The well dried up. And sure enough, we get the rhetoric - on repeat - that what's crucial to gain are steady yet mobile defenseman. Guys who can, rest assured, pass the puck, yet somehow evade point accumulation through no fault of their own.

Let's give credit where it's due - the Wings know how to disorient the casual fans. That doesn't mean they don't know what's up in contemporary hockey. How convenient it is that they all of a sudden revere mobile, responsible, yet barren defenseman when that's all the current economics suggest they can acquire...

 

[Pavels Dog]

Trying and failing doesn't garner any gold stars. The wings are one of the worst defensemen drafting teams in the league. Who are the best drafted defensemen since Lidstrom? Kronwall and Fischer?

That doesn't mean the philosophy changed though. That's like saying we need to change our philosophy to trying to find PPG+ two-way centers with Selke-caliber defensive games, because we haven't found any of those either in ages.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Huh? They've spent plenty of draft picks over the years on defenseman that move the puck and can skate.

And I don't think they take Logan Stanley. Not sure where the Wings had interest in him is coming from.

It literally came from the wings

 

[obey86]

Huh? They've spent plenty of draft picks over the years on defenseman that move the puck and can skate.

And I don't think they take Logan Stanley. Not sure where the Wings had interest in him is coming from.

I think the problem isn't just that they don't draft those types of players, the problem is they don't give them a legitimate chance to succeed or use those skills in the NHL.