The All Purpose "Jack Johnson Sucks" Thread

[K Fleur]

JJ has f***ing sucked for YEARS.

His play for YEARS has warranted the reaction to his signing here, and the supposed “unfair shake” he’s gotten from fans.

f*** JR for this garbage signing and telling fans how they’re supposed to feel about it.

 

[pokey10]

Sullivan is reinforcing that opinion because he has no choice.

As I already said, AFTER JR went all-in on Johnson and AFTER JR dogged Sully's semi-mentor for scratching Johnson last year, including in the playoffs, there's a 0.0% chance that Sully is going to scratch Johnson and endure having to answer for anything less than winning the cup.

I wouldnt deal in absolutes.

 

[KIRK]

I wouldnt deal in absolutes.

Fine. There's a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that Sully would scratch Jack Johnson after JR said how dumb Torts was to scratch him the prior season. Better?

 

[pokey10]

Fine. There's a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that Sully would scratch Jack Johnson after JR said how dumb Torts was to scratch him the prior season. Better?

Now i'll like the post.

 

[Gurglesons]

Could be. It's more likely that he feels so positive about JJ because that opinion is being reinforced by Sully.

Sully’s System is built on moving the puck.

Look at Hunwick, Cole, Maatta, etc.

He has no problem scratching players.

JJ is playing because it is the directive from above.

 

[KIRK]

Sully’s System is built on moving the puck.

Look at Hunwick,

If at first I don't succeed . . . double down and waste more cap space for more years?

 

[Gurglesons]

If at first I don't succeed . . . double down and waste more cap space for more years?

No remember. Easily moveable, minor money, and how bad could JJ really be?!?

 

[KIRK]

No remember. Easily moveable, minor money, and how bad could JJ really be?!?

Oh . . . I remember . . .

 

[Malkinstheman]

Its those two extra years that really kill you. If the contract was 3 years, you probably wouldnt have a hard time moving him in the summer. But no, lets sign the 31 years old to 5 years.

 

[Turin]

Remember, we’re all supposed to care about JJ’s finances. Because at the end of the day, that’s why we watch hockey.

 

[Gurglesons]

Its those two extra years that really kill you. If the contract was 3 years, you probably wouldnt have a hard time moving him in the summer. But no, lets sign the 31 years old to 5 years.

Sure, but either deal was regrettable and you can’t tell me other teams were offering that type of term.

 

[Peat]

Wasn’t it rumored that Sid contacted Mario who contacted JR to pursue JJ? If so, JR is just doing the FO’s bidding...he’ll be lauded and revered...

I don't think I've seen this as a serious rumour, not in the way Sid and Geno wanting an enforcer was.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

Fine. There's a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that Sully would scratch Jack Johnson after JR said how dumb Torts was to scratch him the prior season. Better?

Eh, I could see Sullivan suddenly seeing sense if they make the playoffs and end up in a bad spot. Even Bylsma had a limit with Glass. It’s if they make the playoffs and if they end up in too big of a hole for it to matter. It would happen in round 1 or at the latest 2. Same as Glass.

 

[KIRK]

Eh, I could see Sullivan suddenly seeing sense if they make the playoffs and end up in a bad spot. Even Bylsma had a limit with Glass. It’s if they make the playoffs and if they end up in too big of a hole for it to matter. It would happen in round 1 or at the latest 2. Same as Glass.

The problem is the fallback plan is going to be Riikola or Ruh or, if Maatta is back and we acquire a Lovejoy type, Pets (who will be odd man out in that scenario). If Sully does THAT and loses (which will be very likely regardless, as one would assume by your 'very bad spot' conditional) . . .

Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

The problem is the fallback plan is going to be Riikola or Ruh or, if Maatta is back and we acquire a Lovejoy type, Pets (who will be odd man out in that scenario). If Sully does THAT and loses (which will be very likely regardless, as one would assume by your 'very bad spot' conditional) . . .

Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't.

I’m not sure it’s popular here (probably not) but they need Maatta back by then. It’s a lot more palatable to put 1 of Pettersson, Ruhwedel, Riikola and possible bottom pairing acquisition on the 3rd pairing than plugging one of them into the top 4 and having the other 2 on the bottom pairing. If Maatta is back you can limit the 3rd pairing use more ala Chicago that time if they really struggle.

It’s a lot better to try not playing someone who is historically and currently shit than going down with that ship. It always will be. JR can come up with some bullshit to defend sweet baby JJ and himself later regardless of the results. He may be pissy right now but I’m sure some of that is because he’s screwed up so badly and knows it on some level.

 

[KIRK]

I’m not sure it’s popular here (probably not) but they need Maatta back by then. It’s a lot more palatable to put 1 of Pettersson, Ruhwedel, Riikola and possible bottom pairing acquisition on the 3rd pairing than plugging one of them into the top 4 and having the other 2 on the bottom pairing. If Maatta is back you can limit the 3rd pairing use more ala Chicago that time if they really struggle.

It’s a lot better to try not playing someone who is historically and currently **** than going down with that ship. It always will be. JR can come up with some bull**** to defend sweet baby JJ and himself later regardless of the results. He may be pissy right now but I’m sure some of that is because he’s screwed up so badly and knows it on some level.

I shudder at the thought of THIS Maatta (or Johnson) on a 2nd pairing for the playoffs.

 

[Andy99]

I’m not sure it’s popular here (probably not) but they need Maatta back by then. It’s a lot more palatable to put 1 of Pettersson, Ruhwedel, Riikola and possible bottom pairing acquisition on the 3rd pairing than plugging one of them into the top 4 and having the other 2 on the bottom pairing. If Maatta is back you can limit the 3rd pairing use more ala Chicago that time if they really struggle.

It’s a lot better to try not playing someone who is historically and currently **** than going down with that ship. It always will be. JR can come up with some bull**** to defend sweet baby JJ and himself later regardless of the results. He may be pissy right now but I’m sure some of that is because he’s screwed up so badly and knows it on some level.

Idk...even with Maatta out Pettersson has played solidly enough imo to get a shot on a pair with Schultz...if that works, then JJ with Ruh or Riikola getting limited minutes on the third pair would be ideal if JJ must be played...which I still don’t think he should be

 

[Speaking Moistly]

I shudder at the thought of THIS Maatta (or Johnson) on a 2nd pairing for the playoffs.

Yeah, well, hope he gets his head on straight after some time off and performs with Schultz. He at least has the ability to perform well in that role.

 

[EightyOne]

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

View attachment 189551

Thank you so much for this!

 

[MrBurghundy]

 

[Empoleon8771]

Those stats just tell me that Dumoulin and Johnson are about equal in terms of PKing ability, which really isn't much of a shot against Johnson

I get criticizing his puck moving, offense and decision making, because those are valid things to criticize. But to criticize his PK ability because his advanced stats are not as great as Letang's PKing advanced stats? Those stats tell me Letang and Maatta are fantastic PKers and Johnson and Dumoulin are both good PKers, not that Johnson is a bad PKer (which is what Jesse is pushing).

Relative stats are useful, but when the baseline you're comparing them to is great, they don't paint as clear of a picutre. Someone this board has mentioned a bunch before is a great example of this, Alec Martinez. He had a negative CF%Rel in every season from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, but he had a raw CF% of over 52.5% in each of those seasons. He had good possession stats, but the Kings as a team had incredible possession stats, which caused Martinez to have bad RelTM possession stats.

 

[Andy99]

Just for more fun (read: frustrating), here's a comparison someone on LGP did between so-called defensive defenseman JJ and Gill and Scuderi from 2009...

"First, if anyone is out there saying "Jack Johnson's Corsi sucks, he's a horrible player, why can't the Penguins see this," you should question that person. Even in my big post above, first thing I did was throw out Corsi. Is Johnson's Corsi good? No, BUT.....everyone gets hung up on Corsi. Corsi isn't the problem. It's when you keep going down the line, looking at actual SOG, Scoring Chances Against, Goals Against, High Danger Chances/Goals.....ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE BAD FOR JACK JOHNSON. ALL. OF. THEM!!!!!

To answer the question about Johnson compared to Scuderi and Gill in the 2008-2009 season (using 500 minutes TOI as minimum, and looking at even strength):

Corsi For%:
--JJ, 45.52%, last out of 7 defenseman on the team
--Scuds, 46.15, 5th out of 6 defenseman
--Gill, 48.34, 3rd out of 5 defenseman

Shot For%:
--JJ, 44.45, 7th out of 7
--Scuderi, 47.79%, 5th out of 6
--Gill, 49.13, 3rd out of 6

Goals For%:
--JJ, 44.57, 7th out of 7 (only one under 50%)
--Scuderi, 59.05, 1st out of 6
--Gill, 56.58, 2nd out of 6
(This should be your first staggering indicator. Two true defensive defenseman LEADING in GF%, on for more Goals For than against. Letang is last in 2009, only player under 50%. Scuderi, in 81 games, was only on the ice for 43 even strength goals. Jack Johnson is already at 51 with 20 some games left)

Scoring Chances For%:
--JJ, 47.32, 7th out of 7
--Scuderi, 47.87, 5th out of 6
--Gill,, 51.63, 3rd out of 6

High Danger Goals Against%:
--JJ, 31 total, 43.64%, both numbers 7th out of 7 (again, only d-man below 50% on the team)
--Scuderi, 26 total, 58.73%, 4th in total against, 2nd in HDGF%
--Gill, 20 total, 2nd in total against, 3rd in HDGF%

Offensive Zone Start %
--JJ, 49.19%, 1st out of 7
--Scuderi, 44.52, 6th out of 6
--Gill, 45.76, 5th out of 6

I mean, if that doesn't paint the picture, anyone still defending Johnson might just be part of a cult. Gill and Scuderi, two defensive defenseman, got more defensive zone starts than anyone else percentage wise, as you would expect...yet Johnson gets the LEAST percentage wise. Gill and Scuderi, two rather offensive inept defenseman, have very, very good GF to GA ratio/percentage....Johnson....doesn't. Not only does Johnson not have good numbers, but he ranks last or next to last out of all our defenseman. Scuderi and Gill were middle of the pack, not near the bottom.

Johnson is not good. Damn, I need to fire up my blog again and put all of this....Gudas comparison, Scuderi/Gill comparison, into one nice place for reference."

 

[Empoleon8771]

Just for more fun (read: frustrating), here's a comparison someone on LGP did between so-called defensive defenseman JJ and Gill and Scuderi from 2009...

It would be much easier for me to form an opinion on this article if I knew what the author thought of Gill and Scuderi. If the author thought both Gill and Scuderi were bad and Johnson is worse, I'd be fine with it. If they thought Scuderi and Gill were good, but Johnson was bad, I'd have problems with it.

Scuderi's possession stats are a little bit better than Johnson's, and you can logically look at their respective PDOs to explain the GF% difference (Scuderi was at a 104 PDO, Johnson is at a 100 PDO). If they're trying to argue that Scuderi is good and Johnson is bad, they really lost me. I'd be interested in looking at their xGF%, not just raw GF%.

 

[Andy99]

It would be much easier for me to form an opinion on this article if I knew what the author thought of Gill and Scuderi. If the author thought both Gill and Scuderi were bad and Johnson is worse, I'd be fine with it. If they thought Scuderi and Gill were good, but Johnson was bad, I'd have problems with it.

Scuderi's possession stats are a little bit better than Johnson's, and you can logically look at their respective PDOs to explain the GF% difference (Scuderi was at a 104 PDO, Johnson is at a 100 PDO). If they're trying to argue that Scuderi is good and Johnson is bad, they really lost me. I'd be interested in looking at their xGF%, not just raw GF%.

It was a response to another poster's comment that JJ was a defensive defenseman on par with Scuderi and Gill for us and the numbers were probably comparable because they were just as good or bad as he was and he'd therefore probably help the Pens as much as they did...and this poster looked at the numbers and said no way....that's all I know...