Player Discussion: Winnipeg Jets Defense

[Adam da bomb]

Yes, getting it done is what it's all about -
Remember Buff, Chiarot, Trouba? They had a mean steak in them that made them very difficult to play against - few teams were resorting to dump / chase / cycle against that lot - now they do it as part of the game plan know we get hemmed in very easily.
I think it something to do with the angry beef we had back there - but that's just my opinion.

Another way of stopping teams dumping it is retrieving it so quickly it becomes absolutely useless. If you have the speed to retrieve it before the other team even gets close it doesn’t matter. End trim was great at that, guess what he was a small guy. He was great at breaking up the cycle.
You also talk bout how we have a hard time getting it out. I say that has more to do with speed.

 

[Ducky10]

Size plays a roll in separating player from puck - which will impact scoring chances against if you can regain possession and turn up the other way. We seem to spend too much time in our end - I'm suggesting size might be able to help us with that (help, not solve)
You need the skill as well - I'm not suggesting otherwise - that bunch back then had it. But size helps and I think it's more than a bonus - it's part of what made them effective.

Unless Chiarot was playing with Buff he bled chances against. He was tough and blocked a lot of shots, that's about it. His first half with Montreal was a mirage, his 2nd half was the Chiarot we all know. Weber was far better without him than with him.

 

[Adam da bomb]

Yeah ideally you have a good skating puck mover and a bigger defence first guy on every pairing. Even more ideal is a bigger good skating puck mover. We really need to give Heinola and Samberg a shot. At best we turn this sinking ship around, at worst they suck and we at least know what we have in them and can look at other options.

What about two puck movers and two bigger guys on our bottom pairing u can then mix and match with. What about a stay at home guy that’s good at making that break out pass?

 

[Daximus]

What about two puck movers and two bigger guys on our bottom pairing u can then mix and match with. What about a stay at home guy that’s good at making that break out pass?

Those are kind of next best options. If you had a mover and a shutdown guy on every pairing that would be ideal. Though impossible to get. So you work with what you have.

 

[Ducky10]

Yeah ideally you have a good skating puck mover and a bigger defence first guy on every pairing. Even more ideal is a bigger good skating puck mover. We really need to give Heinola and Samberg a shot. At best we turn this sinking ship around, at worst they suck and we at least know what we have in them and can look at other options.

Even just a bigger guy who doesn't give up craploads of chances. But even still, if you don't give up scoring chances why does your size matter? I get the optimal relationship between the two but they aren't mutually inclusive.

 

[LowLefty]

Another way of stopping teams dumping it is retrieving it so quickly it becomes absolutely useless. If you have the speed to retrieve it before the other team even gets close it doesn’t matter. End trim was great at that, guess what he was a small guy. He was great at breaking up the cycle.
You also talk bout how we have a hard time getting it out. I say that has more to do with speed.

Dumping only becomes useless if you can't win the match up in the corner. The dman usually has to turn as he's backing in and I don't care how fast they are, they likely get beat by the forward who is coming in a full speed and doesn't have to make that turn. At best, they get there at the same time.

I like speed back there as much as anyone - but I'm more interested in winning board battles and then turning it up ice. The skilled guys are the ones that can make a nice outlet or carry the puck once they have it. But if you don't have it and can't get it, you are hemmed in - and that's what's happening a lot with our guys. Wait until we start playing better teams - it will become more obvious.

As a side not, I've been watching what we do in our end without the puck - it's usually running around on the backs of forwards cycling.
How often do you notice any of our Dmen actually knocking anyone down? One thing I'm pretty sure about - when you are on your ass, you don't make many offensive plays and you don't have puck possession.

 

[LowLefty]

Unless Chiarot was playing with Buff he bled chances against. He was tough and blocked a lot of shots, that's about it. His first half with Montreal was a mirage, his 2nd half was the Chiarot we all know. Weber was far better without him than with him.

I agree - not top pairing material. He's the guy that will cost you as well - not suggesting he would save us now but he'd be playing in our line up now and I'd have no issue with it.

 

[Duke749]

I think what frustrates everybody is you can help both our size issues and puck retrieval/moving issues by inserting Heinola and Samberg instead of what we’re running.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

There's a lot of discussions about the Jets defense that filters into other topics, a lot of opinions, some relevant stats.

Thought we could have a discussion about our d-corps: likes, dislikes, direction, ice time deployment, handling of the rookies, etc.

Is our defense good enough to get us to the playoffs? Could our defense be good enough, with in-season development to get anywhere in the playoffs? Do we need external help?

I have a problem reading our D corps. To some extent, I know it is personnel. But I am a poor judge of the degree of that. I can't assess how much of the problem is coaching. Or is coaching making them look a little less bad than they would otherwise be?

I know I am disappointed in the way Heinola and Samberg are being handled. But I might be even more disappointed if they were playing.

I also do not like the way the D pairings have been arranged. I'm a bit more confident here. I think the pairings could have been better.

As for your questions:
Is our D good enough to make the PO? - Yes.
Could we go anywhere in the PO with this D? - I don't think so.
Do we need external help? We might have internal help. I want to find out - soon. We do need long term external help. We need a 1D, not a rental.

 

[LowLefty]

I think what frustrates everybody is you can help both our size issues and puck retrieval/moving issues by inserting Heinola and Samberg instead of what we’re running.

It does frustrate a lot of fans and get why
It's unfortunate that we had a mini training camp and no preseason - that would have helped both of these guys prepare and make their case.
I also think both will get a shot this year at some point - and the Moose will only help in preparing them both for a decent shot.
I both if were added now, I wouldn't complain - but I think they will benefit from some time adjusting / developing to the Pro game, on the Moose.

 

[Ducky10]

Dumping only becomes useless if you can't win the match up in the corner. The dman usually has to turn as he's backing in and I don't care how fast they are, they likely get beat by the forward who is coming in a full speed and doesn't have to make that turn. At best, they get there at the same time.

I like speed back there as much as anyone - but I'm more interested in winning board battles and then turning it up ice. The skilled guys are the ones that can make a nice outlet or carry the puck once they have it. But if you don't have it and can't get it, you are hemmed in - and that's what's happening a lot with our guys. Wait until we start playing better teams - it will become more obvious.

As a side not, I've been watching what we do in our end without the puck - it's usually running around on the backs of forwards cycling.
How often do you notice any of our Dmen actually knocking anyone down? One thing I'm pretty sure about - when you are on your ass, you don't make many offensive plays and you don't have puck possession.

While being big and strong has it's advantages, it's really not the most important aspect in breaking up a cycle. The way the Jets defend in their zone goes way beyond lack of size.

 

[LowLefty]

While being big and strong has it's advantages, it's really not the most important aspect in breaking up a cycle. The way the Jets defend in their zone goes way beyond lack of size.

I'm not saying it is -
I am saying it's more than a "bonus" to have size back there when working the boards and breaking up the churn.
There's also speed, sticks, body position, smarts - or the system that is being used (and I'm not trying to open another discussion on all of that).
So, if we were better at all those things, we'd be better in our end. The one that stands out MORE for me, is the lack of size and our ability to simply stop plays in their tracks.
I'm not trying to over simplify - I'm only adding a component that I think is missing and might help with our Dzone issues.
You're absolutely right in stating there is more to it than size -

 

[garret9]

Part of the problem is that Morrisey might not even be a top pairing guy.

 

[Gm0ney]

Unless you have a freak of nature like Buff who can impose his will on the game for 20+ tough minutes a night, I don't think it really matters who's on D with the Jets systems. It's built to fail.

 

[jgimp]

That is frightening. And embarrassing.

How in the world does the coaching staff still have a job?

Loyal to a flaw!

 

[Whileee]

Everyone says that. But I also think there is something different about Morrissey in general from 2 years ago. Maybe it has to do with the A he is wearing. Then there is the no Buff factor. Morrissey is relied on to be the offensive leader of this team now, as opposed to the defensive leader. And maybe his mindset has changed. Maybe it changed with his injury last year. But he's not as physical as he used to be, at all, which may be a conservation method. He's shying away from blocking shots too on the PK. With Maurice choosing Forbort and Pionk as his shutdown pair, tied to Lowry, that says a lot. I look at the opening scoring chance Calgary got against us. It was Morrissey being outskated by Backlund, straight up the gut, that led to a 2-1 that Beaulieu had to try to defend. He left Poolman alone to break up a 2-1 against Ottawa. I know Maurice is not coaching the team to give up odd man rushes, so there is something just off about Josh to start the year. Luckily the talent is in the toolbox, and a good stretch will make a bad stretch forgettable.

But I don't think you can throw shade on every other player, when Morrissey has the worst GA/60 ES on the defensive squad (-Niku) and the worst metric of all our d-men on the PK. There's something going on.

I think Morrissey has struggled, and needs to be better. My point was that I think he's more likely to find his game if he can settle into a somewhat stable position and partnership. He's playing too tentatively, and maybe getting into a more settled situation will allow him to play with more aggressiveness and decisiveness. Maybe it won't help, but it's worth trying.

 

[Whileee]

Part of the problem is that Morrisey might not even be a top pairing guy.

Or, maybe he would be with the right partner. I'm okay with two good second pairs and a strong third pair at this point. But the Jets need to at least find another credible #2-3 D. I can't see why Samberg can't project into a player in the Pesce mode, or Heinola into a Spurgeon type of player. If either or both of them hit that level, the Jets' D should be fine.

 

[truck]

I agree Booboo is not the player that will solve our problems if you think heavy / tough is a need - but he's probably the best we have at this point and it's why Mo has left him in there.
I'm not advocating for him to be part of the blueline - I'm only suggesting why Maurice might have him in there.
I'd play Stanley over him in a heart beat -

I honestly wouldn't care about Beaulieu being in the line-up if he was being deployed as a #6. I just fail to understand why Mo would ever deploy him like he belongs on the 1st pair.

 

[Whileee]

I honestly wouldn't care about Beaulieu being in the line-up if he was being deployed as a #6. I just fail to understand why Mo would ever deploy him like he belongs on the 1st pair.

I don't want Beaulieu as a #6 when the Jets have Samberg and Heinola ready to go.

 

[WolfHouse]

This can’t be a shock to anyone - our only off season signing was Forbort - Calgary’s Beau basically... for less than we gave Beaulieu

We wanted size and grit because Calgary creamed us... never occurred to Mo and Huddy that we also needed speed or possibly a change in the system

 

[truck]

I don't want Beaulieu as a #6 when the Jets have Samberg and Heinola ready to go.

I mean... I don't WANT to watch Beaulieu, but I would understand why a coach would play a gritty vet in a minimized 3rd pairing role. And I would understand the team giving bigger AHL minutes to the kids.

Even if I wouldn't love it.

 

[WpgSteve]

I've enjoyed watching Stanley. Not many noticeable screw ups. Eager to jump in on offense. Big shot.

Is he the next Chara?

 

[WolfHouse]

I've enjoyed watching Stanley. Not many noticeable screw ups. Eager to jump in on offense. Big shot.

Is he the next Chara?

On the taxi squad now

 

[Teemusalami204]

Part of the problem is that Morrisey might not even be a top pairing guy.

His play has changed so drastically that I would even go as far as saying his injury changed his entire career forever.

 

[garret9]

Or, maybe he would be with the right partner. I'm okay with two good second pairs and a strong third pair at this point. But the Jets need to at least find another credible #2-3 D. I can't see why Samberg can't project into a player in the Pesce mode, or Heinola into a Spurgeon type of player. If either or both of them hit that level, the Jets' D should be fine.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical on it.

The fact that Morrissey with DeMelo in middle of the road usage over two seasons garners similar results to Pionk, who is also not a top pairing defender IMO, with a worse partner in Forbort under much tougher minutes says something.