brelic Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 well, similarly, i see a hot dog defenseman who is willing, no, excited to abandon defensive responsibility to make flashy end to end rushes, challenging forecheckers one on one as the last man back, spinaramas at center ice, dangling in situations where if he loses the puck it'll be a breakaway against, and i run for the hills. Wouldn't it be easier (and by that I mean more likely) that you can coach an overconfident guy with raw skills to tone it down and pick his spots better than a coax a guy who is slow and doesn't exhibit strong offensive instincts (maybe not as confident, maybe doesn't have the same hockey IQ) to start developing those after he's drafted? Keep in mind we're talking 2nd rounders+, not 1st rounders who are supposedly closer to a complete package. Both can be (and I'm sure have been) done before. It's not always going to work out, of course, but it seems to me it would be better to pick the guy with more over the guy with less. All of this depending on what kind of defenseman you're looking for. The Flyers have typically drafted big, slow or at least not very mobile, defensemen with limited offensive upside. I think we can let their record speak for itself. They just haven't drafted and developed very well, and they haven't found any gems (which is linked to draft and development). The last few years have seen them change track with picks like Hagg and Gostisbehere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 @brelic ha...as I was reading through the latest posts in this thread, the first thought that came to mind was "I'd rather try to tame the wild beast than taking the unspectacular option", so yeah, we both drew the same type of conclusions. I swear I agree with 95% if your posts, so we must see the game the same way or something...ha ha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Adjust for the times, the league wasn't as fast yet. Stay at home defenseman still had significant value, and no one liked (likes?) one dimensional offensive defenseman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 @brelic ha...as I was reading through the latest posts in this thread, the first thought that came to mind was "I'd rather try to tame the wild beast than taking the unspectacular option", so yeah, we both drew the same type of conclusions. I swear I agree with 95% if your posts, so we must see the game the same way or something...ha ha. I think we do! And I love your perspective on the game - you're always so positive and that's awesome. Hockey - and life - really comes down to your perspective and attitude toward things. It took me a long time to figure that out. I've been cleansing myself of negative influences in my life and it's made a HUGE change. Others have noticed and you wouldn't believe how it changed the way I experience things. The same events with a different mindset are like night and day. All that to say that your positive view on things and your enthusiasm are infectious! Thank you for that!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Wouldn't it be easier (and by that I mean more likely) that you can coach an overconfident guy with raw skills to tone it down and pick his spots better than a coax a guy who is slow and doesn't exhibit strong offensive instincts (maybe not as confident, maybe doesn't have the same hockey IQ) to start developing those after he's drafted? Keep in mind we're talking 2nd rounders+, not 1st rounders who are supposedly closer to a complete package. i don't think so, really. i mean, in theory it sounds good, but there are a whole lot of really really crazy skilled players out there for whom defensive priorities just don't exist. there was a point in time, not long ago, where that was a big and often permanent knock on a defenseman. bryan mccabe, sheldon souray, joni pitkanen. subban has been offensively impressive, but his 53 points fall pretty short of mccabe and souray's career bests of 68 and 64 points. or better yet, mike green's multiple 70+ point seasons. i guess that's the thing i don't really understand. there is a pretty solid consensus around here that those 4 one-way, offense-only dmen were what they were (or are what they are, in pitkanen and green's case), and they weren't/aren't going to change those stripes. AND, most agreed/agree the kind of tradeoff those players represented, the acceptable of defensive liability required to leverage their elite offensive ability, wasn't worth it. bryan mccabe was a point machine, but your goalie was gonna have to work his tail off when mccabe was on the ice. subban has come some distance in learning to pick his spots (AND happily has cary price behind him), so his possession game has ended up being more valuable than his defensive unawareness is damaging. there really wasn't any way of knowing that at draft time, though. most guys with that game keep playing that game, and the math is way harder to justify. PLUS, subban still doesn't kill penalties. i still don't know i like the tradeoff. how weird is it to be in a situation where late in a must-win game, up by one goal, defensive zone face off, opposing goalie pulled.....and you make a point to bench your #1 dman on the bench and get your #2 over the boards? where there would actually be cause for concern if the faceoff was after an icing, and your #1 was trapped on the ice for this all-important defensive draw. that just isn't what that position is supposed to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.