The difference between him and who we have is that he has the potential to develop into a top pairing D
Eh, I think that's a bit of stretch. Based on what he's shown thus far in his career, he's a good middle-pairing defensemen and that's probably more-or-less it. If he becomes a staple on a team's top pairing, it'll probably be because his partner is an excellent #1 defenseman who can really "drive the bus." We don't have an excellent #1 defenseman, and that, honestly, is the most pressing concern for us.
Well according to that "source" CBJ are the ones "VERY" interested in Nyquist so if they're desperate.
They would probably want to move, say, David Savard or Jack Johnson. At 23 years old, Boone Jenner is coming off a 49-point season (30 goals, 19 assists). He's going to be a very good 2C, possibly even a 1C. Zach Werenski projects as a top-pairing defenseman.
Another thing to consider: the Jackets are -- or, at least, were (I haven't really read up on them in a while) -- facing a cap crunch. Nyquist's cap hit is reasonable, but if the Jackets are taking him on, then they're probably unloading some money.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: in today's NHL, the best defense is an overpowering offense. The emphasis shouldn't be on defending. The emphasis should be on forcing the other team to defend. Get the puck, hold on to the puck, make plays with the puck. Own the puck.
Look at the season the Penguins just had. Struggled mightily under Mike Johnston, who believed they needed to play an ultra-conservative "defense-first" brand of hockey. Couldn't score for beans. Then Mike Sullivan comes in, completely flips the script, lets all his horses run free, and the team transforms into a juggernaut.
Granted, we lack elite-level forwards, which complicates things.
Doesn't your fake quote about Red Wings player development seem like a very logical way to handle young prospects to get the most out of them?
In theory, yes, it is. But the Red Wings take it to a ridiculous extreme. We are (or, at least, should be) a team in transition, not a perennial contender. Overripening is something we need to be moving away from.
We just seen first hand what keeping a young talented player on the fourth line did to Jurco.
What we've seen with Jurco -- and the fourth line in general -- is boneheaded usage. I'm ok with using Jurco on the fourth line if we're trying to roll four scoring lines. I'm not ok with slotting Jurco on a line with Miller and Glendening. I'm not ok with using the fourth line as a sacrificial "shutdown" line (i.e. we hard-match it against the best players in the league) when its centerman is Luke Glendening and one of its wingers is a redundant grinderbangershotblockerpenaltykiller.
Our fourth line could be Jurco-Athanasiou-Mantha and we could roll four dangerous lines. Ideally, at least two of those players are playing higher in the lineup -- but, point is, we need to rethink everything we think we know about a professional hockey team's fourth line. We need to stop associating fourth lines with grinding and banging and killing penalties and trying to shut down Sidney Crosby and Patrick Kane and Connor McDavid. Fourth lines are allowed to be scoring threats. You don't (necessarily) need a "defensive fourth line with real good defensive players and real good defensive defensiveness."
"The big thing in today’s game is you have to be able forecheck and backcheck, and you have to have the puck," Sutter said over the weekend (h/t Ryan Lambert). "You can’t give the puck up. We don’t play in our zone, so there’s not much defending."
The numbers back him up. LA takes 56.9 percent of all even-strength shot attempts in their games, an effective way to measure puck possession. That's more than any team in the league. Last season, the Kings were at 58 percent. That was more than any team in the league. In 2011-12, they were at 54.9 percent. That was less than only the Pittsburgh Penguins — and the Kings wound up winning the Stanley Cup.
So, Sutter would seem to be an authority on the topic: Don't mistake dominance for "defensive responsibility" or physicality. Having the puck is the most important part of the game.
“I’ve coached in three decades now and this stuff where they said Marian had to play in (former Minnesota Wild coach Jacques) Lemaire's system is a bunch of bullcrap," Sutter said.
"The game’s changed. They think there’s defending in today’s game. Nah, it’s how much you have the puck. Teams that play around in their own zone (say) they’re defending but they’re generally getting scored on or taking face-offs and they need a goalie to stand on his head if that’s the way they play,” said Sutter.
Add that to from Edmonton Oilers coach Dallas Eakins earlier this season:
"You know what the perfect game is? The perfect game is no hits. You know why that is? It's because you have the puck. You don't have to hit anybody. You have the puck."
And this from a member of Team Canada's gold-medal winning team:
"Our defense were pretty good at skating themselves out of trouble, but I think everyone talks about our defensive play — we just have the puck for most of the game. I think we possessed the puck, and we were able to control the puck a lot in the offensive zone. When you do that, teams don't get a lot of time or energy to come against you.
"Defensively, there's no doubt that we backtracked really hard when we needed to, but I think that's something that's preached on every team and something that's important to every team winning. … I think on the flipside, you see the effect that playing the offensive zone has, and you want to make sure that that's something you continue to do (in the NHL)."
That was Sidney Crosby.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have the Wings, who are obsessed with "defensive responsibility" and "being able to play without the puck" and having "grit" and being able to block shots and kill penalties and *bangs head on table repeatedly*. The Wings used to be all about high-end skill. Now they're all about blue-collar blue-collarness. And they wonder why we can't put the puck in the net.
A lot of fans will enjoy the ride a lot more once they realize the wings are planning for the future and it may not always be the ideal product on the ice because of that. Give it time
I've actually defended the front office on these very grounds (albeit, in a devil's advocate way). But, lately, I'm really starting to question The Plan. It sounds great in theory, and, sure, you can point to a supporting piece of evidence here and there. But, really, what you're saying is "Have blind faith in Team Holland and everything will be ok. You don't understand now, but one day you will." Which is 1) almost more pretentious than anything that even I would say, 2) somewhat ignorant of recent history, and 3) wonderfully trusting (bordering on naive).
Holland isn't the coach, Blashill is. It will come down to training camp and who Blash wants on the team.
The hate for Holland is strong that he gets blamed for things not in his control lol.
Ken Holland is the general manager. Jeff Blashill is the head coach. Jeff Blashill works for Ken Holland.
A couple years ago Mike Babcock wanted Xavier Ouellet on the opening night roster. Babcock said that if it were up to him, Ouellet would be on the opening night roster, but he -- Babcock -- was allowed to cast only one vote, while Ken Holland was allowed to cast "two." Babcock's point being, Ken Holland has the first and final say in anything and everything personnel-related and Ken Holland knows it. And this, to me, is a problem, because it's Ken Holland, whose way of doing things represents and perpetuates everything that's wrong with the Red Wings today. He is an arrogant dinosaur who is struggling mightily to reconcile his way of doing things with the harsh realities of the cap era. As a result, we haven't won a damn thing in close to a decade, and right now we're probably at least three years away from being a serious contender.
The Wings, under Ken Holland, are all about treading water, selling tickets, getting a little bit of playoff revenue, and then repeating the whole cycle again. They're about maintaining the status quo, not truly moving forward.
I agree that Athanasiou will likely start in Grand Rapids, and I also agree that it's not the worst thing that could happen. However, he wouldn't be sent down just so the Griffins would have a number one center. When we lost Miele, Ben Street was brought in, and he is more than capable of filling the same role Miele did for the past couple years.
Even if you think that's the opening lineup, you still have the 2 extra forward spots and, with Pulkkinen on IR due to his shoulder, that's 2 spots for Ott, AA, Mantha, or Frk (I think he's unlikely). So I think it's pretty hard to imagine he'll be sent down, at least to start.
I want both Mantha and Athanasiou on the Wings' opening night roster, but I wouldn't count on either of them making the cut. Because this team is run by assholes.
I mean, c'mon. We know how this works. We see the same scenario play out every October.
"We'd rather have [insert kid who should be playing regular minutes as a Red Wing but isn't, because reasons] playing key minutes in the AHL. We don't see any point in him sitting in the press box or playing on the fourth line. We see him playing big minutes for the Griffins, playing in all situations, being a leader, a guy they count on. We feel that's what's best for his development. We feel that's the next step he has to take. We like to fart in our own mouths."
Ott will probably get one of those two extra spots. (Blashill might even slot Ott higher than Jurco. Because reasons.) The other spot might go to Callahan. I dunno.
I'm not a fan of this deal. We overpaid for a middle-pairing defenseman who hasn't demonstrated top-end ability. His basic stats are underwhelming, his advanced stats are awful (granted, brutal deployment is probably a contributing factor there), and he has no extraordinary quality/skill/characteristic that separates him from the pack of good-but-not-great NHL defensemen. At this point in time, he's a #3 or #4 defenseman. That we consider him our best defenseman is a testament to how horribly inadequate our blue line is.
I don't consider Brunner a bust. Not a whole lot was expected of him and he was decently effective in his short stint with us. For a very short time, the line of Nyquist-Andersson-Brunner was kinda sorta awesome.