Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
TheseGoTo11

FNG Report Card: Part Deux

Recommended Posts

Ok, obviously you've never seen how these situations blow up.

Math and business are logical, humans, on the other hand, are not.

If humans were logical, these guys wouldn't be making the money they make playing a simple game. Eric Lindros would still be playing for the Flyers. Bobby Holik would still be a Devil.

Too often, a 'bluechip' prospect comes along, and people rant and rave about how he's gonna tank or he's the second coming of the team's franchise player. They used to call them 'phenoms'.

Go ahead and look at the draft records. See how many players were touted as the next big thing. How many of those names are remembered now?

Furthermore, I feel the need to point out the fact that we did not trade Jack Johnson. That's right. We didn't trade him. We traded the rights to Jack Johnson, which if he continues on his set course, will not amount to a thing for LosAngeles.

Jack Johnson may well never amount to a thing for anyone. We don't know. He could be dead tomorrow.

There's no such thing as a 'sure thing'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points FM. With regards to JJ< I remember an old saying about a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. Well, in a reverse order, I think it sort of fits the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you rather have 2 slivers of silver today or 1 lump of gold in 5 years?

Assuming the bottom doesn't drop out of the price of gold in the next 5 years, that's an easy question to answer.

However, this isn't like trading commodities futures where you can count on market values to remain more or less stable. This is a commodity much harder to define and far and away more volatile in terms of market value. Gold is going to be worth... gold regardless of whether you have the actual lump or just the option on it. It isn't going to suddenly turn to lead once you acquire it. On the other hand, a prospect in minor league/college/junior hockey -- no matter how good he looks today -- may do exactly that once he lands in the big leagues.

Believe me, if I could predict the future that well I'd be a very rich man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just admit defeat.

But I'll stand by the assertion that the series didn't hinge on him getting hurt. Montreal hardly went away after his injury -- Carolina just found a way to beat them.

Your assertion is dead wrong. The dynamics of Montreal's team completely fell apart after Koivu got hurt....They managed themselves well, but there was an obvious lack of edge....Both Higgins and Ryder became unproductive after Koivu got hurt making Kovalev's line the only scoring threat on Montreal at that point. It's not too easy to shut down a one line team. The only other factor in that series that came close to matching the magnitude of Koivu's injury was putting Cam Ward in net.

The 97-98 Red Wings. Osgood is solid, but hardly qualifies as "amazing" when stacked up with Roy or Brodeur.

That year Osgood a 2.21 (GAA) .913(SV%) in the regular season and a stunning .925(SV%) in the playoffs....Hardly the figures of a weak goalie.

And how often does a Mario Lemieux come along? My argument is not that franchise players don't exist, just that for every Lemieux to come along there are 28 or 29 other first-round picks. And how many of them become franchise players?

How often does Michael Jordan come around. If you're going to use Jordan as your NBA example don't criticize me for using Lemieux. Whenever players get as much attention as JJ does, 9 times out of 10 they DO become franchise players. Kariya, Lindros, Heatley, Iginla, and Spezza have all been players over the past decade who were praised to be franchise players and have been to some degree.

He was. It was called the WHA and it was contracts like his that sent that league into the great beyond. To be joined later by the WFL and USFL for the same kinds of reasons.

I really don't know what you are talking about here. Orr never played in the WHA....And even if he did, I don't see how this has any relevence to this discussion.

we got good value for him and unloaded a waste of cap space in the process.

How so? How much do this think a rookie can make under the cap? There are limits to how much a rookie player can sign for. You're cap room argument doesn't hold up.

2 slivers of silver now.

Because it gets us a shot at the silver bowl that the possible lump of gold may not.

I can think of another team who also liked to think short term instead of long term....The Toronto Maple Leafs before they fired Quinn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe in a different market, this would be a bad deal but in this market, I think JR made the right decision. In order to continue to build the fanbase here and keep the team here, JR cannot afford to wait it out on Johnson. Nor can he afford to put a losing product on the ice for a few years hoping JJ will sign. Although the diehard Caniac fanbase is growing, we still have a lot of casual fans who are not going to pay good money to watch a team lose a lot. Caniacs may not like the more casual fans but the franchise needs all the fans it can get--casual or not. We need to fill seats. Without Gleason, I think we would have lost a lot more games than we did. Not sure about Belanger but I think he will be okay.

Just two cents from someone who did not grow up with hockey (being a NC native) but is a Caniac and a business manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think growing up with hockey has anything to do with it....

I like the fact that you're bringing the fanbase into the argument....but it may mean the opposite of what you're contending. After winning the stanley cup...carolina is garanteed decent attendence ratings for at least another 3 years....at the end of which Johnson would have been developed and fully ready to take a more leading role on the team and serve as an attendence booster. And after the sudden drop in attenence 3 yars ago...I think Carolina may need to think about establishing long term stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you maybe right...but I personally do not think winning the Cup will guarantee us good attendance for 3 years. A lot of folks here are just getting into hockey (because of the Cup win yes) but just based on my own personal experience, going to a few games does not guarantee you will come back for more. I was at the inaugural game at the then ESA and went to a few games here & there but I hate to admit it but I never got into it until the season before the lockout when a friend from Canada took me to a few games & actually explained some of the rules (I did not even follow the 2002 Cup run we had). I would never claim to know everything about hockey by any means. But maybe JR knew something we do not--who knows. I think JR has done a decent job so far so I willing to give this trade a chance to see how it pans out.

Anyway, it makes for an interesting discussion on the boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just admit defeat.

Never!

Seriously' date=' we'll probably never agree on the trade and the wisdom of it. But it is what it is, and we'll never know what might have been. GM's are faced with making decisions based on the data available at the time. And the only data available on JJ at the time of the trade was that he was not gonna sign.

But I'll stand by the assertion that the series didn't hinge on him getting hurt. Montreal hardly went away after his injury -- Carolina just found a way to beat them.

Your assertion is dead wrong. The dynamics of Montreal's team completely fell apart after Koivu got hurt....They managed themselves well, but there was an obvious lack of edge....Both Higgins and Ryder became unproductive after Koivu got hurt making Kovalev's line the only scoring threat on Montreal at that point. It's not too easy to shut down a one line team. The only other factor in that series that came close to matching the magnitude of Koivu's injury was putting Cam Ward in net.

Four one-goal games, two of them going to OT and the Habs fell apart?? Man, you're a pretty Draconian judge.

The 97-98 Red Wings. Osgood is solid' date=' but hardly qualifies as "amazing" when stacked up with Roy or Brodeur.[/quote']

That year Osgood a 2.21 (GAA) .913(SV%) in the regular season and a stunning .925(SV%) in the playoffs....Hardly the figures of a weak goalie.

Operative words being "that year". You can't seriously be putting Osgood in the same league as Roy or Brodeur -- both of whom I believe would fit your definition of "franchise player". Yes, your goaltender has to be hot for you to win the Cup. but he doesn't have to be legendary. Guigere, Khabibulin, they had great years and great playoffs -- but they're not the stuff of legend.

And how often does a Mario Lemieux come along? My argument is not that franchise players don't exist' date=' just that for every Lemieux to come along there are 28 or 29 other first-round picks. And how many of them become franchise players?[/quote']

How often does Michael Jordan come around. If you're going to use Jordan as your NBA example don't criticize me for using Lemieux. Whenever players get as much attention as JJ does, 9 times out of 10 they DO become franchise players. Kariya, Lindros, Heatley, Iginla, and Spezza have all been players over the past decade who were praised to be franchise players and have been to some degree.

Out of 316 First-round picks since 1996, 15 catch my attention as star players.

2006 2 Pittsburgh Jordan Staal

2005 1 Pittsburgh Sidney Crosby

2004 1 Washington Alexander Ovechkin

2004 2 Pittsburgh Evgeni Malkin

2003 2 Carolina Eric Staal

2002 2 Atlanta Kari Lehtonen

2002 25 Carolina Cam Ward

2001 1 Atlanta Ilya Kovalchuk

2001 2 Ottawa Jason Spezza

2000 2 Atlanta Dany Heatley

1998 1 Tampa Bay Vincent Lecavalier

1998 27 New Jersey Scott Gomez

1997 1 Boston Joe Thornton

1997 12 Ottawa Marian Hossa

1996 24 Phoenix Daniel Briere

2005 3 Carolina Jack Johnson "Deal? Or no deal?"

Another 26 players strike me as either "potential franchise players", or "not-quite franchise players".

2004 4 Carolina Andrew Ladd

2003 1 Pittsburgh Marc-Andre Fleury

2003 17 New Jersey Zach Parise

2003 26 Los Angeles Brian Boyle

2003 29 Ottawa Patrick Eaves

2002 1 Columbus Rick Nash

2002 7 Anaheim Joffrey Lupul

2002 13 Washington Alexander Semin

2001 7 Montreal Mike Komisarek

2001 13 Edmonton Ales Hemsky

2000 1 NY Islanders Rick DiPietro

2000 5 NY Islanders Raffi Torres

2000 28 Philadelphia Justin Williams

1999 1 Atlanta Patrik Stefan

1999 26 Ottawa Martin Havlat

1998 5 Anaheim Vitali Vishnevsky

1998 12 Colorado Alex Tanguay

1998 18 Buffalo Dmitri Kalinin

1998 21 Los Angeles Mathieu Biron

1998 22 Philadelphia Simon Gagne

1997 2 San Jose Patrick Marleau

1997 3 Los Angeles Olli Jokinen

1997 8 Boston Sergei Samsonov

1997 25 Dallas Brenden Morrow

1996 9 Anaheim Ruslan Salei

1996 15 Philadelphia Dainius Zubrus

Combining the two groups you get 41 guys out of 316. That's 13% of the past 11 years worth of first-round picks. Take out 2006 if you want to since only one of those guys (J. Staal) is currently playing in the NHL. That brings the percentage up to almost 14% (40 out of 286) if you count Johnson (as I did in my initial calculation) or 13% if you leave him out of the equation.

Presumably all of these players were heavily scouted and showed the kind of promise that would make them worth a first round choice. And in 14% of cases they lived up to expectation.

So now you're Jim Rutherford and you're faced with putting not just the future, but the present of your team on the line for a system that's wrong 86% of the time?

Deal? Or no deal?

He was. It was called the WHA and it was contracts like his that sent that league into the great beyond. To be joined later by the WFL and USFL for the same kinds of reasons.

I really don't know what you are talking about here. Orr never played in the WHA....And even if he did' date=' I don't see how this has any relevence to this discussion.[/quote']

You're right, my mistake... I got the wrong Bobby. I was thinking of Hull.

we got good value for him and unloaded a waste of cap space in the process.

How so? How much do this think a rookie can make under the cap? There are limits to how much a rookie player can sign for. You're cap room argument doesn't hold up.

JJ wasn't making a dime. It was the $2.5 mil we were paying Tverdovsky that I was talking about.

2 slivers of silver now.

Because it gets us a shot at the silver bowl that the possible lump of gold may not.

I can think of another team who also liked to think short term instead of long term....The Toronto Maple Leafs before they fired Quinn.

Seems to me that the 2002 Red Wings might've been thinking about the short term too. :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'll look through that list, you'll notice a lot of 1st and 2nd overall picks go on to be stars. JJ was picked 3rd and was easily worthy of 1st or 2nd in another year. Some reports I've read claim Carolina got a steal at 3rd. Thanks crosby!

Also, what you believe to be franchise players is subjective. If we were in a court of law this would be thrown out faster than the lawsuits against mcDonalds for making people fat. But this is a hockey forum, fortunately.

I'm sure hoyle will have more to say than I, but that part just irked me a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is useless now....you're bringing way too much relativity into this.

The last player who was tooted to be the next great thing, but ended up being a HUGE flop, was Alexander Daigle. Other then that your 13% 'potential" statistics are irrelevant. You're almost making it sound like The NHL draft is a lottery.....You've gone way off base now, and you aren't even arguing on topic anymore.

Here's a better way of looking at it.....Instead of looking at league percentages of players you seem to think are possible franchise players, try looking at how well certain teams have done with drafting future talent. My best suggestion would be for you too look up Colorado's drafting history for starters. Then look up Anahiem's, Ottawa's draft history and possibly Montreal's draft history over the past 5 years. Then compare it to how well teams like Calgary and Toronto drafted and Montreal in the mid 90s drafted.

What I'm trying to say is JJ's potential shouldn't be judged on your 13% statistic. It should be judge by how well Carolina has been drafting the past 5 or 6 years. The Hurricanes franchise has done a very decent job at drafting players who turn out to be key compentents of their team. So based on Carolina's ability to assess talent, I highlydoubt JJ will be a flop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument is useless now....you're bringing way too much relativity into this.

The last player who was tooted to be the next great thing, but ended up being a HUGE flop, was Alexander Daigle. Other then that your 13% 'potential" statistics are irrelevant. You're almost making it sound like The NHL draft is a lottery.....You've gone way off base now, and you aren't even arguing on topic anymore.

Here's a better way of looking at it.....Instead of looking at league percentages of players you seem to think are possible franchise players, try looking at how well certain teams have done with drafting future talent. My best suggestion would be for you too look up Colorado's drafting history for starters. Then look up Anahiem's, Ottawa's draft history and possibly Montreal's draft history over the past 5 years. Then compare it to how well teams like Calgary and Toronto drafted and Montreal in the mid 90s drafted.

What I'm trying to say is JJ's potential shouldn't be judged on your 13% statistic. It should be judge by how well Carolina has been drafting the past 5 or 6 years. The Hurricanes franchise has done a very decent job at drafting players who turn out to be key compentents of their team. So based on Carolina's ability to assess talent, I highlydoubt JJ will be a flop.

I never contended that he would be a flop -- or even that he might not turn out to be highly successful in the NHL. He obviously has potential -- he wouldn't have been drafted so highly if he didn't. What I am saying is that potential is all he has right now and potential ability is not the same as actual ability. Every kid who's taken in the draft -- regardless of where -- has the potential to become great. But most of them don't -- otherwise there'd be no way to judge which ones do.

As for arguing off-topic, this thread got derailed as soon as it became a debate over the Tverdovsky/Johnson-Gleason/Belanger trade. It was initially supposed to be an assessment of the new guys and how well they're contributing and fitting in with the system.

As for Carolina's draft history, here's the first round since the move:

2006 None

2005(3) Jack Johnson

2004(4) Andrew Ladd

2003(2) Eric Staal

2002(25) Cam Ward

2001(15)Igor Knyazev

2000 None

1999(16) Dave Tanabe

1998(11) Jeff Heerema

1997(22) Nikos Tselios

Two picks traded away, one clearly star quality, one probably star quality, one possibly star quality, three not-ready-for-prime-time players, one I never heard of and Johnson. So 2 for 8 is ia 25% rather than 14%. Suggests that the Canes are perhaps better than most at evaluating talent. Also suggests that 3 times in 4 they're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you'll look through that list, you'll notice a lot of 1st and 2nd overall picks go on to be stars. JJ was picked 3rd and was easily worthy of 1st or 2nd in another year. Some reports I've read claim Carolina got a steal at 3rd. Thanks crosby!

Also, what you believe to be franchise players is subjective.

I'm sure hoyle will have more to say than I, but that part just irked me a bit.

We agree on that one. The definition of "franchise player" is certainly about as subjective as it gets. But at the end of the day, whether Johnson is a "franchise player", a "star player", a "solid contributor" or a "complete bust" the key thing about any player is how well he fits into your overall scheme. Some guys -- and Johnson may well be one of them -- can go anywhere and be successful. Others... they're good with the right combination of players around them, not so good when they're taken out of that environment. But that Herb Brooks quote in my sig isn't there just because I like the sound of it. It's there because I believe it to my very core. And maybe that's why I still think this trade was a good move.

And unless both Gleason and Belanger turn out to be as useless as Tverdovsky was to us, I'll always think it was a good move.

Besides, give him a couple of years and JJ will be RFA. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument is useless now....you're bringing way too much relativity into this.

The last player who was tooted to be the next great thing, but ended up being a HUGE flop, was Alexander Daigle. Other then that your 13% 'potential" statistics are irrelevant. You're almost making it sound like The NHL draft is a lottery.....You've gone way off base now, and you aren't even arguing on topic anymore.

Here's a better way of looking at it.....Instead of looking at league percentages of players you seem to think are possible franchise players, try looking at how well certain teams have done with drafting future talent. My best suggestion would be for you too look up Colorado's drafting history for starters. Then look up Anahiem's, Ottawa's draft history and possibly Montreal's draft history over the past 5 years. Then compare it to how well teams like Calgary and Toronto drafted and Montreal in the mid 90s drafted.

What I'm trying to say is JJ's potential shouldn't be judged on your 13% statistic. It should be judge by how well Carolina has been drafting the past 5 or 6 years. The Hurricanes franchise has done a very decent job at drafting players who turn out to be key compentents of their team. So based on Carolina's ability to assess talent, I highlydoubt JJ will be a flop.

I never contended that he would be a flop -- or even that he might not turn out to be highly successful in the NHL. He obviously has potential -- he wouldn't have been drafted so highly if he didn't. What I am saying is that potential is all he has right now and potential ability is not the same as actual ability. Every kid who's taken in the draft -- regardless of where -- has the potential to become great. But most of them don't -- otherwise there'd be no way to judge which ones do.

As for arguing off-topic, this thread got derailed as soon as it became a debate over the Tverdovsky/Johnson-Gleason/Belanger trade. It was initially supposed to be an assessment of the new guys and how well they're contributing and fitting in with the system.

As for Carolina's draft history, here's the first round since the move:

2006 None

2005(3) Jack Johnson

2004(4) Andrew Ladd

2003(2) Eric Staal

2002(25) Cam Ward

2001(15)Igor Knyazev

2000 None

1999(16) Dave Tanabe

1998(11) Jeff Heerema

1997(22) Nikos Tselios

Two picks traded away, one clearly star quality, one probably star quality, one possibly star quality, three not-ready-for-prime-time players, one I never heard of and Johnson. So 2 for 8 is ia 25% rather than 14%. Suggests that the Canes are perhaps better than most at evaluating talent. Also suggests that 3 times in 4 they're wrong.

You can play the %s all you want, but ask any stock trader: past performance is not a guarantee of future gains. Just because our last 3 picks have all turned out to be great players (Wardo, Staal, Ladd), does not mean Johnson will also be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I miss something? Ladd is considered a great player already?

Sorry...good, at least. Wardo and Staal are great, Ladd is good (but likely WILL be great)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am saying is that potential is all he has right now and potential ability is not the same as actual ability. Every kid who's taken in the draft -- regardless of where -- has the potential to become great. But most of them don't -- otherwise there'd be no way to judge which ones do.

This is what I'm talking about. You're argument lacks substance.....give me something factual. The best you did was provide a 13% statistic that I showed to have little use.

You're completely marginalising any credit that deserves to be given to the job of scouts. I feel like I'm talking in circles....seriously....Once again your argument is based on nothing but subjective opinion and relativity.

What I am saying is that potential is all he has right now and potential ability is not the same as actual ability. Every kid who's taken in the draft -- regardless of where -- has the potential to become great. But most of them don't -- otherwise there'd be no way to judge which ones do.

Yes but according to this argument, you could argue that the last kid drafted could potentially become better then the first kid drafted. In theory yes....in practical sense Hell No!!! In other words I'm willing to side with the calibur assessments of NHL scouts more then I'm willing to side with your arguments of hypothetical situations.

The fact still remains that Carolina's scouting staff have done a decent job at assessing young talent over the past 4 years. Let's not forget that they found Erik Cole in the 3rd round way back in 98.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am saying is that potential is all he has right now and potential ability is not the same as actual ability. Every kid who's taken in the draft -- regardless of where -- has the potential to become great. But most of them don't -- otherwise there'd be no way to judge which ones do.

This is what I'm talking about. You're argument lacks substance.....give me something factual. The best you did was provide a 13% statistic that I showed to have little use.

You're completely marginalising any credit that deserves to be given to the job of scouts. I feel like I'm talking in circles....seriously....Once again your argument is based on nothing but subjective opinion and relativity.

What I am saying is that potential is all he has right now and potential ability is not the same as actual ability. Every kid who's taken in the draft -- regardless of where -- has the potential to become great. But most of them don't -- otherwise there'd be no way to judge which ones do.

Yes but according to this argument, you could argue that the last kid drafted could potentially become better then the first kid drafted. In theory yes....in practical sense Hell No!!! In other words I'm willing to side with the calibur assessments of NHL scouts more then I'm willing to side with your arguments of hypothetical situations.

The fact still remains that Carolina's scouting staff have done a decent job at assessing young talent over the past 4 years. Let's not forget that they found Erik Cole in the 3rd round way back in 98.

The Carolina scouts have had their eyes on Gleason as a D-man that would fit the team perfectly since at least the lockout, when they watched him in the AHL. That has come from local newspaper reports. Belanger was another player they liked, but Gleason was supposedly near the top of the players they wanted to get.

Scouting doesn't just happen for the draft. :roll:

This trade wasn't done without scouting reports or input from the Canes scouting staff. So does that make you feel any better about the trade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean Carolina's scouts feel he's the same calibur as Johnson. If they did they would have drafted Gleason in 2001 instead of defensman Igor Knyazev. It means that Carolina was put in a really bad position for the trade and had to trade him for less then he was worth.

You should also take into account that JJ was draft the same year as Crosby. That year was said to be one of the most talent enriched drafts in years. And out of all those kids, Crosby was obviously ranked the best forward and Johnson was ranked the best defensman. In order for me to take your argument seriously, you're asking for me to ignore A LOT of calibur forecasting.

And if there is anything that ensures me JJ will be great, is he'll more then likely be playing alot of time with Visnovsky....at least on the PP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, what you believe to be franchise players is subjective.

You also have to take into account the position of the so-called franchise player.

To be honest, in this NHL era I'm not sure you can consider a blueliner as a franchise player. Just as the NHL copy cats all started to roll out versions of the trap after NJ's success, you will see teams trying to build on what Carolina and Buffalo have done. Fast skating forwards, mobile defensemen, and quality goaltending.

Nobody would turn down a top flight physical defenseman of course but while you had a tough time winning without one in the trap era I'm not sure it is not an absolute requirement anymore. Carolina showed that last year with Commodore and A. Ward serving the roles of hard-hitting defensemen. Neither is going to be confused with being an elite player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stormrider....

your argument is correct....but backwards. Franchise defensmen were hard to come by in the old NHL trap system, because defensive goons could do just as much work and get the same job done with less scoring. But with the new obstruction rule, defense who are slow, mean and overly physical will not survive anymore. When the other team's winger come flying down the boards the defense are no longer aloud to stick their arm out to block him. They either have to stick check or use speed to keep up with him. Defensmen who are very talented at adapting to this style of defense will be franchise players down the road....at least in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your argument is correct....but backwards. Franchise defensmen were hard to come by in the old NHL trap system, because defensive goons could do just as much work and get the same job done with less scoring. But with the new obstruction rule, defense who are slow, mean and overly physical will not survive anymore. When the other team's winger come flying down the boards the defense are no longer aloud to stick their arm out to block him. They either have to stick check or use speed to keep up with him. Defensmen who are very talented at adapting to this style of defense will be franchise players down the road....at least in my opinion.

I think you are missing what I wrote. There were plenty of franchise d-men during the trap era but I do agree with you that they may not have been as valued because of the clutching and grabbing. Most every team to win a Cup during that time had one - Lidstrom, Stevens, Hatcher, Foote/Blake, etc. The Canes did not and I don't think it is the aberration.

However, my point is that though a guy like Stevens was a centerpiece blueliner in his day you can't build your defense around one guy - or franchise player - with all the offense now. Even the great ones like Lidstrom aren't going to play more than half the game. That means you have to have good balance and constant help from the forwards.

Stevens-type guys, who Johnson is often compared, are great to have but they can't do it in today's era without the other ingredients. In other words, team D coming from both a mobile blueline and backchecking forwards is the way to go.

Your point about slow d's is exactly right and that is what Philly is faced with now. Hatcher is another guy likened to Johnson but he can't do it alone and often still goes for the big hit at the expense of positioning. From what I've seen so does Johnson. He isn't as slow as Hatcher but again I still maintain the value of a "franchise" d-man will be negated if the other blueliners aren't solid and the forwards don't help out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is JJ an offensive defensman or a defensive defensman?

If you had to categorize him, he is more of an offensive defenseman who can dish out and likes to dish out the punishment. You can make the argument that he is a hybrid and many people think about his physical rep and assume he's a defensive d-man only.

He isn't always consistent with his positioning and too often goes outside of his responsibilities trying to make the knockout hits. Some will disagree but that is why I get amused by people who hyperventilate over trading away his rights. Many of those same people are going by rep only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...