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

JR working on a dman trade?

Recommended Posts

My personal opinion is that we need to shake up the defense men still. The defense men looked really slow last year on the ice and gave away TONS of cheap goals from give-aways. That being said, my vote is to get Wardo back or someone like him. He was the most versatile Dman that we have had recently.

that wouldn't be enough of a shakeup and he had issues too!!

All I'm saying is that what we have now for Dmen isn't enough to take the Cup again. On a lighter note though, I smile everytime I think about that Culley is back! Welcome back Matt!

Actually it is enough if Hedican is truly 100% and Wesley hasn't lost a step! Those are big if's!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not worried about Wesley. He sems to know his body quite well. If he thinks he can play another year then I believe him and look forward to seeing him play. Hedican is still iffy. He could be healthy all year and I think our defense would be solid. If he or others are injured then JR will make a move if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siedenberg needs to be the defensive anchor on the PP. He has good answers for all the points raised in this discussion: a great shot, excellent speed, passing ability, offensive-minded but knows how to stay at home (or get back home). He's also ready to take one for the team: he made plays last year to keep the puck in the offensive end in even-strength situations that our other guys would have "heard footsteps" on, though some of that can be chalked up to the general lack of urgency the team displayed all year.

I've watched Siedenberg progress in the NHL. He has more than enough talent to get the job done on the PP. Perhaps more important, he is still new enough to the team that giving him a spot on the PP might send a message to some of the D-men who dozed through most of last year.

I thought he did a decent job on the point last year but as the #7 Dman, he will only play when Lavi goes with only 11 forwards. Like Hutch though Siedenberg can be such a liability on defense that he only gets limited minutes at even strength.

He does show a degree of calm on the point but his decision-making still isn't great. I remember one time he committed the cardinal sin of diving to keep a puck in the zone on a PP, which is a huge gamble. He has talent but he needs to harness it and consistency is a huge issue for him. He started out quite well when he first got here but then just bottomed out and deservedly ended up in the press box.

That's only a cardinal sin if you fail and give up a shorty. I remember the play, and Seidenberg not only kept the puck in the zone but got it to a teammate cycling up the wall. If more of our D took similar chances on the PP last year, we'd have had more PP goals to show for it. When you've got the man advantage you have to use it. Getting beat because you dove when your team was a man up means you're momentarily at 4 on 4, and if you're not willing to take a chance like that now and then in hockey, you're not going to put many biscuits in the basket.

As far as I'm concerned, the major influence on the Canes' poor performance last year was not, as so many have said, injuries. Was it a factor? Sure. But the major failure was that the guys who were on the ice didn't step up and play balls-out on an everyday basis -- as they did the year before -- with the exception of maybe 5 or 6 guys. After he joined the team, Seidenberg was one of those guys and Lavi knew it. I wouldn't call 20+ minutes in four of his last five games -- and 17 in that last one -- "limited," and I think Lavi sat him down b/c he didn't want to risk a flukey injury after the Canes were all but out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siedenberg needs to be the defensive anchor on the PP. He has good answers for all the points raised in this discussion: a great shot, excellent speed, passing ability, offensive-minded but knows how to stay at home (or get back home). He's also ready to take one for the team: he made plays last year to keep the puck in the offensive end in even-strength situations that our other guys would have "heard footsteps" on, though some of that can be chalked up to the general lack of urgency the team displayed all year.

I've watched Siedenberg progress in the NHL. He has more than enough talent to get the job done on the PP. Perhaps more important, he is still new enough to the team that giving him a spot on the PP might send a message to some of the D-men who dozed through most of last year.

I thought he did a decent job on the point last year but as the #7 Dman, he will only play when Lavi goes with only 11 forwards. Like Hutch though Siedenberg can be such a liability on defense that he only gets limited minutes at even strength.

He does show a degree of calm on the point but his decision-making still isn't great. I remember one time he committed the cardinal sin of diving to keep a puck in the zone on a PP, which is a huge gamble. He has talent but he needs to harness it and consistency is a huge issue for him. He started out quite well when he first got here but then just bottomed out and deservedly ended up in the press box.

That's only a cardinal sin if you fail and give up a shorty. I remember the play, and Seidenberg not only kept the puck in the zone but got it to a teammate cycling up the wall. If more of our D took similar chances on the PP last year, we'd have had more PP goals to show for it. When you've got the man advantage you have to use it. Getting beat because you dove when your team was a man up means you're momentarily at 4 on 4, and if you're not willing to take a chance like that now and then in hockey, you're not going to put many biscuits in the basket.

As far as I'm concerned, the major influence on the Canes' poor performance last year was not, as so many have said, injuries. Was it a factor? Sure. But the major failure was that the guys who were on the ice didn't step up and play balls-out on an everyday basis -- as they did the year before -- with the exception of maybe 5 or 6 guys. After he joined the team, Seidenberg was one of those guys and Lavi knew it. I wouldn't call 20+ minutes in four of his last five games -- and 17 in that last one -- "limited," and I think Lavi sat him down b/c he didn't want to risk a flukey injury after the Canes were all but out of it.

No, it's a mortal sin if you give up a shorty. ;) Seriously though, you don't put yourself at risk by diving for a puck with a defender close by who will have a chance for a breakaway. That kills your momentum and it is unnecessary. You might do it if you down late in the game and pulling out all the stops but your give yourself up and have nobody to cover for you. It isn't and wasn't a sound play given the circumstances.

Seidenberg sat for a time because he went from good to brutal on defense very quickly. You don't keep a young guy out of the lineup if you are all but out of the playoffs, you do just the opposite. He got back in because of injuries to Wesley and Gleason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siedenberg needs to be the defensive anchor on the PP. He has good answers for all the points raised in this discussion: a great shot, excellent speed, passing ability, offensive-minded but knows how to stay at home (or get back home). He's also ready to take one for the team: he made plays last year to keep the puck in the offensive end in even-strength situations that our other guys would have "heard footsteps" on, though some of that can be chalked up to the general lack of urgency the team displayed all year.

I've watched Siedenberg progress in the NHL. He has more than enough talent to get the job done on the PP. Perhaps more important, he is still new enough to the team that giving him a spot on the PP might send a message to some of the D-men who dozed through most of last year.

I thought he did a decent job on the point last year but as the #7 Dman, he will only play when Lavi goes with only 11 forwards. Like Hutch though Siedenberg can be such a liability on defense that he only gets limited minutes at even strength.

He does show a degree of calm on the point but his decision-making still isn't great. I remember one time he committed the cardinal sin of diving to keep a puck in the zone on a PP, which is a huge gamble. He has talent but he needs to harness it and consistency is a huge issue for him. He started out quite well when he first got here but then just bottomed out and deservedly ended up in the press box.

That's only a cardinal sin if you fail and give up a shorty. I remember the play, and Seidenberg not only kept the puck in the zone but got it to a teammate cycling up the wall. If more of our D took similar chances on the PP last year, we'd have had more PP goals to show for it. When you've got the man advantage you have to use it. Getting beat because you dove when your team was a man up means you're momentarily at 4 on 4, and if you're not willing to take a chance like that now and then in hockey, you're not going to put many biscuits in the basket.

As far as I'm concerned, the major influence on the Canes' poor performance last year was not, as so many have said, injuries. Was it a factor? Sure. But the major failure was that the guys who were on the ice didn't step up and play balls-out on an everyday basis -- as they did the year before -- with the exception of maybe 5 or 6 guys. After he joined the team, Seidenberg was one of those guys and Lavi knew it. I wouldn't call 20+ minutes in four of his last five games -- and 17 in that last one -- "limited," and I think Lavi sat him down b/c he didn't want to risk a flukey injury after the Canes were all but out of it.

No, it's a mortal sin if you give up a shorty. ;) Seriously though, you don't put yourself at risk by diving for a puck with a defender close by who will have a chance for a breakaway. That kills your momentum and it is unnecessary. You might do it if you down late in the game and pulling out all the stops but your give yourself up and have nobody to cover for you. It isn't and wasn't a sound play given the circumstances.

Seidenberg sat for a time because he went from good to brutal on defense very quickly. You don't keep a young guy out of the lineup if you are all but out of the playoffs, you do just the opposite. He got back in because of injuries to Wesley and Gleason.

I respect your opinions even though I disagree, stormrider. A dive is great play when you're up a man and trying to maintain PP pressure. A good defensive partner anticipates it and is already leaning to the neutral side of the blue line in case your effort fails.

Moreover, the Canes were down late in the game -- it's just that the "game" in question was their entire season. Seidenberg brought a vibrance and urgency to the D that was not there prior to his arrival. I'm not sure where you're getting the "he was brutal" on defense thing. As if the whole team wasn't, all year long.

Regardless of our divergent opinions, it'll be interesting to see how Lavi uses him in the coming season. But I'll make you a friendly bet: by Christmas, he's starting on the PP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respect your opinions even though I disagree, stormrider. A dive is great play when you're up a man and trying to maintain PP pressure. A good defensive partner anticipates it and is already leaning to the neutral side of the blue line in case your effort fails.

Moreover, the Canes were down late in the game -- it's just that the "game" in question was their entire season. Seidenberg brought a vibrance and urgency to the D that was not there prior to his arrival. I'm not sure where you're getting the "he was brutal" on defense thing. As if the whole team wasn't, all year long.

Regardless of our divergent opinions, it'll be interesting to see how Lavi uses him in the coming season. But I'll make you a friendly bet: by Christmas, he's starting on the PP.

Ok, so we can agree to disagree but I have to ask you this. How can diving for a puck with a killer right there and your point partner - a forward at that - not anticipating it, be a sound play? I don't think it is and more importantly if the puck is heading out of the zone you aren't there is no "PP pressure" to maintain because you are already out of your formation and the PK unit is setting back up.

Where I'm getting the "brutal" nature of his defense was watching him play. As I said, he come out stronger than expected and I agree that he did bring some energy. But he faded very quickly and was just terrible positionally for another stretch of games, which got him the press box. He was making rookie mistakes and letting offensively challenged guys like Boulton turn him inside out.

I wrote earlier that I do like what he can bring on the point, aside from the reckless chances he takes on occasion. There is a gaping hole at Dpoint on the PP since nobody new has been brought in and Tanabe, Babchuk and Hutch are all gone. If Hedican struggles or can't make it back and an O-Dman isn't brought in, it is conceivable that Seidenberg would be on the second unit. That leaves Kaberle on the first unit (I'm underwhelmed) but I doubt Seidenberg is on the first unit unless there are injuries. He should start the season as #3 Dpoint on the PP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sound play when it's a loose puck. It was not heading out of the zone, it had come to the line out of his reach and all S'berg needed to do was get it to the guy cycling up the wall. He saw that a dive let him beat the defender to the biscuit.

If you think his play was brutal that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that everybody on our D was worse than brutal last year. Lavi could have chosen to sit anybody on our D for the same reasons you cite, not just S'berg, which is why I think his sitting had more to do with not forcing him to fit in when the season was clearly over; that can happen in camp. And I'm sticking with my assertion that Lavi realized risking a flukey injury to a young stud like S'berg, who could help them come out strong in 07, was foolish once the Canes were clearly out of it in the spring.

So, I guess we disagree. But that doesn't make you a bad person. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a sound play when it's a loose puck. It was not heading out of the zone, it had come to the line out of his reach and all S'berg needed to do was get it to the guy cycling up the wall. He saw that a dive let him beat the defender to the biscuit.

If you think his play was brutal that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that everybody on our D was worse than brutal last year. Lavi could have chosen to sit anybody on our D for the same reasons you cite, not just S'berg, which is why I think his sitting had more to do with not forcing him to fit in when the season was clearly over; that can happen in camp. And I'm sticking with my assertion that Lavi realized risking a flukey injury to a young stud like S'berg, who could help them come out strong in 07, was foolish once the Canes were clearly out of it in the spring.

So, I guess we disagree. But that doesn't make you a bad person. :)

I'm not sure where you are going with the first point. Initially you stated he kept it in the zone and now you are saying it wasn't heading out of the zone. Regardless, you have to be responsible when playing the point and there are only rare instances where diving for a puck is a sound play - that wasn't one of them. Now, I will say it turned out to be a good play but I'm sure he heard about its riskiness on the bench. You are giving yourself up if you miss and Lavi plays a forward at the other point. Trust me, the coaching staff doesn't want to see that kind of play in that circumstance.

As I've stated, Seidenberg started out quite well and then just stunk it up for a period of time and was so bad he became a healthy scratch. He also first sat when the Canes were very much in the playoff race in early Feb. He sat because he was hurting the team's chances not because he was being kept out as a precaution. Lavi's system is rewards-based and he earned the press box. If what you wrote were true, why wouldn't guys like Brindy have sat out the last game of the year against FL with the Canes already eliminated from the playoffs?

At this point Seidenberg is a depth Dman who hasn't developed consistency wherever he's been. If they contribute, you play guys like that to help them develop but when they hurt you, they sit. I like parts of his game too but he needs a lot of work. If he had the confidence of the coaching staff, JR wouldn't keep saying he would like another puck-moving Dman. That is his game, yet they see him as a project sitting in the 7th spot on the depth chart.

I don't think of you as a bad person either. Just misguided perhaps. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only Defensemen that we have is a Right Handed shot is #22. Interesting fact. I did not know that we have only one right handed shot in our lineup.

WOOO! haha i knew he was right handed! :D

haah wow i feel special..ha anyway..

but i thought brett hedican was too, hmm.

good to know, :]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random observation: Does anyone else think it's odd that the majority of people are right handed but a crap ton of great athletes are left handed? I would like to see some data to suggest a correlation between athletics and left handedness.

Ok back on topic, sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't find it odd, people who shoot left generally tend to be right handed and the majority of the people in the league shoot left.

Are you sure because I think people who shoot left are left handed. Erik Cole shoots left, on the left wing, because he's left handed. I mean of course sometimes rightys are on the left wing and lefty are on the right, just depends on how you're shot is, plus the obvious reason is passing is easier when a righty is on the right and lefty is on the left. Sorry for all of the lefty rightys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't find it odd, people who shoot left generally tend to be right handed and the majority of the people in the league shoot left.

Are you sure because I think people who shoot left are left handed. Erik Cole shoots left, on the left wing, because he's left handed. I mean of course sometimes rightys are on the left wing and lefty are on the right, just depends on how you're shot is, plus the obvious reason is passing is easier when a righty is on the right and lefty is on the left. Sorry for all of the lefty rightys

Shane is absolutely correct. I am right handed and shoot left. It has been my experience that Canadian kids who are right handed generally grow up playing and shooting left, however the youth and adult leagues here in the states seem to be a bit reversed. Maybe due to the popularity of baseball, etc. I'm not sure, but to shoot left as a right handed person is not odd in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am right-handed but left eye dominant which is why I think it's more comfortable for me to shoot left. I have never played organized hockey but when I have played floor hockey and street hockey it feels more natural to shoot left. I don't know why because I play golf right handed. LOL It just does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you guys are absolutly correct, I guess I had never really put much thought into until I looked around and discovered you guys were correct. I guess the way I shoot is just backwards or something. Weird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't find it odd, people who shoot left generally tend to be right handed and the majority of the people in the league shoot left.

Are you sure because I think people who shoot left are left handed. Erik Cole shoots left, on the left wing, because he's left handed. I mean of course sometimes rightys are on the left wing and lefty are on the right, just depends on how you're shot is, plus the obvious reason is passing is easier when a righty is on the right and lefty is on the left. Sorry for all of the lefty rightys

On a minor note, Cole actually plays on his off-wing as a RW.

As for why there are so many left-handed players, here is the reason even though the vast majority of the population is right-handed dominant. The way you were taught in Canada was to play a fundamental game first. That meant defense and puck handling first and to enable better stick control, you use your dominant, stronger hand up high on the stick. So with so many right-handed people, you would end up with many left-handed shooting players. (It doesn't typically work this way with goalies though).

Some guys don't do it that way, as not everybody teaches it that way anymore, and with the proliferation of non-North American players some of that has gone away. It helps explain in part the generalization many people use about N. American vs. European skaters in terms of which elements of the game are emphasized as they are growing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stormrider is absolutely correct about the stronger hand being up high. Left handers rely on their right wrists to produce wrist shots; while the left wrist does ratchet to help produce the shot, it's the right (top) hand which has more to say about the shot's trajectory and accuracy. (I'm one of those righties-in-all-else-left-in-hockey guys too.)

As far as the the other discussion, to clarify, I as countering your statement, stormrider, that the PP was already broken. It wasn't. It was a loose puck, the kill team was not in possession and Seidenberg's risk was a calculated one. He didn't dive wildly, just saw that the length of his body would give him the advantage he needed to make the touch.

You're certainly free to think me misguided, but I'd be curious to know what gives you special insight into what the coaching staff thinks. Nobody was complaining in '05-'06 when such wide-open, win-at-any-cost play was the norm -- and I don't think the lack of such effort last year and the team's ultimate place in the standings is mere coincidence.

It comes down to hunger. Last year, we played without a trace of it. Year in and year out, in every sport, the teams that bring it every night enjoy much better odds of winning than those which use a conservative, take-no-chances approach. I'd much rather have guys whose will to win is so strong that they leave it all out there every night -- and take chances now and then -- than a group that is content to play respectably and hope that luck is on their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stormrider is absolutely correct about the stronger hand being up high. Left handers rely on their right wrists to produce wrist shots; while the left wrist does ratchet to help produce the shot, it's the right (top) hand which has more to say about the shot's trajectory and accuracy. (I'm one of those righties-in-all-else-left-in-hockey guys too.)

As far as the the other discussion, to clarify, I as countering your statement, stormrider, that the PP was already broken. It wasn't. It was a loose puck, the kill team was not in possession and Seidenberg's risk was a calculated one. He didn't dive wildly, just saw that the length of his body would give him the advantage he needed to make the touch.

You're certainly free to think me misguided, but I'd be curious to know what gives you special insight into what the coaching staff thinks. Nobody was complaining in '05-'06 when such wide-open, win-at-any-cost play was the norm -- and I don't think the lack of such effort last year and the team's ultimate place in the standings is mere coincidence.

Since it was a single play and I've already commented on it several times, I will make just one more reference to it. Lavi encourages risk-taking when it's appropriate but the example you are citing was one of those cases where a very risky play didn't result in scoring chance the other way. You give yourself up when you dive and there is no guarantee the puck doesn't pop up or bounce off of you. Diving to keep possession on a PP, unless time is running out, makes little sense and why you don't see it often and didn't see it in the Cup year either. Aggressive play doesn't equal reckless play.

I don't have any "special insight" but I know that Lavi's system is built on the premise that playing time is based on merit. I will say though that he sometimes gives guys too much of a chance when they are playing poorly but rarely pulls the trigger too quickly. It's not rocket science to see a stretch of bad play by Seidenberg resulting in him being a healthy scratch. He wasn't being shielded from injury, he just stunk it up and was hurting the team's then-alive playoff hopes. If you disagree with my assessment of his play, that's fine but to ignore the coaching staff's view is another matter because there was no other explanation. He is at the bottom of the D depth for a reason. They know he has good offensive upside, which is why he saw some time at forward, but his positional play can sometimes be just terrible.

The bottom line is that I would love to see Seidenberg progress and do well. But he was wildly inconsistent last year and went to the press box after getting tons of TOI initially. I hope he improves dramatically this year but I'm not going to second guess what I saw from him on the ice last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't find it odd, people who shoot left generally tend to be right handed and the majority of the people in the league shoot left.

Are you sure because I think people who shoot left are left handed. Erik Cole shoots left, on the left wing, because he's left handed. I mean of course sometimes rightys are on the left wing and lefty are on the right, just depends on how you're shot is, plus the obvious reason is passing is easier when a righty is on the right and lefty is on the left. Sorry for all of the lefty rightys

Shane is right. Cole actually plays better when he's on the right wing. He might be listed as a LW, but Stillman has been playing the left wing, and Cole has been playing the right wing. He feels more comfortable on the right.

This question was asked on XM why right handed players shoot left. I wish I could remember the answer cause it actually made complete sense, but I forgot what the explanation was. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cole actually plays better when he's on the right wing. He might be listed as a LW, but Stillman has been playing the left wing, and Cole has been playing the right wing. He feels more comfortable on the right.

In Cole's case it is also because his forechecking is better utilized on the RW and Stillman can drift back into the passive LW lock position.

Getting back to the Dmen, the Canes are really lacking in a right-handed shot especially on the point. That's huge to pair a right and a lefty so you can more efficiently get off one-timers. They had good balance in that regard last year, but this year no right-handed D option on the PP point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a loose puck, the kill team was not in possession and Seidenberg's risk was a calculated one. He didn't dive wildly, just saw that the length of his body would give him the advantage he needed to make the touch.

Aggressive play doesn't equal reckless play.

You say you're responding to the specific instance, stormrider, but you ignore previously stated facts that challenge your premise, as the above illustrates. Hockey is a series of calculated risks, and the team making the best calculations is usually the one that gets the W.

Simple question, true or false: The Canes D as a whole made bad decisions and stunk up the ice last year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a loose puck, the kill team was not in possession and Seidenberg's risk was a calculated one. He didn't dive wildly, just saw that the length of his body would give him the advantage he needed to make the touch.

Aggressive play doesn't equal reckless play.

You say you're responding to the specific instance, stormrider, but you ignore previously stated facts that challenge your premise, as the above illustrates. Hockey is a series of calculated risks, and the team making the best calculations is usually the one that gets the W.

Simple question, true or false: The Canes D as a whole made bad decisions and stunk up the ice last year?

I didn't ignore you previously stated comments, Topshelf, I just rejected it. Going down on one knee is a calculated risk to maintain the zone on a PP, not what he did. You like Seidenberg and are willing to give him credit for an ill-advised play that happened to work in one instance. Guess why he never did it again or any other Cane for that matter? Because in that circumstance it was reckless and he easily could have inadvertently pushed the puck out of zone with an attacker nearby and no point support. You give yourself up when you go down on the ice and you almost never want to see it on the point on a PP.

I like Seidenberg too but I'm not willing to say he made a good play when he didn't or ignore the fact that his poor play sent him to the press box. If you want to maintain that he went there to keep him being injured, then that's your business but it just wasn't the case. When you get turned inside out by an offensive hack like Eric Boulton three times on a single possession, your positioning is severely lacking.

To your question, the answer overall is false. Some Canes consistently made bad defensive decisions - Hedican, Babchuk, Seidenberg - while others made them periodically, like Commodore (horrible down the stretch), Tanabe, and Gleason. Wallin and Wesley were fairly consistent but between them you have a second pair and 6th Dman. Where I will say they stunk all year across the board was puck movement and outlet passing. Seidenberg was in fact one of the better ones there but unable to see much TOI down the stretch because his D play was so erratic .

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...