HF Habs: Blueline Prospects/Young Players - Who to Keep Who to Trade

[Estimated_Prophet]

Guhle
Engstrom
Hutson
Xhekaj
Reinbacher

Love Mailloux’s tools so hopefully he works out also

Throw in Barron, Struble, Harris and Konyushkov and this is a ridiculous pool of D talent. There are plenty of teams who would be happy to have these four as their top D prospects.

 

[nhlfan9191]

I'd love to see how much better our D can be with proper structure in our D zone. Many of our forwards are cheating or are simply too stationary. A better forward group would certainly have a major impact on the D.

People put too much blame on the defenders and goaltenders when pucks start going in. There’s more forwards then defenders on the ice at a time so everyone needs to pull their weight.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

People put too much blame on the defenders and goaltenders when pucks start going in. There’s more forwards then defenders on the ice at a time so everyone needs to pull their weight.

Exactly....people tend to take the lazy route and don't actually analyze the real reason behind odd man rushes, botched coverages poor support for breakouts and at times egregious defensive neglect on the part of forwards that directly lead to situations that make dmen and goalies look bad.

 

[WinterLion]

It's a tad too early... but I think it will also depend on what Hughes is offered for them.

 

[rahad]

Our blueline is also injury prone. So having good #7 and AHL back up is a most for us. We have have a good balance of size and skills.

 

[Scriptor]

I'm not so sure about that. Zone D is usually used when you have bigger slower D who can't stick with their man. We have a fairly mobile group so that's not much of an issue for us, man to man seems like the better fit for our group.

Not in practice, yet, though.

 

[DAChampion]

I think that almost everyone has Xhekaj in their future top 6.

 

[Mrb1p]

Habs can decide to wait and see which young players excel, or move a few young guys now.

If they wait, the guy they end up excluding probably doesn't have a lot of value. If they act now, they will get more value but there's the risk the player they move on from will end up being better than the guy they kept.

I think it's worth it to move one of our LD. We have so many guys that have a legitimate shot at an NHL career on the left side that if we don't it won't be long before one or more of these guys are off playing on some other roster.

When is the last time the sit and wait attitude worked for us?

 

[montreal]

I think that almost everyone has Xhekaj in their future top 6.

I don't have anyone in my future top 6 cause I don't have a future top 6 since it's so hard to project who will continue to progress or who won't. Development especially for blueliners can take years with lots of ups and downs, how it unfolds is anyone's guess. The important thing is that we have as many young D progress enough to become assets that either help the Habs or used to get help at forward.

What I do is try and see how much each prospect progresses or not from the start of the year to how they look by the end of it. I don't get caught up in trying to predict things, but there's often surprises and for whatever reason in sports you sometimes see 2nd year pros hit a wall and regress or struggle. Some bounce back, some don't. We'll see how Xhekaj does in Laval and go from there.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I'm not so sure about that. Zone D is usually used when you have bigger slower D who can't stick with their man. We have a fairly mobile group so that's not much of an issue for us, man to man seems like the better fit for our group.

Zone D is primarily used by the best defensive teams.

Some teams play more aggressive in zone coverage but it is definitely something that this team needs to adopt imo. Man to man pulls the D away from the net too often where defensively challenged forwards are left covering high danger areas. Man to man is a huge reason why both Montreal and Laval have such poor defensive numbers.

Man to man works much better with bigger forwards who can be effective low in the zone but is still not my preferred strategy as I prefer a number of zone variations, depending on the opponent that you are facing. It is too easy to run picks against man to man and often it is the most dangerous player on the ice who the picks are being run for.

 

[Sorinth]

Zone D is primarily used by the best defensive teams.

Some teams play more aggressive in zone coverage but it is definitely something that this team needs to adopt imo. Man to man pulls the D away from the net too often where defensively challenged forwards are left covering high danger areas. Man to man is a huge reason why both Montreal and Laval have such poor defensive numbers.

Man to man works much better with bigger forwards who can be effective low in the zone but is still not my preferred strategy as I prefer a number of zone variations, depending on the opponent that you are facing. It is too easy to run picks against man to man and often it is the most dangerous player on the ice who the picks are being run for.

I'm not sure if there's much evidence to support your first statement that the best teams use Zone D. The NHL is very much a copycat league and is constantly switching between what's considered the "best" based on who last won the cup.

I'll be honest and say I don't pay enough attention to the systems of other team. A quick google search does support your statement as they claim Vegas and Boston play zone-D. But I also see articles saying that Tampa played man-to-man on their way to back to back cups. In the end I doubt there's one best system and instead it's all about your players and the current league meta. So no doubt varying things based on opponents is good, and you want players that can make adjustments quickly. Which somewhat feeds into MSL's concepts not systems approach since it's much more about adaption.

That said generally speaking I prefer aggression assuming you have the players to do it well. Put the pressure on opposing teams and force mistakes.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I'm not sure if there's much evidence to support your first statement that the best teams use Zone D. The NHL is very much a copycat league and is constantly switching between what's considered the "best" based on who last won the cup.

I'll be honest and say I don't pay enough attention to the systems of other team. A quick google search does support your statement as they claim Vegas and Boston play zone-D. But I also see articles saying that Tampa played man-to-man on their way to back to back cups. In the end I doubt there's one best system and instead it's all about your players and the current league meta. So no doubt varying things based on opponents is good, and you want players that can make adjustments quickly. Which somewhat feeds into MSL's concepts not systems approach since it's much more about adaption.

That said generally speaking I prefer aggression assuming you have the players to do it well. Put the pressure on opposing teams and force mistakes.

I prefer aggression as well which is why I would use aggressive variations of zone D where the on puck defender attacks and the weak side winger comes over to seal and support. When the on puck defender creates a contested possession the two closest defenders have the option of joining while the two weak side defenders cut off passes to the middle.

Tampa did play man on man but within a loose structure that allowed for defenders to pass off coverage above the dots or where picks were developing. It takes a high collective IQ as players have to intuitively work together more so than a classic zone coverage that is more rigid and defined. It also helps with man on man to have monsters like Hedman and Cernak with enormous wingspans and great sticks so that they don't have to chase as much.

 

[Egresch]

	Hits /60	Blocks/60	GA/60	D-GA/60
Mike Matheson	1,4	5,1	2,6	2,0
Johnathan Kovacevic	2,7	4,7	2,5	2,3
Justin Barron	3,8	5,2	2,5	2,2
Kaiden Guhle	3,7	8,6	2,1	1,7
Arber Xhekaj	9,8	2,9	3,6	3,1
Jordan Harris	1,0	5,6	2,2	2,0
Gustav Lindstrm	2,7	7,0	2,7	2,3
David Savard	2,4	8,3	3,0	3,0
Jayden Struble	5,1	3,6	1,4	1,4

Just a little defensive data for our D group this season. Hits, Blocks, Giveaways and Defensive Giveaways. I like Barron improving his defensive game, I think people heavily underestimate it. If he can continue this progress, he should be part of our future D.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

In 5 years time, how do you think these 4 D will be ranked amongst eachother in terms of who's the better nhler?

1. Guhle
2. Mailloux
3. Hutson
4. Reinbacher

1. Reinbacher
2. Maillioux
3. Hutson
4. Guhle

Not a knock on Guhle, but I’m just extremely high on both Hutson and Mallioux. I think Reinbacher is the easy clear favourite to be number 1

 

[montreal]

This Ducks-Flyers trade could be something like what the Habs will need to do as the Ducks dealt from a position of strength having so many D prospects/young D and used an asset to get offensive help. Will be interesting to see what Hughes does as clearly at some point some blueliners will need to be traded for offensive help.

 

[The Great Weal]

This Ducks-Flyers trade could be something like what the Habs will need to do as the Ducks dealt from a position of strength having so many D prospects/young D and used an asset to get offensive help. Will be interesting to see what Hughes does as clearly at some point some blueliners will need to be traded for offensive help.

I just don't see where we will have the room up front. Suzuki/Slaf/CC/Dach/Newhook/Anderson/Gallagher are here to stay then you got guys like Heineman/Roy/Mesar/Farell who you'd like to give at least one of them a shot so the player we'd acquire would be playing in the bottom 6 without much opportunity to grow. Not to mention that I doubt we would be able to get anything worthwhile for Barron/Harris who would be the two dmen we trade.

 

[Scriptor]

Pretty sure Barron doesn't fetch a late first round pick in a trade today (he was selected at 25th OA), but Harris could perhaps fetch a late 2nd round pick (he was selected 71st in the 3rd round).

Weren't getting a top-6 player forefather of those Ds, IMO but, an eventual trade of a D, along with draft picks,or as part of a bigger package, might well helps acquire a genuine top-6 player.

At that point, I don't see the worry about making room for other young players currently in the system?

If the acquired player makes a case for himself and is better than Heineman, Mesar, Roy, or whomever, what's the problem with slotting him higher up in the lineup?

How about a 3rd line of Mesar-Beck-Roy? Or Newhook-Beck-Roy?

A second line of Slafkovsky -Dach-Mesar?

This year's draft pick(s) in the first round (if Monahan returns a 1st round pick), or Montreal's own first round picked a prospect acquired in a trade involving Monahan, could seriously impact Montreal's future top-6.

Would you trade Monahan + Matheson (50%) for Holtz + Devil's first round pick?

If Montreal somehow added Holtz and one of Lindstrom, or ...-Nygard, plus Iginla, we'd have a good chance of seeing two of those players making our top-6, adding a scoring touch and dropping players like Newhook and Roy to the 3rd line, and players like Heineman to the 4th line.

I'm not sure where Mesar would fit, honestly? 4th line with Heineman and F.Xhekaj at C at first?

 

[HuGort]

Barron and Flames first for top line young forward? Allows us to draft Parekh

 

[ChesterNimitz]

1. Reinbacher
2. Maillioux
3. Hutson
4. Guhle

Not a knock on Guhle, but I’m just extremely high on both Hutson and Mallioux. I think Reinbacher is the easy clear favourite to be number 1

Each one of these young defencemen have noticeable 'holes' in their current games. How they develop over the next few years will determine their final ranking. I suspect that we have yet to draft our clear cut #1. That may well be remedied this coming draft.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Va falloir exchanger un défenseur a moment donner HuGo tbnk

 

[Jaynki]

Would we have done Guhle or Reinbacher for Gauthier?

Gauthier is exactly the type of forward we need. Reinbacher is fair value too but we would create a massive hole at RD if we trade him.

Tough call in my opinion. I would have been excited by such a move but i am also okay with the status quo.

 

[habamillions]

Would we have done Guhle or Reinbacher for Gauthier?

Gauthier is exactly the type of forward we need. Reinbacher is fair value too but we would create a massive hole at RD if we trade him.

Tough call in my opinion. I would have been excited by such a move but i am also okay with the status quo.

Apparently at the draft gauthier was offered for the 5th. Habs said no

 

[Nicko999]

Would we have done Guhle or Reinbacher for Gauthier?

Gauthier is exactly the type of forward we need. Reinbacher is fair value too but we would create a massive hole at RD if we trade him.

Tough call in my opinion. I would have been excited by such a move but i am also okay with the status quo.

Flyers wouldn't do Gauthier for Guhle one for one. Drysdale has more value than Ghule.
For Reinbacher, not sure how real those rumors are that we said no to the 5th overall for Gauthier.

People are missing Engstrom and Konyushkov in their D depth chart. Both guys could pass Ghule.
We for sure need to deal at least 1 of Ghule, Reinbacher, Engstrom, Konyushkov, Mailloux, Hutson

Harris, Struble, Barron, Kovacevic are simply depth players for the future.

 

[26Mats]

In 5 years time, how do you think these 4 D will be ranked amongst eachother in terms of who's the better nhler?

1. Guhle
2. Mailloux
3. Hutson
4. Reinbacher

Very hard question.

I hope Reinbacher is better than Guhle.

Mailloux has a ton of upside, but needs more years to figure out the defensive end.

Conservatively, I go:

Guhle
Reinbacher
Mailloux
Hutson

But anything can happen.

Flyers wouldn't do Gauthier for Guhle one for one. Drysdale has more value than Ghule.
For Reinbacher, not sure how real those rumors are that we said no to the 5th overall for Gauthier.

People are missing Engstrom and Konyushkov in their D depth chart. Both guys could pass Ghule.
We for sure need to deal at least 1 of Ghule, Reinbacher, Engstrom, Konyushkov, Mailloux, Hutson

Harris, Struble, Barron, Kovacevic are simply depth players for the future.

I rate Guhle very high. I suspect other GMs do too.

 

[yianik]

This Ducks-Flyers trade could be something like what the Habs will need to do as the Ducks dealt from a position of strength having so many D prospects/young D and used an asset to get offensive help. Will be interesting to see what Hughes does as clearly at some point some blueliners will need to be traded for offensive help.

Usually its an abundance of talent on the blueline that gives a team that position of strength. look at the Canes, they have traded really good blueliners, and even let them walk as a UFA.

For us right now what I see are likley NHL players, but I dont know about top pair or top 3. Maybe Guhle could be a no.2 if he was playing with a PMD as no.1 ?

Its great to see so many young guys developing, getting better as the season goes on and better from last year. Unless a player is an elite player, it takes time for a D to develop. But so far, outside of Hutson, nobody is showing that no.1 offensive upside potential, and Hutson carries higher risk of not meeting that potential.

So we may be trading D to upgrade elsewhere, but right now we just will not get much back for any of our young guys. Drysdale got what he did because he was a no.6 overall pick a few years ago and has played well and produced points at the NHL level, so he could be a top pair D.

We should just let the guys develop and see how it unfolds. I disagree with trading young guys as we just dont know who will rise. Outside of a few people, everybody ( like me) is surprised at Struble. The trade for Kovalev was a steal of a deal because Sather picked Balej instead of Plekanec .