HSF
Registered User
- Sep 3, 2008
- 26,292
- 7,800
He Is only 20 years old
Dude is going to be a top pairing defensemen
Dude is going to be a top pairing defensemen
Dorion said on the radio today that it really only matters what the coach and gm think and they want him playing the left side.
Maybe Ottawa gets lucky & he grows another 3 to 6 inches & puts on about 30 lbs. haha
It is hard enough for 20 year old players that are 6'+ to break into the NHL and become a physical presence you think a 5'9 player at that age is going to dominate physically?
Common sense, where for art thou gone?
He is 5 10 and 180 he does not need more than ten pounds to be a tank out there. He is going to gain muscle mass and bone mass for at least another 5 years. If he can get closer to 200 pounds at the age of 25....good luck moving him out of the way
Dont tell the most important people in the organization that!Seems like he's better on the right side
Dont tell the most important people in the organization that!
I think where he is most effective should trump where the GM and Coach wish he was most effective.I think what Brannstrom thinks matters too.
I think where he is most effective should trump where the GM and Coach wish he was most effective.
So trying to teach a young player to become more complete at a young age is now a bad thing? Just proves the organization is taking its time with Brannstrom and want him to become the best he can be.
I didn't say anything about being a complete player is bad.
If he excels at RD he should be developed as a complete player on that side.
We have Wolanin coming back on LD as well and need more RD anyway.
Did you agree with Chabot being played RD when he came up? He struggled and instantly played better when moved back to LD.
Right over your head.So trying to teach a young player to become more complete at a young age is now a bad thing? Just proves the organization is taking its time with Brannstrom and want him to become the best he can be.
Right over your head.
I think where he is most effective should trump where the GM and Coach wish he was most effective.
I totally disagree. Why would you not want to develop a young player are broadly as possible. Defense is a dynamic, fluid position. Most elite D will play both sides of defense at some point (PP vs PK, defending a lead etc). Brann is a left shot D who should have some confidence on his left side. It is good that he spends time on both sides. The org had him playing a lot of RD in Belleville last weekend.
Most D in the league play very sparingly on their off side if at all. This situation is a bit unusual in that Brannstrom seems to play better on his off side, and perhaps prefers it but while there are some guys that play both or prefer their off-side, it's not the norm.
It certainly isn't common practice for teams to play their young D on both sides or to purposefully put them on their off side for developmental purposes. I think framing this as developing the player as broadly as possible or as a smart developmental choice is a bit odd. I suspect they just prefer other options on the right side and that's all there is to it.
Not at 20 years old.
Maybe he never finds his groove on the left side but we probably are better off if he does. It is worth trying it now.
Sure it is. Chabot plays LD and sometimes RD on the PP etc. Lots of players switch during the PP too lineup an off wing shot or passing lane.
Playing your off side on the PP isn't what's being discussed with Brannstrom, that's not remotely relevant.
Of course it makes sense to have all players practice all positions (well...not goalies...THAT would be ridiculous!) so they can be more well rounded.
Being in the NHL generally means a player is world class at 1 position and they need to refine that skill as much as possible.
Not sure but I doubt many teams have the time or inclination to have their players practice on their off-side for the express purpose of them perhaps playing that position.
They may run drills from both sides of the ice time-to-time but that isn't practicing a new position.
Oh, so you were responding to me with irrelevant points? Good to know, I'll keep that in mind in the future...Ehhhh .. Where did I say it was?
Again, the point you are missing, ignoring, or unaware of is there is value in training DMAN to play both strong and weak sides. Bran's strong side my be his off side which means training his weak side concurrently with his strong side development is valuable.
Again, I think you are just arguing. How could you suggest developing a 20 year old's weakness isn't a good idea. If you have a goalie that is bad at handling the puck would you just ignore puck development ?
Utilizing the Defenseman’s “Off” Hand: A Discussion of Theory and an Empirical Review
Oh, so you were responding to me with irrelevant points? Good to know, I'll keep that in mind in the future...
Sure, it's valuable to be able to play both sides in a pinch, this is more common with left handed D too (though still not the norm), because there are fewer RHD. It is odd to see a player that typically plays RD to be put on the left though.
There's a reason why playing D on their off side creates discussion both on boards like these and in the media; it's because it is out of the norm. Most teams seem to see focusing on developing player in the role they will play long term as more valuable than cross training thiem in multiple roles. You don't see wingers get played as centers, you might see them play their off wing a bit if there is a shortage of guys to play that side.
I think you're projecting. All I was doing was suggesting an alternate explanation to why the team is playing Brannstrom in the left. I think it's far more likely than the "training him to play both sides" theory given there isn't much of a history in the league of doing so on any wide scale. If you want to see that as arguing for the sake of arguing, so be it.
Thanks for posting that article btw, it's an interesting read though a bit different from what's going on with Brannstrom; the articles talking about playing RHD on the left and LHD on the right vs the traditional way. The suggestion seems to be there is an advantage offensively, but not much of a detriment defensively if at all in the drills they ran. In Branstrom's case, he's already playing the off side as his norm, so reverting back to the traditional way would just lose the offensive benefit and not really improve things defensively.