Anyone who doesnt agree with this never played hockey at any point in their lives, this is the way of the rink.
Offense or Defense? What is Easier to Teach?
- Thread starter Samsquanch
- Start date
Anyone who doesnt agree with this never played hockey at any point in their lives, this is the way of the rink.
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,025
- 13,979
Sure its not easy to be a great defensive player but more often then not its about hard work, willingness to do anything (block shots, hit, protect goalie), energy, knowledge of defence and your opponent. I am not taking anything away from defensive players but they really arent nearly in the same ballpark skills wise as offensive players and this is usually why they are relugated to being this type of player. I'm sure mostly everyone would like to be a PPG scorer and make 6-9 million a year but only so many people have the skills to do this.
Thank you. Thats exactly what Ive been trying to say and you summed it up perfectly again.
Alright, so...
Most Leaf fans say - Offense
All Sens fans, some Leaf fans and every other team's fan that has commented - Defense
I'm beginning to see a pattern.
Most Leaf fans say - Offense
All Sens fans, some Leaf fans and every other team's fan that has commented - Defense
I'm beginning to see a pattern.
bobermay
Registered User
No, I don't think I got my message across correctly
You used Elite Shutdown D as your examples. Regher, Volchenkov, etc....
I agreed, they don't have much skill offensively, but they certainly arn't the least skilled in the league.
Those players have a LOT more skill than being an Exelby, Finger, Lebda, Jay McKee, Cumiski, Campoli etc.
To Answer your question, I think that people idolize Regher, Komisarek, Foote, Volchenkov, Murray, etc. I would not be suprised if there are kids who would love to become this kind of defensman.
In your response to your last point, its right, and its wrong. Usually players try to become great defensively as a last resort to make the NHL, correct. Sjostrom is a good forward example of this. He was drafted 7th? Overall. Obviously the team saw offensive potential in him, but he couldn't translate it to the pros. But there are MANY MANY offensive players or defensive players for that matter that tried to become good enough defensively to stay in the NHL, but couldn't make it. Jeff Heerema, Eric Chouinard, Mathieu Biron, Patrik Stefan, Kirill Safronov, Jeff Jillson, etc. And this was only SOME of the players in the first round of the 1998 and 1999 drafts. There are Many, many, many more examples of this.
All I'm saying is it takes skill to be great defensively. I beleive a stud defensively guy who can get 30-40 points is worth more than a offensive guy that is nothing special defensively who gets 50 points.
Not the argument here bud Karlsson vs Shenn thread >>>>>>>> thataway
Im asking if you can teach O or D easier, which just so happened to be some of the main ammunition from the leafs fans in the other thread.
GCM
Stork
- Jun 22, 2010
- 3,042
- 0
Offense is easier to teach.
From the moment kids pick up a stick all they naturally learn is how to play with the puck. Everyone has some semblance of offense.
How to play without the puck is very hard to teach, especially at a young age.
I'd much rather take the defensive superstar with holes in his offensive game.
From the moment kids pick up a stick all they naturally learn is how to play with the puck. Everyone has some semblance of offense.
How to play without the puck is very hard to teach, especially at a young age.
I'd much rather take the defensive superstar with holes in his offensive game.
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,025
- 13,979
There is no way Volchenkov is more skilled then the players I highlighted and Cumiskey is certainly more skilled then both he and Regher. I dont know why you used those three names. They are guys that are in the NHL because of there ability to skate and move the puck. They aren't great defensively because its really not what they are being asked to do and teams are ok with a little less on the defensive side because they understand they bring some valueble skills offensively.
I'm sorry but I have a hard time seeing kids looking up to Komisarek or Murray ect. Even if they did they arent going to limit there own ability and neglect being a offensive player or two way player in attempt to be solely a shutdown player. Again most shutdown players morph into this role because they arent skilled enough to be a all around/offensive player. If you were the most skilled player on your triple A team are you going to say no to being the first line centre because you want to become a shutdown player? I have a hard time believing that.
Sure it takes a certain skill to be good defensively but in alot of case's it has more to do with hard work then skillset.
Trottier
Very Random
The answer is defense.
Defense can be taught.
However, learning to play smart, positional defensive hockey and then having the desire/ability to apply it consistently are two totally different matters. And not a small point.
Defense is hard work. Every hockey player does not enjoy hard work.
bobermay
Registered User
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,025
- 13,979
Good point.
I think there is a distinct difference between how hard it is to teach defence/offence to how much young kids actually want to learn how to play defence. Most young kids have no time for it and would rather stickhandle and shoot pucks then focus on defence. It's much easier to teach defence because you really dont have to be all that skilled from a skillset POV but to teach offence the kid has to have something that resembles good hand/eye coordination and most of the time good feet. Very rarely is a kid with bad hand/eye and bad feet a good offensive player but very often you see good defensive players that arent that good with the puck and not the greatest of skaters. Learning how to play defence is more about stimulating the mind around it. You need to listen, work hard and evolve. With offence its hard to develop offensive skills if you really never had them from a very early stage.
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,025
- 13,979
bobermay
Registered User
You see, these are all offensive attributes... Skill is more than that too me. Positioning, mental toughness etc.
dammit trottier, you beat me. Pretty much exactly what you said, + the added factor of experience.
Experience is key. No rookies enter the league and know how to play good defense. It just doesnt happen.
With experience, players learn when to pinch and when to stay back, and they learn proper positioning.
The 'learning' aspect of good defensive play is one of the main reasons NHL dmen tend to prime later than forwards.
positioning, responsible play, even checking can be taught. Creativity cannot.
Experience is key. No rookies enter the league and know how to play good defense. It just doesnt happen.
With experience, players learn when to pinch and when to stay back, and they learn proper positioning.
The 'learning' aspect of good defensive play is one of the main reasons NHL dmen tend to prime later than forwards.
positioning, responsible play, even checking can be taught. Creativity cannot.
Umm please continue because Im pretty sure positioning can be taught and is the primary focus of many practices, so you've got mental toughness which is a skill I suppose.....
GirardSpinorama
Registered User
- Aug 20, 2004
- 21,062
- 11,295
Its easier to teach a player to become an "adequate" defensive player than teaching a defensive player to score 20 goals. But if you want an elite defensive player (forward or defence), its just as hard to teach. Datsyuk, Kesler and Staal aren't Selke caliber players without the natural talent.
GirardSpinorama
Registered User
- Aug 20, 2004
- 21,062
- 11,295
TheSilencer
Registered User
I feel that Defense is easier to teach. You can be considered a good defenseman (even if you're not) by playing in a team with a good defensive system and adapting to it. Offence, in my opinion, is something that would require natural talents from the player.
One of the most glaring difference between Karlsson vs Schenn is their skating abilities. Karlsson is a vastly superior skater than Schenn, which allows him to move the puck out of the zone more easily and enter the offensive zone. Karlsson just has the offensive instinct that Schenn doesn't possess.
And i don't understand some of the comments about pimping up luke schenn's "offensive game". I get that he scored 17 points last year, but that really doesn't tell you the whole story. He simply lacks the mobility and skating abilities to be labelled as someone who has offensive potential. Luke Schenn was NOT drafted for his offensive game to begin with. Just because some fans are discrediting Schenn for his offensive game, doesn't mean we gotta make up stuff and turn Schenn into someone with "offensive potential". I couldn't care less if Schenn scored 10 points a season while being solid defensively. I know what his limitations are and i don't expect him to do more than he's capable of. Having hopes of a 30-40 points Schenn is just ridiculous.
One of the most glaring difference between Karlsson vs Schenn is their skating abilities. Karlsson is a vastly superior skater than Schenn, which allows him to move the puck out of the zone more easily and enter the offensive zone. Karlsson just has the offensive instinct that Schenn doesn't possess.
And i don't understand some of the comments about pimping up luke schenn's "offensive game". I get that he scored 17 points last year, but that really doesn't tell you the whole story. He simply lacks the mobility and skating abilities to be labelled as someone who has offensive potential. Luke Schenn was NOT drafted for his offensive game to begin with. Just because some fans are discrediting Schenn for his offensive game, doesn't mean we gotta make up stuff and turn Schenn into someone with "offensive potential". I couldn't care less if Schenn scored 10 points a season while being solid defensively. I know what his limitations are and i don't expect him to do more than he's capable of. Having hopes of a 30-40 points Schenn is just ridiculous.
I think this sums up nicely. Creativity on both offense and defense cannot be taught. You either have it, or you don't.
Offense is easy, smack that puck, pass the puck, into the net. 
Defense is tough you only have on average 6 dmen usually taking on fresh 12 forwards coming at you. You have to learn each players strengths on each line and you have to sometimes due the tough stuff. I don't see why more forwards on O are not in front of the net, if the D can do it and catch pucks in there teeth, the O should be tough enough to stand in there for a shift and screen a goalie.
Defense is tough you only have on average 6 dmen usually taking on fresh 12 forwards coming at you. You have to learn each players strengths on each line and you have to sometimes due the tough stuff. I don't see why more forwards on O are not in front of the net, if the D can do it and catch pucks in there teeth, the O should be tough enough to stand in there for a shift and screen a goalie.
InglewoodJack
Registered User
Voodoo Child
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2009
- 6,346
- 3,096
Exactly.
More skill is required for offense, while defense is more about the X's and O's.
bobermay
Registered User
Skill:
There are many intangibles in hockey, every one is a skill IMO.
I don't want to get off topic, so I created a thread on the main boards. It could be a good discussion.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=27083283#post27083283
This is pretty much my view.
GCM
Stork
- Jun 22, 2010
- 3,042
- 0
But same goes for the vice-versa situation.
The OP asked a simple question.
Defensive Genius with Offensive issues or Offensive Genius with Defensive issues.
I pick the first, because I believe it's easier to teach Offense to someone who is defensively solid than it is to teach defense to an offensive star.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
GDT: 2024-25 season WCQF LA Kings vs Edmonton Oilers game 6 @7:00pm 5/1/25 Oilers lead 3-2 (5 Viewers)- Latest: Ziggy Stardust
-
