Should we try JMFJ as a winger?

[blahblah]

I don't think JJ belongs on wing full time, but on the PP, I could see the team going with JJ or Wiz on wing, so then they can shift who is on the point and draw the penalty killers away from the net.

No they won't.

 

[Nordique]

By definition you go left when the world goes right.... whatever, Jack Johnson has been a horrible defenseman so far this season and one Dubinsky probably wants to give a "Code Red" !!

He could be better, but he hasn't been "horrible" at all. 69th in the league in Corsi rating (which includes shots that are blocked), second on our team to only Wizniewski, who has been pretty good offensively. Defensively, I think he's been pretty good overall considering the assignments he draws, and his team leading TOI.

 

[Xoggz22]

I would no sooner put RJ on Defense than I would JJ on the Wing. Looking at JJ game by game it's pretty obvious that he's the reason for the 4 game and 5 game losing streaks. He's a combined -13 during the streaks.

Seriously, he hasn't played to the level I would like him to achieve but I also look at some of the goals he's been on the ice for and can't help but shake my head. I believe I'm correct in saying that JJ was on the ice for 4 empty net goals (BOS, MON, PIT, NYR) and also for Comeau's goal against us. I don't recall if he was on the ice for EN against OTT and the Letestu goal against NYR. Regardless, he hasn't been great but he isn't close to being part of a discussion of playing him at Wing. If that's the case, trade him.

 

[Crede777]

My proposal was based on a mere experiment and if it worked out great, if not put him back on D.

I think you're going to find on here certain people have problems dealing in hypotheticals.

It's not a case of thinking Johnson is terrible at defense, just that he could potentially be REALLY good at wing and has shown stretches of play in the offensive zone which would indicate such. Johnson has traditionally been very effective below the opposing teams' hash marks.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I think you're going to find on here certain people have problems dealing in hypotheticals.

And that some people keep looking outside themselves for explanations of why some ideas are just not good.

 

[Crede777]

And that some people keep looking outside themselves for explanations of why some ideas are just not good.

Except this idea isn't that. It has a foundation in actual hockey insight and watching his style of play.

Most explanations so far are "lol it's just stupid, no." That's not an explanation, that's an excuse to not tax oneself mentally.

This is an example of positive discussion:

I'd rather have him on the ice the extra 5-10 minutes a night than try him out wing.

There is actual merit and a point to that type of post which can be discussed.

So far all anyone has talked about is trying it out in a game situation. That's obviously not wise. What would happen is they would try it out in a practice situation for a few weeks or months. Like how teams acclimate players with taking face offs.

 

[Nordique]

I would no sooner put RJ on Defense than I would JJ on the Wing. Looking at JJ game by game it's pretty obvious that he's the reason for the 4 game and 5 game losing streaks. He's a combined -13 during the streaks.

JJ is not the reason we lost 4 in a row prior to NYI.

Look we fell from 16th in the league in Goals For, to 23rd in the league, during that 4 game losing streak.

Oh and by the way, we jumped 2 spots in Goals Against (from 16th to 14th), over the same 4 game span.

We lost those 4 games in a row, primarily because we couldn't score goals, and I have a hard time putting JJ on the top of the blame list for that deficiency.

 

[major major]

He could be better, but he hasn't been "horrible" at all. 69th in the league in Corsi rating (which includes shots that are blocked), second on our team to only Wizniewski, who has been pretty good offensively. Defensively, I think he's been pretty good overall considering the assignments he draws, and his team leading TOI.

Where are you getting this info from? Behind the net has JJ with a middling Corsi.

I would no sooner put RJ on Defense than I would JJ on the Wing. Looking at JJ game by game it's pretty obvious that he's the reason for the 4 game and 5 game losing streaks. He's a combined -13 during the streaks.

Seriously, he hasn't played to the level I would like him to achieve but I also look at some of the goals he's been on the ice for and can't help but shake my head. I believe I'm correct in saying that JJ was on the ice for 4 empty net goals (BOS, MON, PIT, NYR) and also for Comeau's goal against us. I don't recall if he was on the ice for EN against OTT and the Letestu goal against NYR. Regardless, he hasn't been great but he isn't close to being part of a discussion of playing him at Wing. If that's the case, trade him.

I find it interesting that you think trading him is a better option than a wing experiment. Couldn't you try the experiment and then if doesn't work you trade him? Anyways, I'm skeptical that his trade value is going to be worth much.

 

[Nordique]

Where are you getting this info from? Behind the net has JJ with a middling Corsi.

I'm using hockeyanalysis.com, but I'm looking at 5-5, so the numbers could diverge from your source depending on how you cut it.....oh and a minimum of 100 minutes TOI season to date.


http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...id=0&type=individual&sort=icorsi&sortdir=DESC

 

[Kington91]

I think you're going to find on here certain people have problems dealing in hypotheticals.

It's not a case of thinking Johnson is terrible at defense, just that he could potentially be REALLY good at wing and has shown stretches of play in the offensive zone which would indicate such. Johnson has traditionally been very effective below the opposing teams' hash marks.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. I'm not saying Johnson is terrible or anything, I'm just proposing that his game seems better suited as a winger.

You know people would have said the exact same things about Burns if it were proposed before he was moved. Burns was in fact a much better defenseman than JJ at the time.

 

[Roadman]

I don't think it's a terrible idea. The biggest arguments seem to be about how good or bad a defensrman JJ is and not if he would be a be a effective wing.

I don't know the answer to that. If as below it is an impractical switch then no he should not be switched. Perhaps the idea has already been discussed and rejected, we are not really privy to such.

Brent Burns had been a forward before in his career ... was converted to a defenseman upon entering the NHL.

As someone who's played hockey for several years; going from defense to wing is a huge change, and can damage a player more than it can help them. You have less time to make a decision with the puck - especially coming out of the zone - and don't get as much room to take your shots.

Why would we want to do this, exactly? I don't think it would help the offense nearly as much as it would hurt the defense. Even though the defense hasn't been great, Jack Johnson is at least experienced and seems to be the leader back there.

Also as mentioned, who replaces JJ? Lots of cry for Erixon but man that makes the Blue Line awfully young. JJ, for all his warts, does lend stability. Does he make mistakes? Sure he does, there is no such thing as a perfect game. Even the very best WILL make mistakes.

So the question comes down to, where does he provide the greatest effect for the team. I gotta think it's still back on the Blue line. If some experimenting is to be done I would think that over the summer and in training camp would be the time to do it. Not in the middle of the season while things still hang in the balance. And in another year the youngsters will have yet another season under their belts.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Except this idea isn't that.

I disagree. Dude is a quality NHL defenseman. As I quoted and agreed with earlier, such a move would harm the blueline more than it would help the forwards.

It has a foundation in actual hockey insight and watching his style of play.

Why not move Wiz, too, then, and imagine Johansen as a big-bodied defenseman.

Most explanations so far are "lol it's just stupid, no." That's not an explanation, that's an excuse to not tax oneself mentally.

Or a belief that it's an idea that shouldn't require additional thought.

So far all anyone has talked about is trying it out in a game situation. That's obviously not wise. What would happen is they would try it out in a practice situation for a few weeks or months. Like how teams acclimate players with taking face offs.

I suppose you can try whatever you want at practice. The subsequent question would be whether that maximizes your time and effort on the practice ice.


Stop trying to blame other people when they disagree with you.

 

[Kington91]

Why not move Wiz, too, then, and imagine Johansen as a big-bodied defenseman.

This is deviating from the point. It's not like I randomly picked JJ and thought he should go to wing for no reason.

I get where everyone is coming from, but try to keep an open mind here. Try to focus on JJ's potential impact on the wing and not if he is a good d-man or not. Burns was a great D and he was moved to wing (and I know he was a forward earlier in his life) but it still provokes some thought in this situation.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Try to focus on JJ's potential impact on the wing and not if he is a good d-man or not.

I looked at both, as they are intertwined. And I came to the conclusion that I stated above.

And it's not deviating from the point, Crede suggested it was a well-reasoned argument based on observing a style of play. Wiz scores and is a weaker defender. Johansen is a shut-down centerman. Why not try to maximize their strengths via a position shift? (And yes, I can answer that questions.)

My apologies for calling it a "not good" idea. But Crede pulled a crap internet move above by using the "people around here don't..." line, and it pissed me off.

I disagree that the CBJ should consider looking at Jack Johnson as a forward. To reiterate, I believe it would weaken the blueline more than it might potentially benefit the forwards.

 

[Crede777]

I disagree. Dude is a quality NHL defenseman. As I quoted and agreed with earlier, such a move would harm the blueline more than it would help the forwards.


Why not move Wiz, too, then, and imagine Johansen as a big-bodied defenseman.


Or a belief that it's an idea that shouldn't require additional thought.


I suppose you can try whatever you want at practice. The subsequent question would be whether that maximizes your time and effort on the practice ice.


Stop trying to blame other people when they disagree with you.

1. That would be the most logical disagreement, that the cost to the blueline would outweight the benefit at forward. However, we don't know what that cost would actually be or the benefit until we try it out.

2. Wisniewski would not, in my opinion, be a suitable forward based on what I've seen of him. He isn't particularly fast nor is he very good at skating the puck. His primary contribution, it seems, is his slapshot from the point. Which means it's best to leave him at defense.

We could imagine Johansen as a defenseman if you want, but I think it wasn't a serious question and was more an example. I'm sure you could make a thread on it if you wanted and we could discuss it there...

3. Every idea, when presented, deserves to be taken to its logical conclusion. There is a number of reasons for this, ranging from the philosophical (we have a duty as rational beings, and/or because the simple, outright dismissal of ideas breeds ignorance) to the practical (this is a forum where the entire point is the civilized sharing and debate of information and ideas). We must remember that nobody on here has much credence so the strongest response is one which is thorough and well-thought out.

4. I agree, it's again a question of cost/benefit. Would the cost of time and the inherent cost of not working on something else be offset by the benefit of Johnson practicing at wing? Maybe, maybe not. We could be cynical and claim that, given their recent play, whatever they've been practicing doesn't seem all that productive anyways.

5. I'm not blaming anyone for disagreeing. If I did, I wouldn't share my own opinions on the board. Or I'd pose them as fact instead of opinion.

All I'm asking for is a mutual amount of respect for someone else's questions or ideas.

My apologies for calling it a "not good" idea. But Crede pulled a crap internet move above by using the "people around here don't..." line, and it pissed me off.

You're right, it was wrong of me. Sorry.

 

[Roadman]

GMJK has repeatedly said we are always looking to improve the roster. So let's ask the question would it improve the roster. and the obvious answer is we can't really be sure unless we try it. However as has been mentioned in several posts the very act of trying it could prove to be detrimental.

I don't think it's bad idea, but I'm also not sure it's a good idea, at least at this time. I think the disruption such an experiment would cause right now, out weighs what benefits might be gained. Simply an opinion.

The idea has merit and I do not dismiss it out of hand. But right now I would have to agree with DSL, it would weaken the blueline more than it might potentially benefit the forwards.

Circumstances might be different at another time.

 

[Kington91]

I looked at both, as they are intertwined. And I came to the conclusion that I stated above.

And it's not deviating from the point, Crede suggested it was a well-reasoned argument based on observing a style of play. Wiz scores and is a weaker defender. Johansen is a shut-down centerman. Why not try to maximize their strengths via a position shift? (And yes, I can answer that questions.)

My apologies for calling it a "not good" idea. But Crede pulled a crap internet move above by using the "people around here don't..." line, and it pissed me off.

I disagree that the CBJ should consider looking at Jack Johnson as a forward. To reiterate, I believe it would weaken the blueline more than it might potentially benefit the forwards.

I think I'm just to enamored with having our own Brent Burns. I'm praying to the hockey gods.

 

[pete goegan]

I don't much care, but...

What makes anyone think that a 27 year-old who has reached the highest level of his profession and captained his national team as a defenseman has any interest in becoming a forward?

What level of accomplishment do you see for him as a forward? Do we really need another 3rd or 4th liner?

Do you suppose that, in his many years of playing hockey, from childhood to now, it has gone unnoticed that he is a bit better at moving forward than back?

Just some thoughts.

 

[Kington91]

I don't much care, but...

What makes anyone think that a 27 year-old who has reached the highest level of his profession and captained his national team as a defenseman has any interest in becoming a forward?

What level of accomplishment do you see for him as a forward? Do we really need another 3rd or 4th liner?

Do you suppose that, in his many years of playing hockey, from childhood to now, it has gone unnoticed that he is a bit better at moving forward than back?

Just some thoughts.

Only would do it if he was effective and could be top 6, not a 3rd or 4th line like you said. I'm sure if HCTR asked him to he would because he is a team first guy. But I see your points to.

Unrelated to you Pete - just saw on the mains a kings fan said the fanbase used to talk a lot about this same thing with JJ. Interesting.

 

[Columbus Mike]

It's too bad that nowhere along the way some coach that had JMFJ tried him as a forward, and realized he was better suited to be a defenseman. You'd think that would have happened, but apparently not.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Only would do it if he was effective and could be top 6, not a 3rd or 4th line like you said. I'm sure if HCTR asked him to he would because he is a team first guy. But I see your points to.

Unrelated to you Pete - just saw on the mains a kings fan said the fanbase used to talk a lot about this same thing with JJ. Interesting.

So a fanbase wondered if it would be a good idea but the organization, which assembled a Cup winning tea, decided it would be better to trade him than move him to forward.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

All I'm asking for is a mutual amount of respect for someone else's questions or ideas.

Agreed. And all I'm asking is for people to stop creating some personality flaw in others when they disagree with you.

 

[Xoggz22]

JJ is not the reason we lost 4 in a row prior to NYI.

Look we fell from 16th in the league in Goals For, to 23rd in the league, during that 4 game losing streak.

Oh and by the way, we jumped 2 spots in Goals Against (from 16th to 14th), over the same 4 game span.

We lost those 4 games in a row, primarily because we couldn't score goals, and I have a hard time putting JJ on the top of the blame list for that deficiency.

Did seriously need a sarcasm smile? Wow, just wow. I happen to be someone who's been very supportive of JJ. I didn't think I needed an emoticon after including RJ in my post.

 

[Xoggz22]

I find it interesting that you think trading him is a better option than a wing experiment. Couldn't you try the experiment and then if doesn't work you trade him? Anyways, I'm skeptical that his trade value is going to be worth much.

In my opinion, "trying" him at wing indicates you no longer value him as a top 4 defenseman and thus significantly hurt any potential value. If he isn't good enough for your defense you move him. That's my opinion. I happen to think his value is still very high and there are some over reacting. This TEAM has been pretty bad. Gabby isn't scoring but he isn't -8, let's try him at defense. (For those that don't read the sarcasm too well)

 

[ca5150]

I'd be more willing to experiment with Wiz as a winger.

I agree, and I believe Wiz was used as a winger in Chicago for a bit