Why are quality defenseman so scarce? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Why are quality defenseman so scarce?

blackandgold1996

Registered User
Nov 14, 2011
34
0
USA
Forgive me if this is not the right place to post this question, I'm just looking for an explanation. It seems like we're all in agreement that the Bruins are desperate for some defensive help, I just don't understand why it's so hard to find. Are forwards progressing at a faster rate than defenseman? I'm relatively young so I may be misinformed, but to me it seems like there was an abundance of quality D in the early 2000's and now the only way to acquire a truly elite defenseman is through the draft. Bottom line, I do not understand why this is happening, and I'd appreciate some insight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Forgive me if this is not the right place to post this question, I'm just looking for an explanation. It seems like we're all in agreement that the Bruins are desperate for some defensive help, I just don't understand why it's so hard to find. Are forwards progressing at a faster rate than defenseman? I'm relatively young so I may be misinformed, but to me it seems like there was an abundance of quality D in the early 2000's and now the only way to acquire a truly elite defenseman is through the draft. Bottom line, I do not understand why this is happening, and I'd appreciate some insight.

Perhaps hockey players have figured out that the money is in he offensive side of the game. Even the D men that are making money today are usually offensive minded. Simple rule in life, just follow the dollar.
 
They generally have to be a physical freak of nature. The best characteristics of an elite defenseman are usually mental; anticipation, patience, communication. Skating backwards is harder than skating forwards too. Finding these qualities in one package is more difficult than simply finding a player who has elite speed, or an elite release.
 
Much harder position to learn. If I'm not mistaken it probably goes

G > D> C> W

In terms of difficulty to learn the position. Picture it a bit like rookie RB's in football stepping in right away (wingers), vs QB's taking so much time (D or G).
 
The skill-set required to be a top-end D in today's game is much harder to find than it was 15 years ago during the clutch and grab era.

There are still about the same amount of top end guys. But the skill-sets of your No.2 and 3s have changed overall. They need to be skilled and able to defend effectively. Your Ken Daneyko's have been replaced with your Niklas Hjallmarsson's.

The days of plodding stay-at-home guys being considered "top D" are pretty much over.

Easy to find stay-at-homer's, and easy to find smaller skilled D who can't defend, finding guys who can do both is the hard part.
 
More is asked of d-men, I think, than in the past. They can't just be toothless bangers who protect the net. They have to be able to move the puck and be the 4th guy on the rush because the defensive systems are so tight now.

edit: yeah, the post above.
 
It's a MUCH longer learning curve, and in a salary-capped league, teams have to have quality guys on ELCs. Other issue is, post-lockout, the crackdown on interference in the neutral zone means forwards are bearing down on D-men much quicker on dump-ins, and a heavy forecheck can cause serious problems.

A plodding, heavy D *could* survive pre-lockout because a winger would be able to slow a charging forward down before he got to the corner, and the two-line pass meant he didn't have to cover quite as much space in the neutral zone. A smaller, quicker, offensive-minded D could survive because he could make a play before the forward came flying in.

Good all-around D are pretty rare, but because of the increased speed of the game, a mid-level guy gets exposed more, and teams tend to lock up their defensemen early and not let them move.

Our local ECHL team - a Chicago affiliate - almost always has 2 defensemen assigned from the AHL/NHL team on the roster (and sometimes three), but often only one forward (if that). Forwards don't have much of a learning curve. Defensemen have a steep one, so teams need to be more patient with them ... but the ELC setup doesn't really allow teams to be more patient as they become RFAs within 3 years, and UFAs if they stay in the minors for a set period of time.

Not surprisingly, two of the changes Bobby Orr suggested in his book were to allow forwards to interfere a little bit and to reinstate the 2-line pass, both of which would slow the game down a bit and give defensemen more of a chance.
 
Hardest position in the game to play.
The forwards and goalies can't do their job if you're not doing yours. Defensemen dictate and influence the play at both ends.
When you're good at it, you're coveted.
When I grew up playing minor hockey, I played forward and goalie in my early years, but became a D in bamtam because of my skating and shot. I enjoyed it thoroughly, the ice time, both ends of the rink and always in the play. Definitely have mad respect for those that play D and excel at it.
 
Perhaps hockey players have figured out that the money is in he offensive side of the game. Even the D men that are making money today are usually offensive minded. Simple rule in life, just follow the dollar.

This. If the Norris went to the best defence man and not the highest scoring defence man things would change.
 
Quality defensemen are usually drafted, developped and kept around for a long time.

This.

IMO, D is a much harder position to play well than F, and as others have already pointed out, there is less glamour to the position. Kids want to be scorers. When teams find good ones, they don't want to willingly let them go.
 
Hardest position in the game to play.
The forwards and goalies can't do their job if you're not doing yours. Defensemen dictate and influence the play at both ends.
When you're good at it, you're coveted.
When I grew up playing minor hockey, I played forward and goalie in my early years, but became a D in bamtam because of my skating and shot. I enjoyed it thoroughly, the ice time, both ends of the rink and always in the play. Definitely have mad respect for those that play D and excel at it.

I loved playing D, and was a better backwards skater than forwards which is probably why I was put there to begin with :laugh: I had the opposite experience of you though. I was as skinny as a rail (those were the days) at the time and didn't have much of a slapshot, so when I got to Bantams they moved me to the wing. I loved playing any position, but wing wasn't the same.
 
This. If the Norris went to the best defence man and not the highest scoring defence man things would change.

Exactly. The new rage is "puck moving" defenseman or offensive defenseman whereas both lack DEFENSIVE ability. Guys like Torey Krug are now valuable despite his size since he can move the puck and score. Basically its like an extra winger playing D. Give me a stay at home defenseman any day of the week. I think Erk Karlsson is awful at playing defense but he scores.
 
Exactly. The new rage is "puck moving" defenseman or offensive defenseman whereas both lack DEFENSIVE ability. Guys like Torey Krug are now valuable despite his size since he can move the puck and score. Basically its like an extra winger playing D. Give me a stay at home defenseman any day of the week. I think Erk Karlsson is awful at playing defense but he scores.

I used to think Karlsson was a forward playing D. While he still has his moments of defensive futility, I think he has gotten a lot better since Cameron arrived in OTT. His skating ability allows him to make some very nice D plays when he puts his mind to it.
 
Karlsson IS a forward disguised as a D. It is ridiculous that a team with a Norris winning defenseman (I bet he is going to win it this year again) who plays more than 30 minutes a night, has the 2nd worst defense. Just to put this in perspective, the Bruins surrendered 168 goals in 60 games. Ottawa, in the same amount of games, 182.
 
Karlsson IS a forward disguised as a D. It is ridiculous that a team with a Norris winning defenseman (I bet he is going to win it this year again) who plays more than 30 minutes a night, has the 2nd worst defense. Just to put this in perspective, the Bruins surrendered 168 goals in 60 games. Ottawa, in the same amount of games, 182.

And yet, Karlsson is a plus player...

He plays 29+ min per game and a ridiculous 23 at ES (4 min more than Chara, 1 more than Doughty, and the same as Suter). I would take him on the B's in a heartbeat.

A Chara-EK pairing would be un-freaking-believable.
 
And yet, Karlsson is a plus player...

He plays 29+ min per game and a ridiculous 23 at ES (4 min more than Chara, 1 more than Doughty, and the same as Suter). I would take him on the B's in a heartbeat.

A Chara-EK pairing would be un-freaking-believable.

A +6 for his career if I didn't make a mistake.
 
Personally, I don't think I like the transition to the modern defensive style. I would say i became a passionate hockey fan when I was seven years old, watching the Devils during the 2003 Stanley Cup final. Back then I noticed a distinct separation between forwards and defenseman, and I liked it better that way! I don't like how teams rely almost entirely on speed & skill in today's game, with strength & power playing a much less prominent role. Is it fair to say that these elements of the game used to be much more balanced? I dont know, I hate being a complainer, but the game feels more one-dementional nowadays. This is coming from a kid who has experienced many of the great moments of the late 90's/early 2000's through youtube, so my point of view might be a little off
 
IMO it's because of the rule changes. Clearing the crease, holding, obstruction are all called tightly. D need to be able to skate well, have stamina to skate all night, make quick decisions and possess the most hockey IQ. Gone are the days of the slow stiff, stay at home guy. It's all about transition, puck retrieval and 1st pass. Just not enough guys with those skills out there.
 
they're hard to find because teams hang onto them. If the Bruins hung onto Boychuk this isn't even a discussion. Teams don't usually let their 25 minute players go.

Plus there are twice as many forwards in the league than d-men.
 
And yet, Karlsson is a plus player...

He plays 29+ min per game and a ridiculous 23 at ES (4 min more than Chara, 1 more than Doughty, and the same as Suter). I would take him on the B's in a heartbeat.

A Chara-EK pairing would be un-freaking-believable.

Brilliant and supremely skilled player. Scary to think what he could be like if he didn't have that achilles injury.

He is a wing though. He isn't a defenseman in the traditional sense of the word. Defensively, other than using his speed to shut down some rushes from behind, he is patchy.

Ottawa's defense outside of Karlsson and Methot is just horrible. Dion Phaneuf was a definite improvement over most of their defense corps, but its still horrible. And I think Anderson is actually a pretty good goaltender. He just gets peppered with good quality scoring chances.
 
IMO it's because of the rule changes. Clearing the crease, holding, obstruction are all called tightly. D need to be able to skate well, have stamina to skate all night, make quick decisions and possess the most hockey IQ. Gone are the days of the slow stiff, stay at home guy. It's all about transition, puck retrieval and 1st pass. Just not enough guys with those skills out there.

Good points!:nod:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad