Last edited:
Player Discussion: Winnipeg Jets Defense
- Thread starter voyageur
- Start date
I think Dillon is going to be great for us this year
Gabe Kupari
Registered User
Demelo is likely easier to trade. Lower cap hit. He's a good 3rd pairing guy ideally tho. Can't play top 2 as he provides zero offence
I disagree. He's the perfect top 4 D man support guy for a stud LD.
I like what Dillon brings - physicality that we don't have a lot of, Schmidt is a good locker room guy - closest to goofy Buff that we've had since he retired, Pionk is a solid 2nd pair RHD, so its tough to move them and you're not going to move Morrissey.
I guess if you had to pick one to trade it would be Dillon since Samberg can maybe bring those physical aspects we'd lose, and his salary hit is less than the others mentioned for cap/trade value... but Demelo is an absolute must keep - he's extremely underappreciated for what he brings.
Gabe Kupari
Registered User
I think if I had to choo choo choose who to deal... pionk is the guy on the right side. Schmidt does everything he does. Demelo is good defensively. Dillon brings the physicality.
Christ the more I think about it, maybe Ville gets you a young top 6 rw in return
Christ the more I think about it, maybe Ville gets you a young top 6 rw in return
Why do we want to trade DeMelo? He is a steal at his contract and I’d the best partner for Morrissey?
DingerMcSlapshot
Registered User
- Dec 1, 2017
- 1,516
- 1,063
Either as part of a package for a good now piece upfront or for an equivalent young player that plays a position of greater org importance.
I'd venture a guess that Heinola has decent trade value. He's nhl ready and has dynamic skill
You may be right.
It strikes me as mostly a problem of the Jets' own making though. Bringing in plug after plug in a losing cause during the Great Maurice Twilight while the LHD prospects piled up on the benches was always a bewildering strategy.
Still think he'll be very good for someone, even if it isn't us. And maybe end up in a Roslovic scenario, where we're sitting here wondering why we're now looking to spend assets on that versatile, top 6-9 RW who can bang in 10/15/20 goals we just gave away.
Very much agree that he is going ro be a good player and I'd prefer it be for us. It just seems he is now blocked for the immediate future by Pionk and Schmidt who both do a lot of what he does. I hope I'm wrong as I think he turns into a Girard type dmen on the back end.
I'd say both sides are culpable. Ville had a couple opportunities to win a job out of camp, but didn't perform when it mattered. The team had opportunities to play Ville when we obviously needed a change or were in lame duck territory and didn't do it.
If heinola couldn't make a d group that featured studs like biteto, sbisa, Forbort, Stanley, Beaulieu over the years as lhd what's his value really? Then had to trade for Dillon. And I like Ville a lot but just trying to view it from an outside POV
Lundkvist for instance had players like Fox, trouba and previously Deangelo blocking him at rhd. Likely not better than any of the and easily superior depth chart Than what we had.
Lundkvist for instance had players like Fox, trouba and previously Deangelo blocking him at rhd. Likely not better than any of the and easily superior depth chart Than what we had.
- Dec 29, 2016
- 7,719
- 14,080
He'll have value on a team that already has decent size but may lack a good puck mover or offensive potential.
We are pretty much the opposite of that and that is blocking Ville - we don't really need another small dman with offence.
Most on here feel Stan is not going to get a lot of minutes so that leaves Dillon as our guy with size - and many are calling him out as the guy that needs to go to make room for youth.
I wouldn't count Samberg as a heavy dman - because he isn't. JoMo is the next guy you'd be looking at who has a little edge in his game with average size. Pionk, although small, used to have that edge - we'll see this year if he's going to bring a little of that back.
Regardless of what I believe, the Jets are likely looking at potentially adding more size on their blue line (with a decent level of skill in defending).
I agree, but my sense from paying more attention back then to other teams and pundits was that some of those roster decisions were regarded as eccentric at the time and based on how the coaching staff thought the team should play, as opposed to taking the team as it was and then trying to optimize it.
But yeah, it doesn't look great from any angle.
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 10,464
- 9,833
I think people forget how bad he was in Training Camp. There's an expectation among fans for him to be a quick riser like Josh Morrissey, but I think there's a timetable with Ville.
Also wanted to post this quick take on Ville via Dillon Murat's recent TC piece. FWIW, Murat reaffirms the org's investment in Stanley, and thinks they'd like to keep Kovi in the fold as the 2022 Poolman. I really like Dillon's analysis here, and it feels like the prescription for a way forward for Ville:
The jobs on defence are harder to project. Before we get into a discussion of individual player performance, let’s include Dillon’s delight at playing with Heinola.
“I love playing with Ville,” Dillon said. “I didn’t really get a chance to play with him last year but just from getting to know him, he’s such a funny young kid. He’s got so much skill and talent and he just wants to get better. Whether it was after practice last year, just messing around, or even now getting the opportunity to play with him, we complement one another. He’s got lots of skill. I want to give him the puck. He can have it all day long.
“I think when it comes to the defending part, we just like to chat a lot out there about what’s going on. We’ve only had a couple of scrimmages and a couple of practices but already you can just feel when there’s chemistry there. Offensively, through the neutral zone, that type of thing, I’m just going to try to make sure he’s got a little bit of a bubble around him and can feel a little comfortable and, in turn, he can have some confidence and do what he does best.”
The jobs on defence are harder to project. Before we get into a discussion of individual player performance, let’s include Dillon’s delight at playing with Heinola.
“I love playing with Ville,” Dillon said. “I didn’t really get a chance to play with him last year but just from getting to know him, he’s such a funny young kid. He’s got so much skill and talent and he just wants to get better. Whether it was after practice last year, just messing around, or even now getting the opportunity to play with him, we complement one another. He’s got lots of skill. I want to give him the puck. He can have it all day long.
“I think when it comes to the defending part, we just like to chat a lot out there about what’s going on. We’ve only had a couple of scrimmages and a couple of practices but already you can just feel when there’s chemistry there. Offensively, through the neutral zone, that type of thing, I’m just going to try to make sure he’s got a little bit of a bubble around him and can feel a little comfortable and, in turn, he can have some confidence and do what he does best.”
I'm really hoping to see him force the Jets hand this year.
One more collection of short takes, including some we've discussed here:
theathletic.com
- Heinola’s offensive gifts are obvious. I don’t worry about his size the way some people do; I just worry about him trying to force plays that aren’t there to get himself noticed. Yes, I’m getting ahead of myself just two days into camp but when Bowness talks about players who might be ready at Christmas, I think Heinola is his focal point.
- Stanley looked better in the offensive zone to me than on defence. Stenlund got a shot through him that I’d expect a 6-foot-7 defenceman to be able to stop with a stickcheck. I was so impressed by Stanley’s 2020 training camp that I wrote about him in a positive light multiple times; I’m now wondering if this is the year Samberg or another young defenceman passes him on the depth chart for good. Of course, it’s possible that Stanley was one of the young defencemen with size Bowness was raving about.
Jets training camp: 'Can we win with him?' and more Day 2 clues
Ville Heinola stands out as a fascinating player for the Jets at training camp and in their future lineup.
- Mar 10, 2010
- 35,557
- 33,906
There
With Nashville if you want to know why they will probably be worse look at the insane career shooting % of Duchene, Johansen, and Forsberg last season. I have never seen anything like that. They were all close to 20% and that was almost double their career average. I could see that trio having 30-40 less goals collectively this season easily.
Agree, but to be fair, that was one bad camp, and the circumstances weren't so unlike the year when JMo bulked up and lost a ton of speed and lateral mobility. I think smaller D can get really focused on trying to compete via getting bigger because they know that's an issue, and in the process lose a lot of what got them to where they are in the first place.
I think JMo and the Jets' training crew learned their lesson after that.
But isn`t that the real problem here - if you place Heinola in a position where he is expected to play the same role as this featured cast( Biteto,Sbisa, Forbert, Bealieu). it shouldn`t be a surprise that he can`t stand out.... . The better perspective might be - do you think Heinola was transitioned unto the big club and given reasonable opportunities to play a role somewhat commensurate with his strengths/skills? My concern is that Chevy doesn`t know, even at this date, what Heinola can do if played in the proper role, with a supportive complementary D partner.
ok lets see what roles those players played then....
forbot and sbisa both played lots next to pionk on the 2nd pair
beaulieu played with morrissey quite a bit, and demelo.
bitetto ill give you.
so he can't stand out next to morrissey, pionk or demelo... where do you expect to play then?
Last edited:
Wow - you must really think that response is worth reading more than once 
I think you got the point I was trying to make. Nothing to be gained by discussing it further.
I think you got the point I was trying to make. Nothing to be gained by discussing it further.
