Player Discussion: Winnipeg Jets Defense

[WolfHouse]

@Buffdog is on a roll...

So Beaulieu didnt use a spot that could have been available for Kova because he's a left shot... but Copa made Kova redundant because hes a left shot that plays the right side even though theres no real evidence. And Kova would never ever have played left side if asked...

Samberg was the chosen one because of his pedigree and he's younger - except Samberg only got his shot when Stan got hurt - and that happened to be at age 24... we gave up on Kova at age 25 - that same season he played 17+ mins on a 'third pairing' while our replacement played 12-13 mins a game... our replacements got a combined 5 pts while he got 15

So EVEN to just judge these players on replacement value - or how much rest/minutes they can offer to our best player - the Kova v Capo/Stan swap was bad, the Kova/Beaulieu swap was worse

The entire point is that this wasn't a basic swap out/in - we downgraded for seemingly no reason. Thats a fair question to ask.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

I’ve always felt the Jets organization is way too fixated on old school dman archetypes. Gotta have their puck movers balanced with stay at home dmen, the PP specialist mixed with the crease clearer, need a shot blocker, a big and rangy guy, etc.

I’m open to debate on this, but IMO it explains a great deal of their personnel decisions.

I wouldn’t even say this is a flat out wrong approach, but the game is evolving. Basically every NHL team has scrapped the “top 6 is for scorers, bottom 6 for grinders” mold. In the same vein, you see more and more teams building their bluelines around guys who can tilt possession favourably as opposed to guys who fill a defined role on D.

 

[AtomicJets]

I don't think the Jets ever "gave up" on Kovacevic.... They thought they could sneak him through waivers and hold onto him. They gambled and lost.

 

[Jet]

I’ve always felt the Jets organization is way too fixated on old school dman archetypes. Gotta have their puck movers balanced with stay at home dmen, the PP specialist mixed with the crease clearer, need a shot blocker, a big and rangy guy, etc.

I’m open to debate on this, but IMO it explains a great deal of their personnel decisions.

I wouldn’t even say this is a flat out wrong approach, but the game is evolving. Basically every NHL team has scrapped the “top 6 is for scorers, bottom 6 for grinders” mold. In the same vein, you see more and more teams building their bluelines around guys who can tilt possession favourably as opposed to guys who fill a defined role on D.

I'm open to new ways of thinking - but I do believe a D pair is strongest when each guy is really good at aspects of the game that the other guy struggles with. It's not the only thing that makes a pair good. Guys who like each other and communicate well can really make up for some shortcomings in their games.

I've always enjoyed being paired with an offensive minded guy. I can take care of our end, I'm strong at breaking up cycles and rushes, and making quick exit decisions.

I'm pretty weak at the offensive blueline and probably defer too much to throwing it down the wall as opposed to moving along the blueline to get a shot away or open up a seam pass. Having a partner who likes to carry the mail and is strong at the point is really complimentary to my game.