"You can teach defence" vs "You can't teach offence"

[613Leafer]

Am I the only one who thinks this is a load of crap? "You can teach defence" is often thrown out there as simply a given, but is it even accurate?

Guys like Barrie, Klingberg, Gostisbehere, Shattenkirk, etc as a few examples have been some of the higher end offensive dmen over the last decade, but you can't rely on any of them to play consistent top 4 minutes at even-strength.

Do they lack the tools to play defence? I don't think so - the skating and vision that helps them excel offensively should in theory also help defensively. They're not all small (eg Klingberg is 6'3), plus there are some pretty good defensive guys on the smaller side (eg Fox, Spurgeon, etc). Yet after 5-10 years in the league, really not much progression on the defensive end.

On my own team, Rielly is a good example. He produces enough offensively to be consider an elite #1 dman, but he simply plateaued defensively early in his career and never improved. He's not a black hole defensively and can play in your top 4, but he also can't carry a pairing defensively. If he had progressed even moderately, I think he'd be considered a legit #1 dman / Norris contender, but as is, he isn't.

On the flip side, "you can't teach offence" also doesn't seem particularly accurate. Plenty of players were drafted with a certain amount of offensive upside, and then blew past that later in their careers (eg Lucic, Hyman, Verhaeghe, Marchand, etc).

Anyway, I'm mostly bringing this up because it seems pretty applicable to both the draft and heavy trade season, as you'll often hear other fans of your team brush aside your concerns about a player's defensive play because that can "obviously just be taught." And while sure, similar to how there are players who improve and exceed expectations offensively, you will see that on the defensive side of the puck as well, I'm just not convinced that those improvements are occuring at particularly different rates.

 

[Backlund]

It's more of unlocking their potential. Certain players have a cap on how good they can be offensively or defensively. Some people underestimate or overestimate it but each player has a ceiling.

 

[Jacob]

The only thing you can’t teach is size.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The only thing you can’t teach is size.

*Height

 

[4thline]

"You can teach" =/= "Everyone can/wants to learn"

 

[majormajor]

I don't mind it if it's formulated more like "It's easier to teach defense than offense".

But yeah the league has many players that are worth significantly less because of poor defensive play. Among forwards I think of Scheifele, Zegras, Domi, etc... There are guys that don't have the mindset for it and you should be wary drafting them.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

The first time I heard that quote it was wrt the Islanders drafting Mike Bossy, even though he wasn't a "checker". So it was about a forward.

I think that's true, to an extent, about forwards.

 

[DrDangles]

This is true to a degree, but there are certain things that come more naturally to elite players you can't really teach. You can't teach reaction time or hand-eye coordination, and you certainly can't teach a player to process the play happening around them on the ice faster/more accurately.

Guys can improve their shot or passing accuracy, and you can coach them about finding ways to get open or areas to be in to create more scoring opportunities. But for every Hyman or Marchand, there's 100 other guys that had to adjust their games to be more safe and defensively responsible to carve out an NHL career.

 

[Ezpz]

To be honest you can't teach dumb people anything and many hockey players are dumb. It's no surprise that top 5-10 prospects always end up winning scholastic awards in the CHL or NCAA. You also see elite players who were known for their adaptability rather than pure skill like sakic, yzerman, st. Louis, etc becoming good management types.

 

[Coffee]

The only thing you can’t teach is size.

You can teach and train size.

You can’t teach height.


Next question.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Do they lack the tools to play defence? I don't think so - the skating and vision that helps them excel offensively should in theory also help defensively. They're not all small (eg Klingberg is 6'3), plus there are some pretty good defensive guys on the smaller side (eg Fox, Spurgeon, etc). Yet after 5-10 years in the league, really not much progression on the defensive end

Not really…there’s countless and timeless examples of defensemen with great vision for passing and generating offense but who do not process the game well defensively.

You can refine technique, teach basic skill sets, show a guy game tape but you can’t teach them to see the ice, have high awareness and process the game at a high level.

 

[ZJuice]

Barrie was good at defense by the end of his tenure as an Oiler. He was still incredibly slow but he seemed aware of it at least

His breakout passes never improved though

 

[Hoglander]

If it was true, then everyone in the NHL would be good defensively.

It's probably easier to adjust one's mindset, and focus all their energy towards defensive play. However, it ultimately comes down to the player. They either adapt, or they bust.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Because some of defense is effort and positioning. You can make a guy block a shot or put his stick in a general area and at least do something compared to the meme like broken controller floating seen sometimes with Ovie or Kane. So in general you can teach someone or at least get on their ass the basics. You can't teach a guy to deke around a player.

Now you can practice to get a better pass, better shot and you can teach someone to read the ice on who to pass to or when. Just like some guys won't get the finer points of defense.

So in conclusion generalizations can be picked apart, defense looks more mental then the highlight plays of offense, and hockey is a game of contrasts

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

*Height

You can teach and train size.

You can’t teach height.


Next question.

Agreed to a degree, but I look at someone like Tyler Ennis- I think he tried, but just could not put on muscle. Normally smart training will help anyone, but some guys just remain beanpoles.

Also, I’d honestly never heard this before, OP. It makes some sense, but some dudes got a gift and struggle with the details. To that I’d point to Olofsson. He tries, it’s not an effort thing imo, but he just doesn’t get structured or defensive hockey. He’s somewhat the exception though. Guys like Matthews and Eichel have all the offensive gifts, they get that part of the game, and they just needed to focus on smart defensive play. As soon as they did so they improved at D.

 

[RebuildinVan]

JT Miller was getting torched publicly for his defensive game, at the end of the year under Tocchet was out killing penalties. It can happen

 

[Wallet Inspector]

It's waaaaaaaaaay easier to get a forward to learn how to be competent-not even amazing, just competent- defensively than it is to get a unskilled forward to become a PPG player.

 

[Hisch13r]

JT Miller was getting torched publicly for his defensive game, at the end of the year under Tocchet was out killing penalties. It can happen

Being on the PK=/=Being good defensively. He was getting absolutely torched in those minutes. It's like when people act like a Dman is good because they "munch minutes". If they get destroyed in those minutes then that isn't a good thing. Of all their regular PKers he had the worst CA/60, far worst GA/60, worst xGA/60, worst SCA/60, and just barely 2nd worst in HDCA/60.

League wide 194 forwards played at least 20 PK minutes from the Tocchet hiring to the end of the year. He had the 12th worst CA/60. 21st worst GA/60. 8th worst xGA/60. 18th worst SCA/60. 29th worst HDCA/60.

Miller deserves the torching. He was no different under Tocchet.

 

[Kaiden Ghoul]

You can learn to be better defensively like offensively, its just easier to do it def.

A dmen can score 5 goals till is 30 and put 15 for 5-10 years

 

[613Leafer]

It's waaaaaaaaaay easier to get a forward to learn how to be competent-not even amazing, just competent- defensively than it is to get a unskilled forward to become a PPG player.

Those seem like different standards, "competent-not even amazing" vs "PPG player". Just competent offensively would be making a guy a ~40 point player.

 

[BLNY]

I think the argument stems from the fact there are innate skills required to be elite offensively. Some of those can certainly translate to playing good defense in the modern context - skating, puck skills, passing. However, there are guys that lack that finishing ability, that ability to slow things down to create goals, that, if they can be taught, are a lot harder to teach. Some people are just born with that ability. Same reason it's really hard to "teach" someone to throw a ball 100mph.

Is there skill associated with playing sound defense? Sure. But, imo, it is far more derived from a desire to do the dirty work. That roll up your sleeves mentality. It's much more about work ethic. Some guys have it. Some guys don't.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

Those seem like different standards, "competent-not even amazing" vs "PPG player". Just competent offensively would be making a guy a ~40 point player.

Fair, but generally speaking you want your forwards to focus more on offence. As long as they aren't a detriment defensively it's fine.

But I also think my point still stands even if you lower the offensive standards. Even getting a player to "learn" how to be a 50-60 point guy is difficult if he just doesn't have the skills for it.

 

[CBJx614]

I don't mind it if it's formulated more like "It's easier to teach defense than offense".

But yeah the league has many players that are worth significantly less because of poor defensive play. Among forwards I think of Scheifele, Zegras, Domi, etc... There are guys that don't have the mindset for it and you should be wary drafting them.

I think this is the big part of it all. I truly think some guys are just able to process the game at a higher level and I don't think that's something you can necessarily teach. You can drill something into someone's head over and over and make them do drill after drill after drill. And for some guys it clicks right away and for others not at all. Some guys can read the game like they are playing chess, where everyone should be at on both teams while other guys really can only comprehend where they should be and where their outlet pass should be.

I think the argument stems from the fact there are innate skills required to be elite offensively. Some of those can certainly translate to playing good defense in the modern context - skating, puck skills, passing. However, there are guys that lack that finishing ability, that ability to slow things down to create goals, that, if they can be taught, are a lot harder to teach. Some people are just born with that ability. Same reason it's really hard to "teach" someone to throw a ball 100mph.

Is there skill associated with playing sound defense? Sure. But, imo, it is far more derived from a desire to do the dirty work. That roll up your sleeves mentality. It's much more about work ethic. Some guys have it. Some guys don't.

This as well. You can't teach work ethic. You can show someone how to be a hard worker and try to lead, but at the end of the day some guys just don't care enough.

 

[Siludin]

There are so many invisible factors in development in those key years age 18-24... romance, alcohol/drugs, academics, homesickness, wanderlust, health, family. I think progress in any area can be hampered and I think the recipe of factors that suppress improvement are unique to each player.

 

[ijuka]

That's pretty much it, yes. Offense's paid many times more for a reason. Many penalty killers are 3rd or 4th liners for a reason. Defense's much easier than offense.