Let it go Kriss. You know that I said PK lacks hockey sense relative to the best of the best, so why pretend?
Really good players make really good plays, and PK is a really good player.
Hockey sense is vision. You either have it or you don't.
How does PK lack vision compared to any of those guys? He used to lack patience in the previous years, which lead him to not take the best decision. In the same sense, he lacked poise by wanting to do too much, like trying to deke a player while being the last man back.
But that is it, and this falls into the maturity bubble, not hockey sense. He already is more patient with the puck this year and takes less risks, he also worked on his shot and his passing improved. He still reads the plays very well, just as well as anybody else.
When you lack hockey sense, you will look lost, you'll be out of position, you'll misread plays, you'll get caught. That rarely happens with PK. It happens on occasion like to any other Dman in the NHL. It doesn't happen often enough to actually make it a flaw in his game.
I agree, there's a stereotype that defenseman with offensive ability lack defensive ability. It's like the stereotype that all good-looking people are stupid, see Hollywood.
I just don't see the criticism of Subban's hockey sense. Can someone post a video of him doing something stupid? I think the issue is that he is aggressive, he moves forward for the attack, and then people think "oh my god he's blowing cover by pinching !!!" , but that's not stupidity, that's aggression.
For me, hockey sense means properly guessing where the other players are and where they're going to be, and I see no evidence PK lacks that. He might lack a sense of his own abilities, for example his failed fight against Marchand, or him taking a long time he needed to work on his own slap shot after a lot of failed shots on the PP last year. That takes time though and now, a mere one year later, he is shooting with more wisdom.
For me, hockey sense is instinctively knowing where to be, how to slow the play down and wait for something to develop (PK Seldom does this) everything is full octane. I remember JM commenting on PK's inability to perform the drills during practice. I can see that tbh. He's not an idiot, he's actually quite smart, but on the ice, he's a step behind in hockey sense compared to the top 5 guys.
It's not really a knock on him, but he doesn't QB the pp effectively and he often tries to create plays that aren't there and were never going to be there.
Hockey sense is vision. You either have it or you don't.
How does PK lack vision compared to any of those guys? He used to lack patience in the previous years, which lead him to not take the best decision. In the same sense, he lacked poise by wanting to do too much, like trying to deke a player while being the last man back.
But that is it, and this falls into the maturity bubble, not hockey sense. He already is more patient with the puck this year and takes less risks, he also worked on his shot and his passing improved. He still reads the plays very well, just as well as anybody else.
When you lack hockey sense, you will look lost, you'll be out of position, you'll misread plays, you'll get caught. That rarely happens with PK. It happens on occasion like to any other Dman in the NHL. It doesn't happen often enough to actually make it a flaw in his game.
These things happen semi frequently with pk, but he has the speed and strength to make up for it. No one should be arguing that hockey sense is PK's strong point, because it isn't.
These things happen semi frequently with pk, but he has the speed and strength to make up for it. No one should be arguing that hockey sense is PK's strong point, because it isn't.
It's called maturity.
PK doesn't have the creativity of a Markov to QB a PP. Chara doesn't have it either. Actually, very, very few in the NHL do. In no way does this mean he lacks vision.
Seems like everybody has a different definition of hockey sense.
If at 27-28, PK is still making some silly mistakes, often, then sure, call it a lack of hockey sense. But he's a 23 yo kid with 2 years of NHL experience, not a veteran.
He is still developing and progressing. I see it a lot more as a lack of maturity in trying to do too much, not being a step behind because of not understanding the game.
Hockey sense is vision. You either have it or you don't.
How does PK lack vision compared to any of those guys? He used to lack patience in the previous years, which lead him to not take the best decision. In the same sense, he lacked poise by wanting to do too much, like trying to deke a player while being the last man back.
But that is it, and this falls into the maturity bubble, not hockey sense. He already is more patient with the puck this year and takes less risks, he also worked on his shot and his passing improved. He still reads the plays very well, just as well as anybody else.
When you lack hockey sense, you will look lost, you'll be out of position, you'll misread plays, you'll get caught. That rarely happens with PK. It happens on occasion like to any other Dman in the NHL. It doesn't happen often enough to actually make it a flaw in his game.
Oh man...
So, in your opinion, PK and Markov both have the same level of hockey sense?
PK doesn't have the creativity of a Markov to QB a PP. Chara doesn't have it either. Actually, very, very few in the NHL do. In no way does this mean he lacks vision.
Seems like everybody has a different definition of hockey sense.
If at 27-28, PK is still making some silly mistakes, often, then sure, call it a lack of hockey sense. But he's a 23 yo kid with 2 years of NHL experience, not a veteran.
He is still developing and progressing. I see it a lot more as a lack of maturity in trying to do too much, not being a step behind because of not understanding the game.
It's not about not understanding the game when talking about hockey sense. Sure, PK has to better learn when to pinch, when to shoot, etc. but that's normal. Hockey sense/poise/awareness/creativity/vision, whatever you want to call it, is a talent. And the top guys are elite in that category.
What do you think made Gretzky so special? His skating, shot, strength?
I don't understand how you can watch tonight's game and not think Subban is one of the best under 25 dmen in the NHL. The Prust goal was off a rush engineered by Subban who made a great play to get the offense going. He gave some solid hits, was solid defensively and every time he had the puck he made good plays. What's not to like ?
No talk about him dangling a few inches from his own goalie, leading to him making a weak pass that got intercepted ?
No talk of the countless end to end rushes thad ends up with him being stuck at the top left in the offensive zone with no one to pass and no angle to shoot ?
of Course he's one of the best if all you talk about is his good plays...
was doing well at the beginning, but the last three or so games he isnt playing like one of our top 4 D.
It's not about not understanding the game when talking about hockey sense. Sure, PK has to better learn when to pinch, when to shoot, etc. but that's normal. Hockey sense/poise/awareness/creativity/vision, whatever you want to call it, is a talent. And the top guys are elite in that category.
What do you think made Gretzky so special? His skating, shot, strength?
Right, and it is Markov's incredible hockey sense from the defensive position that makes him one of the best D in the league. Like Gretzky, he is never going to win a skating, strength or shooting competition but he is still great (obviously on a different level than Gretz) thanks to his elite hockey sense. Now that Lidstrom has retired Markov might actually have the best hockey sense of any defenceman in the league.
But then you have guys like PK, with good hockey sense but elite level tools. Think of Pronger, Chara, or Rob Blake. All Norris winners with good hockey sense (none as high as Markov for example) but elite skills/attributes in multiple other aspects of their game. I think PK holds the potential to approach but probably not reach that level and maybe bag himself a Norris or some nominations.
Not all great defenders play like the Markovs, Lidstroms or Keiths of the League. Some dominate with sub-elite hockey sense but incredible skills elsewhere.
No talk about him dangling a few inches from his own goalie, leading to him making a weak pass that got intercepted ?
No talk of the countless end to end rushes thad ends up with him being stuck at the top left in the offensive zone with no one to pass and no angle to shoot ?
of Course he's one of the best if all you talk about is his good plays...
was doing well at the beginning, but the last three or so games he isnt playing like one of our top 4 D.
i disagree he had a soft game on sat (flu) but tonight he was solid...even when subby play soft hes stil our top 3 d..
Subban takes risks. It's how he plays. His performances depend on if the risks work. They worked a heck of a lot better when the forwards up front weren't Moen, White and Armstrong.
Subban takes risks. It's how he plays. His performances depend on if the risks work. They worked a heck of a lot better when the forwards up front weren't Moen, White and Armstrong.
Subban also make mistakes sometimes...
since when it is so hard to admit a player makes mistakes once in a while ?
besides, honestly, do you remember when's the last time one of his end to end rushes turned up into a goal ? (I'd guess the awnser is NO)
Yes, of course he does. That's the point of risks. Bobby Orr gave up the puck more than any player in the NHL because Bobby Orr always had the puck. Having a good game doesn't mean having a perfect game. You ignore the real importance of the end to end rush and that's getting the puck into the opposing zone. Subban does it better than almost anyone on the team.
The day Subban becomes conservative is the day we might as well trade him.
Got it, P.K. has an excuse for every mistakes he makes, they're all part of the risk he takes, he never plays badly, he's just taking a risk tha didnt turn out well.
maybe other D should take more risks, they may be revered for it
Those are what you call mistakes? Would you rather him get pressured by forecheck and turn the puck over in our own zone or let him skate the puck in an attempt to actually create a play that leads to offensive zone pressure. Until pk turns it over and actually makes a mistake then you can complain, but this is ridiculous, criticizing a player for making a mistake he didn't make is beyond me.
Ya his end to end rushes that get the puck deep and give our forwards the opportunity to cycle the puck, what a burden to have on our team.
who would you rather have in the top 4 than subban? Seriously, absolutely ridiculous. If he isn't scoring goals he isn't playing well, right?
Got it, P.K. has an excuse for every mistakes he makes, they're all part of the risk he takes, he never plays badly, he's just taking a risk tha didnt turn out well.
maybe other D should take more risks, they may be revered for it
Every player is allowed to take risks as long as they can make up for it.
Tomas Kaberle is too slow to make it back to his zone when he takes an offensive risk. He also doesn't make up for it enough.
Carey Price will sometimes be able to pass the puck right to someone for a breakaway. Or he can careen it around the boards on a penalty kill with ease. Or sometimes he coughs it up right to an opposing player for an empty net goal. It's a risk worth taking because nobody can use the stick in net like he can (Brodeur used to be the best and also made bad errors).
PK Subban will rush with the puck or make dangles that sometimes don't work. Other times they will work. It depends on the defender and Subban. It's worth it because Subban is the kind of player who can save your team on defence.
This shouldn't be hard to understand. Why are you demanding perfection? Even the dynasties had cracks. Go read The Game and see how many times Ken Dryden pointed out the teams problems.
Got it, P.K. has an excuse for every mistakes he makes, they're all part of the risk he takes, he never plays badly, he's just taking a risk tha didnt turn out well.
maybe other D should take more risks, they may be revered for it
The question I gotta ask you: does PK's taking a risk converts more than it takes away?
If the answer is "yes", then yes, PK has an an excuse for the "high-risk play" mistakes he makes (lazy mistakes will never be excused).
If he fumbles/turn over the puck more than he beats the opposition, then he clearly has no excuse.
I personally believe that PK hasn't done that many "high-risk play" mistakes so far this year.
smilie ?
