RobRock Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Not only that, but I think the difference between being a great defensive forward and just being a checking forward is how you read the play and your opponent. What set guys like Carbonneau, Jarvis, Keane, Skrudland, and guys of today like Lehtinen and Madden is that they anticipate where the play is going, where their opponent is going, and where the puck is going. You can block shots 'til every bone in your body is broken, that alone doesn't make you great defensive player. If you can break up the play before it becomes a scoring opportunity, or eliminate an option by taking away a passing lane or a shooting lane, that's as important as blocking shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 It's harder to become a top defensive specialist then a one-way offensive force. Playing both ways takes hard work, endurance, grit, work ethic and more skill then some would think. After all, you can't lose if the other team doesn't score on you. Whaaat? You can't teach offense. You can teach defense. That's why becoming an offensive force is harder than becoming a defensive specialist. Basically anyone, if he tries, can become a defensive specialist. Not anyone can become an offensive specialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I know that this goes against what's been said by the parties involved but maybe the leaving of Sundstrom might make the staying of Bulis more likely. Bulis is a super defensive player with more of an offensive upside than Sundstrom had. He's younger too. I doubt that this will happen but it makes it possible. Who else on the team can do what Sundstrom did so well? I'm not saying no one can but just looking for opinions on the matter. :king: :hlogo: :king: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HABBER-oooooKNOWS Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I know that this goes against what's been said by the parties involved but maybe the leaving of Sundstrom might make the staying of Bulis more likely. Bulis is a super defensive player with more of an offensive upside than Sundstrom had. He's younger too. I doubt that this will happen but it makes it possible. Who else on the team can do what Sundstrom did so well? I'm not saying no one can but just looking for opinions on the matter. :king: :hlogo: :king: The big thing here is Bulis has a huge problem being a defensive forward. He's been quite vocal about wanting to play on the 1st two lines and power play. That's what got him benched last season. There is no room for that. Unless Bulis can grow up and understand what it takes to play on a team, and embrace the assignment he's given by the coach, he's not very much help to the Habs.......... See Ya........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Komisarek the Cruncher Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 When BG says publicly in an interview that its time for Bulis to go see somewhere else, it means be-bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 (edited) Whaaat? You can't teach offense. You can teach defense. That's why becoming an offensive force is harder than becoming a defensive specialist. Basically anyone, if he tries, can become a defensive specialist. Not anyone can become an offensive specialist. If you can't teach offensive and if defense has to be learned then the former is not easy??????? I politely suggest you think about what you just said. If it's a natural gift then it certainly isn't harder. If it comes naturally, then obviously it is easier because you don't have to work as hard to acheive what is intuitive. According to that line of reasoning, when it has to be learned/taught then the work is just that much tougher. Players who are the grinders, checkers, are hard workers - they have to work far harder to make it and to be good at it. I've been a coach and manager at high level hockey for years now, and the superstars with natural born talent are few and far between. When they appear on the scene they have rarely been known for working hard at their craft - it just flows once they step on the ice. oh they may work on their shot, their release or their speed and a few minor aspects of their game(refining their skill) but that is about it for most of them. In practise they just want a puck and the offensive drills - let me score coach, let me shoot! But the good checkers, the defensive specialists, they are constantly learning about the game, studying their opponent's habits, working their asses off just to stay at that level. Offensive players aren't found on trees and they aren't often turned away as they are in short supply, but the defensive gem is almost always there because he worked extremely hard to get there..... That is why they make better coaches than offensive forwards - they had to learn the game inside out to play at the highest level possible. You become an offensive specialist because it comes naturally, not because you worked hard to create that talent. You become a defensive player at the NHL level because you sacrificed your body, and you gave the game your heart & soul to make it........ No sense in that line of reasoning - they may be fewer but there are also a lot more role players out there to compete with than there are goal scorers. Hard work makes the difference for the latter Edited June 10, 2006 by beliveau1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 If you can't teach offensive and if defense has to be learned then the former is not easy??????? I politely suggest you think about what you just said. If it's a natural gift then it certainly isn't harder. If it comes naturally, then obviously it is easier because you don't have to work as hard to acheive what is intuitive. According to that line of reasoning, when it has to be learned/taught then the work is just that much tougher. Read between the lines. Its harder... because it can NOT be done!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Read between the lines. Its harder... because it can NOT be done!!!! Read between the lines.... still can't figure out your train of thought here? If it can't be done, then it is simply impossible, not harder to do. The old saying 'if it comes naturally, then it comes easy......' still applies! (see following post for completion of this post - my mistake = sorry) Edited June 12, 2006 by beliveau1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Read between the lines. Its harder... because it can NOT be done!!!! Read between the lines.... still can't figure out your train of thought here? If it can't be done, then it is simply impossible, not harder to do. Offensive players are basically born with a skill that cannot be taught - it can be perfected, but not taught from scratch. It is an inherent, natural skill that involves senses that you either have, or you don't? It is not something you can spend hours of hard work and time on in order to create a skill - that type of investment simply perfects it to the next level. While the sum of all its' products can be refined through hard work, the fact is it is not solely reliant on that sacrifice. Offensive creativity stems from a talent that simply flows from gifted players the moment they step on the playing field. While defensive specialists have a certain degree of natural talent, the fact is they work much harder to perfect their game, and they work much harder in the process of a game in order for their role to succeed. Let up for a minute and the offensive player takes advantage of that lapse to capitalize...... The old saying 'if it comes naturally, then it comes easy......' still applies! p.s. my mistake hit post button before I finished the first one and then somehow ended up with 2 posts when i tried an edit? Not sure what happened? Edited June 12, 2006 by beliveau1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Goodbye Hackett...I mean..er...um...Sundstrom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch_nl Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 He turned into a checking winger because he couldn't score enough. Bulis followed the same path. I think Sundstrom fell in the same trap long ago. Do not agree. Niklas Sundström has always been a very responsible player. When Forsberg, Näslund and Sundström played togeher it was always Sundström that was the defensive one. It has been so all his career. Sundström is a great passer and did play on Rangers first line along with Wayne Gretzky and in 97 he had 52 points. Mor than both Kovalev and Robitaille. In 2001 he had the same total of points as Owen Nolan and more than Vincet Damphousse in San Jose. So what's my point? In New York and San Jose Niklas Sundström player the defensive role on a loaded offensive line. That was not his role in Montreal. Sundström was aquired as a third line winger and now Canadiens have become so good that we need to fill that roster spot with someone that can develop. Thanks for everythink Sundström. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.