Ric Jackman requests trade if not played more

Tocchet · Post by **Tocchet** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:01 am

Couple quick comments:

(1) Easy on the use of the quote button! No need to senselessly make the thread longer than it needs to be.

(2) I don't understand Therrien's weariness on Jackman. Sure, he might not be a stud stay-at-home defenseman, but he produces offense, period. This team is going to have defensive issues regardless of who is out there on the blueline, so you might as well go with some offense to try to balance it out. Plus, I really don't think Jackman is THAT bad on defense, and, along with Orpik, is one of the only ones who will actually hit someone.

minimal · Post by **minimal** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:46 am

I totally agree with Tocchet.

Jackman is not nearly the liability that people make him out to be, and, he can score. That being said, I think given the lack of cohesive team effort, anyone who does not want to be here, should probably be traded... I just hope that does not leave us with like 6 players

M.

Redlight · Post by **Redlight** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:00 am

I agree too, I just do not see Jackman's defense being as bad as some say it is. Clearly there is something that they just do not like about him. He brings some badly needed offense to this team. He also a right handed shot, something this team is also short on. But I can't see him being bad enough to be scratched more often than not over some of these other defensemen we have.

Post by **netwolf** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:03 am

Redlight wrote:
I agree too, I just do not see Jackman's defense being as bad as some say it is. Clearly there is something that they just do not like about him. He brings some badly needed offense to this team. He also a right handed shot, something this team is also short on. But I can't see him being bad enough to be scratched more often than not over some of these other defensemen we have.

I don't think he's that bad defensively either (though he is not good by any means). My main point was that he was producing offense at a level that more than made up for it, which others that continued to get playing time were not doing.

FallenHero96 · Post by **FallenHero96** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:30 am

I would let him play... even if he sucks... at least play him because he is collecting a paycheck.... hell if he sucks thats ok can you say TANK!!!

Tocchet · Post by **Tocchet** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:46 am

"My main point was that he was producing offense at a level that more than made up for it, which others that continued to get playing time were not doing."
Agree 100%, netwolf. Plus, as also mentioned, Jackman balances out the backline by being a right-handed shot.

Post by **pfim** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:49 am

Jackman is "that bad" on defense, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be playing over some other guys.

Penspal · Post by **Penspal** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:52 am

Jackman did not committ the defensive bluder as often as his peers. He just seemed to commit it at key times. I believe that if we were to watch the games prior to his benchings, it was often an ill advidsed Jackman penalty, pass, pinch or pooch which resulted in a goal, and eventually the Pens loss.

But, he does deserve the right to play his way on or off the squad, I'll not argue that.

When he and Tarnstrom where at their best, is seemed to be a planned crash to the net by forwards with a low hard slapper or wrister from Jackman or Dick.

PensPal

Post by **relantel** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:19 pm

The Jackman situation is completely a case of what have you done for me lately... and the nature of the doghouse in the NHL. Once you're in it, it's difficult to get a chance to prove you don't belong in it. This seems to be where Jackman is stuck, and where Malone was for a time as well, and Tarnstrom before them.

The tarnstrom deal wasn't so bad, when you consider we picked him up off the waiver wire, and still got something for him...

Reilly · Post by **Reilly** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:48 pm

Jackman is a nice defemseman, however, he's not in the Pens long-term plans, thus, should be delt. Once/if this team is a contender (4-5 years) Jackman will not and would not have been here for it.

Pens4Life · Post by **Pens4Life** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:35 pm

That sucks,we a crying about team softness and now we are giving up on players who actually hit somebody. jacko also play good offense and improved on defense and he is a righty and a cheap players. For that kind of money we cant get better d-man. I would like him to stay in pittcity for
at least one more season.

Post by **Kicksave** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:41 pm

Reilly wrote:
Jackman is a nice defemseman, however, he's not in the Pens long-term plans, thus, should be delt. Once/if this team is a contender (4-5 years) Jackman will not and would not have been here for it.

I don't agree with that logic. Not every contendor has the same 23 man roster for years on end. What you'll see is a team that keeps a core group of players and will shuffle around the roll players every so often. Ric Jackman would make an excellent 5th or 6th defensemen on this team now and for next year, if paired with the right type of player.

Evenso, if he proves to be productive, he could be in the plans 3-4 years from now. He'll only be in his early 30s by then.

Pens4Life · Post by **Pens4Life** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:50 pm

Thats right,he is our option for years to come...

Pipes Hochuli · Post by **Pipes Hochuli** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 pm

With jovo out for a while maybe they'd take some interest in Jackman. There's a lot of trade buzz around this 21 year old Ryan Kesler, just for the fact that teams want him. He's a speedster, so I'd offer Koltsov and Jackman for him and maybe a draft pick or future considerations. Just a thought.

Post by **schreibdog** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:53 pm

Penspal wrote:
When he and Tarnstrom where at their best, is seemed to be a planned crash to the net by forwards with a low hard slapper or wrister from Jackman or Dick.

That's a very good point. I think in the past, Jackman and Tarnstrom were the go-to guys on the Power Play, but now that is more Crosby/Recchi. I think their powerplay style changed this year. I'd still rather Jackman on the point than Recchi, however.

yeltzen · Post by **yeltzen** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:07 pm

I think one of the biggest things about Jackman that is overlooked on this team is that he ISN'T AFRAID TO SHOOT!!!!
Gonchar looks like he might collapse and die from shooting. Put Jackman on the point on the PP and let him grip it n' rip it.

Ridiculous that they're scratching him on this team with those kinds of numbers. I don't care how bad defensively he is.

yeltzen · Post by **yeltzen** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:15 pm

"He hasn't achieved what we thought he'd achieve, based on the way he played two years ago," Patrick said. "Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of explanations for why things haven't gone that well this year. But a lot of guys haven't played up to the level that we'd anticipated."

Yeah, he didn't achieve what we thought he'd achieve when we signed him to a fraction of what we signed Gonchar for. We never anticipated he'd be a couple points behind Gonchar!

Post by **netwolf** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:20 pm

yeltzen wrote:
Gonchar looks like he might collapse and die from shooting. Put Jackman on the point on the PP and let him grip it n' rip it.

That was true earlier, but lately he has been looking to shoot more. At one point last week he was averaging 4 shots per game though that's dropped since (12 in his last 5).

kovyman1127 · Post by **kovyman1127** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:18 pm

Can you blame him?

Ric Jackman requests trade if not played more

Jackman's defensive woes....

it's the what have you done for me lately sport

Jackman should stay

Kicksave nails it

Kesler from Vancouver?

Re: Jackman's defensive woes....