What? Play him as a forward!?

Erik Karlsson.




Now wait, hear me out for a second. I watch every game of course, and lately I've watched Karlsson blaze a trail right through the neutral zone and basically behind the net, passing back and forth with the forwards he's with. His speed is remarkable, his offensive prowess is one of the best on the team IMO. So why not?

I'll tell you what, I'm not under any illusion of our D being THAT good that we can put Karlsson at forward, but what I do see coming is a wonderful glut of puck-movers. From David Rundblad - who looks like a 6'2", 200+ pound version of Karlsson, to Wiercioch, to even Chris Wideman.

But our system has very few high caliber forward prospects. Is it so outlandish to suggest that Karlsson could be that guy?

There's a learning curve - and a BIG one, but I think with the hockey IQ Karlsson possesses, it might be a little easier a transition than we think.

I'm very interested to hear what people have to say.

Discuss.

He's kicking Donkey on D right now let's keep him there

The only top-6 forward opening is when Kovalev is gone and I think Butler will take it.

There was an interview on Team 1200 with Carvel about a week ago and he said Karlsson is good defensively and will only get better.

He also said that while he'll never be a big crease-clearing defenceman he's surprisingly strong for his size.

We don't really know whether Rundblad or Wiercioch will pan out at this point. If they do I'd rather trade one for a forward if need to.

It's an incredibly difficult transition.

It's like saying Mike Vick would make a good running back because he runs the ball. He would do an adequate job, but wouldn't be the impact he is at QB because he won't have the opportunity to sit back and view his options before taking off.

The great thing about the defensive position is that it gives you options you don't have as a forward when breaking out of the zone. With a smart player like Karlsson he is better utilized by giving him those options to create the offense than taking them away.

Karlsson is also special because of that offence he can bring from the backend is unlike 95% of defencemen in the game today. Putting him up front has the possibility of turning him into "just another forward" in the sense that he will be compared to players with similar offensive IQ (at least more similar than other D's).

Hopefully that makes sense, haha.

I think there are difficult skill-sets involved in forward and defence. And I think he's a rarer commodity as a defender than he would be up front, which would just be a poor man's Pat Kane.

Disappointing.

Just because a defenceman has great offensive instincts doesn't mean you consider moving him to forward because you think your team needs one.

It's a big transition, but it's one that I think he could do. I can understand the stance from people, we've need a slick, puck-moving D-man for a long time, but it's a heck of a tantalizing thought to me personally.

CockRoche wrote:Disappointing.

Just because a defenceman has great offensive instincts doesn't mean you consider moving him to forward because you think your team needs one.

There's a little more to it than just plunking the boy at forward and hoping for the best, I get that.

SpezDispenser wrote:It's a big transition, but it's one that I think he could do. I can understand the stance from people, we've need a slick, puck-moving D-man for a long time, but it's a heck of a tantalizing thought to me personally.

So let's stop his growth as a premier defenceman and start the project of converting him to a forward.

If it doesn't work, oh well, we've only lost a year of his development as a defenceman and added some bad habits to his original body of work.

CockRoche wrote:
So let's stop his growth as a premier defenceman and start the project of converting him to a forward.

If it doesn't work, oh well, we've only lost a year of his development as a defenceman and added some bad habits to his original body of work.

We're being hypothetical here. Obviously, Karlsson's a big time D-man of the future here in Ottawa. In this fantasy, there would have to be an indicator to the coaching staff that he could utilize his smarts on ice to be a shifty, fast winger - a la Giroux I would guess. It wouldn't just happen, they would have to see things that they thought would immediately translate into a wing position.

It was just a musing anyway. Probably because we were coasting into Philly and I have a man-crush on little Giroux - who reminds me of Karlsson at forward.

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:
So let's stop his growth as a premier defenceman and start the project of converting him to a forward.

If it doesn't work, oh well, we've only lost a year of his development as a defenceman and added some bad habits to his original body of work.

We're being hypothetical here. Obviously, Karlsson's a big time D-man of the future here in Ottawa. In this fantasy, there would have to be an indicator to the coaching staff that he could utilize his smarts on ice to be a shifty, fast winger - a la Giroux I would guess. It wouldn't just happen, they would have to see things that they thought would immediately translate into a wing position.

It was just a musing anyway. Probably because we were coasting into Philly and I have a man-crush on little Giroux - who reminds me of Karlsson at forward.

No, you are being silly; and I am trying to put a stop to it.

CockRoche wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:
So let's stop his growth as a premier defenceman and start the project of converting him to a forward.

If it doesn't work, oh well, we've only lost a year of his development as a defenceman and added some bad habits to his original body of work.

We're being hypothetical here. Obviously, Karlsson's a big time D-man of the future here in Ottawa. In this fantasy, there would have to be an indicator to the coaching staff that he could utilize his smarts on ice to be a shifty, fast winger - a la Giroux I would guess. It wouldn't just happen, they would have to see things that they thought would immediately translate into a wing position.

It was just a musing anyway. Probably because we were coasting into Philly and I have a man-crush on little Giroux - who reminds me of Karlsson at forward.

No, you are being silly; and I am trying to put a stop to it.

Dude, lighten up a little. He's just asking this for fun.

It's a question that gets asked a lot with smaller, fast, offensive-defensemen. Some people have been saying Mike Green should be a forward for years.

Obviously I think he would be better at defense, as he likes to take the puck all the way from behind the net and rush with it, but if we were in an emergency situation it wouldn't hurt to try him out at forward. Mark Streit went from defense to forward and vice versa all the time when he was with the Habs.

CockRoche wrote:
No, you are being silly; and I am trying to put a stop to it.

As Big Ev said, there's more than a few guys who have made very successful transitions from D to F, or play both positions. Mark Streit is a guy that immediately came to mind as someone who adapts well to either, but has become a very solid, point producing D-man. Dustin Byfuglien is another young guy who comes to mind, as does Brent Burns.

This is basically for conversation only as the Sens wouldn't dream of it I'm sure, but we now understand that you oppose the idea (as most do it seems), I think that was clear. Thanks for the input!

Big Ev wrote:

CockRoche wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:
So let's stop his growth as a premier defenceman and start the project of converting him to a forward.

If it doesn't work, oh well, we've only lost a year of his development as a defenceman and added some bad habits to his original body of work.

We're being hypothetical here. Obviously, Karlsson's a big time D-man of the future here in Ottawa. In this fantasy, there would have to be an indicator to the coaching staff that he could utilize his smarts on ice to be a shifty, fast winger - a la Giroux I would guess. It wouldn't just happen, they would have to see things that they thought would immediately translate into a wing position.

It was just a musing anyway. Probably because we were coasting into Philly and I have a man-crush on little Giroux - who reminds me of Karlsson at forward.

No, you are being silly; and I am trying to put a stop to it.

Dude, lighten up a little. He's just asking this for fun.

It's a question that gets asked a lot with smaller, fast, offensive-defensemen. Some people have been saying Mike Green should be a forward for years.

Obviously I think he would be better at defense, as he likes to take the puck all the way from behind the net and rush with it, but if we were in an emergency situation it wouldn't hurt to try him out at forward. Mark Streit went from defense to forward and vice versa all the time when he was with the Habs.

Haha, you added some to your original post.

I think SpezDispenser knows where I'm coming from, no harm intended. He said he was interested in hearing everybody's opinion, I'm just giving mine. Nothing more.

SpezDispenser wrote:

CockRoche wrote:
No, you are being silly; and I am trying to put a stop to it.

As Big Ev said, there's more than a few guys who have made very successful transitions from D to F, or play both positions. Mark Streit is a guy that immediately came to mind as someone who adapts well to either, but has become a very solid, point producing D-man. Dustin Byfuglien is another young guy who comes to mind, as does Brent Burns.

This is basically for conversation only as the Sens wouldn't dream of it I'm sure, but we now understand that you oppose the idea (as most do it seems), I think that was clear. Thanks for the input!

Thanks. I know you like to hear everybody's opinion on here, especially when it is your question, I just gave mine.

Yeah, it was well said.

I understand where people in this thread are coming from for sure. We have a wonderful, puck-rushing D-man, why compromise that in any way.