For anyone catching up, a menu of previous player (and also coaching and GM) report cards can be found at the bottom of the article.
Brett Pesce’s starting point for the 2016-17 season
During a 2015-16 season that saw a transformation of the Carolina Hurricanes’ blue line to a younger group, Brett Pesce was actually first on the scene. He had a strong preseason and looked surprisingly calm and capable despite making a big jump from NCAA to NHL (preseason anyway) hockey. He and Jaccob Slavin were a couple of the last cuts, and he headed off to Charlotte to continue his development in the AHL. That changed quickly when veteran second pairing, right shot defenseman James Wisniewski was felled by a a season-ending knee injury in his first shift in a Hurricanes uniform. The Hurricanes tried a couple other options first. And Francis did not follow my initial call to at least give Pesce a look in the hole previously filled by Wisniewski on the right side of the team’s second defense pairing but did recall Pesce soon thereafter which prompted me to write this optimistic article on the eve of Brett Pesce’s NHL debut. And from the category of ‘every once in awhile even a blind squirrel finds a nut,’ it actually worked.
John-Michael Liles proved to be an incredibly good fit and an even better mentor and partner while Pesce worked to adapt and bring his game to a much higher level. Initially, Liles did a tremendous job of playing a cautious game with the puck on his stick and being careful not to put Pesce in bad situations, but as their time together wore on they developed into a strong shot suppression/defense first type second pairing that was maybe a little light on generating offense but worked well together as a unit, was sound defensively and made incredibly few mistakes. Pesce played the vast majority of his 2015-16 ice time alongside Liles until Liles departed at the trade deadline. He then finished the season playing mostly with Noah Hanifin.
When the 2015-16 concluded, Pesce had impressively parachuted almost directly into a top 4 defense role straight out of college hockey and looked incredibly comfortable doing it. Heading into the offseason, he was rising. Pesce posted a modest 4 goals and 12 assists in 69 games at the NHL level to go with a respectable minus 7 on a team that was more minus than plus.
The questions headed into the 2016-17 season were mostly normal stuff for a second-year player. Would he hit a sophomore slump? Could he bring more offensively? And maybe most significantly, was he really a top 4 defenseman, or did he just find lightning in a bottle landing with a seemingly perfect defense partner and maybe riding the initial adrenaline rush of making it to the NHL?
Brett Pesce’s 2016-17 season with the Carolina Hurricanes
With John-Michael Liles out of the picture, Pesce was part of Coach Bill Peters’ effort to reshuffle the returning defensemen. He started the season in a second pairing with Ron Hainsey, but after a couple of games and some struggles for the team defensively, Peters quickly adjusted and put second-year defensemen Jaccob Slavin and Brett Pesce together. Almost instantly, the duo became Peters’ top pairing and started seeing as many of the tough minutes as Peters could get for them.
And it was magnificent. Any fears of sophomore slumps faded very quickly into the background, and the questions turned to assessing just how good the pair of young players was and how much better they could become. The newly-minted blue line comprised of two 22-year olds when put together, spent the fall and winter learning to play together and at the same time mostly shutting down many of the NHL’s best scoring lines. Though somewhat different in skill set, the duo did two things incredibly well. First was playing aggressively especially on the puck. They challenged the puck and took away time and space especially on the rush. Second is that despite playing an aggressive forward-leaning brand of defense, both had a sense for how to support such that even if one was caught too far forward occasionally, there was at least help behind.
That continued through late February when the Ron Hainsey trade changed the mix. From that point forward, Pesce played most with Noah Hanifin who stepped into Hainsey’s slot in the top 4 though Peters did intermittently go back to Slavin/Pesce when the situation warranted it. In his report card, I rated Hanifin’s transition into the top 4, and Noah Hanifin first and foremost deserves credit for that. But just as I credited Liles with his significant role ushering Pesce into the NHL the year before, I think Pesce’s steady and sound presence played a role in Hanifin’s success in the last 25 games after dealing with instability in the slot next to him for most of what preceded the trade deadline.
Pesce finished the 2016-17 season with headline statistics of 4 goals and 16 assists. A look at the next level is probably the better measure of his season that was incredibly good on the defensive side of the puck. I get that there are issues with the plus/minus statistic especially over small sample sizes, but Pesce’s plus 23 that tied Slavin do tell a simple but important story that his team won when he was on the ice. Pesce was edged out narrowly for the team lead in blocked shot by partner Jaccob Slavin and also finished near the top of team in takeaways. Pesce also played a leading role on the blue line for the team’s top-end penalty kill. All in all, Pesce had a tremendous 2016-17 season that is not captured in headline level numbers.
Grading Brett Pesce
Graded as: Young top 4 defenseman aiming to pick up where he left off at the end of the 2015-16 despite a new situation adjusting to a new defense partner.
Grade: A-. Is it an A or an A-? I went back and forth and took just a tiny bit off on the offensive side. And I will be disappointed if there are not at least a few comments from people grumbling about me tacking on the minus. He easily gets the same A that his partner Jaccob Slavin did on the defensive side of the puck. I would go so far as to say that Pesce might have even been a tiny bit better than Slavin in that regard. But in today’s NHL where success can be heavily depending on depth scoring, top 4 defensemen who can kick in even modest scoring make a big difference. I give him a passing B offensively and view another level scoring-wise to be a challenge within Pesce’s reach.
Important to note is that scoring for defensemen is largely a function of power play ice time and role, and Pesce was light in this regard. Also important to note is that if Pesce plays exactly like he did in 2016-17 and his ceiling proves to be low 20s for points, he is still a solid top 4 defenseman and solid part of a good, playoff-worthy NHL team. Finally, I think he does have some offensive upside especially on the rush. On the Hurricanes, I would rate him second only to Justin Faulk (and by a small margin) in terms of figuring out where to go/what to do when he is at the front of the play on the rush through the neutral zone and entering the offensive zone. That has the potential to lead to more scoring.
Looking forward to 2017-18
With another veteran top 4 in Ron Hainsey departed and the possibility of a summer addition, Brett Pesce will enter the 2017-18 season inked into a top 4 slot on the Hurricanes’ blue line but with some uncertainty as to who he plays with. Sticking with Slavin/Pesce is an easy ‘if it’s not broken don’t fix it’ option for Peters, but the possibility of separating the two to better balance the defense especially on the road also has merit.
Regardless of partner and slot in the lineup, the Hurricanes just need more of the same defensively and if possible a little bit more scoring-wise. Something like 30-33 points would actually be a decent mark if Pesce’s role on the power play remains limited. If he finds his way to more power play ice time, 40+ would be a bigger but maybe reachable target.
What say you Canes fans?
With these going up a bit late, much of the discussion of Pesce and similar has already started in the Thursday Coffee Shop where the topic is appropriately the top 4 defensemen for the 2017-18 season, but in case people also want to bandy around Brett Pesce topics here, the usual couple conversation starter questions are below.
As arguably the steadiest defenseman of the bunch, do you think Pesce could do exactly what Liles did for him only two years ago and be the stable and predictable partner that Noah Hanifin needs to complete his ascension into the top 4? Or do you prefer to keep things simple and go with Slavin/Pesce again in 2017-18?
Do you think Pesce has untapped offensive potential from his 20 points in 2016-17, or should we just be thrilled that he is as good as he is defensively?
Previous report card articles
Thoughts on Lucas Wallmark and Valentin Zykov’s short auditions
Go Canes!
1. I would go with the Slavin-Pesce combination for 2017-18. They would be my number 1 pairing. Hanifin and Faulk would be my second pairing.
2. Pesce over time as he feels comfortable will increase his offensive contributions I feel. As he continues to learn the league and the tendencies of other team and their individual players, I feel he will adjust naturally.
1) I think we will have 5 solid guys. I kind of liked the idea of having the Slavin-Pesce combination at home. This is just thought, so open for other ideas – For away games, I think put Pesce (probably the best defender but close with Slavin) with Fleury. That will give him a solid partner to learn from. Pesche could be like Liles was. Then Slavin with Hanifin (he would not need a liles figure to learn from). Faulk, being the offensive stud, we look for a 4-5 addition but he does not need to be a big goal scorer, which means cheaper, just a solid stay at him defender. Or, I still think there is hope for Murphy or McKeown. We may not need another D at all, depends on what we see at TC and pre-season.
A lot of flexibility, Faulk could go with Slavin also for away games. I am thinking the distinction of 1st, 2nd and 3rd paring does not matter so much. More about matchups for home and away.
2) I agree with RR, I believe Pesce will grow in scoring over time naturally. I am thrilled with his defense already.
I just realized I failed to take into account the left/right. Strike what I said above. Away games – Pesce/Fleury, Hanifin/Faulk and then a righty for Slavin. Both Murphy and McKeown are right (or acquire a stay at home RH-D). This may not work but I think we have 5 good D and wanted to get Pesce with Fleury for learning.
I’m grumbling about the minus. Pesce is the bomb. His offense may come around it may not. But seeing as we’re paying him for defense I think we got more than our money’s worth from him.
Thanks fogger! We need a contingent to step up for Brett Pesce who deserves it. And despite giving him a minus, I am high on him like everyone else.
I also think you’re right on the offense might/might not come around thing. Scoring is a good thing obviously, but if Pesce puts up a run of 8-10 years doing what he did in 2016-17, it will be a positive even if his scoring remains in the 20-point range.
Count me in the contingent. Pesce’s play was everything that could be asked.
I think Matt is correct that his scoring upside is mostly challenged by his lack of time on power plays. Slavin might face the same challenge going forward. With the organization using analytics they will most likely use one D and four forwards on all PPs (the numbers on this are strong). I know the team did that to some degree in 16-17. That really only leaves room for Faulk and Hanifin.
Pesce did display some offensive skills as the season progressed, culminating in a dazzling near-goal in OT the last home game.
I will give him the A – although I wondered about the A-. A great shutdown D-man who makes the player on his left better. I am not worried about his limited offensive production – it is not like he didn’t take part in rushes. He certainly did and he had his chances on goal. Those numbers will come – but I think he is closer to his upside in scoring than Slavin is.
When you have something as good as Slavin/Pesce why try to break it up? – that would only be the case if the 2nd pairing falters. I am actually a bit concerned, though, that Hanifin/Faulk may be a little iffy on defense. So balancing the pairings may make sense in practice. But I wouldn’t do with the intention/purpose of giving Hanifin a stable and predictable partner but to keep the pairings balanced.