Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/26/2016 in all areas

  1. 14 points
  2. 13 points
    No offsides would be cherry-picking madness. Necessary rule IMO
  3. 12 points
    It's a no for me. It would just change the game too much. Wouldn't really be hockey anymore. Like eliminating dribbling/traveling from basketball (although those rules are pretty lax for the star players already). Kind of stops being basketball. For hockey, eliminating offsides would remove much of the speed and excitement from the game. Forwards would start camping out by the opposite net. Coaches would respond by leaving a defenseman back the whole game to compensate. And all of a sudden, it becomes a static game with players parked on the ice. Basically, you'd get this: Here's something written by a guy who's reffed games where they didn't call offsides: “This flat out doesn’t work. Hockey is one of the most dynamic contact sports in the world. Players move at 30 mph, the puck is passed at upwards of 80 mph, and is shot at around 100 mph (wrist and snap shots; slaps are around 120). You get rid of offsides, and forwards will just camp their opponent’s zones. I have personal experience with a no offsides rule. I have reffed games where we haven’t called offsides. It made the game nearly static and lost the speed and mobility.
  4. 9 points
  5. 9 points
    Creates an account and in his very first post, he rips on the Sedins
  6. 8 points
    Some of you may remember me talking about starting up a hockey blog on hockey history and I'd like to announce that I chose to start it! I've begun it on wordpress and have a few posts up there already. If you're interested, go ahead and check it out! https://hookedonhockeyhistory.wordpress.com/ I'm just a first-time blog writer, so we'll see how this goes!
  7. 7 points
    Salaries have been inflating for years, you can say the same about a very sizable portion of players who earn around $7m or more per year. Since people love referring back to 2011, Krejci and Bergeron both make more than the Sedins and are producing less than them at five years younger. (You could say that Bergeron's defensive play makes him more valuable but the guy has 10 points this year and he's earning almost $9 million.) People are so vague about what first line scoring means. Do you mean a point per game pace? There are only eight of those in the league right now. If you mean that they should both be in the top 90 in scoring (3 first liners x 30 teams), then they are, although with two more or less points they could be in a wildly different position with how condensed the scoring race is now. They're 36 years old, obviously the more time passes the more their skills will deteriorate and their contracts will look bad. That's going to happen with all of these long, big money contracts that are being signed by the time the players are in their late 30s. The bigger problem is the lack of a succession plan developed by management, so fans still target the Sedins for criticism because there's nobody else capable of carrying the torch. If the Sedins were producing at the same pace, but the team had drafted better and was well stocked with young forwards primed to take over when the Sedins retire, nobody would care if they were on pace for 50 point years. But the spotlight is still on them because those prospects aren't here yet.
  8. 7 points
    Really dude, Soma guy &^@#s up his shoulder and has surgery but is supposed to perform better on your statistical data or he is a bust? He doesn't meet the average markers and any plausible reason is an excuse. So Boeser will also be a bust if he doesn't produce more on a college team because he is injured and required surgery. Now because of that he will score less points. So he is, by your analysis a bust potentially too. So no other information needed, no improvement from year one to two, bust no matter what, bust. 20 y/o that doesn't produce right away, bust, failure and poor drafting. I mean why bother sending Jake to the AHL for development, Terrible Dee has a data sheet looking at his Juinor numbers from his draft year to the following one and it clearly shows Jake has no ability and was a wasted pick. Okay, Dee we should waive Jake as clearly your abilities to look at the stats and not factor context is vastly superior to any other method. You have all the answers and I bow to your superior knowledge.
  9. 6 points
    Good post...I can remember on these boards ,it was like 60% Ehlers/Nylander and 40% Virtanen...I was voting for Nylander (especially with our history of picking Swedish players),but was not upset at all about picking Virtanen....A lot of fans forget that the two previous smaller,skilled forwards that we selected were disappointing (Hodgson,Schroeder),so picking Virtanen signalled a change in the usual Canuck philosophy of picking players. All players develop at different rates,but usually it's the smaller skilled players which yield the quickest early returns (Fabbri and Ehlers from the 2014 draft)..The bigger guys usually take a few years to round into form.and you do have to be patient..Just off the top of my head,I'm sure that the teams that drafted Neely,Thornton,Bertuzzi regret giving up on those players so soon.
  10. 6 points
    Not even Scotty Bowman could make chicken salad out of chicken $&!#e.
  11. 4 points
    (summary at the bottom) Let me start by saying that I love the Sedin's - their contributions to the team, franchise and our community probably surpass any one player in our history. I feel privileged to have seen them in their prime - they produce plays that I had never seen before, and doubt I will see again after they retire. They are true pros in every sense of the word. I am, however, a little perplexed at how unwilling they are to (publicly) take more ownership of this team's poor offensive production over these past couple of years. The fact is that they are are simply not producing enough for a pair of $7 million players playing on the same line for a team to be successful. They make up 2/5 of our top PP unit, which is one of the worst in the league. Part of that has to be on them. Further, they do not hit, block shots, or kill penalties, so when they do not score, their contributions are greatly diminished. I was really disappointed recently when, asked to compare this team to the 2010-11 team, they essentially said that they were able to play a different game back then because they had better defensemen. Are they not willing at all to attribute any decline in performance to the fact that they have aged and slowed down, while the players around them have gotten faster? If I was a defenseman on this team, I would feel really discouraged at hearing my leaders talk this way. I also really dislike it when they say they would like someone on the team to step up and take over the first line. Again, this means that we would be paying two players $14 million to play on the second line. The fact is, they are being paid first line money, and part of the reason for our anemic offence is that they are not producing at the rate we need them to. Many cite our lack of secondary scoring as our biggest problem - well, we don't have primary scoring either. Aside from Erickson, no forward on this team comes close to making what the Sedin's make. So when they, as leaders, say that they would like someone to step up offensively, how do you think that makes the other players (making significantly less money) feel? I've also heard it be said that we need better secondary scoring to take pressure off the top line. This would be like saying, "The backup goalie needs to play better to take pressure off the starter." Obviously it's the top players that need to produce to take pressure off the secondary scorers. Of course successful teams have secondary scorers to pick up the slack when the top line has an off night. But the reality is that productive nights for the Sedin's are too few and far between. And when they do not produce, they are unable to make other significant on-ice contributions. It bewilders me a little at how the team and the media seem to turn a blind eye to this fact. Others have said that part of the money they make now is payment for services rendered at a time when they were being paid under market value. That is fine, but it doesn't change how we should view the predicament now, which is that our highest paid players are not producing the way we need them to. What I would like to hear the Sedin's say at some point is, "we are paid to produce points, and part of the reason the team is not successful is that we haven't been producing consistently enough." Everyone knows it - I just wished they would publicly acknowledge it. Summary: The Sedin's are being paid top line money (aside from Erickson, no forward on the Canucks makes close to what they make), and are not scoring at the rate they need to in order for the Canucks to be successful. As leaders, I wish they would publicly take ownership of this fact, instead of saying after every loss "we weren't good enough," "we had too many turnovers," "we beat ourselves" etc...
  12. 4 points
    Leaderboard/individual teams updated (link in OP). I intend to have it done by 10-11 PM each night. Also, if I've missed anything just let me know.
  13. 4 points
  14. 4 points
    The combo of your username and brutal grammar (first 6 words) guarantees almost no one will read your post. Sorry to be mean, but if you want people to read, write something that reads.
  15. 4 points
    Brutal. Thats just not how you do it. You basically just said 'hey, let's do it like the Oilers did!' you don't bring kids up in a situation like that. You need mentors to teach these kids how to be pros. Loser teams have kids like Hall and Kadri as the guy for rookies to look up to.
  16. 4 points
    Pretty much made my one major trade of the season. However, willing to give the below package for an elite forward:
  17. 4 points
    Some people have some silly concepts of what is a realistic NHL roster. They want the Leafs-west - and yet are oblivious to the actual Leaf roster. They dream of past fantasy returns on players like Vrbata - but are oblivious to the fact that a player like Parenteau - 20 g at a million - couldn't be dumped to anyone last year. Oblivious to the fact that a perenial tanker like Edmonton still had the Mark Faynes, Brad Ferences, Matt Hendricks, Korpikoski, Sekera, Letestu, Benoit - and are signing Lucics, Russells - when they could be playing kids in those spots and 'properly' incubating a contender. But they have enough elite talent enough now! - and apparently did before they were gifted McDavid.....years and years of enough elite talent and 1st overalls - and yet....they still needed to make Hall for Larsson type deals not to bleed goals from their backend (and a forward group that lacked competence - perhaps even a concept - of two way hockey) Anyhow, whatever - Benning, Linden, WD are the idiots. If only we'd fire them, and trade everyone for a winfall of 1st round picks the fantasy would end and the reality would be an inevitable powerhouse contender. Instead we wallow in mediocrity. If only CDC's 'collective' intelligence ran the team.
  18. 4 points
    Please inform us as to which players picked from 5-10 in the last 10 drafts have come out of the gate as 18 year olds and cracked their teams top lines and D pairings?
  19. 4 points
    Year 1 Virtanen went back to Junior. Year 2 he wasn't old enough for the AHL. Btw, there is no magic formula. Different players simply develop at different rates. Neither of them have been "ruined". Ruined at 20 by limited sheltered minutes for one whole season? Are they just too old to learn anything now? That's just complete hyperbole.
  20. 3 points
    Merry Christmas CDC! Just want to say to all that I am thankful for all of you. I have enjoyed the good times, the ugly, the laughs, and speculation. When it all comes down to it, the real fans for Canucks hockey are here. Thank you all for your loyal support to this team even in rough times. I am thankful that we have this fan base that allows us to keep an NHL hockey team in our home city. Most cities do not have this luxury. So thank you for this wonderful fan base that keeps this team here even in a rough era. You guys are awesome! Merry Christmas!
  21. 3 points
    True every pick deserves patience, but it's pretty obvious Tkachuk was destined to be that top 6 player that we're hoping Virtanen becomes. He's already on pace for almost 60 points at 18 and he plays with an edge. Tkachuk was the safe pick like Bo was the safe pick. I just see more risk coming with Juolevi, which will hopefully come with a higher reward. We won't likely know for at least a few years though.
  22. 3 points
    This from a guy saying dump all the veterans? I find that ironic
  23. 3 points
    More shock top it is! Thanks for being a fan!
  24. 3 points
    Thanks for FINALLY posting your plan Mr. Benning. Now the question to be answered is: where do those guys you listed as keepers (and the two top picks in 2017 + 2018) get us to in the standings? Are we going to get to the middle or higher?
  25. 3 points
    Bottom line is we have them for another year and a half no matter what the media may say on a slow news day, so why not use them to benefit the team long term , spread them around, and help prepare players on their lines to be better and handle the offensive pressure together.....as a team.
  26. 3 points
    Jasek had a good game and was among the most noticeable forwards on the ice. He looked dangerous almost every time he got the puck.
  27. 3 points
    One day, I'll come on here and I won't have to see any people quoting Alf. I blocked him months ago, but I still have to see people quoting him saying something stupid like sayin 40 goals for Boeser isn't enough. Vanek was fantastic for a long time
  28. 3 points
    Agree with a lot of what the OP has stated. Sedins should have suggested playing on different lines, as well. & it's not just their declining point production, their line's defensive ineptitude(mostly turtle gear-issue), more than offsets their off-contributions. The contract was 1 mill too much(per yr), and/or a yr too long. So it becomes an issue of what amount of negative fan statements are acceptable, or simply considered constructive criticism, when we factor in the dozen(or so) excellent yrs Van fans received? We're all cognizant now, & measured in our analysis.
  29. 3 points
    I like the basis of the idea but you are NOT getting Reinhart for that lmao
  30. 3 points
    Anyone else feel when you watch the WJC you miss TSN broadcasting hockey?
  31. 3 points
    I think you're being a bit disingenuous here... Trump didn't promise to "have architects look at budgets and feasibility", he promised that he was going to build a wall. Many people voted for him, based on that promise. While it may be that the AG is responsible for pursuing charges against Hillary, Trump said in no uncertain terms that he would appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges against her if elected. From the LA Times: Trump has since backed off that promise. On Obamacare. From Politico: Now it may be that Trump still wants a complete repeal. (It's hard to tell from his public comments since the election) However, it might not be quite as easy as he thought it was going to be, because the Republican party can't agree on what form the new plan would take. (other than the standard, "something better" or Trump's own favorite: "something terrific") Forbes explains it all quite nicely: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/11/09/under-president-trump-repealing-replacing-obamacare-will-be-harder-than-it-looks/#3841a8877d24 One would have assumed that a plan to "immediately repeal" such a weighty piece of legislation would have been in place long ago. Once again, it appears obvious that Trump was talking out of his posterior in an attempt to tell the gullible masses what they thought they wanted to hear. While it's true that Trump has not yet taken office, he has made several appointments and several promises. (in addition to, or sometimes counter to his campaign promises) He does deserve to be taken to task on these acts, whether he has been inaugurated or not.
  32. 3 points
    LOL. I expect the spam from you Alf. First, you have no idea what the team's systems are - and "passive" is just a daft description - and second, if you look at the actual injuries, there is no "logic" to them - as I've already pointed out. Hamhuis with a freak puck to the jaw - nothing to do with 'defensive structure'. Gudbranson wrist injury = ditto. Larsen blindside - that was with possession, not a 'D structure' injury. Edler breaks his foot last year, breaks his hand this year - just freakass bad luck as happens in the game. Honestly, the attempt to blame these injuries on coaching is just beyond dense. Three consecutive coaches have had the same fate - and it has nothing to do with systems. Ironically, Tortorella's systems were far closer to your description - a collapse in the D zone that lead to some of the most futile fire drills we've ever seen from this team - and in addiition to that, the emphasis on shot-blocking, even from players like the Sedins, who just aren't cut out for it, or for penalty killing. If any coaches' systems should naturally result in injuries - well, there you have it. The team spends too much time in it's end because it has the youngest blueline in the NHL. Maybe you've got that part bass-ackwards. The team's possession numbers have taken the expected dive after losing their top pairing, best forward, and another second pairing D. Anyhow, enjoy the eggnog Alf. Some of these discussions are far beyond pointless. Fire the coach and the injuries will go away. You've got it figured.
  33. 3 points
    Ironiic that you make this claim - and then go on to talk about the Sedins 'decline'. It's our blueline that is injured year after year, and it's top top bottom - Tanev, Gudbranson, Edler, Hamhuis, Sbisa, Larsen - last year and this alone, some of them twice. There really is no "logic" to the injuries - it's simply garbage luck regardless of how people pretend to apply an "analysis" to it. And therein lies your answer to why this team is not as competitive as Benning was intending. No forward group is going to look as good as they would with a healthy blueline - it's really as simple as that. So the team has gone from playoffs two years ago to bottomfeeder last year to half way between this year. That's the reality when you trim your lineup down to a handful of key veterans and a lot of transitioning youth - and injuries start pulling 3 of your defensemen out of your lineup at any given time. There are virtually no teams that can shoulder that and remain as competitive as they'd otherwise be. This team had a fairly limited veteran group outside the Sedins, Hansen, Edler, Tanev - and a pair of those guys are still in their prime. All the whining that Benning hasn't gone to Toronto teardown extremes is both pointless - and ironic - when that team still has contracts like Bozak, Komarov, added Martin, Robidas, Hunwick, added Polak again - as well as dead cap in Laich, Michalek, Greening, Kessel retention, Gleason. Meh - if any market can bleed money, it's Toronto. So much ado about nothing. This team is doing precisely what Benning has said they would. They set themselves up to be reasonably competitive when they're healthy. They're transitioning to youth - and they're run the risk of losing, particularly when they lose key pieces to injury - which has predominantly been to their blueline. So they're running with the NHL's youngest D and people here continue to whine and expect, ironically, for them to win. At the same time they complain about the results and the potential high pick (which is supposed to be the upside for y'all, being tankers). Hey, ride the contradictions if it suits your complaining. Really, all this boils down to is a single pair of Sedins that have not been liquidated, and the signing of a veteran. Oh yeah, and endless whining that water could not be drawn from injured veteran stones. If only we had a 5th for Vrbata, or Hamhuis hadn't broken his face and the timing and market kinder. Whatever - micro whining over bad fortune as if the GM should have extracted something for assets that cost nothing in the first place. Keeping Edler and Hansen = perfectly reasonable - in fact Edler's value had to be rebuilt after being destroyed, ironically by Tortorella who misused and overused him like a rented mule. Does this all not boil down to people's hypocritical stances regarding the Sedins? First of all - what exactly do they owe this franchise? Second - make up your minds folks - either they're declining, overpaid and unmovable assets - as you claim in one breath - or they're valuable veteran pieces that could bring important returns to a transitioning franchise. Ah - surprise - you want to have it both ways. Whatever - enjoy the miserable mindset you talk yourself into.
  34. 3 points
    Personally how I feel about the Jays and everything, it's frustrating to now hope the Jays can be competitive again. It's easy to say they still can be, but we don't know how Morales will work with his new team, we don't know if Pearce is going to be an impact. We did know what EE and JB were capable of doing, and finally had most of the pieces to be competitive. Before the Jays made the playoffs last year we watched JB and EE put up great numbers, but the team was lacking more depth and pitching for them. Finally they got most of those pieces and we made the playoffs, and then we change management and you start to see more of a conservative approach. Luckily they made the playoffs again, because management was to worried about re-evaluating this team without realizing what needs to be done to win now. It had been over 20 years since the Jays had been in the playoffs, so it was exciting to finally see it again and it felt good to be a competitive team in the AL East. Now it's back to hoping things will work out instead of knowing they would, and as a fan I hate that feeling because I've seen it fall apart after 93-94. Just wish this team stuck with what they knew they had, that worked instead of taking a cheaper approach and hoping it fills the holes. This is why I have a hard time getting behind Rogers after they let AA go, and replaced him when they did, just stupid. Rogers was to scared with AA and spending money to freaking win, and just goes to show how Rogers should not be involved in sports teams at all.
  35. 3 points
    Just enforce the rules and scoring will increase again. It certainly worked after the 2004 lockout.
  36. 3 points
    There's been no damage done. He simply wasn't ready for the NHL. It's funny when pre-season came along for Jake's rookie season, there were so many here going on and on that "he has nothing left to learn in junior". He struggles through the NHL last year and is sent to the AHL this year and now he's "ruined". Or in your case "stunted". Complete BS. Benning is damned for keeping him here, and he'd be damned had he sent him back to junior. Every player simply doesn't develop into NHL players at the same rate. His career isn't over at 20. Patience.
  37. 3 points
    Where did you expect this team to be in it's third season of rebuild? My guess was anywhere from contending for a playoff spot to the bottom of the west. There's no guarantees when you're rebuilding. It's working fine as far as I'm concerned. I'm not idiot enough to think it would be a fast process to replace an entire team with no prospect pool. Anybody thinking it would just take 2 or 3 years was dreaming. And there were some here that actually believed that. Benning has done quite well on the D side in a short time. Now for the O side. I can accept losing as long as the team isn't intentionally setup to lose. Call it my competitive nature. The other side is if set up to lose they'll be blown out often. As is even if they lose it isn't often over after the first period. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'll go to games and watch the rest on TV as long as they're not setup to lose. Intentionally losing they won't get a cent from me and I won't go out of my way to even watch on TV. I don't believe in setting your team up to lose. Period. Btw, when have I ever argued against Vegas? I like that Vegas got a team. I go 2 or 3 times every year so I see more affordable hockey tickets in my future. I just have to plan better so the Nucks are playing at the time.
  38. 3 points
    No, that is just an extreme you have used. Regarding WD you have no idea what went into the decisions he made. If you watched other games you would see NOTHING Willie does is original. You confuse your limited ability to understand what goes into coaching decisions with your personal preferences and opinions. The difference is you can waffle as much as you like on here without responsibility whereas an NHL coach's job rides on the decisions he makes. I'll say it again, you seem to constantly equate the player resources available to WD with those available to coaches of the Oilers, Leafs, BJs etc.which at best is naive and at worst is ignorant.
  39. 3 points
  40. 3 points
    Belated Merry Christmas CDCGML!
  41. 3 points
    Chicago's first cup team had Brouwer, Ladd, Buff, and Eager. Their second cup team had Bickell, Shaw and Bollig though Bollig didn't play much in the playoffs. 3rd cup team had Bickell, Shaw and Carcillo. Also need to remember that Duncan Keith is no angel.... among others. They may be a skilled team but had plenty of team toughness IMO
  42. 3 points
    Garbage. Tanev is worth a lot more than a bag of magic beans.
  43. 3 points
    Because most on here are cheerleaders not fans, you don't remember the threads about how stupid the "media" was for saying the Canucks would suck this season?
  44. 3 points
    Terrible thread but I think we just got a bit unlucky. In hindsight, of the last 2 drafts we really needed a first line center, powerforward and top defenceman. We drafted McCann, Virtanen and Juolevi. That fills our needs, but we didn't take the best player available for the respective positions. At each time, think about our "future core" and what we needed. When we drafted Horvat we had a sound foundational 2C core guy in place. Fantastic. Next draft we take Virtanen with 6th overall, leaving a potential future 1st line center/Henrik-replacement in Nylander and a bunch of skilled wingers like Ehlers. To be honest I wouldn't have taken Ehlers at the time, would have much rather taken Nylander who is more NHL-ready, has proven he can play against men and brings elite-level skill and playmaking ability that we needed to replace the Sedins' talent with. Instead we take a powerforward. No problem, as long as we take a skilled playmaker later. We take McCann later that draft, another likely 2C or 3C and very unlikely that he becomes a first line center. Funnily enough the wild-card Pastrnak goes the next pick and look where the two players are now. Regardless, McCann is traded away anyway. Following draft there isn't much late in the 1st round, we take Brock Boeser who may easily be the best player of that late-round, but despite that he's almost a carbon-copy of Virtanen. Two-north-south players, Brock more a skilled goal scorer while Virtanen plays with more physicality, but neither of them are very good playmakers. So now we've got Horvat a two-way center with not much top-end elite playmaking skill, Virtanen who really just hits and scores, and Boeser who is mainly a scorer. No playmakers. Not much high end offensive vision or talent. Take it into the latest draft and we finally take someone who isn't a north-south forward. I like the Juolevi pick, we clearly needed him on defence. Thank God we didn't take Tkachuk or we'd have yet another player of the same mould. Regardless, we have 3 similar types of forwards in Horvat, Boeser and Virtanen, and one nice defenceman. Nylander to that mix would have really evened things out, as would Ehlers. This team still lacks that future top line skilled forward and it hurts to see guys like Ehlers dance around with Laine, and Nylander embarass defences with Matthews. We very easily could have had one of the best lines in the future NHL with Nylander/Ehlers - Horvat - Boeser. Instead we'll be hoping Virtanen can get his crap together in the AHL for another season.
  45. 2 points
  46. 2 points
    I don't think that was at all what motivated them to make that decision. I think it was far more situational than that - the way the Lames/Hitmen were developing him and the desire to have more control over the process - in addition to the fact that Jake had an NHL ready body (aside from the injuries) - had more to do with it. Could he have continued to 'learn' with the Hitmen - probably - but did that franchise really have his best interests in the foreground - I think the Canucks preferred to have him at home with this franchise instead. And there was an insatiable appetite in the fanbase to see these young guys in their NHL lineup. Imo Jake's biggest problems have been shoulder related and how that effects his ability to play the kind of game he needs to - otherwise, there were some really positive signs out of him last year. McCann was the player that wasn't as prepared for the NHL grind imo - but he pretty much forced his way onto the roster with such a strong start (the city would have been on fire again if he were sent back to junior - people that deny that don't remember the climate here at the time) - but McCann faded in due course. I have no problem with the way Virtanen has been 'handled' - I think it's normal for a player like him to have his ups and downs, particularly when you're dealing with an injury like shoulder dislocations. Being able to assign him to Utica with Green is a real positive imo - I think he'll grow there quite well - and I think it'll probably take another off season before he's properly healthy, fit, and able to play the kind of game that makes him successful.
  47. 2 points
    Enjoy the holidays guys! Then we'll be back to the incredible 1 season every 3 weeks pace by @Nail
  48. 2 points
    Down under, IMO you are pretty far off on some of your evaluations. First, let's call it what it is, this is a 'we shoud've drafted Nylanders' thread. Ehlers is the best player of the three to date, he also was has proved that he was ready to play against NHLers faster than Nylander and has produced more. Secondly, Nylander isn't a NHL quality center and has seen most of his points as a winger, so he is not and was never a Henrik replacement. Jake has struggled and so far and everyone who hated the pick looks correct. For the record I wanted Ehlers, but am pro Jake because he is our prospect and I can understand why he was chosen. Hell of a package if he puts it together. Horvat is already producing at a second line center rate, getting mostly d zone starts. He can be a first line center. Boeser and Virtannen do not play a similar game. Jake is a PF who needs to play recklessly and aggressively to be successful, he does have a nice shot, but he is nowhere near the sniper Boeser is. Boeser doesn't need to crash the net, generates offense and has great hands and doesn't depend on physical play, he also can't skate nearly as well as Jake, but finds the seams and spots to release his excellent shot. Boeser is not a 'North South' player like Jake. McCann is a poor pick when compared to Pasternak, so is Nylander and many others. Larkin also makes a lot of other teams look dumb... Including TO and the Jets... So far... Really early to declare winners and losers in the 2014 draft in 2016. Wait a few more years. Finally, Horvat Boeser and Virtannen all play different roles and styles. Not sure why you don't see that. Horvat is a two way center with the ability to elevate his game, create offense and drive play. Jake is a PF that will thrive when he gains confidence to throw hits, scare the bejesus out of everyone create space for his linemates. He really should be a LW. Hopefully he can find that shot he has and use it. Boeser is a top 3 RW, no reason to doubt this will happen. He has the IQ, shoot and passing skills to be a very effective winger in the NHL. We are 18 months into a rebuild. Skill can and will still come. Be patient. EW
  49. 2 points
    Easist fix of all, fire WD and hire Gallant. He would not tolerate and team that does not stick up for itself.
  50. 2 points
    If there was an option for "Willie is okay. Sure, he makes some questionable calls sometimes, but firing Willie won't solve our problems. You can only work with what you got, and our roster is very thin this year in terms of skill." that'd get my vote.
This leaderboard is set to Vancouver/GMT-08:00