• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

177 Good

About bloodycanuckleheads

  • Rank
    Comets Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Hockey Hell

Recent Profile Visitors

2,625 profile views
  1. With a rookie-class like Butcher, Tuch, Leipsic, Patrick and Hischier - Boeser's not going to have much of a chance. Like, seriously, take a gander at Tuch, he's a beast and already looks like an NHL star.
  2. You're right, the time to panic was literally years ago!...
  3. Actually, we can figure out EXACTLY what those traded picks are worth! And, they aren't worth anywhere near what everyone thinks they're worth! So, what are three 2nd's, a 3rd, a 4th, a 5th and a 6th worth? 2nd - 2.71 rating (10.8% chance of becoming a top-6 forward or top-4 defenseman) 2nd - 2.71 (10.8%) 2nd - 2.71 (10.8%) 3rd - 2.56 (7.5%) 4th - 2.11 (4.6%) 5th - 1.84 (4.2%) 6th - 1.79 (4.4%) Oh, and you'll notice that I assumed all those picks were in the top-5 of each round! So, adding it up, those picks combined only had around a 53% chance of producing one single, decent player. And, a 47% chance of producing nothing worthwhile. The value of all those picks - combined - is like one of either Granlund or Hutton. Everyone here vastly over-values draft-picks.
  4. There should never be a rebuild. Never. Ever. If you are in a position where you basically need to fire everyone and start from scratch - that implies years and years of horrendous mismanagement (and a complete inability to judge players or think-ahead). It should never get that far. You should never have management that's that far removed from reality. It should never get to the point where you need a rebuild. You should have seen the problems coming literally years in advance (and done something about it). So, yeah, a rebuild is irrefutable evidence that your management has been horrifically incompetent for a very, very long time. That's what a rebuild is.
  5. One-timers. The NHL is too fast nowadays. Whenever you shoot, there's at least one defender standing directly between your stick-blade and the goalie. Every time you shoot, it gets blocked. Yet, every player in the NHL tee's up their shots. And they fail to get them through almost every single time. That extra second to stop the puck and give a good backswing is more than enough time to allow the defender to get in front of it. There's a reason a fattie like Brett Hull scored so many goals - he took almost nothing but one-timers and slapshots. He got the puck through by shooting fast. Not necessarily accurately (not that he wasn't accurate too). All you need to do is get it through (then there will be a good chance that someone tips it or it deflects off of something). We have a terrible time of getting pucks through. Instead of making the pretty play, instead of taking time to shoot accurately - we should be slamming everything on-net with abandon. Cross-ice ---> slapper! But, of course, that's the least of our worries. Our team basically doesn't have a top-line caliber player anywhere on the roster. We don't have a single top-3 forward (unless Horvat improves a little bit this year). We don't really have a top-pairing defense. And, we have two back-ups in goal. Of the 6 most important players on a team, we don't even have one of them. That's the biggest problem and why our PP sucks so badly. We just don't have the talent required.
  6. OK, let's add it to the list! - #1 goalie - 1st line center - 1st line right-winger - 1st line left-winger - #1 defenseman - #2 defenseman - a GM who doesn't throw away all his high picks - an owner who doesn't meddle - a scouting department that hasn't been the worst in all of hockey for decades Uggh. Like, seriously, how incompetent do you have to be to allow the above to happen???
  7. 'Injuries' is an odd way of spelling 'Aquilini & Benning'...
  8. It actually is nowadays. Victor Mete was on the same team as Juolevi and Tkachuk. He got drafted 100th overall (in the same draft) and is also a defenseman. He out-played Juolevi last year (and arguably the year they were drafted too). And, this year, he's playing in the NHL in his team's top-2. It didn't take him years. Good players do not need years to learn the game after being drafted. The good ones make the NHL almost right away. Go look up all the defensemen drafted in the top-5 over the last bunch of years - you'll notice that every single one of them (except Griffin Reinhart) have been getting tons of ice-time in the NHL. Even though they are all still young and play a tough position. None of them needed years in junior and the minors. Actually, let's look now: 2015: Hanifin #5 - 162 NHL games 2014: Ekblad #1 - 230 NHL games 2013: Jones #4 - 318 NHL games 2012: Murray #2 - 223 NHL games; Reinhart #4 - 37 NHL games; Rielly - 316 NHL games 2011: Larsson #4 - 356 NHL games Look at that, virtually every top-5-drafted defenseman immediately became a top NHL defenseman! It didn't take them years to figure out the game. At all.
  9. Because our management and ownership have spent the last 5+ years doing unbelievably stupid things that have made our team completely irrelevant (with almost no hope of turning it around in any less than several more years). When your team is terrible or irrelevant for the better part of a decade, people stop spending large amounts of money to see your product. Especially when it's free on tv. Aquilini deserves most of the blame here. And, the funny part... THIS (empty stands, what we have right now) is what he was so terrified of - he ruined our team for a decade and he didn't even prevent what he was trying to prevent. He actually elongated it. Badly. I hope he loses a fortune over this.
  10. Here's something that's always lost in the Juolevi vs. Tkachuk debate... They both played on the same team in junior - and, after the draft, everyone on that team seemed shocked at what transpired! From the coaches on down. They all clearly believed that Tkachuk was the better player.
  11. For the last year or so, he's looking a hell of a lot more like a 3 or 4 than a top-2.
  12. No, Petterson plays in Sweden, I believe. You are talking about Pettersson.
  13. Neither of those guys are Canucks' property. Dahlin hasn't even been drafted yet.
  14. Stats like Corsi are completely useless when looking at a small sample sizes. But, they are extremely valuable when looking at larger sample sizes. They also need to be taken with a grain of salt. NHL coaches sit back on leads. So, if you have a team (like our's last year) who tend to down a goal or two in the early-going, that means that the opposing team isn't going to be doing very much for the next 55 minutes, other than playing defense. So, after the game, the terrible team that was out of the game right from the get-go will actually have decent Corsi numbers. Because, they controlled all the shot attempts. Not because they were any good, but because they were so bad that the other team stopped trying. If you look at our Corsi numbers from the last couple seasons, they aren't too bad. We look like a decent team. Even though weren't a decent team. At all. So, yeah, looking at Corsi for single-games is pointless. But, looking at them over the course of a couple seasons on the other hand...
  15. There have only been three times in team-history that the Canucks have turned-around and become considerably better all of a sudden: 1974-5, 1991-2 and 2000-1 (extending into 2001-2). So, why don't we check and see what exactly caused these turn-arounds. The only ones we've ever had. Was it drafting and developing prospects? Was it trades? Was it free agents? Was it just the natural ebb and flow of hockey-careers? What it high first-round picks? Well, let's see... 1974-5: Changes: Not much of note Players getting considerably better all of a sudden: John Gould, Bob Dailey, Chris Oddleifson, Don Lever (only Lever and Dailey were drafted by the Canucks, Lever #3 overall and Dailey #9) 1991-2: Changes: Pavel Bure Players getting considerably better all of a sudden: None, really. 2000-01-02: Changes: Messier gone. Sedins added Players getting considerably better all of a sudden: Ed Jovanovski The first turn-around we ever had was the result of several years of extremely-high draft-picks combined with acquiring players who got a lot better all at the same time. The second turn-around was 100% Bure (who we drafted - but, with a humongous asterix next to it - seeing as he would have gone #1 overall and we wouldn't have gotten him if other teams knew he was draftable). The third turn-around was replacing Messier with a #2 and #3 overall pick (and getting a world-class defenseman through trade a year and a half before). So, apparently, what turns our team around is top-3 draft-picks and picking up world-class players via trade, not drafting well (outside the top-10) and developing those players. Drafting seems to have very little to do with it, at least in our history. Especially the later-rounds. I guess that's not surprising. It's not your supporting-cast who win games - it's your stars. It's the superstars who turn bad teams into good teams. And, it takes top-3 and top-5 picks to get them.