• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Good

About EternalCanuckFan

  • Rank
    Comets Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

3,656 profile views
  1. I'm ambivalent about Green's hiring. Hiring Green makes sense on many fronts, but he obviously has no NHL head coaching experience. I think the performance of the Comets under Green has declined over the last two seasons but I think a big part of that can be attributed to the injury problems for the Canucks. As much as Canucks fans like to roast guys like Megna and Chaput, it's hard to imagine a scenario where they weren't originally envisioned as top players for the Comets. In addition, Gaunce made the jump to the NHL so the Comets roster was definitely depleted. The main concern I have with Green is that Virtanen's game, on paper at least, didn't seem to turn around very much. I know a lot has been said about changes to his attitude and commitment to fitness, but it is distressing that Jake didn't put up more points given his skill, speed and size. Having said that, Jake's lack of production could also be attributed to having less skilled players to play with at the AHL level. Whatever the case might be, I'm quite curious to see whether Green's approach changes at all at the NHL level. He seemed to give Goldobin some slack in Goldobin's limited time with the Comets at the end of the year. Green now has to be the guy that grooms the Canucks' young players to help them up their game at the NHL level. I will be sorely disappointed if we just see more heavy reliance on the veterans. Unless there are any trades that bring in roster players next year, I presume a forward line-up of relatively equal minutes of: Baertschi-Horvat-Eriksson (Boeser might also get time at Eriksson's spot but Eriksson provides a veteran element to the line and this might squeeze more offence out of him next year than putting him with Sutter) Sedin-Sedin-Granlund (Sedins should be secondary or tertiary scorers next year but this line seemed to work and Granlund provides good defensive responsibility) Gaunce-Sutter-Boeser (Sutter's not the greatest playmaker but he can still win faceoffs and has an able shot. Gaunce was starting to turn it up before he got hurt. Boeser and Eriksson could interchange spots, as needed) Virtanen-4C-Goldobin (their 4th line position isn't meant to bury them as much as to protect them. If they can get 12-13 minutes a night in a variety of situations, I think that's a good place for them to grow from. The 4C could be played by the Canucks' pick this year) Shore (I actually thought Shore played well in his time with the Canucks and wouldn't mind seeing him back in a depth role. He has good faceoff ability as well, as did Chaput, though Shore had better vision IMO) The above assumes that guys like Dorsett won't be on the team next year, which may be unlikely. If Dorsett makes the team, Gaunce could play the 4C and Goldobin could move up with Sutter and Boeser. It's not the greatest line-up but allows the Canucks to develop and see what they have, IMO.
  2. Even with the loss of Tryamkin, dealing Tanev makes sense. The likelihood of the team being in the mix for the playoffs next season is low, IMHO, and probably for at least 1-2 more seasons after that. If Tanev could fetch a return of a package including a 1st round pick this year or next, I don't see how that would not benefit the team more over the long run than keeping him. Don't get me wrong, I like Tanev. He has been quite a bright spot for the Canucks since he first made the jump. The problem is that his age doesn't fit in well with him being a core player for the next stretch. If he was 2-3 years younger, then it would make more sense to keep him.
  3. This is a significant disappointment. It's too bad that Tryamkin seemed to be sold the idea that he would get a chance in the top 6 right away. Maybe something was lost in translation. It's good that Tryamkin seems to have so much confidence in his game but if he really believes he could have played 20 minutes a night, I'm not so sure. There were many games even later in the season where he looked tired. If I'm not mistaken, the Canucks will retain his rights as long as they extend a qualifying offer this summer so hopefully they do that.
  4. I can't see the Canucks passing on Patrick if Hischier goes first and the Canucks pick 2nd unless management is really convinced that his injury history is a huge red flag. Don't get me wrong, from what I have been seeing about Vilardi, he looks like he would be a great pick but Patrick looks like a solid player also. What I would love is for the Canucks to get another high 1st round pick either this year or next. If they could get one this year, who knows, perhaps they could even get both.
  5. Would you switch Goldie and Jake's sides (put them on their off wings)?
  6. No surprises with the WD firing though, as it has been said many times already, he's hardly the main problem. My main interests this summer are: what pick the Canucks end up with in the draft lottery; the expansion draft; and what happens at the NHL Entry draft. After last summer where management insisted on continuing down the "retool" path, I want to see what they end up doing, i.e. more trades, more picks and more focus on prospect development/opportunity. I think the main way this management group will fail this summer is if they don't acknowledge (even implicitly) that the rebuild should have started sooner and also continue bringing in a patchwork of veterans that don't fit into where the team is at. I fully expect another loss-filled season next year, but I'm fine with it as long as our prospects develop.
  7. The fact that heading into the weekend, the most interesting Canucks related questions about the final two games are: 1. What's the over/under for McDavid reaching the 100 point plateau with 2 games against the Canucks? -and- 2. Can the Canucks hold on to 29th?
  8. Thanks for the insight into Archie's game. He seemed like a decent 4th liner when he was called up a few years ago. Just seemed to have the "knack". As for Boeser, totally agree. If Boeser can join the competitive environment of the Comets right now and then experience a pro playoffs, I think that'd do more for his long term success than burning a year off his ELC just to make sure he signs here.
  9. For those who watch the Comets regularly, I know Archie is already outside of prospect territory, I am surprised that he never got more of a chance. His production seems to have been respectable, he seems to be clutch, and he has good size. Is it his skating? Regarding Boeser, can the Canucks send him to Utica if they make the AHL playoffs? Even if he finishes the NHL regular season, I would think that it would do wonders for his development to play with the Comets if they make the playoffs.
  10. I don't mind seeing guys like Shore get a chance. Haven't had a chance to see his game but it looks like he is reasonably involved. I think it's worth playing him at center which I believe is his natural position and move Sutter to the wing since Sutter has struggled the last few weeks in most facets of play. It's been a disappointing season for all Canucks fans, I would think (whatever "team" you're on), but right now, the silver lining has to be with the chance to see young blood get opportunities to step into larger roles. The Sedins are still good but they should have been able to step back into a mentorship role. If Bo can fill a #1A or #1B role while the rest of our prospects start to move up, then that should help to stem the bleed. The team really needs a young top center to compliment or even exceed Bo, however. At this stage, I'm content with watching the young players struggle a bit in new roles if it can lead to growth and a high draft pick.
  11. I'm curious if anyone else thinks Virtanen looks a bit like Shore.
  12. Don't mind WD's deployment of Goldobin tonight. Had chances to skate with Bo and Baer. Looked decent, IMO, but made sense to give Gaunce and Chaput greater roles in the 3rd. As much as I want to see the Canucks in a high draft position, I don't want them to mail it in either. The kids need to be given chances to make mistakes but they also need to have the fire to play to win. WD makes bizarre decisions at times but I think we will need to see Goldobin's deployment over the next few weeks before throwing WD under the bus. With Eriksson out, I'm hoping to see more responsibility given to Gaunce to see whether Gaunce can rise to the occasion.
  13. Granlund has impressed for sure. Did not expect his production and he has played a strong 200 foot game.
  14. Not saying that Markstrom will pull a Dubnyk but I totally agree. Markstrom should be given a chance (once he is healthy). Even if they re-sign Miller, there's no point in riding him. Dubnyk was nowhere near being considered a legitimate #1 after his time in Edmonton. He then bounced around before his meteoric rise in Minnesota. I remember an interview with him where he really credited the systems in place there as helping his game. It remains to be seen if Markstrom can go through a similar trajectory (maybe not into Vezina contention) but I feel Markstrom has actually shown that he has it in him to become a legitimate starter. While it's not a total excuse for his lacklustre play at times, he has had the challenge of playing infrequently on bad teams with systems that are either not great (or suited to his style) or that have not been well executed (probably the latter). With the games having no playoff implications to close out this season, I want to see management and the coaching staff loosen up and enter teaching mode - not benching a young player immediately after an error but teaching them and letting them play through it, and that goes for Markstrom too.
  15. Sounds like the guy has a high compete level and is an ideal fourth liner who brings speed and tenacity to wear down opponents. Not a saviour by any means, but sounds like a true fourth liner to compliment the more "skilled" guys in the bottom 6 right now (e.g. Megna, Chaput, Skille - no pun intended).