Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Smashian Kassian

Canucks Report Card - Grading the Canucks 2011-12 Season

124 posts in this topic

Sorry about the post at first, but I editted it to make it more readable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, you don't "tail off" on the fourth line. 9-10-19 is a fantastic statline for any 10 minute player.

And you graded a C to Hansen for a career year. You're insane to give him the same grade as Zack Kassian. I also don't know why you gave a C to Pahlsson. Probably another stupid reason.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll use C to say their year was reasonably acceptable, nothing great, yet not disappointing. If they have a grade above C it means they did better than I expected of them, below C means they disappointed.

Forwards:

Daniel- C (Goes for whole line, they didn't have a great year, but they were in no way disappointing)

Henrik- C

Burrows- C

Kesler- C- (He came off surgery, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt, regardless I expected a bit more)

Booth- C- (I expected a bit more, he was too inconsistent and disappeared at times)

Raymond- D- (I defended him at first, but it just looks like he doesn't care out there)

Hansen- B+ (He really stepped his game up, proved he deserves at least 3rd line minutes)

Pahlsson- C+ (Was what I expected defensively, surprised me by putting up a few points as well)

Higgins- B+ (I think he was our most consistent player when healthy, he really impressed, would be higher if not for poor playoffs)

Malhotra- C (Didn't expect much of him after his injury, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt)

Lapierre- B (Was really impressed by his play, especially as the year went on)

Kassian- C- (I didn't expect much of him, but I expected a lot more physical play than he provided)

Weise- C (Was decent, looks like he could be a full time 4th line player soon)

Defence:

Bieksa- B (Defensively was a litte inconsistant, but did great offensively)

Hamhuis- B+ (Was arguably our best defence man defensively, while stepping up on offence)

Edler- B- (He did great, but I really hoped he would be phenomenal this year, however it was still a step in the right direction)

Salo- B (Stayed healthy, and was one of our most consistent players)

Ballard- C (I just didn't expect anything great, and thats what we got )

Tanev- B (Proving he will be a solid defence man)

Rome- B- (Really impressed early on, then did what was expected)

Alberts- C (Did what he had too when he was called upon)

Goaltending:

Luongo- B- (He did what he needed to do, he won us games and never imploded like many feared)

Schneider- B (Proving he deserves to be a starter, whether it is here, or somewhere else)

Overall:

C-

Did better than expected in the season until the end, extremely disappointing playoffs.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with you, when your top 2 lines have a b-/c+ average that is not a good thing.

I do think you have overestimated the D though, Edler was close to +/- 0 and is not the second coming of Nick Lidstrom, so I'd give him a c+.

Gillis gets a D in my book, I think the GM of the year award went to his head. I thought 2011 was a lucky year where things fell into place, Gillis seems to believe everything he touches will now turn to gold. Dale Weise from wavers was his best move.

You did not grade Duco, Pinnizotto, Bitz, Sturm, Sulzer, Rome, or Alberts because they were non-factors that detract from Gillis' grade.

AV gets a D also. He seems to run too much of the season as training camp, camp runs to Nov 1 every year and this year started again with 1 week to go in the regular season and ran the length of the short playoff run, (any wonder)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, so now that the season has been over for while, emotions have subsided, what would you give each player on our team.

The grading system goes from A-F, and this is the definition for each. A (Excellent), B (Good), C (Average), D (Poor), F (Failure)

Here's mine.

Forwards:

Henrik Sedin B

Daniel Sedin B

Alex Burrows B

(This line really carried the scoring throughout the year)

Ryan Kesler C

David Booth C

Mason Raymond D

(Kesler had an off year, Booth showed glimpses throughout the year, and Raymond was a disappointment)

Jannik Hansen C

Chris Higgins B

Samuel Pahlsson C

(Higgins was great when he was healthy, Hansen had his moments, and Pahlsson was alright)

Manny Malhotra C

Maxim Lappierre B

Zack Kassian C

(Lappy was great, Manny was what he was expected to be, Kassian looked good early but then tailed off)

Defence:

Kevin Bieksa C

Dan Hamhuis A

(Hammer was our most reliable D-man, Bieksa had some moments but I thoughts he was very inconsistent)

Alex Edler A

Sami Salo B

(Though Edler was a wreck in the playoffs he really emerged this year as a top pairing Dman, and Salo was solid all the way through)

Keith Ballard C

Chris Tanev B

(I think Ballard has a decent year, He was better than last year and I think he was our best D-man in the playoffs. Tanev was solid even when he got top 4 minutes)

M-A Gragnani C

(Not what we hoped but still has some promise)

Goalies:

Roberto Luongo B

(Struggled at times, but also carried our team at times, I think he was our MVP)

Cory Schneider A

(Great, he really emerged and was solid whenever called upon)

The others like Ebbet, Rome, Alberts, Weise and so on all get C's

There was also a similar thing on the Vancouversun.com

http://www.vancouver...card/index.html

Well how about you guys?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really have some problems with the curve here...... I think you are rating players compared to each other and not to what we hoped we would get from them....

Hansen had a career year, and only got a B?

Higgins was our most consistent forward all year, yet also a B? You say he was great when healthy, but how can you reduce a players grade that is based on his performance for something they can't control?

Lappy, you also say was great but he gets a B also. I have issue with this simply because he and Higgins were the only two forwards you could count on to show up every night. A fourth liner that played well enough to get time on the first and second lines... This one is a bit more subjective, but I think alot of people only look at last years playoffs and forget that he is actually slated as a fourth line centre, not a third.

You say that Lou was our MVP and then give him a B????????? That one really doesn't compute.....

The idea of the report card has always seemed like a guilty pleasure to me. Something people like to do, but don't like to admit. I don't mind, but I think you might have tried to compare the players a little instead of just looking at what was expected and what we got.

All in alll I give you a B. ;D Hey, at least it's not a trade Lou thread...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll use C to say their year was reasonably acceptable, nothing great, yet not disappointing. If they have a grade above C it means they did better than I expected of them, below C means they disappointed.

Forwards:

Daniel- C (Goes for whole line, they didn't have a great year, but they were in no way disappointing)

Henrik- C

Burrows- C

Kesler- C- (He came off surgery, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt, regardless I expected a bit more)

Booth- C- (I expected a bit more, he was too inconsistent and disappeared at times)

Raymond- D- (I defended him at first, but it just looks like he doesn't care out there)

Hansen- B+ (He really stepped his game up, proved he deserves at least 3rd line minutes)

Pahlsson- C+ (Was what I expected defensively, surprised me by putting up a few points as well)

Higgins- B+ (I think he was our most consistent player when healthy, he really impressed, would be higher if not for poor playoffs)

Malhotra- C (Didn't expect much of him after his injury, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt)

Lapierre- B (Was really impressed by his play, especially as the year went on)

Kassian- C- (I didn't expect much of him, but I expected a lot more physical play than he provided)

Defence:

Bieksa- B (Defensively was a litte inconsistant, but did great offensively)

Hamhuis- B+ (Was arguably our best defence man defensively, while stepping up on offence)

Edler- B- (He did great, but I really hoped he would be phenomenal this year, however it was still a step in the right direction)

Salo- B (Stayed healthy, and was one of our most consistent players)

Ballard- C (I just didn't expect anything great, and thats what we got )

Tanev- B (Proving he will be a solid defence man)

Rome- B- (Really impressed early on, then did what was expected)

Alberts- C (Did what he had too when he was called upon)

Goaltending:

Luongo- B- (He did what he needed to do, he won us games and never imploded like many feared)

Schneider- B (Proving he deserves to be a starter, whether it is here, or somewhere else)

Overall:

C-

Did better than expected in the season until the end, extremely disappointing playoffs.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll use C to say their year was reasonably acceptable, nothing great, yet not disappointing. If they have a grade above C it means they did better than I expected of them, below C means they disappointed.

Forwards:

Daniel- C (Goes for whole line, they didn't have a great year, but they were in no way disappointing)

Henrik- C

Burrows- C

Kesler- C- (He came off surgery, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt, regardless I expected a bit more)

Booth- C- (I expected a bit more, he was too inconsistent and disappeared at times)

Raymond- D- (I defended him at first, but it just looks like he doesn't care out there)

Hansen- B+ (He really stepped his game up, proved he deserves at least 3rd line minutes)

Pahlsson- C+ (Was what I expected defensively, surprised me by putting up a few points as well)

Higgins- B+ (I think he was our most consistent player when healthy, he really impressed, would be higher if not for poor playoffs)

Malhotra- C (Didn't expect much of him after his injury, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt)

Lapierre- B (Was really impressed by his play, especially as the year went on)

Kassian- C- (I didn't expect much of him, but I expected a lot more physical play than he provided)

Defence:

Bieksa- B (Defensively was a litte inconsistant, but did great offensively)

Hamhuis- B+ (Was arguably our best defence man defensively, while stepping up on offence)

Edler- B- (He did great, but I really hoped he would be phenomenal this year, however it was still a step in the right direction)

Salo- B (Stayed healthy, and was one of our most consistent players)

Ballard- C (I just didn't expect anything great, and thats what we got )

Tanev- B (Proving he will be a solid defence man)

Rome- B- (Really impressed early on, then did what was expected)

Alberts- C (Did what he had too when he was called upon)

Goaltending:

Luongo- B- (He did what he needed to do, he won us games and never imploded like many feared)

Schneider- B (Proving he deserves to be a starter, whether it is here, or somewhere else)

Overall:

C-

Did better than expected in the season until the end, extremely disappointing playoffs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with you, when your top 2 lines have a b-/c+ average that is not a good thing.

I do think you have overestimated the D though, Edler was close to +/- 0 and is not the second coming of Nick Lidstrom, so I'd give him a c+.

Gillis gets a D in my book, I think the GM of the year award went to his head. I thought 2011 was a lucky year where things fell into place, Gillis seems to believe everything he touches will now turn to gold. Dale Weise from wavers was his best move.

You did not grade Duco, Pinnizotto, Bitz, Sturm, Sulzer, Rome, or Alberts because they were non-factors that detract from Gillis' grade.

AV gets a D also. He seems to run too much of the season as training camp, camp runs to Nov 1 every year and this year started again with 1 week to go in the regular season and ran the length of the short playoff run, (any wonder)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.