Archived

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

Smashian Kassian

Canucks Report Card - Grading the Canucks 2011-12 Season

Recommended Posts

Pahlsson was not very good in the playoffs, but he was pretty good in the season, much better than I expected of him.

Edler has only been looked upon that highly from our own fan base, nobody else holds him that high. He did better than he ever had before, so I think he deserved better than a C.

I agree that Ballard isn't living up to his pay check, but he isn't a bad bottom pair D man, and that's what I figured he would be this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard had a good playoff but as far as the season, he was average.

Kevin Bieksa has a better plus minus than Edler (even though Edler gets all that PP time) and wasn't far behind him in points. Kevin Bieksa has been a consistant point producer as well.

Speaking of this years performance, the Canucks finished with 100 points....again......under AV as coach. That is the present, not the past.

Edler was terrible in his own end and not just in the playoffs. He took a step back as a reliable dman this year because he kept turning the puck over. Check his + - even though he had all that PP time.

My post was not to rag on Edler but more to the defence of K Beiksa. I am tired of all the rhetoric bagging on him....and he did have a better year than a C rating.

Ballard wasn't out there playing against the best opposition players either and played less minutes.....so a smaller snapshot of performance than Kevin Beiksa.

I would keep Beiksa over Ballard any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not harsh by any means. I'm not sure if you were in Buffalo to see him play like I have been or have watched him play his Jr hockey in the OHL. He actually had a better defensive game when he played in Buffalo. For some reason now that he is in Vancouver he thinks he is a one man show. I hope Kassian turns out to be a force on our team in the future but I believe he needs a year or two in the minors to get playing time and learn our system.

Mason has not been the same since his broken back

Rome hasn't been the same since his hit on Horton and the hit he took from Mcginn in the 3rd round last year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forwards:

Sedins D

Burrows C

Booth C

Kesler F

Raymond F

Higgins B

Pahlsson C

Hansen B

Malhotra F

Lappiere B

Kassian F - (Bust, the next Stojanov)

Defense:

Hamhuis C +

Bieksa D

Edler D

Salo B

Ballard C

Tanev(D) *massively overrated, will not be anything but a 3rd pairing dman in his career.

Goalies:

Luongo D *choked again

Schneider A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lu and Cory were our best players this season by far. Give them both an A for carrying this team to another President's trophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking at Season and playoffs, from game the opener to game 5.

Kassian looked good in his first few games, but no one expected him to be a huge player, it's based on preformance and each players expectations. Not comparing a 4th or 3rd line player to a 1st or 2nd line player.

And I don't see how mine is comparing? You were the once comparing Hansen and Kassian, and I gave Hansen a better grade, he did earn it but he could have been better, he could have scored 20 but oh well he can next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players should be assessed on their productivity according to their role on the team. So hits and blocked shots and +/- only matter some and not others. Kassian has disappointed us on ALL fronts this season, and we can only hope for improvement this fall.

Hansen, with the icetime and role that he had, EXCELLED in his position (which was to be a checking forward on the third line), and should earn at least an A- for his efforts. You gave him a B because you actually think a third line player should get 20 goals. Expectations are critical in giving out grades, and you really dropped the ball on him. Guys who earn $1.4 million should not have a 16-23-39 statline. He has been one of Gillis' best signings, and I'm upset that you don't appreciate what he brings. He showed us this year that we MUST keep him at all costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no objectivity in this ranking whatsoever - it is completely based on the OP's whims. When evaluating anything, one should be OBJECTIVE and actually revue OBJECTIVE facts and measurements - particularly when that data is collected over a substantial period, such as an entire season.

Firstly, what is the premise of this? Are we rating players relative to their previous performance? Are we rating them compared to what we have learned to expect form them? Or are we rating comparitive performance relative to other players? Or are we rating them compared to our expectations of what they should have done? Or are we ranking them relative to an outside standard, ie the league's other players? Or just relative to other Canucks? The OPs rankings seem to be randomly moving amongst all of these.

The greatest injustice on this ranking is the evaluation of Schneider. Schneider had the 3rd best stats of all the goalies in the league - there is no question he deserves an A. And, a little recognized fact is that Schneider's GAA and save % in the playoffs are both the best of all goalies - better than Brodeur, better than Quick. This team did not lose because of Schneider as many Luongo lovers have tried to make out.

Secondly, Bieksa - one has to rate a player in relation to the role he is asked to play. The year before last, Bieksa was asked to play a shutdown role along with Hamhuis. He did, and had the second or third best +/- in the entire league - he was simply outstanding compared to the entire NHL - not just other Canucks. Last year, Bieksa was asked to pick up part of the offensive load from Ehrhoff leaving - and he did so. He did not play on the first string PP, yet in four fewer games, he had only five points fewer than Edler - yet you give Edler an A-. Edler had a +/- of 0 - Bieksa was +12. As for points production, Edler was first string on every PP - usually sharing three fourths of the PP time - Bieksa was virtually always 2nd string - perhaps getting a quarter of the available PP time - yet only five points less over the season. As for even strength points - a better measure of real offensive prowess - Bieksa was second in even strength production by defencemen in the entire league! How, by any measure, does that rate him below Edler?

Thirdly, how could Ballard possible be given the same grade as Bieksa? They make the same money - how is that possible?

Fourthly, Hansen: one has to measure a player's performance against his role. Other than Higgins, Schneider and Bieksa, I can't think of a player on the Canucks who better filled his role than Hansen - he was supposed to be a third line, checking/energy player. He was all of that and much more. The time he got on other lines was earned by his play. A "C"?????? Are you mad?

Higgins and Lapiere both exceeded expectations in their roles.

Hamhuis had given us high expectations from the year before and he exceeded them - he was, all around, our best defenceman - even surpassing Bieksa, who had an outstanding season relative to his role.

Edler was given a great opportunity leading the first PP unit - but I really have to give him a reduced grade due to his inconsistent, often nervous play. He was much more sound when playing with Salo, and have no idea why AV switched that up, and the pairing of Hamhuis and Bieksa - the change brought out the worst in all of them.

Malhotra was awful. I know his injury and conditioning were determining factors, but still, he had given us reason to expect much more. He did improve toward the end of the year - maybe the coming year and being in better shape will make a difference. Pahlsson was expected to take on a defensive role - which he did adequately.

One cannot say anything but that the Sedins were disappointments compared to the standard set in previous seasons - they fell back into their production level from three years ago at about a point or less per game. Perhaps the accumulated physical abuse they have absorbed with none of the protection accorded star players in more important venues, is taking its toll. It is possible, however, that for a team on the West cost, subject to the huge burden of all that travel, that to expect a team to perform well after a deep run to the cup, is just too much to expect. The Canucks were substantially beat up, injured and worn down by that run - especially the forwards taking on the big minutes and taking on injuries - the Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, and Raymond.

Luongo. Last year Luongo was an average goaltender - his stats are about middle of the pack for first stringers. He also had a long, stressful run the previous year. He did not measure up to his performance from the previous year, and objectively, he does not deserve a great grade - certainly not a grade anywhere near Schneider's, but he has to be accorded the same consideration as the Sedins, Kesler, Burrows and Raymond.

Raymond's D. Like Kesler and Malhotra - he was recovering from a very serious injury - if we give Kesler and Malhotra some slack for that, we also have to grant it to Raymond who had the most serious injury of the three by far. Performance wise, he was not great, but nowhere near as bad as most cdcers claim. For the most part they are just scapegoating him along with Bieksa. The fact that he was paired up with an underperforming and unhelpful Kesler did not help his cause - that an inconsistent, mostly underperforming Booth was matched with them did not help either. Kesler and Raymond both being healthy might help Booth - if Raymond is qualified, and if Kesler can return to the lineup healthy and fit. Kesler will no doubt be still steamed at AV, and rightly so.

As for grades for coach and gm, I can't think of a simgle success for MG last year except a marginal one in securing the overpaid Booth for Samuelsson and Sturm - which might have been a success only in terms of being addition by subtraction, and a possible future score in Jensen. His greatest failing may well have been re-upping AV, who immediately turned round and threw Kesler under the bus while basking in a glow of self admiration and vainglory - just as he had fouled the relationship with Hodgson a couple of years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a offseason with the team kassian and booth will be a lot better. They just need the reps to get used to the canucks system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't argue much with Raymond, but you do realize this was Kassians first year right?

Unless you honestly expected him to come here and become a 2nd line player (which would mean you are delusional) he was not that bad, not good, but not bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.