Pears Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 lol no comment for lidstrom because he is just that good. the only reason why Anaheim won the cup was because of Rome's offensive flair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It's not necessary right now this moment but both Hamhuis and Ballard have had three concussions apiece. Both have had one concussion that included a LoC so that suggests strongly that both are now one serious concussion away from potential retirement. My belief is that the Nucks would do well to retain players without concussions. Upgrading quality by recognising the shelf life of brain injured players is something that this organisation seems to have ignored to date. Garrison is a step forward but Tanev is not going to clear the net or score a timely goal. So,two d men that are one hit away from potential retirement ,three healthy players of suitable quality and one rookie that can't score or clear the front of the net. They better upgrade the D-ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney Crosby. Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Te above defencemen you listed are better than Edler/Hamhuis, agreed. But, what difference will that little bit make when we're talking about a Stanley Cup? Our D core is even better than LA's, BOS's, CHI's or PIT's. Last time I checked, it takes a whole team to win a Stanley Cup, not just one elite dman. LA won't he cup for many reasons, not just Doughty. Same with Boston, Chicago, Pittshburgh, Anaheim and Detroit. We have two Dmen that are almost as good as Norris Calibre Defenceman. Not quite, but almost. I still do not agree with the fact that we need an elite dman to win the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herberts Vasiljevs Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Dan Hamhuis. +/- 29, 37 points last season, and is always consistent. Him and Dan Girardi are the two most underrated d-men in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Great way to ask your players to commit. Telling them that they are welcome until they get a concussion...............That's what it sounds like anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Well, you lost some credibility if you would take half of those guys over Edler and then state that players that are currently not at his ability or the impact he makes and the role he plays are suddenly going to surpass him in overall rankings if a list did exist. Stop undervaluing Edler. It's pathetic how many people do that around here. How exactly are half those guys you mentioned better than Edler? Can you even explain why? I bet you're probably buying into the hype from the media and the lack thereof for Edler. Statistically speaking, he is absolutely on the same level as Campbell, Seabrook, Enstrom, Keith, Letang, Doughty, Suter and Pietrangelo. Based on last year alone, for something those guys mentioned may have beat Edler out in, he beat them out in something else. They may better than him at one thing but he's better than them at other things. Lets take Campbell. Four more points, seven less goals than Edler. In terms of hits and blocked shots, Campbell isn't even close to Edler so I wont bother post the numbers. And people break Edler's balls about not being physical enough. Campbell is significantly better because of these four extra points? And he's just as much of a giveaway machine as Edler is so that's not an argument in his favor. Okay, Doughty now. Stanley Cup winner. A stud in the playoffs no doubt while Edler is a dud. And to no surprise that is what everyone remembers. Based on regular season performance, Doughty falls well behind Edler in hits, blocked shots, and points. Not to mention Doughty is a massive giveaway machine compared to Edler. See, stats tell a huge story. I can't say I've watched many of the other guys very closely, because I haven't. And I doubt you have either. So you can't say they do a ton of little things better than he does. And you certainly have no real argument to say they are better than Edler. It is simply your opinion driven by others opinions and the media and that doesn't hold much water if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkin'2929 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The "D" and goal tending on this team are adequate enough to take the Canucks to another SCF. But, as you point out, scoring (or lack of) is an issue. I would say, a big issue, which has not been satisfactorily addressed by MG during his reign as GM. Unfortunately, the Sedin's can't do everything. My prediction is, come 1st round of the Playoffs next season, the Canucks defence and goaltending will be sorely tested. Not due to any inadequacy on their part, but due to the forward lines lacking the size, grit and skill to keep possession of the puck in the attacking zone, leading to costly turnovers. Also, an inability to score when the stronger teams would easily bury the puck in the back of the net. None of this has been remotely addressed, and whilst the team is certainly "better than average", they don't have enough staying power to make it all the way to another SCF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensemaker Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 It's not necessary right now this moment but both Hamhuis and Ballard have had three concussions apiece. Both have had one concussion that included a LoC so that suggests strongly that both are now one serious concussion away from potential retirement. My belief is that the Nucks would do well to retain players without concussions. Upgrading quality by recognising the shelf life of brain injured players is something that this organisation seems to have ignored to date. Garrison is a step forward but Tanev is not going to clear the net or score a timely goal. So,two d men that are one hit away from potential retirement ,three healthy players of suitable quality and one rookie that can't score or clear the front of the net. They better upgrade the D-ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RO8!! Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Why do you think L.A. was the cup champ, one of the main reasons was because Doughty played SO much better than Edler. Yeah Quick, Brown and a bunch of others played outstanding but so did Doughty. The last few years Edler has been way to inconsistent in the playoffs, one good year and the next not so much? As for Suter i guess we'll just wait and see but i can tell you that Edler has a lot to prove to me and by the looks of it a lot of other people on here as well. Oh and if you don't want to read all that, i can just answer you question quick. "What has Doughty done that Edler hasn't" ............ come on you know the answer, it's real shiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterBean Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I don't base my opinions off of what others say, I've been watching hockey for 30+ years. Secondly I have Center Ice and probably watch at least 80 other games a year besides the Canucks. The reason I make these claims is because Edler is a defenceman who can barely play defence, he is one of the slowest guys around in terms of quickness and his defensive hockey IQ is frightening. That is why I give these other guys the nod. Points are only so much of an indicator. People seem to forget that his role is as a defenceman who is supposed to stop the opposition from scoring. In my books you can be a mediocre defender and still be very valuable by contribtuting offensively, however, with Edler his defence is actually a liability. Until he can at least be a middle of the road or better defender there is definitely room for a higher level defencman in NHL. Look at Marc Andre Bergeron, one of the most gifted offensive defenceman but just absolutely horrible defensively which is why he might even have trouble keeping a job in the NHL. I agree this is somewhat subjective but my point is there are a lot of good defenders out there an in no way shape or form is Edler a top 10 defender. The only reason he is in Norris talks at all is because of the importance they put on points for that award. Campbell, Seabrook, Enstrom, Keith, Letang, Doughty, Suter and Pietrangelo are better than Edler? That's laughable, with Keith, Letang, Doughty, Suter and Pietrangelo there is simply no comparison, they are lights out better than Edler. I can see a case being made for Enstrom due to inexperience however Campbell is just way better when it comes to playing defence, using his speed, and like you said he even gets more points. Seabrook plays how Edler should play, he knows how to use his size and play consistently and he puts up points. Edler has all the tools to become a top 10 defender in this league but so far he is far away from doing that, remove the Canucks bias and it's easy to see. Simply said Edler needs to work on his defence, foot speed, consistency, and decision making in order to make the jump to the next level. Don't get me wrong, I'm harsh but I'm not saying Edler sucks just that he is not in the top 10, probably top 20. I have him at about 16-24 right now. Keep in mind there are a minimum of 180 defenceman in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 A lot of people here want to have an elite D-man desperately. I like our roster, with 4 legitimate top pairing guys, who could all be All Stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 My take is that players with a history of consecutive, serious concussions should not be given positions that a healthy player with no history of brain injuries could fill.This protects the player and his family and lastly,the organisation. Hamhuis had two concussions before he arrived in Vancouver.He then suffered consecutive concussions as a Canuck over a six week period and lost consciousness from the impact of the Getzlaf hit. Ballard has had two since signing with the Canucks and took a Getzlaf elbow to the head this past February 9th . Booth suffered two concussions in five months time as a Panther,one where he was laid out unconscious (LoC). Usually ,by the third or fourth serious brain injury/concussion (depending upon the severity and time between head injuries) a critical point of damage has been reached,especially if accompanied by a LoC during any of the brain injuries. Hamhuis suffered his third and fourth concussion as a Canuck,with his family expressing concerns as to whether he would return to play at all following # 4. Hamhuis is in a dangerous position now,with Booth and Ballard following on the brain damage severity scale. Sadly,GM's will continue to sign brain injured players until the individual teams become financially responsible for concussed players insurance costs,which is now being considered by the pro sports insurers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Sadly,GM's will continue to sign brain injured players until the individual teams become financially responsible for concussed players insurance costs,which is now being considered by the pro sports insurers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 He made some stupid plays, yes, but one player cannot single handedly lose a series for a team. We didn't exactly give much offensive support either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Very few teams have the luxury of the 4 or 5 top D men we have. But, we do lack either a serious big D man to move bodies as we have an overall average size. Garrison is pretty big, Hamhuis, Edler and Ballard all sit 210 to 215 lbs which is average, Bieksa (while tough and full of battle) is small and Tanev inadequate in size. Thats my 2knd concern. Most cup winning teams have one of two types of Norris candidates; guys like Weber, Chara or Pronger based on size is one type. For all the skills we have on offer, none of our guys are considered puck rushing D. Ballard was recruited for this, and maybe this can be unlocked if paired with the right guy (perhaps Garrison). But he has not demonstrated it in Vancouver. The second type of Norris candidate cup winners seem to possess is a guy who can break pressure by personally hauling the puck up ice. Also through the neautral zone on the PP (instead of that damn drop pass). Guys like Pietrangelo, Letang, Doughty, Kieth, Niedermyer all save their team by busting pressure. For all Edler's developing skills, and his one brilliant end to end rush highlight goal last year, he does not offer elite speed and puck handling to break pressure. As virtually all teams who have won the cup have had one of these two types. Only Carolina really had a "by committee" approach work for them as we are going with, and they still had two all star D. I think there are too many star gazers who believe that the Canucks need to acquire a "top" defenseman (or chase after any big name on the market for that matter...) - Hamhuis was in the top 5 in the NHL in terms of the quality of opponents he faced, he and Bieksa are anything but a second rate top pairing - Edler and Garrison could easily evolve into one of the top pairings in the NHL - I think the top four are as good as any other in the NHL - and the bottom pairing with Ballard and Tanev is a quality pairing as well. Where exactly is the upgrade so necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehamburglar Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 We have good D, yes. But others are better. We also lost the Cup Finals because of injuries to our whole team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I agree that we would be better with a true stud defender, but also that (our) strong depth by committee (see Carolina with Glen Wesley etc also) is the next best thing. Where it is troublesome by committee is line matching. When we went to the final our offensive stud (Erhoff) got stuck in our end too many times where he was not good enough. An all situations guy would be better. But of course Philly's cup chance took a bigger hit when he was knocked out for the year... I wish you were right for the sake of the Canucks but the trend is hard to ignore since the lockout. Those franchise type defenceman are not easy to aquire and forced Gillis to build up the depth to where we are today (Beiska, Hamhuis, Edler, Ballard, Garrison, and Tanev). I think given the chance most GM's would go with the elite player who can log upwards of 25 minutes a night, rather then spreading the ice time throughout multiple defenceman. As I pointed out previously, if at all possible I think it would be worth it to get one of these top tier defenceman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyking8888 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Hamuis is B , Edler is B- . Canucks does not have a superstar D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 The point which many seem to miss, preferring rather to get their feathers in a twist about anyone actually criticising our D in the first place..................is that this is not about quality...............it's about endurance, winning by attrition. We have fine players in our D and probably top to bottom better than anyone else............that is why we win the league. However in the SC, another type of player steps up. These guys are a bit bigger, a bit harder, a bit more durable and a bit more "in your face." Of course you notice them during the season but they seem to be peripheral in most cases, finding it hard to influence the one off league games. We cope with them easily when we are fresh and we can take advantage of our skill, play patterns and tactics. That doesn't work in a best of 7 format though. In a best of 7 the skill guys get targeted and worn down, the smaller bodies in the D take a pounding and the emphasis starts to lean towards size, durability and raw, persistent energy that doesn't let up. There are some skill players who can maintain their level but if they are NOT big they tend to be like hen's teeth........guys like Giroux, Kane, Briere, Recchi We had a good example of such a player and we let him go, fearing his injury would prevent him from amounting to anything. During his second season with Vancouver, he missed ten games with a fractured vertebra. The injury was sustained on December 31, 2007, in a loss to theCalgary Flames, while trying to dodge a check. However, Mitchell continued to play with the injury for nine games afterwards. He recorded two goals and 12 points, while leading the team with 108 blocked shots and 1,646:20 minutes in total ice time. At the end of the 2007–08 season, he was awarded his first Babe Pratt Trophy as the Canucks' top defence man. Anyone reading the above would surely have persevered with such a stoic warrior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanKeslord17 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 Hamuis is B , Edler is B- . Canucks does not have a superstar D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.