Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

No Top Defenceman?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
119 replies to this topic

#91 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,646 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:39 PM

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?

Edited by oldnews, 26 August 2012 - 07:40 PM.


#92 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:56 PM

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.

#93 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 26 August 2012 - 08:55 PM

]

Really ????????

Suter
Weber
Chara
Letang
Karlsson
Pieterangelo
Daughty
Campbell
Keith
Seabrook
Ekman-Larsson
Enstrom

The above 12 are all better than Edler. He probably belongs in comparison to the following group but I would definitely take Streit, Hamhuis, Kronwall, McBain, or Yandle before Edler.

Yandle
McBain
Hamhuis
Streit
Boyle
Burns
Bufuglien
Kronwall

These following guys will all be better than Edler as early as next year or within a couple years.

Bogosian
Kulikov
Carlson
Gudbranson
Murray
Fowler
Giordano
Goligoski
Hedman
Bogosian
Subban
Myers


Edler is better than Enstrom, Ekman-Larsson, Campbell and Seabrook IMO. Just because he had one bad playoffs is not a knock on him. He played fantastic during the 2010-2011 season plus playoffs and great through the 11-2012 season.
Posted Image

#94 winacup

winacup

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 12

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:31 PM

he's at best an average d man. by no means norris calibre.
Posted Image

#95 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,707 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:33 PM

he's at best an average d man. by no means norris calibre.

Because 49 points is 'average' right? Please...

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#96 Sidney Crosby.

Sidney Crosby.

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,153 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 09

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:39 PM

Don't get me wrong, I really like our depth at defence, but looking back at the Stanley Cup champions each year it seems critical to have the one stud on defence.

LAK - Drew Doughty
BOS - Zedeno Chara
CHI - Duncan Keith (lesser extent Brent Seabrook)
PIT - Kris Letang
DET - Nick Lidstrom
ANA - Scott Neidermayer (lesser extent Chris Pronger)

It's too bad things couldn't have worked out that we would get Weber (I know it wasn't likely to happen, but still hoped). If we can land that one anchor to the blueline, I think we can consider the Canucks as cup favorites. Again don't get me wrong love the depth that MG has created, but if it is at all possible to get an elite defenseman it would be worth it IMO.

Posted Image


#97 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 26 August 2012 - 10:01 PM

he's at best an average d man. by no means norris calibre.


He is at best an above average d man whom will mature into what could be 'Norris calibre' quality.

#98 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 26 August 2012 - 10:36 PM

Don't get me wrong, I really like our depth at defence, but looking back at the Stanley Cup champions each year it seems critical to have the one stud on defence.

LAK - Drew Doughty
BOS - Zedeno Chara
CHI - Duncan Keith (lesser extent Brent Seabrook)
PIT - Kris Letang
DET - Nick Lidstrom
ANA - Scott Neidermayer (lesser extent Chris Pronger)

It's too bad things couldn't have worked out that we would get Weber (I know it wasn't likely to happen, but still hoped). If we can land that one anchor to the blueline, I think we can consider the Canucks as cup favorites. Again don't get me wrong love the depth that MG has created, but if it is at all possible to get an elite defenseman it would be worth it IMO.


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.
Posted Image

#99 asian player

asian player

    Yakuza

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,386 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 11

Posted 26 August 2012 - 11:17 PM

Before I state this, I think our current D core is fine.

The reason most people think we need a top superstar D man is if you look at the last Stanley Cup champions, they all had 1.

LA 2012 - Doughty. Yeah most people dislike him, but he was unbelievable in the playoffs and definitely was a reason they won.

Boston 2011 - Chara. It's Chara. And yes I hate him as much as the rest of you.

Chicago 2010 - Keith. Met him, he was actually pretty funny and didn't trash the Canucks. After the elbow on Daniel last year though, lost all respect. Still doesn't take away how great he was that year.

Pittsburgh 2009 - Letang. Everyone praises him for his offense, but his defense is just as good.

Detroit 2008 - Lidstrom. No comment.

Anaheim 2007 - Pronger/Niedermayer. Again, everyone knows how awesome they are. Honourable mention to Aaron Rome.

Carolina 2006 - This is literally the one team that sticks out not having a top D man. They had an average D core, but no superstar. That being said, Ward literally carried this team. Carolina owes this cup to Cam Ward.

Some people think Edler is a "superstar" D man, but it's incorrect. He did put up 49 points last year, which is an amazing feat. The problem is he can sometimes be very inconsistent. Not even throughout the season, but look no further than the series vs LA, I don't really need to explain how he played.

That being said Edler is pretty close to peaking and within 2 years I would say he'll be pretty much one of the best 2 way D men in the league.


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
Posted Image
Mad props to Justdean10 for sig

#100 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,267 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 26 August 2012 - 11:43 PM

]

Really ????????

Suter
Weber
Chara
Letang
Karlsson
Pieterangelo
Daughty
Campbell
Keith
Seabrook
Ekman-Larsson
Enstrom

The above 12 are all better than Edler. He probably belongs in comparison to the following group but I would definitely take Streit, Hamhuis, Kronwall, McBain, or Yandle before Edler.

Yandle
McBain
Hamhuis
Streit
Boyle
Burns
Bufuglien
Kronwall

These following guys will all be better than Edler as early as next year or within a couple years.

Bogosian
Kulikov
Carlson
Gudbranson
Murray
Fowler
Giordano
Goligoski
Hedman
Bogosian
Subban
Myers


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.
Posted Image

#101 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,707 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 26 August 2012 - 11:56 PM

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

That's the worst Rome joke I've ever seen. And the majority of them on this board are old/bad.

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs


   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#102 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:07 AM

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.


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.
Kevin.jpg

#103 Sidney Crosby.

Sidney Crosby.

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,153 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 09

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:22 AM

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.


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.

Posted Image


#104 Herberts Vasiljevs

Herberts Vasiljevs

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,756 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:16 AM

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.

oif7li.jpg

Credit to -Vintage Canuckfor the awesome sig!

 


#105 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:24 AM

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.

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.

#106 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,028 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 27 August 2012 - 07:41 AM

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.


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.

Edited by Dogbyte, 27 August 2012 - 01:16 PM.

Canuckslogo160x160.jpg


#107 Walkin'2929

Walkin'2929

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 08

Posted 27 August 2012 - 11:35 AM

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.

#108 Sensemaker

Sensemaker

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 12

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:29 PM

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.


Are you suggesting trading Ballard, Hamhuis and Booth for Weber?

#109 RO8!!

RO8!!

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,630 posts
  • Joined: 19-November 08

Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:41 PM

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.


Players have good stretches and bad, when Doughty got his deal everybody thought LA was crazy but now it is no big deal because he has a cup? I think Doughty is better than Edler, mainly for progression by age, but is is not a huge drop off and Edler is entering the ranks of these mentioned defenders, he is arguably better than Suter someone who gets the benefit of playing on an extremely defensive system alongside Weber.

Why do you think we made the finals in 2011 part of it was because of the bone crushing hits Edler laid out, it goes both ways remember the story is still being written is is not set in stone.

"Hey this milk is bad. Maybe tomorrow it'll be better."


Canucks NYG Celtics Fan

#110 ButterBean

ButterBean

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,228 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 09

Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:17 PM

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.

Edler must be really good. :bigblush:

#111 aqua59

aqua59

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,149 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 08

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:42 PM

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.


It's like people think there's a Weber out there for every team.

#112 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 27 August 2012 - 02:59 PM

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.


I'm not sure how you can be so black and white about these things. These players play after medical advice, if the neurologist doesn't tell them to quit why would they? I know I wouldn't.

For the same reason why would you not sign a player like that?

Another factor is that these are professional players and quite honestly while their families don't want them permanently injured I doubt there are many wives or parents who could tell a player like Hamhuis or Ballard he shouldn't play anymore.

What we should be doing is giving much heftier penalties for head shots (especially where the player has prior form....ie Torres)

As for fighting, unless the player is an enforcer he probably experiences as many blows to the head in a lifetime as a pro boxer experiences in one fight.

In summing up I know what you are getting at but I'm sure players like Hamhuis and Ballard would say you have to be there to be able to make that decision and for my money they are 2 of the best in the League and will play until they retire or are told to stop.
Kevin.jpg

#113 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 27 August 2012 - 03:59 PM

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.


True enough. However, this won't be a universal solution, chum. What I see happening here, is guys like Crosby will get their big contracts and their teams will gladly pay the insurance while 4th line plugs with even less in the way of head injury issues will be shown the door.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 27 August 2012 - 03:59 PM.

Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#114 Monteeun

Monteeun

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 03

Posted 27 August 2012 - 04:40 PM

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.


While i agree that Edler has the potential and can still make that leap, the LA series was a bad memory for him.

His mistakes were costly and were really bad timing. And it was one of the main reasons why we lost the series.
He just made the errors had crucial times.

Now i'm not saying we played great as a team. It was average at best. But Edler dragged us down further. Suffice to say, it was not Edler's best series.

Benning will be fired next year. Hope he enjoys screwing around for a few months. I just cant believe this. Another injured BC player. We just got rid of garrison. Seems like the canucks and linden just wanted any BC born player. Doesn't matter if hes good or not. We don't need another Linden to get us to game 7 of the Stanley cup and lose. We need someone to win us a cup.

 

5 million a year for Vrbata? 6 million for Miller? Kesler for Bonino and 24th instead of 10th pick or one of their top prospects? Garrison for scraps?

ive already lost faith in JB. Ive never EVER had this bad of a feeling about management.

 


#115 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,537 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 27 August 2012 - 05:07 PM

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?


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 27 August 2012 - 11:27 PM.


#116 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 27 August 2012 - 07:16 PM

We have good D, yes. But others are better.

We also lost the Cup Finals because of injuries to our whole team.
Posted Image

#117 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,537 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 27 August 2012 - 11:34 PM

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.



#118 jimmyking8888

jimmyking8888

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:24 AM

Hamuis is B , Edler is B- . Canucks does not have a superstar D.

#119 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 12:56 AM

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.

Edited by Bodee, 28 August 2012 - 01:05 AM.

Kevin.jpg

#120 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 10:15 AM

Hamuis is B , Edler is B- . Canucks does not have a superstar D.


IMO, Edler right now is a B+, and he will be an A- in a couple years. Hamhuis is definitely a B+ too.
Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.