Archived

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

Ugli Fruit

Okay, Something Needs to be Clarified

65 posts in this topic

An Art Ross trophy for each Sedin pretty clearly states that they are superstar players. That said, what they lack is that they don't play a physical game which is why I am in favor of splitting them up. Jensen is a young prospect with great hands and is defensively responsible....put him out with Henrik and Booth. Daniel can set a guy up just about as well as Henrik so put him with Kesler and Burrows on the 2nd line.

I think that both of these lines would have scoring, grit and size. If Jensen doesn't make the team then play Kassian on the 2nd line and move Burrows back up to the 1st line.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canucks need a coaching change. A new voice in the locker room would do wonders IMO. I think the message is getting a bit stale.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, I've been wondering the same thing.

Looking at our lineup and caliber of players, I just don't understand how offense is an issue in the playoffs. Though it's hard to argue against a 2 time finalist, one time winner of the Jack Adams, I just don't think his style of coaching is suited towards our system. In my opinion, his system proves more successful for less talented, better grinding teams. I don't know what coach can make the best out of our extremely talented core, but I believe one should exist. Alain Vigneault's system isn't faulty; it's just not suited towards how our team is built.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, spread them out to intensify their threat with some grit put them back together for the powerplay, burrows could turn their third line into most teams first line, he started on the third line playing defesive gritty hockey and now he can score. why not have three solid lines.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do You suggest ? I suggested early November that Kesler should not be the Centre on the 2nd line, that Coho semed a better fit and distributor of the puck and that Booth and Kesler should be his wingers,where they both like to shoot and are strong on the Puck as well as being fast, and thought that line would have been better than it was with Coho on the wing. I even suggested Kesler could have taken some of the faceoffs and shared the position somewhat, but AV necer tried it once,so we will never know

.

Playmaking is the Centres job, not the wingers. The centre can dish off to anyone on the ice, and is also responsible for being the 3rd man defensively.

I dont understand when (a few) people say Kesler needs a Playmaker ?

I remember experts criticising Kesler in his early years as lacking vision for making plays.

He had a career year 2 yrs ago, playing with the Twins and on the 2nd line (while the Twins got all the top players and checkers)

He plays more like a winger than a Centre, so if we get a playmaking Centre again,let him use his speed and wanting to shoot and try him on the wing

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kesler on the line would be good, but then who would replace him. or is this all just hypothetical if we still had hodgson

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many of you were expecting Gillis to execute or attempt a major overhaul this off season, but I can say with confidence that a fair few did as we severely underperfomed in the playoffs.

A first round exit, though at the hands of the Cup Winners, is not what anyone, even our rivals, expected.

It's becoming more and more clear that our problem in the playoffs is NOT goaltending, or lack of size, or experience. It's becoming clear that the only legitimate problem is our lack of playoff offense. Even if we don't score as much in the playoffs (since we play a tighter defensive game come April), we don't even pressure the opposition and don't even create many chances in the post-season.

If we can play a game where the puck is most often in the opponent's side of the rink, then there are zero questions to be raised about the defense or the goaltending. The lack of offensive productivity is what causes these so-called "defensive and goaltending gaffes". We pretty much play like October Canucks in the playoffs - no offense, the defense has no chemistry, Luongo and Schneider hung out to dry.

So, now we ask the question: "did we improve enough, if at all". Well, the problem we have is not something you improve by just going and buying some player. This is a chemistry issue. Our forwards are not bad players at all. We have a strong offense that can go head-to-head with any other team in the league. How do we fix the problem then, if it's not through FA or trading?

The players need to become more dynamic. We can't just play the same game over and over again, because the way the Canucks' forwards play can be shut down if we play predictably. Why?

The Canucks play based on teamwork, NOT skill. Teams like the Pens have Crosby and Malkin. They're two players who can produce points no matter who is assigned to deal with them. The Sedins? Well, the only reason that they still produce is because they just can't be consistently shut down. However, our 2nd and 3rd lines can. These lines lack superstar quality and lack chemistry. So then, how in God's name are they supposed to do anything?

You might say this is a good time to go for FA, but the only way we can fix secondary scoring issues is by overpaying. By a lot. And then we lose cap space for other aspects of the team.

Our situation is weird because our team isn't built to win if our opponents know what we're going to do, because our game is planned out and practiced, it's not based on individual skill.

A possible solution at this point is to either get AV to stop being stubborn in his stratagems or maybe even change coaches. I don't think AV is the reason for any of this, but the coach is the root of how a team plays, and if that must change, the coach must either adapt or he must be replaced.

MG built the team with multiple good players but nobody with elite individual skill. If that is the case, we have no choice but to play a passing game, with offensive and defensive support. It's an ideologically sound tactic, but only if the opposition defends reactively, not preemptively (eg. how the Kings stood up at their blue line during our incredbly predictable PPS). If they know what we're about to do, they can stop us because our strategy isn't based off of elite skill, which they can't stop.

Bottom line: Fix how we play. Our team is cup-calibre, but not how we play.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to turn Kes into a sniper instead of a 2 way forward. He is risking injuries by killing penalties and standing infront of the net on the power play. Find someone that is a pure passer to help set up Kes so he doesnt have to carry the puck so much. Let him set up on the powerplay like Stamkos does. If a 60 goal scorer is allowed to do the same thing over and over again then no one will be watching Kes at that position.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kesler on the line would be good, but then who would replace him. or is this all just hypothetical if we still had hodgson

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many of you were expecting Gillis to execute or attempt a major overhaul this off season, but I can say with confidence that a fair few did as we severely underperfomed in the playoffs.

A first round exit, though at the hands of the Cup Winners, is not what anyone, even our rivals, expected.

It's becoming more and more clear that our problem in the playoffs is NOT goaltending, or lack of size, or experience. It's becoming clear that the only legitimate problem is our lack of playoff offense. Even if we don't score as much in the playoffs (since we play a tighter defensive game come April), we don't even pressure the opposition and don't even create many chances in the post-season.

If we can play a game where the puck is most often in the opponent's side of the rink, then there are zero questions to be raised about the defense or the goaltending. The lack of offensive productivity is what causes these so-called "defensive and goaltending gaffes". We pretty much play like October Canucks in the playoffs - no offense, the defense has no chemistry, Luongo and Schneider hung out to dry.

So, now we ask the question: "did we improve enough, if at all". Well, the problem we have is not something you improve by just going and buying some player. This is a chemistry issue. Our forwards are not bad players at all. We have a strong offense that can go head-to-head with any other team in the league. How do we fix the problem then, if it's not through FA or trading?

The players need to become more dynamic. We can't just play the same game over and over again, because the way the Canucks' forwards play can be shut down if we play predictably. Why?

The Canucks play based on teamwork, NOT skill. Teams like the Pens have Crosby and Malkin. They're two players who can produce points no matter who is assigned to deal with them. The Sedins? Well, the only reason that they still produce is because they just can't be consistently shut down. However, our 2nd and 3rd lines can. These lines lack superstar quality and lack chemistry. So then, how in God's name are they supposed to do anything?

You might say this is a good time to go for FA, but the only way we can fix secondary scoring issues is by overpaying. By a lot. And then we lose cap space for other aspects of the team.

Our situation is weird because our team isn't built to win if our opponents know what we're going to do, because our game is planned out and practiced, it's not based on individual skill.

A possible solution at this point is to either get AV to stop being stubborn in his stratagems or maybe even change coaches. I don't think AV is the reason for any of this, but the coach is the root of how a team plays, and if that must change, the coach must either adapt or he must be replaced.

MG built the team with multiple good players but nobody with elite individual skill. If that is the case, we have no choice but to play a passing game, with offensive and defensive support. It's an ideologically sound tactic, but only if the opposition defends reactively, not preemptively (eg. how the Kings stood up at their blue line during our incredbly predictable PPS). If they know what we're about to do, they can stop us because our strategy isn't based off of elite skill, which they can't stop.

Bottom line: Fix how we play. Our team is cup-calibre, but not how we play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and disagree with your post.

First, Yes we do have problems scoring in the play off's.

But no it's not all strategy. Yes, part of it is size. The Sedin's have been outplayed in the key series we lost, notably against Chicago and Boston. And a key problem was SIZE. They loaded huge players on the Twins / Burr to nullify them. A big forward would do wonders, so would a depth defensive horse who was 230 lbs and could clear the net. But also yes, our 2knd and 3rd lines had trouble picking up the slack when teams loaded their top guys on our first line.

So here is a Stratagem :P. Play Twins / Burr in key offensive situations and the PP. But also break them into these lines;

Danny/ Kes/Booth This would have a top 5 in the world passing winger, size, speed and 3 potential 40 goal snipers.

Burrows / Hank / Kassian Hank gets everybody going, anybody think playing 2knd tier match ups would not allow Kassian to get going and Burr and Danny to dangle and pick apart teams to oblivion??? Also, nobody is going to be be bigger, faster or better than those two lines! AV should mix it up, because on status quo we are predictable and teams can play match up against us. I agree with the OP, change with strategy is perhaps the biggest needed change.

Plus we can bring in Kassian and Jensen into bigger roles, and then size is a smaller factor. So size can be handled internally.

Last but most important; we miss having (Erhoff), specifically a puck rushing defenseman. While I suggested we need size (we do), our biggest need is still a defender who can break pressure by hauling the puck out of our end. Schultz would have been soooo attractive, oh well... For all the skill we have on D, THAT is our biggest need.

Bjugstad is about 4 or 5 years from now when Hank is gone. Lou may not bring us our biggest need either unless something else changes.

So we need a pow wow with AV and MG. MG; you have to deliver a puck rushing defender. And AV also has to deliver lines that match up better.

And hey, flame me for this, maybe AV can also pair Ballard with Garrison, and Ballard could then be free to roam and be our puck hauling saviour?

I don't know how many of you were expecting Gillis to execute or attempt a major overhaul this off season, but I can say with confidence that a fair few did as we severely underperfomed in the playoffs.

A first round exit, though at the hands of the Cup Winners, is not what anyone, even our rivals, expected.

It's becoming more and more clear that our problem in the playoffs is NOT goaltending, or lack of size, or experience. It's becoming clear that the only legitimate problem is our lack of playoff offense. Even if we don't score as much in the playoffs (since we play a tighter defensive game come April), we don't even pressure the opposition and don't even create many chances in the post-season.

If we can play a game where the puck is most often in the opponent's side of the rink, then there are zero questions to be raised about the defense or the goaltending. The lack of offensive productivity is what causes these so-called "defensive and goaltending gaffes". We pretty much play like October Canucks in the playoffs - no offense, the defense has no chemistry, Luongo and Schneider hung out to dry.

So, now we ask the question: "did we improve enough, if at all". Well, the problem we have is not something you improve by just going and buying some player. This is a chemistry issue. Our forwards are not bad players at all. We have a strong offense that can go head-to-head with any other team in the league. How do we fix the problem then, if it's not through FA or trading?

The players need to become more dynamic. We can't just play the same game over and over again, because the way the Canucks' forwards play can be shut down if we play predictably. Why?

The Canucks play based on teamwork, NOT skill. Teams like the Pens have Crosby and Malkin. They're two players who can produce points no matter who is assigned to deal with them. The Sedins? Well, the only reason that they still produce is because they just can't be consistently shut down. However, our 2nd and 3rd lines can. These lines lack superstar quality and lack chemistry. So then, how in God's name are they supposed to do anything?

You might say this is a good time to go for FA, but the only way we can fix secondary scoring issues is by overpaying. By a lot. And then we lose cap space for other aspects of the team.

Our situation is weird because our team isn't built to win if our opponents know what we're going to do, because our game is planned out and practiced, it's not based on individual skill.

A possible solution at this point is to either get AV to stop being stubborn in his stratagems or maybe even change coaches. I don't think AV is the reason for any of this, but the coach is the root of how a team plays, and if that must change, the coach must either adapt or he must be replaced.

MG built the team with multiple good players but nobody with elite individual skill. If that is the case, we have no choice but to play a passing game, with offensive and defensive support. It's an ideologically sound tactic, but only if the opposition defends reactively, not preemptively (eg. how the Kings stood up at their blue line during our incredbly predictable PPS). If they know what we're about to do, they can stop us because our strategy isn't based off of elite skill, which they can't stop.

Bottom line: Fix how we play. Our team is cup-calibre, but not how we play.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do You suggest ? I suggested early November that Kesler should not be the Centre on the 2nd line, that Coho semed a better fit and distributor of the puck and that Booth and Kesler should be his wingers,where they both like to shoot and are strong on the Puck as well as being fast, and thought that line would have been better than it was with Coho on the wing. I even suggested Kesler could have taken some of the faceoffs and shared the position somewhat, but AV never tried it once,so we will never know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do You suggest ? I suggested early November that Kesler should not be the Centre on the 2nd line, that Coho semed a better fit and distributor of the puck and that Booth and Kesler should be his wingers,where they both like to shoot and are strong on the Puck as well as being fast, and thought that line would have been better than it was with Coho on the wing. I even suggested Kesler could have taken some of the faceoffs and shared the position somewhat, but AV necer tried it once,so we will never know

.

Playmaking is the Centres job, not the wingers. The centre can dish off to anyone on the ice, and is also responsible for being the 3rd man defensively.

I dont understand when (a few) people say Kesler needs a Playmaker ?

I remember experts criticising Kesler in his early years as lacking vision for making plays.

He had a career year 2 yrs ago, playing with the Twins and on the 2nd line (while the Twins got all the top players and checkers)

He plays more like a winger than a Centre, so if we get a playmaking Centre again,let him use his speed and wanting to shoot and try him on the wing

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a number of factors: inconsistent goaltending by Luo, AV's mediocre coaching and lack of effective counter strategies, predicatble playing styles ie Sedins cycling, not enough size and toughness, not enough urgency and desire to win, not enough players who can elevate their game in the play-offs - too many play-off no shows, and yes lack of scoring depth too.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we can play a game where the puck is most often in the opponent's side of the rink, then there are zero questions to be raised about the defense or the goaltending."

Oh, yeah...brilliant analyses. Like saying if we always score more goals than the other team we'll never lose.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

going to be no hockey this time so we stand pat no trades no better players signed o well have a good rest canucks

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Something Needs to be Clarified

...

Bottom line: Fix how we play. Our team is cup-calibre, but not how we play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me clarify that the lack of offense was caused by your lack of size when pitted against the LA Kings.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion- though he's coached the 'nucks to their best reg. seasons in history- AV was just out coached by Suter last year. The 'Nucks seemed to lack the intensity that LA brought to the ice. Brown had more drive than the entire first and second lines. This cool, calm, relaxed and jokey AV sucks at motivating the boys, the system is tired ( if not broken ). Yes, I know he coached us to the finals, he rode Kes' coat-tails like everyone else. I'd just like to see a more angry and prototypical coach, AV: Get F'n mad!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.