King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Picking as many mediocre good value players that you can in order to maximize the whole. That's why we have 18 second/third liners and 3 legitimate top 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 You obviously haven't read the book. And to call Burrows a 3rd liner...come on. If it was so easy to produce with the twins, Taylor Pyatt and/or Steve Bernier would've been made into stars like Burrows has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Burrows IS a 3rd liner. Kesler is the best 3C in the game and an average 2C. Yes I said it. I said it because it is my belief that the Canucks are missing a 2C. In the grand scheme of things, he can be considered a top 6 on most teams. So yes, there are 3 legitimate top 6 players on the Canucks; the rest are bottom 6. The defense is laughable. no legitimate 1D, no legitimate 2D, though Edler comes close. It is comprised of performing 4Ds that collectively look good on regular season paper but blank out in the playoffs. Outside of the Sedins, Kesler and Luongo, the Canucks have an excellent supporting cast and no legitimate threat. This is why they were "exposed for what they are"; a mediocre team with a great goaltender. Now let's get rid of that great goaltender. 1D, 2C, and known playoff grit and secondary scoring is what's needed. Not a goaltender change. I find this view extremely near sighted. As I said in a previous post, it's like saying Moby Dick is a great whale book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 The sheer idiocy of some people on this board amazes me. 'We have no 1D.' Last time I checked Hamhuis is a 1D on any NHL team. 'Kesler an average 2C.' Last time I checked it was just two years ago he won the Selke as the BEST TWO-WAY CENTER/FORWARD IN THE GAME. My God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Last time I checked, Luongo was one win from bringing the Cup home. That was ALSO two seasons ago. What goes for Kesler doesn't go for Luongo I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Uhh, where were you last year? Or the last two years for that matter. Burrows has proven many times that he can play just as well without the Sedins as he can with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Burrows IS a 3rd liner. Kesler is the best 3C in the game and an average 2C. Yes I said it. I said it because it is my belief that the Canucks are missing a 2C. In the grand scheme of things, he can be considered a top 6 on most teams. So yes, there are 3 legitimate top 6 players on the Canucks; the rest are bottom 6. The defense is laughable. no legitimate 1D, no legitimate 2D, though Edler comes close. It is comprised of performing 4Ds that collectively look good on regular season paper but blank out in the playoffs. Outside of the Sedins, Kesler and Luongo, the Canucks have an excellent supporting cast and no legitimate threat. This is why they were "exposed for what they are"; a mediocre team with a great goaltender. Now let's get rid of that great goaltender. 1D, 2C, and known playoff grit and secondary scoring is what's needed. Not a goaltender change. I find this view extremely near sighted. As I said in a previous post, it's like saying Moby Dick is a great whale book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I agree, we have what I call a house of cards line up. It works because everything feeds together but if you pull one card it suddenly looks very medicore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 You obviously haven't read the book. And to call Burrows a 3rd liner...come on. If it was so easy to produce with the twins, Taylor Pyatt and/or Steve Bernier would've been made into stars like Burrows has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Pyatt played with the twins for a long time, and was definitely not a star. Burrows is miles ahead of those guys, and you wouldn't find a single hockey mind who would agree with you on that. Edit: NVM, we were agreeing. I can't read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 You obviously haven't read the book. And to call Burrows a 3rd liner...come on. If it was so easy to produce with the twins, Taylor Pyatt and/or Steve Bernier would've been made into stars like Burrows has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 again yur way off the rails...Pyatt? in yur dreams !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Burrows IS a 3rd liner. Kesler is the best 3C in the game and an average 2C. Yes I said it. I said it because it is my belief that the Canucks are missing a 2C. In the grand scheme of things, he can be considered a top 6 on most teams. So yes, there are 3 legitimate top 6 players on the Canucks; the rest are bottom 6. The defense is laughable. no legitimate 1D, no legitimate 2D, though Edler comes close. It is comprised of performing 4Ds that collectively look good on regular season paper but blank out in the playoffs. Outside of the Sedins, Kesler and Luongo, the Canucks have an excellent supporting cast and no legitimate threat. This is why they were "exposed for what they are"; a mediocre team with a great goaltender. Now let's get rid of that great goaltender. 1D, 2C, and known playoff grit and secondary scoring is what's needed. Not a goaltender change. I find this view extremely near sighted. As I said in a previous post, it's like saying Moby Dick is a great whale book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Reading comprehension (nor spelling, evidently) is not a strength of yours, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 poetic license !!! yur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Burrows IS a 3rd liner. Kesler is the best 3C in the game and an average 2C. Yes I said it. I said it because it is my belief that the Canucks are missing a 2C. In the grand scheme of things, he can be considered a top 6 on most teams. So yes, there are 3 legitimate top 6 players on the Canucks; the rest are bottom 6. The defense is laughable. no legitimate 1D, no legitimate 2D, though Edler comes close. It is comprised of performing 4Ds that collectively look good on regular season paper but blank out in the playoffs. Outside of the Sedins, Kesler and Luongo, the Canucks have an excellent supporting cast and no legitimate threat. This is why they were "exposed for what they are"; a mediocre team with a great goaltender. Now let's get rid of that great goaltender. 1D, 2C, and known playoff grit and secondary scoring is what's needed. Not a goaltender change. I find this view extremely near sighted. As I said in a previous post, it's like saying Moby Dick is a great whale book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everybody Hates Raymond Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 From what the reports/rumours coming out in the last day or two say, it seems like Kadri/Bozak is all but inevitable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 From what the reports/rumours coming out in the last day or two say, it seems like Kadri/Bozak is all but inevitable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 From what the reports/rumours coming out in the last day or two say, it seems like Kadri/Bozak is all but inevitable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Grabner: 6'0", 185 Upshall: 6'0", 200 Those 15 pounds can be accounted for by the fact that Upshall's 4 years his senior - not that it's really important, anyway, as it relates to Grabner's game. Talking about physicality, "hits" is a stat that is totally vague and cannot be looked at with any sort of reliability. I'm not saying that Grabner's physical, but even if Upshall has a load of hits to his stat line, think anyone's scared of him/looking over their shoulder in going to get the puck in the corner? Fat chance. And why didn't you bring up the goals per game ratio? Grabner's 0.34 is over 50% higher than Upshall's 0.23. Why wouldn't he be able to crack the top 6? 54 goals in the last 2 years as a 23/24 year-old say hello. He's done his job. Oh, and let's not forget that he was the NHL's fastest skater at the 2011 ASG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.