The Canucks play a defensive first approach system, relying on quick transitions of the D carrying the puck up the ice and maintaining puck control. Without a core of defencemen who could strip the opposition of the puck and make that first transition pass to center ice, the system easily falters. Looking back at the 2011 playoffs, it is noticeable that we generate a lot of offence off our defense. Without a stable defense, our offense breaks down. For example: how would you expect the Sedins to produce if they were trapped inside our own end their entire shift? Likewise, our scoring ability disappeared the second we lost Hamhuis in the SCF.
Rather than trading Luongo, or whoever it may be for a temporary center, its more sensible to develop depth at D to better support AV's systematic approach of defencemens who can carry the puck up the ice or make that first pass. Beyond our top 4, which is already quite injury prone, there isn't the depth of defencemen that is dependable enough to fill the top 4 role.
Hamhuis / Bieksa
Elder / Garrison
Ballard / Tanev
Neither Ballard, Tanev, nor Alberts has the ability to step up to a top 4 role, with Tanev being the most stable of the 3.
A stable defense is the formula for a steady offence. For these past two Playoffs, the Canucks have had a terrible defensive showing, resulting in the lack of goals scored. Rather than spending money on a temporary center, lets focus our efforts into the real issue: our D-depth.
Edited by Pyrene, 12 January 2013 - 03:26 PM.