Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

New Defensive Pairings Needed!


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 DownUndaCanuck

DownUndaCanuck

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,870 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:10 AM

*
POPULAR

So it's been 5 games into the season and just about all of our defencemen are struggling. I would give them another few weeks of playing together but we really don't have that sort of luxury in a shortened season, so why not try a few new defensive pairings?

Edler - Hamhuis

Hamhuis is still playing good defence, Edler and Garrison both are not. Edler needs a safety net behind him in case he's caught out of position (which is often) and Hamhuis is far better at that than Garrison. Plus, Edler is far more physical and able to look after himself and Hamhuis - he doesn't need Garrison to watch his back. This way we also have 1 designated shooter as opposed to having Edler and Garrison fighting over a shot and both getting caught out of position when up the ice.

Garrison - Ballard

Ballard has played well so far and deserves better quality ice time. He and Garrison have had proven chemistry together in Florida already and their games complement each other PERFECTLY. Garrison is a big, physical guy who sits back whereas Ballard is a smaller, free-wheeling, great-skating defenceman.

Bieksa - Tanev

Bieksa has been brutal for us lately defensively, so hopefully our best defenceman in Tanev (yes that's right) can have a bit of a calming influence on him, similar to the way Salo did on Edler. Bieksa will be the designated offensive defenceman here, Tanev the guy who sits back to cover him, but ideally Bieksa will make less mistakes when paired with Tanev.

Thoughts? You could swap Tanev and Hamhuis for the same effect.
  • 6
Posted Image

#2 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,322 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:16 AM

For once I agree with you DownUnda.

Ballard has been great (IMO our best) as has Tanev.

Didn't mind Hamhuis - Edler infact I think that just shows (along with how great the Tanev/Ballard pair has been) that Bieksa isn't quite as valuable as we thought.

I do like that idea.

Hamhuis - Edler
Ballard - Garrison
Tanev - Bieksa

Only thing is I am not sure it lines up well (3rd pair especially) with the handedness, although I am scared to play Bieksa with anyone besides Tanev and Hamhuis

Maybe:

Hamhuis - Edler
Ballard - Tanev
Garrison - Bieksa

It is risky having those 2 together, but I am confident Garrison's style is sturdy and responsible enough to be able to help absorb & anchor Bieksa's terrible plays.
  • 1

zackass.png


#3 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:17 AM

Agreed. Switch 'em up. Specifically, the Edler-Garrison pairing. Just plain awful. Both players are redundant to each other (if Garrison is even all he's cracked up to be).

Edler and Garrison are both shoot-first D-men. Why are they playing together?

However, at the same time, who do you split up? Hamhuis - Bieksa is solid, and Ballard - Tanev has been playing good hockey to start the season.

Edler - Garrison pairing really needs to pull its socks up. They are playing some god-awful hockey right now.
  • 0
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

http://forum.canucks...in-this-change/

#4 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,921 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:55 AM

So it's been 5 games into the season and just about all of our defencemen are struggling. I would give them another few weeks of playing together but we really don't have that sort of luxury in a shortened season, so why not try a few new defensive pairings?

Edler - Hamhuis

Hamhuis is still playing good defence, Edler and Garrison both are not. Edler needs a safety net behind him in case he's caught out of position (which is often) and Hamhuis is far better at that than Garrison. Plus, Edler is far more physical and able to look after himself and Hamhuis - he doesn't need Garrison to watch his back. This way we also have 1 designated shooter as opposed to having Edler and Garrison fighting over a shot and both getting caught out of position when up the ice.

Garrison - Ballard

Ballard has played well so far and deserves better quality ice time. He and Garrison have had proven chemistry together in Florida already and their games complement each other PERFECTLY. Garrison is a big, physical guy who sits back whereas Ballard is a smaller, free-wheeling, great-skating defenceman.

Bieksa - Tanev

Bieksa has been brutal for us lately defensively, so hopefully our best defenceman in Tanev (yes that's right) can have a bit of a calming influence on him, similar to the way Salo did on Edler. Bieksa will be the designated offensive defenceman here, Tanev the guy who sits back to cover him, but ideally Bieksa will make less mistakes when paired with Tanev.

Thoughts? You could swap Tanev and Hamhuis for the same effect.


You and I may not always agree but with this post you not only nailed the idea itself but the reasons why it makes sense.

Great post.
  • 0

#5 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:12 AM

I'm afraid I have gone further in another thread and now think KB3 should be traded if we can find a big stay at home ball crusher. He just appears to be too small to give the protection needed to our goalie. Lu lived with it but I suspect Cory will find it too difficult. So it's Bieksa or just as sadly Ballard for someone BIG.

MG missed his chance when Salo left as Garrison was too similar to what we have.

PS and putting Edler up there is not going to solve the problem.

Edited by Bodee, 28 January 2013 - 06:14 AM.

  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#6 infinitecarnage

infinitecarnage

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:26 AM

Bieksa has been brutal for us lately defensively


lately?
try 7 years

Edited by infinitecarnage, 28 January 2013 - 08:23 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#7 Z. Kassian

Z. Kassian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,102 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:32 AM

So it's been 5 games into the season and just about all of our defencemen are struggling. I would give them another few weeks of playing together but we really don't have that sort of luxury in a shortened season, so why not try a few new defensive pairings?

Edler - Hamhuis

Hamhuis is still playing good defence, Edler and Garrison both are not. Edler needs a safety net behind him in case he's caught out of position (which is often) and Hamhuis is far better at that than Garrison. Plus, Edler is far more physical and able to look after himself and Hamhuis - he doesn't need Garrison to watch his back. This way we also have 1 designated shooter as opposed to having Edler and Garrison fighting over a shot and both getting caught out of position when up the ice.

Garrison - Ballard

Ballard has played well so far and deserves better quality ice time. He and Garrison have had proven chemistry together in Florida already and their games complement each other PERFECTLY. Garrison is a big, physical guy who sits back whereas Ballard is a smaller, free-wheeling, great-skating defenceman.

Bieksa - Tanev

Bieksa has been brutal for us lately defensively, so hopefully our best defenceman in Tanev (yes that's right) can have a bit of a calming influence on him, similar to the way Salo did on Edler. Bieksa will be the designated offensive defenceman here, Tanev the guy who sits back to cover him, but ideally Bieksa will make less mistakes when paired with Tanev.

Thoughts? You could swap Tanev and Hamhuis for the same effect.


These line pairings are awful and will never happen. LL-LL-RR. Enough said
  • 0
Posted Image

#8 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,007 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:41 AM

They were shaking things up a bit last night as I recall?...had Bieksa with Garrison and Edler with Hamhuis. I'm sure they did.

I don't agree about Bieksa but have been down this path before (where everyone was screaming to trade him). I saw him doing some good work in front of the net and also think he's back to having an edge, which is how he should play.
  • 2

Posted Image


#9 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:19 AM

These line pairings are awful and will never happen. LL-LL-RR. Enough said


Indeed.

Its been stated by AV and Bones about handedness.

Still too early to experiment with mixing d-pairs.

Id venture to guess that there is still some rust, and adjustment to new partners in play.
  • 0

Posted Image

Henrik breaking records.Kes approving.


#10 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,054 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:06 AM

Well, we already have Edler playing on his off side this year (something he hasn't done very well in the past), so you want to keep him on his off side, but with Hamhuis, and then move Ballard to his off side as well (another guy who did quite poorly at that) to play with Garrison? And then have our only two right handed shots on the same pairing together? No thanks.

If - and I mean if - forced to change up the D, I'd consider this:

Garrison Bieksa
Hamhuis Tanev
Ballard Edler

I'd utilize Ballard and Edler in prime situations and be careful with them otherwise (unless they are having an 'on' game). Hamhuis and Tanev get more defensive minutes but are used in all situations, and Garrison and Bieksa play both ends of the ice as well.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#11 GarthButcher5

GarthButcher5

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Joined: 12-June 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:18 AM

Before we get down on the D, we need to understand that the whole team is struggling defensivly. If the defense is supposed to be engaged in the rush and the offense, then there needs to be a teamwide consciouseness as to defensive responsibilities but this has been lacking on many shifts. As it stands, the backcheck has been terrible so this is a much bigger problem than just the defensive pairings.
  • 0

#12 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:24 AM

I just want to see Tanev-Ballard on PP instead of Bieksa-Hamhuis
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#13 Sedinery22

Sedinery22

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:32 AM

i think we should bring in barker or vandermeer as a 3rd pairing d-man, sit tanev for a game, we need a big physical d-man against the kings tonight

Edited by Sedinery22, 28 January 2013 - 10:33 AM.

  • 0

#14 Beluga Whale

Beluga Whale

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Joined: 12-August 11

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:46 AM

i think we should bring in barker or vandermeer as a 3rd pairing d-man, sit tanev for a game, we need a big physical d-man against the kings tonight


Lol, because Tanev's the problem right? He's been great thus far, and he's not getting scratched anytime soon.

Edited by Beluga Whale, 28 January 2013 - 10:46 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Prestige Worldwide - GM of the Boston Bruins Posted Image

#15 higgyfan

higgyfan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:53 AM

Ballard and Tanav are the best pairing right now - leave them alone.
Hamhuis is a tad rusty and Bieksa into his usual slow start - give them time.
Garrison and Edler -Edler on the right side is awful -switch them around.

Just say no to Vandermeer and Barker.
  • 0

#16 casofilia.canuck.nz

casofilia.canuck.nz

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 10

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:03 AM

Is this not what AV is doing. Mix & match when the game is won or lost to see which pairs work better together. A couple more game should give him enough information to have settled pairs. The usual problem though, too many "D" men taking penalties mixing un the "D" on the PK.

Go Canucks Go
  • 0
Go CANUCKS Go.

#17 Sedinery22

Sedinery22

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:09 AM

Lol, because Tanev's the problem right? He's been great thus far, and he's not getting scratched anytime soon.




i didn't say tanev was the problem, i'm saying we just need more bigger physical defenseman against the bigger L.A kings
  • 0

#18 Captain Aerosex

Captain Aerosex

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:10 AM

What I don't get with Garrison-Edler is Edler on the right side. Garrison played the right side in Florida where he started putting up more offence. Edler is notoriously bad in all ways on the right side. It just seems non-sensical to do that.

I don't eat Ballard-Tanev split up, and have full confidence Hamhuis-Bieksa will go back to their usual great level; they're vets.
  • 0
Posted Image

#19 LeanBeef

LeanBeef

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,947 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 11

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:22 AM

Ballard and Garrison never or barely played with each other in Florida.

Garrison was with Weaver and someone else while Ballard played with McCabe and Boynton.
  • 0
Sig too big.
"Being a Canuck fan, maybe sometime down the road be a Vancouver Canuck.... that would conquer all my dreams"
-Milan Lucic

#20 Rivera

Rivera

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Joined: 11-September 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:30 AM

Ballard and Tanav are the best pairing right now - leave them alone.
Hamhuis is a tad rusty and Bieksa into his usual slow start - give them time.
Garrison and Edler -Edler on the right side is awful -switch them around.

Just say no to Vandermeer and Barker.


This!

Garrison has a bigger shot than Edler IMO and is used to playing/shooting from the right point. Being on the right side puts him in better position to receive one timers from Edler.

Edler is just better playing on the left side and is already used to shooting from that side. He can take one timers from our forwards cycling down low. ie the Sedins

Edited by Rivera, 28 January 2013 - 11:31 AM.

  • 0

#21 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,054 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:33 AM

i think we should bring in barker or vandermeer as a 3rd pairing d-man, sit tanev for a game, we need a big physical d-man against the kings tonight

Lol, because Tanev's the problem right? He's been great thus far, and he's not getting scratched anytime soon.

I don't see who to take out to give Alberts or Barker a chance. Vandermeer is with the Wolves so he's not going to be coming back up and Barker is big but not physical, so that leaves Alberts as your choice.

What I don't get with Garrison-Edler is Edler on the right side. Garrison played the right side in Florida where he started putting up more offence. Edler is notoriously bad in all ways on the right side. It just seems non-sensical to do that.

I don't eat Ballard-Tanev split up, and have full confidence Hamhuis-Bieksa will go back to their usual great level; they're vets.

Garrison only played on the right side when on the PP and was a left side guy 5 on 5. That allowed Florida to make use of his shot, and we've seen Edler and Garrison trading sides on the PP as a result there.

I do agree that Edler hasn't really been great on the right side in the past so wasn't sure they'd want to put him there again. I guess along with the new contract comes new responsibility, and really it shouldn't be that hard a transition for most of the siituations, it's primarily just when the puck is near the boards on that side that he'd have more trouble playing it. He's still had issues in other areas that aren't just because of what side he's been on.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#22 Rivera

Rivera

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Joined: 11-September 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:34 AM

What I don't get with Garrison-Edler is Edler on the right side. Garrison played the right side in Florida where he started putting up more offence. Edler is notoriously bad in all ways on the right side. It just seems non-sensical to do that.

I don't eat Ballard-Tanev split up, and have full confidence Hamhuis-Bieksa will go back to their usual great level; they're vets.



What this guy said :)
  • 0

#23 Clark Kent

Clark Kent

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,594 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 06

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:37 AM

They were shaking things up a bit last night as I recall?...had Bieksa with Garrison and Edler with Hamhuis. I'm sure they did.

I don't agree about Bieksa but have been down this path before (where everyone was screaming to trade him). I saw him doing some good work in front of the net and also think he's back to having an edge, which is how he should play.



It's funny, after seeing the first two goals last night, I knew that it would some how lead to Bieksa bashing.
  • 1
Posted Image

#24 Captain Aerosex

Captain Aerosex

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,620 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:40 AM

Garrison only played on the right side when on the PP and was a left side guy 5 on 5. That allowed Florida to make use of his shot, and we've seen Edler and Garrison trading sides on the PP as a result there.

I do agree that Edler hasn't really been great on the right side in the past so wasn't sure they'd want to put him there again. I guess along with the new contract comes new responsibility, and really it shouldn't be that hard a transition for most of the siituations, it's primarily just when the puck is near the boards on that side that he'd have more trouble playing it. He's still had issues in other areas that aren't just because of what side he's been on.


Even still, it counts for something. Besides, Brian Campbell is a very shifty blue liner, so I'd imagine Garrison ended up having to play the right side 5-on-5 regardless :lol:

And while Edler's problems most definitely aren't just what side he's on, if he is more comfortable mentally playing his left side maybe it helps his game exponentially. I'd like to have our best d-man play at his best.
  • 0
Posted Image

#25 JamesB

JamesB

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,707 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 10

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:47 AM

These line pairings are awful and will never happen. LL-LL-RR. Enough said


"Awful" is a bit strong. But it is true that these pairings would put together the two Right shots (Tanev and Bieksa) which does not make sense. Also, Ballard and Tanev are playing well together. Let's not mess that up. It has been hard for Ballard to find his niche but things are finally working. And Ballard and Tanev are getting plenty of ice time. With a compressed season the minutes need to be spread out, so I see no problem with Ballard and Tanev being a third pairing. They will still get plenty of minutes.

I agree with the OP that the Garrison/Edler pairing is struggling. That pairing puts together two L-hand shots who both take a lot of shots and does not have a "safety net" guy, like Hamhuis or Tanev. It might be worth trying Hamhuis with Edler -- still two left handed shots, but at least Hammer can play safety and Edler can take the shots.

That still does not fill me with confidence regarding Bieksa/Garrison as Bieksa has struggled in the past when he has not been paired with Hamhuis.

Either way -- staying with the current pairings or putting Hammer and Edler together -- the top 4 all need to play better. Garrison and Edler in particular need to be more reliable in their own zone.

I think it will come. The top D are rusty and Garrison and Edler are a new pairing. I would give them a few more games before getting too worked up.

Edited by JamesB, 28 January 2013 - 11:49 AM.

  • 0

#26 Blueberries

Blueberries

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,999 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:50 AM

So it's been 5 games into the season and just about all of our defencemen are struggling. I would give them another few weeks of playing together but we really don't have that sort of luxury in a shortened season, so why not try a few new defensive pairings?

Edler - Hamhuis

Hamhuis is still playing good defence, Edler and Garrison both are not. Edler needs a safety net behind him in case he's caught out of position (which is often) and Hamhuis is far better at that than Garrison. Plus, Edler is far more physical and able to look after himself and Hamhuis - he doesn't need Garrison to watch his back. This way we also have 1 designated shooter as opposed to having Edler and Garrison fighting over a shot and both getting caught out of position when up the ice.

Garrison - Ballard

Ballard has played well so far and deserves better quality ice time. He and Garrison have had proven chemistry together in Florida already and their games complement each other PERFECTLY. Garrison is a big, physical guy who sits back whereas Ballard is a smaller, free-wheeling, great-skating defenceman.

Bieksa - Tanev

Bieksa has been brutal for us lately defensively, so hopefully our best defenceman in Tanev (yes that's right) can have a bit of a calming influence on him, similar to the way Salo did on Edler. Bieksa will be the designated offensive defenceman here, Tanev the guy who sits back to cover him, but ideally Bieksa will make less mistakes when paired with Tanev.

Thoughts? You could swap Tanev and Hamhuis for the same effect.


Those pairings might work and Ill love to see Ballard and Garrison, but really if our PP gets better then we will win.
The first PP line of Sedins and Kassian with Edler and Garrison is fine but the second PP is horrible.
Id like to see the second PP be like Burrows-Schroeder-Raymond/Hansen with Tanev and Hamhuis.
  • 0

Posted Image

THANKS TO VINTAGE CANUCK FOR THE AWESOME SIG!!


#27 "Bull" Horvat

"Bull" Horvat

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13

Posted 28 January 2013 - 12:14 PM

If anything, you put Hamhuis with Garrison as our shutdown pair.
That's usually the first pairing.
Second pairing is usually the scoring pair so let Edler play with Ballard, Ballard has great speed that can create great opportunities.
Have our safest defensemen, AKA Tanev with the inconsistent, wreckless Bieksa.
Nothing to lose here.

I honestly don't think LL LL RR is a bad idea as long they perform well.

Edited by HowWeiseAreYou, 28 January 2013 - 12:16 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#28 NP-4815162342

NP-4815162342

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 12:21 PM

Lol bieksa haters out this morning hamhuis and Edler and garrison have all been as bad these five they all also haven't played in nine months maybe there a little rusty maybe give them a break but i also agree Ballard and Tanev have been our best probably cause Tanev has played all year and Ballard is playing with Tanev
  • 1

#29 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,921 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 12:57 PM

So when certain players play like absolute crap (Bieksa, Hamhuis, and Edler so far) they need to be given all kinds of time to "work crap out" but when the 3rd pairing guys who wait patiently for their turn to get a shot play exponentially better you can't mess that up by giving them a bigger role or PP time to take advantage of their improved game?

No wonder this team loses in the playoffs to teams who give players ice time based on what they do not what they should do or the number on their jersey.......

When a team is playing this crappy defensively, does handedness on the pairings really mean much at all? No. It is simply an excuse to never hold Bieksa accountable. No one can suggest he looks like a top 4 dman so far this season based on his play. At least Hamhuis and Edler have put up some points though but they should not be granted immunity either.

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 28 January 2013 - 01:00 PM.

  • 0

#30 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:18 PM

I'm afraid I have gone further in another thread and now think KB3 should be traded if we can find a big stay at home ball crusher. He just appears to be too small to give the protection needed to our goalie. Lu lived with it but I suspect Cory will find it too difficult. So it's Bieksa or just as sadly Ballard for someone BIG.

MG missed his chance when Salo left as Garrison was too similar to what we have.

PS and putting Edler up there is not going to solve the problem.


Garrison is also considered a big, stay at home defenseman. He just has the big shot but he plays a different style than a puck moving D-man. I wouldn't consider Garrison a puck-moving offensive D-man like Ehrhoff so there is no point in getting rid of Bieksa to add another stay at home D when we already have Hamhuis and Tanev aside from Garrison. In the last couple of years we have got rid of Ehrhoff and Salo so I imagine the offensive output from our D will take a hit.
  • 0

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.