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

#31 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:22 PM

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


The stupidest suggestion that I've heard yet. Sit our best D-man so we can play BARKER, the guy who got cut from his AHL team due to poor defensive play and wasn't signed by the Oilers. Maybe we will do that when we decide to rebuild and get the number 1 draft pick.
  • 0

Posted Image


#32 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:24 PM

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.


Especially BARKER. The guy is 10X worse than Bieksa in his own zone.
  • 0

Posted Image


#33 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:29 PM

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


Vandermeer can play the forward position so we should get rid of Ebbett (tiny guy) and replace him with Malhotra while Vandermeer replaces one of the 4th liners (Weise). Then we can play with 7 D and have another enforcer in the mix along with Volpatti and Kassian. This should have been done in the Sharks game knowing how tough their team is.
  • 0

Posted Image


#34 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:31 PM

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.


Except as I pointed out Bieksa lacks the size imo to play top line. The bodies are getting bigger and bigger. KB looks like a midget out there trying to move some of these big guys.
I have never doubted his heart or his desire....................................... In fact as I said if it had been up to me we would NOT have signed Garrison. He's big but he has no devilment, push back threat about him. I don't see MG admit he made a mistake and move Garrison on that is why I say it needs to be KB3 or 4.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#35 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,076 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:21 PM

Tanev is really struggling, Ballard is covering up for some of it but I think we need Alberts in there at least once in a while. And get Edler back on his proper side!
  • 0

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#36 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,725 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:26 PM

Bieksa is our worst defenceman now imo, He's below average defensively sometimes, he's average offensively, he's average at bodychecking, average at skating, he's just good at fighting lol. He should be on our third pairing... he plays a lot better when he's pissed anyways. This is also coming from someone who's fav d-man used to be Bieksa....
  • 1

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#37 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:55 PM

So what about the defensive pairings on the PP and the PK?
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#38 CookieCrumbs

CookieCrumbs

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:55 PM

You're pretty frequent poster, so at least get them on their proper sides.
  • 0

#39 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:10 PM

Other than the two major give aways the Edler and Garrison pairing has not been as bad as the Hamhuis and Bieksa pairing. Keep Ballard and Tanev together and give them more ice time. Mix up the top four.

Edler Bieksa
Ballard Tanev
Hamhuis Garrison
  • 0

#40 LeanBeef

LeanBeef

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,200 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 11

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:13 PM

Other than the two major give aways the Edler and Garrison pairing has not been as bad as the Hamhuis and Bieksa pairing. Keep Ballard and Tanev together and give them more ice time. Mix up the top four.

Edler Bieksa
Ballard Tanev
Hamhuis Garrison

Edler-Bieksa will be subject to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.58 giveaways, doesn't sound like a good idea
  • 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

#41 c00kies

c00kies

    Cookie Monster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,238 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:23 PM

I agree:

Weber-Suter
Kronwall-Letang
Hamhuis-Tanev

This defense has chemistry, a good mix of hands, and a solid mix of offense and defense.
  • 0
Posted Image
Thanks to Blueberries for the sig :)

#42 "Bull" Horvat

"Bull" Horvat

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 530 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

Especially BARKER. The guy is 10X worse than Bieksa in his own zone.

The stupidest suggestion that I've heard yet. Sit our best D-man so we can play BARKER, the guy who got cut from his AHL team due to poor defensive play and wasn't signed by the Oilers. Maybe we will do that when we decide to rebuild and get the number 1 draft pick.

Vandermeer can play the forward position so we should get rid of Ebbett (tiny guy) and replace him with Malhotra while Vandermeer replaces one of the 4th liners (Weise). Then we can play with 7 D and have another enforcer in the mix along with Volpatti and Kassian. This should have been done in the Sharks game knowing how tough their team is.

You know there is the multi-quote button right? Reading you spam is ridiculous sometimes, no offense..
  • 0
Posted Image

#43 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:50 PM

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.


Playing the only two right handed shooting defense together means each pairing will have one D-man having to make plays on their backhand , making their job more difficult.
  • 0

#44 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 28 January 2013 - 05:09 PM

Except as I pointed out Bieksa lacks the size imo to play top line. The bodies are getting bigger and bigger. KB looks like a midget out there trying to move some of these big guys.
I have never doubted his heart or his desire....................................... In fact as I said if it had been up to me we would NOT have signed Garrison. He's big but he has no devilment, push back threat about him. I don't see MG admit he made a mistake and move Garrison on that is why I say it needs to be KB3 or 4.


We need a puck moving D-man if we are going to move one again. The Canucks simply can't afford to be reducing the number of their puck-movers or offensive D-men in the lineup. It would significantly change our style of game we play and could make our team worst. Having size is stupid if it creates a larger hole in our lineup. Also, size doesn't win us games, we have to also compliment it with skill and speed and puck moving ability. Otherwise we could just have a D core that consists of Vandermeer, Alberts, Mitchell, Rome etc.
  • 0

Posted Image


#45 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 28 January 2013 - 05:11 PM

Tanev is really struggling, Ballard is covering up for some of it but I think we need Alberts in there at least once in a while. And get Edler back on his proper side!


Are you sure you are watching the Canucks? Maybe you are just watching a different team named the Canucks lol!
  • 0

Posted Image


#46 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,725 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 28 January 2013 - 05:12 PM

Are you sure you are watching the Canucks? Maybe you are just watching a different team named the Canucks lol!


Lol, that's what I was thinking.
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#47 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

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

Posted 28 January 2013 - 05:13 PM

I agree:

Weber-Suter
Kronwall-Letang
Hamhuis-Tanev

This defense has chemistry, a good mix of hands, and a solid mix of offense and defense.


That would be a defense that dynasties are made of. Letang, Weber, Suter AND Hamhuis? ridiculous.
  • 0

Posted Image


#48 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,505 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 28 January 2013 - 05:32 PM

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.

These pairings are much more intelligently put together.
If the pairings were to be moved around, I'd like to see this.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#49 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,544 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:15 PM

Hamhuis - Tanev (Has worked really well in the past)
Ballard - Garrison
Edler - Bieksa (This one seems a little skeetch
  • 0




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.