Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 16 votes

Jason Garrison so far?


  • Please log in to reply
972 replies to this topic

#541 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 25 February 2013 - 06:51 PM

garrison will hold up better than salo in the playoffs. as long as he finds his game and is good defensively, it's all blah blah blah ;) fun though...
  • 0

#542 Kack Zassian

Kack Zassian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 12

Posted 25 February 2013 - 06:53 PM

3.75M/Y for 2 years, compared to 4.6M/Y over 6 years?

Yes I would of signed Salo to that contract he was our best D man, We always overlook our own players but overpay some florida slug like Ballard or Garrison to insane unjustified money.


I bet you Garrison is a better dman the next 2 years than Salo is.

Nothing against Salo, love the guy. Garrison > Salo
  • 1

#543 UFTcan

UFTcan

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 13

Posted 25 February 2013 - 07:12 PM

Garrison a +6,< Salo a +12


Better cap hit, and move leverage for when a real D-man comes available to sign aswell.

I really hope Garrison comes around cause lets admit that contract is not exactly trade friendly either.
  • 1

#544 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,443 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 25 February 2013 - 07:37 PM

The difference is Salo is probably done after the next season. So it's to different situations. Would love to see Gillis try to swing a move for Sami Salo this summer or even at next years trade deadline. That would be epic.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#545 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 25 February 2013 - 08:30 PM

*
POPULAR

Garrison a +6,< Salo a +12


Yeah, and stats always tell the whole truth. Let's look at some more.

Salo plays on a team which leads the NHL in goals for at 69, compared to Vancouver's 52.

TB is also 5th in goals differential, compared to Vancouver's 9th place.

Vancouver is currently 14th in goals against, compared to TB's 25th place.

Vancouver is 6-2-2 in their last ten games. TB is 3-6-1.

Vancouver is 1st in their division, 3rd in their conference and 6th in the NHL. TB is tied for 1st in their division, tied for 8th in their conference, and is 15th in the NHL.

I'll take all of those stats which are related to Garrison, thanks.


Better cap hit, and move leverage for when a real D-man comes available to sign aswell.


Also a 35+ contract, so if Salo were to retire this year, TB is on the hook for his salary for the remainder of his contract. That's still a bit of a risk in this new cap age. Also, Garrison at just under $1 million more than Salo is making is a very good deal.

As to leverage, what is your meaning here? It's a bit unclear to me. Do you mean that the extra (almost) $1 million is something which would be useful in signing another d-man? If so, what "real" d-man are you going to get for $1 million? I'm assuming you would pay Salo with the money Garrison is getting and that Garrison wouldn't be here at all, right? So where's the rest of money to get this real d-man going to come from? Or were you thinking you'd cast aside Salo when this real d-man came along? And what would you do with the salary cap associated with Salo, who also has a NMC, and a 35+ contract?

Or are you thinking you'll hold on to Salo for two years and hope a real d-man comes along at that time, who is willing to sign here? For around the same money that Garrison is currently getting? Yeah, I'm sure Weber would have signed here for that kind of cash.


I really hope Garrison comes around cause lets admit that contract is not exactly trade friendly either.


As mentioned, Salo has a NMC and a 35+ contract. There's "trade friendly" for you. Even without those factors, and even with his more cap friendly contract, I suspect that Garrison would be the more highly sough after player if each was placed on the trading block.


regards,
G.
  • 5
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#546 Jester13

Jester13

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,819 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 09

Posted 25 February 2013 - 08:37 PM

THIS^
  • 0

"Education is the inoculator for ignorance."


#547 Sandro17

Sandro17

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 09

Posted 25 February 2013 - 09:45 PM

THAT^
  • 0

#548 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,446 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 25 February 2013 - 09:53 PM

He brings with him some bad habits. It will take some time to teach him right. Sorta like my rescue dog...
  • 0
biggerabacus_zps5cae10b6.jpg

I got kicked out of the slut walk for trying to bid on the participants.

-BananaMash

#549 gaydar

gaydar

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:23 PM

Yeah, and stats always tell the whole truth. Let's look at some more.

Salo plays on a team which leads the NHL in goals for at 69, compared to Vancouver's 52.

TB is also 5th in goals differential, compared to Vancouver's 9th place.

Vancouver is currently 14th in goals against, compared to TB's 25th place.

Vancouver is 6-2-2 in their last ten games. TB is 3-6-1.

Vancouver is 1st in their division, 3rd in their conference and 6th in the NHL. TB is tied for 1st in their division, tied for 8th in their conference, and is 15th in the NHL.

I'll take all of those stats which are related to Garrison, thanks.




Also a 35+ contract, so if Salo were to retire this year, TB is on the hook for his salary for the remainder of his contract. That's still a bit of a risk in this new cap age. Also, Garrison at just under $1 million more than Salo is making is a very good deal.

As to leverage, what is your meaning here? It's a bit unclear to me. Do you mean that the extra (almost) $1 million is something which would be useful in signing another d-man? If so, what "real" d-man are you going to get for $1 million? I'm assuming you would pay Salo with the money Garrison is getting and that Garrison wouldn't be here at all, right? So where's the rest of money to get this real d-man going to come from? Or were you thinking you'd cast aside Salo when this real d-man came along? And what would you do with the salary cap associated with Salo, who also has a NMC, and a 35+ contract?

Or are you thinking you'll hold on to Salo for two years and hope a real d-man comes along at that time, who is willing to sign here? For around the same money that Garrison is currently getting? Yeah, I'm sure Weber would have signed here for that kind of cash.




As mentioned, Salo has a NMC and a 35+ contract. There's "trade friendly" for you. Even without those factors, and even with his more cap friendly contract, I suspect that Garrison would be the more highly sough after player if each was placed on the trading block.


regards,
G.


So Salo doesn't contribute to his team being 1st in Goals for and 5th in goal differential but Garrison's lofty play has meant so much to the Canucks 6th place record?
  • 2

#550 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:49 AM

So Salo doesn't contribute to his team being 1st in Goals for and 5th in goal differential but Garrison's lofty play has meant so much to the Canucks 6th place record?


Not my point, chum. Sure Salo has contributed to the goals which TB has scored, and him being +12 is reflection of that success. And look where they are in the standings.

What it comes down to is that the +/- stat, in this case, is not a true indicator of either player's contribution. They're both good players, but this is not the point. Salo is on a team which scores more but keeps out fewer goals than the Canucks, who have been scoring less than would be expected, in part due to injuries to Kesler and Booth, and the past under achievement in scoring by a number of Canucks, including Garrison.

I suspect that Garrison would easily be +12 were he to play several minutes a games with Stamkos.

However, Garrison has contributed to even greater team success (as witnessed by where the Canucks are in the standings). His defensive play, on a team which has up until the last couple of weeks been under achieveing in goals scored, is a big part of why the team is where they are. And that lack of scoring is why Garrison's +/- is where it is currently.

So which would you rather have, a d-man with a higher +/- on a team which is under-performing in the standings, or a d-man on a team which is underperforming in personal stats but is still doing very well in the standings? Garrison is part of the reason why the Canucks are where they are.

Could they be be in a better position if Garrison had scored more? Sure. As noted above, the Canucks would also likely be in a better position had they had Kesler and Booth since the first game of the season, or if the guys who were here were producing more. How would Salo's +/- look if TB didn't have their 2C or 2LW for the first 15 or so games of this season? Not quite as good would be my bet.

Give Garrison and the team some credit for what they have managed to accomplish thus far in this season. Or would you rather than Garrison had scored 10 more points but the team was borderline at making the playoffs?


regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 26 February 2013 - 12:50 AM.

  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#551 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,887 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:11 AM

Garrison: CDC over hyped and now just exposed.
  • 2

#552 gaydar

gaydar

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:57 AM

Not my point, chum. Sure Salo has contributed to the goals which TB has scored, and him being +12 is reflection of that success. And look where they are in the standings.

What it comes down to is that the +/- stat, in this case, is not a true indicator of either player's contribution. They're both good players, but this is not the point. Salo is on a team which scores more but keeps out fewer goals than the Canucks, who have been scoring less than would be expected, in part due to injuries to Kesler and Booth, and the past under achievement in scoring by a number of Canucks, including Garrison.

I suspect that Garrison would easily be +12 were he to play several minutes a games with Stamkos.

However, Garrison has contributed to even greater team success (as witnessed by where the Canucks are in the standings). His defensive play, on a team which has up until the last couple of weeks been under achieveing in goals scored, is a big part of why the team is where they are. And that lack of scoring is why Garrison's +/- is where it is currently.

So which would you rather have, a d-man with a higher +/- on a team which is under-performing in the standings, or a d-man on a team which is underperforming in personal stats but is still doing very well in the standings? Garrison is part of the reason why the Canucks are where they are.

Could they be be in a better position if Garrison had scored more? Sure. As noted above, the Canucks would also likely be in a better position had they had Kesler and Booth since the first game of the season, or if the guys who were here were producing more. How would Salo's +/- look if TB didn't have their 2C or 2LW for the first 15 or so games of this season? Not quite as good would be my bet.

Give Garrison and the team some credit for what they have managed to accomplish thus far in this season. Or would you rather than Garrison had scored 10 more points but the team was borderline at making the playoffs?


regards,
G.


I had no idea our only two options were a defenseman with better stats but a poor team record or a good team record with a very mediocre level free agent signing. Thank you for enlightening me, chum.
  • 1

#553 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,459 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:57 AM

I recommend all Garrison bashers to read Gollumpus' last two posts. Spells it out very well.
  • 2
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#554 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:20 AM

How many goals was Garrison on for in the Detroit game? Had to be atleast 5...
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#555 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,308 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:18 AM

How many goals was Garrison on for in the Detroit game? Had to be atleast 5...

You should take the advice of the poster above you - not even Gollumpus' posts but others as well since it's already been noted Garrison had a +/- of 0 last game. Even if he were on the ice for "atleast 5" Detroit goals, that isibn't strictly an indicator of Garrison's ability. For instance, he was on the ice for the first Detroit goal by Tootoo, but he clearly had Tootoo well defended and forced a shot from the outside at a very bad angle. It's not his fault it went off Ballard and in.

Before you make a reactionary post with no basis in fact, I'd suggest doing a little research at least beforehand. That is partly a reason why this thread exists reactions to a perception that isn't really based in fact.
  • 2

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#556 Patrick Kane

Patrick Kane

    Assistant to Regional Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,327 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 08

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:37 AM

I find Garrison has too many expectations offensively. Throw in the fact he hasn't been a rock defensively, hes definitely going to be criticized.

I really hope he can shift his focus towards his defensive game and play like he did prior to his 16 goal year breakout. (Big minutes, top pairing shut-down defender)

Not every defenseman needs to be a 40+ defenseman. Look at Chicago. Seabrook, Hjalmarsson, Oduya and Rozsival are all good defenders. The points will come for them, as long as they play strong defensively.
  • 3


You will be missed.


#557 higgyfan

higgyfan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,634 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:10 AM

Salo was one of the Nucks best Ds over the past few years, but I think was getting precariously close to a career ending injury. He is lucky to be playing in a soft division. If he was still in the WC, I would wager that he wouldn't fulfill his contract.

Garrison looks to be a very solid player. I suspect he will have fewer injuries than any of our D. He's a massive guy, who will be very effective in the playoffs. The goalie will love him.

Given time, I think his fantastic shot will be utilized a lot. It will be a real surprise to unsuspecting teams.
  • 2

#558 Kassian's Face

Kassian's Face

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 11

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:18 AM

Hey relax! We got Tanev and Ballard, they got this guys.

Garrison has been one of our bottom 4 defensemen in terms of skill as of late, but then again so have Edler and Bieksa and Hamhuis, so I think he is right on track for his salary. Now Tanev for $900,000, thats a freaking good deal.
  • 0

#559 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:27 PM

You should take the advice of the poster above you - not even Gollumpus' posts but others as well since it's already been noted Garrison had a +/- of 0 last game. Even if he were on the ice for "atleast 5" Detroit goals, that isibn't strictly an indicator of Garrison's ability. For instance, he was on the ice for the first Detroit goal by Tootoo, but he clearly had Tootoo well defended and forced a shot from the outside at a very bad angle. It's not his fault it went off Ballard and in.

Before you make a reactionary post with no basis in fact, I'd suggest doing a little research at least beforehand. That is partly a reason why this thread exists reactions to a perception that isn't really based in fact.

So he was on for Tootoo's goal which may have been a fluke off Ballard but Garrison looked pretty flat footed after Tootoo got around him when Garrison stopped skating, then 2 of 3 PP goals (Cleary was his man and Cleary scored, then he fell and spun as the Detroit player scored the 3rd PP goal), then just standing there on the 8th goal where he skates over to cover a guy who is already covered.... Sure he was on for Sedin's second goal in which he was just standing there and didn't contribute to the goal so yay free +1, same thing with Higgins goal he was on ice but didn't contribute just standing at the blue line.

Now does this mean he is a bad player? No. But he sure had a bad game. Cause for concern? Maybe.
  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image

#560 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:53 PM

I had no idea our only two options were a defenseman with better stats but a poor team record or a good team record with a very mediocre level free agent signing. Thank you for enlightening me, chum.


Once again the point appears to have gone right over your head. Maybe standing up while you re-read my posts will help? :P


I'll make it easy.

1.) Salo on high scoring team = better chance that Salo has high +/-.

Garrison on lower scoring team = lesser chance that he will have a high +/-.

Suggesting that Salo is doing "better" based on +/- is not a very reliable piece of information (in this case) on which to base an argument of one being better than the other.


2.) Garrison *not* scoring as much as some folks believed he should, but still providing a very strong defensive presence is more important to the Canucks than Salo's contribution to the TB offense (more assists). Not saying Salo wouldn't provide an important contribution to the Canucks were he here, but he's not here. And other people should perhaps review their own expectations of Garrison rather than just assume that he was the next Bobby Coffey, Paul Orr. or Jason Garrison (v.2012).

The point is that what Garrison is contributing to the Canucks is more valuable than what Salo is contributing to TB. Once again, not saying Salo isn't contributing there, or that he wouldn't contribute were he here. However, increased points from Salo =/= improved team success to TB. If someone wants to use some stats to make a point, you should assume that other stats will be brought up to counter that point.


3.) Canucks being higher in the standings, while scoring fewer goals than TB, and allowing way fewer goals than TB > TB scoring lots of goals, being a borderline playoff team and having players like Salo with a high +/-. Further, with the team coming back to full strength, there is a greater chance that the Canucks will start to score more goals, and combined with the greater ability to prevent goals, could very likely result in a much higher finish in the standings for the Canucks than they currently enjoy over TB.


regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#561 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:55 PM

How many goals was Garrison on for in the Detroit game? Had to be atleast 5...


Maybe check that boxscore: http://canucks.nhl.c...m?id=2012020264


regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#562 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,990 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:24 PM

People keep bringing up Salo. Problem with him was, he was great at the beginning of every year, but always ended up getting injured, and in the last couple years (since his achilles injury) he wore down as the season went on.

In 2010-11, Salo came back strong after injury, scoring 3 goals and 3 assists in his first 14 games. But after that, he went cold offensively. There was that one game against San Jose where Salo got to tee them up on 5-on-3s for half the game. But if you take that one game out, Salo had only 3 points in 33 games. He was decent defensively, but far from a shutdown, minute-munching defenseman.

Then again in 2011-12, Salo started very strong. He had 6 goals and 8 assists in his first 24 games. But then, once again, he went cold. He had only 3 goals and 8 assists in his last 50 games, and had nothing in the 5 playoff games. By this point, even his defensive abilities were becoming suspect, and he was a team worst -3.

The facts show that, at his age, Salo gets less and less effective as the season wears on. Maybe he'll continue to maintain his game this year, with the longer offseason, shorter season, and easier travel in Tampa. However, when that contract was signed, the shorter season was an unknown. And next season? Who knows if he'll even play? But his cap hit will count regardless.

So anyone who claims that Salo was our best defenseman must have not been watching the games that mattered most. Also, anyone who says they would have rather given him a 2-year contract rather than sign on an up-and-coming D-man in his prime, who in his 3rd season scored more goals than Salo EVER managed to in ANY of his 13 years in the league...well, I would question their judgement.
  • 2
Posted Image

#563 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:22 PM

Maybe check that boxscore: http://canucks.nhl.c...m?id=2012020264


regards,
G.

Yeah boxscore didn't say so I watched the highlights. On for 4 Detroit goals (looked bad on 3 of them) and on for 2 Canucks goals where he contributed exactly nothing to the play.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#564 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,308 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:27 PM

So he was on for Tootoo's goal which may have been a fluke off Ballard but Garrison looked pretty flat footed after Tootoo got around him when Garrison stopped skating, then 2 of 3 PP goals (Cleary was his man and Cleary scored, then he fell and spun as the Detroit player scored the 3rd PP goal), then just standing there on the 8th goal where he skates over to cover a guy who is already covered.... Sure he was on for Sedin's second goal in which he was just standing there and didn't contribute to the goal so yay free +1, same thing with Higgins goal he was on ice but didn't contribute just standing at the blue line.

Now does this mean he is a bad player? No. But he sure had a bad game. Cause for concern? Maybe.

Ah, so you're happy to say he didn't contribute anything to our goals by being on the ice, but quick to point out how badly he looked on the Tootoo goal (despite doing his job and keeping Tootoo on the outside) even though it was a fluke deflection. No blame for Ballard and Luongo on that play too, since Ballard clearly shouldn't have been in the slot since it could be a potential shooting lane from the corner, and Luongo should have been able to react to it regardless? I'm sure the rest of your analysis is just as irrefutable.

People keep bringing up Salo. Problem with him was, he was great at the beginning of every year, but always ended up getting injured, and in the last couple years (since his achilles injury) he wore down as the season went on.
...

Absolutely, he'll see the same effects in Tampa due to this shortened season. He's doing great now, but potential for injuries was always there with us as was having to keep him fresh with reduced minutes or risk him wearing down when it came to playoffs.
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#565 FutureNHLGm

FutureNHLGm

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 193 posts
  • Joined: 25-February 13

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:37 PM

The guy's not fitting into our system. Give him until the trade deadline and if he doesn't fit in, trade him. Easy as that.
  • 0

#566 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,459 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:49 PM

The guy's not fitting into our system. Give him until the trade deadline and if he doesn't fit in, trade him. Easy as that.


Forgetting the fact that it's not all that "easy" to trade players, it's a bad idea anyway. Even the trade deadline is too small a sample size to decide whether or not to keep a player. It took Ballard two years to make an impact with the Canucks.If Gillis had been as impatient as many here on CDC, (including "future GMs") he would have given Ballard up for virtually nothing.
  • 1
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#567 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:54 PM

Ah, so you're happy to say he didn't contribute anything to our goals by being on the ice, but quick to point out how badly he looked on the Tootoo goal (despite doing his job and keeping Tootoo on the outside) even though it was a fluke deflection. No blame for Ballard and Luongo on that play too, since Ballard clearly shouldn't have been in the slot since it could be a potential shooting lane from the corner, and Luongo should have been able to react to it regardless? I'm sure the rest of your analysis is just as irrefutable.

Umm he didn't contribute anything to either goal.

And he got caught flat footed on the Tootoo goal, stopped moving his feet and just reached in. All Ballard did was have the puck bounce in off his backside and from that angle yes Ballard should be in the slot because a Detroit player was there...it's called covering your man. Right play, bad bounce. Why blame Luongo at all for that he likely didn't have a chance with such a fluke deflection. It wasn't Garrison's worst play of the game by any means - as you say he did keep Tootoo to the outside...nevertheless if he had kept moving his feet Tootoo wouldn't have got around him and gotten a shot so easily.

You're pretty sure of yourself for not reading the rest of my argument. Garrison did not have a good game. If you think I'm wrong explain why he had a great game. I'm interested to know how someone can be on the ice for 4 goals a game and have it considered one of his good games...
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#568 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:55 PM

The guy's not fitting into our system. Give him until the trade deadline and if he doesn't fit in, trade him. Easy as that.

He does have a cannon from the point. I like that he's not afraid to shoot. Even though he only has 2 goals in 18 games he's not afraid to get the puck to the net. Goals will go in eventually. I'm just hoping he settles in a little bit better on the back end. He hasn't been horrible this year but also not worth more than a couple million at most.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#569 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:11 PM

Yeah boxscore didn't say so I watched the highlights. On for 4 Detroit goals (looked bad on 3 of them) and on for 2 Canucks goals where he contributed exactly nothing to the play.


Couldn't have been on for 4 against. The boxscore indicates that he was "0" for the game. If the Canucks only scored 3 goals then the most that Garrison could have been on for is 3.

Not disputing that he had a bad game (like a lot of other guys), just pointing out an inaccuracy. :)

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#570 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,773 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:14 PM

The guy's not fitting into our system. Give him until the trade deadline and if he doesn't fit in, trade him. Easy as that.


Yeah, if I recall, people used to say that about that Ballard guy. I also have a recollection that Salo had some question marks about him when he first got here.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.




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.