Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Canuck observations


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 whytelight

whytelight

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:21 PM

Just a couple of thoughts on the Canucks and a little about the future of hockey here:

While watching the VAN/LA game, I watched in awe at wave after wave of a tenacious LA forecheck. There was a shift or two where our VAN D could not get the puck from behind our own net because LA had two and sometimes three guys hounding our D. That was embarrassing. More embarrassing is the fact that we had no answer. Shouldn't AV change strategy and say, "...hey, we need and answer to that.." When a 6'4" 225lb D is slamming our 6'1" 195lb forwards into the end boards, where is our response? So far, I've seen none. What makes it more hard to watch.....is that there were plenty of opportunities to lay a LA forward against the end boards but our players backed off.......why???

Another observation I am having, is that I'm feeling that there is no urgency on our current playing style. It seems too patient, calculated, measured, and at times, predictable. Sorry to say....but boring. I hope our team is just saving it for the playoffs; I don't like how we are just sitting back and hoping to not get scored on.

Thirdly, I am sad to say that unless teams can match the physical brute strength of their opposition, thy have little chance of success. I'm looking at the teams that are "beefing up" for the playoffs. They are becoming teams stocked with 6'3" and 6'4" 210+lb guys. They know that if you hit enough with big bodies, the other team will have to submit no matter how fast or skilled they are. It is a sad reality. Winning is just about physical domination, not about speed or skill anymore.

I don't like how people are talking about trades for RL. They keep proposing Luongo, Raymond, Ballard for XXX, YYY, and ZZZ. No one wants our spare small parts. The teams that have been successful in the past have traded their BIG names and BIG stars. Teams want quality in return. We want a few big talented bodies for our team? Guess what? We'll be giving up Luongo, Edler, and Kesler (or similar package) for a big talented forward and a big talented #1 or #2 D. We have to expect to loose a lot to gain a lot.
  • 0

#2 Edlerberry

Edlerberry

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,245 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

Who would you trade Luongo, Edler and Kesler for? That's quite the package
  • 0
July 7-2013

Toronto will take a step back next year.
Feel free to quote me.


July 8-2013

Wow I can't believe peoples replies...
Im done here. You people are disgusting..


#3 Jester13

Jester13

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,615 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 09

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:16 PM

thx
  • 0

#4 whytelight

whytelight

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

Well, this is not in the TandP forum, but I would expect to get a first line centre with Crosby-like talents and a D with Lidstrom-like talents.
  • 0

#5 Edlerberry

Edlerberry

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,245 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:44 PM

OK. Who other than Crosby has Crosby-like talents? What D has Lidstrom-like talents? On the same team I'd presume, since that's a package you put together for one trade right?

I cant wait to hear what we could get back!
  • 0
July 7-2013

Toronto will take a step back next year.
Feel free to quote me.


July 8-2013

Wow I can't believe peoples replies...
Im done here. You people are disgusting..


#6 ahf149

ahf149

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 06

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:55 PM

No response? 7 fights in 7 games? This team is tougher than any team we seen in a while. Umm, I stopped reading after the first sentence *shrugs*
  • 0
Life is short, LIVE IT

#7 pwnstar

pwnstar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,308 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:57 PM

Aint nobody got time for that
  • 1

Posted Image


#8 ahf149

ahf149

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 06

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:57 PM

PS: I hate armchair GMS, because usually they know nothing about hockey.
  • 0
Life is short, LIVE IT

#9 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,678 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:12 PM

I agree to some extent, I don't think we should be trading Kesler or Edler though.

LA and San Jose made us look like little girls with all their big guys. I'm sure we could beat them in a game, but in a 7 game series where they would wear us down like LA and Boston did to us in the playoffs I don't see us coming out victorious.

Even when Kesler and Booth come back it doesn't make us that much tougher, Kesler is a warrior but he can only do so much and he won't be in beast mode like the Nashville series after all these injuries and surgeries.

We made it to the cup finals, yes, but most teams have improved and gotten bigger and tougher since then.

We need atleast one more big tough guy who can play in our bottom 6. It will make our team a lot harder to play against, give them more confidence in the physical department and it will let Kassian play his game without having to always worry about defending everyone.

Our defense is also small, our toughest and grittiest guys are Bieksa and Ballard and they are too small to intimidate or lay punishing body checks.

People can say we're fine because we've fought a bunch of times this year, but every team has always said we're one of the softest teams to play against and the most easy to intimidate. Kassian isn't going to solve that problem by himself and Volpatti isn't a heavy weight nor does he play enough to have a big enough impact.

Edited by TheGame., 31 January 2013 - 06:13 PM.

  • 1

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#10 whytelight

whytelight

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:31 PM

Thanks, TheGame. Who is AV going to take out to put in Vandermeer? He will make our line-up tougher but the quality of our line-up poorer. That is the trouble. We have no tough guys with enough skill to better our team.

Edited by whytelight, 31 January 2013 - 06:33 PM.

  • 0

#11 whytelight

whytelight

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:32 PM

No response? 7 fights in 7 games? This team is tougher than any team we seen in a while. Umm, I stopped reading after the first sentence *shrugs*



Good point. I guess we'll have to see their response after a two day break.
  • 0

#12 MattJVD

MattJVD

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 11

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:34 PM

Just a couple of thoughts on the Canucks and a little about the future of hockey here:

While watching the VAN/LA game, I watched in awe at wave after wave of a tenacious LA forecheck. There was a shift or two where our VAN D could not get the puck from behind our own net because LA had two and sometimes three guys hounding our D. That was embarrassing. More embarrassing is the fact that we had no answer. Shouldn't AV change strategy and say, "...hey, we need and answer to that.." When a 6'4" 225lb D is slamming our 6'1" 195lb forwards into the end boards, where is our response? So far, I've seen none. What makes it more hard to watch.....is that there were plenty of opportunities to lay a LA forward against the end boards but our players backed off.......why???

Another observation I am having, is that I'm feeling that there is no urgency on our current playing style. It seems too patient, calculated, measured, and at times, predictable. Sorry to say....but boring. I hope our team is just saving it for the playoffs; I don't like how we are just sitting back and hoping to not get scored on.

Thirdly, I am sad to say that unless teams can match the physical brute strength of their opposition, thy have little chance of success. I'm looking at the teams that are "beefing up" for the playoffs. They are becoming teams stocked with 6'3" and 6'4" 210+lb guys. They know that if you hit enough with big bodies, the other team will have to submit no matter how fast or skilled they are. It is a sad reality. Winning is just about physical domination, not about speed or skill anymore.

I don't like how people are talking about trades for RL. They keep proposing Luongo, Raymond, Ballard for XXX, YYY, and ZZZ. No one wants our spare small parts. The teams that have been successful in the past have traded their BIG names and BIG stars. Teams want quality in return. We want a few big talented bodies for our team? Guess what? We'll be giving up Luongo, Edler, and Kesler (or similar package) for a big talented forward and a big talented #1 or #2 D. We have to expect to loose a lot to gain a lot.


What would you say about about the 2010 Blackhawks then? Sure they had Bug Buf, but other than him, what big brutes did they have in their line-up? Buf wasn't playing 60 minutes a game. And their top scorers? Toews 6'2" 205 lbs 29 pts, Kane 5'11" 181 lbs 28 pts, Sharp 6'1" 199 lbs 22 pts, Keith 6'1" 200 lbs 17 pts.

Philly's defense was bigger and tougher than the Hawks forwards, but the Halks beat them with speed and skill. You have to have a ballance of size, grit, talent, and speed. Not just a tonne of huge bruisers. 1 per line in the top 6 and maybe 2 per line in the bottem 6 seems to be ideal.
  • 3

#13 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,678 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:46 PM

Thanks, TheGame. Who is AV going to take out to put in Vandermeer? He will make our line-up tougher but the quality of our line-up poorer. That is the trouble. We have no tough guys with enough skill to better our team.


Yeah i don't know really, Malholtras face offs are valuable, taking Volpatti out for Vandermeer puts us in the same position, maybe Weise when we play a bigger team?
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#14 Maninthebox

Maninthebox

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:15 PM

LA is an interesting comparable, as man to man (at the forward positions) they tend to have 2 inches and close to 20lbs over the Canucks. St Louis seems like a big team but Backes is the only real beast. A quick look through the six western teams I think of as bigger doesn't really show much discrepancy, other than Shroeder and Ebbett squeaking in at 5'8 and 5'9.

Our D aren't really small at all...

I get what you're saying and I've occasionally felt we need to get bigger as well, but I really don't think it's ever been a size issue.
  • 0

#15 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,678 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:25 PM

LA is an interesting comparable, as man to man (at the forward positions) they tend to have 2 inches and close to 20lbs over the Canucks. St Louis seems like a big team but Backes is the only real beast. A quick look through the six western teams I think of as bigger doesn't really show much discrepancy, other than Shroeder and Ebbett squeaking in at 5'8 and 5'9.

Our D aren't really small at all...

I get what you're saying and I've occasionally felt we need to get bigger as well, but I really don't think it's ever been a size issue.


Yeah I guess that's true, I just don't want to play LA or Boston again in the playoffs with the lineup we have lol.
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#16 JelloIce

JelloIce

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 12

Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:22 PM

I don't think it's size more than it is attitude. As the posters above have said, physically we're not exactly overly lacking. Yes, compared to some teams we do lack a few inches and pounds here and there but it's not like 6 feet grizzlies versus 3 feet playground kids. The team's style is about taking space and making the most use of it, but in terms of MAKING space we fall short. Our players fit into the system as players with more vision than they have grit and physicality.

For instance, the Sedins' "toughness" is often debated over. However, the Sedins are not exactly what you would call physically small players. (Well, they're not huge either). There are plenty of players the same size as the Sedins that would much rather hit someone instead of holding their position on the ice. Whereas the Sedins would much rather get into open spaces and hold onto the puck where necessary rather than throwing a check to put someone else out of position. They value their own positioning and vision more than they value that of the opposition's. It takes a different kind of toughness to just let other players hit them while maintaining possession. But of course, when you see it on the tellie, it looks "soft". Next time you get into a fight, don't do anything and just give him "free hits". Let's see how long it takes before you lash out. It's like playing bloody knuckles where it's never your turn.

Anyways, when this mentality of positioning/vision > hitting trickles down, it affects the team's attitude and style. Kassian is a great addition because it changes the look of our first line. Burrows was not a physical presence on the first line and that mentality trickled down. Now that the first line is more physical, the trickle down effect will also change the team's attitude to be more physical. However, if you really wanted to clearly change the dimension of this team into something more physical, the simple and honest answer is that you'd have to trade the Sedins.
  • 1

#17 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:41 PM

The only thing I can dredge out of that sewage OP there is that AV is a crappy coach because there is no urgency. Nothing but "business as usual". But I've only been saying that for years, so...


moving on...
  • 0
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

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

#18 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:00 AM

Just like a previous poster said, this years version has been the toughest collectively that I have seen in a while. Add Vandermeer to that mix.....
  • 0
Posted Image

#19 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:01 AM

PS: I hate armchair GMS, because usually they know nothing about hockey.


You know what I hate?
Guys who instead of giving the OP some respect and at least giving him a thought out response to his points, try to be smart and write fatuous one liners.

He is not being outrageous and he isn't pretending to be a GM he is only trying to start a discussion. It's his 17th post and no doubt he thought quite a bit about it but none of that counts for jack crap on here with the idiots who prowl these boards looking for victims and trying to look smart.

What was your last thread, may I ask? Never mind, I looked..................dear me, way to go hockey expert!

As for the OP I think the guy has got some valid points and down the line we will find we do STILL need to get bigger.

We do need to up our intensity and that is not something turned on like a tap.

As for his last para, just because he can't come up with names doesn't mean his point isn't valid. As I say he is not pretending to be a GM.
There is hardly one player that has not come in for a battering on here.........even the Sedins, as I recall after the SCF so there is no doubt the only thing that would matter to our fans in the end is what the incoming player did for us.

That said we are blessed with quite a few players that other teams might covet so in a way MG is in a stronger position to get what we need. Unlike the OP it is his job, he is very highly paid and he has an army of scouts and assistants to help him.

It is early days and the Lu deal if it happens might be what we are needing. I hope it is because last year's SC performance was a bit of an eye opener and our window is closing.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#20 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:14 AM

"I don't think it's size more than it is attitude. As the posters above have said, physically we're not exactly overly lacking. Yes, compared to some teams we do lack a few inches and pounds here and there but it's not like 6 feet grizzlies versus 3 feet playground kids. The team's style is about taking space and making the most use of it, but in terms of MAKING space we fall short. Our players fit into the system as players with more vision than they have grit and physicality."

I agree with what you are saying but I feel what is worrying the OP is what gets said on here time and again.

The difference though is that in a war of attrition, best of 7 campaign that is the SC if you are playing that team who has inches and pounds on you night after night, it kills you.

If not in that playoff then maybe in the next .........or the next. Then perish the thought you meet a team like Boston in the Finals when you are men short, guys with torn shoulders and broken fingers and players who are fatigued.

It is surely obvious now that if you have a team built and fashioned along the present Canucks lines, you have to have game changers. You can't rely on a goalie to take you all the way. Our offence dries up and we don't have the muscle to compensate.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#21 MyNameIsTom

MyNameIsTom

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Joined: 22-December 11

Posted 01 February 2013 - 06:30 AM

People complain about how the game isn't about skill anymore, just physical domination. Then people complain about how the team can't score, and how they're not as skilled anymore.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you people are going to complain no matter what.
  • 0

#22 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,030 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:38 AM

Well, this is not in the TandP forum, but I would expect to get a first line centre with Crosby-like talents and a D with Lidstrom-like talents.


Name names. If you can't figure out/identify them, maybe that's part of the problem? You can't simply dream up or pull players like that out of thin air and the teams that have them usually want to hang on to them.
  • 0

Posted Image


#23 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:43 AM

Name names. If you can't figure out/identify them, maybe that's part of the problem? You can't simply dream up or pull players like that out of thin air and the teams that have them usually want to hang on to them.


Yes I'm sure everyone wants to hold onto their stars but not every star is happy, or settled. Many teams with a star just can't function for the lack of 2/3 pieces. Take Brad Richards for example (he is certainly not big but he changes games) he went to NYR as a UFA. He signed for about $6.5/ . Now I'm not saying he would have come here, but I wonder if we had offered TBL Booth, Ballard + they might have talked. Similarly Mike Richards went to Philly for Simmonds, Schenn and a 2nd.......could we seriously not matched that?

I agree no one knows who GM is talking to and he may have tried to get Richards for all I know but sometimes it gets down to judgement, you give a bit more than you think the other guy is worth because he is worth EVEN more in his affect on your team.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#24 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:39 PM

I would love to add more size to the team a Brian Boyle would be perfect in the bottom six. Have no idea of who we could give up to get him. I would risk giving Evgeny Artyukhin another chance at the nhl.

Lapierre Boyle Artyukhin would be a defenceman's nightmare on the forecheck.
  • 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.