whytelight Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edlerberry Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Who would you trade Luongo, Edler and Kesler for? That's quite the package Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whytelight Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edlerberry Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahf149 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwnstar Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Aint nobody got time for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahf149 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 PS: I hate armchair GMS, because usually they know nothing about hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whytelight Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whytelight Posted February 1, 2013 Author Share Posted February 1, 2013 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* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maninthebox Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JelloIce Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 PS: I hate armchair GMS, because usually they know nothing about hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.