Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

FutureNHLGm

Canucks need a new look.

271 posts in this topic

And if that better option has trouble adjusting you're back to square one.

That's exactly why Schultz didn't sign here. He wanted a guaranteed spot in the top four. Something virtually guaranteed in Edmonton as opposed to having to earn it in Vancouver.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, you're back to square one but rather take a chance on someone else than have a guy who messes up every pairing he's in and hasn't adjusted to the system.

It's a good system that you have to earn your spot. If we signed Schultz, players like Tanev wouldn't be playing right now regardless of how hard they worked.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanev - 18 1 2 3 +3 8PIM stay at home defender, little PP time.

Schultz - 18 4 6 10 -6 2PIM offensive defender, PP specialist.

If you're looking for straight offense, Schultz might be your man. If you're looking for an all-round defenceman, I'd take Tanev, right now. The key stat for me is Schultz is -6 to Tanev's +3 with Schultz playing lots of his minutes on the PP.

Schultz may well be better in the future, but, right now, I'm quite happy with what Tanev brings on a nightly basis.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Bachelor of Sports Management and am currently working within the Sound Tigers organization. What do you have?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanev - 18 1 2 3 +3 8PIM stay at home defender, little PP time.

Schultz - 18 4 6 10 -6 2PIM offensive defender, PP specialist.

If you're looking for straight offense, Schultz might be your man. If you're looking for an all-round defenceman, I'd take Tanev, right now. The key stat for me is Schultz is -6 to Tanev's +3 with Schultz playing lots of his minutes on the PP.

Schultz may well be better in the future, but, right now, I'm quite happy with what Tanev brings on a nightly basis.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, same here. Tanev has worked his ass off to get where he is and if a guy like Schultz came in and took his spot regardless of how good he is or how much he's proved, he'd be livid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take Schultz every day of the week. Nothing against Tanev, but Schultz is the real deal.

Also, regarding +/-, Edmonton is a team -8 and Vancouver a team +6 so that plays heavily into it.

Justin Schultz has also been a positive possession player on a weak Edmonton team

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who spends his time on Canuck's Message Boards during work hours!

No wonder the Islanders suck ass!

:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would trade Tanev for Shultz in a heart beat. I like Tanev alot, but Shultz has superstar written all over him. He will be great for years to come.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, same here. Tanev has worked his ass off to get where he is and if a guy like Schultz came in and took his spot regardless of how good he is or how much he's proved, he'd be livid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Schultz would be a good addition, Tanev is the exact sort of guy we need. He plays a simple defensive game and doesn't make a lot of mistakes. He's the guy I'd rather be going into the playoffs with.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused.

You say you would play Tanev over Schultz here ^^, but, at the top of this page you say Tanev "wouldn't be playing regardless of how hard he works" if Schultz were here?

:blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the flu currently and am off. Do have my phone handy though ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that's why I wouldn't want him. And if Schultz was here, we'd have to play him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would sit Ballard over Tanev, though, wouldn't you. Weren't you saying something in your OP about defenders playing their "right sides"?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schultz and Tanev are both righties. We might of been able to keep him if we got rid of Ballard, Hamhuis or Edler but with the way Ballard and Tanev are playing right now, I don't think I'd rather have Schultz. At the time when Ballard wasn't doing well would I rather have Schultz? Hell yeah but look at how he's playing now. This is why I proposed getting rid of Garrison but everyone freaked out at me because we just signed him but he seems to not be fitting into our system yet. If I were Gillis, I'd give him to the trade deadline to adjust or he's gone. Can't have someone like that messing up in the playoffs and looking out of place.

Or, you know, we could keep Ballard/Garrison and have him as depth but I don't know how badly they'd react to being in the press box.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused.

You say you would play Tanev over Schultz here ^^, but, at the top of this page you say Tanev "wouldn't be playing regardless of how hard he works" if Schultz were here?

:blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.