Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Jim Vandermeer

Discussion

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#31 Blackberries

Blackberries

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,726 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 07

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:46 AM

This is because you have watched him in Chicago........yes?

Vandermeer has been very ordinary in Chicago too, as was Tanev.............so maybe we should totally ignore Chicago form.



Black aces generally don't play and there is no limit, why not give the kid something special... incentive for him to work towards.

The Wolves have caused a bit of damage in the development of our prospects, its so obvious. Thank God we got our own team now.
  • 0

OXwjSoG.gif
 


#32 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:54 AM

I truly hope that Schroeder gets the call as he has proven himself to be a far greater asset than Ebbett.

I think that Vandermeer is as valuable an asset as Sestito or Pinnizotto. He is far tougher than either player and can play both defense and forward. Having him on a fourth line with Lapierre and Weise/Pinnizotto/Sestito would be a great idea. That is if Lapierre is the fourth line centre.
  • 0
Posted Image

#33 Fred65

Fred65

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,256 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 10

Posted 27 April 2013 - 12:04 PM

IMO one of AV achilles heels and it's not a big thing, he won't play any one incapable of putting up points. He gives no credence to the term intimidation. Which from my perspective is a flaw in AV make up. There's nothing wrong with being the hammer rather than the nail occasionally. AV's thinking is rigid or brittle, he won't stray to far with his game plan, it's about a plan and execution.....even when it's clearly not working. He may switch the lines up but he sticks to his "plan" but the process, process process that is #1 for AV. And hey why not it's been pretty successful for a good run. If the plan needs to change in the future I suspect you'll first need to fire AV
  • 1

#34 SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,376 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 08

Posted 27 April 2013 - 01:06 PM

No surprise that Vandermeer never got the call during the regular season. A couple games with the team wasn't really going to yield much information or change anyone's mind about what kind of player he is.

Vandermeer is a 33-year-old veteran with 9 seasons of NHL experience and nearly 500 games played in the bigs. We pretty much know what he can do and what he can't do. It's the "what he can't do" that likely kept him in Chicago.

The Canucks employ a highly demanding system for their defensemen and they basically require every D to be able to play a hybrid game where they can be used in every and all situations. Every defenseman on the Canucks needs to have strong puckmoving skills and needs to have good (or, at a minimum, passable) skating and mobility. Basically, they need to have top-four potential, meaning that they could, if needed, play 20 minutes per game, play special teams, and play a three-zone game during even strength. The Canucks require their Ds to be able to make strong breakout passes, be capable of delivering an accurate stretch pass, to skate well enough to join the rush, be able to pinch in the O-zone, move down to maintain offensive possession, and have the positioning and mobility to get back into position after a loss of possession.

Basically, while each of the Ds have their strengths and weaknesses, all are capable of playing a variety of game styles, from shutdown to offensive (to varying effects, of course, but almost every Canucks D has decent versatility), and to be able to shift from one style to another depending on game situations and the forward group they are playing with. That's why a guy like Dan Hamhuis might switch from playing a stay-at-home style with a bottom-six group to playing an highly offensive-minded style with the Sedin line (and possession).

Probably the D who brings something closest to Vandermeer's game (albeit lacking the same kind of pugilistic ability) is Alberts and, while Alberts can be that physical, stay-at-home guy, he can also skate fairly well and moves the puck better than most give him credit for (he's worked hard on improving his puckmoving and mobility since his arrival). Alberts has more than one side to his game and that's why he gets used on this team. Vandermeer only really has one side to his game and that's why he didn't get used.

That said, if the Canucks find themselves in a series where they feel they need someone with Vandermeer's gifts, they'll have him available. However, to actually use Vandermeer (beyond maybe 5 minutes per game), they'll pretty much need to change the systems they employ for that five-man unit (while he's on-ice) because I really don't think that Vandermeer can hang with the Canucks' typical gameplan and playing style.

And yeah, while guys like Barker or Joslin aren't the perfect matches for the Canucks' systems on D, they also aren't nearly as "one note" of players as Jim Vandermeer (not saying that that "note" doesn't sound good when it's played at the right moment ;)).
  • 0

#35 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 27 April 2013 - 03:42 PM

No surprise that Vandermeer never got the call during the regular season. A couple games with the team wasn't really going to yield much information or change anyone's mind about what kind of player he is.

Vandermeer is a 33-year-old veteran with 9 seasons of NHL experience and nearly 500 games played in the bigs. We pretty much know what he can do and what he can't do. It's the "what he can't do" that likely kept him in Chicago.

The Canucks employ a highly demanding system for their defensemen and they basically require every D to be able to play a hybrid game where they can be used in every and all situations. Every defenseman on the Canucks needs to have strong puckmoving skills and needs to have good (or, at a minimum, passable) skating and mobility. Basically, they need to have top-four potential, meaning that they could, if needed, play 20 minutes per game, play special teams, and play a three-zone game during even strength. The Canucks require their Ds to be able to make strong breakout passes, be capable of delivering an accurate stretch pass, to skate well enough to join the rush, be able to pinch in the O-zone, move down to maintain offensive possession, and have the positioning and mobility to get back into position after a loss of possession.

Basically, while each of the Ds have their strengths and weaknesses, all are capable of playing a variety of game styles, from shutdown to offensive (to varying effects, of course, but almost every Canucks D has decent versatility), and to be able to shift from one style to another depending on game situations and the forward group they are playing with. That's why a guy like Dan Hamhuis might switch from playing a stay-at-home style with a bottom-six group to playing an highly offensive-minded style with the Sedin line (and possession).

Probably the D who brings something closest to Vandermeer's game (albeit lacking the same kind of pugilistic ability) is Alberts and, while Alberts can be that physical, stay-at-home guy, he can also skate fairly well and moves the puck better than most give him credit for (he's worked hard on improving his puckmoving and mobility since his arrival). Alberts has more than one side to his game and that's why he gets used on this team. Vandermeer only really has one side to his game and that's why he didn't get used.

That said, if the Canucks find themselves in a series where they feel they need someone with Vandermeer's gifts, they'll have him available. However, to actually use Vandermeer (beyond maybe 5 minutes per game), they'll pretty much need to change the systems they employ for that five-man unit (while he's on-ice) because I really don't think that Vandermeer can hang with the Canucks' typical gameplan and playing style.

And yeah, while guys like Barker or Joslin aren't the perfect matches for the Canucks' systems on D, they also aren't nearly as "one note" of players as Jim Vandermeer (not saying that that "note" doesn't sound good when it's played at the right moment ;)).


Well said SID. I do believe that in the playoffs, having some proven brutality comes in handy from a deterence point of view. Players will be far less likely to nail the Sedins or anyone for that matter when someone like Vandermeer is on the ice. We have needed someone in the lineup who will go toe to toe with anyone in the league. Will Kassian or Sestito fight Lucic with the same fervor and fearlessness as Vandermeer? Probably not.

Lucic was a major contributor to wearing the Canucks down during the 2011 SCF series. Even though we had Bieksa, Torres, and Glass, none of those players challenged Lucic. This, in my opinion, had a psychological effect on the Canucks mentality. They felt vulnerable and unable to play at the level they had been accustomed to for fear of being run through by the Bruins. Add to that equation that the referees were almost non existent and a storm was brewing that the Canucks had no chance of weathering with any success.

The Stanley Cup playoffs are grueling. It is the closest thing to all out war in professional sports. We have to prepared for battle.
  • 0
Posted Image





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.