Ugli Fruit Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Our WCE era D-men such as Sami Salo and Mattias Ohlund were known partially for their fantastic puck-moving skills. They were good two-way d-men, and this meant that the entire team could move up the ice to attack very consistently. Vancouver played what you would call "counterattacking hockey", where the team was to move quickly down the ice and fire on goal rather than maintaining long periods of possession. This was apparent in the team's generally quick-moving, rush-based offense, led by Swedish boss Markus Naslund. This was a good combo for success. That said, being able to transition quickly from defense to offense is the key for any attack, because without the transition, there is no offense to be had, whether that is seconds after the breakout pass or 30 seconds later, deep in the offensive zone. The main point I am making with this little spiel is that the presence of multiple two-way puck moving d-men are very, very important for a team like the Canucks, what with their possession-risking attacking style offensively. Let us assess the team's overall performance of the year 2010-11. I apologize for partially beating a dead horse, but Ehrhoff was a massive boost to the Canucks' attack. Why do you think we had so many comebacks that year? Our team had a good first pass into the attacking neutral zone, and we had this late in the game as the opponent tired out and felt the pressure of holding onto a lead with time barely remaining. The Sedins had amazing seasons offensively, especially on the power play. Luongo actually had a great year, even though Ehrhoff's kind-of weakness was defending. The puck-moving d-man allowed the team to have a good chance of having a chance to attack more often than not. THIS is the main problem: we currently have no puck-moving d-men. To be honest, when Ehrhoff departed (right after 10-11, when we started having scoring problems), we really had no puck-movers. I had this mini epiphany while watching the Canucks-Flyers game. I noticed that when teams press the defense, they panic and send it off the boards into the other zone. This, was a potential attack WASTED by the defense. This is the problem, not the offense. The offense is not getting chances to try anything, so the few opportunities they get are precious and they feel the extra pressure of just shooting. Without the puck-moving d-man, we cannot retain possession after defending, so we must return to defending. When we fail to create an offensive chance, the lack of a puck-mover results in the other team getting the puck and us having to defend. This is what Ballard was brought in for. I guarantee you that if Ballard just played his game normally, we would have won the Cup. Our scoring would have been miles better with Ballard's transitional abilities on full display. Too bad that AV locked him in his doghouse like that poor woman for 11 years. AV come on man. That was the cup at stake. The conclusion: We need a top-4 puck-moving defenseman. The NHL is SOOOOOOO fast nowadays and our transition always gets ripped in half by the horrid first pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBoy44 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I wouldn't mind giving up hamhuis for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayman Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Bigger loss imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I've been saying this for about two years now. The Canucks need a defenseman who can move the puck and until they get one, they have no chance in hell of ever making it past the first round. There hasn't been a single team in the league in the past 5+ years that won the cup without a d-man who can move the puck efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Shirokov Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Actually, I think most of our d-men one to six can move the puck pretty effectively. Ehrhoff was awesome because he was so damn fast. Our defense is fine, we need a top-six forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 No such thing as the Ehrhoff trade, unless you're referring to the one that brought him here, and that's obviously not what you're talking about. Not much you can do when there are GMs like Regier out there who throw crazy money and terms at UFAs. Ehrhoff's 10 year deal.... can't match that derp factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peaches Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 No such thing as the Ehrhoff trade, unless you're referring to the one that brough him here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Actually we traded his rights for a 4th, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugli Fruit Posted October 16, 2013 Author Share Posted October 16, 2013 Actually, I think most of our d-men one to six can move the puck pretty effectively. Ehrhoff was awesome because he was so damn fast. Our defense is fine, we need a top-six forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Actually we traded his rights for a 4th, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 However, much like the Hamhuis signing here, trading Ehrhoff's rights for a 4th was the equivalent of getting something for nothing. Ehrhoff probably (very likely, almost definately, like 99.999*%) wasn't going to re-sign here unless he was made an offer by the Canucks in the range of what he got from Buffalo. And, it was/is his best chance to win a Cup, so good on him for following his dream. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 What I meant is: Ehrhoff will likely be traded to a contending team (sometime over the term of his current contract), and that will be his best chance. Buffalo ain't going anywhere, anytime soon, and I think that was fairly obvious even at the time he signed there. It's just surprising to me that they crashed and burned this quickly. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 From 1st overall and best PP in the league to middle of the NHL pack in two years. The .org told Ehrhoff he had to accept Bieksa dollars if he wanted to stay here. If I was a dman that led the league and tallied a 50 point year while Bieksa had 22 points I might have a small problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 From 1st overall and best PP in the league to middle of the NHL pack in two years. The .org told Ehrhoff he had to accept Bieksa dollars if he wanted to stay here. If I was a dman that led the league and tallied a 50 point year while Bieksa had 22 points I might have a small problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheels22 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Bigger loss imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 To be fair nuck, there could also be some truth to the position that the rest of the NHL figured out the Canucks' system and with little to no change they were doomed to poorer results, regardless of who was on the team. I do give Ehrhoff credit for being an able puck mover, but he might not have made that much of a difference in this situation. As to his personal point production, I think the team was/is full of d-men with scoring potential (Bieksa, Edler, Salo). That these guys produced less during the two years Ehrhoff was here could be seen as testament to Ehrhoff getting more ice time with the Sedins and on the 1st unit power play, no? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I thought you were referring to his comment when he signed there....that it (wasn't for the money but) was for the opportunity to win a Cup... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 The quote from Snow at the time he turned around and re-dealt Ehrhoff's rights was that the offer he made Ehrhoff was "well north" of what the Canucks offered Bieksa - which was 5 years, 23 million - and wasn't enough - as it turned out, Ehrhoff got 10 years and 40 million - in other words, sayonara Christian, best of luck with your Cup aspirations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Otherwise, congrats to the Sabres on finally getting a win. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.