How would you like the Canucks to be built? Hawks or Bruins/LA/Blues

[Forsy]

The Capitals have had size, and skill, with some speed. They had good, "Canadian" role players. Sure, blame it all on lack of "heart" or "grit". But the reality is hockey intelligence and winning 1v1 battles are the name of the game. They lack that in the defensive zone, hence their failure as a playoff team overall.

Watch all the hawks, bruins, kings, ducks, even penguins and red wings, etc. Some had big skilled goons, they all had some skilled snipers, playmakers and defensemen, but the biggest thing is that they win the battles and get to the loose pucks CONSISTENTLY. They position themselves and set up their skating paths for maximum chance of getting to pucks (a la Don Cherry cover the points!), and they do so BEFORE it's super obvious that it is going to end up at a certain location.

None of the recent stanley cup winners won while being weak on the puck and losing 1v1 battles. They had great intelligence with and without the puck. You can argue the varying amounts or composition of speed, skill, size between stanley cup champs. But having 4 lines of intelligence and winning puck battles are what makes a team win. The skill, size, speed are obviously going to be limited by your cap space and availability of said players, but intelligence is the only way to utilize those skillsets towards victory.

Build with intelligence in mind, then pick up players to fill your skill, size and speed requirements. In a cap space, that means you can't expect to buy more than 6-8 skilled guys for your top 6, no more than 4-5 3rd line players, and another 4-5 4th line role players. Similarly with your defensemen.

[MoneypuckOverlord]

I remember when mike gillis took over media asked him how would he like to retool the canucks, at the time he said he wanted players with hockey intelligence with emphasis of skill and grit. As the next 2 years gone by he slowly went away from the model of putting together a team with "intelligent players as the top skill set followed by skill and grit players" . After the 2010 season it felt like he was trying to build a Detroit modelled team then after the 2011 year he tried to then build a team with more size boston style, this year he mentioned building an Anaheim like team with youth and size.

As you can see mike too some extend had really no direction, and looking back at it now, he is way off course of the team he originally wanted and planned to build when he originally got here, which is a team loaded with players with intangibles intelligence, and players that are skilled and able to hold their own with grit. He never went that direction, in the end. I think to this day he might have still had a job with the canucks have he kept his vision.

I voted Chicagos system that said that system is much much much more difficult to replicate vs the kings bruins style team.

[Canuck Surfer]

The '94 Canucks team was a blend of styles and skills. There really is no secret to what makes a team successful. It's not team emulation. It's not selecting players of one type. It's just a matter of getting the best players for the roles they're in.

But any contender needs:

2 top centers.

An elite sniper or power forward.

A shutdown utility guy.

A shutdown pairing.

A pmd.

Excellent goaltending.

And enough depth to last a season and long run.

The Canucks fairly recently had all of this. Pretty sure they know what's needed.

Yes! Securing the best player based on opportunity is the way to go.

And / or crafting roles that suit them. Sorta like using Hodgson different than we used Malhotra. Prob not a popular example, but you get the point? Or along TO's comparison, we certainly used 2C Ronning different than we used 2C Kesler.

Sooner or later, we're bound to find a guy, (maybe one of our existing prospects) who can boost the calibre of the team...

[lmm]

What I like about the Bruins, (and I don't like the Bruins) is their willingness to trade good players that do not fit their system.

2 cases in point Joe Thornton and Phil Kessel.

the Canucks have rarely ever had players of that skill level and have never traded them when their value was high.

Bure, Nedved, Bertuzzi and Luongo were all "Forced Trades" so the return was not what it could have been. Nedved's return was good and so was Bert's, but except for Jovo, Lou and Bure were traded for junk.

Thornton and Kessel were both Bruin scoring leaders and continue to score with their new teams while the Bruins keep on humming along without them

[Niklas Jensen]

Blackhawks, just look at their sick core

Toews

Kane

Seabrook

Keith

[canucklehead44]

I think this upcoming draft will say alot. We pick Ritchie - size. Virtanen - speedy, gritty. Ehlers - fast and skilled.

These three players are pretty close in terms of value but all play very different styles.

Interesting to see what we do on defense. The Detroit model was built around two-way defenseman.

[aGENT]

I think this upcoming draft will say alot. We pick Ritchie - size. Virtanen - speedy, gritty. Ehlers - fast and skilled.

These three players are pretty close in terms of value but all play very different styles.

Interesting to see what we do on defense. The Detroit model was built around two-way defenseman.

One player =/= overall team "style".

[coastal1]

Canucks fans are delusional if you think we have the personnel for chicago.

The sedins are some of the slowest players in the league.

This thread is not about how the team is now but how it will be in like 8 years or so.

[coastal1]

One player =/= overall team "style".

Absolutely true. All this will do is send a signal about the type of players that the new regime is leaning towards, when given the choice: big and tough or small and speedy.

[aGENT]

Absolutely true. All this will do is send a signal about the type of players that the new regime is leaning towards, when given the choice: big and tough or small and speedy.

Not really. All it says is that's their best guess as to who the BPA is at that spot.

A team is not made of one type or size of player.

[DefCon1]

Chicago style.

I like the Chicago deep dish pizza better than Boston hot dogs.

[DefCon1]

I would say the Sharks minus the choking.

They have built a very solid team mixed with size and skill, and have been a stable playoff team for the last 10 years. Their lack of success comes from leadership, and not how the team is built IMO.

Strength down the middle is how the Canucks need to build.

Well, Sharks also lack a franchise D while Boston, Chicago and LA have that franchise D (Doughty, Chara, Keith).

[Santo]

The mods locked my thread (which I disagree with) but oh well-

I side more with a "build the Canucks" look. I don't want to copy another squad. Look at Montreal, they are winning right now because they are playing HABS HOCKEY, not Bruins hockey, not LA hockey. Its their look, their style.

Winners don't follow.

[snucks]

Linden should get his buddy Mike Keenan for coach and his other buddy Pavel Bure for manager.

[DeNiro]

Well, Sharks also lack a franchise D while Boston, Chicago and LA have that franchise D (Doughty, Chara, Keith).

Dan Boyle is a franchise D-man. Only problem is he's a little past his best before date.

[RockNroLLa.]

We need Benning as GM and Tim Burke as AGM.

Hire one of Trotz, Johnston, Blashill

Trade Edler and our 6th for 1st..draft Ekblad.

Trade Kesler to Pitt for Pulliot, Sutter and 1st.

Check out UFAs Stastny etc

Groom our youth, with simliar styles in in both the main club and the farm.

Trade Garrison and/or Hamhuis plus any other old timers..for 2015 1st round picks.

Sign Schneider at next years FA period.

Trade Lack for a mid 1st round pick for 2016.

Our future Dcore and Goaltending

Ekblad Tanev

Pulliot Cederholm

Stanton Bieksa

Corrado Hutton

Schneider

Ericsson

Edit: Make all our youth players watch Mtl vs Bos game 6 2014 playoffs and tell them they better play like how Mtl did, with robust speed, determination and net protection.

[Canuck Surfer]

Maybe the new thing will be build like the Rangers?

Just knocked off Pitt: WOW!

I would say the Sharks minus the choking.

They have built a very solid team mixed with size and skill, and have been a stable playoff team for the last 10 years. Their lack of success comes from leadership, and not how the team is built IMO.

Strength down the middle is how the Canucks need to build.

It could be argued we're strong down the middle, prospect inclusive anyway? Presuming Horvat, Gaunce and Cassels, plus depth guys like Lain are in any way serious... Hank, Kesler, Santo, Horvat, Richardson, Mathias, Gaunce, Lain, Schroeder, Cassels, Dalpe.

Maybe not NHL cup contender deep, there is no secondary play making center. But otherwise it might be just as simple as Gaunce and Horvat arriving, re signing Santo. Its close enough I would put more of a premium on;

- a PMD!

- A major scoring threat at wing.

- a PF.

- a better mix of grit, size, speed and talent in depth.

- a secondary play maker, preferably at center.

Disclaimers. A Dank rejuvenation, Shinkaruk or Jensen (or Fox?) breakout could solve the scoring winger. Kassian could be the PF, also the scoring wing. Don't count (please don't) on Kassian as the secondary play maker. He is a clever passer, but is never going to be a primary puck handler which means he wont have the puck enough to be a major assist guy. If we add a PMD, the guys we have is probably more than sufficient as two way and depth D. All we really need to do is roster some veterans instead of Dalpe and Schroeder and we'll have no lack of depth up front. Pick number 6 could be either the play making center or scoring wing or PF???

In a bit of (but often talked about) outside the box thinking Daniel, if split from his brother, could also be an extremely dangerous secondary play maker from the wing???

What we really have no answer for in our system is...

A PMD! Man, being static, having no one that is dangerous with speed, and handling the puck on the back end absolutely killed us last year! All teams had to do was sit on our point man on the PP, ore fore check hard and all our guys would do is rotate the puck (to a predictable place that could then be well defended). We need a guy that can routinely break down their man and advance plays anywhere on the ice.

A PMD should be our number one objective beyond any else!!!

After that, and if the number 6 pick did not give an answer, I would be fiddling with center ice for a play mking center then.

[tribaljohn]

Every great team that has won the big prize has one thing in common, a solid core with some star players supported by a group of 2nd 3rd and 4th liners who could contribute.

The Canucks were close, then we lost our supporting cast.

Every time Gillis made a move it took more of the supporting cast away.

Lets hope the next GM fixes those issues by whatever means are required.

I do not care who is on the team, I only care that the team however it looks has the right players whom can win a cup.

[DeNiro]

Every time Gillis made a move it took more of the supporting cast away.

Pretty much the best way to describe his last few years here.

For 4.2 mil we could have kept Raymond, Torres, and Lapierre, but instead decided to hold onto Booth in the hopes he would rebound. Now we'll have to buy him out.

[Smashian Kassian]

Easily the Hawks, its no brainer.

Exciting to watch, and its been more successful.