Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

TSN Grades the Canucks


BurrsArrows

Recommended Posts

Miller at a C- is too harsh. He was stellar to start and is just now beginning to falter.

Burrows at a C is too low; he's not shocking anyone, but he's doing better than last year.

Horvat's C- is also too low, though you wouldn't think so by looking at the stats. He's been playing well, but just not producing well. My guess is that the C- is based off his lacklustre statistics and not on his actual performance in-game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I don't disagree with their rating of Miller. He's been pretty average after the first few games. Of course, his stats also partially the reflect the team in front of him too, not just his own performance. And he is still playing well enough for us to win if the team plays well for the entire game. I'd love to say it's growth that has resulted in how fans and the media here are viewing Miller's stats as being acceptable but thought Luongo's even better stats were completely unacceptable. I'd love to, but I'm not an idiot...

Now, rating Burr a C is BS. He's 5th on the team for points and first on the team for takeaways (good for 55th in the league). His -2 rating is mostly the result of the fact that 5 of his 11 points came on the PP and he's been shuttled around and asked to play different roles on different lines repeatedly throughout the season.

And how does Horvat get rated lower than Vrbata? Vrbata makes more money, people also had high expectations for him, and he's been given better chances, like first line time. I don't understand why people are hating on Horvat all ready. It's his sophomore year on a slumping team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, poetica said:

Unfortunately, I don't disagree with their rating of Miller. He's been pretty average after the first few games. Of course, his stats also partially the reflect the team in front of him too, not just his own performance. And he is still playing well enough for us to win if the team plays well for the entire game. I'd love to say it's growth that has resulted in how fans and the media here are viewing Miller's stats as being acceptable but thought Luongo's even better stats were completely unacceptable. I'd love to, but I'm not an idiot...

Now, rating Burr a C is BS. He's 5th on the team for points and first on the team for takeaways (good for 55th in the league). His -2 rating is mostly the result of the fact that 5 of his 11 points came on the PP and he's been shuttled around and asked to play different roles on different lines repeatedly throughout the season.

And how does Horvat get rated lower than Vrbata? Vrbata makes more money, people also had high expectations for him, and he's been given better chances, like first line time. I don't understand why people are hating on Horvat all ready. It's his sophomore year on a slumping team.

Bo's stats took a beating on this last road trip....(he's had to shoulder more responsibility)...He's coming around now,and was probably the best player for the Canucks last night..I expect his rating to improve for the second quarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These 4 rankings show all we need to determine how fair these grades are:

Hutton: B-

Tanev: B-

Sutter: B-

Hansen: B

Each player should all be in the A range, let alone barely in the B grade. Toronto Sports Network strikes again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

Aside from Baertschi and Burrows ratings I actually agree with them. 

Team has been under performing in a big way.

Really?

 

They're perfectly mediocre.  Under performing based on....?  Because this is where a lot of people expected them to be.  Not good enough for the playoffs to good for a decent pick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Tortorella said:

Very poorly done. Perhaps next time they will send someone to grade the canucks who watches the canucks. 

Miller c-?

vrbata higher then horvat? Vrbata has been largest disappointment this year.  

Hutton is low, your telling me you had expected more from hutton?

cracknell that low? Your telling me hes not our most consistent player based on position and expectations. 

 

Toronto Sports Media

I don't understand why they bother to put in salary because Cracknell has been playing pretty well for his salary, ice time, and initial expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost me pretty quickly with the list, but Hutton as a B- really blew my mind. Considering the grades are based on expectations coming into the season, they're telling us that they expected Hutton to be performing BETTER than he has so far? What kind of crystal ball were they looking into? Hutton wasn't even expected to challenge for a spot on this team and they're saying the guy playing top-4 minutes and who is second among Canuck defencemen in scoring is playing below expectation level?

Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...