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

Erik Gudbranson | #44 | D


-SN-

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It gets more out of Guddy...at the expense of getting less out of Edler. Is that the right mix....?

Shouldn't good players complement their linemates and like, make them better?

 

Make Edler look worse in an attempt to make Gudbranson look better?

 

How about use instead a D-man that can just carry his own weight while Edler does his thing.

Edited by kanucks25
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Almost like chemistry and line mates/pairings matter in a team sport ;)

 

So Gudbranson performs bad with everyone because the chemistry isn't right, but everyone else performs fine without Gudbranson because they've found good chemistry with whoever they're playing with?

 

lol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Almost like chemistry and line mates/pairings matter in a team sport ;)

 

The problem is he hasn't really shown chemistry with anybody :sadno:

I'd rather move Guddy and Pouliot out to find better fits, than to try and find a perfect fit for Guddy. One: it's easier, two: it's better when things like injuries hit as we have better versatility on the dcorps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

Yes, we are now looking at the same list and you know what I see? A bunch of players that have played 150+ more minutes than Gudbranson this year. You need to "analyse" the stats you are given. 

 

Might want to take a peak at the points column as well, those other dmen sure seem to do a lot more offensively to make up for the goals against as well. 

 

Gudbranson's #1 teammate, by far, has been Ben Hutton this year. You should see Hutton's stats without Gudbranson, night and day. 

thats funny, nowhere on that particular link is ice time. Must have been hidden in some "advanced" section eh?

 

his PK ice time is also decent. Only one give away short handed. http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?report=skaterpenaltykill&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20182019&seasonTo=20182019&gameType=2&position=D&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=shTimeOnIce

 

 

 

But since you brought it up, sure Guddys been ~16 min 5 on 5, some of those other guys 19-20. But shouldn't they be doing far better than him, if he's as bad as you say? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Duodenum said:

The problem is he hasn't really shown chemistry with anybody :sadno:

I'd rather move Guddy and Pouliot out to find better fits, than to try and find a perfect fit for Guddy. One: it's easier, two: it's better when things like injuries hit as we have better versatility on the dcorps. 

We need Edler or a Brian Campbell (aka one of the best puckmovers of his generation) to get adequate performance out of Gudbranson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Shouldn't good players complement their linemates and like, make them better?

 

Make Edler look worse in an attempt to make Gudbranson look better?

 

How about use instead a D-man that can just carry his own weight while Edler does his thing.

Gudbranson IS a complimentary player. There's nothing wrong with that. The vast majority of NHL players are complimentary guys to the elite few who drive play. How about because there's a highly limited supply of those guys and they cost a $&!#e-tonne in salary/cap and trade assets to acquire.

 

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

So Gudbranson performs bad with everyone because the chemistry isn't right, but everyone else performs fine without Gudbranson because they've found good chemistry with whoever they're playing with?

 

lol?

Yes. Uncomplimentary players with Gudbranson play better with other, more complementary players to their skill sets. Shocking, I know.

 

Just now, Duodenum said:

The problem is he hasn't really shown chemistry with anybody :sadno:

I'd rather move Guddy and Pouliot out to find better fits, than to try and find a perfect fit for Guddy. One: it's easier, two: it's better when things like injuries hit as we have better versatility on the dcorps. 

 

Sure he did, Edler. And Campbell (and to a lesser extent, Mitchell) in FLA.

 

It's certainly an option as well to replace him. But again, then you're left looking for a player with the attributes he has/reasons why you traded for him. So yes, we could replace him, or we could find a complimentary partner for him.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats funny, nowhere on that particular link is ice time. Must have been hidden in some "advanced" section eh?

 

his PK ice time is also decent. Only one give away short handed. http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?report=skaterpenaltykill&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20182019&seasonTo=20182019&gameType=2&position=D&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=shTimeOnIce

 

 

 

But since you brought it up, sure Guddys been ~16 min 5 on 5, some of those other guys 19-20. But shouldn't they be doing far better than him, if he's as bad as you say? 

 

But they are doing far better than him. When you play way more minutes than someone, you are going to give up more goals. Gudbranson gives up more than all of them when adjusted for time on ice. 

 

I don't see how ice time is 'advanced'...it's simple math. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Gudbranson IS a complimentary player. There's nothing wrong with that. The vast majority of NHL players are complimentary guys to the elite few who drive play. How about because there's a highly limited supply of those guys and they cost a $&!#e-tonne in salary/cap and trade assets to acquire.

 

Yes. Uncomplimentary players with Gudbranson play better with other, more complementary players to their skill sets. Shocking, I know.

 

 

Sure he did, Edler. And Campbell (and to a lesser extent, Mitchell) in FLA.

 

It's certainly an option as well to replace him. But again, then you're left looking for a player with the attributes he has/reasons why you traded for him. So yes, we could replace him, or we could find a complimentary partner for him.

On a separate note, I feel like getting what Gudbranson brings at forward is better than getting it from a defenseman (ie. back in the enforcer days, it was better to have a forward enforcer). Defensemen can't come down into scrums in the offensive zone without losing the ozone faceoff and it throws the pairings out of whack when they are involved in a fight. Just as an aside. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

On a separate note, I feel like getting what Gudbranson brings at forward is better than getting it from a defenseman (ie. back in the enforcer days, it was better to have a forward enforcer). Defensemen can't come down into scrums in the offensive zone without losing the ozone faceoff and it throws the pairings out of whack when they are involved in a fight. Just as an aside. 

Sure, and if you can pull a (preferably top 6 W'er) with that skill set out of a hat at anything close to EG's cap hit, I'll tip my hat sir.

 

Good luck :lol:

 

I'd be thrilled to have both FWIW

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

But they are doing far better than him. When you play way more minutes than someone, you are going to give up more goals. Gudbranson gives up more than all of them when adjusted for time on ice. 

 

I don't see how ice time is 'advanced'...it's simple math. 

meh, I've seen that list too. There's some good players in that neighbourhood.

 

You seem to be forgetting the quality of the entire teams you are comparing here. Yeah, if we were an overall better team, Guddys numbers would look better too.

 

Context matters. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

meh, I've seen that list too. There's some good players in that neighbourhood.

 

You seem to be forgetting the quality of the entire teams you are comparing here. Yeah, if we were an overall better team, Guddys numbers would look better too.

 

Context matters. 

Better team, complimentary partner... I feel like a broken record :lol:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Having a discussion on a discussion forum is whining.

 

Ok thanks.

A discussion is one thing but your constant negativity and doom and gloom is another. 

 

You seem incapable of having an objective discussion because you focus on the bad constantly.

 

And then you try to call out others for being biased haha. Yeah...ok.

Edited by Kanukfanatic
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Don't need NHL 19 to scratch Gudbranson and play Biega.

From another thread re: Biega

 

On 1/26/2019 at 7:39 PM, aGENT said:

Sure there is. He plays more than 3-5 games and his play drops off. He's the perfect spare D but there's no 'undiscovered ceiling' to be uncovered there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

meh, I've seen that list too. There's some good players in that neighbourhood.

 

You seem to be forgetting the quality of the entire teams you are comparing here. Yeah, if we were an overall better team, Guddys numbers would look better too.

 

Context matters. 

We are 16th in goals against in the league, middle of the pack. 

 

Sure if we were a top five team his stats would look better. But in order to be one of those we'd need a better dcorps, maybe an upgrade on Gudbranson :towel:

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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