Erik Gudbranson | #44 | D

[SilentSam]

4 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

 

Gotta agree with these posts.  Guddy can't carry a pair on his own, but could still be a good complementary piece.  Either Hughes or Juolevi could bring him around.  The issue with our defense isn't just lack of talent.  It's also incredibly badly constructed:  the whole less than the sum of the parts on nearly every pairing. 

A very good complimentary piece, Maniwaki..      I like your wording in your quote.

..and the positive thing about the way the D is constructed at this point is the fact that it is perfect for the De-construct..   A solid no.1 D like E Karlsson, with Edler, Gudbranson, Stetcher, Hutton, possibly Tryamkin..  mixed in with the potentials of Joulevi, Brisboise Hutton Hughes Woo Rathbone..  interesting times ahead.. next year as our forward core blooms... our D core will bud.

[filthycanuck]

The kings scored 3 tonight and the defensemen on the ice were... drumroll!

 

Hutton and Gudbranson

Brisbois and Gudbranson

Brisbois and Gudbranson

 

Im seeing a common denominator here.

[Tre Mac]

Some serious crow eating will be going on by next year, book it.  I expect a Baumer firing and the next Defensive Coach will provide a better structure for our defense.  By playoffs next year y'all see his worth.  He's not a Norris winning D-man but he's certainly not as bad as CDC or TSN1040 make him out to be.

6 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

The kings scored 3 tonight and the defensemen on the ice were... drumroll!

 

Hutton and Gudbranson

Brisbois and Gudbranson

Brisbois and Gudbranson

 

Im seeing a common denominator here.

Didn't see the third goal but the first two were not Guddy's fault.  Bar-down shot from the blue line on the first goal, and Roussel lost his man on the second, I reckon the third goal probably wasn't his fault as well.  This is why people think he's so bad.  'Oh he was on the ice so it's his fault.'

 

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 3:50 PM, Mrwipeout said:

Heres the thing: Gudbranson is the best defensive Dman nucks have. In front of the own net i cant think of anyone other then edler to match his capacity there. Thats why he is there. I only wish there was some Offensively minded Dman to be by his side. Someone that goes up and down like a squirrel on Coffeine. I think that would work out well. 

Agreed.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

8 hours ago, SilentSam said:

A very good complimentary piece, Maniwaki..      I like your wording in your quote.

..and the positive thing about the way the D is constructed at this point is the fact that it is perfect for the De-construct..   A solid no.1 D like E Karlsson, with Edler, Gudbranson, Stetcher, Hutton, possibly Tryamkin..  mixed in with the potentials of Joulevi, Brisboise Hutton Hughes Woo Rathbone..  interesting times ahead.. next year as our forward core blooms... our D core will bud.

Totally agree.  Even with our first look at Brisebois last night, you can see the dynamic changing.  Just having a guy who plays a calm, competent game in his own end makes a big difference.  Juolevi will be that and more.  Hughes is likely a game-changer on our zone exit problems.  All of this is going to change the mix in a major way, and there's more coming.  Our D won't be the disaster zone it's been for much longer. 

[Tyndall2]

Let's all be honest and face the truth.  The Canucks do not yet have a #1 defenseman.  They may be considered the Canucks #1 man but on most of the other teams in the league they would be hard pressed to be #5 or #6.  Do we want to dump some of these guys at the TDL for future picks or hang on with wishful thinking that with what we have will take us to the playoffs.  Some time you have to prune the trees in order to get better growth.  

[kanucks25]

50 minutes ago, Tyndall2 said:

Let's all be honest and face the truth.  The Canucks do not yet have a #1 defenseman.  They may be considered the Canucks #1 man but on most of the other teams in the league they would be hard pressed to be #5 or #6.  Do we want to dump some of these guys at the TDL for future picks or hang on with wishful thinking that with what we have will take us to the playoffs.  Some time you have to prune the trees in order to get better growth.  

It's true we don't have a #1 D-man but Edler and Tanev are 2nd pairing D-men on almost every team in the league.

 

Same goes for Hutton and Stecher with the way they've stepped up this year.

 

The problem is the other two D-men, in that they are behind the 4 guys listed above. We essentially have a 2nd, 3rd and 4th pairing. If we want to be a contender, we need at least one of them to be ahead of the aforementioned 4.

Edited February 15, 2019 by kanucks25

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

Some serious crow eating will be going on by next year, book it. 

It's his 3rd year here, we hear this every year. "Just wait til next season because this season X happened and it's not his fault."

 

It's time to let the dream go. He just turned 27, he's not going to magically obtain the hockey IQ he needs to excel in the NHL.

[aGENT]

14 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

 

Gotta agree with these posts.  Guddy can't carry a pair on his own, but could still be a good complementary piece.  Either Hughes or Juolevi could bring him around.  The issue with our defense isn't just lack of talent.  It's also incredibly badly constructed:  the whole less than the sum of the parts on nearly every pairing. 

Been beating this drum for a while now. Sign a top 4 D this summer (as well as add Hughes) to push other guys down (and Pouliot off the roster) and have any of Edler, Brisebois or Juolevi play with Gudbranson instead of ill suited partners, and suddenly his stats will 'magically' improve.

 

Now that's not to say he's going to become a top pair D in that scenario but he'll look far more like the complimentary bottom 4, secondary shut down, big, physical guy he is, in better conditions.

 

9 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

The kings scored 3 tonight and the defensemen on the ice were... drumroll!

 

Hutton and Gudbranson

Brisbois and Gudbranson

Brisbois and Gudbranson

 

Im seeing a common denominator here.

This:

3 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

Didn't see the third goal but the first two were not Guddy's fault.  Bar-down shot from the blue line on the first goal, and Roussel lost his man on the second, I reckon the third goal probably wasn't his fault as well.  This is why people think he's so bad.  'Oh he was on the ice so it's his fault.'

 

Agreed.

 

First goal was Hutton's man (he gave WAY too much space/bad gap control). Second was Roussel's man.

Third was Brisebois/MacEwan and was a screened and dipping shot.

 

ALL GUDBRANSON'S FAULT! 

[PhillipBlunt]

52 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Been beating this drum for a while now. Sign a top 4 D this summer (as well as add Hughes) to push other guys down (and Pouliot off the roster) and have any of Edler, Brisebois or Juolevi play with Gudbranson instead of ill suited partners, and suddenly his stats will 'magically' improve.

 

Now that's not to say he's going to become a top pair D in that scenario but he'll look far more like the complimentary bottom 4, secondary shut down, big, physical guy he is, in better conditions.

 

This:

 

First goal was Hutton's man (he gave WAY too much space/bad gap control). Second was Roussel's man.

Third was Brisebois/MacEwan and was a screened and dipping shot.

 

ALL GUDBRANSON'S FAULT! 

It has to be Guddy's fault. That's the easy go to catchphrase that some yokels parrot from the local moronic blogosphere.

[Alflives]

56 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Been beating this drum for a while now. Sign a top 4 D this summer (as well as add Hughes) to push other guys down (and Pouliot off the roster) and have any of Edler, Brisebois or Juolevi play with Gudbranson instead of ill suited partners, and suddenly his stats will 'magically' improve.

 

Now that's not to say he's going to become a top pair D in that scenario but he'll look far more like the complimentary bottom 4, secondary shut down, big, physical guy he is, in better conditions.

 

This:

 

First goal was Hutton's man (he gave WAY too much space/bad gap control). Second was Roussel's man.

Third was Brisebois/MacEwan and was a screened and dipping shot.

 

ALL GUDBRANSON'S FAULT! 

And Marky looked a bit tired.  The first goal was one he went down on too early.  Then there was a short side goal too.  Those are mental errors.  Marky is playing great, but he needs some rest too.  Not so much for his body, but for his mind.  He needs to reset with Clark. 

[kanucks25]

Gudbranson has the 2nd worst goals against / even-strength time played in the entire league amongst regular D-men. This is despite almost never being matched up against the other team's best forwards.

 

The only player worse than him in this regard is Brandon freaking Manning, a player widely thought of as maybe the worst D-man in the NHL.

 

You can say that last night none of the 3 goals were directly his fault despite him being on the ice for all of them.

 

However it's a little harder to argue the reason he's atop the aforementioned list. It's not just the case of bad luck or his teammates being at fault.

Edited February 15, 2019 by kanucks25

[250Integra]

If I were Jim Benning, I'd be willing to bring up Luke Schenn and sit / waive / trade Gudbranson.

 

EDIT: Whoops didn't see the call-up haha

Edited February 15, 2019 by 250Integra

[Boudrias]

35 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And Marky looked a bit tired.  The first goal was one he went down on too early.  Then there was a short side goal too.  Those are mental errors.  Marky is playing great, but he needs some rest too.  Not so much for his body, but for his mind.  He needs to reset with Clark. 

The short side goal was Roussel's man. 

[Seinfeld]

Anyone else notice that one sequence, in the second period I think, where he iced the puck 3 times in a row. 

 

Eric ‘Glass-N-Out-4-An-Icing’ Gudbranson. 

[SilentSam]

12 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

The kings scored 3 tonight and the defensemen on the ice were... drumroll!

 

Hutton and Gudbranson

Brisbois and Gudbranson

Brisbois and Gudbranson

 

Im seeing a common denominator here.

Yes, Gudbranson should be paired with a legit #1 Dman, and Not relied upon to school prospects and rookies..

The benefit to having EG on as A first pairing with a legit #1, is that he would probably also be on the ice at the same time to “shadow” EP40 .

Your second pairing could then be Tanev / Edler. . and they are 2nd pair guys. .

 

my vote is EG paired with EK65 next season.

Edited February 15, 2019 by SilentSam

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

The short side goal was Roussel's man. 

I agree.  And the first goal was a neutral zone turnover, where our D got pushed too deep.  Both shots, however, were one's a rested Marky stops.  He appears to be mentally tired.  

[Skip Spence]

29 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

 

...my vote is EG paired with EK65 next season.

Jebus Christ that sound terrible, like the worst pairing ever! 

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love EK to sign for the Canucks, he’s an amazing player. But he also, quite often in fact, forgets about his defensive responsibilities and joins the rush leaving his partner alone defending if the puck is turned over. 

 

You our really want that lone defender to be Erik Gudbrandson??

 

And don’t you think EK could use a partner that actually can pass him the puck once in a while? As opposed to icing it... :/

 

An open question though: I’ve noticed that many here seems to think acquiring EK is possible. What’s the reasoning here? 

[Diamonds]

3 minutes ago, Skip Spence said:

Jebus Christ that sound terrible, like the worst pairing ever! 

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love EK to sign for the Canucks, he’s an amazing player. But he also, quite often in fact, forgets about his defensive responsibilities and joins the rush leaving his partner alone defending if the puck is turned over. 

 

You our really want that lone defender to be Erik Gudbrandson??

 

And don’t you think EK could use a partner that actually can pass him the puck once in a while? As opposed to icing it... :/

 

An open question though: I’ve noticed that many here seems to think acquiring EK is possible. What’s the reasoning here? 

I think people are hoping that the Swedish connection with EP40 is enough to lure him here.

[SilentSam]

16 minutes ago, Skip Spence said:

Jebus Christ that sound terrible, like the worst pairing ever! 

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love EK to sign for the Canucks, he’s an amazing player. But he also, quite often in fact, forgets about his defensive responsibilities and joins the rush leaving his partner alone defending if the puck is turned over. 

 

You our really want that lone defender to be Erik Gudbrandson??

 

And don’t you think EK could use a partner that actually can pass him the puck once in a while? As opposed to icing it... :/

 

An open question though: I’ve noticed that many here seems to think acquiring EK is possible. What’s the reasoning here? 

Gudbranson game would change when not paired with prospects or rookies.. he looked great with Edler late last year.. it’s a better role for him.

To answer your question about acquiring EK65..

the Canucks have NEVER had a legit, proven #1 Dman..  our fingers are crossed and speculation is hyped about Joulevi and Hughes, so we should remain “hopeful” I guess?

But acquiring or having a legit #1 is what wins cups.

Its time to ante’ up for all the thrift store posters and dreamers on here..

GET EK65,  even after the game he brings, his mentorship of prospects alone will pay dividends in this franchises future even after his career is over.  It’s just too logical. Let’s go swimming in the deep end now.

Edited February 15, 2019 by SilentSam

[Duodenum]

The only goal i'd give Gudbranson a little fault to is the first one. The 2nd and 3rd weren't really any issues with him. 

 

On the first, he had an opportunity to make a play here:

 

 

But he missed the puck and it ended up in the zone. Hutton is playing the puck going deep as he sees 2 canucks players on that side already. 

 

Then this happened: 

 

 

 

Gudbranson is wildly out of position. Motte is flat footed and Hutton is directing traffic when he should be working on closing the gap. Motte could've prevented this goal if he worked his backwards crossovers instead of stopping and pushing forward. 

 

Other than that, he was more unlucky to be on the ice for the other 2 goals. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Duodenum