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

65 points! Magic number thread


alt kilgore

Recommended Posts

On 2017-01-03 at 0:46 PM, Where'd Luongo? said:

Ya, those dummies couldn't even predict the future! Can you enlighten me and tell me what each of these teams will actually end up at?

Obviously you're confused about who engaged in the fools game.  Ya, that's right - "those dummies" you're apologizing for!

Fair, criticism is fair.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we need 22 points in the last 41 games to meet projections.  The experts qualified their predictions with "unless everything goes right"; well it's pretty easy to state that hasn't been the case with the top pairing and arguably top forward out for most of the first half of the season.  Did any of them predict much over 70 points, let alone 80 or even 90?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2017-01-07 at 9:08 AM, Hutton Wink said:

So we need 22 points in the last 41 games to meet projections.  The experts qualified their predictions with "unless everything goes right"; well it's pretty easy to state that hasn't been the case with the top pairing and arguably top forward out for most of the first half of the season.  Did any of them predict much over 70 points, let alone 80 or even 90?

I didn't realize BO, Sbisa and Tryamkin were injured for the first half of the season...  B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-01-07 at 9:08 AM, Hutton Wink said:

So we need 22 points in the last 41 games to meet projections.  The experts qualified their predictions with "unless everything goes right"; well it's pretty easy to state that hasn't been the case with the top pairing and arguably top forward out for most of the first half of the season.  Did any of them predict much over 70 points, let alone 80 or even 90?

Honestly, most folks might have thought a pathetic point total was to be expected from a "rebuilding" team who, in all probability, would be sellers throughout the year and inserting strategic AHL call-ups for development and expansion-fodder. 

 

I think the the *experts were possibly more correct than we give credit for when they criticized the team's direction, given their current draft position and no one single draft pick or prospect acquired via trade, as of now.  Sure, it's still a rebuild, but everyone knows that this is not a strategy, rather a do-nothing campaign, which even I could accomplish from home too. This "success" the team is enjoying is not helping them rebuild, asset-wise, and next summer we will suffer through reading about it, nonstop. Yay! JB is going to have to pull off a few asset management miracles to shut these pucks up. 

 

As as far as everything going right, they've had Horvat and the Sedins healthy, only missing role players like Hansen, the big stud O. :huh:

Sure, you can argue that the D has been banged up, but so are other teams'. It has gone pretty well, all things considered, health-wise, if you consider how well Strecher, etc. has filled in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Honestly, most folks might have thought a pathetic point total was to be expected from a "rebuilding" team who, in all probability, would be sellers throughout the year and inserting strategic AHL call-ups for development and expansion-fodder. 

 

I think the the *experts were possibly more correct than we give credit for when they criticized the team's direction, given their current draft position and no one single draft pick or prospect acquired via trade, as of now.  Sure, it's still a rebuild, but everyone knows that this is not a strategy, rather a do-nothing campaign, which even I could accomplish from home too. This "success" the team is enjoying is not helping them rebuild, asset-wise, and next summer we will suffer through reading about it, nonstop. Yay! JB is going to have to pull off a few asset management miracles to shut these pucks up. 

 

As as far as everything going right, they've had Horvat and the Sedins healthy, only missing role players like Hansen, the big stud O. :huh:

Sure, you can argue that the D has been banged up, but so are other teams'. It has gone pretty well, all things considered, health-wise, if you consider how well Strecher, etc. has filled in. 

200_s.gif

 

Tankers, right now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media experts have made a lot of wrong predictions this year....Columbus Blue Jackets and John Tortorella being the most glaring..The projected standings accrued by analytical stats are an even bigger laugh.

 

Throughout most of the first half of this season,the Canucks couldn't even string two wins together (and looked every bit as fragile as the experts predicted)....It's quite impressive how they have managed to pull themselves together,and be relevant in the league standings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Honestly, most folks might have thought a pathetic point total was to be expected from a "rebuilding" team who, in all probability, would be sellers throughout the year and inserting strategic AHL call-ups for development and expansion-fodder. 

 

I think the the *experts were possibly more correct than we give credit for when they criticized the team's direction, given their current draft position and no one single draft pick or prospect acquired via trade, as of now.  Sure, it's still a rebuild, but everyone knows that this is not a strategy, rather a do-nothing campaign, which even I could accomplish from home too. This "success" the team is enjoying is not helping them rebuild, asset-wise, and next summer we will suffer through reading about it, nonstop. Yay! JB is going to have to pull off a few asset management miracles to shut these pucks up. 

 

As as far as everything going right, they've had Horvat and the Sedins healthy, only missing role players like Hansen, the big stud O:huh:

Sure, you can argue that the D has been banged up, but so are other teams'. It has gone pretty well, all things considered, health-wise, if you consider how well Strecher, etc. has filled in. 

Nice story.

 

If the team did precisely what they said they would not do - (as if anyone listened or paid attention).

 

And had more key injuries (they've been real lucky thus far ;)).

 

And didn't have the players Benning has already added....(cause guys like Stecher don't count in a 'rebuild').

 

Then the "experts" might be less close to dead wrong.   Reality is they knew what the team had and projected 65 pts for the healthy roster - underestimated it from top to bottom - veterans to youth to AHL fill ins.

 

But, but - you guys are the "realists'.    Or perhaps you - like the 'experts' and the 'analyticz' gurus - are swimming in the Nile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stawns said:

200_s.gif

 

Tankers, right now

Meh, the tank ship sailed twice already. 

Tankers don't grasp for straws, Stawns, they grasp for higher draft picks. There is nothing else to the philosophy to clutch at. 

 

All of us will be here for the draft day talk, when the draft position will have the tankers and the cheer-team debate the Canuck's owning the 10th OA pick vs the top 5/tank picks. Christmas for us all, but with some Grinch theft sting for the tankers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

It's quite impressive how they have managed to pull themselves together,and be relevant in the league standings.

 

I'd say it starts with the GM (management team) getting the right players on the roster. Then the players believing in themselves & the system which is directly contributed from The Coach(s).  Then sticking to the program whether or not CDC screams for changes (thax to WD again). 

Otherwise known as time & patience which real fans should have if they follow what JB & TL have been preaching...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Nice story.

 

If the team did precisely what they said they would not do - (as if anyone listened or paid attention).

 

And had more key injuries (they've been real lucky thus far ;)).

 

And didn't have the players Benning has already added....(cause guys like Stecher don't count in a 'rebuild').

 

Then the "experts" might be less close to dead wrong.   Reality is they knew what the team had and projected 65 pts for the healthy roster - underestimated it from top to bottom - veterans to youth to AHL fill ins.

 

But, but - you guys are the "realists'.    Or perhaps you - like the 'experts' and the 'analyticz' gurus - are swimming in the Nile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to clarify, at some point this season, did you think the Canucks would have sold off some vet type roster players in place of developing picks/prospects, resulting in a predictably lower point total for the Canucks? I did, well, I had hoped they would've. 

 

There is an awesome collective smug, slow head-nodding going on here concerning the one scribbler's 65 point projection, since the club is on pace for, as close to as makes no difference, really, of eclipsing that tally. Combine this sense of world-beater achievement with this rebuilding year's crucial draft selection, and you have the ying to the tanker's yang, posts.

 

As long as nobody calls any of my future posts, hindsight, where draft selection is concerned, I can take the majority's ribbings on here. You'll not convince me that picking in the top 5 is not statistically better for the Canucks, long-term, this, last or next year, than picking 10th OA. The compete part is too subjective to even waste time on here, post wise. I mean, they will compete regardless of who is on the ice because they are hockey players. It's a built-in accountability. The meanwhile is pretty much in vain, with a net result of a measurable loss in draft position. The intangible jargon about winning and whatever, it's not science, I'm not interested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Just to clarify, at some point this season, did you think the Canucks would have sold off some vet type roster players in place of developing picks/prospects, resulting in a predictably lower point total for the Canucks? I did, well, I had hoped they would've. 

 

There is an awesome collective smug, slow head-nodding going on here concerning the one scribbler's 65 point projection, since the club is on pace for, as close to as makes no difference, really, of eclipsing that tally. Combine this sense of world-beater achievement with this rebuilding year's crucial draft selection, and you have the ying to the tanker's yang, posts.

 

As long as nobody calls any of my future posts, hindsight, where draft selection is concerned, I can take the majority's ribbings on here. You'll not convince me that picking in the top 5 is not statistically better for the Canucks, long-term, this, last or next year, than picking 10th OA. The compete part is too subjective to even waste time on here, post wise. I mean, they will compete regardless of who is on the ice because they are hockey players. It's a built-in accountability. The meanwhile is pretty much in vain, with a net result of a measurable loss in draft position. The intangible jargon about winning and whatever, it's not science, I'm not interested. 

First of all - the predictions had nothing to do with the presumption of a tear-down.

 

A tear-down moreover bears no resemblance to the actions or the stated goal of the franchise - anyone that attempts to revise their position based on that clearly were not paying attention to what the team has actually been doing.  The reality is that the approach that most people laughed at is performing far better than expected.

 

So, no - I didn't expect roster dumps and why would I - and regardless, they have nothing to do with the projections - and ironically, the season has been quite difficult in terms of losing everyone in their top 4 at points. and arguably their best forward - so the effects aren't really that different - they've consistently been missing a pair of top 4 D and a top line F - not that distinct from having dealt  some roster players - and yet - not the runaway worst team in the NHL.  I think we all know what it boils down to - things like this - Sutter's actually pretty good,  Sbisa's actually pretty good, Granlund is actually pretty good, etc, where the assumptions were that Benning can't make trades, Benning overpays for and then overpays players he over-rates, Benning has 'no plan', etc.

 

No matter how you try to slice it - the team is far better than your experts, tankers, realists - whatever people call themselves - thought.

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...