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

Nikolay Goldobin | LW/RW


Scorevat

Recommended Posts

I think there's room on the team for him going forward. He's gotta get to a point where he makes Gagner expendible. I kind of see a home for him with 3rd line minutes and PP time. Especially if Pettersson isn't ready to be a regular NHLer next year, he should get a chance to be in the lineup on a regular basis and find some chemistry on a line. I like the idea of him on a line with Jake and Gaudette; solid 2-ways guys who can make time an space for him, while still having enough skill to finish plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

I agree that you need to be defensively responsible but it's a bit of a double standard if you ask me. There is often a home for a defensively responsible player who provides little to no offensive output or creativity because they are the safe option. Yet if you are more offensively gifted but not that great on D, you get treated like dog crap. It screams of coaches trying to keep their jobs rather than providing exciting offensive-based style of play.

Not sure I agree with you on the middle of this paragraph. I think the guys who are purely defensively responsible are getting phased out of the NHL unless they are really elite at it. I think that there is an expectation now that even your 4th line guys who previously were just bangers, crashers and thugs now need to chip in with goals too. I mean, you look at guys like Gaunce and Gudbranson and that kinda throws that theory out the window but we're also talking about our team that doesn't have enough talent to allow for dual-purpose guys on the 4th line and defensive pairings.  On a really good team, Guddy is a bottom pairing guy; 4th defenseman at best.

 

The reason we re-signed Guddy is for his physicality; if he didn't have that, we wouldn't have bothered.  (I hope).  And I believe Gaunce will also be replaced inside 1-2 years if he can't find a way to generate some points. He doesn't score and doesn't use his size to his full advantage.  It's fine for now because we have limited options but when our young prospects get into the team, he's going to end up being pushed down the depth chart and he's already on the 4th line so there is nowhere for a guy like that to go but on the bench or get waived for the AHL.  That's why I feel a guy like Archibald is a far better 4th line guy.  He uses his size to forecheck and be hard on the puck, but he also puts up points here and there and if he maintains his current pace I see him as being the kind of guy who can stick around; he brings a far more rounded game.

 

I believe you are right in saying that purely offensive guys are often ragged on, but I generally agree with it; especially in the forward position. What coach wouldn't want their players to be defensively responsible at the same time as putting up numbers?  It is counterproductive to be a guy who puts up points but causes so many points to be scored against as well.  And if a guy isn't going to be particularly gritty or physical (and Goldobin isn't), then they had better put up a ton of points, or bring in other obvious elements to their game. So while it is great to see Goldobin starting to put his offensive game together, if he wants to maintain a top six role he's going to have to do more than just that unless he really breaks out and ends up being a scoring star.

Look at Baertschi. The guy has skill as well but a couple of years ago he was pretty bad defensively. He improved that aspect of his game and is STILL often considered rather one dimensional, even though he scores at a solid ppg pace for a 2nd liner.  He hasn't shown *enough* offensive flair for people to overlook the fact that he still isn't THAT great defensively, nor is he physical.  His days here also also numbered as a result, as we have guys coming through the pipeline who appear to be better suited to play that all-around game, as well as put up the same or more points.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

So your team is a loser if 1 or 2 players aren't good defensively? Way to look at it in a vacuum.

How are the Oilers and Islanders doing.  In fact the Islanders are scoring at a really high rate.  To win you need guys that are plus players.  Look at the teams that are at the tops of the standings.  Every year those teams are plus teams, with plus players.  

All players need to contribute.  Some do so on the score board.  Others do so by being physical.  Others by PK and so on.  But every player still needs to play the right way.  Sidney Crosby is considered the best player because he plays hard on both sides of the puck.  Plus, he puts up big points.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Alflives said:

How are the Oilers and Islanders doing.  In fact the Islanders are scoring at a really high rate.  To win you need guys that are plus players.  Look at the teams that are at the tops of the standings.  Every year those teams are plus teams, with plus players.  

All players need to contribute.  Some do so on the score board.  Others do so by being physical.  Others by PK and so on.  But every player still needs to play the right way.  Sidney Crosby is considered the best player because he plays hard on both sides of the puck.  Plus, he puts up big points.  

Caps have made the playoffs how many times. Ovi doesn’t know the word defense. Hank and Danny have never been strong dzone guy but we managed two president trophies out of them. 

 

Teams can have one dimensional players but they also need to offset those players with strong two way guys and a good goalie. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Alflives said:

How are the Oilers and Islanders doing.  In fact the Islanders are scoring at a really high rate.  To win you need guys that are plus players.  Look at the teams that are at the tops of the standings.  Every year those teams are plus teams, with plus players.  

All players need to contribute.  Some do so on the score board.  Others do so by being physical.  Others by PK and so on.  But every player still needs to play the right way.  Sidney Crosby is considered the best player because he plays hard on both sides of the puck.  Plus, he puts up big points.  

At the same time McDavid and Tavares are next in line to make double digit millions. McDavid's extension kicks in next season and Tavares is about to back up the truck to the nearest bank of his choice. All that jack for one dimensional guys who while putting up big points year after year yet can't make the horse drink. The worst part is every GM would pay them if they could.

 

It further proves that there is no magical combination of ingredients to winning. You have been harping for months on end that the Canucks need elite players to win. There are plenty of elite players on bad teams that never do anything other than win some personal trophies. It's not an apples to apples comparison as everyone seems to think. Just having elite players guarantees that a large portion of the team's cap will be eaten up by a handful of players...the rest will have to be the Mottes of the world because the Goldobins are considered too risky to coaches.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Caps have made the playoffs how many times. Ovi doesn’t know the word defense. Hank and Danny have never been strong dzone guy but we managed two president trophies out of them. 

 

Teams can have one dimensional players but they also need to offset those players with strong two way guys and a good goalie. 

 

OV is a career plus 87.  The Twins are combined plus over 300.  The best players play the right way.  That includes both sides of the puck.  Yes, a team can have a one dimensional player, who only plays on one side of the puck, but that team will not win.  This is seen perfectly with the current Oilers and Islanders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, kloubek said:

Not sure I agree with you on the middle of this paragraph. I think the guys who are purely defensively responsible are getting phased out of the NHL unless they are really elite at it. I think that there is an expectation now that even your 4th line guys who previously were just bangers, crashers and thugs now need to chip in with goals too. I mean, you look at guys like Gaunce and Gudbranson and that kinda throws that theory out the window but we're also talking about our team that doesn't have enough talent to allow for dual-purpose guys on the 4th line and defensive pairings.  On a really good team, Guddy is a bottom pairing guy; 4th defenseman at best.

 

The reason we re-signed Guddy is for his physicality; if he didn't have that, we wouldn't have bothered.  (I hope).  And I believe Gaunce will also be replaced inside 1-2 years if he can't find a way to generate some points. He doesn't score and doesn't use his size to his full advantage.  It's fine for now because we have limited options but when our young prospects get into the team, he's going to end up being pushed down the depth chart and he's already on the 4th line so there is nowhere for a guy like that to go but on the bench or get waived for the AHL.  That's why I feel a guy like Archibald is a far better 4th line guy.  He uses his size to forecheck and be hard on the puck, but he also puts up points here and there and if he maintains his current pace I see him as being the kind of guy who can stick around; he brings a far more rounded game.

 

I believe you are right in saying that purely offensive guys are often ragged on, but I generally agree with it; especially in the forward position. What coach wouldn't want their players to be defensively responsible at the same time as putting up numbers?  It is counterproductive to be a guy who puts up points but causes so many points to be scored against as well.  And if a guy isn't going to be particularly gritty or physical (and Goldobin isn't), then they had better put up a ton of points, or bring in other obvious elements to their game. So while it is great to see Goldobin starting to put his offensive game together, if he wants to maintain a top six role he's going to have to do more than just that unless he really breaks out and ends up being a scoring star.

Look at Baertschi. The guy has skill as well but a couple of years ago he was pretty bad defensively. He improved that aspect of his game and is STILL often considered rather one dimensional, even though he scores at a solid ppg pace for a 2nd liner.  He hasn't shown *enough* offensive flair for people to overlook the fact that he still isn't THAT great defensively, nor is he physical.  His days here also also numbered as a result, as we have guys coming through the pipeline who appear to be better suited to play that all-around game, as well as put up the same or more points.

 

To me it boils down to what does the League want. They claim that scoring is a priority, but the coaches around the league are in constant life preserver mode. They coach to keep their job and that seems to be about it. I might be wrong but it sure seems like it to me. That means we get boring hockey. Remember how bad it was to watch the Wild trap to death? The league seems really close to this again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

At the same time McDavid and Tavares are next in line to make double digit millions. McDavid's extension kicks in next season and Tavares is about to back up the truck to the nearest bank of his choice. All that jack for one dimensional guys who while putting up big points year after year yet can't make the horse drink. The worst part is every GM would pay them if they could.

 

It further proves that there is no magical combination of ingredients to winning. You have been harping for months on end that the Canucks need elite players to win. There are plenty of elite players on bad teams that never do anything other than win some personal trophies. It's not an apples to apples comparison as everyone seems to think. Just having elite players guarantees that a large portion of the team's cap will be eaten up by a handful of players...the rest will have to be the Mottes of the world because the Goldobins are considered too risky to coaches.

Elite players are needed who play the right way.  We don't need (or want) guys who cheat the game.  It's a friggin' hard game to play the right way.  The Kings have Kopitiar.  The Hawks have Towes.  The Pens have Crosby.  The Bruins have Bergeron. There is a reason why these teams have won the most recent Cups.  Their leaders, and best players, play the right way.  They drag their teammates along into playing the right way.  These are the elite players I speak of.  It would be awesome to get a 100 point producing plus 40 center!  It would be equally awesome to have a 60 point producing plus 40 Dman.  Those would be super duper elite guys.  However, we can still win with Bo getting 60 points and being a plus 40 and having a Dman (Juiolevi, or Bouchard?) getting 40 points and being a plus 40.  It's the plus 40 that carries the team to wins, not (necessarily) just getting big points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

OV is a career plus 87.  The Twins are combined plus over 300.  The best players play the right way.  That includes both sides of the puck.  Yes, a team can have a one dimensional player, who only plays on one side of the puck, but that team will not win.  This is seen perfectly with the current Oilers and Islanders.

I think your focus is too singular. A one-dimensional team will not win, as with the Oilers, as you've pointed out. However, a team with a one-dimensional offensive player could be balanced with a great defensive player such as Kesler or Malhotra. Balance on the team level is required. While balance at an individual level is ideal, a lack of it can be accommodated by other teammates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

OV is a career plus 87.  The Twins are combined plus over 300.  The best players play the right way.  That includes both sides of the puck.  Yes, a team can have a one dimensional player, who only plays on one side of the puck, but that team will not win.  This is seen perfectly with the current Oilers and Islanders.

Plus minus doesn’t have anything to do with being defensive.  Bo horvat is a career -46, are you going to say ovi is better than bo defensively. Mcdavid is a plus 18 this year. Didn’t you just say he’s bad defensively?  

 

islanders have a worse d core than us. And they don’t have an NHL goalie. 

 

teams win all the time having one dimensional players. Patrick kane has 3 cups. Kessel has 2. Gaborik has a cup. It’s about balance. U need players willing to cheat offensively to put up numbers. You also need guys willing to cover for those players. 

Edited by ForsbergTheGreat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I think your focus is too singular. A one-dimensional team will not win, as with the Oilers, as you've pointed out. However, a team with a one-dimensional offensive player could be balanced with a great defensive player such as Kesler or Malhotra. Balance on the team level is required. While balance at an individual level is ideal, a lack of it can be accommodated by other teammates.

 

8 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Plus minus doesn’t have anything to do with being defensive.  Bo horvat is a career -46, are you going to say ovi is better than bo defensively. Mcdavid is a plus 18 this year. Didn’t you just say he’s bad defensively?  

 

islanders have a worse d core than us. And they don’t have an NHL goalie. 

 

teams win all the time having one dimensional players. Patrick kane has 3 cups. Kessel has 2. Gaborik has a cup. It’s about balance. U need players willing to cheat offensively to put up numbers. You also need guys willing to cover for those players. 

All players on successful teams need to play the right way.  If the best and most talented players cheat the game, their teammates will notice.  Patrick Kane is a career plus player.  Phil Kessel in his two Cup years with the Pens is a plus player.  Gaborik was a plus player when the Kings won their Cup with him.  Teammates notice if a guy cheats the game, and it's worse when it's a highly paid guy.  

 

Read the above statement by Igor Larionov about being "defensively responsible at this level".  

Edited by Alflives
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

 

To me it boils down to what does the League want. They claim that scoring is a priority, but the coaches around the league are in constant life preserver mode. They coach to keep their job and that seems to be about it. I might be wrong but it sure seems like it to me. That means we get boring hockey. Remember how bad it was to watch the Wild trap to death? The league seems really close to this again.

I don't really see it that way, but each to their own.  

 

I see the league overall becoming faster and when you get penalties for looking at a guy the wrong way, it opens up the ice for these talented players to work their magic.  I don't think the trap is nearly as effective as it once was.  (Though I concur with you that watching that old Wild team was painful)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

 

All players on successful teams need to play the right way.  If the best and most talented players cheat the game, their teammates will notice.  Patrick Kane is a career plus player.  Phil Kessel in his two Cup years with the Pens is a plus player.  Gaborik was a plus player when the Kings won their Cup with him.  Teammates notice if a guy cheats the game, and it's worse when it's a highly paid guy.  

 

Plus minus says nothing about being definsive. BO HORVAT is a career -47. Stop saying he’s bad defensively. 

 

Players have different skillsets. Sedins had 80% ozone starts in 2012, that’s about as one dimentional as you can get and canucks won the president trophy. You expected and counted on them to score which they did. It was successful. Why because we had a balance. Kesler and Malhotra (who had 87% dzone starts). 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Ya, no sense keeping a prospect once you get them playing well.

In all honesty, it wouldn't surprise me either way. If management doesn't see him as a long term fit and feel they have better options moving forward with other guys, they could easily be planning to pump and dump him.

 

That said, I'd imagine they'll give him this summer and next fall to see how he responds (and see where guys like Pettersson, Dahlen etc are in relation) before making any firm decision on should he stay or should he go (short of a unicorn trade popping up where he's one of the pieces required to make it happen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Plus minus says nothing about being definsive. BO HORVAT is a career -47. Stop saying he’s bad defensively. 

 

Players have different skillsets. Sedins had 80% ozone starts in 2012, that’s about as one dimentional as you can get and canucks won the president trophy. You expected and counted on them to score which they did. It was successful. Why because we had a balance. Kesler and Malhotra (who had 87% dzone starts). 

 

 

Read the quote by Larionov in Rush's post.  I love Bo, but he needs to be a plus player for us to be a winning team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

In all honesty, it wouldn't surprise me either way. If management doesn't see him as a long term fit and feel they have better options moving forward with other guys, they could easily be planning to pump and dump him.

 

That said, I'd imagine they'll give him this summer and next fall to see how he responds (and see where guys like Pettersson, Dahlen etc are in relation) before making any firm decision on should he stay or should he go (short of a unicorn trade popping up where he's one of the pieces required to make it happen).

Like all players, he is an asset and a trade wouldn't shock me at all but I find it amusing how badly people want to trade players assuming that trades always magically work out and that the Canuck player will be worse than the player coming back.    A prospect that has been patiently developed if finally showing his promise - that is NOT the time to think trade first however!    

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Plus minus says nothing about being definsive. BO HORVAT is a career -47. Stop saying he’s bad defensively. 

 

Players have different skillsets. Sedins had 80% ozone starts in 2012, that’s about as one dimentional as you can get and canucks won the president trophy. You expected and counted on them to score which they did. It was successful. Why because we had a balance. Kesler and Malhotra (who had 87% dzone starts). 

 

 

Personally I think you're both right.

 

Clearly teams would prefer players who can put up points AND be, at least, 'capable' defensively.

 

Now granted, you're going to make exceptions for a guy who is elite offensively, particularly if you have a good mix elsewhere in the lineup to cover their lack of defensive ability. But let's not try to pretend Goldobin is remotely in the same conversation as Ovechkin. He's got potential to probably be a decent 2nd liner/mediocre 1st liner, not a generational player. He's going to have to have SOME ability to play away from the puck. He's much improved in that regard but there's still LOT's of work to do IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Read the quote by Larionov in Rush's post.  I love Bo, but he needs to be a plus player for us to be a winning team.

being responsibile defensively doesn’t mean he has to play like sutter.  Players have different skill sets. They all bring something different to the team. 

 

 

again ovi has a better plus minus than bo. So are you stating ovis better than bo defensively?

  • Upvote 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...