[PGT] Canucks @ Oilers

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, khay said:

Are you comparing Bo to McDavid?  You take Bo out, and the Canucks are still a bad team. You take McDavid out and Edmonton goes from good team to a mediocre team. Nuge and Eberle (and Hall, who is no longer there) showed that they cannot get it done by themselves. In other words, they are supplementary players. 

 

This is basically Bo's first year as the leader. We will see if Bo can get it done or if he will be like Nuge and Eberle. I have a feeling that Bo isn't like those two but at the same time, he ain't McDavid.

 

 

And Edmonton has filled big holes they had through those terrible years. Like a true workhorse starting goalie, a couple of physical and defensively sound dmen, a puck mover that can create offense, physical forwards who also have skill, and a coach that can get more out of them. And yes they added a generational player who the Canucks could have had a great shot at getting had they not kept trying one more year with the vets. Where would we be with McDavid and Horvat down the middle? A lot better than we are now. But we still need that elusive #1 dman who can be a game changer at both ends, a couple of truly elite offensive forwards, more effective depth, and a coach who can get more out of them to get to their level.

[Barry_Wilkins]

On 3/19/2017 at 7:15 AM, alfstonker said:

So if we have been healthy how come we have lost Gudy played 3, Dorsett played 14, Hansen 28, Tanev 42, Rodin 3, Baertschi 59, Hutton 60, Edler 57 and we have had to use 37 different players, most of the replacements being AHLers? If you count players who came from the AHL or had little or no experience playing for this team we used 17 replacements. We used 7 in Willie's first season.

 

I love how you quote WD when it suits your argument. What else do you expect him to say? 

You obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension.

 

I've stated at least twice that it's the core who've been healthy for the most part, bar Tanev, and that all teams live or die by the performance or appearance of their core players.

 

I quoted WD because he was asked the question regarding injuries, but refused the easy out by going along with it. WD himself downplays it, which is the right attitude. Completely opposite of that clown Tortorella with his "this core is stale" excuse. No, Tortorella, you were stale. But thanks for the 2nd round pick. 

[coastal.view]

4 hours ago, theilluminati said:

And where exactly would the Canucks be without Bo this season..? Somewhere around 45-50pts and just ahead of the Avalanche who are having one of the worst seasons in the salary cap era...

come on now

i get your point

but you seriously suggest bo is worth 15 to 20 extra points in the standings to the canucks this year ?
it must be because if he was not with the canucks one line would be playing without a center ?

it is a silly suggestion on your part

his impact is not that big.. that is actually bigger than gretzky's impact in my view

 

the only player on this team worth even 5 to 10 extra points to the canucks in the standings is miller

no one else is close

[Jam126]

5 hours ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

If Larsson's "a more physical Tanev with more offensive upside", I need to watch him more as that sounds like a potential Norris candidate right there. Good for the Oilers for trading Hall for him.

Not even close.

 

5 hours ago, riffraff said:

So basically a far better defenseman.

Compared to Tanev, yeah.

[Jam126]

5 hours ago, drummerboy said:

A more physical and offensive Tanev.....

sounds terrible. 

Not terrible but he's not really a game changer.

[canuckleheads fan]

3 hours ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Offensively gifted is pretty subjective.  McDavid is Offensively gifted.  Most teams have some players who are above average in offensive ability so are "gifted" amongst their teammates.  I think Baer, Granlund, Bo show the ability to be offensive producers.  Granny is starting to show very good offensive instincts in finding the open areas, creating opportunity and in finishing his chances.  He may not be "offensively gifted" by some interpretations but he certainly shows above average offensive potential.

 Goldobin and Daylen are reported to fall into that category.  I believe Boucher displays a "gift" of a shot in its quick release, accuracy and heaviness.  I do not believe you can be successful no matter how good you are defensively unless you have offensive weapons to balance that.

 

I don't' disagree that defensive responsibility is crucial to success and that every player has to develop that to stay in this league.  I just don't agree that every player has to be developed to be a 200' defensive specialist before being given an opportunity to put their offensive talent to use.  I gave examples of players who have been tremendous offensive players who learned defense after they succeeded offensively.  Stevie Yzerman would be another.

 

Hard work is a must no matter what role a player has on the team. 

 

Again, to me I am not convinced that WD's style of demoting young players with offensive up-side who do not meet his defensive standard over  others who are reliable but never going to amount to anything more than energy guys is the proper way to develop ALL our youth. 

A 200 foot player is NOT a defensive specialist.  A defensive specialist is somebody who shuts down the other team's offensive weapons.  A 200 foot player is somebody who is responsible in all three zones.  A 200 foot player back checks as hard as he fore checks, because stopping a goal against is as valuable as scoring a goal for.  But they are also good a fore checking and very capable of scoring.  Stevie Y was always responsible in all three zones, he became an excellent defensive specialist later in his career.  Of the players you listed, two were #1 draft picks and Kessel was a #5, they are in a MUCH different category than anybody currently on the Canuck roster.  Kane and Ovi are in the McDavid class, and likely get a bit of a pass on the defensive end.  Until he got to Pittsburgh, Kessel was as big a liability because of his defense as he was an asset due to his offense, which caused him to be a cancer in the room.  Its why until he got to Pittsburgh and became peripheral player that he saw any real success.

 

And again, he didn't demote Boucher because he's not good defensively, he's not, he demoted him because he can't skate, he can't keep up with Bo and Baer in transition, he's not fast enough to get to the boards for puck retrieval and then to the front of the net with the twins, and he's not defensively sound enough to play on the team's defensive third line.  His lack of speed holds him back from playing on any of Vancouver's top three lines. 

[wallstreetamigo]

6 minutes ago, canuckleheads fan said:

A 200 foot player is NOT a defensive specialist.  A defensive specialist is somebody who shuts down the other team's offensive weapons.  A 200 foot player is somebody who is responsible in all three zones.  A 200 foot player back checks as hard as he fore checks, because stopping a goal against is as valuable as scoring a goal for.  But they are also good a fore checking and very capable of scoring.  Stevie Y was always responsible in all three zones, he became an excellent defensive specialist later in his career.  Of the players you listed, two were #1 draft picks and Kessel was a #5, they are in a MUCH different category than anybody currently on the Canuck roster.  Kane and Ovi are in the McDavid class, and likely get a bit of a pass on the defensive end.  Until he got to Pittsburgh, Kessel was as big a liability because of his defense as he was an asset due to his offense, which caused him to be a cancer in the room.  Its why until he got to Pittsburgh and became peripheral player that he saw any real success.

 

And again, he didn't demote Boucher because he's not good defensively, he's not, he demoted him because he can't skate, he can't keep up with Bo and Baer in transition, he's not fast enough to get to the boards for puck retrieval and then to the front of the net with the twins, and he's not defensively sound enough to play on the team's defensive third line.  His lack of speed holds him back from playing on any of Vancouver's top three lines. 

That last paragraph could apply to the Sedins just as much if not more than Boucher and our coach thinks they are still the hands down best option for the top line and 1st PP. 

[canuckleheads fan]

3 hours ago, coho8888 said:

Bo forecasted as a 3C?  Now I've heard everything.  You Willie Lovers need to actually read what you are posting.  When Bo was drafted he was forecasted as a solid 2C with an outside chance at 1C.  No team in their right mind would burn a high first round pick for a 3C.  Give your head a shake.  

 

You guys give too much credit to Willie for Bo's success.  Bo's improved play is all on Bo himself.  He managed to turn one of his major shortcomings into a positive by improving his skating immensely.  Nothing to do with Willie.  Now I don't know how good Willie is as teaching the kids the x's and o's since I'm not privy to what goes on in practice.  I can only make my judgment based on what I can observe and what I see that Willie is doing with our young guys does not exactly give me comfort that he is the right man for the job.

 

There is more to player development than teaching x's and o's.  A good coach recognizes that all kids are not the same and can't be treated as such.  Very few players have the work ethic of a Bo or Megna or Chaput but they may have skills that need to be harnessed.  In order to do that, the coach needs to live with or tolerate mistakes or inconsistent play.  Willie's approach is that you need to show me that you can be defensively responsible and work like a dog before I give you a chance.  Not a good thing for a team that's in a rebuilding phase.  

 

I was very fortunate to have seasons tickets when Bure first came into the league.  I can still remember his first few shifts.  He was like a wild man skating all over the place, generating scoring chances without any regard for defence or adhering to a system.  If he did that on Willie's team, he would have been stapled to the bench or not dressed at all the next game.

 

Look, no one here thinks that Boucher is some sort of savior for this team.   He's a waiver wire pickup for gods sake.  But he does have some scoring skills which this team desperately needs.  Willie stubbornly plays his favorites instead and does not put Boucher in situations to succeed.  His attitude was like why give me this waiver wire hack and i'll play him a few minutes just to please you guys but hopes he goes away.  

 

Willie is too stubborn to change.  Coaches like he did in Junior and the minors which may have worked there but in the NHL not so much.

 

 

From Bleacher Report, sorry "could slot in as a 2C":

Top-End Potential

The worst-case projection for Horvat is an above-average third-line center. Given his tenacity and willingness to go to war for his teammates, he could eventually slot in as a No. 2 center, providing the grit and sandpaper for his more talented teammates. Role-wise, think Justin Abdelkader with the Detroit Red Wings or Dustin Brown with the Los Angeles Kings.

Sports Net at the time compared him to Jeff Skinner, also a third line player at the time.

Not knocking  Bo, if Virtanen was more like Bo, he'd be playing in Vancouver right now too.

You WD haters should give him some credit, because he has done a fine job developing the young players who have been trusted to him.

[canuckleheads fan]

3 hours ago, ice orca said:

Granlund is better than Kesler? Lol.

At this point in his career, given his current trajectory, yes I think he is.  Kessler had never been a play maker, he's always been a shoot first player.  If he were a play maker, Burrows would have developed into a sniper sooner.  Granlund is the kind of player who can snipe and make plays.  He is further along at his age than Kessler was.

[canuckleheads fan]

14 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

That last paragraph could apply to the Sedins just as much if not more than Boucher and our coach thinks they are still the hands down best option for the top line and 1st PP. 

Take Hank and Dank off the PP.  Who from the current roster do you put on the PP?  The reason Bo's unit is not PP1 is because Bo also is PK1, and the Sedins don't play the PK.  Yes the PP is awful, and I'm not sure given the current cast of characters how you make it better.  Boucher is getting PP time, Bo, Baer, Grany all play PP and yet we still suck!

[wallstreetamigo]

7 minutes ago, canuckleheads fan said:

Take Hank and Dank off the PP.  Who from the current roster do you put on the PP?  The reason Bo's unit is not PP1 is because Bo also is PK1, and the Sedins don't play the PK.  Yes the PP is awful, and I'm not sure given the current cast of characters how you make it better.  Boucher is getting PP time, Bo, Baer, Grany all play PP and yet we still suck!

Getting clean up duty after the Sedins have wasted half or more of a pp makes it tougher to get anything going.

 

This is the point that Willie supporters don't seem to comprehend:

 

The Sedins have been abysmal on the PP for the better part of two years now. They get some points here and there but on the whole their pp time is ineffective perimeter play looking for the perfect pass to each other. 

 

There are all kinds of options for the PP. That's what bottom feeder teams do when their season is essentially deep sixed. They try different options. The problem with our pp goes beyond personal though. It is the strategy of the PP that is severely lacking. No net presence, no real urgency, and most importantly no one moving their feet. 2011 called. They want their static standing around or at best cycling along the boards back. PL units are much more aggressive and eat that style for lunch as we have all seen.

 

Horvat is great on the PK but that is where guys like Megna should be placed, not on the PP.

[DIBdaQUIB]

23 minutes ago, canuckleheads fan said:

A 200 foot player is NOT a defensive specialist.  A defensive specialist is somebody who shuts down the other team's offensive weapons.  A 200 foot player is somebody who is responsible in all three zones.  A 200 foot player back checks as hard as he fore checks, because stopping a goal against is as valuable as scoring a goal for.  But they are also good a fore checking and very capable of scoring.  Stevie Y was always responsible in all three zones, he became an excellent defensive specialist later in his career.  Of the players you listed, two were #1 draft picks and Kessel was a #5, they are in a MUCH different category than anybody currently on the Canuck roster.  Kane and Ovi are in the McDavid class, and likely get a bit of a pass on the defensive end.  Until he got to Pittsburgh, Kessel was as big a liability because of his defense as he was an asset due to his offense, which caused him to be a cancer in the room.  Its why until he got to Pittsburgh and became peripheral player that he saw any real success.

 

And again, he didn't demote Boucher because he's not good defensively, he's not, he demoted him because he can't skate, he can't keep up with Bo and Baer in transition, he's not fast enough to get to the boards for puck retrieval and then to the front of the net with the twins, and he's not defensively sound enough to play on the team's defensive third line.  His lack of speed holds him back from playing on any of Vancouver's top three lines. 

You're making a lot of points but none of them have to do with my stated position.  I acknowledged a 200' game is necessary for players in the NHL.  My contention is that not all players should have to master that before being given deployment that suits their skill set.   I gave plenty of examples including rookies (Laine) that have been developed that way.  If you think there is only one way and that all players should learn the 200' game first - which takes years by the way - then we disagree. 

I believe the defensive side of being a 200' NHLer  is largely a coached skill that any player with decent speed and commitment can master.  Scoring at the NHL level is much more difficult and requires natural talent and skill that cannot be taught.  TO me, players that have that natural talent should be given the chance to use it when they arrive to transfer that skill to the NHL level and then be taught the rest of the game over time.   I appreciate Megna's speed and commitment along with many of the fringe players we are currently seeing but I do not believe any amount of coaching or opportunity is going to turn them into NHL goal scorers.  Therefore, to sit more talented players who need to learn defence in favour of rewarding energy guys with top 6 minutes is, to me, a flawed development strategy.

Regarding Boucher...he is just an example because it is late in the season, the Nucks are not making the playoffs and it would be good for management to see what he has talent-wise for the few remaining games.  Who cares if he is not up to speed?  Is losing right now 3-1 instead of 2-1 so important that we need to continue to play our vets 20+ minutes each game?   Besides, if preventing goals is the intent, the Sedins and Edler would be best to be shut down for the season.

 

 

[BoDangles53]

2 hours ago, Barry_Wilkins said:

You obviously have a hard time with reading comprehension.

 

I've stated at least twice that it's the core who've been healthy for the most part, bar Tanev, and that all teams live or die by the performance or appearance of their core players.

 

I quoted WD because he was asked the question regarding injuries, but refused the easy out by going along with it. WD himself downplays it, which is the right attitude. Completely opposite of that clown Tortorella with his "this core is stale" excuse. No, Tortorella, you were stale. But thanks for the 2nd round pick. 

Our core has missed Gudbranson, Hansen was out for most of the season  if you argue we've only missed him 6 games (its not really true), Tanev constantly in and out, and Dorsett - when you already have a lack of NHL experience and depth, losing players with that level of experience hurts unproportionately to a team who is a contender. Our team was never going to be a playoff team, heck the media called 65 pts? Where are we? maybe we end up  w 72?

 

The core and depth are two very important and related issues

Even if you want to include Bo/Baer/Granny/Stech/Hutton as our core - they really are being forced into that role vs REALLY being ready to be EXPECTED to contribute every night

 

You're previous argument ignores the FACT we're a team in transition, everyone knows that - so our core really can't be that strong just by that definition alone

 

Add in who we've missed defensively and energy /experience wise and add a young d corps, and clearly we're going to have challenges

 

Who exactly do you expect the carry the team? The aging Sedins? Edler who's being overused due to injuries and a lack of depth of capable NHL players? Did you expect Sutter to score 35 goals? 

 

We have used 37 players this year on our roster - that doesn't scream "solid core" - our record for using players is 42 and for a perennially losing franchise I'd say that's a fairly obivous sign

 

Your comments are absurd

[coho8888]

20 minutes ago, canuckleheads fan said:

From Bleacher Report, sorry "could slot in as a 2C":

Top-End Potential

The worst-case projection for Horvat is an above-average third-line center. Given his tenacity and willingness to go to war for his teammates, he could eventually slot in as a No. 2 center, providing the grit and sandpaper for his more talented teammates. Role-wise, think Justin Abdelkader with the Detroit Red Wings or Dustin Brown with the Los Angeles Kings.

Sports Net at the time compared him to Jeff Skinner, also a third line player at the time.

Not knocking  Bo, if Virtanen was more like Bo, he'd be playing in Vancouver right now too.

You WD haters should give him some credit, because he has done a fine job developing the young players who have been trusted to him.

 

 

So because guys like Bo, Markus and Sven are doing well its all because Willie is doing a great job?  What about  Vey, Etem, Virtanen, Mccann, etc..?  Did he do a crappy job on them?  I guess you would say that its the kids fault if he's not doing well but give credit to Willie when he is? Wow talk about being biased.  I could just as easily form the opinion that these kids are doing well in spite of Willie.  I've already said why I think Bo has improved.  A case could be made that both Sven and Markus are products from another system with something to prove and are playing for their next contracts coming up soon.  As for Tryamkin, well we all know how Willie feels about him yet he's still one of our bright spots.  

[Barry_Wilkins]

On 3/19/2017 at 9:57 PM, BoDangles53 said:

Our core has missed Gudbranson, Hansen was out for most of the season  if you argue we've only missed him 6 games (its not really true), Tanev constantly in and out, and Dorsett - when you already have a lack of NHL experience and depth, losing players with that level of experience hurts unproportionately to a team who is a contender. Our team was never going to be a playoff team, heck the media called 65 pts? Where are we? maybe we end up  w 72?

 

The core and depth are two very important and related issues

Even if you want to include Bo/Baer/Granny/Stech/Hutton as our core - they really are being forced into that role vs REALLY being ready to be EXPECTED to contribute every night

 

You're previous argument ignores the FACT we're a team in transition, everyone knows that - so our core really can't be that strong just by that definition alone

 

Add in who we've missed defensively and energy /experience wise and add a young d corps, and clearly we're going to have challenges

 

Who exactly do you expect the carry the team? The aging Sedins? Edler who's being overused due to injuries and a lack of depth of capable NHL players? Did you expect Sutter to score 35 goals? 

 

We have used 37 players this year on our roster - that doesn't scream "solid core" - our record for using players is 42 and for a perennially losing franchise I'd say that's a fairly obivous sign

 

Your comments are absurd

No, the bolded comment is absurd because you have taken my words for conclusions either completely opposite to, or irrelevant of, the general point I'm making, which is, once again, for the reading comprehension challenged :

 

1) the core has been relatively healthy

 

2) they have underperformed, ergo:

 

3) we have struggled, especially so in that we don't have the depth to even begin to overcome that.

 

As you can see, I agree with several of your assertions, and have been silent on some of your other assumptions, wrongly attributed to me.

 

 

[canuckleheads fan]

20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Getting clean up duty after the Sedins have wasted half or more of a pp makes it tougher to get anything going.

 

This is the point that Willie supporters don't seem to comprehend:

 

The Sedins have been abysmal on the PP for the better part of two years now. They get some points here and there but on the whole their pp time is ineffective perimeter play looking for the perfect pass to each other. 

 

There are all kinds of options for the PP. That's what bottom feeder teams do when their season is essentially deep sixed. They try different options. The problem with our pp goes beyond personal though. It is the strategy of the PP that is severely lacking. No net presence, no real urgency, and most importantly no one moving their feet. 2011 called. They want their static standing around or at best cycling along the boards back. PL units are much more aggressive and eat that style for lunch as we have all seen.

 

Horvat is great on the PK but that is where guys like Megna should be placed, not on the PP.

Bo plays the PK because he wins face offs.  You have to win the defensive zone face offs in order to clear the puck.

[BoDangles53]

7 minutes ago, Barry_Wilkins said:

No, the bolded comment is absurd because you have taken my words for conclusions either completely opposite to, or irrelevant of, the general point I'm making, which is, once again, for the reading comprehension challenged :

 

1) the core has been relatively healthy

 

2) they have underperformed, ergo:

 

3) we have struggled, especially so in that we don't have the depth to even begin to overcome that.

 

As you can see, I agree with several of your assertions, and have been silent on some of your other assumptions, wrongly attributed to me.

 

 

37 players used this season bro = no real established 'core' buddy

 

stick  your head in the sand and repeat nonsense like the Donald - just repeating nonsense doesn't make it right - glad you ignored every single point that ragdolled your ridiculous argument - I can stick my fingers in my ears and say nananannananan too! 

 

[Barry_Wilkins]

On 3/19/2017 at 10:19 PM, BoDangles53 said:

37 players used this season bro = no real established 'core' buddy

 

stick  your head in the sand and repeat nonsense like the Donald - just repeating nonsense doesn't make it right - glad you ignored every single point that ragdolled your ridiculous argument

 

Sucks to be wrong I know

You have a problem with words connected to meanings. "Core", here, isn't abdominal strength, or the regular 20 player line-up. It refers to the key players in any NHL line-up -- the most relied upon -- who have to play close to their established level in order for the team to do well. The Sedins, Edler, Tanev, Horvat, and (arguably, at least this year) Miller. Horvat and Miller are pluses. The others, obviously, have been big minuses.

 

Sorry you're having a bad day.

[canuckleheads fan]

22 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

You're making a lot of points but none of them have to do with my stated position.  I acknowledged a 200' game is necessary for players in the NHL.  My contention is that not all players should have to master that before being given deployment that suits their skill set.   I gave plenty of examples including rookies (Laine) that have been developed that way.  If you think there is only one way and that all players should learn the 200' game first - which takes years by the way - then we disagree. 

I believe the defensive side of being a 200' NHLer  is largely a coached skill that any player with decent speed and commitment can master.  Scoring at the NHL level is much more difficult and requires natural talent and skill that cannot be taught.  TO me, players that have that natural talent should be given the chance to use it when they arrive to transfer that skill to the NHL level and then be taught the rest of the game over time.   I appreciate Megna's speed and commitment along with many of the fringe players we are currently seeing but I do not believe any amount of coaching or opportunity is going to turn them into NHL goal scorers.  Therefore, to sit more talented players who need to learn defence in favour of rewarding energy guys with top 6 minutes is, to me, a flawed development strategy.

Regarding Boucher...he is just an example because it is late in the season, the Nucks are not making the playoffs and it would be good for management to see what he has talent-wise for the few remaining games.  Who cares if he is not up to speed?  Is losing right now 3-1 instead of 2-1 so important that we need to continue to play our vets 20+ minutes each game?   Besides, if preventing goals is the intent, the Sedins and Edler would be best to be shut down for the season.

 

 

And again, I don't think this team really has any players who fall into your offensively talented category (aside from maybe Goldobin), so your point is moot.  Hopefully Goldobin gets back in time so that we can see him in a few games, but he's likely the only player on the NHL roster who I would consider possibly offensively gifted.

[BoDangles53]

8 minutes ago, Barry_Wilkins said:

You have a problem with words connected to meanings. "Core", here, isn't abdominal strength, or the regular 20 player line-up. It refers to the key players in any NHL line-up -- the most relied upon -- who have to play close to their established level in order for the team to do well. The Sedins, Edler, Tanev, Horvat, and (arguably, at least this year) Miller. Horvat and Miller are pluses. The others, obviously, have been big minuses.

 

Sorry you're having a bad day.

Sorry you make absurd comments and can't handle being called out on it

 

The point is our core is not very good because we are team in transition - you barked at someone for 'reading comprehension'? suggest you take your own advice

 

If you don't get we're not a team in transition no one here can help you. Also, repeating myself since you don't read people's responses and just bark in order to 'be right in your own mind' - Tanev has played 42 games so he's missed what a 1/4 of the season? Gudbranson and Dorsett not core? really? What about hansen who played what, 28 games for us this year? He's not core?

 

BUDDY YOU DON'T READ A RESPONSE AND JUST REPEAT CRAP = YOU ARE A TROLL - THAT'S THE DEFINITION 

 

GO READ MY INITIAL POST YOU GOT OWNED / RAGDOLLED

 

YOU'RE WRONG AND YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO READ IT AND EVEN DEAL WITH THE FACTS I LAID OUT SHOWS IT

 

It's pretty much impossible for an NHL to be competitive when they play 39 players during the season, the fact you still ignore that and think we have some 'established' core this year makes me laugh.

 

Dont come back and repeat your crap - you got owned - want to debate go read my post and debate point by point otherwise move along kid -