DoughtysCheck

Preseason GDT/PGT Vancouver-Edmonton Friday Septmber 22nd @6:00 PST

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Depth.

The Canucks have waiver wire-type depth and some prospects to go along with the Gagners, etc. They have bottom 6 depth, but let's stop there. The D is quite blah too, with little room to improve via trades, but the TDL 'should' finally be interesting for the backend. 

 

I expect nothing more during a rebuild. I expect contract-year hunger and desire, but not offense. This is the spirit of the rebuild. Next step is to start the inflate and purge and then to integrate the young core into this depth of mediocracy that is the top 6.

 

After that, we can complain that their is no depth below that and wait for the insulating support and role players to be inserted last. This is how how it always happens. 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Depth.

The Canucks have waiver wire-type depth and some prospects to go along with the Gagners, etc. They have bottom 6 depth, but let's stop there. The D is quite blah too, with little room to improve via trades, but the TDL 'should' finally be interesting for the backend. 

What exactly do you think "depth" is?  That a team should have a dozen top-6 players?  Depth means that you have more than a roster's worth of NHL-calibre players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

What exactly do you think "depth" is?  That a team should have a dozen top-6 players?  Depth means that you have more than a roster's worth of NHL-calibre players.

You are obviously correct. Depth is at the bottom of the roster, top-end talent is at the top. They are opposites by definition. But that won't stop certain posters from choosing not to understand this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2017 at 1:13 AM, canuktravella said:

 benning wont ever get us a cup if biega, chaput or megna are in our lineup we need players like boeser, virtanen, demko, juolevi, petersson, tryamkin. 

 

We're not planning on on winning the cup this year, are we? I think you're missing a pretty vital piece of the puzzle here.

 

On 9/23/2017 at 9:19 AM, Viper007 said:

It's not that we lost him.  It's that we lost him for absolutely nothing.  The canucks could've gotten a pick for the guy, if they didn't just put him on waivers.

Who exactly is going to trade you an asset for a fringe player who they know you're going to have to put on waivers where they can get them for free? Do you think NHL managements are morons or....? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

What exactly do you think "depth" is?  That a team should have a dozen top-6 players?  Depth means that you have more than a roster's worth of NHL-calibre players.

Context, please. 

What depth are we discussing? 

Rodin, Goldy, Granlund, ... ... lots of depth, depth, but not expecting much of anything from on the scoresheet or in trade. How fortuitous! I like the stealth tank and this predicament. Pigs in lips stick are still pigs. 

 

What depth the team currently has is of little-to-no value, being that it's comprised of nearly the same player profile - smallish, gentlemanly, non impact, scoring wingers.  In the Canucks' case, the "depth" is only that of carbon copies of those described above. This makes the task of the "depth" statement false, if we look at it in traditional context.

 

This "depth" of depth of support/role type players is not a balance of styles, it's a glut of the most common commodity in the NHL; its a misrepresentation of the term used to describe rosters that can handle injury, for instance, without collapsing from an imbalance caused by removing one element.

 

Having depth in the easiest to aquire assets, which also net the smallest trade returns, arguably causes development issues for the younger, cheaper players sent to the A and defaults the roster's push-back capacity to nil, should not give cause for as much of a celebration as has been made on here. 

 

A balanced depth, sure, that would be something worth celebrating, but this roster's depth is not that, which I see as a fair, if not apt, comment. 

Edited by 189lb enforcers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the other teams have like 6-10 Crosby's and McDavid's just waiting for call ups in their prospect pools. Duh!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J.R. said:

Yeah the other teams have like 6-10 Crosby's and McDavid's just waiting for call ups in their prospect pools. Duh!

IMG_0458.thumb.JPG.3baf896ea0b11f3a3ed3a5947c20a61f.JPG

Is this the attention you were looking so hard for, Jr? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 189lb enforcers? said:

IMG_0458.thumb.JPG.3baf896ea0b11f3a3ed3a5947c20a61f.JPG

Is this the attention you were looking so hard for, Jr? 

 

extreme-ironing_o_1563419.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SamJamIam said:

Y'all been trolled.  Have none of you encountered this goofy fella before? 

Unfortunately, far too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SamJamIam said:

Y'all been trolled.  Have none of you encountered this goofy fella before? 

Actually don't consider him a troll, rather someone who makes claims but then cannot sustain a rational argument to back them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

Actually don't consider him a troll, rather someone who makes claims but then cannot sustain a rational argument to back them up.

If you're referring to my posts here, I trust you will find a rational argument as to why I feel the Canucks have less roster depth than has been so loudly proclaimed in here. I do not recall, nope just checked as well, any Debate here. Only my comment, followed by something about Crosby, trolls and a "goofy fellow". 

 

Scroll up a few posts, it's all there.

 

No need to tell stories about fellow posters like this. Pretty sure that is against the rules as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2017 at 5:49 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:

If you're referring to my posts here, I trust you will find a rational argument as to why I feel the Canucks have less roster depth than has been so loudly proclaimed in here. I do not recall, nope just checked as well, any Debate here. Only my comment, followed by something about Crosby, trolls and a "goofy fellow". 

 

Scroll up a few posts, it's all there.

 

No need to tell stories about fellow posters like this. Pretty sure that is against the rules as well. 

Not when there's adequate evidence in many threads, including this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.