[Signing] Canucks re-sign Erik Gudbranson

[JeremyCuddles]

7 hours ago, LegionOfDoom said:

if Gudbranson can play the way he has the last 2 games for us more often I’m much more confident in this blue line going forward, the way he played for Florida in the playoffs 2 years ago was warrior status and those are the kinda guys we need once we take that next step to being a playoff team 

This team needs more players good enough to make this team a playoff team, I don't want to question anyone's hearts but I imagine it's easier to get up for games when they mean something. We've played 0 meaningful games this year cause we've been so poor. Started off pretty good, but none of the games in October - December mean much at the time. Get this team to playoff status I think we see even better play from Bo, Gudbranson and others.

[EternalCanuckFan]

2 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

This team needs more players good enough to make this team a playoff team, I don't want to question anyone's hearts but I imagine it's easier to get up for games when they mean something. We've played 0 meaningful games this year cause we've been so poor. Started off pretty good, but none of the games in October - December mean much at the time. Get this team to playoff status I think we see even better play from Bo, Gudbranson and others.

It's nice to see Guddy play well down this stretch of "meaningless" games considering that he has his contract in hand.  It does seem to confirm that the uncertainty of his future might have affected his play beforehand which, IMHO, is reasonable and actually shows his character.  I would have been more concerned if Guddy got his contract and then no-showed for the remainder of this season.  As others have said, I hope he can keep his level of play up when the Canucks play better teams (although the Kings are a solid team).

[oldnews]

Gudbranson has been great lately - best player on the ice in recent games.

Was a force in Phoenix.

And again last night in L..A.....30.7% ozone starts, 54.6% corsi.

Shutting down odd man rushes, physical, great positioning, very mobile - really getting some traction now that he's had a reasonably healthy stretch of games.

On-ice goals against has actually dropped to 2.0 per 60 minutes - unreal given the type of role he plays.

[kloubek]

Hope he keeps it up. I still say that while we need size, the play/cycle often stops with him.

[PhillipBlunt]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Gudbranson has been great lately - best player on the ice in recent games.

Was a force in Phoenix.

And again last night in L..A.....30.7% ozone starts, 54.6% corsi.

Shutting down odd man rushes, physical, great positioning, very mobile - really getting some traction now that he's had a reasonably healthy stretch of games.

On-ice goals against has actually dropped to 2.0 per 60 minutes - unreal given the type of role he plays.

Notice that the anti-Gudbranson brigade is silent lately. No ammo, no gunfire.

[aGENT]

51 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Notice that the anti-Gudbranson brigade is silent lately. No ammo, no gunfire.

Worthless, overpaid bum All he brings is some size and what good is that when he's hurt 1/2 the time. Not a 'real' top 4 D.

[riffraff]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Notice that the anti-Gudbranson brigade is silent lately. No ammo, no gunfire.

.....no clue.

[PhillipBlunt]

2 hours ago, riffraff said:

.....no clue.

That was evident from the beginning.

[SingleThorn]

A lot of talk in the draft thread about the merits of picking either Boqvist or Hughes. Imagine our defence without Gudbranson.

 

Stecher, Hutton, Pouliot, Juolevi and Boqvist/ Hughes.

 

Five ultra soft d-men and Alex Edler dreaming of retirement.

 

[Gurn]

7 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

This team needs more players good enough to make this team a playoff team, I don't want to question anyone's hearts but I imagine it's easier to get up for games when they mean something. We've played 0 meaningful games this year cause we've been so poor. Started off pretty good, but none of the games in October - December mean much at the time. Get this team to playoff status I think we see even better play from Bo, Gudbranson and others.

Points in October and December still count, thus those games were meaningful. Without serious injuries to the entire first line and two of the best d-men, the Canucks were in the play off hunt. Next year the team should be better and hopefully healthier, most likely challenge for a spot in the first round.

[PhillipBlunt]

47 minutes ago, SingleThorn said:

A lot of talk in the draft thread about the merits of picking either Boqvist or Quinn. Imagine our defence without Gudbranson.

 

Stecher, Hutton, Pouliot, Juolevi and Boqvist/ Quinn.

 

Five ultra soft d-men and Alex Edler dreaming of retirement.

 

I don't think that Stecher is soft, just small. Hutton has shown the ability to hit (Orpik) and fight (Smith-Pelly), Pouliot can hit as well.

 

But Gudbranson is as imposing and intimidating as all three put together.

 

[SilentSam]

Good stretch for Gudbranson, hope this continues and the end of this season is something to solidly build from over the Summer.

[oldnews]

8 hours ago, SingleThorn said:

A lot of talk in the draft thread about the merits of picking either Boqvist or Hughes. Imagine our defence without Gudbranson.

 

Stecher, Hutton, Pouliot, Juolevi and Boqvist/ Hughes.

 

Five ultra soft d-men and Alex Edler dreaming of retirement.

 

Or imagine it with Gudbranson - and Tryamkin and/or Sbisa.

'Ultra-soft' is an embellishment imo.  - and regardles, there isn't room for your five so it's a questionable point.

Edler, Del Zotto, Juolevi and/or Pouliot.

Tanev, Gudbranson, Stecher and or Boqvist/Bouchard.

I think you're kind of overstating your point.

Stecher isn't 'soft' he's small.  Pouliot isn't 'soft', but he is a puck mover - and he'll have to work hard to stay in the top 6/7.  Hutton isn't likely to be in the lineup next year.

It's not as imbalanced as you're suggesting, particularly if they get a Tryamkin back, or flip a Del Zotto and bring a Sbisa back,

Regardless, they just lost those two (Tryamkin and Sbisa), so it was a step back before a step forward.

But thank fn Benning they acquired - and re-signed Gudbranson.  It blows my mind how oblivious so many 'hockey gurus' in this market are - many of them always outspoken, many of them trolling Gudbranson incessantly.

[SingleThorn]

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

Or imagine it with Gudbranson - and Tryamkin and/or Sbisa.

'Ultra-soft' is an embellishment imo.  - and regardles, there isn't room for your five so it's a questionable point.

Edler, Del Zotto, Juolevi and/or Pouliot.

Tanev, Gudbranson, Stecher and or Boqvist/Bouchard.

I think you're kind of overstating your point.

Stecher isn't 'soft' he's small.  Pouliot isn't 'soft', but he is a puck mover - and he'll have to work hard to stay in the top 6/7.  Hutton isn't likely to be in the lineup next year.

It's not as imbalanced as you're suggesting, particularly if they get a Tryamkin back, or flip a Del Zotto and bring a Sbisa back,

Regardless, they just lost those two (Tryamkin and Sbisa), so it was a step back before a step forward.

But thank fn Benning they acquired - and re-signed Gudbranson.  It blows my mind how oblivious so many 'hockey gurus' in this market are - many of them always outspoken, many of them trolling Gudbranson incessantly.

I like all the names in your bolded.

 

My thoughts were more aimed at the worries I have re the draft and Boqvist or Hughes. An imbalanced d.

 

I like all our current d, but feel that pundits who are brushing aside the need for a modicum of size are not on the right path.

 

I'll grant that ultra soft is an over statement. Perhaps a group that power forwards look at without fear is more accurate.

 

I see Pouliot, Hutton and MDZ as players with only one job to fill.

 

You're correct. If we get Tryamkin back, things change. When the 2018 draft happens, he won't be here. If we get Tryamkin and Sbisa back, it's a totally different story. ( A story I like ! )

[D-Money]

Size is important to have, but it can be dispersed throughout the line-up. Tampa is a good example - they have one of the smallest group of forwards in the league, but offset that with a large D-core. And Boston regularly dresses two 5'9 D-men in Krug and Grzelchyk, but they are heavily insulated by Chara, Carlo, and McQuaid.

 

People remember our 2011 team because of their skill, but one of the reasons they were so effective was because of size as well. The only players we had who were under 6'0 were Keith Ballard and Jeff Tambellini - and they were 5'11, and not even regulars. Only 2 regulars were under 6'1 - Raffi Torres and Chris Higgins, who were built like tanks.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Gudbranson the player, but I'm perfectly fine with the signing. And getting Tryamkin back would be huge (pun intended).

[PhillipBlunt]

34 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Size is important to have, but it can be dispersed throughout the line-up. Tampa is a good example - they have one of the smallest group of forwards in the league, but offset that with a large D-core. And Boston regularly dresses two 5'9 D-men in Krug and Grzelchyk, but they are heavily insulated by Chara, Carlo, and McQuaid.

 

People remember our 2011 team because of their skill, but one of the reasons they were so effective was because of size as well. The only players we had who were under 6'0 were Keith Ballard and Jeff Tambellini - and they were 5'11, and not even regulars. Only 2 regulars were under 6'1 - Raffi Torres and Chris Higgins, who were built like tanks.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Gudbranson the player, but I'm perfectly fine with the signing. And getting Tryamkin back would be huge (pun intended).

I don't think Vancouver's size on defense, during the 2011 playoffs was the reason it was effective at all, outside of Edler being a menace with his hits during most of the playoff run. Once Boston began their assault (literally) the Canucks didn't have enough size to fight back. Subsequently, they were beaten down and broken.

[D-Money]

23 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I don't think Vancouver's size on defense, during the 2011 playoffs was the reason it was effective at all, outside of Edler being a menace with his hits during most of the playoff run. Once Boston began their assault (literally) the Canucks didn't have enough size to fight back. Subsequently, they were beaten down and broken.

They certainly did have the size.

 

Problem was they were already beaten down and broken. Injuries killed them, mostly from the first 3 rounds. And when their #1 D-man went down, they were done.

 

To this day, I still can't believe this didn't receive a suspension:

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

On 3/11/2018 at 7:46 AM, Setyoureyesontheprize said:

Worst defensive d man that ever lived; so much indecision with the puck &  looks so uncomfortable in his zone. if only he had Troys smarts & battle in him 

You drunk?

[PhillipBlunt]

13 minutes ago, D-Money said:

They certainly did have the size.

Agree to disagree.

13 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Problem was they were already beaten down and broken. Injuries killed them, mostly from the first 3 rounds. And when their #1 D-man went down, they were done.

The team did sustain quite a few injuries during the Boston series. From Hamhuis' ill advised hip check of a far larger Lucic, to Bieksa getting a two handed slash to the calves from Ference, to Raymond getting potentially paralyzed by Boychuk, plenty of injuries occurred during that series.

 

Sure Vancouver had the size to match and outmuscle Chicago, they lacked the size to match Nashville's blueline at the time, but Kesler went into another gear, and that didn't matter so much.

 

As well, the powerplay was instrumental in beating San Jose.

 

Boston went for the jugular and were given free reign to do so throughout that series. Seeing as how they boasted Chara (6'9" 260) McQuaid (6'5" 210) Lucic (6'4" 230) Boychuk (6'2" 220) Thornton (6'2" 220), all of whom were extremely physical players who insulated talented players like Bergeron, and talented scum like Marchand, Vancouver didn't have a physical deterrent to match Boston when this occurred.

13 minutes ago, D-Money said:

To this day, I still can't believe this didn't receive a suspension:

 

 

Or that Boychuk didn't receive one for what he did to Raymond. Or that Ference and Marchand weren't given a minor penalty for their transgressions.

[rekker]

3 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Agree to disagree.

The team did sustain quite a few injuries during the Boston series. From Hamhuis' ill advised hip check of a far larger Lucic, to Bieksa getting a two handed slash to the calves from Ference, to Raymond getting potentially paralyzed by Boychuk, plenty of injuries occurred during that series.

 

Sure Vancouver had the size to match and outmuscle Chicago, they lacked the size to match Nashville's blueline at the time, but Kesler went into another gear, and that didn't matter so much.

 

As well, the powerplay was instrumental in beating San Jose.

 

Boston went for the jugular and were given free reign to do so throughout that series. Seeing as how they boasted Chara (6'9" 260) McQuaid (6'5" 210) Lucic (6'4" 230) Boychuk (6'2" 220) Thornton (6'2" 220), all of whom were extremely physical players who insulated talented players like Bergeron, and talented scum like Marchand, Vancouver didn't have a physical deterrent to match Boston when this occurred.

Or that Boychuk didn't receive one for what he did to Raymond. Or that Ference and Marchand weren't given a minor penalty for their transgressions.

Sigh. Still have a tough time with it all. I want to want punch a wall when I think about it