Provost

[Report] Eriksson likely to be moved on

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

Is Tryamkin  back yet,  we need some positive threading around here :ph34r:

Damn.. no sooner did I say it but @shayster007 has quoted in the Tryamkin thread that Goldobrin and Tryamkin were on “live Instagram”, and Nik said he wants to come back to Vancouver , they’re working on a contract. 

Spoiler

::D

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

He'll be sitting in the press box where he belongs.  He might as well make himself useful, unlike the rest of his tenure here.  If he doesn't like it, he's more than welcome to retire and enjoy his ill-gotten money.

Instead of a 'laughing' reaction, I would have given you a crying one.....but there is none (sigh). :sadno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Loui,  cmon,   you can play,      cmon.. 4 th line,..      cmon get a little closer...  now go! 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, oldnews said:

Wot.

You clearly don't know what "sheltered" means - honestly the first line of that post is an absolute bust.

30.1 and 35.6% ozone starts there - playing principally with an inexperienced center like Gauthier.

 

I'd think you can't possibly be serious, but you appear to be.

He averaged under 9 minutes a game at even strength with 16% in the neutral zone start/60, 50% of his shifts were on the fly/60. I considered that sheltered minutes. 

 

Why do you think there were rumours that he requested to be traded? Because he thinks he wasn’t given an opportunity to play = sheltered.

Edited by shiznak
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

On the coaches? How is that? By playing him with the twins who make stars out of plumbers? Even at their end they were top 6 players. Playing him with Petey? Our young calder winning superstar? Maybe the guys on TSN were just calling a spade a spade guy. As ONeill said, a coaches job is to win, you don't sit or demote guys for playing well dude. Green just had it out for him? Is that your argument? And Benning is partially to blame for Erickson's lack of desire? Whaaaaat? He gave him 42 mill reasons to have desire guy. SMH

You make it sound like he has had 3 years of exclusive top line usage and done nothing with it. Thats not close to the truth at all. He was not really given a lot of top 6 opportunity overall considering what they signed him to do.

 

The coaches certainly share some of the blame. Neither Desjardins nor Green have really attempted to utilize Eriksson in the way Boston did that got the most out of him. He has been largely miscast in Van, which has actually been an ongoing theme in Vancouver back to the Alain Vigneault days. Some players were just square pegs in round holes. Some of that is on Eriksson for not running with the somewhat sporadic opportunities he got for sure. As i have said many times. But really, if you sign a player to a big money deal like that its probably a good idea to understand how he found the success previously that made you want to sign him in the first place and try to get him back to that place.

 

Sometimes players dont fit in even playing with great players. Chemistry is not guaranteed. That seems to be the case with Eriksson in Van unfortunately.

 

Burrows often gets lumped in as a plugger who the Sedins made into a good player but what people miss is that Burrows also made the Sedins more effective by the way he played the game. He gave them space to make plays. He went to the net. He retrieved pucks, forechecked hard, and added a strong defensive conscience to their line. All of these things helped allow the Sedins to play their game. Thats how chemistry works.

 

I thought at the time that, despite international success as a line, Eriksson would not be a good fit with the Sedins on the Canucks. Unfortunately they were pretty much all we had in his first few years in Van. Last year I thought Eriksson looked pretty good with EP actually. Not lights out, but not worthy of the demotion either. So in a sense I can understand his frustration too.

 

Players get sat and demoted for all kinds of reasons, and its not always that the best players play. Coaches are human and have favorites who despite struggling never lose their spot. Its not a negative, its just reality. O'Neill's comment is seriously simplified presumably so it can become a soundbyte for the unwashed masses desperate to hate on a guy who by all accounts hasnt lived up to his contract.

 

Eriksson is up against it now. He has to win any spot he might get. And thats not a bad thing at all. If he can't, he ends up in Utica etc. 

 

But his time in Vancouver has not only been a failure because of him. It was a bad contract to begin with and thats on Benning. It set the expectations sky high. He has struggled to find a steady role and thats on Desjardins and now Green too. Its their job. 

 

I want him gone as much as the next guy. But your argument does not seek out any realistic balance at all. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Green has been pretty adamant that everyone needs to earn their icetime.  Are you advocating special treatment for Eriksson? 

Not at all. I have always said exactly that. My argument is that, despite what the hater crowd says, if Eriksson is still a Canuck heading into next season, none of this other over-dramatized stuff is an excuse not to give him that opportunity. You guys seem hell bent on the Canucks punishing him by not doing so based on comments to the media and your skewed perception of him as being a player with no value or skill. 

 

Eriksson has quite simply not been utilized to what his previous strengths were in his time in Vancouver. Part of that is coaching imo. Part of it is him not taking advantage of his opportunities too. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont get the argument for Eriksson here. He is not even trying as a NHL player. If he works as hard as Motte, it would have been noticeable and the criticism here would be cut in half. So the problem with Eriksson is simple. He gets paid top dollar, doesn't produce like a top player, and is lazy and dragging down the team. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, shiznak said:

He averaged under 9 minutes a game at even strength with 16% in the neutral zone start/60, 50% of his shifts were on the fly/60. I considered that sheltered minutes. 

 

Why do you think there were rumours that he requested to be traded? Becausehe thinks he wasn’t given an opportunity to play = sheltered.

Confirmed -  that you don't know what 'sheltered' means.   I'd explain it - again - but I'm pretty sure I already have.

Edited by oldnews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Silver Ghost said:

You make it sound like he has had 3 years of exclusive top line usage and done nothing with it. Thats not close to the truth at all. He was not really given a lot of top 6 opportunity overall considering what they signed him to do.

 

The coaches certainly share some of the blame. Neither Desjardins nor Green have really attempted to utilize Eriksson in the way Boston did that got the most out of him. He has been largely miscast in Van, which has actually been an ongoing theme in Vancouver back to the Alain Vigneault days. Some players were just square pegs in round holes. Some of that is on Eriksson for not running with the somewhat sporadic opportunities he got for sure. As i have said many times. But really, if you sign a player to a big money deal like that its probably a good idea to understand how he found the success previously that made you want to sign him in the first place and try to get him back to that place. 

 

Sometimes players dont fit in even playing with great players. Chemistry is not guaranteed. That seems to be the case with Eriksson in Van unfortunately.

 

Burrows often gets lumped in as a plugger who the Sedins made into a good player but what people miss is that Burrows also made the Sedins more effective by the way he played the game. He gave them space to make plays. He went to the net. He retrieved pucks, forechecked hard, and added a strong defensive conscience to their line. All of these things helped allow the Sedins to play their game. Thats how chemistry works.

 

I thought at the time that, despite international success as a line, Eriksson would not be a good fit with the Sedins on the Canucks. Unfortunately they were pretty much all we had in his first few years in Van. Last year I thought Eriksson looked pretty good with EP actually. Not lights out, but not worthy of the demotion either. So in a sense I can understand his frustration too.

 

Players get sat and demoted for all kinds of reasons, and its not always that the best players play. Coaches are human and have favorites who despite struggling never lose their spot. Its not a negative, its just reality. O'Neill's comment is seriously simplified presumably so it can become a soundbyte for the unwashed masses desperate to hate on a guy who by all accounts hasnt lived up to his contract.

 

Eriksson is up against it now. He has to win any spot he might get. And thats not a bad thing at all. If he can't, he ends up in Utica etc. 

 

But his time in Vancouver has not only been a failure because of him. It was a bad contract to begin with and thats on Benning. It set the expectations sky high. He has struggled to find a steady role and thats on Desjardins and now Green too. Its their job. 

 

I want him gone as much as the next guy. But your argument does not seek out any realistic balance at all. 

"probably a good idea to understand how he found the success previously that made you want to sign him in the first place and try to get him back to that place"  SO what is "his game"? what is this role he hasn't been allowed to play? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Silver Ghost said:

You make it sound like he has had 3 years of exclusive top line usage and done nothing with it. Thats not close to the truth at all. He was not really given a lot of top 6 opportunity overall considering what they signed him to do.

 

The coaches certainly share some of the blame. Neither Desjardins nor Green have really attempted to utilize Eriksson in the way Boston did that got the most out of him. He has been largely miscast in Van, which has actually been an ongoing theme in Vancouver back to the Alain Vigneault days. Some players were just square pegs in round holes. Some of that is on Eriksson for not running with the somewhat sporadic opportunities he got for sure. As i have said many times. But really, if you sign a player to a big money deal like that its probably a good idea to understand how he found the success previously that made you want to sign him in the first place and try to get him back to that place.

 

Sometimes players dont fit in even playing with great players. Chemistry is not guaranteed. That seems to be the case with Eriksson in Van unfortunately.

 

Burrows often gets lumped in as a plugger who the Sedins made into a good player but what people miss is that Burrows also made the Sedins more effective by the way he played the game. He gave them space to make plays. He went to the net. He retrieved pucks, forechecked hard, and added a strong defensive conscience to their line. All of these things helped allow the Sedins to play their game. Thats how chemistry works.

 

I thought at the time that, despite international success as a line, Eriksson would not be a good fit with the Sedins on the Canucks. Unfortunately they were pretty much all we had in his first few years in Van. Last year I thought Eriksson looked pretty good with EP actually. Not lights out, but not worthy of the demotion either. So in a sense I can understand his frustration too.

 

Players get sat and demoted for all kinds of reasons, and its not always that the best players play. Coaches are human and have favorites who despite struggling never lose their spot. Its not a negative, its just reality. O'Neill's comment is seriously simplified presumably so it can become a soundbyte for the unwashed masses desperate to hate on a guy who by all accounts hasnt lived up to his contract.

 

Eriksson is up against it now. He has to win any spot he might get. And thats not a bad thing at all. If he can't, he ends up in Utica etc. 

 

But his time in Vancouver has not only been a failure because of him. It was a bad contract to begin with and thats on Benning. It set the expectations sky high. He has struggled to find a steady role and thats on Desjardins and now Green too. Its their job. 

 

I want him gone as much as the next guy. But your argument does not seek out any realistic balance at all. 

I hear what you're saying with regards to linemates and opportunity, but i don't want LE gone because of his lack of pts.   I haven't been able to stand his lack of effort.  he has no desire to engage in battles, reaching into battles only (usually falling down because of it), and defers to others to either drive the play or retrieve the puck.

 

If he wasn't playing that way, then both his linemates calibre and his playing time would have both increased. 

Edited by Jayinblack
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jayinblack said:

I hear what you're saying with regards to linemates and opportunity, but i don't want LE gone because of his lack of pts.   I haven't been able to stand his lack of effort.  he has no desire to engage in battles, reaching into battles only (usually falling down because of it), and defers to others to either drive the play or retrieve the puck.

 

If he wasn't playing that way, then both his linemates calibre and his playing time would have both increased. 

This is a fair criticism of Eriksson's play. Its a fair criticism of a lot of players play though. Consistency in maintaining that high level of effort and engagement is difficult for many players. I am not sure I would agree that it is an all or nothing scenario though as some of the posters i am disagreeing with are implying. Thats really my main point. Some of that may be confidence driven too. He just looks like a player who doesnt want to make any mistake and that very often leaves players hesitant. Not that its an excuse, i just see it as a reality. Getting him to engage more is certainly something that needs to be addressed by the coaching staff. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

This is a fair criticism of Eriksson's play. Its a fair criticism of a lot of players play though. Consistency in maintaining that high level of effort and engagement is difficult for many players. I am not sure I would agree that it is an all or nothing scenario though as some of the posters i am disagreeing with are implying. Thats really my main point. Some of that may be confidence driven too. He just looks like a player who doesnt want to make any mistake and that very often leaves players hesitant. Not that its an excuse, i just see it as a reality. Getting him to engage more is certainly something that needs to be addressed by the coaching staff. 

 

He's not JV - young guy trying to find consistency -  he's a long time veteran player who has had 3 years here.

Whether it was an issue with the coach, or pouting  due to not getting handed a spot with the Sedins.... it's been 3 years of lacklustre effort and I just can't watch it let alone want it around the young core we have developing together.

 

By contrast, the jam that Ferland and Miller bring up front will make a huge difference (especially to JV's game)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jayinblack said:

I hear what you're saying with regards to linemates and opportunity, but i don't want LE gone because of his lack of pts.   I haven't been able to stand his lack of effort.  he has no desire to engage in battles, reaching into battles only (usually falling down because of it), and defers to others to either drive the play or retrieve the puck.

 

If he wasn't playing that way, then both his linemates calibre and his playing time would have both increased. 

I don't think that's just  'how he's playing' - I think that is - and has been - his style of game.

 

Eriksson isn't a 'battle' type player - never has been.  That doesn't mean, however, that he 'lacks effort'.   He's somewhat like the Sedins in that sense - he goes to the hard areas - he's willing to take the punishment that results (he's a player that thrives on 'reaching' - vacuums up rebounds, scores goals in the paint.)   Likewise, defensively  - he's a 'positioning' defender - he gets himself in the right places, reads the play - and has tremendous reach actually - that enables him to get his stick in lanes, has good stick work - but is not going to run anyone over and separate them from the puck.

 

He has a few strengths that made him somewhat of a good fit - the pitch and catch possession game he's capable of - the fact that he goes to the hard areas and scores those ugly goals - but the limits of his game are what made me prefer other options in that free agent market - I thought they needed a winger more out of a pwf mold - one that forechecks hard, is a bit more physical in his own zone - a spacemaker (and battler - Burrows may not have been particulary 'physical' himself, but he was a relentless 'battler') - but as it turns out, there weren't really any viable alternatives in that UFA market - the whole lot seems to have turned out to underperform the contracts they got.

 

I don't expect LE to be something he's not - but perhaps ironically, this emerging group might make the best mix for him to fit into if the bridges hadn't been relatively burned already (and the number of additions pushing him further towards the margins of a healthy lineup - if he's on the roster at all).

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jayinblack said:

He's not JV - young guy trying to find consistency -  he's a long time veteran player who has had 3 years here.

Whether it was an issue with the coach, or pouting  due to not getting handed a spot with the Sedins.... it's been 3 years of lacklustre effort and I just can't watch it let alone want it around the young core we have developing together.

 

By contrast, the jam that Ferland and Miller bring up front will make a huge difference (especially to JV's game)

I think its unfair to say that veteran players dont have struggles as well. In a lot of cases, the transition for an older player from scorer to energy type bottom 6 guy is actually much harder both physically and emotionally. 

 

Eriksson is not impacting the young core in terms of their work ethic etc. He may be paid like a core player but he is not one on ice or influentially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silver Ghost said:

This is a fair criticism of Eriksson's play. Its a fair criticism of a lot of players play though. Consistency in maintaining that high level of effort and engagement is difficult for many players. I am not sure I would agree that it is an all or nothing scenario though as some of the posters i am disagreeing with are implying. Thats really my main point. Some of that may be confidence driven too. He just looks like a player who doesnt want to make any mistake and that very often leaves players hesitant. Not that its an excuse, i just see it as a reality. Getting him to engage more is certainly something that needs to be addressed by the coaching staff. 

 

Dude he’s not a 19 year old rookie that needs coddling. He has shown he doesn’t have the drive to compete. That’s all one needs to see to suggest he doesn’t belong here anymore 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 18W-40C-6W said:

Dude he’s not a 19 year old rookie that needs coddling. He has shown he doesn’t have the drive to compete. That’s all one needs to see to suggest he doesn’t belong here anymore 

And no team here is going to want Loui.  He’s done in the NHL.  He’s had three years of piss poor play!  He is soft as a marshmallow to play against.  He can’t skate anymore.  He is weak now too.  The guy got old.  Put him in Utica, and forget him.  He will retire though before Utica.  He’s learning this summer that no team wants him.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And no team here is going to want Loui.  He’s done in the NHL.  He’s had three years of piss poor play!  He is soft as a marshmallow to play against.  He can’t skate anymore.  He is weak now too.  The guy got old.  Put him in Utica, and forget him.  He will retire though before Utica.  He’s learning this summer that no team wants him.  

I think he’s delusional or a narcissist. The fact he can’t even see how piss poor his play was and blames or bitches about Green, when he’s been a pro for how long? As O’Neill said a coach doesn’t staple you to the bench because you’re playing too good. The fact no team wants him as you said, is going to be the rude awakening for him. He’s better off breaking his contract and going to play in Europe. He’ll get 1.5 mil to play in the KHL and prob 2-3 years

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And no team here is going to want Loui.  He’s done in the NHL.  He’s had three years of piss poor play!  He is soft as a marshmallow to play against.  He can’t skate anymore.  He is weak now too.  The guy got old.  Put him in Utica, and forget him.  He will retire though before Utica.  He’s learning this summer that no team wants him.  

Ahhhhhh....the old reverse psychology trick! Very clever you rascal! Louie's going to read this, he's going to get mad, get inspired and hit the ground running at training camp. A new Louie who demands top 6 ice time! A new lease on his NHL life! And he will have you to thank!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.