Tyler Myers l #57 l D

[Rob_Zepp]

46 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I think he's tempering expectations more than predicting doom and gloom.

Tempering expectations would be that they should easily be as good a group as they were last year.   That is the lowest bar and they should easily clear that.

[highwayman3]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Myers is clearly a top four guy.  He won the Calder!  He’s 6’8”, 230, and skates great.  He’s super smart too.  

Edler Myers

Hughes Tanev

Benn Stecher

Bulldog.

 

Within 10 games Hughes is our top minute D man.  

Within 40 games OJ has forced his way into our top four and is playing 18 - 20 minutes.

Myers will get 30 plus points

Edler 30 plus

Hughes 60 plus.

 

He won the Calder a decade a go lol.  He's not clearly a top 4 guy, he was a #4 defenceman in Winnipeg but didn't do very well in those minutes.  Look - I love your optimism but I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.  Of all the moves made this offseason this was the worst imo.  Loved the rest.  

 

Myers will get destroyed playing top pairing minutes with Edler.  There's a reason Winnipeg never had him play against the top lines of other teams.  

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, highwayman3 said:

He won the Calder a decade a go lol.  He's not clearly a top 4 guy, he was a #4 defenceman in Winnipeg but didn't do very well in those minutes.  Look - I love your optimism but I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.  Of all the moves made this offseason this was the worst imo.  Loved the rest.  

 

Myers will get destroyed playing top pairing minutes with Edler.  There's a reason Winnipeg never had him play against the top lines of other teams.  

Been a Canuck’s fan since before the NHL version.  Definitely know what disappointment is.  Don’t care about Winnipeg.  Maybe they win in the playoffs if their stupid coach plays Myers more.  Isn’t that the same coach who though playing Ehlers was a way to win?  

[highwayman3]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Been a Canuck’s fan since before the NHL version.  Definitely know what disappointment is.  Don’t care about Winnipeg.  Maybe they win in the playoffs if their stupid coach plays Myers more.  Isn’t that the same coach who though playing Ehlers was a way to win?  

So because Winnipeg, one of the top teams in the league, didn't use him in that way - we should? Hmm not sure that would be a very wise coaching decision.  I'm sure Green will try out different pairings, and once he sees Myers gets burned multiple times he will undoubtedly use him the same way Maurice and previous coaches have used him.  Lots of offensive zone starts and sheltered in terms of competition.  Certainly not with Edler vs the big boys.  

Edited July 23, 2019 by highwayman3

[Alflives]

Just now, highwayman3 said:

So because Winnipeg, one of the top teams in the league, didn't use him in that way - we should? Hmm not sure that would be a very wise coaching decision.  I'm sure Green will try out different pairings, and once he sees Myers gets burned multiple times he will undoubtedly use him the same way Maurice and previous coaches have used him.  Lots of offensive zone starts and sheltered in terms of competition.  Certainly not with Edler vs the big boys.  

Nope.  Myers will be a defensive star for us.  Hughes will be his partner.  Myers gets 30 second assists just freeing up pucks in our zone for Quinn.  

[highwayman3]

Just now, Alflives said:

Nope.  Myers will be a defensive star for us.  Hughes will be his partner.  Myers gets 30 second assists just freeing up pucks in our zone for Quinn.  

Lol sure he will  And we're winning the cup this year right?

[WeneedLumme]

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

So the Canucks sign two top six Dmen, have Hughes for the entire year and retained Edler in FA and you are predicting doom and gloom?

 

2 hours ago, -AJ- said:

I think he's tempering expectations more than predicting doom and gloom.

No, I am pretty sure he is predicting doom and gloom.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, highwayman3 said:

Lol sure he will  And we're winning the cup this year right?

We make the playoffs this year, but lose in round two.

Next year 2020/2021 our boys bring home the Cup.

this great core JB has assembled, wins three Cups this decade. 

[Kanukfanatic]

5 hours ago, highwayman3 said:

Yup.  Have no idea why people think pairing him with Edler is a good idea, Myers is a great bottom pairing guy, and a reasonable #4 on a good day.  Needs to be sheltered just as he was in Winnipeg.  He will get eaten alive in top pairing minutes.  

 

Edler - Stecher

Benn - Tanev

Hughes - Myers (extremely sheltered pairing with offensive zone starts)

 

Is my best guess.  

Yeah ok.

 

They paid Myers 6m to play him 3rd pairing minutes?

And they will play the 3rd line D in Stecher 1st pairing minutes?

And they will play 3rd pairing D Benn 2nd pairing minutes?

 

Come on.  This is soooo out to lunch.  

[Kanukfanatic]

5 hours ago, Alflives said:

Myers is clearly a top four guy.  He won the Calder!  He’s 6’8”, 230, and skates great.  He’s super smart too.  

Edler Myers

Hughes Tanev

Benn Stecher

Bulldog.

 

Within 10 games Hughes is our top minute D man.  

Within 40 games OJ has forced his way into our top four and is playing 18 - 20 minutes.

Myers will get 30 plus points

Edler 30 plus

Hughes 60 plus.

 

You beat me to that line up Alf.  The previous one was hilarious and so wrong imo.

[Kanukfanatic]

3 hours ago, -AJ- said:

From all reports I've heard, playing Myers on the top pairing would be a mistake. His offense is good enough, but his defense can be questionable. I think I like these pairings:

 

Edler-Tanev - Solid all around and already good chemistry

Benn-Hughes - Two different styles complement each other 

Myers-Stecher - Stecher helps balance Myers' offense plays with sound defense

 

The only potential problem I see with this is that Benn may be playing out of his depth in the top 4, but Green could amend that by playing pairings 2 and 3 evenly.

If this team had any belief at all they were going to play Myers on the 3rd pairing there is absolutely no way they would have paid him 6m per year.  This just won't happen.

[-AJ-]

1 minute ago, Kanukfanatic said:

If this team had any belief at all they were going to play Myers on the 3rd pairing there is absolutely no way they would have paid him 6m per year.  This just won't happen.

They had to overpay a bit to get a player of his calibre. Either way, as I state in that post, it might be better if those lines were viewed as a 2A and 2B defensive pairings, as both have some good pieces.

 

All indications from his past and any resources imply that Myers will struggle with top 2 minutes. Benning might hope that Myers can handle top pairing minutes, but then he's betting that Myers will break the trend, not continue the trend. While cap hit is indicative of how a GM anticipates a player being used, it shouldn't factor into their actual use (see Eriksson). I expect Myers to be around 3rd/4th in TOI per game among Canucks defensemen.

[Kanukfanatic]

17 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

They had to overpay a bit to get a player of his calibre. Either way, as I state in that post, it might be better if those lines were viewed as a 2A and 2B defensive pairings, as both have some good pieces.

 

All indications from his past and any resources imply that Myers will struggle with top 2 minutes. Benning might hope that Myers can handle top pairing minutes, but then he's betting that Myers will break the trend, not continue the trend. While cap hit is indicative of how a GM anticipates a player being used, it shouldn't factor into their actual use (see Eriksson). I expect Myers to be around 3rd/4th in TOI per game among Canucks defensemen.

I have to FULLY disagree with the bolded. 

 

If a GM intends for a player such as Myers to play on their 3rd pairing then they should just pay 1/3rd of the price and get an actual 3rd line player such as the Canucks did with Benn. 

 

The indications seem to point to JB believing Myers can play an important top 4 role. If Myers ends up being unable to do that (like some posters believe) then JB and his pro scouts were totally wrong and they overpaid for a 3rd pairing D man.  They got Benn who is a solid 3rd pairing D man and they have Stecher who is a 3rd pairing D man.  They did not need another and if Myers turns into that, JB has made a mistake (like he did with 'littlethings' Ericksson).

 

For now I will take JB's word for it over some of the doom and gloom posters here saying they know for a fact Myers is a crap defense man. I will go with the actual NHL paid GM's and scouts and hope they are right.

 

In your example bolded above, the indication was going to be Loui would be playing top minutes. JB and his pro scouts blew that ufa hire and that poor decision forced the coach to play loui on the bottom line or so because he turned out to be a dud. 

 

 

[-AJ-]

5 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

I have to FULLY disagree with the bolded. 

 

If a GM intends for a player such as Myers to play on their 3rd pairing then they should just pay 1/3rd of the price and get an actual 3rd line player such as the Canucks did with Benn. 

 

The indications seem to point to JB believing Myers can play an important top 4 role. If Myers ends up being unable to do that (like some posters believe) then JB and his pro scouts were totally wrong and they overpaid for a 3rd pairing D man.  They got Benn who is a solid 3rd pairing D man and they have Stecher who is a 3rd pairing D man.  They did not need another and if Myers turns into that, JB has made a mistake (like he did with 'littlethings' Ericksson).

 

For now I will take JB's word for it over some of the doom and gloom posters here saying they know for a fact Myers is a crap defense man. I will go with the actual NHL paid GM's and scouts and hope they are right.

 

In your example bolded above, the indication was going to be Loui would be playing top minutes. JB and his pro scouts blew that ufa hire and that poor decision forced the coach to play loui on the bottom line or so because he turned out to be a dud. 

 

 

I think you're misunderstanding my point there. I agree that the indication is that the intention would be big minutes, but that doesn't mean at all that the player should be given those minutes simply as a product of being paid that much. By that logic, Eriksson should be playing first line minutes. Instead, we look at their actual level of play to determine which line they'll be on rather than their contract.

[Rob_Zepp]

15 hours ago, highwayman3 said:

There's a reason Winnipeg never had him play against the top lines of other teams. 

This is incorrect.    Do you even bother looking at statistics?    Myers often matched up against other teams top lines.    

 

It is bad enough you clearly have an agenda but at least put an effort into something that isn't so easily checked.

[highwayman3]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

This is incorrect.    Do you even bother looking at statistics?    Myers often matched up against other teams top lines.    

 

It is bad enough you clearly have an agenda but at least put an effort into something that isn't so easily checked.

Simply because I have a different view of this player does not mean I have an agenda.  Characterizing everyone who disagrees with you as having one isn't very conducive to discussion imo.

 

I'm looking at Micah Blake McCurdy’s Threat model, which attempts to isolate the individual impact of a player on shot rates from the impact of a number of confounding factors such as teammates, their opponents, score effects, zones starts, and home-ice advantage as well as The EvolvingHockey Goals Above Replacement (GAR) model and just plain old quality of competition.  Maybe "never" was a bit extreme but he normally played against 3rd / 4th lines.  

 

What statistics are you looking at?

 

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

Simply because I have a different view of this player does not mean I have an agenda.  Characterizing everyone who disagrees with you as having one isn't very conducive to discussion imo.

 

I'm looking at Micah Blake McCurdy’s Threat model, which attempts to isolate the individual impact of a player on shot rates from the impact of a number of confounding factors such as teammates, their opponents, score effects, zones starts, and home-ice advantage as well as The EvolvingHockey Goals Above Replacement (GAR) model and just plain old quality of competition.  Maybe "never" was a bit extreme but he normally played against 3rd / 4th lines.  

 

What statistics are you looking at?

 

 

Can you post those stats?

I read that Quinn Hughes, in his five games last year, was off the charts phenomenal with shot difference.  While on the ice we outshot the other team by a ratio of 7:3.  Maybe Hughes plays with Edler, and Myers plays second pair, and PK?

[highwayman3]

12 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Can you post those stats?

I read that Quinn Hughes, in his five games last year, was off the charts phenomenal with shot difference.  While on the ice we outshot the other team by a ratio of 7:3.  Maybe Hughes plays with Edler, and Myers plays second pair, and PK?

Here's the McCurdy stuff

 

https://twitter.com/IneffectiveMath/status/1145734208473767936/photo/1

 

I'll find a link for the GAR stuff.

 

Yes, Hughes was amazing in regards to advanced shots / shot differential.  He's going to be an elite defenceman imo.  Personally I think Stecher may be ready for top 4 minutes with Edler, he did very well last year.  If not then Tanev.  Even though I am very optimistic about Hughes I think that he should be sheltered as a rookie, so that's why I see him and Myers on the third pairing.  Maybe Hughes works his way up midway through the season?

 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, highwayman3 said:

Here's the McCurdy stuff

 

https://twitter.com/IneffectiveMath/status/1145734208473767936/photo/1

 

I'll find a link for the GAR stuff.

 

Yes, Hughes was amazing in regards to advanced shots / shot differential.  He's going to be an elite defenceman imo.  Personally I think Stecher may be ready for top 4 minutes with Edler, he did very well last year.  If not then Tanev.  Even though I am very optimistic about Hughes I think that he should be sheltered as a rookie, so that's why I see him and Myers on the third pairing.  Maybe Hughes works his way up midway through the season?

 

 

Green did an interview after the season, and he said they played Hughes 14 minutes (likely sheltered) in game one.  Then by game five he played Hughes 22 minutes (not at all sheltered).  I think Quinn plays a lot come day one.  

Myers will play a lot of minutes.  For certain PK. 

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, highwayman3 said:

Simply because I have a different view of this player does not mean I have an agenda.  Characterizing everyone who disagrees with you as having one isn't very conducive to discussion imo.

 

I'm looking at Micah Blake McCurdy’s Threat model, which attempts to isolate the individual impact of a player on shot rates from the impact of a number of confounding factors such as teammates, their opponents, score effects, zones starts, and home-ice advantage as well as The EvolvingHockey Goals Above Replacement (GAR) model and just plain old quality of competition.  Maybe "never" was a bit extreme but he normally played against 3rd / 4th lines.  

 

What statistics are you looking at?

 

 

Pairing stats and strength of opposition.    He played largely against what you could call "second lines" far more than anything else but was moved around and played with partners ranging from Buf to Trouba during this past season.   It is interesting when Buf was injured he moved up to top pairing minutes and had his best stats of his entire season in terms of possession, GA/TA as if he rose to better competition.