Sign in to follow this  
-Vintage Canuck-

[PGT] Arizona Coyotes at Vancouver Canucks | Jan. 16, 2020

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

Man, I'm not going to relent haha.

 

Boeser isn't being traded for any other winger. Boeser is wanted by every other team in the NHL. He's on a super friendly contract, and scoring at an 80 point pace. Did he sleep with your girl?

 

What

The

Hell

Do

You

Want

From

Him?

Different people look for different things.  I like BB, glad he's a Canuck, but I've never been shy about thinking he's not going to be worth his next contract.  He is a prime candidate, imo, to be moved to strengthen the d Corps and maybe add another first.  

 

However, I think hes in Van for next season, maybe the one after.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bree2 said:

hmm Gretzky and Eichel were not the best skaters, you don't have to be a fast skater to be good

Eichel? So your comparing Brocks skating to Eichel?....

personally would go with Mathew tkuck....both average skaters but different skill set. 

 

Edit* have I ever said Brock wasn't good player?!

Edited by RowdyCanuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did a lot of small things right and those are the things necessary to grind out a solid team win like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

I disagree wholeheartedly, so much so that I can't even type fast enough to properly convey my outright frustration with the overall premise of this post.  Green is a player's coach and he's been terrific in regards to developing the core.  Gallant is the polar opposite and has been unceremoniously canned on two straight teams that had a higher overall talent pool.  If this team misses the playoffs, and I will bet this account they won't, it's Benning that should get fired.  B)

Lol you had me until fire Benning? 

Why would you fire JB for missing the playoffs? I think he's built a good young team that is trending up? 

Do you not like trending up and having a loaded prospect pool while the NHL team is also improving? 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


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

Did a lot of small things right and those are the things necessary to grind out a solid team win like that. 

"win line that". Eh? :bigblush:

 

Share this post


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

Different people look for different things.  I like BB, glad he's a Canuck, but I've never been shy about thinking he's not going to be worth his next contract.  He is a prime candidate, imo, to be moved to strengthen the d Corps and maybe add another first.  

 

However, I think hes in Van for next season, maybe the one after.

I somewhat agree with you. I like Brock but do see some holes in his game on the defensive side and along the boards. 

I do feel like he is still very young though and his play without the puck will improve. Whether he'll be worth his next contract will depend on that factor. Will he continue to improve on the other aspects of his game and be a complete player? 

Share this post


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

I somewhat agree with you. I like Brock but do see some holes in his game on the defensive side and along the boards. 

I do feel like he is still very young though and his play without the puck will improve. Whether he'll be worth his next contract will depend on that factor. Will he continue to improve on the other aspects of his game and be a complete player? 

My biggest issue with Boes is that points get paid and if he continues to put up big numbers, he's going to get a big payday, regardless of the overall effectiveness of his game.   

 

Points also bring back significant pieces in a trade, which is where Boes' true value lies, for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stawns said:

My biggest issue with Boes is that points get paid and if he continues to put up big numbers, he's going to get a big payday, regardless of the overall effectiveness of his game.   

 

Points also bring back significant pieces in a trade, which is where Boes' true value lies, for me.

I get what you are saying. 

In 2020 summer, if a team offers another JT Miller type player (solid player with 200 ft game who has yet to break out on a good contract) along with a first rounder for Boeser, would we take the deal? 

Answer for me is yes. 

Imagine a line of 2 Millers and Petey and a first rounder to boot... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

I get what you are saying. 

In 2020 summer, if a team offers another JT Miller type player (solid player with 200 ft game who has yet to break out on a good contract) along with a first rounder for Boeser, would we take the deal? 

Answer for me is yes. 

Imagine a line of 2 Millers and Petey and a first rounder to boot... 

Or a top 4 dman and first rounder.  It's nothing personal against BB, I just think he has more value as an asset than as a player.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stawns said:

Or a top 4 dman and first rounder.  It's nothing personal against BB, I just think he has more value as an asset than as a player.

Who would replace BB's points? 

I feel like Hog, Pod are still a few years away from Brock numbers. We don't know what Gaudette's ceiling is but i doubt it's higher than Boeser. 

I like the way the team is going. I like Boeser. I would only trade him if it's overpayment by another team. A top 4 and a first doesn't seem like an overpayment. To be fair to Brock , I think he's worth more than that. 

I think I would only trade Brock for a player who can put up similar points but is tougher to play against and had yet to break out so that we can grab a draft pick as well. 

Edited by CanucksJay

Share this post


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

Fantenberg is playing the left side.  Rafferty plays the right.

Yeah but sheltered mins in certain aspects don't help if he hasn't played that much since we picked him up before the season started and it's getting used to a regular partner who may or may not fit the style of play of another d partner so "sometimes" other factors play into it but playing with Rafferty has to be helping him get used play with more offense that compliments his stay at home D style.. 

 JB has made a habit of trying to put that together more but he can more as we're not tied into many long term contracts as we did before, we're getting there but people have to just get used to the fact that there so many factors involved when a team is being rebuilt as it has in the last few years.. 

  Fun to watch?  Sure, we have beat some pretty good teams and they know if their not on their game their going to lose unless we're having an off night as we do here and there.. 

 Personally can hardly wait to see Hogs n Pods as they go through their development... Always need help at the back end usually though, good to have depth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

Who would replace BB's points? 

I feel like Hog, Pod are still a few years away from Brock numbers. We don't know what Gaudette's ceiling is but i doubt it's higher than Boeser. 

I like the way the team is going. I like Boeser. I would only trade him if it's overpayment by another team. A top 4 and a first doesn't seem like an overpayment. To be fair to Brock , I think he's worth more than that. 

I think I would only trade Brock for a player who can put up similar points but is tougher to play against and had yet to break out so that we can grab a draft pick as well. 

I think they could make up the points by committee, but it's definitely a risk, like all trades are 

 

If it ever happened, it would be closer to the end of his current deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was at the game, noticed the "D" taking the puck back and maintaining possession more...rather than making the easy but lazy play of dumping it in while the forwards are trapped in the ozone thereby giving up possession easily; also, more zone entries by taking the puck wide with possession when the other team didn't challenge them at the blue line are being made...rather than making the easy play to dump it in and chase, only to have the other team break the puck out...

 

they're making it harder on the other team by possessing the puck more when the opportunities are there to maintain possession.

 

...noticed some zone entries where all 3 forwards were in line with each other...they need to set up the attack triangle more by having the three forwards staggered (one trailing, one taking the puck wide with speed and the other crashing the net, plus the decisions with the puck have to be made faster in order to play a fast game (timing and creating space is everything)...improvement is needed to have a great puck possession game...but overall, the game was well played by the Canucks.

Edited by Pete M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pete M said:

Was at the game, noticed the "D" taking the puck back and maintaining possession more...rather than making the easy but lazy play of dumping it in while the forwards are trapped in the ozone thereby giving up possession easily; also, more zone entries by taking the puck wide with possession when the other team didn't challenge them at the blue line are being made...rather than making the easy play to dump it in and chase, only to have the other team break the puck out...

 

they're making it harder on the other team by possessing the puck more when the opportunities are there to maintain possession.

 

...noticed some zone entries where all 3 forwards were in line with each other...they need to set up the attack triangle more by having the three forwards staggered (one trailing, one taking the puck wide with speed and the other crashing the net, plus the decisions with the puck have to be made faster in order to play a fast game (timing and creating space is everything)...improvement is needed to a have a great puck possession game...but overall, the game was well played by the Canucks.

Markstrom made a great save to preserve the 1 goal lead but all in all, canucks played really well preserving a one goal lead. I noticed that it wasnt the usual dump the puck out and defend routine.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure if anyone mentioned it...Jake has already eclipsed his career high in points after playing only 48 games.....he has 26 pts, his career high was 25 pts.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Pete M said:

not sure if anyone mentioned it...Jake has already eclipsed his career high in points after playing only 48 games.....he has 26 pts, his career high was 25 pts.

I think he looks great in the last 20 games or so.   He will end up with 44 pts.  I hope he starts ramping up his hitting a bit more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 9:55 PM, nux_win said:

Thanks.  That explains why it wasn't called a penalty.  Now, I'm curious as to why that rule is written that way.  Seems like obvious too many men to me.  But whatever, I am no more informed.  Go Canucks Go!

My guess would be the league wanting more offense, and especially more OT/shootouts.  If you penalize the team for the infraction, you either get 4x4 if pulling the goalie on a delayed penalty, or effectively handing the winning team the game if the offending team is pulling the goalie trying to tie it late.

 

By having this rule in place, the team pulling the goalie can maintain their offense, and in the case of the late-game scenario, increase (or maintain, depending on perspective) the odds of OT.

 

Since the offense is pretty minor, I don't have a problem with the rule as it is.  Was just surprised that was how it worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kragar said:

My guess would be the league wanting more offense, and especially more OT/shootouts.  If you penalize the team for the infraction, you either get 4x4 if pulling the goalie on a delayed penalty, or effectively handing the winning team the game if the offending team is pulling the goalie trying to tie it late.

 

By having this rule in place, the team pulling the goalie can maintain their offense, and in the case of the late-game scenario, increase (or maintain, depending on perspective) the odds of OT.

 

Since the offense is pretty minor, I don't have a problem with the rule as it is.  Was just surprised that was how it worked.

Thanks for your input but it still doesn't make any sense to me.  Why then don't they do the same with all too many men situations.  Consistency is not the NHL's strong suit.  I can let that one go though. 

 

I also wanted to mention that I made a pretty serious typo in my comment, I meant to say I am "now" more informed when I actually said I am "no" more informed (quite a big difference than intended).  Anyway, the bottom line is that the way the NHL officiates these days keeps me constantly confused. 

 

I've been watching NHL hockey for 50 years and while there is always some grey area I used to feel pretty confident about what constituted a penalty and what didn't, now I'm mostly mystified by what they let go and what they actually call.  I have no idea what a penalty is anymore and I wonder if the refs do.  Go Canucks Go!

Share this post


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

Thanks for your input but it still doesn't make any sense to me.  Why then don't they do the same with all too many men situations.  Consistency is not the NHL's strong suit.  I can let that one go though. 

 

I also wanted to mention that I made a pretty serious typo in my comment, I meant to say I am "now" more informed when I actually said I am "no" more informed (quite a big difference than intended).  Anyway, the bottom line is that the way the NHL officiates these days keeps me constantly confused. 

 

I've been watching NHL hockey for 50 years and while there is always some grey area I used to feel pretty confident about what constituted a penalty and what didn't, now I'm mostly mystified by what they let go and what they actually call.  I have no idea what a penalty is anymore and I wonder if the refs do.  Go Canucks Go!

Yeah, I'm there with you on the confusion part, and time watching.  All we can do is hope for the best for our guys.

 

GCG!

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

Lol you had me until fire Benning? 

Why would you fire JB for missing the playoffs? I think he's built a good young team that is trending up? 

Do you not like trending up and having a loaded prospect pool while the NHL team is also improving? 

Because it'll be the longest drought in franchise history for missing the playoffs, that's unacceptable.  Too many bad contracts on the books, this team is not in good shape cap wise despite what most think.

 

Luckily for you and Benning I said if they miss the playoffs, they won't.  I guarantee they'll make it, I'll bet my precious CDC account on it.  They better resign Green though, generational coach.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.