Canucks Build/NHL builds

[UKNuck96]

I’m a Canucks fan from the Uk as the name suggests and have been since I lived in Vancouver in 1996.

 

However living in the UK does make it hard to catch the games due to time differences (with games starting on average at 3 to 3:30am local time and even a midday game is about a 7pm start. As such since 2011 I haven’t watched as much or followed as much as I would have liked due to work, family, home life, and have only recently been able to follow more closely.

 

Anyway I was thinking about 2011 and the cup run. During the years of AV we were a light, fast and skilled team and often the fans and commentators said we were to small, to light to compete in the playoffs and the the bruins, size and strength was the way to go. 
 

However in the current NHL the approach we had in 2011 is now a common approach to building teams and the game is more free flowing than before.

 

I think AV was a bit before the times with how he built the Canucks and while he often gets derided (or seems to on these boards) I do feel that he coached well and had a significant impact on who the Canucks signed, drafted, traded to fit with that philosophy.

 

what I find interesting is that while the league seems to have followed the path set down by the Canucks, the Canucks seem to have gone the other way and have looked on the whole for more size and more strength than the finess of 2011.

 

the Canucks have gone from being forerunners to behind the game in my eyes and the scars of 2011 are to blame for that?

 

does anyone else see similar?

[King Heffy]

St Louis and Washington weren't small.  You still need size.

[Nuxfanabroad]

It's called 2 rulebooks in the current US-NHL.

 

Build a light team, they'll throw the whistle away.

 

Build a heavier team(remember the Torts yr?! lol.. he lost it) say hello to 7 min 2 man disadv, as they call our knuckle-draggers for sneezing.

[Bissurnette]

Well firstly it wasn't AV who built that team it was Gillis. AV actually typically coaches his teams to play physical and stand up for each other. It took some doing for Gillis to convince AV to switch up and buy into the team style. AV was a really good coach, but it was just time to move on when he was let go. Players start to tune out the coaches after a while, it doesn't matter who is coaching, and you start seeing the same pitfalls that lead to losses. It was just time to move on.

 

Secondly, it's like Heffy said, you will always need toughness in the playoffs. It's not just prevalent in hockey, it's the same concept in all sports. Hockey brings it to the forefront due to the already physical nature of the sport. But look at any other contact sport and you'll find this to be true. I sincerely hope that never changes, and I genuinely think it never will. It's a war of attrition in the playoffs, and typically low scoring affairs. That's why I believe the best way to build a winner in the playoffs is 2way physical hockey. That's the style of play I've been wanting the Canucks to adopt since I first started following this team. I believe we finally have a team that resembles this style of play and I couldn't be more excited about it. 2 years of playoff experience, and I think we can really start making deep runs with this group.

[Nucker 67]

I like your observation and I also liked AV.  I remember in 2011 the Bruins were a bigger, tougher team than the Canucks, who relied on the skilled Swedish twins. Today's game  though, skill and speed rule. I can imagine two fast, skilled teams in the SC FInals this fall (weird to say). Maybe EDM, MTL or even VAN? Don't forget too, we may not see any fights in these playoffs or big scrums after the whistles. Contact would be too close, the game will be a bit different I think. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by NUCKER67

[khay]

1 hour ago, Vanuckles said:

Well firstly it wasn't AV who built that team it was Gillis. AV actually typically coaches his teams to play physical and stand up for each other. It took some doing for Gillis to convince AV to switch up and buy into the team style. AV was a really good coach, but it was just time to move on when he was let go. Players start to tune out the coaches after a while, it doesn't matter who is coaching, and you start seeing the same pitfalls that lead to losses. It was just time to move on.

 

Secondly, it's like Heffy said, you will always need toughness in the playoffs. It's not just prevalent in hockey, it's the same concept in all sports. Hockey brings it to the forefront due to the already physical nature of the sport. But look at any other contact sport and you'll find this to be true. I sincerely hope that never changes, and I genuinely think it never will. It's a war of attrition in the playoffs, and typically low scoring affairs. That's why I believe the best way to build a winner in the playoffs is 2way physical hockey. That's the style of play I've been wanting the Canucks to adopt since I first started following this team. I believe we finally have a team that resembles this style of play and I couldn't be more excited about it. 2 years of playoff experience, and I think we can really start making deep runs with this group.

I gotta say, I was impressed by AV's ability to adapt to new play style. I thought he'd be fired for sure and good on Gillis for keeping AV after he took over from Nonis.

 

I'm not sure if we were "light" during Gillis/AV era. The team played physical when needed, up to and including 2011. Kes, Burr, Torres, Lapierre, we had some guys on the back end that weren't exactly small, Edler, Hoff, Salo (not tall but he had good size), Rome, Alberts and the guys that were slightly undersized, didn't play small, Hamhuis, Bieksa, etc. I thought that 2012 and on, it almost seemed like they were too worried about the refs and stopped playing physical/on the edge.

 

That 2011 Canucks was extremely well balanced is what I'd say. They weren't the fastest team in the league but they moved the puck extremely fast. They were smart and skilled. They played physical when they had to. 

 

I can't remember for sure but I vaguely recall thinking that Tampa Bay team was actually even faster than us and similar skilled. I really wish it was TBL that made it to the SCF. That would have been a more fun series with speed and skill on full display.

 

Boston Bruins on the other hand played extremely well structured hockey with collapsing defence that kept the Canucks to the outside and obviously a goalie that was hot. And they were pretty well balanced team with physicality being their main advantage over the Canucks. Although they weren't as well balanced as the Canucks, they took exploited their one advantage over the Canucks and with some help from the refs and the league, were able to beat us in 7.

 

I do think the Canucks veered off course partly because of that series but at the same time,  I think the main reason why we became slow and stale is because we basically had no one in the farm system that could come up and push the older core. It was inevitable that we got slower as our players aged and with no succession plan in place. The rest of the league was just brining young guys with fresh legs.

 

[elvis15]

The Canucks had the most fights and hits (or close) in the playoffs in 2011. The Bruins really were more of a goon squad that were allowed to exceed the rules. If the playoffs had been officiated even part way properly, the Bruins wouldn't have made it past the 2nd round.

[Bissurnette]

On 7/11/2020 at 11:35 AM, khay said:

I gotta say, I was impressed by AV's ability to adapt to new play style. I thought he'd be fired for sure and good on Gillis for keeping AV after he took over from Nonis.

 

I'm not sure if we were "light" during Gillis/AV era. The team played physical when needed, up to and including 2011. Kes, Burr, Torres, Lapierre, we had some guys on the back end that weren't exactly small, Edler, Hoff, Salo (not tall but he had good size), Rome, Alberts and the guys that were slightly undersized, didn't play small, Hamhuis, Bieksa, etc. I thought that 2012 and on, it almost seemed like they were too worried about the refs and stopped playing physical/on the edge.

 

That 2011 Canucks was extremely well balanced is what I'd say. They weren't the fastest team in the league but they moved the puck extremely fast. They were smart and skilled. They played physical when they had to. 

 

I can't remember for sure but I vaguely recall thinking that Tampa Bay team was actually even faster than us and similar skilled. I really wish it was TBL that made it to the SCF. That would have been a more fun series with speed and skill on full display.

 

Boston Bruins on the other hand played extremely well structured hockey with collapsing defence that kept the Canucks to the outside and obviously a goalie that was hot. And they were pretty well balanced team with physicality being their main advantage over the Canucks. Although they weren't as well balanced as the Canucks, they took exploited their one advantage over the Canucks and with some help from the refs and the league, were able to beat us in 7.

 

I do think the Canucks veered off course partly because of that series but at the same time,  I think the main reason why we became slow and stale is because we basically had no one in the farm system that could come up and push the older core. It was inevitable that we got slower as our players aged and with no succession plan in place. The rest of the league was just brining young guys with fresh legs.

 

Agreed for the most part. We were a physical team but we didn't have any true heavyweight fighters that can stand up to the Thornton/Lucic/Chara/McQuaid/and the rest of their damn team. We could do everything well except that and again that style flourishes in the playoffs. If you recall, the LAK made a historical run in 2012 to take the cup and they were similarly built in the same style as the 2011 Bruins. Except the Bruins actually had a bit more firepower. The Kings were winning games 1-0 or 2-1 their entire run to the cup because nobody could score on them. Same as the Bruins, they were a huge physical team with lots of defensive awareness and they played a defensive system where they clogged up the middle of the ice and collapsed to the net. All the shots were from the outside and Quick was playing god-like when they got a grade A scoring chance against. Funny enough, I actually think Markstrom would fit that play style to a T, and much like Quick in 2012, he'd play his way to a Conn Smythe and a Stanley Cup.

 

Speaking of TBL, yes 100% we would have matched up way better against them. If you listen to Bieksa's last interview on Spittin' Chiclets - he says so himself. The Canucks were watching the ECF in 2011 and hoping Tampa would win because the Bruins were just too heavy and too big for the Canucks to handle. What ifs...

[The Colt 45s]

On 7/11/2020 at 12:02 PM, Vanuckles said:

Well firstly it wasn't AV who built that team it was Gillis. AV actually typically coaches his teams to play physical and stand up for each other. It took some doing for Gillis to convince AV to switch up and buy into the team style. AV was a really good coach, but it was just time to move on when he was let go. Players start to tune out the coaches after a while, it doesn't matter who is coaching, and you start seeing the same pitfalls that lead to losses. It was just time to move on.

 

Secondly, it's like Heffy said, you will always need toughness in the playoffs. It's not just prevalent in hockey, it's the same concept in all sports. Hockey brings it to the forefront due to the already physical nature of the sport. But look at any other contact sport and you'll find this to be true. I sincerely hope that never changes, and I genuinely think it never will. It's a war of attrition in the playoffs, and typically low scoring affairs. That's why I believe the best way to build a winner in the playoffs is 2way physical hockey. That's the style of play I've been wanting the Canucks to adopt since I first started following this team. I believe we finally have a team that resembles this style of play and I couldn't be more excited about it. 2 years of playoff experience, and I think we can really start making deep runs with this group.

The genesis of our 2010-2011 run was engineered by AV.  In 2005, we named him the coach of the Moose and they went 44-24-0-12.  

[Bissurnette]

9 hours ago, The Colt 45s said:

The genesis of our 2010-2011 run was engineered by AV.  In 2005, we named him the coach of the Moose and they went 44-24-0-12.  

I think you're confusing "engineered" with "guided/materialized/substantiated" by AV. Engineering implies building. AV didn't build the team. This is Gillis' recipe, he's the engineer (along with Burke and Nonis). AV guided the ship.

 

EDIT: Sorry maybe I misunderstood the point you were making... care to elaborate?

Edited July 14, 2020 by Vanuckles

[The Colt 45s]

19 hours ago, Vanuckles said:

I think you're confusing "engineered" with "guided/materialized/substantiated" by AV. Engineering implies building. AV didn't build the team. This is Gillis' recipe, he's the engineer (along with Burke and Nonis). AV guided the ship.

 

EDIT: Sorry maybe I misunderstood the point you were making... care to elaborate?

AV shaped, developed, and guided essential core players that played prominent roles in our 2010-2011 cup run.  Management drafted and signed players but was not hands on with the day to day operations.