Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

PhillipBlunt

Members
  • Posts

    45,498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

Everything posted by PhillipBlunt

  1. Not every player needs to be fast or super skilled. Having a couple of atypical bruising players is always good for a defense. Who would you go after?
  2. That would be perfect. Open up a roster spot for a player that actually has a pulse.
  3. Didn't need proof that you knew the guy. I'm not one of those "pictures or it didn't happen" in any serious way. That's cool that you know Tyson. And if your stating that you know him in a more solid way than just being a fan at a game of pickup, I'll take you at your word. I've just heard of so many players, when interviewed by Van media (who ask those questions that reek of desperation), who say that they'd love to play for Vancouver. It's hard to decipher what's lip service and what's legit.
  4. A big boy for sure, not a beanpole.
  5. Cool. And Kane said he thinks that playing in Vancouver would have been cool. Same with Lucic, who got a free meal and an impromptu meeting with Mayor Moonbeam out of the deal. I think these players, knowing that Vancouver fans are desperate to return to being a contender, might sometimes make those types of statements to placate Canucks fans, when realistically they have no intention of doing so.
  6. He is probably more reliable than most, but he's taken on a Dreger type of reporting style in the last while that's annoying. He used to be far more factual and more less speculative, which was what separated him from the rest. Just like with Kane, Weber, Lucic, and other players from the province, there is no guarantee that they want to "come home" to play just because they're from here, and vacation here in the summer. I mean, Lucic said he wouldn't be against it, but those are words of a player dealing with being looked at and perceived as being over the hill in the league.
  7. Hoffman seemingly gets flipped more than a mattress at a brothel.
  8. I'm of the exact same mind. Who do you think would check those boxes? I'm a fan of trading for Brendan Dillon.
  9. Gardiner and Myers aren't the only two defensemen who will be available, and Benning hasn't ruled out trading for one.
  10. I think Benning wants to. I'd like to see him add players capable of playing that way, for sure. The young core needs to be insulated by such players. Will Hughes and Stecher are small, I wouldn't classify either as soft. Frankly, I wouldn't classify any Canucks defenseman as soft per se, just not physically imposing, outside of Edler and Schenn. Having a veteran defenseman like McQuaid (who is as tough as nails), or trading for Brendan Dillon, would go along way towards giving the defense some of the grit it lost with Gudbranson's departure. More so, I think, players need to possess the mentality of relentlessness that makes the other team work twice as hard to get the puck out, and think twice about running Markstrom/Demko.
  11. I think Hutton's moved before the end of July.
  12. Based on how he does in training camp. If he comes in and wows everyone, he stands a good chance on making it in on the third pairing. That being said, this also depends on who Benning signs or trades for in the coming weeks. Hard to say, really. Both have the physical stature to make it. Really, it's a matter of where their overall game is, and how they're able to acclimate to the NHL. Tanev might be traded before the beginning of the season, as might Hutton. Schenn, if signed, will probably slot in on the 3rd pairing. That is what Benning has mentioned, either through free agency or a trade. You got yourself a deal.
  13. I'm all for having more size on the defense. Don't get me wrong. Watching the team get manhandled in it's own end for a few years was maddening. Once again, I don't believe it's just as simple as quantifying the situation by adding guys 6'3" and over. Take Myers for example. He's a towering 6'8" but only comes in at 229 lbs. If you compare him to the likes of Chara and Byfulgien, he gives up about 30 lbs. to those two behemoths. Another thing about those two, in my opinion the most important aspect, is that they are physical and aggressive by nature, seemingly undeterred by any other player in the league. Having a larger defenseman is great but only if they're willing, ready, and capable to use that size to the team's benefit. Conversely, a team could also have some smaller defensemen who're built like brick (expletive deleted)houses who have a nasty streak and no fear, and those types of players are just as valuable, especially if they can handle the puck and have some speed.
  14. I'm not sure that height is as much of a factor as: combined height/weight, and the physical capability of a player to manage being hit, and doling out the physicality to deter being a target. Just being tall really doesn't mean squat. Take Andrew Alberts for example. He was a large defenseman, but he didn't have a presence that made others on the ice take notice.
  15. Grampa...…. Again, it's not a player's choice to "give up" his minutes. The coach makes that decision during a game.
  16. They would both have to be bottom pairing players though. Engelland especially considering his age (37). Schenn is a better all around defenseman though, and at 29 has a few years to give. That being said, the Canucks would be wise, if they decided to sign one, to only sign one of them, and give more spots to the up and coming defensemen, especially if they pick one at 10th overall.
  17. Either would make for a great 7th defenseman, although Schenn truly made a case for himself over Engelland. That being said Engelland is a far superior pugilist.
  18. Hopefully Benning signs or trades for another larger, aggressive defenseman to lighten the load of having to be physical off of Edler.
  19. McGill mentioned it already. Benning and Edler deserve a boatload for getting the deal done. Oh yeah, and Edler's agent.
×
×
  • Create New...