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

gameburn

Members
  • Posts

    2,566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gameburn

  1. Wonderful synopsis. Loved it. One thing I noticed that we've all been interested in: he does seem to be able to defend. Not a one-dimensional player. Of course he doesn't defend like Gudbranson or an Edler type. Having a D-man that other players have to adapt to is interesting. Virtanen and Granlund, maybe Sutter and a few others are already pretty good at backing up the D; but it sounds like the whole team has to think about it.
  2. Yes. Giving up Sbisa was one thing... some of these new guys, something much worse.
  3. Interesting article. Fascinating how everyone was trying not to set expectations too high. Worrying about his defensive play. And even considering drafting him further down than 5th! It turns out that he would have been a bargain at 1st. They saw him dozens of times in his draft year, amazing. And were perfectly aware that he'd been a late bloomer, only breaking 6 feet in height very late. His parents don't look huge either. Well, even at 5 foot 9 he would have been worth drafting somewhere in the first few rounds.
  4. Well, we owe him a lot. He probably also chimed in on some other picks/trades.
  5. Hughes could play a safe 18 minutes a game, a third of it on the power play. Gradually work his way in. Or, he could be as good as he looks and play 20 plus minutes a game from the get go, lol. Great players have a way of changing a coach's plans. Look at EP lol. They started out worrying if he could "handle" center ice duties lol.
  6. If the Canucks make the playoffs, does this mean Hughes is available to play in them? If so, will he make a big difference?
  7. And look at the team he is coming to: Boeser, Pettersson, Horvat... these guys can finish. The better his line-mates the greater his point totals. The better his line-mates, the less risky he will be because fewer things can go wrong, more can go right. Like Pettersson, he will be better as he plays in better leagues. Boeser's plus minus numbers improve when he is with EP: they have the puck more, they score more, and EP is a terrific defender. This will be the case for Hughes, and probably Woo too, who I see making the Canucks next year right along side Hughes.
  8. And a playmaker won't get a lot of points if his finishers don't finish. EP is lucky, the way Gretzky and Hawerchuck were lucky: they can finish too.
  9. Who do we thank for this forum, do you need donations/who pays for it?

    1. Show previous comments  13 more
    2. -SN-

      -SN-

      Run by the Canucks :)

    3. NewbieCanuckFan

      NewbieCanuckFan

      @SabreFan1

       

      Actually the movie didn’t do that badly; the hilarious thing was that the big star Stallone was adamant that he would score the winning goal in the game ( he played the goalie LOL).  The great director John Houston (yeah THAT Houston) managed to stroke Stallone’s ego by...spoiler alert...

      .

      .

      .

      making him instead stopping a penalty kick at the end.  Lots of legit soccer legends in that movie like Pele.  

    4. gameburn

      gameburn

      Amazing.  A piece of movie trivia of the highest order, imo.

  10. I just remember Roy putting on thicker and higher shoulder pads (angled so that they not only took up more net space, but also deflected shots). Other goalies put on longer and wider goalie pads, bigger uniforms, etc. I believe Roy moved toward larger goalie gloves. This was in his Colorado days. They also began experimenting with goalie sticks that would make shooting easier. The league is aware of the problem: been trying to reduce goalie equipment since 2011. Thickness, width and length of the goalie pads together with removing much more of the shoulder padding and chest protector would help increase scoring a huge amount. Making the nets bigger is a possibility too, but starting with the equipment is the way to go. The goal should be to have goalies where the least equipment possible while not endangering them. If you have ever seen what a pro goalie looks like prior to putting on his jersey, it is a real shocker. Michelin man lol. Roy wasn't the only goalie to "inflate" his goal presence, but in the last half of his career he was as bad as most and worse than many. If you compare his silhouette in Montreal with his in Colorado, it's as if he put on 200 pounds lol. To the best of my knowledge Roy and Hasek created the modern goaltending style of play, but neither alone created the disastrous inflation of the equipment goalies have arrived at in the 2000's. Everyone did it, they had to compete.
  11. Woo, Hughes and Rathbone are all looking great; and Juolevi is putting up numbers in Utica that you'd expect from a guy we drafted in the top-10. And not a lot of penalties or anything like character issues with these 4. We had bad luck with Tryamkin, or we'd already see our first Benning pick playing meaningful minutes on D. Basically, without losing a chance to pick EP, Virtanen, Boeser, Lockwood, Lind, DiPietro and Demko, Benning still managed to draft the core we need on D: Hughes, Juolevi, Woo, and maybe Tryamkin and Rathbone. I'm not alone in having doubts about the Beagle and Roussel signings -- to say nothing of Eriksson and Gagner -- but man can Benning draft. If Benning had gone with Sergachev over Juolevi… as so many here suggested (Alf included), it might have been even better. Still, Juolevi has to be judged starting with his Canuck career, not really before, unless of course there is no Canucks career, lol.
  12. Yes, amazing how things work out. Juolevi looks pretty good this year, and even if he is only slightly better than an improved Hutton, it would be great. Clearly, we have needed D for a long while. At least Benning has drafted D. I don't remember Gillis doing well on that count. I have such mixed feelings about Tkachuk: clearly he produces, but the kind of attention he gets, yikes.
  13. And he's the type to listen, to constantly learn, always improving his game. A dream to coach, I'm guessing.
  14. Beautifully put. In other words, a guy who has to choose between career as NBA high-end Guard or an NHL goalie. These guys are so elite now!
  15. Will be interesting to see if he adapts well to the goalie equipment changes that have started to show up now. I hope they put goalies back in gear closer to the Pre-Roy era. Smaller or at least more athletic goalies should have an advantage over lumps who rely on size/filling the net. Wrap-arounds, shots from further out, deflections in-close, breakaways, all might be much more likely to go in. And, if the pads are adjusted much, then even the classic Hasek/Quick strategy of always covering the entire bottom of the net might not even be enough. They want higher scoring games. I suspect that changing goalie equipment and/or adjusting the net size is the easiest way to do this. Not even 3 on 3 in OT or allowing for more powerplays or even many more penalty shots would do as much. There was a reason that teams scored a lot more goals prior to Patrick Roy. My hypothesis is that the smaller the gear that goalies wear, the more they have to use judgment and athleticism. Of course, taller probably always helps.
  16. Yes, I think you are right: Benning was really conscious of problems to come on D. Hughes, Woo and Juolevi will change this team probably for a decade and a half. At the moment we have an incomplete mix on D: Hutton is best pmd, Edler best at all round defensive play (although he is too slow now to defend against some of the rushing situations), Tanev is unremarkable but reliable defensively, Gudbranson is good physically and in pk... in other words, no real powerful offensive D, and not enough players like Stecher who are good all over the ice (offensive and defensive). I think Hughes and Woo will do what Stecher does but much better, and Juolevi will perhaps reduce Hutton's importance, perhaps make him trade material. So far, Tryamkin and Woo are his real finds, while Hughes is remarkable at pick 8. Woo could turn out to be better than either Tanev or Juolevi. Hughes is possibly top-1/2 D who can change hockey in a good way. If Tryamkin comes back and is Chara-lite we will go from being a little thin and weak on D to it being a strong point for the team.
  17. I think you hit it on the head. But, imagine how different things would be if we hadn't picked with so little luck. Benning would not have had to worry about either Tkachuk or Juolevi if we had picked in our rightful position, which was in the top 3. He has not been lucky. This franchise has had some bad luck too: Malhotra, Dorsett, Talon v. Perreault, Laine/Matthews vs. Juolevi, the Bertuzzi situation, the Hamhuis injury in the playoff run, etc. All teams have had ups and downs, but it feels like we have had a few extra downs.
  18. Imagine being +11 on a team that has a losing record? And your point about Stecher is eye-opening. Stetcher can appear kind of meh out there... maybe we aren't seeing his full game. Maybe trying lines of 5 players like the old Soviet teams would be worth looking at again. Put your best plus and minus groups together and give them some increased playing time. Maybe make them the core of a pp.
  19. You think Tkachuk is just a touch too, what's the word, nasty?
  20. Those 2 on 1s were incredible. I think the goaltending/goaltending equipment changes since then is one thing that has made those kinds of plays much less common. And no one with Gretzky's vision has come along til… well... Barzal and our own EP. That 2 on 1 the other night with EP and Boeser was as close as we'll get to a Gretzky to Kurri kind of play. Even then the goaltender almost positioned himself to save the Boeser finish. In the old days I think Boeser would have finished into an open net.
  21. And we'd already have had the benefit of Tkachuk's play for 2 years. Which we obviously have not had with Juolevi. Hard to say whether Juolevi will ever catch up with Tkachuk -- at least from a Canucks viewpoint. And can you imagine the points Tkachuk would be putting up with EP? I'm curious: do you think the Juolevi vs. Tkachuk pick is evidence of the principle that you should always go for the best player available, regardless of position? I think we chose a D on principle that year. If we'd chosen in the top 3 I'm sure Benning would have gone with Matthews, or Laine or Dubois, all of whom have worked out. I remember Benning saying something about how a D would be good if the team couldn't get a definitive franchise forward out of the mix (i.e., top 2 or 3).
  22. He is play-making now, setting guys up and, hard to describe, but a lot more focused each shift. I think his stick-handling work in the summer along with taking responsibility defensively has made him an entirely new player. If he stays at this level -- or even improves over the next 2 years -- he will be one hell of a player. He needs to get a chance at killing penalties and other challenges too. He has become a smarter hockey player in almost every sense. He draws penalties now, rather than taking them, for example.
  23. This is not unrealistic, because the Canucks will -- for a little while anyway -- be able to pay for a genuine supporting cast. Means less stress, better powerplay and more points for EP. He passes McD a year from this January?
×
×
  • Create New...