Highstickin

Anyone remember that time Crosby started a season with 0 points in his first 5 games, and only had points in one of his first 9 games? It was the 2015-16 season, he ended up with 85 points in 80 games, lead Pittsburg to a stanley cup that season while also winning the conn smythe. How about we all just relax a minute considering the season isn't even a 1/10th of the way through. To clarify, I am not saying Petterson is the same player as Crosby but many people on here and in the hockey world look at (or did look at) Petterson as a franchise player much like Crosby. IMO, you don't just throw away a franchise type player because they struggle to start a season.

Makes me wonder how this trade would come together on the Vancouver side. Benning: we need to shake things up to get to the next level. Let’s trade 2/3 our top line for 2/3 of the top line (one of which still requires a risky surgery and may never play at the same level as he once did) from the worst team in the league for the last decade. And while we’re at it lets throw in a top 9 winger a top 4 d to collect more players out of the most toxic environment in the league. Benning: leans back in office chair with cigar

Agreed, I think we need to pump the brakes on any trade involving Podz, Hoglander or Klimovich considering our current cap situation. If we want to be a team that does anything in the playoffs we need these players in the line up, producing while on their ELC. If we trade Podz we lose the advantage of him (assuming his progress continues) being a contributing NHLer in year 2 and 3 of his ELC and far out producing his cap hit in those years. edit: damn autocorrect I meant hoglander

You are correct I did misread the 2021-22 roster part, my apologize. Transitioning this D over 2 years as you have pointed out is certainly a lot better than 1. I don't disagree that we need to get younger with our D core but doing it all at once I think leads us down a path much like the leafs/oilers in which they rely on many young D men that may not be ready for the load.

The Canucks offense may have been the issue in the end against Vegas but I don't think the path forward should include gutting the defense of the team either. In your proposal you literally got rid of all but two D-men from the team that reached the second round, including the leadership group. On top of that you were only able to add one forward piece with a total of 14 playoff games in 11 years. The forward group now includes 2 rookies who may be talented but still have yet to play an NHL game and others who have not played a full season in the big league. You might be reaching for offense, which I don;t totally disagree with, but with this D I think we are out of the playoffs sooner. Look at the teams left in the playoffs and in the past, one thing in common, solid defensive play.

How many 15/16 year old PWFs do you know in juniors? I'm going to guess very few as I have not seen many that are physically mature enough to handle that role and they often lack the ability to play disciplined enough i.e. don't just run around all over the ice chasing the play. For the same reason you don't see very many 19-21 year old PWFs in the NHL.

Are people actually surprised that it takes time for players to develop into NHL PWFs once they leave junior leagues? There is a big difference in puck retrieval when you are going up against a guy that only max 3 years older than you and likely a similar size and experience compared to possibly a 10 year NHL vet. The experience of a d-man alone can make a young PWF look silly if they are not used to the NHL game. I'm also not sure where people are getting the idea that you have to fighter to be a PWF. There are lots of players that play a high energy, physical brand of hockey that makes life difficult for defenceman without having to drop the mitts. IMO, if a player has great board skills, can dig pucks out from below the goal line, and chase down dump ins effectively then they fit the mold of a PWF.