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

Patel Bure

Members
  • Posts

    3,904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Patel Bure

  1. Of course I’m not expecting a Cernak or a Parayko but that right side looks weak. Schenn is a 7th caliber dman that can fill in adequately when injuries occur, but expecting him to be a 2nd pairing guy is asking for trouble imo. I disagree that Schenn can move up and down the line-up unless it’s for short stints due to injuries. Troy Stecher could also play up and down the line up but asking him to be top 4 for extended periods of time was asking for trouble....... and in our case, especially if OEL there. I would love to be proven wrong but I’m not sure if OEL is a two way “all situations” guy like Edler. To me, he’s more of an OFD/PMD that really needs a strong and solid defensive partner that is good enough to handle top lines. I understand that OEL was a two way guy earlier in his career but that was over four years ago. I’m not 100% sure if he can still be that guy. I agree with you on Demko’s potential, but that D will need to be a lot more defensive savvy in order to support Demko’s ascension to the next level. Having Savard AND Hakanpaa here would sell me on the defense, but Schenn and/or Myers on a top four and you’re asking for trouble imo.
  2. No problem on my end in signing Schenn as long as he’s signed as a depth defenseman that can step in when injuries occur.
  3. I think Schmidt is as good as gone unfortunately as I believe that he wants to go back to the USA. I could *possibly* get on board with the following defense: OEL-Savard Hughes-Hakanpaa Juolevi-Myers Schenn but still have a fear that we still won’t truly have a guy that can shut down the top forward of another team. I’m just not sure if OEL can still be that guy, and I’m not sure if those RD’s listed above can do that at the first pairing level. I have absolutely no doubt that those guys can shut down and contain 2nd and 3rd line caliber forwards, but 1st line forwards are a different animal.
  4. I’m not seeing it to be honest. OEL-Hakanpaa Hughes-Schenn Rathbone-Myers / Juolevi-Myers Is not a very good defense. Benning better have something better up his sleeve. Hakanpaa might be a decent 2nd pairing option, and Schenn might be a decent 7th man option, but asking anything for more out of them would be nuts.
  5. And this excites you.........why? Dont get me wrong, I don’t mind Schenn being here as a 7th dman, but “being excited” over the idea of Schenn being Hughes 2nd pairing defense partner shouldn’t excite anyone at all. In fact, it’s downright moronic....with all due respect.
  6. Nope. The only person that ruined Jake was Jake. He was given every single possible opportunity to succeed and was developed in the correct manner but he simply wasn’t committed to his craft. As the only saying goes, “You can take a horse to the well, but you can’t make him dink.”
  7. This also goes to show how players under different systems and environments can completely revitalize their games. This also needs to be taken into account when people use advanced analytics to assess players.
  8. Doesn’t mean that our window has to be closed after 5 years. Benning and ownership have stated all along that they want this team to be elite for a long time and all moves being made will be specifically geared towards that. Don’t be fooled by these two first round picks being traded.
  9. Disagree that we have a 4-5 year window. Benning still has the potential to make this an 8-9 year window and I suspect that this is what he’ll do as guys like Pearson, Miller, and Myers continue to get replaced with younger talent over the years.
  10. Nope, not me. I was very pro Bennett at the time and still am.
  11. Assuming that the reckless behavior of him and his wife causing the Covid outbreak on our team is false, I wish him nothing but the best.
  12. I think Benning will give Dickinson this coming year to really take ownership of that 3rd line C position in which he can establish himself as a two way threat in terms of keeping his solid defensive play up but contributing offensively as well. Dickinson will certainly get that chance with two of Hoglander, Pearson, and Podkolzin. If Dickinson isn’t adequate for this role however, then I think Benning will bring in another guy next year using the freed up salary from Luongo’s cap recapture which would then move Dickinson to the 4th line. You’re also right about that top pairing RD spot. That’s why I’m still quite bummed that we lost out on Adam Larsson as I think he would have been a great fit there. I’m still hoping that we can work out something with Seattle in which we do something related to Schmidt for Larsson (if Schmidt still wants out of here). If this isn’t possible however, then my hope is that we can acquire a longer term asset for that role that is on the verge of becoming that top pairing defensive RD option. Like a Rasmus Andersson for instance. While I like guys like Hamonic, Hakanpa, and Savard, none of these guys are players that should be playing on top pairings, or taking on the toughest defensive matchups. These guys aren’t Edler or Tanev. I have absolutely no problem with these guys playing on our 2nd pairing however. Another concern that I have with Benning is that he might be miscasting a potential pairing of OEL-Schmidt in terms of what they can do. While Benning sees them as two way Dmen that can take on tough match ups, my impression of both of these dmen is that they are more “offensive defensemen” that need that steady stay at home defensive partner by their side in order to maximize their effectiveness. With OEL, Myers, Schmidt, Hughes, and Rathbone on our D, my concern with our current S configuration is that we have too many chiefs and not enough Indians in terms of an OFD/DFD imbalance. But as you say, acquiring these young ‘Erik Cernak’ or ‘Brandon Carlo’ type guys are very very difficulty. Personally? If you ask me? My vote is that we try and do something Schmidt-Rasmus Andersson related. Andersson isn’t a top pairing RD but he’s getting close, and more importantly, he’s a youngish asset that can be a part of our core for the long term. OEL-Andersson Hughes-Hamonic Rathbone-Myers / Juolevi-Myers Another thing with me is that I like Juolevi with Myers more than I do Rathbone with Myers since OJ is a bit more defensively inclined I believe. Will be interesting to see how that 3rd pairing plays out.
  13. I don’t mind Hakanpa but my hope is that the Canucks can somehow find a way to bring in a younger and longer term RD defensive defenseman that can be a part of our core for much longer.
  14. This is such a good post and I couldn’t agree more. You’re absolutely right about the Boston model by the way. The “Boston model” has never been about bringing in guys that are 6’3 220 lbs that can blow other men into the boards as seems to be the misguided mantra amongst a few hockey pundits. The ‘Boston model,’ as you described it, is about bringing in guys that are committed to working hard and are committed to winning cups even if it means accepting less money for the greater good. We sometimes forget that Boston could have won three cups over the last decade. Love em or hate em, that is a solid management group over there that consistently sign great players at even greater term and money.
  15. I think Benning sees Dickinson as being our 3rd line C as he feels that Dickinson has some untapped offensive potential. I like your suggestion of Hakanpa, but the Canucks still need that top pairing RD ‘defensive defenseman’ to be the ying to the yang for OEL or Hughes. Hakanpa and Hamonic are decent second pairing options but they aren’t guys that should be taking on tough match ups on a first pairing (going up against the top players of other teams). Truth be told, I think putting OEL-Schmidt in such a role would also be risky since both guys are more OFD’s than TWD’s (which is something that Benning and I might disagree on). My hope is that we can still find that young stud RD that can play top pairing minutes for us and alleviate defensive pressure off of OEL or Hughes.
  16. I don’t think we will be able to afford Wenneberg once we re-up Pettersson, Hughes, and Garland.
  17. My guess is that one of Boyd or Highmore will take that 4th line C spot....likely Boyd. Motte-Highmore-MacEwen OR Motte-Boyd-Highmore Benning and Weisbrod seemed quite high on Travis Boyd and so I think they’ll give him a legit shot. I get the feeling that the Canucks want that 4th line to be full of energy and tenacity and so I’m not sure if a guy like Brandon Sutter will necessarily fit that mold. That, combined with his injury prone nature, likely closes the book on Brandon Sutter in my opinion. Boyd also gives us a RH option and presence down there. Guys like Graovich and MacEwen also give us RH options. So to answer your question, I think that 4th line C spot will be an internal promotion.
  18. Agreed but that’s not what I was saying (although I can see why it came across that way).
  19. Thinking outloud - nothing to see here. To Calgary: Boeser + Schmidt To Vancouver: Tkachuk + Andersson Miller-Pettersson-Podkolzin Tkachuk-Horvat-Garland Pearson-Dickinson-Hoglander Motte-Highmore-MacEwen OEL-Andersson Hughes-Savard Juolevi-Myers Demko Holtby Canucks get much bigger and heavier as a group.
  20. Would it really? Based on what I know of him, he’s another offensive defenseman that struggles a bit in his own end. The Canucks need a top pairing RD that specializes on the defensive side of things. Like a younger version of Tanev for instance.
  21. Garland is already the top 6 forward that we pursued and acquired. What we now need is a top pairing RD defensive defenseman.
  22. Guys like Hughes, Pettersson, Demko, Boeser, Horvat, and Garland are never going to be moved unless... 1) They request to be moved 2) Their performance completely falls off the map with no rebound in sight. These guys are our core players that will be here for the long haul.
  23. Definitely best for both parties. I wish Jake nothing but the best and hope that he can get both his life and hockey back on track.
×
×
  • Create New...