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

nzan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,525 Revered

About nzan

  • Rank
    Canucks Rookie

Recent Profile Visitors

5,850 profile views
  1. I love this line of thinking so much. I don’t think they’ll do it, but it would be awesome. If only you could find someone to properly take Miller’s spot on the top line (with at least a bit of toughness and snarl) I think we could average first line 70 points each, 2nd line 50 points each, 2ndB line 50 points each. it would be dynamite.
  2. I remember watching him and feeling like he was a head taller than all the other 6’-4” dudes on the ice. He was just so massive and so dominant that he made everyone else look small, even when they were the same size (height) as him.
  3. And don't forget little, old, mid-30s Wayne Gretzky could still put up similar numbers through that era; he still showed up in the Top 5 in scoring some years despite the historical-revisionism that he only scored in the high-flying 80s
  4. My answer would to that would be that only about 4 years ago we were all wondering where we were going to find six Top 6 players. We had Bo and maaaybe Boeser. Now we've got a Top 6 full of our past-prospects and Hughes on the back end. They weren't just nuts n bolts filling in the lower lines like in the past - they're quality stars. I won't argue that our non-graduated prospect pool currently looks super thin however.
  5. I'm trying to translate: Podkolzin Pettersson Boeser - easy enough Hoglander Horvat Garland - Garland equals Tinsel? Pearson Miller Lockwood - just shooting in the dark Motte Sutter Dickinson - Balls equals Sutter? Here's my try with Miller at Centre (which I really hope they try): Podkolzin Pettersson Boeser Hoglander Miller Garland Pearson Horvat Bailey Motte Sutter Dickinson I think it's time to give Bailey a real shot. If it all worked this would be a dynamite forward group.
  6. OK, I'm starting to like this guy. He probably lost the scrum, but I'm 100% behind this hit. And I like the little Bieksa-style smirk after getting up.
  7. So obviously I don't know much about this guy - but assuming this is a legit comparison...is it realistic to think that Hughes plays beside Poolman rather than Hamonic?
  8. Actually just looked up his game log in their last series and he was up around 24 minutes a night. Sounds/seems like that was a bit overwhelming - but as a #4 it sounds like he might be pretty legit. Thanks for that nugget @Alflives
  9. Can you explain what you mean by 'top minute' guy? Stats I'm looking at say he was their fourth highest minute D-man per game this playoffs. I like the optimism! I'm just trying to see what you mean.
  10. 100% agree With our current lineup (especially with Garland) Lind just didn’t have a spot to grow into. I have one lineup version with Gadjovich flanking Petey and Boeser on the top line. Just as a corners and goal-mouth guy obviously. It makes really sweet 2nd and 3rd lines!
  11. Agreed on the Edler comparison. Which is a large part of why I’m optimistic about this trade. You might want to let up on the Guenther tirade for two reasons - one, it’s possible you don’t know the future; two, it’s possible Benning wouldn’t have had a gun to his head forcing him to pick Guenther.
  12. I also find myself in the win for Jimmy column. I just think you have to remember to include the potential of a toxic contract that we’ve taken on while rejoicing in the three that we shed. I can get over the 9OA because of Garland.
  13. Fair enough - I think Garland is going to be excellent for us, and I think he's only getting better (judging by basic numbers). It could very well be that it turns out to be a huge win, I kind of think it will be. Like the Miller trade. It's just that at this moment, I don't think most people would trade a 9OA for Garland straight up.
×
×
  • Create New...