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

Dazzle

Members
  • Posts

    11,843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Dazzle

  1. I don't think he's going to do that. Nowhere in his history has he shown to do that for his first round picks. Edit: I should clarify that Miller is the only exception, but was otherwise a middle first round pick. It would've been even lower had we won the Vegas series.
  2. I doubt it. You don't seem to know how to properly use the double quote. You aren't quoting anyone, so your usage of it is wrong. You should've used the single quotes, like 'this' to emphasize or exaggerate your tone. "As far as being smarter then you. I am" (Your words - and full of fail.) You should use the word 'than' in this context, not 'then'. Also, the first part of that is an incomplete sentence.
  3. Here is an idea - maybe they're taken already. I love how you think you're smarter than everyone.
  4. Yes, Gillis did find some good players, but his inexplicable failure to draft worthy players on any consistent basis was a major reason why this team has such a black hole. "Makes you wonder" if a player from that regime made it into the NHL, we wouldn't have to worry about Edler playing above his age. Yes, Horvat and Hutton are the exceptions, but that is still a complete failure.
  5. Yes, that's totally why they kept Benning and all the coaching staff from this disastrous year...
  6. He's not really in the conversation anymore. He's got some offensive skill, but he is pretty confused in the defensive zone and is easily pressured by opponents from what I read. I think with the right coaching, he could be a good player. I think he's a late 1st at this point at best.
  7. Should've been Karel, but Vintage gave him a new name, so there we go.
  8. I'm just gonna get an ego boost out of whatever kanucks25 said. Lol.
  9. This is absolute crap. You have no basis to why there is a 'strong possibility'. Why wouldn't it make too much sense for other EP to come here? This is the type of unsubstantiated bias that you get called out for, and then you scurry to your absurd position that you're "trying to help". You crap on the existing prospects, or at best, give a lukewarm comment about them? Lemme ask you again. Do you cheer for another team?
  10. Plasek is certainly TRENDING towards a home run pick. Your nitpicky language does not invalidate his accomplishments thus far.
  11. Adam Gaudette is a home run pick for a 5th rounder. How he was handled afterward is beside the point.
  12. I do remember it. I don't remember Gillis' picks (the predecessor) having this level of success THUS FAR. Before the excuse that Benning has had high picks get thrown in, we do have Demko and Hoglander, and many other prospects look promising. So yes, there is an optimism that Plasek could be a homerun. Jasek is doing well and looks like he might push for an NHL role too. I think home run is an apt term, especially since these lower drafted players have such low expectations placed on them.
  13. Very good points. Colorado specifically had up and down (mostly down years), in which they accumulated players like Landeskog, Jost, and Makar. It also didn't hurt that they had Duschene (and got a very good return for him). This greatly helped Colorado with their rebuild/retool. But this context helps us understand that things like these take time. Buffalo/Edmonton, as you have correctly pointed out, have spent AT LEAST 7 years trying to rebuild/retool. There really isn't a 'right' way to do it.
  14. It does have some bearing to this overall narrative. The Canucks DID NOT PLAY for a month, with limited practices, defeated Toronto, who had much more healthy roster, and was well positioned in the standings. Toronto had also been PLAYING during that time, thus we can safely say they were likely more prepared than we were. They were arguably more synchronized. And Toronto failed against Vancouver during those games. This illustrates that Toronto isn't as good as they are portrayed, DESPITE being higher up in the standings. Some teams just simply do better than others, like Vancouver and Ottawa. Meanwhile, Calgary and Vancouver basically beat each other up equally, to the point that they were basically equal to each other in the standings. The two games are a small sample, sure. But saying that a 7 game series was a "small sample" is dishonest to your position. You say if there was a bigger sample, maybe Toronto would've fared better. So I ask you this, if the Canucks had several factors going their way, MAYBE the Canucks would've fared better. Therefore, your conclusion that Toronto is better is arguable. Are they ACTUALLY better than Vancouver? We have more playoff wins than they do during this time. Is that a small sample too? Canucks beat Minnesota, St. Louis and ALMOST Las Vegas. What about Toronto? At what point will you take off the label that something is a 'small sample'? Overall, Toronto isn't as good as popularly understood by media pundits and fans alike. Historically, they haven't proven any playoff success to be truly considered as a 'model' team to follow. That was what posters have said.
  15. And here we have you setting these 'conditions' when making a statement. Montreal was better, but the sample size is too small, according to you, which translates to: *I'm going to ignore the fact that Montreal came back from BEHIND 3 games to 1, and won in Game 7. There are too many variables at play for the Canucks as well: A series of poor schedules, and a lack of practice; bad injuries to core players (i.e. Pettersson), but also to players like Ferland who could've made a difference; and COVID. Seems like you're blatantly ignoring factors that are inconvenient to your position. What would have happened if the Canucks were healthy? The Canucks' roster has (with Tanev/Markstrom/Stetcher) has gotten to round 2. Toronto with their superior, healthy roster did not. Different time frames, but the point remains the same. Is Toronto REALLY that good? Apparently not. Because season success didn't translate into playoff success, otherwise we'd see a dominant performance from Toronto. Meanwhile, Montreal was nervously watching the scores towards the second half of the season because they kept losing, and teams like Ottawa and Vancouver were slowly climbing upward.
  16. So the Canucks beat Toronto twice after missing a month of hockey with COVID. Toronto blew leads, which seems to be a theme for them this season. Are they really that much better?
  17. We are better than the media has indicated. The media has largely reinforced the pessimistic attitudes of Canuck fans, while exaggerating the successes of the Leafs. Sure, they had a great season. But the real story is how often they've had success in the playoffs? Now, we can pay attention to how the media will spin this 'loss'. Ultimately there will be scapegoats, but the narrative will be to downplay the trends of other teams, while re-telling the story of the Leafs' imminent rise. This story they will tell is repeated every year. Our team is not 'worse' than the leafs right now, especially with what you have said. Their bad contracts WILL (as you have said) catch up to them. Leafs also do not have a 1st round pick for this year.
  18. I disagree. I think most hockey fans, including some jaded Leaf fans, could've predicted (or at least hoped) for a collapse. And then it happened. Again. This in turn reinforces the bias that people had over the Leafs. Meanwhile, the media will continue to spin this story as a development period, even though this is a continual issue for many years. Edmonton popularly called their retool plan as an 'oil change'. And they've been changing the oil many times. Many times. I think it's also annoying that the media has continually propped Toronto as the model team to look at when building a team, despite the lack of postseason success.
  19. And then there are teams like Arizona who exclusively used analytics to build their team that have utterly failed. Hardly a glowing testament to analyticz.
  20. You're STILL missing the point. The underlying message has been that the Leafs' retool plan has been said to be THE EXAMPLE of how to build a perennial winner. Many of the posters, including yourself, have commented a lot about the two teams, but you specifically have stopped short of acknowledging the media bias in comparing the two teams. To unpack this further, media pundits have praised the Leafs for building a contender, all the while crapping on Vancouver's efforts. So if they're both mediocre, why are you putting so much emphasis on the Canucks wasting money on the bottom 6, while emphasizing the successes of Toronto as you have done earlier in the thread? These are direct questions, and not insinuations.
  21. If you can get a useful player in such a late part of the draft, that is a home run. Jasek/Plasek are intriguing prospects. Jasek has already done quite well for himself in the AHL. There's no reason to think Plasek can't do the same, since they are said to play similar game/styles.
  22. It's weird because as I look at the Northeastern picks (of which McDonough was one), we already traded Madden AND Gaudette. And I'm pretty sure Gaudette and McDonough were friends. I'm thinking he is going to be let go, but who knows.
  23. 6th round pick that got a contract, and is thought to be similar to Jasek who's flourishing in the North American game? It's difficult to see you cheering for this team, based on your attitude. Which team do you actually watch, because it's certainly not the Canucks.
×
×
  • Create New...