Dazzle
-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Dazzle
-
-
2 minutes ago, Pickly said:
If the rumours are true and there are going to be wholesale changes in management, I wonder if we will see a big time trade in the off-season of a player we never saw coming. The Canucks need a top pairing defenceman ASAP because filling Edlers boots is going to be tough and if you bring him back next year to play heavy minutes you might as well write off next season as well. Team defence is an absolute embarrassment.
Don't know how people can continue to make excuses about coaching. Our game has been declining, despite our roster changes.
-
23-14 is the shot count. I'm done with Coach Green.
-
1 minute ago, Dumb Nuck said:
Agree on the first and last, as for heart, you don’t make the NHL without it, sadly coaching has ripped it out of each and every player.
Yeah. Anyone who still thinks coaching isn't an issue is out to lunch. Defensively we are garbage. We are constantly outplayed.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, oldnews said:
#confirmed.
Why is he posting in a thread about a game he's not watching?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, DontMessMe said:
I dont see that happening. I think jimbo likes Lind and Motte more...
Lind hasn't been back, so I think Green just likes Motte.
-
1
-
-
18-8 are the shots.
Badly outshot and outplayed.
-
Just now, DarthMelvin said:
Remember when people thought he should be played more... he's not ready.
But then again this is giving him some insight on his shortcomings
The yo-yo treatment of Juolevi, mixed in with a subpar defensive coach. My god. Baumer sucks.
-
1
-
-
The defensive exits on the Canucks have always been an issue.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:
That's what we kept saying for Virtanen.
The chances of OJ developing into a meaningful hockey player is very slim at this point. There's a reason why Travis won't let him play more than 13 minutes a game.
The difference between Virtanen and Juolevi is quite big. One has had injury issues. The other has had off ice issues.
Saying Juolevi has a very slim shot at being a meaningful player has so many problems with that, but I suspect your opinion won't change despite your so-called "honest" discussion.
-
26 minutes ago, Schmautzie said:
I believe it’s you that’s being selectively blind. My point was that Button as one example would have picked players as good or better than Benning did in the first round. They both would have picked Boeser and Hughes. Many fans would probably say that Button’s picks (Ehlers, Tkachuk, Glass and Caulfield vs Virtanen, Juolevi, Pettersson and Podkolzin) are collectively better than Benning’s.
As for Benning’s drafting in later rounds I agree that Demko and Hoglander are home runs and hopefully Gadjovich is as well. However every team has a long list of hopefuls and looking at the current sad sack defence and bottom six we’re icing at the moment I don’t think we have enough after seven years of JB.I'm not selectively blind. It's hard to defend the virtanen pick. Juolevi is still waiting to be judged, to be fair, but the Tkachuk/sergachev alternate picks.
In 2014, quite a few first round picks were busts/disappointments, including some ahead of Virtanen. So that context needs to be made clear.
A portion of this fanbase questions drafting of Benning because they talk about him being gifted high picks. Yet Demko and Hoglander have been often left out of the discussion.
We have a lot to be happy about for prospects. Of course they will have to prove something in the NHL, but things are trending well for them.
-
11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:
Saying our prospect pool has very few if any "can't miss" players left and suggesting it is middle of the pack in the NHL is not an anti Benning thing. It seems to also be the consensus among most experts who say the exact same points.
Overestimating our prospects is commonplace. But really no one in our prospect pool is without problems in their game. None have shown they will be impact players in the NHL yet.
Not sure why - other than its me who said it - that this seems to be controversial to you.
Because your form of evaluation doesn't actually gauge the quality of the Canucks, as well as any other team's prospects.
Saying that the Canucks prospect pool lacks sure fire players can be applied to any one team, not just Canucks. You are also using this same methodology to gauge that the Canucks have a middle of the pack prospect pool. How?
I'm also very curious as to which teams you are making comparisons to. You said middle of the pack. That means you've assessed the prospect pool. I am seeking information for how you did it.
-
20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:
I dont see anyone in our prospect pool that I would classify as a sure thing at this point. That doesnt mean they wont be. I just think many people overestimate them, mostly to further a pro Benning narrative. Our prospect pool looks pretty much like any middle of the pack prospect pool now that most of the top players are in the NHL.
So which teams have the best prospects that have yet to make the NHL, as well as those who are shining examples? The very evaluation tool you are using to judge the Canucks is seemingly used to downgrade the reality of the Canucks situation, in opposition of the so-called "pro Benning" side. Once you start using that kind of language, you are politicizing the situation, which means you have an angle to push. That is quite the opposite of being an unbiased observer.
I wasn't misconstruing anything you said. I directly counteracted your points. Just because you have to elaborate more on your position due to vagueness doesn't mean you were miscontrued.
In short, your argument was that the young players are unproven, therefore the Canucks have a middle of the pack prospect pool.
It's a very general assessment that could literally be applied to any one team at one point. It doesn't make any comparisons to other teams, so the middle of the pack assessment is just something you pulled out of a hat.
One more thing. There is always a condition you put on them whenever you praise a player.
Example: "Boeser has struggled in the past"
Many young players have struggled in the past. It's where their current game is trending that matters. Boeser is clearly a more complete player than before.
I also think it's hilarious that you've already assessed Hughes as being not a #1 defenceman. His ceiling was supposed to be that, but there wasn't an expectation that he would be either. His size was a concern.
Honestly, using your methodology of classifying a player, I can see where you are picking and choosing how you are doing it. What you're doing is not unbiased discussion. You have essentially made up your mind on the situation, but it's not up to us to change it.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:
The players who have developed well for the Canucks are all ones who were put in roles that allowed them to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.
Petterssen was not expected to be a defensive shutdown center in order to earn a top 6 opportunity. Hughes was not expected to be a shutdown defender to earn an offensive role. Hoglander being given a chance plays to his strengths. As a bottom 6 with Sutter and guys like Hawryluk I doubt he shows as much of what we have seen. That is the right way to develop players.
Now look at guys like Virtanen, Gaudette, Tryamkin, McCann, etc. Those may not be core players but they certainly were developed improperly by the Canucks or they could have been good support players.
Drafting and developing are two separate but intertwined things. An organization can draft well but not develop well and vice versa. One doesnt automatically equal the other.
Our prospect pool is not quite as sure thing as people suggest. Most of the better players have already graduated to the NHL. We have some promising guys but the end of this year was a largely missed opportunity to really see where they are at and where they might fit in.
Seeing guys like Vesey, Michaelis, Hawryluk, etc all playing up the lineup instead of seeing what the next wave could do with a real opportunity to play important minutes is a huge development miss. And just playing in a few games on the 4th line with Boyd and Vesey is not anything I consider a good development opportunity. Training the next wave of dump and changers isnt going to fill those key spots next year and beyond.
Our young core is pretty good but honestly there are a lot of teams I would trade our core for straight across all else being equal, especially if winning a cup is the objective. Hughes is not a #1 dman. He is offensively but is one of the worst defensive dmen I have seen in awhile. EP is awesome. Horvat could be even better if he wasnt saddled with all the shutdown duty. Boeser rebounded but has struggled previously. Have to hope he keeps going forward.
I am intrigued by Rathbone. Juolevi doesnt seem to be in the plans though. Hoglander is awesome. Love how he plays.
But people vastly overestimate the core based on what its still missing. There are big core holes still to fill.
Much of your discussion has swayed away from the "young players" narrative and more about the roster itself. You know very well why young players aren't inserted into the roster willy-nilly. That being said, we DO have a series of promising players about to make the cut. This is not just blind hope, but a real possibility.
Pettersson would've been a #1 in a re-draft. Full stop. No one 'expected' him to flourish, except the Canucks. Full stop. Give credit where it's due. I don't like how you have to put in these conditions about him or Boeser. Both players worked on their games, particularly Boeser, who's impressed a lot.
That in itself invalidates your point about Canucks mishandling young players.
Horvat, despite his lack of flashiness, has continued to impress.
Players like Lind, Gadj, Jasek, Woo are all on the cusp of making the NHL. It's just a matter of when, not if, at this point. They've all continued to improve in the AHL, which is very promising. That is all you can expect from young players.
Also your point about the prospect pool not being deep is a bit disingenous. We NEVER, i repeat, NEVER had a prospect pool this team after Gillis. So what are you complaining about right now?
-
2
-
-
Just now, Schmautzie said:
I only compared first round picks because the mydraft website analyzed only the top 30 prospects each year. I didn’t ignore Demko and Hoglander because I have no idea where Button or the others had them ranked. Similarly I didn’t include players in later rounds that history shows we should have picked but didn’t.
As for Caulfield being a hindsight pick that is untrue. Button’s picks I showed were made pre-draft every year. I have no idea yet whether Caulfield or Podkolzin will end up being the better NHL player and neither do you.
I don't remember what Button said, but Podkolzin was rated pretty highly by other scouts. Selective blindness is affecting you I guess.
By only comparing first round picks, you are missing a huge set of information. You did ignore Demko and Hoglander. Who cares what other scouts had ranked them? Look at the freaking draft and use hindsight to see the results. You can SEE Demko and Hoglander flourishing in their draft classes, NOT JUST their respective rounds.
You ARE ignoring (selectively omitting) information and that's why I think your discussion is not genuine.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, JohnTavares said:
I said whiffing on the Virtanen and Juolevi picks set this team back years.
If this team had Nylander and Tkachuk in their top six, they would be a legitimate contender and be in the playoffs right now.
I think these ideas have been beaten to death. This thread is no more of an honest discussion as it is about you coming up with this rehashed ideas that this forum has already mentioned at length.
-
1 minute ago, stawns said:
never said I would, I said I had no issues not picking MT.
I'm also willing to wait and see what OJ becomes before I write it off. I think he's going to be a top 3 dman on the team in a couple years and will likely be the high minute muncher in 5 years.........if he can stay healthy.
MT has good individual numbers, but has he helped Cagary improve? Are they any further ahead with that pick than Van is with OJ? Truthfully, Sergachev is who they should have picked there, but even then, who knows how he develops on a team not loaded like TB
Exactly. Juolevi was the safer pick out of Sergachev. There isn't a guarantee that Sergachev would have flourished as much as he did with TB also.
MT and Juolevi is basically a toss-up depending on what you want. I'd argue that if Juolevi wasn't so injured, we'd see him making a huge impact sooner.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:
Highmore is not a top 6 winger though which is how he is being used, probably more to justify the trade than anything. Of course he accepts being in the top 6 after being a healthy scratch in Chi.
As a bottom 6 guy I like his game a lot, probably better than anyone not named Motte or MacEwan. In the top 6 though? Cmon. Thats just another sub par, one line scoring team waiting to happen. Its a waste of Bo to have him be both a top 6 scorer and a shutdown guy. With Pearson and Highmore on his wings, that should be a 3rd shutdown line, not a 2nd line tasked with providing offense. And if they want to use it that way its cool but get a better 2nd line that can score consistently.
The Canucks are brutal about not knowing how to properly utilize players. Been that way for more than a decade now actually.
If there is a spot in the top 6 for Highmore, there theoretically was a top 6 spot for Gaudette, although he was never really tried there to even see if he could perform. He is a far better offensive player. At the very least it might have raised his trade value.
Why do you keep rehashing the same myths over and over? I.e. Chicago is good with young players and Vancouver apparently bad with theirs.
In your other post, you make yourself sound like a reasonable guy because you claim to be a balanced observer. But Vancouver hasn't been bad with young players in quite a while. We have a fairly lengthy list of players who are doing well, namely Hoglander and Hughes. We also have Boeser, Pettersson, and a nice collection of prospects coming up that could make a significant impact.
Ignoring evidence because it doesn't suit your perspective is an issue.
I laugh at the Chicago is good with young players' narrative. With the way you say it, you make it seem like they've never missed their drafts.
Strome, originally an AZ pick, is not terrible, but taking from the myths you keep perpetuating, you make it seem like he's playing above his expected draft value.
-
1 hour ago, Fred65 said:
Is this the truth or a fallacy ?? First round picks include Virtanen, McCann and Juolevi. I wouldn't think these are players you'd rave about. The good picks include Boeser, Hughes and Pettersson ( Podkolzin not yet in the NHL) so that's a 50% drafting record for Vcr ... is that the work of one of the best ?? Personally I don't think so
Demko and Hoglander. Personally, I think you're biased. Not to mention Rathbone as well, and Gaudette.
Also, name a GM that has nailed picks out of the park all the time. Even Yzerman has practically freaking missed on a whole draft. Take your blinders off.
-
14 minutes ago, Schmautzie said:
Just for fun I went to mynhldraft.com to see how other prognosticators would have chosen players based on the Canuck’s draft position in each of the drafts that Benning was our GM. I chose Craig Button as a respected evaluator of talent. Each pick was his highest rated player still available based on who other teams picked ahead of the Canucks,
Button’s picks would have been:
2014. Nik Ehlers (over Virtanen)
2015. Brock Boeser
2016. Matthew Tkachuk (over Juolevi)
2017. Cody Glass (over Pettersson)
2018. Quinn Hughes
2019. Cole Caulfield (over Podkolzin)
The Canucks would arguably be better with Button’s picks vs Benning’s. I’m really glad that we have Pettersson but Ehlers, Tkachuk and possibly Caulfield would have substantially increased our talent level. I understand that Vegas is happy with Cody Glass’s development as well.
I guess my point is that Benning’s drafting prowess may be a bit overrated. Someone like Craig Button as our GM could have drafted equally as well (or better) and probably avoided the disastrous free agent signings and bad trades that have been Benning’s real legacy.Funny you go with this narrative yet..
No mention of Demko, Rathbone, Brisebois, Hoglander, Lind, Jasek, Gadjovich, Woo.
Demko and Hoglander are two players that you completely ignored. Big miss in your analysis. Compare that to the previous GMs, namely Gillis. Both of which are not 'high draft picks' that detractors accuse Benning of being gifted.
The other players are close or very close to being NHLers. At no such point did we have any kind of depth like this in previous regimes.
Let's just say your analysis that Benning's drafting being overrated is so flawed that we can safely disregard your perspective.
Podkolzin is gonna be like Horvat also. A winger version. That's what his playing style is comparable to. Funny how you left out Podkolzin and went with the hindsight Cole Caufield who was quite small at the time of his draft.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, shiznak said:
Look at the whole picture and not the results on he ice.
Sakic is beloved because he practically robbed other GMs blind of their players, while still maintaining his core. Grubauer, Burakovsky, Graves, Girard, and Toews are all key assets for his club and he gave up next to nothing for them. He isn’t afraid of trading his picks away, if it meant getting a player to help his team in the long run.
I’m not knock on Benning, I think he’s a great talent evaluator, but he far from a good GM with his trades and signings. That what separates him and Sakic.Also, Benning inherited Horvat, which is pretty close to a player Landeskog is.
Disagree heavily on the Horvat/Landeskog comparison. Horvat's issue in the draft that caused him to drop was his skating. His work ethic ultimately helped him develop to who he is now. If Horvat turned into Hodgson (the injury aspect, not the other controversial parts), Gillis could have walked away from his tenure having drafted no player that has any particular NHL significance.
In short, the Landeskog and Horvat comparison is not realistically a one to one.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:
Imo, it will come down to the staff on there deployment and usage of the player - if they are not generational like Crosby & McD.
Agree to disagree cause as I stated each teams rebuilds are not entirely the same cause with some context like draft rules & the drafts top end/overall talent will also have to be considered when discussing these types of topic; and it is not a linear ascension but the trend will generally indicate an improving team. I am was mainly focusing on how those teams handled there respcetive rebuilds by trying to give themselves the best chance to always draft the best player they can in any particular draft. Ofcourse, there are no guarantees when it comes to prospects but I would rather be drafting these types of player rather than overpaying for them in FA or trades.
Then you run the risk of being like Buffalo or Edmonton. Both teams had perentially drafted players, yet never got anywhere. The Oilers haven't been good until recently. Their rebuild (or oil change if you look at it that way), has been basically 10 years. Edmonton has had a series of #1 overall picks, one of which was freaking McDavid.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, shiznak said:
If Jim’s claim to fame as a GM is being a great talent evaluator then he should stick to being a scout or AGM. So far, his signings and trades have been mostly below passing grade.
Also, if making the playoffs twice in his 8 year tenure is a “good” GM. I think you should higher your standards, a bit.
Ok, the story of Sakic needs to be set straight. He made a ton of mistakes during his tenure. Perhaps the romanticism surrounding this guy needs to be toned down.
In 2013, he was named GM. It's worth noting that before he became GM, Colorado had missed the playoffs for three consecutive years.
In 2010-2011, COL drafted in the 17th overall Joey Hishton.
The next year (2011-2012), COL drafted #2 Gabriel Landeskog
The year after that, they didn't draft anyone, and picked up Varlamov from Washington (COL receives a 2nd round pick in exchange). Varlamov is their starting goalie.
Following that, aside from a first round push, Sakic misses the playoffs for three more years.
2013–14 2013–14 Western Central 
1st 82 52 22 — 8 112 248 217 7 3 4 — 20 22 Lost in First Round, 3–4 (Wild) 2014–15 2014–15 Western Central 7th 82 39 31 — 12 90 219 227 — — — — — — Did not qualify 2015–16 2015–16 Western Central 6th 82 39 39 — 4 82 216 240 — — — — — — Did not qualify 2016–17 2016–17 Western Central 7th 82 22 56 — 4 48 166 278 — — — — — — Did not qualify The following players were obtained under Sakic through the draft, in the consecutive order of the missed years: Rantanen, Jost, Makar. All of them being high first round picks.
Safe to say, Sakic was in a better position than Benning was. Benning did not have anyone remotely close to Landeskog to start off.
Yzerman was initially on Tampa Bay, but then moved to Detroit. We're seeing a similar type of 'tanking' phase for Detroit.
The amount of romanticism of Yzerman/Sakic is actually disingenous for discussion. You are cherryingpicking the positive results of these two GMs while ignoring the down years they had. Not to mention, the teams were in better positions than the Canucks were, in terms of development.-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, shiznak said:
Well, for one he revamped the scouting department, promoted Brackett and hired a GM with a scouting background. He brought in WD. While his coaching philosophies wasn’t well liked by fans. WD did improve the team’s record by 20+ points from the previous season and rejuvenated the Sedins’ career.
While it's true that WD did do some good things, he didn't end up being a winning NHL coach. This carried over to the LA Kings, who probably had a better roster than whatever Vancouver gave him. Ultimately, he never coached in the NHL again, at least not right now.
I feel like TG will end up going down this pathway, since his win/loss rate is not dissimilar to WD, despite having a much better roster overall than whatever WD had.
-
1 hour ago, Fred65 said:
Well between you and me I'd take Sakic or Yzerman over Benning any day of the week. Both spent a couple of years learning the ropes and apparently absorbed the building locks of management from some of the best. Unfortunately Benning sat at the knee of Peter Chiarelli, he of Oilers fame and no longer managing. There is a difference
Ok.
Benning also established himself as one of the best scouters. For each Sakic or Yzerman story, there is a Markus Naslund one, who if I remember correctly, didn't stay for very long as a MODO Swedish hockey GM.
Dorion (Ottawa Sens GM) is also a famed scouter. He's made plenty of mistakes himself. In short, Sakic/Yzerman probably were set up for success better than Benning/Dorion. Look at the teams of Colorado and Tampa, but particularly Tampa.
[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks vs Calgary Flames | May 16, 2021 | 7:30 p.m. PT | SNP | PLAYOFF SERIES VS CALGARY EDITION
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Green has had many games this season of being badly outshot or outplayed.