Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Dazzle

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,843

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dazzle

    [Report] Canucks recall Tyler Graovac; assign Marc Michaelis, Brogan Rafferty to taxi squad

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted · Edited by Dazzle

    16 minutes ago, Quantum said:

    They are redundant together. They have no offensive upside and though decent defensive, they aren't defensive superstars by any stretch of the imagination.

     

    The problem has always been that when Beagle was signed, he was the wrong C to sign that summer. He just plays way too similarly to Sutter and having that much money tied up in the bottom six has led to A LOT of problems including the Toffoli situation. You could either have Beagle at 3 or Toffoli at 4.25 --- you pick Toffoli all day every day.

     

    If you go back to the summer Beagle signed -- there were cheaper options that would have likely done similar things to Beagle... that's the problem and has always been the problem. I'm not saying you find that internally, I'm saying that this was a Pro Scouting mishap.

     

    Guys like Boyd are being brought in because it's super clear that Sutter is most likely on his way out -- either at the deadline or in the offseason -- there's no way he returns.

     

    And it's true, we do lack C's in the system and I hope that the Canucks do address this at this year's draft. Having a guy like Tyler Madden would've been useful right now. Though, Linus Karlsson is a C and he probably makes his way over to North America this summer. And Arvid Costmar is a C and could be heading over to North America after this season too.

    Here's the thing though. Boyd isn't a true center. His faceoff numbers are absolute crap. (Around 30 percent, if I'm not mistaken). Given that we had Malhotra at the time on faceoffs, it's clear the team placed a very heavy emphasis in that aspect. Did it work out as planned? Probably not. We've seen Markus Granlund play centre, and he's not very good in faceoffs either, but he's A LOT better than this Boyd guy. Therefore, Boyd isn't the 3C the Canucks hope for. I just think they grabbed him out of desperation.

     

    We had no 'true' center depth, so getting either of these two players to stay - they had the leverage on the Canucks. The Canucks were, of course, hoping they'd produce (I'm thinking about Sutter specifically on this one. Beagle doesn't have much offence, but he's supposed to be this 4th line center that can shut down the opposition team - I'm not saying it's his fault, but maybe he's not with the right people).

     

    Hindsight's 20/20. We've had a number of tweener centers pass through us, but I think the Canucks were focussing on faceoffs. Those guys are harder to find. Have there really been any players that we've possessed at any point in time that feel like a 'lock' for this team? I don't think so.


    I think the people who are talking about finding these 'cheap' players are forgetting that you're getting what you give, most of the time. We've had 'cheap' options before, and we don't necessarily get the best results.

     

     

    • Thanks 1

    [Report] Canucks recall Tyler Graovac; assign Marc Michaelis, Brogan Rafferty to taxi squad

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted

    43 minutes ago, Quantum said:

    I wouldn't be shocked if a Brandon Sutter deal is brewing.

     

    Brandon Sutter is on an expiring contract and isn't someone the Canucks can afford to bring back (thank god). Jay Beagle basically does everything Sutter does and having Sutter/Beagle has been a roster redundancy for the last season and a half.

    Sutter/Beagle wasn't redundant. Who else in our system could we have replaced in those spots? We don't have a legitimate center in our system, thus far.

    • Like 2

    Jimmy Vesey | #24 | LW

    in Alumni

    Posted

    1 hour ago, khay said:

    I'm curious. What moves would you make to improve the team?

     

    Fire JB, Green, and his assistants? Then, hire who? 

     

    And then what roster moves?

     

    You've got this wrong. All he wants to do is fire JB. That poster is a great supporter of Green, and he blames EVERYTHING on Benning. Also, he gives zero credit to Benning because, well, everyone else did a good job except him.

     

    • Cheers 2

    Jimmy Vesey | #24 | LW

    in Alumni

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

    I've never seen this much PR for a waiver pickup.  It's quite embarrassing but hey, this is the state of the Canucks in 2021.

     

    Makes you wonder...

    What a terrible take from this. There was going to be PR regardless of what happens. This is Vancouver media. You should know better.

     

    Hope this helps.

    • Cheers 1

    Team wasnt ready from the get go!

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted · Edited by Dazzle

    18 minutes ago, The Lock said:

    Well, again, if you look at just this year, Torts doesn't look as good, but if you look at how Columbus has done the past couple of years, one could argue Torts has done a lot for Columbus. However, perhaps this should be considered a lesson for us, because what Columbus shows is that a coach can look good one year and look bad the next year, with almost the EXACT same team. So then, what does that tell us about Green, or what does that tell us about coaches in general even?

     

    If we're going to now say Torts is not working in Columbus after the past couple of years of everyone literally praising Torts, that kind of makes this whole thing questionable to me about how a coach is viewed. If we're suddenly good next year and we still have Green. Guess what? Green would get a ton of praise. If the team doesn't do well, Green will get the opposite.

     

    Cooper in Tampa Bay's another example. Everyone wanted him gone when they were swept by Columbus 2 years ago. The next year, he looks like a genious because they win the cup. So what is he? Is he a good coach or a bad coach? If those 2 years were flipped around, would we be saying he's a bad coach now instead of a good coach?

     

    So then I guess the question would be, how much does a coach actually affect the team? Perhaps a coach is just one person on the team just like everyone else and he can only motivate so much when things are not so great. Do we really know? Do we often focus too much on the coach when really blame should be spread out a little more?

     

    Because, ultimately, and honestly, the fact that you're talking about Torts being bad now, after his past couple of years of praise, that's a little alarming to me about just how volatile that position is and just how much tunnel vision we often have regarding coaches.

    Well, coaches, unfortunately, have a short shelf life in most cases. The huge trade for Laine didn't seem to spark the team nearly as much as everyone else (including myself) thought it would. It seemed like both players needed a change of scenery.

    So I don't know anymore. Green's winning these last few games - and I am still cheering for the Canucks. I haven't been updating my playoff watch thing because the last loss we had was just sad, plus I've been busy. However, unlike other people, I don't want Green to fail fantastically just so I could 'prove a point'.

    I do think it's interesting that Montreal/Calgary are within reach, despite them being supposedly better than us, pllus they have our former players. Both of them had roster clearances, and yet they are still in this spot.

    Jimmy Vesey | #24 | LW

    in Alumni

    Posted · Edited by Dazzle

    If the Canucks were going to trade Pearson, they should have taken him out of the roster to begin with, but instead, they had him continuing to play after spraining his ankle.

    • Cheers 1

    Team wasnt ready from the get go!

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted

    1 hour ago, The Lock said:

    We could discuss all this until we're blue in the face really and I have life to focus on as of late, so less time on this forum for me.

     

    I do; however, want to reinstate that I think it's really about what TG has now as opposed to 2 or 3 years ago. That being said, I am also of a mindset where, if you have a bad team, I just don't really care what coach you have: you're still a bad team. lol Even Trotz and Nashville: Trotz did a ton for Nashville, but were the Nashville teams really all that bad when they kept getting solid defense and goal tending? All of this is debatable of course, but I do question that.

     

    In terms of Green looking better than WD, here's the way I see it:

     

    WD did a lot of frustrating things. He'd play favourites with players like Megna. He'd  throw Pedan on the 4th line. He's presumably one of the reasons why Tryamkin left. WD had a good first year, but after that I remember the frustrations people had with him. I was more of a homer back then than I am now and I remember defending WD for the longest time.

     

    19 wins difference I want to point out is still almost a 15% difference in contribution of wins in this case from one season (without considering losses of course). 19 might not seem like much, but when you put that into a percentage, 15% of WD being "better than" TG comes from that one season. Granted that's still going to be up for interpretation, but it's still a factor nevertheless that I don't think we can just ignore.

     

    I also think a lot of the focus in on the talent our players have now perhaps rather than the gradual improvement we've had in talent over the years. Boeser obviously came in 1st year, but let's be real about this too: him alone doesn't give a dynamo of talent for TG. Pettersson then comes in the next year and then Hughes comes in the next year after that so it's that gradual improvement that I've mentioned before.

     

    Anyway, I think the final thing I want to say; and this is a big problem that I often see on CDC; is the notion of the "best option". In my opinion, there will be no best option. There will always be someone better. There will always be someone worse. There is no perfect; yet, it seems like a lot of people here want perfect. I agree that we should look at our options, but to see if there's a BETTER option, but how do we know Benning hasn't done so already and how do we determine if someone's going to be a better option? Torts for example was supposed to be a better option than AV (or just a desperate firing by Gillis to save his job, that was probably also a thing). Torts is obviously a good coach, but he clearly turned out not to be a better option for us.

    I agree. Torts is clearly a more established coach, but Columbus is not doing any better than Vancouver, points wise, even if they're not in the same division. Maybe some coaches just don't work, despite their established careers.

     

    It's just that whenever I see Green's boring dump and chase system, and his mindless rolling of four lines, I just can't understand his game plan. We tend to get outshot a lot, and for some reason, the passing tends to get too cute because they want the perfect play.

     

    But yeah, I concede that every coach will have his flaws. I just don't know if Green is qualified enough to continue.

    • Cheers 1

    Calgary/Vancouver Evaluation - updated 3/29/21 - CAL TIED WITH VAN

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted · Edited by Dazzle

    1 hour ago, *Buzzsaw* said:

    Alright smart guy... now tell me that Nate Schmidt at 6 million a year is a better bet than Tanev at 4.5???????????????

    And secondly, I didn't say sign Markstrom... I said IF Benning didn't plan on signing Markstrom, then he needs to get something for him by trading him.

     

    Instead he got ZERO for him, and worse yet had to spend cap to get a poorer goalie in Holtby.... who has been a disaster.  Flush 4.5 mill X two years down the toilet.  No one will touch him in the expansion.

     

    And most importantly the missing stat in your analysis...Whats the record of the Canucks THIS YEAR compared to LAST YEAR... hey smart guy... what is it??????

     

    The fact that Calgary is doing poorly is not a result of the acquisitions of Markstrom and Tanev, its a function of poor coaching and mediocre play by the Flame's key offensive players.

     

    Look at the stats smart guy.... Chris Tanev is clearly the best defensive defenseman on the team... head and shoulders over the rest of the Calgary D Corps.

     

    And Markstrom, despite playing on this mediocre team has a winning record.

     

    So blow it out.

    You do realize that Calgary is sitting 1 point below the Canucks right?

     

    They lost tonight's game, though they have a few games in hand. But here's the million dollar question: Has Tanev and Markstrom really turned Calgary to be a cup contender?

     

    You're done, bud. LOL.

    [GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks @ Ottawa Senators | March 17, 2021 | 4 p.m. PT | SNP

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, oldnews said:

    Goaltending counts.

     

    Drafting and developing great young goaltenders...counts.

    It's shocking how people can, to this day, romanticize the periods of 2011 onward, while the predecessor to Benning did not draft or develop a goalie with a long term plan.

     

    We knew Demko was going to be good. We knew Cory Schneider was going to be good (at the time). Yet the Markstrom trade was kind of a bet that worked out. Without him, we don't have the goalie depth that we do now. 

     

    DiPietro is going to be really good as well. He just needs time, just like Demko took his time.

    • Cheers 1

    Team wasnt ready from the get go!

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted · Edited by Dazzle

    5 hours ago, The Lock said:

    I don't disagree that Green should be taking blame for some things. I just don't see it with what you've provided as there's so much left out in the open to criticize with it.

     

    For example, in WD's first year, the team ended up with 101 points. That alone is going to skew that statistic you are mentioning, since that year clearly boosts WD's record having 48 wins, 29 losses, 5 overtime losses. Not only that, but are you counting overtime losses in with losses in your statistics, because TG also has more overtime losses than WD which should also be considered. It's not a major difference, but there is still a difference.

     

    And, honestly, I'm just scratching the surface. If you look at even the last year with WD and the first year with TG, even that 1 year we saw point totals rise. Granted Boeser started in TG's first year but we could really further look at the stats and see what's going on.

     

    Anyway, it's okay if you don't care. Just know that you are leaving yourself open to criticism with your argument as a result.

     

    But, like I said, I don't see Green as some perfect coach either, although I often question whether a coaching change would really fix things as well at this point. Especially since, if TG's a good playoff coach as opposed to a good season coach.... that might be the difference between another finals run and a stanley cup as well.

    Yes, it boosts WDs record, but not as much you think. The difference of 19. How does this make Green look better though? He's barely .500,  in spite of the talent. That's why the WD comparison is a guide to see how the TG is doing, in comparison to his predecessor.

     

    As for Boeser, WD never had such a lethal sniper/game changer, outside of the Sedins, who were declining. I think looking at the number of fringe players, WD did pretty well for himself. 

     

    TG has a number of veteran players that have defined roles (not tweeners)... I'm just not sold.

     

    The Canucks need to look at all options. There's no way Green is the best option for all the established coaches out there

     

    *My references to Green, include his assistants*

    Team wasnt ready from the get go!

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted · Edited by Dazzle

    1 hour ago, The Lock said:

    The difference is though that WD's roster was on the downturn with our lowest point being the transition of WD to TG. TG's roster has since been on the upswing (aside from the start of this year maybe).

     

    This is what I mean by just looking at the record and claiming TG's not much better, it doesn't really take the whole timeline into context. Our roster is gradually getting better now. I'm not necessarily trying to defend TG or WD. I just look at what you're using and I don't think it proves your point as much as you think since you aren't really considering that timeline it seems.

     

    This isn't about the sample size itself. This is about how you are using that sample size. Without that extra understanding of why the records are the way they are, it doesn't really say much. It's more like you have a stat, have a hypothesis on that stat, but just a conclusion without research, and that's the part I just don't really agree with. If you do research on it and come to a conclusion that the record's because of TG's coaching then great, but if it's just because of the rosters being roughly equal and people's arguments are about TG having a good roster now as opposed to a while ago, maybe other stats would be better to use.

    I'm only making a very cursory comparison between the two. I really don't care about going in depth about bashing Green because I just don't think it's worth the effort. I don't hate the guy at all.

     

    This post wasn't meant to be a research project. This is about TG not being able to elevate with a roster he has that WD never had. The fact that WD missed the playoffs after his one good year, and TG only barely making the playoffs (with the play-in games), that's really not saying much about TG.

     

    Granted, TG DID arguably elevate his team in the playoffs, by getting to the second round. However, we also saw in those playoffs what we're seeing now, which is getting badly outshot. Ottawa, at one point of the game, was shooting so much that if Demko wasn't in net, this would've been a disaster. We had Tanev/Markstrom last playoffs. We don't have them now. The passive defense/giving up shots and no shooting has been some of the same issues we've been seeing for years. Is this a TG or a Baumer problem? We don't definitively know. One thing we do know is that their systems have been suspect for a while.

     

    At some point, Green has to take some blame if we're going to give him credit for others. We cannot just say "Green's good because he's doing well with players like Pettersson and Boeser, so he can't be criticized at all.".

     

    People talk about Benning - and they should because he's responsible for these two coaches. Yet WD/TG are two rookie coaches that have yet to prove anything beyond early playoffs. People criticize the WCE rosters for being a one-lined team, and how the 2nd round wasn't the furthest they could go.  So why can't TG be analyzed in the same way?

    Team wasnt ready from the get go!

    in Canucks Talk

    Posted

    16 hours ago, The Lock said:

    The thing is, you can still like what a GM's done while also criticize what that same GM has done. It's not like you're either on one side or the other (which some people seem to have a mentality of unfortunately). There's a continuum.

     

    That being said, TG now (ie. not 2 or 3 years ago) has a more talented team, but let's not forget that WD started with a lot of the veterans as well as make the playoffs 1 year, so you could make an argument against what you are saying with those stats. There's just not enough context with it to form the conclusion you speak of.

    With all due respect, there's more than enough of a sample to criticize TG at this point. I see what you're saying about WD having a lot of veterans, but you can see him slide into oblivion.

     

    The truth is, there's an overlap of "bad" rosters of WD and TG. This illustrates the similarity of the two.

     

    Now when you look at the individual skill of players (Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes), you can see we are still at the same spot where TG was - borderline.

     

    Tanev and Markstrom probably would have improved the Canucks a bit - but not by much. You can briefly see how Calgary is only barely ahead of us, with some games in hand.

    Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

    in Alumni

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

    For a team to be successful every one has to be working at peak efficiency. If not you loose or worse still you become average. To me Virtanen has at times looked ok but here's the problem. He's on the ice and sees what he has to do, say forecheck, get's there a little late but then has no plan B to recover. He's a one play hockey player, there's no flow to his game. He doesn't see the game he sees the play. Some suggest that maybe his hockey IQ is lacking and I suppose you could say that but his game has no flow to it, it's one and done until his next shift. He has the physical attributes for an individual game but not a full game plan. It's a shame but there you are, you can't chnage a players thought process. In a dog world he would be a retriever go get the stick but then what ?  

    So this reflects the coaching and lack of trust on him. He's keeping the game so simple that he's barely using all of his skills.

    • Cheers 1
×
×
  • Create New...