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. So... Calgary and Montreal... All within reach, despite their games in hand. Canucks may have hurt short term, but long term, they are going to be fine.
  2. You're wrong actually. Senators have strung some wins and are slowly closing the gap. They recently beat the Leafs, just before playing us. Canucks are very much in the mix for Edmonton's spot.
  3. I don't understand Green's game. Shots, shots and shots. Why is it so hard to throw picks on net? A lot of Green's game is perimeter. You take away the neutral zone, and the Canucks game play can be shut down.
  4. 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*
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Virtanen is definitely looking like he's putting in consistency. Maybe Pearson should be replaced by Virtanen.
  9. The stats that WD and TG have are near identical. Talent is superior for TG than what WD ever had.
  10. Jake Virtanen vs a slightly tired McDavid. Still impressive. His IQ is actually not bad at all. Look how he protects this puck away from McDavid. Very effective.
  11. I believe Eriksson will be bought out next year, so that would be helpful. If they remove players like Pearson (thru trade deadline), who probably could be replaced by a cheaper, unproven winger (namely anyone in our system), that will help save money. If Myers is gone (thru expansion draft), that saves money. If Holtby's gone, that too. Sutter may or may not be coming back. I think this next offseason actually will benefit the Canucks, more so than other years. The most painful part is gone - losing Markstrom and Tanev could possibly be a win for the Canucks long term.
  12. His contract is ending soon. They could sign him for one year, but then the GM will have to be stuck with him. I would have thought that letting everyone, minus Clark, would have been the most logical choice, and have the GM handpick everyone. It'll be a lot of work, sure, but then the team will have a fresh start.
  13. Very poor take. Look at the Hoglander draft - which player could Benning have picked in that spot that would be superior to him now? Oh wait, you're selectively ignoring certain aspects of Benning's drafting to push forward an argument that will inherently have flaws.
  14. But but but... Madden was too high of a price to pay for Toffoli! FIRE BENNING !!!!! /sar I have nothing against Madden, but he CLEARLY was a redundant piece for the Canucks. Where was Madden going to fit on our roster? (Question wasn't meant to be directed at you). People, you have to give to get something. Madden was the price for a rental Toffoli. And if Madden doesn't pan out for the Kings (too early to say this), guess what? Both sides possibly lost (long term wise).
  15. Why are we ONLY firing Benning? Green has proven very little, aside from a nice playoff run (in other words, similar to WD). If you're going to fire Benning, fire/let go of everyone under him as well, with exception to Ian Clark. Clean house. Keeping Green is leaving a remnant of Benning behind. WD and TG are far too similar in stats, with regards to wins and losses for my liking. The roster that TG has is much better than what WD ever had. At this point, Green's inability to rise above his predecessor is possibly indicative of his style of coaching and/or not being able to maximize a player's usefulness. At some point, he has to answer to this question.
  16. Nothing about Green's system is revolutionary. Yet why are we seeing some epic proportion structural breakdowns? I don't get it at all. The dump and chase system is only good if you're fast enough to retrieve it, which is, in most cases, never. You have Hughes that can carry the puck, so there needs to be a better neutral zone/offensive zone support system. The defense pinching is so brutal - I really wonder if Baumer is the ONLY reason why Green's system looks so terrible. Replace Baumer and I'd like to give Green another chance.
  17. I'm sorry, but Baumer/Green have to go. Benning too if he thinks they're the most competent coaches out there, which is TOTALLY false. There's always new blood out there, particularly ones who require a new place to shine, and have a pedigree and/or achievements to coach.
  18. This is so wholesome. What was the reason for Mantha to do this?
  19. Taking a cursory approach on this, Buffalo is by far the biggest loser. This will be their 10th season IN A ROW that they've missed the playoffs. Their version of McDavid - Eichel - is their only saving grace on a team that wasn't even able to make the playoffs, even when more teams were included for the play-in games. That's 9 years of bad drafting/mismanagement, and seemingly no hope for the future.
  20. Fair point to the first paragraph. I really don't have any issues with what you said there. In fact, I agree that if the Canucks can offload some players for a rebuild of some sort, that might be ideal, otherwise we will risk them walking for nothing one day when their values drop. Because even if our drafting was better (I think it would be insane to say our drafting under GM JB is BETTER than TB), there is a chance that the new player doesn't work out. That's just the way things are. If every GM could have it their way, their picks would never miss. I'm sure Boston was licking their lips when they had three first round picks all at the same time - and yet all three of picks missed one of Barzal, Connor, and Boeser who were picked shortly after. Boston's drafting has not been historically bad either. Even teams TB have made BAD picks too. The whole 2015 year for Chicago, I had to look up, was a complete miss. 2016 wasn't much better, except for DeBrincat in the second round. 2017 had one player - Jokiharu. They picked a young defenseman too that's still on their team. 2018 was better: Boqvist and Kurashev. So no team bats anywhere close to 50 percent in a draft. It's just not possible. Colorado's drafting generally hits on their first round picks. Yes, Rantanen is good. Yes they have McKinnon and Landeskog. (1st and 2nd overall, respectively). They took some time to rebuild though because not all their picks pan out. So even though we've picked some great players recently, GM Benning may or may not be around to see how good of a job (or not) he's done with drafting, especially with a pick like Podkolzin who's probably like another Motte Drafting/developing is difficult to master/gauge. There's always constantly new material to learn, and if you use older models for drafting (i.e. big body, high PIMs), it might not necessary be advisable nowadays. That's just my thought, mixed in with a little bit of reading.
  21. I read the articles, but I feel that you calling the whole thing a tax writeoff to be a bit misleading. He didn't buy this team to dodge taxes completely. I'm hoping someone else can elaborate this further, but it doesn't sound like what you're describing.
  22. What? He spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure the team with stability, which in turn helps employ thousands of people in sports and other businesses. There isn't a tax write off. Furthermore, he purchased the arena himself, as opposed to asking the city to pay for it, unlike Edmonton's arena. Your suspicion on the tax angle doesn't make much sense.
  23. I will then say that I appreciate you for elaborating your perspective, rather than just ramming through a particular opinion without some sort of justification. Thanks for that, no sarcasm intended. Much of my gripe with your posts is that you seemed to ignore contrarian evidence. I don't know how you can think both conditions to be true. Using your point that one should laugh their way to the bank if Motte is given a 2nd round pick as a return, that illustrates that you personally do not view him to be worth that much. This is therefore considered common knowledge. Something that is probably agreed upon by most reasonable people. So why would GMs who appraise players all the time feel that Motte should then be worth a 2nd? This is so contradictory, you're right. It's like proposing Raymond, Ballard and a 1st in exchange for a desirable player, yet trashing the former two players as being useless, at the same time. That's not how it works in reality, and I suspect you realize this. You can't have it both ways. Either Motte is highly regarded or not. You can't also make the statement that a lot of players can do his job, or take his place. I mean it's a joke after all that Eriksson is a 6M pker. The second thing about draft picks is that they are gambles. We've seen multiple examples of three (!) First round picks by Boston not really panning out as originally planned. Secondly, Hoglander was clearly a diamond in the rough. If you look at the players before and after him, no player is as impactful as him, minus the few high first round picks. Picks and players are gambles. Getting a 2nd doesn't mean we'll get a good player for sure. It just means we'll get a new player with higher potential. Dahlen, for example, was a return that the Canucks received for Burrows. Dahlen looks like a bust for SJ. He's been toiling in Timra the entire time with similar stats. It's a second tier league he is playing. Meanwhile, we received Linus Karlsson, who is doing well. Yet we have no idea how good he'll end up being.
  24. 7 years ago, we had no drafted players to write home about, courtesy of Gillis. (Exception, Horvat).
×
×
  • Create New...