Dazzle
-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Dazzle
-
-
Wow, no call? Checking from behind. Blatant.
-
2 minutes ago, Pears said:
In all seriousness if Demko carries us to the playoffs I’m getting a tattoo of his face.
I misread this badly. I was like, why would you get a face tattoo of Demko? Ballsy.
-
Let's have some fun with this, shall we? Perhaps some fun delusional positivity talk. We'll be focussing on our most immediate competitors.
Calgary sits at 39 percent (with 3 games in hand). Edmonton at 75 percent (2 games in hand), and Montreal at 93 (5 games in hand).
Source: http://moneypuck.com/predictions.htm
Scotia North GP W L OT PTS P% RW ROW GF GA DIFF HOME AWAY S/O L10 STRK 1 Toronto 26 18 6 2 38 .731 16 18 90 63 +27 9-3-1 9-3-1 0-0 7-3-0 L2 2 Winnipeg 24 15 8 1 31 .646 10 15 79 69 +10 9-4-1 6-4-0 0-1 7-3-0 L1 3 Edmonton 26 15 11 0 30 .577 14 15 83 80 +3 7-8-0 8-3-0 0-0 6-4-0 W1 4 Montréal 23 11 6 6 28 .609 11 11 78 66 +12 5-5-1 6-1-5 0-2 3-3-4 W1 5 Calgary 25 11 12 2 24 .480 9 10 68 76 -8 5-4-0 6-8-2 1-0 3-6-1 L1 6 Vancouver 28 11 15 2 24 .429 10 10 81 93 -12 7-6-2 4-9-0 1-0 4-4-2 W2 7 Ottawa 26 8 17 1 17 .327 5 7 70 102 -32 5-6-1 3-11-0 1-0 5-5-0 L2 -
2
-
-
5 hours ago, oldnews said:
and, as good a deal as he was - his performance through half the season - has been uncharacteristically poor (in large part due to rust, but nevertheless, not good). He's been better just recently upon returning from injury, but thus far his season does not exactly translate into uptick in terms.
I feel like if Hamonic was not injured and there wasn't COVID, he would've translated better, but this is a moot point.
I really do think they should reconsider the defensive coaching though... There is no way schmidt is this much of a fringe defenseman after coming from LV.
-
12 hours ago, Provost said:
I think this is a bit of revisionist history and creating the opposite “cause and effect” narrative to what actually seemed to have happened. If you go back to the game logs and look deeper it tells a different story.
Jake started slow last season, then started producing well at the end of Nov/early Dec coinciding right when Roussel came back from injury and was put on his line. That good stretch of production came primarily on a line with Roussell and Gaudette... not with Petey and Miller. He barely produced any points with those two guys at all.
He was producing well in his 3rd line role so THEN earned more minutes and got more chances to play higher in the lineup and more 2nd unit PP time where he got a bunch of his production in that stretch.
His great play lasted 5-6 weeks, tailed off and he went back to not producing at all. 1 point in 10 games starting late Jan/early Feb. That tail off actually coincided with him being moved to be tried on the Miller/Petterson line. Jake had a couple of good games with them and then went into a deep slide that lasted the rest of the season all the way until now. Boeser got hurt and Virtanen wasn’t producing in that spot. Jake was dropped in the lineup and Toffoli was acquired to fill the injury hole.People can have a hard on for Green, but he isn’t dropping guys down in the lineup that are helping him win. Jake’s play determined his minutes, not the other way around.
We saw how he played in the playoffs... so there is zero evidence that Jake is “made for the playoffs”. I was interested and hoping to see that. The narrative/theory was that once the games got big, it would provide Jake the extra motivation to play at a higher level more consistently to match that intensity. That didn’t happen, quite the reverse... when other players ratcheted up their play, he tailed off. The game seemed too hard and intense for his level of compete. Who knows if he learned from that and might be different in the future, but it isn’t at all reasonable to say he is our best bet after Ferland.
Evidence shows our best bet after Ferland were probably Horvat and Motte in terms of being able to have that extra compete level in the big games.
I'm gonna pull a page out of oldnews' book...
A lot of Jake's game is built around confidence, yet I don't think Green particularly rewarded Virtanen more time despite his production. Given how he had apparently turned the corner during the season. Looking at the minutes last year, https://www.espn.com/nhl/player/gamelog/_/id/3114734/year/2020/jake-virtanen,Green, on paper, is fairly consistent with the ice time. The exception seems to be in Oct and Jan, he was given over 180 minutes of ice time, for example.
A look at the TOI https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2020.html will show that Virtanen was not given any less time on the ice than others, on average. He was in the middle of the pack.Yet, when grouping the Corsi numbers for even strength, Virtanen was hovering at 48.8, whereas his other usual linemates went below this. Gaudette and Sutter, for example, were 46.1 and 44 respectively.
Fenwick stat says Virtanen is 50.3, so in theory, he's really not that bad of a player. He's at least on par with the top 6 forwards (all of them are above 50). His TK/GV ratio is also marginally better than Pearson.
Yet Pearson has at least 3 minutes more than Virtanen.
On a cursory look on underlying stats, there isn't a whole lot of difference with Pearson and Virtanen, Pearson is no more impactful than Virtanen, not taking into account the points. I am really curious to see if Virt would produce like Pearson, if given the opportunities that Pearson has though.
In the playoffs, Pearson was given 6 minutes more of ice time than Virtanen. Pearson did produce in the playoffs. Virtanen, not so much. It's obvious that Green trusts Pearson more, yet the underlying stats don't seem to suggest that he is that much more better than Virtanen.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, kilgore said:
I don't think he is either. Not competent enough for our team, yes. But if anything JB is too honest for the job he has, and unknowingly blurts out things that only cause more grief for him later
. He's not a very good liar and he probably knows it. The question is, how much of what he believes is true.........he's just convinced himself of? From a track record of "turn it around quickly", "a foundational player" etc. That cognitive gap is what worries me about relying on Jim for any more future hockey decisions.
I gave JB the benefit of the doubt for years. In Benning We Trust. It was only about a year ago, when I could see this cap crunch problem coming, that I started questioning him. Letting Brackett get away didn't help. And this past post season's decisions just put the nail in the coffin for me
I don't think he could have done much with this offseason. Not signing Markstrom is/was the right move. Paying for Toffoli the next year may or may not have been a safe move. Paying for Tanev likewise carries a significant risk, considering he had been fairly injury prone before.
People keep saying these non-signings were mistakes, but at the same time, look at the teams that acquired the players. Aside from Toffoli, they're only a few points ahead, granted they have some games in hand. Still, they are far from being cup contenders.
I'm not saying these players are bad, but I think the impact of these players have been overstated.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Ray_Cathode said:
I read something a few years ago when he used to play with Pettersson, and Pettersson changed teams to move up to the first division. Dahlen stayed with the hometown team because his ambition was to get them advanced to the first division. Much like European football leagues, they have a relegation/promotion system.
Really interesting stuff, but at at the same time, Dahlen had been insisting that he was NHL ready. I just don't understand why he was pouting so much during the AHL and bolted to Sweden afterwards.
-
7 minutes ago, Tyndall2 said:
Benning sounded a lot like Trudeau sounds when giving answers to questions from reporters or in the House. Just generalizations and excuses never putting the team on his own back and taking responsibility. And, let's hope that like Trudeau, Benning won't be around too much longer.
Are you serious? Mixing politics with hockey is a baddddd idea.
-
19 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:
What is the point of this response? It has offered nothing insightful and its just a classic example of you defending Benning via cheap, tired, Gillis slander.
Benning didn't get Schmidt for a 3rd because he did his due diligence on the market. Vegas signed a superior defenceman (one that, had we managed our cap properly, we could have potentially been in on as a partner for Hughes) and circled around to us because we were desperate after missing out on...Tyson Barrie (LOL). Besides, it's well rumoured he turned down Winnipeg and Florida backed out of their deal with Vegas, so we were third choice in this deal. Hardly impressive if you ask me.
As for drafting, you keep talking like Hoglander is some legit NHLer. He's been good in the 25 games he's played in but so were Schroeder, Kassian, Gaudette, Corrado, etc., in their initial spells. Give him a few years to solidify himself, and more importantly, the other picks around him to see if we actually drafted a stud. Not sure how you think drafting Boeser is good drafting. He was BPA at that spot lol. I guess its better than, uhh, Juulsen or G. Carlsson..lol?
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/2015-draft-nhl-canucks-brock-boeser
False.* I should asterisk this.
According to CSS, he was ranked 27th in NA skaters. Using Provost's logic, this doesn't take into account European skaters. He used this logic to argue that Virtanen was actually ranked lower because of the NA designation. If Boeser was considered BPA, Virtanen should be considered that, since a number of scouts, including Mackenzie l, ranked him around 7-8, with some ranking him 11, 18 and 40 something for Craig Button.
Rankings:
International Scouting Services: 7
Central Scouting – North American Skaters: 6
Hockey Prospect: 18
https://editorinleaf.com/2014/06/23/2014-nhl-draft-profile-jake-virtanen/
I bet you also think Virtanen wasn't BPA...
-
1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:
Like @Alain Vigneault says, you have a weird obsession with Gillis.
Benning has made enough bad non-Gillis related moves/non-moves to warrant his firing.
It really has nothing to do with Gillis.
To say it has nothing to do with Gillis is a lie. At least part of our issues is the lack of depth, particularly in the 20-25 age gap, which not so mysteriously was absent during the takeover.
The biggest issue about 2016 was that there were no replacements for several years of draft mismanagement. One high draft isn't gonna cut it. The team has to balance between icing a roster and rebuilding a nonexistent prospect pool.
My biggest gripe about Benning is not re-evaluating the coaches. We've only had WD and TG, both of whom have identical win/losses, despite the latter having the most talented and young roster by far. I am most disappointed in Benning that he said he was going to extend him. For that decision, I think Benning should be removed. Green is not irreplaceable.
-
2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:
No I don't believe it was always a 9 year plan.
I can make my own opinions, thanks. And just because they don't align with yours doesn't mean they're wrong, and even if they did come from "those" places, what makes "those" places wrong? Because you said so? Got any credentials yourself?
They're wrong because you've ignored inconvenient evidence that has constantly come up as criticism of Gillis. All you've been able to do is throw stones at people you deem to be Benning's lackies. You haven't been able to argue against Gillis' poor prospect pool, namely no replacements. You've even laughably spun the Canucks poor year as some kind of 'gift' from Gillis, as if it would make up for the number of lost draft picks over the years, with poor drafting from the picks he did have. Laughable.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:
Newsflash: If a GM gets "lucky" on multiple deals...maybe it's not luck
Maybe it's not luck after all that Benning acquired Schmidt for a third round pick. Maybe Benning was not lucky to get Hoglander in the 2nd round. Maybe Benning wasn't lucky to acquire Boeser. Maybe... Just maybe...
Horvat could've gone the way of Hodgson. Maybe Markstrom could've regressed. There's so many moving parts.
Risk management has never seemingly been on Gillis' mind. That much is clear. That or he was blackballed by the league. Gillis' trades are no better than Benning's.
-
2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:
The important thing when Henning started the job, he had essentially the full allotment of Canucks picks to work with. Gave him a better opportunity to work on his real skill (drafting)
I'm laughing at how the 6th overall was considered a gift by Gillis supporters, rather than seeing it as his team was not as good as it was on paper. Sure, there was a 100 point year after, but that the fact remains about being no prospects coming up the system under Gillis. I'm sorry, being a fan of Shinkaruk, even I realized he wasn't the same after the injury. The mention about him as an asset is a joke.
-
Just now, Silky mitts said:
What? You do realize he fumbled the bag so bad trying to acquire OEL that he failed to Retain any of those players . And yes he did try to resign them when it was too late , plus the lack of cap space for overpaid bums like beagle and Rousell.
the lengths some of you go to defend jimbo is actually comical .
The fact that you wanted Benning to retain Markstrom and Tanev for those long contracts is laughable. Tanev's contract isn't terrible, but 6x6 Markstrom is cringe. A lot of the complaints about Benning has been that the contracts too long. So you want to get another one?
-
9 minutes ago, 10pavelbure96 said:
No kidding.
Leave it to jimbo jockeys to leave out relevant information
I was a supporter of him for years cause I seen the core he was building. But it's clear as day that he's not the guy to take the next step. He did his job, now its time for some old boys club member to take the next step.
Rutherford or Lombardi please
Kesler had next to no value.
Burrows got Dahlen. A trade that was said to be pretty good. In the end, we received Linus Karlsson. He's developing in Sweden now. Meanwhile, Dahlen is toiling in Timra (still). Be hasn't advanced.
Edler wasn't even Gillis' pick. While we still have Edler, note how there were no replacements for him in terms of prospects. That is on Gillis.
Gillis left crap to Benning. Kanucks25 has constantly been ignoring evidence that doesn't support his points because all he cares about is bashing Benning at all costs, while glossing over Gillis' poor prospect pool.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, D-Money said:
He's had 7 years, including 4 top-10 draft choices! I sure hope he's assembled a young core by now.
Look at LA. They've been at their rebuild for less time, and they've already assembled a young core, surrounded them with quality veterans, and now they're ahead of us in the standings.
I've spoken at length about this; Gillis did a very poor job at planning for the future. Sure he may have had a President's Cup, most of which was from a core inherited from his predecessors, namely Edler. He made a number of good changes, like investing in sleep doctors, etc and helping to get a new locker room.
There were a number of trades he simply got lucky on, namely the Markstrom/Luongo one, and the Horvat/Schneider. Markstrom had a lot of raw potential, but he was not a starter, at least at the beginning. He had to work hard. Horvat was good, but he had skating issues. Then there was the Grabner plus 1st round pick for Ballard (who was eventually bought out). If Markstrom/Horvat didn't elevate their games after the acquisitions, we would have an even crappier prospect pool.
Make no mistake. Gillis brought the Canucks very close to the cup. He deserves credit for that. Yet to say Gillis was better than Benning is just flossing over Gillis' mistakes. His drafting/developing is indefensible. No good picks at all. We could write a paper on how Gillis' legacy continues to damage the Canucks today.
-
9 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:
A list of excuses to not get fired...man if we only had that kind of leash in real world jobs!
A lot of this season wasn't really his fault though. It's absurd to think that the Canucks should've signed long contracts to players over 30. Tanev may have been the only correct signing. Maybe he erred there.
-
5 hours ago, Josepho said:
Sure every team has their misses, but the pro-Benning arguments are that his drafting is good enough to make up all of his other shortcomings. You can simultaneously also brush up any positive things Benning has done outside of drafting (i.e. "a broken clock is right twice a day" with the miller trade or "vegas came to him" with the schmidt deal), this reeks of self-serving bias and you have to keep your logic consistent.
I personally don't think Benning's drafting overcomes every other fault of his, and this team's record over the past half-decade speaks for itself.
I don't think that's what Benning supporters have said.
They seem to be more worried that if we switch GMs, our drafting will go down, given this GM's history as a scout. It's difficult to argue that the prospect depth he has brought when immediately compared to Gillis has not improved.
But then again, someone like Judd Brackett (who's not available) could somehow do the job. I think my biggest issue with this whole thing is Benning not reviewing the coaching staff. The mention of an extension is really disappointing.
-
Why why why is he thinking about extending Green? This was a great opportunity to see what's out there. If he could have said he'll look at all options, including Green, I'd be fine. At this point, there is no due diligence.
-
45 minutes ago, DSVII said:
Bo Horvat, Markstrom, Tanev, Edler, A tradeable 2C, and a 100pt playoff team. Cap space. the 'Nothing' that Gillis left for Benning ended up propping his teams up the last few years and made up 2 of his top 4D.
Jim was not starting from scratch, he benefited from the acquisitions Gillis made and yes, the lack of a succession plan from the Sedins was why a lot of us wanted to rebuild back then, to get a shot at Matthews or McDavid rather than try and make the playoffs.
If we wanna compare drafts, you have to keep in mind Benning was also picking in spots so high that an average fan with an NHL mag could have landed hits too. A comparison in drafting should be picks made in similar draft positions (i.e compare Gillis picks in range 50-75 with Benning picks in 50-75) I think Benning does better still but not by much. )
Draft picks and prospect development. Horvat is the only one you mentioned.
Also, it should be noted that every GM will inherit a roster from previous predecessors. Edler was passed down from Nonis' regime.
Tradable 2C, I assume you meant Kesler. Kesler wasn't Gillis' pick either, and the fact that Kesler had such a limited NTC that any good value was nuked.
100pt playoff team is kinda meaningless because the Canucks never could repeat that again.
I haven't even been talking about first round picks. Gillis has nothing to show from 2nd round to after. Gillis threw away a lot of the first round picks that probably would've been late first in all likelihood. In any case, not a good look for a GM that doesn't make full use of the draft.
-
1 hour ago, Ray_Cathode said:
I think all Dahlen ever wanted to be was a hero in his home town. I don’t think the big money and North American fame ever motivated him that much, and I don’t think the physical beatings on his small frame in the AHL excited him too much either. Prestige in his own community Meant more to him, in balance. I can’t blame a guy for having such innocent desires... maybe there is a girl... or whatever.
You might be onto something. He's been in Timra ever since. Going overseas didn't seem to be his thing.
-
2 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:
I don't know what you want me to say. Like, yes, it sucked (in hindsight), maybe they should have found Judd Brackett in 2011. But once more, the facts are that Gillis was drafting in the latter half of the entry drafts every season while Benning has been drafting in the top 10 for the majority of his tenure, where it's typically easier to find good players (i.e. replacements for the Sedins). Traditionally, it's easier to scoop great young players at, for example, pick 8 and pick 39 as opposed to pick 27 and pick 58, so on and so forth. Now, before you get all pouty, this isn't a defence of Gillis, these are just facts and patterns that most hockey minds would agree with in regards to drafting.
As for your comments about the prospects, that is simply all opinion on your end. The prospects you think are promising now are no different to the prospects that Gillis had put into place. Until they play NHL games and establish themselves, they are not "better" no matter how many times you state so or try to revise history. As an aside, since you seem to think NHL Central Scouting rankings = draft order (going back to the Virtanen thread), Hunter Shinkaruk was ranked 6th and ahead of Horvat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NHL_Entry_Draft). Hardly a "bad" prospect (according to the same logic that you used with Virtanen) to inherit at the time of Benning taking over, even if hindsight proves differently.
Finally, stop bringing up Gillis. You made a thread about how the teams around us sucking = Benning not doing as horrible job as the "haterz" thought. Stick to your thread and stop derailing it to protect your cult leader.
See, there's always a "but" attached to Gillis with you, like, "But Benning has drafted top 10 most of his career, and Gillis hasn't!"
What about any of the 2nd round picks and later? Who is still playing in the NHL that could possibly be tied to Gillis' drafting and development?
I was a big fan of Shinkaruk, fyi. He was Gillis' best prospect by far, and it wasn't even close. His skating was good, and his shot was better. When he got injured, he wasn't the same. But when you don't provide depth, one injury will devastate whatever plan you have.
Gillis' failure to set the team up for the future past 2014 has been an Achilles heel for this team.
The way you say "it is all my opinion" is to downplay the lack of prospects and (valuable) players that Gillis left behind. You can overrate the value of players like Kassian all you want, but the reality was that the market doesn't agree.
If you were a rebuilding team and if someone offered a late first for a player like Gaudette, would you take it? I think most people on the board would let him go if that were the case. Similarly, for players like Jensen, Shinkaruk and Kassian, if they could have been swapped for someone with equal or better value, the trades would've already happened.
We've seen just how bad Gillis was with trading. Anytime he made trades, he'd get bent over. The problem was the reputation he had around the league because he was essentially blackballed.
-
3 minutes ago, qwijibo said:
The $3m fine and the loss of a 3rd and a 1st were actually a for Kovalchuk‘a 17 year contract which was rejected by the league. They reworked the contract into the 15 year one that they still have a cap penalty for. The league ultimately revoked the loss of the 1st but the other penalties remained. So yes. They didn’t follow through on that aspect but it’s totally unrelated to the contract that was actually signed. The contract that was signed was treated exactly the same as Luongo’s
Thanks for the clarification and correction by you and mll.
-
32 minutes ago, oldnews said:
I agree. He's been a bit snakebitten with scoring - some great chances that he's been unable to convert - but it's not his game with the puck that is concerning - he always has jump when he has possession. It's without the puck where he has regressed. He was working hard, consistently, early in the season. At this point he's once again a liability that Sutter has to compensate for. Last night - a number of entirely vacant efforts in his own zone - although credit where it's due - there was an intance where he won a board battle with Tavares later in the game defending the lead. Not sure what the remedy would be though - where Virtanen maintains a respectable game without the puck when he's struggling to score, Gaudette's inconsistency engaging defensively remains a real problem. When he's both struggling to score and failing to defend...he's hurting the team.
By comparison...last night...
Gaudette
62.5% ozone starts
34.6% corsi (17 on ice shot attempts against, 9 for).
0 hits, 0 blocks
-1
Virtanen
30% ozone starts
50% corsi
3 hits.
+1
Not really outlier results - on the season Gaudette 51.6% ozone starts, -9 is 2nd worst on the team, worst among forwards. 1.4 on ice goals for per 60, 2.7 against. Virtanen down at 37.5% ozone starts, and while the production hasn't been there (1.5 on ice goals for per 60) - his on ice goals against is the best on the team (1.3 on ice goals against per 60 at es).
It's nice to see the stats behind this. Thanks.
Yes, you're right. Gaudette is very snakebitten.
[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks vs Toronto Maple Leaves | March 6, 2021 | 4 p.m. PT | CBC, SNP
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Beagle has been playing really well tonight.