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

Ray_Cathode

Members
  • Posts

    4,438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ray_Cathode

  1. It wasn’t very long small defencemen were considered impossible, then we rediscovered the value of puck movement and quick thinking and feet. The game being faster in Pettersson’s case is a non-issue, there is nothing wrong with his skating, quickness, or ability to process the game. I still have a clear memory of 5 foot 8 Larionov completely neutrazing Eric Lindros in the Stanley Cup final. There were supposedly no gaps in Lindros’s game, well except one, Larionov was a chess player and his brains neutralized Lindros’s brawn.
  2. Why does he have to be bigger? Gretzky wasn’t a bad centre - in fact, he transformed the game. True talent finds a way.
  3. I really see a lot of potential in Tryamkin to maybe become as good as a number 2 defenceman on a good team. Like Pouliot, he isn't diminished at all playing on his off side and I think he has a lot more to give carrying the puck and offensively - never mind clearing the trash out from around home plate.
  4. Yeah, I really like McEneny, remember seeing him in his last year of junior (he was on a weak team, but he was getting 30 minutes a night) and then in the young stars in Penticton. I thought he was the best defenceman for the Canucks at the youngstars that year (and I said so), even though he only played a single game. Very mobile for a big guy, very strong, great gap control, controlled guys in the corners, and made great plays to get out of the zone - skating, long or short pass - he made good choices - his horizontal movement from lane to lane on D was superb. He got sent down to the ECHL his first pro year with Cederholm and they both were huge + players on a weak Kalamazoo squad. At first in the AHL he was very, very solid and got Green's trust then Green gave him offensive opportunities and he had good numbers. Last year he really came into his own offensively for Utica. He became the number one guy on the PP and the PK. He improved in the way that I had hoped that Subban would have. This year, with a new coach, it didn't take long for Cull to decide McEneny was his guy. Real shame. Well, his NHL career is just delayed, not over. He'll be back next year to show he belongs in the show. Benning has done well picking up this kind of guy (Chatfield, McEwan), though I believe Gillis signed McEneny. He is really a good argument for keeping D prospects around a little longer after junior and having a second tier team (ECHL) to send them to (too bad Carl Neill didn't get a shot at that).
  5. 2 g 2a tonight. Trying to prove he belongs in a higher league, I suppose.
  6. I think maybe there is a confusion here between intelligence and creativity - they aren't stricly conjoined. Most good offensive players are very creative, but many are not sound defensively - they don't think the game out very well when they don't have the puck or are not trying to get into position to be delivered the puck. Tanev is a very high IQ defensive defenceman - he really understands the defensive aspects of the game, though he makes a good outlet pass, he is not a very creative guy in the offensive zone - that does not mean he has a low hocley IQ. Some guys are good at math, some guys make poetry on ice.
  7. I can't even imagine on what data your assumption rests, Yuolevi is now playing in a men's league, in Europe (where secondary assists are harder to come by) and he is producing at a higher offensive rate than in Junior - - indicating that he is one of those young players whose effectiveness increases relative to the talent level of the league in which he plays. In other words, he thrives in situations where the play is more effectively organized.
  8. Being a Chara type wouldn't be bad either - I believe Tryamkin's offense side is still to be explored. Chara was in the league for four years before he started to emerge in his fifth season.
  9. Totally agree. The Canucks and many of its fans have the patience of starving mosquitoes. Having been a Canuck fan since 1970, I have seen the consequence of that mindset: Vaive, Rogers, Derlago, Neely and many others. I understand the impatience, but at last we appear to have a GM again that can find talent, lets appreciate that for a while with a little patience - in addition, I like what we have in this coaching staff - given the huge gap in our team player development that has left us with an aging roster that is being transitioned to a young one.
  10. Really, what about Demko, Hutton, Stetcher, Boeser, Gaudette, and Lockwood? They seemed to do alright in college hockey!
  11. Interesting to see if it will outdo the 1979 draft - 940 career goals for Vaive, Ashton and Graham. The tragic thing is, Graham never played for the Canucks, Vaive played 47 games, and Ashton played only 124. Hopefully we keep the talent from this draft.
  12. And acquiring all those picks for veterens was how they stayed that way. That is how teams have built - with very rare eceptions. And it still is the way, trade guys at the ends of their careers, trade guys that appear to have peaked but still have good rubber on their tires, trade young guys that appear they won't excel for another kick at the draft. If then you develop them properly, coach them properly, give them a shot where they can succeed, and eventually you own a contender. Lots of teams' ownersip (or management) can't stand the pain of the journey and quit before the job is done and trade of their young promising guys for 'proven guys' - manage to get all the way up to mediocre for a couple of years, before they revert to being almost terrible - the story of most of the ownership in the NHL. Then you get the perrenials that do it right and they have the rafters full of banners. Historically and hysterically, there has been precious little patience among the ownership or the fans in Vancouver to do anything more than excel at mediocrity or less. Maybe this is the time, but I think not - not when they spend money and draft position to acquire the likes of Gagner, Vanek, Ericksson, etc., and keel old hasbeens like the Sedins and Edler. Hard to get betteer when you keep striving to be mediocre. You can't get bad enough to get a shot at getting the can't miss guys often enough. And by keeping the old, overpaid guys - you don't have the cap to reward the young guys, and you can't acquire other team's assets to fill in the hles in your lineup. Every once in a while, a great talent comes to the market, and you don't have the surplus assets to pick it up.
  13. Virtanen will score when he gets decent linemates that the coach is willing to trust with more ice time.
  14. Since Granlund is on the PK and checking the other team's best line as a shutdown guy, and he is one of or perhaps the time on ice guy among forwards for the Canucks, I don't see him getting much PP time - at least not so long as his line has been so effective in their roles. But I do agree that as they continue to adjust to their roles, and continue to be ice time leaders among forwards, they will score - at least in part because they do a lot of their shutdown work in the offensive zone - that will lead to turn overs, especially since offensive guys often cheat out of the zone.
  15. Henrik will need a rest by then, in a nice comfy chair, with a six pack.
  16. I can't argue with Granlund being good for the Sedins, he is, but does he have a higher value elsewhere? I believe he does, and apparently, so does Green - whose is the opinion that matters, of course - and, if results are the proof, then I'd have to say that Green's inspiration was inspired. it is often the case that when guys are given defensive roles, but also the minutes that go with checking the other team's top unit, that their offence picks up after a while (I am reminded of Kesler here) - I think that will be the case with Granlund, and their line does play a lot of their defence in the offensive zone.
  17. Talk about a pointless law, there is no oil in Hawaii to frack, Hawaii being volcanic rock. About the only oil you could frack would be aboard the sunken ships in Pearl Harbor.
  18. Rodin's issue is being hurt so much of the time he has been - we don't know how good he is, and you can't play a guy that is injured. Another goal and two assists for Goldobin tonight. The sample size grows, but that is not really the test, the test is how he has been playing - having watched the Utica games, that would be very well and better defensively and in puck pursuit. Fortunately for the Sedins, they have a kid propping them up - it would have been a waste to have Granlund with them - his talents are better used elsewhere.
  19. Usually, a generational 100 point guy, if a centre, will turn his 50 point wingers into 70 point wingers. I'll take the hundred point guy.
  20. He started four steps behind the defenceman at his own (Gaudette's blueline) and beat him to the net. I think this kid may be a bit of a skater.
  21. We are talking about the Sedins NOW, not four years ago. Anyone with eyes can see what they are now, including the new coach, which is why they are barely on the ice at even strength. But with Virtanen providing the skating and muscle on the line, they might not be too much of a liability. Considering their past contributions, that would be a much more pleasing ending to their careers.
  22. I think conditioning is the issue for Boucher. His poor effort at getting fit gives him an excuse for failure - 'I only failed because I wasn't in shape'. Easier than believing he was at his best, but failed, than that he had no excuse for failing.
  23. I guess he figured the sooner the Sedins got hurt, the sooner the season would end and he wouldn't have to put up with those long drives from Point Roberts...
×
×
  • Create New...