Ray_Cathode
Members-
Posts
4,438 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Ray_Cathode
-
They did/do they were often paired after Teves went down with injury. When Rafferty and Teves were paired, Teves led the team in plus/minus; when Brisebois and Rafferty were paired, Brisebois led the team - very complementary players. Juolevi was given a more defensive role this year than last, and a secondary rather than primary position in the offence from the D. I think Juolevi is kind of being groomed as an Edler replacement. I sure hope that works out, but injuries have really taken a toll on his development. Still, he is young and hopefully he can regain top form. This coming year will be crucial for him. So, on the left side it may be a toss up who comes up from Utica as an injury replacement - Juolevi or Brisebois - Brisebois, being older, is further along in his development (and it should be noted that he came along a long way this aborted season - his development has been ongoing), but the Canucks have a massive investment in Juolevi, him being a fifth overall pick - and can’t be blamed for wanting to have a look at him in an NHL context. The guys standing in their way are Benn and Fantenburg, and the possibility of an Edler injury.
-
I believe the Canucks would like to keep Tanev, if they can, he is the best defensive D man on the team, and a very good pairing with Hughes. The question is fragility, but he missed little time this season. Whether that is because of being paired with Hughes, as one person suggested, or because the training staff changed his gear as suggested on a tv interview, or just dumb luck is up to the Canucks to wager on.
-
I really like Rafferty, but Brisebois was their best defensive DMan. Brisebois rarely makes a wrong step defensively, at least in the AHL, and he got better all through the year. Rafferty is by far the best in Utica offensively and still brings the second best +/- (+17) on the team after Brisebois (+21).
-
Rafferty rarely killed penalties at the beginning of the year, but more so toward the end. I can’t prove that with stats (the AHL does not produce that stat) just my observation of the games.
-
You are making an important point here, but we may not have a single partner in the organization at this point that could fill that roll - we don’t have a Seabrooke type to partner a Keith. But, we may be able to partner him appropriately by committee, in different game conditions - if he is being challenged physically with a more physical partner, if we are early in a game playing at an ear even score, late in a game in which we are behind with a more active partner, and so on. I think this would particularly work with a Hughes because of his high hockey IQ, from his standpoint, he can play with anyone and get the best contribution for the team from his partner - as evidence his play with a Schenn at the outset, and then with Rafferty for a few shifts in the last half of Rafferty’s second NHL game - a period and a half that I wish to heck I had a recording. But now how this relates to Tryamkin - we have seen in this aborted season that toward the end that the physical play against Hughes had significantly tamped up. We don’t really have on our current defence, that kind of player - and I don’t mean someone who will necessarily drop the gloves at the drop of a puck, I mean someone who will respond to a marginal hit on Hughes with a crushing check, a slash with a bigger slash, and a cross-check with a cross check. I think Tryamkin May be the guy to roll out in those circumstances.
-
Yep. Defencemen are so hard to predict when you are selecting them as 17/18 year olds. So much is about hockey IQ and ability to read plays, read and react, strength, agility, and so on and the difficulty in seeing the future man in the boy.
-
You should reread what I actually said. I said he he was our best DEFENSIVE defenceman PRIOR to being injured. In the first part of the season he lead the team in +/- by a large margin at the same time as being defensively dominant by direct perception of watching the games. When he returned from injury his play had fallen off considerably and appeared no better than average.
- 2,248 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Defenceman
- Right-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Depends on who he runs over.
-
Yeah, and the epitome of that was the New Jersey era, when hockey became unwatchable and the league had to act to save the pro game from the half empty arenas. Of course, the good thing was that I could buy $7.50 tickets from Safeway to watch the Canucks...
-
Yeah, it can be, but hardly anybody watches a pickup basketball, football or hockey game - cuz it resembles exactly what I called it: mayhem - pretty much unwatchable. Archery and shooting are sports too, doesn’t mean the competitors should shoot each other.
-
Yeah, every sport should learn a lesson from that and play without rules. Then they could just call any sport ‘Mayhem’. Don’t know if you’ve ever entertained the thought that sports are defined by their rules - when you throw away the rules, you throw away everything that makes hockey a sport.
-
Yep, people are dying for entertainment - supply and demand rules...
- 3,880 replies
-
- Defenceman
- Left-shot
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Assuming we don’t sign Tanev.
-
Yeah, that happens when the rules are thrown out the window and the officials largely get to determine the outcomes due to non-calls.
-
If you read the fine print in the THN Futures, you’ll see they claim to only rate 18 and 19 year olds in their top 100 - that would be why no Hughes.
-
You are most welcome, of course only one person’s perspective, but I just picked up the Hockey News Future Watch today and see that Vancouver is rated as fourth best in prospects with an A-. Two players I have been very high on: Rafferty is rated third, and Lind is rated fourth. They rated Juolevi fifth, a player I still think the jury is out on mostly due to injuries. The particular skating problem I had been harping on, Juolevi’s pivot, was also remarked on by Benning as an issue. But Juolevi’s mobility did improve as the season progressed (after they shut him down and brought to Vancouver - I believe to get a medical evaluation (could be wrong there)) - I sure hope Juolevi can get in a season this coming winter or he might seem to be one of the most unfortunate players ever. Rathbone was rated eighth, right after Woo - which I don’t agree with - I like Woo, but like Rathbone more. Both would benefit from the great work our Utica coaches have been doing with the D. Both of these young D’s are aggressive for their size - Woo at 6ft and 189 according to Hockeydb or 205 according to EliteProspects. Rathbone is 5’11” 190. Podkolzin, the top a Canuck, was ranked 9th overall; Hoglander (2nd as a Canuck) was 27th overall. Considering that the top one hundred overall span a two year period, and our Last year’s pick (Hughes) played on Vancouver - that is pretty impressive, oh yeah, and add in Madden, traded to LA at 68. Good work Benning and crew.
-
Lind’s progress was quite remarkable this year, of course, Utica was very rich this year in talented wingers at an AHL level - getting to play with guys like Baertschi, Goldobin, Boucher, Bailey and so on will certainly help your game. But Lind did not look out of place with those players, he earned his high billing playing on Utica’s top lines - and he is what - 21? Last year was kind of lost to injur and lack of pro experience, but this year he showed considerable growth. If he could again show growth in the coming season compared to this one, then that would put him on a path similar to MacEwen - and I see MacEwen as a guy that could be an NHL player. But Utica was very thin in the middle: other than Jasek (a repurposed RW) they mostly used career AHLers that could not be called ‘stars’ by ant stretch of the imagination even in the AHL. That is not to put those players down - it would place them in the layer of players outside of the NHL - say a hundred and fifty centres nhl centres, and outside of the top of the AHL, say another sixty or eighty centres, and that makes it a significant achievement to play at that level. I don’t think Lind is ready yet to be an nhl centre, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him transition to that role, dependent on Utica’s needs. Jasek, a repurposed winger, was probably their best or at worst, second best centre, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see him play their. But look at this from both the team’s and the players perspective: many players move up to the nhl from the AHL as injury replacements - at least initially. But if you are a forward, the nhl guy that goes down might be a c, LW, or RW - it’s not uncommon for wingers to switch sides, but it is really useful if, especially on the bottom two lines, you can play any forward position - see Miller, Sutter, Beagle, and Motte. Giving your prospects that experience in the minors really helps them and the team to make use of that player - see MacEwen and Jasek - both dual purpose players.
-
Lind did not play centre, he took a lot of key face offs - even with a centre available. In the AHL he looked more like a playmaker than a scorer. In Utica we converted a winger in Jasek from a RW to a centre and MacEwen (Usually a winger) spent some time as a pivot, too - perhaps because we were thin in Centre prospects in Utica. Looking at the way Lind plays, and the fact he is strong on the draw, I would not be shocked if they tried him at centre - kind of like the way the Canucks deployed Miller. If Focht does not make the Comets, and we play Lockwood on the wing, we might see that experiment. We’ll see. They don’t seem to be averse to repurposing wingers in Utica.
-
Yes, it’s just too easy to get away with doing it badly - as in wild speculation, not knowing your sport, and it sure helps if you have played the game. It would probably be tough to be a journalist in Montreal - hockey is a religion there, easy to be a journalist in Toronto - just be a fanboy who cheers inanely even when the team is terribly run. I like the balance of passion, reason, and team loyalty here most of the time - not all the time - some people just can’t handle it if the Canucks are criticized. There are some real sharp observers available here and most are willing to challenge and be challenged, and that is half the fun. I think some are as knowledgable as the best reporters in their observations of the game and ability to judge players and their potential. I have a lot of respect for people that have league wide knowledge of players and prospects - I don’t - I focus pretty much on the Canucks and our prospects - I very much enjoy watching Utica now that we have some decent prospects down there.
-
We paid Miller less than we pay Horvat and a Boeser, are Horvat and Boeser also overpaid?
-
I don’t think we pay him to play golf. We play hockey players to put off the golf season as long as possible.
-
More likely Tanev didn’t spend much time on the sideline because he and the trainers made radical changes to his equipment - which made shot blocking less dangerous for Tanev this year than last year - also reflected in Tanev’s willingness to block shots - much more necessary covering for Hughes than for Edler. Last year 122 blocks in 55 games - this year 159 in 69 games. Hughes is a terrific offensive player, a huge benefit for us, but having Tanev with him helps Hughes game more than it helps Tanev’s game - paired primarily with Hughes at even strength, Tanev is a plus player and Hughes is a minus player. On attack, Hughes does things nobody else on the Canucks can do, defensively Tanev gets things done that Hughes doesn’t - doesn’t mean Hughes won’t find a way to do those things, he is a brilliant D - probably the best to wear a Canucks uniform next to Paul Reinhart - but he doesn’t do them yet and I’d rather have Hughes mostly concerned with creating offence than trying to stop Draisaitl.
-
Rafferty had the second best +/- In Utica, and as a college player was noted for his all round play. In college, Chase Priskie and Brandon Fortunato got the power play time and Rafferty was the defensive D. https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0014532019.html in Utica, Rafferty earned the pp quarterback role over Juolevi - he wasn’t just given it - it was Juolevi’s role to keep, and on attack Juolevi is no slouch, but he is not Rafferty. Now, the question is, will Rafferty earn a role in Vancouver that makes the most use of his talents? We have an exceptional number one pp guy standing in his way in Hughes. If Rafferty is to earn a role on the Canucks it will probably have to be as a secondary pp guy and as a puck moving, transitional defender - the question is, is that a role that Green can be comfortable with? That seems to be a role already occupied by the six million dollar Myers. If the Canucks sign Tanev, and I hope they do, it would mean that Rafferty has to take Stetcher’s job. If the NHL allows a buyout or two this year - it could mean that the Canucks would be able to shed the six million dollar albatross, and maybe there will be a chance to move Sutter and Baertschi - leaving room to sign Tanev and Toffoli and perhaps Tryamkin to replace Benn And push back Fantenberg to the seventh defender. Much as I like Rafferty, I do not want to lose Tanev. Leaving something like this: (if no trades acquiring players) Miller. Pettersson. Toffoli Pearson. Horvat. Boeser Ferland. Gaudette. Virtanen Motte. . Beagle. MacEwen Roussel. Leivo Hughes. Tanev Edler. Myers Tryamkin. Rafferty Fantenberg Markstrom Demko
-
Pat Quinn was a great coach almost all of his players will tell you. Why was he a great coach? Because he made his system fit his players so that he could make the most of them and thereby get the greatest benefit for the team. Don’t ask your players to fit roles for which they are not suited. Look at the players who maximized their play under Quinn: Ronning (too small to play - as a fourth line C in St Louis), Geoff Courtnall (a very good, often traded, offensive forward who was surplu in St Louis), Sergio Momesso (a tough guy that could score), Robert Dirk (a big, tough, hard nosed defenceman who blossomed under Quinn - all pieces of the Garth Butcher trade that brought back to the Canuck’s key pieces in a run to the Stanley Cup finals. Add in Gerald Diduck (acquired from Montreal for a draft pick), Jeff Brown, Hedican, and LaFeyette all acquired for Craig Janney (compensation for Petr Nedved - neither of whom (Nedved & Janney) wanted to play in Vancouver), and there was the dreadfully slow Dana Murzyn, and Dave Babych, all made more valuable by the use Quinn made of them; adapting the team’s playing style to the material that he had to work with. So much depends on a coach finding a use for a player. Poor coaches try to persuade management to get them the players they think they need, the Canucks under Quinn were so tight for money that it cost them numerous players: Nedved, Janney, and later Bure - but Quinn managed to build a contender anyway.
-
They are entirely different kinds of players. Connaughton was all about his shot, Rafferty is all about skating, puck movement and that for a one-eyed guy, he sees the ice real well - that’s ‘seeing the ice’ is not about seeing, it is about processing the game - something else that is not in common with Connaughton.