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

aGENT

Members
  • Posts

    52,033
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    68

Everything posted by aGENT

  1. Already covered Ehlers. Because I still think it likely there's a good NHL player in there. Unlike a lot of CDC I'm not worried, like at all, about 'RIGHT NOW!' I'm happy to give him a couple years to figure it out. I think we can pick more players like Nylander in the next few years and we already have Baer, and Boeser coming along but we don't have other Virtanen's.
  2. Finally watched Gone Girl on the weekend. We'll go with 7 out of 10 I suppose. Largely well written and filmed. Acting is generally good'ish (Affleck is Affleck) and the pacing for a longer movie was pretty good. The first 1/2-2/3 was actually pretty decent. It was probably heading for 8 maybe even 8.5/10 up to that point but then ending just seems too outlandish and unlikely to the point of removing me from the film.
  3. Sure there chief. Nice hockey talk'n
  4. For sure, it's a tough move. We may end up simply moving Sbisa for a pick/prospect or similar. And that's ok too, I'd just prefer that ^^^ if it's possible. *crosses fingers*
  5. Well I agree with your first paragraph It's a bit of a silly argument. As for the second, ok, I'd quite likely take Ehlers. Better? But if 5 years from now (by some miracle he exceeds expectations) and Virt's putting up +/- 60 points and terrorizing people.... Either way, that's all hind-sighting and crystal balling at present. I'm still not convinced Nylander would have been a better choice than Virt long term regardless of what he happens to be doing right now. Will it perhaps turn out that way? Maybe. But that's the inherent risk of drafting any player. Any of these guys could have struggled out of the gate, just so happens we picked the guy who's struggled the most to this point. Doesn't mean the rest of his story is written yet. Thanks for actually 'talking hockey'
  6. Meh, tanking doesn't matter. If we finish in the bottom 14 (I'm guessing closer to bottom 10, if not 5 depending on how the rest of the season goes) we get our respective chances in the lotto just like the other bottom 14 teams. Hoping for a reversal of fortunes from last lotto and getting a top 3 pick
  7. Why would anyone assume that's why Benning picked Jake? I don't think he's nearly as short sighted as some Canuck fans are. And I certainly don't think he was expecting Jake to 'fix' the 2015 team's problems and hence 'prioritized him'. I mean I agree with you with the BPA principle but I REALLY don't think Benning strayed from that. As you said, we needed literally everything. That includes what Jake can bring. And if he becomes: ...that's still a good pick. In hindsight, knowing how Ehlers has turned out so far would I maybe take him instead? Possibly. I'd likely still take Virt over Nylander though and we won't know 'for sure' who the better player will be for another 5+ years. By all means, if Virtanen can't become a pro in the next couple years and start becoming that player, sure you can call it a 'bad pick' then I suppose, if that's your thing. It's still far too early and impatient to be proclaiming anything at this point though.
  8. I'd still do both. I still hope we move Tanev and one of Baer/Granlund for an upgrade on wing.
  9. Drama queening it up again I see. Seems I was correct in my assessment of your ability to actually talk hockey.
  10. Nope, no feelings hurt and he was being a drama queen. And yes, people have labeled him bust. And no, they're not the same.
  11. Yeah top 6 might be leaning optimistic. Middle 6 is not out of the question though. Imagine 5 years from now with Horvat and Hischier as our top 6 C's and Gaudette and Sutter as our bottom 6 C's...
  12. He's baby sitting a rookie on a yes, still good bit clearly lesser team and in more of a defence first (ie: less offense) role while still increasing his ppg. Context. And no, not all of us expected him to be a major force offensively. Especially not for individual stats. He drives play forward and maintains offensive pressure like a champ. But he's also king of the third assist. I'll be pleasantly surprised if he surpasses 40 points with any sort of regularity in his prime. And I'd still take that over Tkatchuk.
  13. There you go being a presumptuous arse again. My feelings aren't hurt and your sewing circle bitching is not 'talking hockey'. I'd gladly welcome some. I doubt you'd know how. If you do, feel free to start at any time...
  14. I still take Juolevi even with that hindsight. Too much of CDC is still focused on now.
  15. If Jake can learn to play close to a Jannik Hansen with size and put up around 40 points in his prime, I still take him at 6 all day, every day. There's more to hockey than GAP stat lines.
  16. I've literally not seen anything close to that sentiment from anyone. Constant drama queen, crystal balling is why you get neg'd.
  17. Well as long as you say so, it must be true.
  18. Yeah, that opinion you quoted is not shared. The guy is doing phenomenally considering his usage (defense first and sheltering a rookie) and context that he is playing with lesser players in London and even more so at the WJC.
  19. He doesn't need to improve as drastically as Horvat. One, I don't think he's starting from the same place. I think he's a slightly better skater than Horvat was. Two, he doesn't need to get in to the fastest skater comp. If he does, that's great but as long as he improves to above average skating, he'll be fine.
  20. I think his point was that it's something that can be improved. Just as Horvat did.
×
×
  • Create New...