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

Drop Em

Members
  • Posts

    497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Drop Em

  1. Perfect example of what I was talking about.
  2. Couldn't agree more. Always had informative and REALISTIC comments/responses about players. Lots of people have their fan glasses on all of the time, and because of that they aren't or can't be objective. I always found UticaHockey really honest about his player assessments.
  3. Burrows wasn't a pick, he was an undrafted FA, where as Gadjovich was a 2nd round pick. I was hoping he'd develop a little quicker, but it's not all that surprising that he hasn't. Because it usually takes guys a little while to get acclimated and establish themselves coming out of junior hockey. It's pretty rare to see a kid come in out of juniors and not go through a huge adjustment and learning curve, especially guys whose skating is an issue. I'd love to see a bottom 6 containing both Gadjovich and MacEwen in the lineup in the coming years. Two guys who are physical, work hard, have good hands and who don't mind using those hands for not just scoring.
  4. I still don't get the players you've compared him too, because they're all so different.
  5. O'brien, Kassian and Stoll were known partyers, which I guess is the connection you were trying to make? But I don't get the Sandlak and Linden references?
  6. Bigger than Reeves? MacEwen might have an inch or so on Reeves, but Reeves has 20-30lbs on him. I don't know if MacEwen will ever be as feared of a fighter as Reeves is or play with the same mean streak, but I hope you're right. I just like the fact that he sticks up for his teammates and himself, does things the right way and works hard and can play the game.
  7. Because you wanted a comment about Schmidt, but refused to give one about Hughes based on the same criteria. It's nice that you've got a buddy now in Me_, because he should actually be on your case about your use of the 1A defensemen thing, as that was YOUR reference.
  8. Him and I were going back and forth about other things, including him reading things that weren't there. But in the case of the 1A thing, I was at least able to figure out what he meant (it wasn't that hard), it's only you who wasn't. Like I said, was I supposed to point out his spelling mistakes too? Read the WHOLE thread, and then complain to the source about your precious nomenclature that he so rudely violated.
  9. READ it AGAIN from the BEGINNING, instead of part way through. He (SHAYSTER007) said 1A FIRST, I was only replying to HIS use of the 1A nomenclature. I was able to figure out what he meant, but I guess you weren't capable. But it was him and I discussing it = DEFENSEMEN. So if you're going to try and be a smart ass or bust anyone's balls about the 1A thing, then at least find the source. He also made a couple of spelling mistakes, would you have liked me to point those out too? Young people? Yeah ok.....another baseless and inaccurate assumption. Like I said, I think it's nap time Me_
  10. I don't have to re-read, I was the one saying it.....probably best you re-read it though. Him and I were talking about Hughes and why he thinks that Hughes is a 1A DEFENSEMEN based on TOI and POINTS.....nothing to do with GOALIES. Maybe it's past your nap time.
  11. Really? Wow, thanks for that enlightening revelation. And either is Schmidt who is the player that he was referring too. So what in the hell does your goalie comment have to do with him and I discussing Schmidt and Hughes's underlying stats? Thanks for coming out.
  12. Thank you so much.....and back atcha about the Hughes thing, as well as the rest of your hypocritical and made up comments.
  13. I can't stay on subject? I have and can. You didn't even see all of the players listed and my comments for each. So once again, pot meet kettle. Not sure where you're getting Hughes as playing the highest average minutes, when Edler played more average minutes than Hughes did.....but hey, don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of you trying to spin the point in your favor.....but at least you had his age right.....so cudos for that I guess.
  14. Do those same underlying stats you speak of, consider Hughes a 1A like you say he is?
  15. No, to me questioning ones mental capacity does not count the same as calling someone names. And even if it did, you did the EXACT same thing when you started your reply with your "you can conclude that I don't have a clue" comment. Pretty hypocritical of you eh. So pot meet kettle....... You can use Schmidt's ice time and point totals as a strong starting point all you want, to suit your narrative and that's fine, although almost everyone knows that there's more that goes into it than just that. But if you're just basing it off of just that, then how is Quinn Hughes a 1A defenseman? By 1A you're saying the cream of the crop. So to make it simple for you - "on paper" even IF every team had a 1A guy on their roster (which they all most certainly DON'T), then although Hughes was a point producer, he wasn't even in the top 75 in TOI for defensemen last year. So how can Hughes be a 1A like you say, when he's getting second pairing minutes? So you asked for a stat, so there's one for you. If you can have a hockey debate, by having some self awareness and not being a hypocrite, then I'm more than willing to do that. But I'm not going to get into a bunch more long diatribes as to why the Canucks D is bad (on paper and on the ice), when it's CLEAR to everyone that they're not good enough no matter where you're talking about them playing.
  16. What? I listed out all the D-men and my thoughts about each on "paper", as a counter point to yours. For example - you had Schmidt on your list as a top pairing guy, and I completely disagree with that, and that was WRITTEN in my reply. If I was talking about their performance ON THE ICE so far this year, then they'd pretty much all be fringe NHL'ers. As for calling you names, I didn't call you a single name, so I have no idea about what in the hell you're talking about there - but it seems like your comprehension skills are as flawed as the Canucks D is.....bud.
  17. If you don't have the mental capacity to understand what I wrote, then that's not on me homie. I listed out the players and what I thought of each. If you want to keep your head in the clouds, and keep thinking the defense isn't anything but bad - then so be it. Enjoy the unicorns, fairies and butterflies.
  18. That's the thing, they've been even worse this year, and haven't had the luxury of the goalies bailing them out. I'm not saying Markstrom would have won them any of those games, because he wouldn't have, as there's only so much he could do. And yes it's a team effort, but aside from the odd man rushes, how many times have we seen the defense get walked around, or haven't tied up a stick when they should have, lost positioning and let a guy get behind them, or went for the puck instead of the body etc etc etc? That kind of stuff is the alarming thing, especially when it's happening repeatedly. Maybe it's a confidence issue, and it could be partially coaching too, but IMO even on paper they don't stack up to most of the teams in the league.
  19. Zero reasoning? Have you seen them play? Last time I checked, the game is played on the ice, and not on paper. Like I said on another reply, maybe the word "suck" was a little harsh.....and putrid would be a better word for them.....and most definitely below average. Hughes - he's YOUNG and he's an unbelievable talent offensively, but a complete fire sale in his own end. Pretty sure you need to play at both ends of the ice to be a defenseman, especially a 1A defenseman.....or at least that should be the case. Schmidt - top pairing D-man? You need to put down the pipe. He's a middle pair defenseman at best. Edler - is on a steady decline, and has been for a few years now. He's been a warrior, but the injuries and miles have started to add up. On a good defense, he's a bottom pair guy. Myers - middle pair guy. Juolevi, Chatfield - both youngish guys, who have some promise, but on a good team aren't even in the lineup. Juolevi has more upside, but he hasn't been able to stay healthy to realize any of his potential. Benn - he's solid veteran presence, but just a 7th or 8th guy, and probably wouldn't make the roster on most teams, especially the good ones. Next year he'll be on a PTO trying to win a contract. Hamonic - good team guy, who's a very solid bottom pairing guy, and could probably be a steadying influence on Hughes.
  20. Agree to disagree I guess. The last couple of years they had a goalie that won them a lot of games that they shouldn't have won. And this year without having that, their ineffectiveness has shown even more. Maybe sucks on paper was a bit harsh.....putrid might have been a better choice of words.
  21. Pretty good? Yeah ok. Their defense sucks, both on paper and on the ice.
  22. I don't get you saying that he's got size, as he's lucky to weigh 180lbs, and can't keep weight on.....and because of that, he doesn't make much of an impact when he hits someone. He's tenacious, I'll give him that. The Canucks need to get heavier though, and if he can't stick at centre, which is a much more valuable asset to have, then he should be used in a package deal to try and get a younger asset/assets.
  23. In my opinion, there's SO much wrong with your reply and I couldn't disagree with you more. He never said that he had all of the answers, and he's certainly allowed to voice his opinion and displeasure, and he's definitely NOT alone in his feelings on the team and the way it's been constructed. You can be a fan and at the same time question the way the organization is being run.....they aren't mutually exclusive. As for asking why he hasn't been hired yet - don't do that, as that's not fair. Not everyone has to be a yes man and just agree with everything that's going on. From what I've read, you're probably one of (if not the #1) biggest Canucks apologist and excuse makers on here, so why haven't they hired you as a team cheerleader or mascot.....or maybe they have and you're actually Fin? Everyone appreciates optimism, but most people need it to be accompanied by some realism as well, or that optimism can't be taken seriously.....and the rose colored glasses can't cover the fact that management has 6 or 7 years to rebuild and make this team into a contender and they're not even close. Benning saying that he ran out of time IS incompetence. It's a lame excuse and makes the organization look bad. He had the same amount of time as every other GM to try and move money around. Vegas managed to do it by moving Schmidt to sign Pietrangelo. Others did it as well. And pandemic or not, the Canucks had/have cap issues, and that's ALL on Benning.....so the pandemic is just an excuse that brought out a problem that was already there. The one thing that I will agree with you on, is that this team does have some hope based on the talent they have, and that hasn't always been the case.....just not sure if that says more about how pathetic most of their past was or how bright the future might be.
  24. Which doesn't provide much value when you run into teams who have big guys who play big games. Like the old saying goes, a good big man will beat a good small man every time.
×
×
  • Create New...