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

oldnews

Members
  • Posts

    53,830
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    186

Everything posted by oldnews

  1. If MG managed to pull off something comparable to what (the much-maligned) Scott Howson managed in the Nash deal, I'd be thrilled tbh. Even without Anisimov, Dubinsky, Erixon and a 1st... Hard to turn that down. Liked that deal at the time, absolutely love it in hindsight.
  2. If Columbus is a possibility, aside from Johansen, a deal with Dubinsky and a prospect (Erixon, Jenner) would be very tempting.
  3. I think he was referring to their current cap situation, in which they don't have room for those two.
  4. They could send us Schwartz or Tarasenko with Sobotka and Halak, and rent Roy to someone for futures.
  5. I'd have to think a team like St Louis would be a front runner. First, they are both a contender and have a strong American element. Second, Kesler would step in and be on par with Backes as their top gun. Just my opionion/guess, but I doubt Kesler would want to go play behind Crosby and Malkin. The Blues have the depth at center to be able to move a valuable piece like Sobotka and secondary piece(s) in a deal. My preference would be to get it all done in one fell swoop, sending Luongo and Kesler to St Louis, two guys they could really use with both their goaltenders pending UFAs.
  6. Believer is an apt name. Your loyalty to the Province and continued efforts to perform the role of their PR department here is duly noted. That you believe Gillis and Gallagher are still such good friends, or that Gillis shares his intentions with Gallagher is certainly Believer material. And far be it for Tony to pretend to know more than he actually does. I'm not saying that Kesler will not be dealt - I'm saying that making bold, dumbass statements like he will be dealt is typical of Gallagher - Vancouver's most notorious pretender - and ignorant of the fact that things don't always turn out as predicted or planned. What do you know about what the CBJ would or would not do? The more obvious question would be whether Kesler would waive to go to Columbus. Anyhow, regarding this Penguins article - I'm not buying this Penguins angle - there's one exceedingly obvious question to be asked - and no, Colligan doesn't 'dispell all that' - what makes you think Kesler would want to waive to go somewhere to play the 3rd line center role? Hodgson for Sutter may have made sense - Kesler for Sutter as the principal not nearly as compelling. Underselling Sutter and Despres and then trying to pretend they could get a deal done...is an obvious contradiction.
  7. The point I was making regarding overloading is that the way you stated it made it sound as if AV doesn't only use it situationally - "whereas Torts instructs players to overload only in certain situations." Anyhow, thanks for the stuff you posted and don't get me wrong - that is precisely the type of discussion that I think is really valuable - people on these boards go on and on about so and so's 'system' and it almost always involves a ridiculous oversimplification like 'collapse and defend', or 'defend the 0-0' tie - and ironically, that latter complaint, that AV was too conservative lead to a lot of ire on these boards. When it comes to actually engaging with or bothering to understand what systems are actually in play, there is a huge void, and yet people purport to judge those coaches without much of a concept of their actual systems. It makes me think of high school basketball when we employed 3 full court presses (basketball's version of an aggressive 'forecheck') and a range of half court defenses - a 1-2-2, 1-3-, a box and one (and there are numerous other half court zone options teams employ), as well as man-to-man. The idea that a one liner can sum up a team or coaches 'system' in the NHL is ironically, completely uninformed. There was nothing I appreciated more about AV than the fact that he absolutely demanded defensive responsibility out of his forwards, and expected them to backcheck consistently. That is what allowed him to activate his defense and imo contributed in large part to the relatively exciting hockey the Canucks played under AV. Man to man, situational overloads, activating the blueline and a relatively aggressive forecheck aren't exactly the definition of 'defending the 0-0 tie'. It's something I also like about Tortorella - his agressive forecheck is something I love to watch - always have - and I think the Canucks have both the personnel up front and the blueline to pull it off - if they're healthy. I think people jumped off the Tortorella bandwagon exceedingly quickly - but that's no surprise. (Theoretically) the best point at which to play defense is as far away from your own net as possible - what better point at which to disrupt possession than where it is not yet a threat to score and has yet to set up/organize? My only complaints/criticisms of Tortorella would be that I really don't want to hear comments like "falling on old habits" in the media (and there have been a few where he speaks to the media as if this crap should be confided) - it comes across as blaming his players and passing the buck - I think mum is the better word in a market like Vancouver - and ironically, what Tortorella inherited was a team with an excellent foundation in hard work and defensive responsibility, so his task wasn't exactly monumental. as some people like to suggest. There's an obvious contradiction in acknowledging the solid framework AV laid - (the players that developed in his tenure are pretty much prototypical two way players) - and then pretending that he inherited a bunch of bad habits that players are fallng back on. You don't win President's trophies on a foundation of bad habits. I also can't stand seeing a coach make a whipping boy publicly of particular players - the way he handled Hansen earlier this season was really shortsighted - and there have been some questionable judgements in his use of players imo. The Canucks have some real wealth in terms of shutdown defensemen - Edler probably shouldn't have been perceived as their primary guy in that respect - while Hamhuis was underutilized, and the pairings - pretty much thrown in the blender on a regular basis. It's one thing to make adjustments - another to be so trigger happy that no one knows what line or pairing will hit the ice next. At a certain point, AV's structure doesn't look so bad. I liked the way he mixed up his forward lines mid-game at times, but on the other hand, using the Sedins far more on the penalty kill than an elite, speedy, gritty penalty killer like Hansen makes me wonder how well he got to know his personnel. But all in all, I'm not prepared to criticize Tortorella simply because of a losing streak where the list of players he was trying to make due without was quite daunting.
  8. "Roman Polak... Archie Bunker's favorite player" muahaahaha.
  9. Remember when the Blues absolutely sucked and the Nucks couldn't buy a win against them? Sanford really had their number.
  10. Bouwmeester skates funny. He's like the blueliner version of MayRay. Hammer is better.
  11. I heard Sami wants to come back too.
  12. Henrik is looking like he's worth that contract.
×
×
  • Create New...