Kevin Bieksa you are really...

[sampy]

"Bieksa has been one of the main disappointments on the 2nd unit."

I am sorry but when there are 5 guys to be the "main disappointment" this signifies that your opinion is that Bieksa is in the top 2 reason's for the poor performance of the 2nd PP unit. Furthermore you have deemed it unnecessary to validate this statement with any specifics.

Moreover your statement that Hamhuis and Ballard is a better pair because Hamhuis scored while not out with Bieksa is a very knee jerk reaction and I am glad you are not the coach.

+1. Suggesting that Bieksa is one of the main problems on the 2nd pp is an uneducated post. Look at our first PP which takes up 75% of the PP times and then look at what the 2nd unit gets and the forwards on it. Bieksa the main problem, gimme a break.

[wallstreetamigo]

"Bieksa has been one of the main disappointments on the 2nd unit."

I am sorry but when there are 5 guys to be the "main disappointment" this signifies that your opinion is that Bieksa is in the top 2 reason's for the poor performance of the 2nd PP unit. Furthermore you have deemed it unnecessary to validate this statement with any specifics.

Moreover your statement that Hamhuis and Ballard is a better pair because Hamhuis scored while not out with Bieksa is a very knee jerk reaction and I am glad you are not the coach.

Maybe actually read my posts again if you missed where I validated exactly how and why I see him as a disappointment on the PP.

It is not because they scored, it is because they took better advantage of the strengths of the forwards with how they moved the puck. The result was a goal, but the process and the strategy is what makes it worth a shot as a pairing.

[wallstreetamigo]

+1. Suggesting that Bieksa is one of the main problems on the 2nd pp is an uneducated post. Look at our first PP which takes up 75% of the PP times and then look at what the 2nd unit gets and the forwards on it. Bieksa the main problem, gimme a break.

You are right. His 1 PP point in 22 games is really carrying that unit......geez, why do such Bieksa homers even bother. You really don't see any issue with Bieksa on the PP?

Do you even try to be objective about his play? Obviously not.

[bbllpp]

Maybe actually read my posts again if you missed where I validated exactly how and why I see him as a disappointment on the PP.

It is not because they scored, it is because they took better advantage of the strengths of the forwards with how they moved the puck. The result was a goal, but the process and the strategy is what makes it worth a shot as a pairing.

Your validation's so far have been very general statements about Bieksa's poor play without any specific examples and your justification for is replacement by Ballard is based off of one play.

I am sorry if you find it hard to believe that I can't take you seriously

[bbllpp]

You are right. His 1 PP point in 22 games is really carrying that unit......geez, why do such Bieksa homers even bother. You really don't see any issue with Bieksa on the PP?

Do you even try to be objective about his play? Obviously not.

So what if his personal stats aren't that great, his team (unit) stats are the second best after Torres for the second unit. I am sorry just because he isn't getting points doesn't mean that he is not contributing to the success of the unit.

[Sharpshooter]

Your validation's so far have been very general statements about Bieksa's poor play without any specific examples and your justification for is replacement by Ballard is based off of one play.

I am sorry if you find it hard to believe that I can't take you seriously

Generalisations are his forté.

But he's alright....generally.

[wallstreetamigo]

Your validation's so far have been very general statements about Bieksa's poor play without any specific examples and your justification for is replacement by Ballard is based off of one play.

I am sorry if you find it hard to believe that I can't take you seriously

Again, learn to read. I have given many specific examples. He keeps making the same porr plays with the puck by being passive rather than aggressive with it. Like shoveling it weakly up the boards to a waiting opponent rather than dumping it hard into the corner.

My justification is not based on one play. It is based on:

1. Bieksa and Rome have not helped generate much offensively on the PP despite being given a lot of ice time there. Hamhuis and Bieksa have not looked good together 5 on 5 or on the PP.

2. The way Bieksa moves the puck is not suited for the forward group on that unit. He slows things right down and lumbers the puck up the ice rather than taking the opportunity to get the puck up ice quickly so the forwards can gain momentum into the attacking zone.

3. The 2nd unit D has looked like crap so far. Ballard has a history of being a decent PP guy, so why not try him out to see if he can do any better? Isn't that the mantra of the coach that guys will earn their ice time? Bieksa and Rome have earned their way off the PP with their play.

4. Getting the 2nd unit in a groove rather than sticking with something that is obviously not working will only benefit the team. Trying out all possible combinations for more than a shift will give the coach a better idea of who can best help the 2nd unit from the backend. Bieksa has had his time and has not done much with it. I don't think that point can really be denied.

Maybe Ballard will be even worse there, who knows? But to deny him an opportunity to show it either way is pretty stupid of the coach.

And I really don't care if you take me seriously or not. You purposely ignore parts of my post that you have no response to or say I am not specific enough for you. That is fine but it makes it so I don't take you all that seriously either.

[wallstreetamigo]

So what if his personal stats aren't that great, his team (unit) stats are the second best after Torres for the second unit. I am sorry just because he isn't getting points doesn't mean that he is not contributing to the success of the unit.

First, this is a ridiculous comment. Of course his actual production matters. And right now it is non existent. Go ahead and continue to argue that point. The stats clearly show it to be true.

Since, as you mention, the unit is really not getting that many points, how can you call it successful?

And considering how much the Canucks PP relies on the D to generate things, I would say it is a huge issue if the D are sucking wind.

[bbllpp]

Again, learn to read. I have given many specific examples. He keeps making the same porr plays with the puck by being passive rather than aggressive with it. Like shoveling it weakly up the boards to a waiting opponent rather than dumping it hard into the corner.

My justification is not based on one play. It is based on:

1. Bieksa and Rome have not helped generate much offensively on the PP despite being given a lot of ice time there. Hamhuis and Bieksa have not looked good together 5 on 5 or on the PP.

2. The way Bieksa moves the puck is not suited for the forward group on that unit. He slows things right down and lumbers the puck up the ice rather than taking the opportunity to get the puck up ice quickly so the forwards can gain momentum into the attacking zone.

3. The 2nd unit D has looked like crap so far. Ballard has a history of being a decent PP guy, so why not try him out to see if he can do any better? Isn't that the mantra of the coach that guys will earn their ice time? Bieksa and Rome have earned their way off the PP with their play.

4. Getting the 2nd unit in a groove rather than sticking with something that is obviously not working will only benefit the team. Trying out all possible combinations for more than a shift will give the coach a better idea of who can best help the 2nd unit from the backend. Bieksa has had his time and has not done much with it. I don't think that point can really be denied.

Maybe Ballard will be even worse there, who knows? But to deny him an opportunity to show it either way is pretty stupid of the coach.

And I really don't care if you take me seriously or not. You purposely ignore parts of my post that you have no response to or say I am not specific enough for you. That is fine but it makes it so I don't take you all that seriously either.

"He keeps making the same porr plays with the puck by being passive rather than aggressive with it. Like shoveling it weakly up the boards to a waiting opponent rather than dumping it hard into the corner."

Sorry but this is a general statement with out any specific evidence to back it up. You will never change any mind with statements like these

1. Rome has some of the best number per minute played on the PP, 1 team PPGF 5.36 min per team (3rd on team) and 1 PP point per 8.03 min (1st on team). Hamhuis has not looked great on the PP but sorry I have to disagree with the Bieksa/Hamhuis ES comment they are 1 and 2 in the the team ESGF/min category

2. From what I've seen the set play to enter the zone for the second unit is to have someone drop it to Raymond on the fly. The frequency that it occur implies to me that this is what they practice but I could be wrong.

3. Here I agree that the second unit has not looked great and I would love to see Ballard on it. But I would go with a Bieksa/Ballard combination not a Hamhuis/Ballard combination

4. Here I agree with the first part but disagree that Bieksa's time is up

[bbllpp]

First, this is a ridiculous comment. Of course his actual production matters. And right now it is non existent. Go ahead and continue to argue that point. The stats clearly show it to be true.

Since, as you mention, the unit is really not getting that many points, how can you call it successful?

And considering how much the Canucks PP relies on the D to generate things, I would say it is a huge issue if the D are sucking wind.

In terms of minutes played they are producing at about 75% of the first unit. Considering that the team as whole runs at 25% this isn't too bad. Especially when they get 44 s for every 1:16 min that the first unit get.

[wallstreetamigo]

"He keeps making the same porr plays with the puck by being passive rather than aggressive with it. Like shoveling it weakly up the boards to a waiting opponent rather than dumping it hard into the corner."

Sorry but this is a general statement with out any specific evidence to back it up. You will never change any mind with statements like these

1. Rome has some of the best number per minute played on the PP, 1 team PPGF 5.36 min per team (3rd on team) and 1 PP point per 8.03 min (1st on team). Hamhuis has not looked great on the PP but sorry I have to disagree with the Bieksa/Hamhuis ES comment they are 1 and 2 in the the team ESGF/min category

2. From what I've seen the set play to enter the zone for the second unit is to have someone drop it to Raymond on the fly. The frequency that it occur implies to me that this is what they practice but I could be wrong.

3. Here I agree that the second unit has not looked great and I would love to see Ballard on it. But I would go with a Bieksa/Ballard combination not a Hamhuis/Ballard combination

4. Here I agree with the first part but disagree that Bieksa's time is up

So, I have to point out every single time he does it in order to prove he does? Do you not watch the games? It happens often enough that having to give a specific example of it is pretty moot. Or just an excuse to not watch him objectively on your part.

ESGF/min? What the hell does that have to do with whether or not Hamhuis and Ballard look good together on D. It is one aspect of things and not even the most important one for dmen. Communication, puck movement, covering effectively for each other, and defensive positioning, etc. are the areas I am talking about. Considering how much they play ES with the top 2 lines, your "stat" that proves how good they are together is actually more of a given, isn't it?

1. Rome has zero creativity on the PP. Case closed.

2. Yes, they have a very predictable set play for sure. It is built for players like the Sedins but is a big reason the 2nd unit is broken. That was exactly my point.

3. I have already said that Bieksa/Ballard would be worth a look at some point. Bieksa needs a wake up call on the PP though. He has been played with more partners than anyone and more minutes than anyone else and has yet to step up his game. I fail to see how giving some other pairings a chance without the Bieksa influence to see how they do is a bad idea.

4. See point 3.

[georgeparrosesmustache]

Nope...if he said it please point it out...that's all i'm asking....and Morrison never said he played favorites either.

All you're doing is twisting other people's words to fit your meme.

But by all means, please quote the part that leads to showing AV playing favorites from SOB's perspective.

Edit : Well, looks like we've surpassed a certain thread. God thread, here we come! Or maybe not.

zzomgz bieksa thread passes burrows thread in record time lol

[wallstreetamigo]

Maybe so, but AV would probably feel pretty stupid going over to the guy running the #1 power play in the league, and saying "Hey Newell, WTF!"

Lol...exactly. Don't fix what ain't broke.

We're number 1 in the league on the PP and top 5 in the league on the PK.

We're good.

Actually, the 1st PP unit is largely responsible for being 1st in the league and the 2nd unit is pretty terrible.

Don't fix what ain't broke? The 2nd unit is broke I'm afraid......so I guess it does need fixing after all.

[bbllpp]

Actually, the 1st PP unit is largely responsible for being 1st in the league and the 2nd unit is pretty terrible.

Don't fix what ain't broke? The 2nd unit is broke I'm afraid......so I guess it does need fixing after all.

Isn't it great to be able to complain about the Canucks 2nd unit when they have as many PP goals as Florida and the Devils playing around 37% of the teams PP minutes, producing at a per minute pace at about 120% that of the twins last year on the PP.

And they still look terrible at times!

[wallstreetamigo]

Isn't it great to be able to complain about the Canucks 2nd unit when they have as many PP goals as Florida and the Devils playing around 37% of the teams PP minutes, producing at a per minute pace at about 120% that of the twins last year on the PP.

And they still look terrible at times!

Can you provide the numbers you are using to make this analysis? I can't seem to determine where you are getting them from and how you are calculating them.

Thanks.

[Sharpshooter]

Actually, the 1st PP unit is largely responsible for being 1st in the league and the 2nd unit is pretty terrible.

Don't fix what ain't broke? The 2nd unit is broke I'm afraid......so I guess it does need fixing after all.

Oh NOez! The 3rd line isn't producing as much as the first line....it must be broken!

Fix it!

Fix it Naow!

[bbllpp]

Can you provide the numbers you are using to make this analysis? I can't seem to determine where you are getting them from and how you are calculating them.

Thanks.

nhl.com for all stats

averaging the 1st unit forwards PPTOI Henrik, Daniel, and Kesler

averaging the 2nd unit forwards PPTOI Torres+Malhotra,Samuelsson and Raymond

Malhotra comes on for the face-offs and Torres comes on on the fly I count them as 1 player for average ice time for the second unit. This has been the most consistent second unit

it's rough I know but close enough

Henrik, Kesler and Daniel (a pretty constant pairing) have all been on for 16 PPGF the Canucks have 23 PPGF thus the 2nd unit has 7 PPGF

PPTOI/PPGF for PPGF in terms of minutes played

100%*(2nd unit PPTOI)/[(1st unit PPTOI)+(2nd unit PPTOI)]= % PPTOI for 2nd unit

[wallstreetamigo]

Oh NOez! The 3rd line isn't producing as much as the first line....it must be broken!

Fix it!

Fix it Naow!

Isn't the objective of any PP unit, 1st or 2nd, to score PP goals? That is a lot different than a 3rd line that is not designed to be scoring as much as the 1st line.

You guys can keep hoping that the 1st unit carries this team all the way this season because if the 1st unit cools down or starts getting shut down, or heaven forbid we get an injury to a Sedin, I would feel more comfortable having at least a moderately threatening 2nd unit to pick up the slack. The best time to get that unit going is before the 1st unit struggles.

I am a fan of the team and want the team to do well. I don't want them to ever think anything is good enough because that mentality is what ultimately costs this team at critical times.

Oh, let's defend a 1 or 2 goal lead....we're winning so that must mean we are guaranteed to win, right? Oops, we lost.....what happened?

Oh, our PP is #1 so why bother trying to make it even better? The reality is that there are about 9 teams that could pass the Canucks for the PP lead by having even two great PP% games and the Canucks having two o-fers on the PP. We are not head and shoulders above the rest.

Here is a news flash for all you guys: The truly great teams ALWAYS strive to be not only better but dominating. When they are at the top, they want to be on top by even more. That is a championship mentality.

What possible argument do you guys have to not try to improve a woeful 2nd unit? I mean, other than it wouldn't be fair to Bieksa? Shouldn't the team ALWAYS want to improve?

[wallstreetamigo]

nhl.com for all stats

averaging the 1st unit forwards PPTOI Henrik, Daniel, and Kesler

averaging the 2nd unit forwards PPTOI Torres+Malhotra,Samuelsson and Raymond

Malhotra comes on for the face-offs and Torres comes on on the fly I count them as 1 player for average ice time for the second unit. This has been the most consistent second unit

it's rough I know but close enough

Henrik, Kesler and Daniel (a pretty constant pairing) have all been on for 16 PPGF the Canucks have 23 PPGF thus the 2nd unit has 7 PPGF

PPTOI/PPGF for PPGF in terms of minutes played

100%*(2nd unit PPTOI)/[(1st unit PPTOI)+(2nd unit PPTOI)]= % PPTOI for 2nd unit

Thanks.

Reasonable stats, but you really should factor in how many of their PP goals came with who. I would suspect that especially the D and Sammy would have some PP points scored while playing with the twins or during mid-PP line changes. I don't know where you would find the stats for that though, but your analysis is not foolproof and based on the pretty small sample of games played relative to a full season, could actually be significantly skewed with even one or two goals scored on the other PP unit.

Of course, that is if you are trying to separate the actual production and worth of the 2nd unit as a whole.

[Barry_Wilkins]

The 2nd PP unit's ineffectiveness is even more glaring when you consider that the opposition's best PKers are usually out against the Sedins, not Kevin B's troops.