East Coast Fan Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Can someone please explain to me why it seems to be more important to be tough than it is to be talented? Every article I read, every interview I watch, every post or blog I read is rambling on about how important it is for the Canucks to get tougher. I realize the Big Bad Bruins beat us in the Cup finals a couple years ago and I realize that the Kings are the biggest team in the league but that doesn't mean fast talented teams can't win. In fact, throughout history there are fewer examples of toughness winning that talent. I would just like to see the Canucks worry about winning hockey games rather that worrying about how they win the hockey games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Potvin Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I agree size matters but if they don't have skill than what the hell good are they rather just pure talent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanKeslord17 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 The thing is that even though the Bruins are big an tough, they are also skilled. Lucic, Kreijci, Horton, Chara, Boychuk are all big but they are skilled too. Then they have skill guys: Bergeron, Seguin, Peverley. Their 4th line is the best in the league: Thornton-Campbell and someone else I forgot lol. Rask is also playing amazing right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 It's important to have a balance in many different areas, and some people feel we don't have enough toughness to go with our skill (or at least we haven't in the past). Those people don't always have to be rational about the actual need for it, but to add a little toughness isn't a bad thing so long as it's not devoid of skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Canucks going to have to be big tough and skilled to play in the pacific division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kack Zassian Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Having 1 guy like Hartnell, Clowe, Kassian, Simmonds, etc is more valuable than having 3 Tom Sestitos on your team. Functional toughness is important, toughness for the sake of toughness is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicky Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Like most have posted, toughness and talent are not mutually exclusive. It's important to find a balance. I think we need to move towards a more physical playing style. MG built a finesse, puck possession team that was supposed to fit the "new nhl" a few years ago. It worked for the regular seasons but failed in the playoffs. This year we witness the start of a new dead-puck era. Clutching and grabbing is rampant, defensemen impeding opposing players trying to enter the zone with speed, more cap-floor teams utilizing trap systems--and we haven't even got to the post-season yet! Hockey is regressing, the whistles have been put away, and the Canucks are left playing catch up. Size and toughness will help us get through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 We've had butt loads of skill that played like poosies on purpose in the playoffs. It got in their heads by the finals and they started squeezing their sticks too hard trying to beat the hottest goalie they've ever seen. We have skill but over the past few years they've been looking over their shoulders too much when it counts.. Sundin, demitra were both skill additions and that got us nowhere too. Every team that is winning cups lately has a good balance of size skill and toughness. We should probably follow suit. Gillis came into this job with the mindset of turning us into the speed and skill of the redwings. He did just that. Swedes winning back to back MVPs, relentless American with great speed and decent hands wins selke. Top power play, top penalty kill, best faceoff men in the league. Danish penalty killer with a great shot. Top flight swede and powerplay champion German on the backend. We looked just like the redwings in 2011 but it all fell apart again once we ran into the bear... IMO trends have changed and we have to be able to match what people throw at us in the playoffs. The best way to beat us when we are on a roll is to beat us up physically. It's your only chance to take us out. Chicago did it to us twice and the bruins did it to us in the finals.. It's not that we're trying to become a goon team, were just trying to find an answer for it when the other coach gets his team fired up to cross check our top line in the mouth for 7 straight games. Gillis has made a couple head scratchers in hindsight but most of them seemed like a good idea at the time. Hodgson was a gamble but none the less a bold move do it shows he has balls. I have alot of faith in MG, he's got some heavy decisions right now and major problems. I think he will succeed eventually in bringing balance to this team it's just going to be a bit of a rocky road.. Especially since we're used to watching a powerhouse over the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kack Zassian Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 We've had butt loads of skill that played like poosies on purpose in the playoffs. It got in their heads by the finals and they started squeezing their sticks too hard trying to beat the hottest goalie they've ever seen. We have skill but over the past few years they've been looking over their shoulders too much when it counts.. Sundin, demitra were both skill additions and that got us nowhere too. Every team that is winning cups lately has a good balance of size skill and toughness. We should probably follow suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoolander Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Having 1 guy like Hartnell, Clowe, Kassian, Simmonds, etc is more valuable than having 3 Tom Sestitos on your team. Functional toughness is important, toughness for the sake of toughness is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.