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

What's the real deal with Keith Ballard?


BiWinning

Recommended Posts

AV was spoiled with Burr, Kes, and Hansen, Bieksa... the types of player that can fill multiple roles depending on what the system needs. Not every player can do this. Bye bye Grabner. Bye bye Hodgson.

Do you see Raymond in the play-offs? Trying to grind? Trying to bump people when racing for the puck? Raymond, you're faster than them! What are you doing??

AV has lost it. He doesn't know what he's doing anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think it's simply a case of Ballard being unable to adapt. He's a risk/reward type of d-man and in the bottom pair risk doesn't work. Safe and simple is better suited to the role. There's no place for him other than the bottom pair either. He can't play right side, he can't produce like Edler and he's not as good defensively as Hamhuis. Where does that leave him? Bottom pair left side in a position he's not suited to. Signing Hamhuis combined with Ballards inability to play right side sealed his fate here. Add in his inability to adapt to a bottom pair role and he's likely going to need to be bought out. He'll be impossible to move now that it's clear that he's very limited in what role he can provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's this kind of weak mentality by our coaches that is our downfall. AV has this stubborn system that he clings to like his grandpappy gave it to him, instead of recognizing we have one of the best skating defense groups in the league (not you Garrison) and letting them loose he forces everyone to play like Aaron Rome. It makes me want to puke. Don't even get me started on the forwards..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had they included Raymond instead of Grabner, CDC will be talking about how they lost Raymond right now.

AV likes the safe and steady players, it fits into his style. It is his fault some players have turned out the way they have and its is MG's fault for not recognizing the style differences between himself and his coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A.V has had his time , and Mike Gillis has wasted ours ..  There is no more to this story about Ballard ..  There is always a guy on the team a coach just doesn't like ..  unfortunately for keith its him ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhh, poor Keith Ballard. It must be AV's fault that Ballard sucked. Like many people, I think it is time for AV to move on. That said, Ballard's play throughout his time in Vancouver only proved that he's pressbox good, not starting lineup good. Not AV's fault that Ballard was no better then guys getting paid $650K/year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't I covered this already?

1 - a pairing that provides offense

2 - a shutdown pairing

These two pairings will get the most ice time. Edler is in the first pairing, Hamhuis is in the second pairing. Where does that leave Ballard? Well that leaves the third pairing.

3 - third pairing gets less ice time and plays primarily behind bottom six players and about half their ice time is likely to be behind the fourth line. As a result their role is to play a safer, simpler game.

Ballard hasn't adapted well to playing that safe/simple game. He can't provide the offense Edler does and can't play the shutdown Hamhuis does. What role is left for him?

The whole idea of keeping him was to have solid depth. Yet when Edler was injured he performed poorly in the offensive role. He was replaced by Rome even strength and by Samuelsson on the PP. When Hamhuis was hurt he performed poorly in the shutdown role and was replaced by Rome or Alberts. When Ehrhoff left he was tried on the right side and again performed poorly. He even said himself that he's just not comfortable on the right side. I'll ask again, if he can't provide better offense than Edler, can't provide better defense than Hamhuis, and can't play the right side, what role is left? Answer: The role with the least ice time that he also can't seem to adapt to: the bottom pair.

Some keep saying AV hasn't used him properly. I disagree. Ballard has simply not performed when opportunities have presented themselves and has been unable to adapt to a new role. As I said, he a square peg trying to fit into a round hole on this team. It has nothing to do with AV being fair or playing favorites. That's Ballard fan fiction. It has everything to do with Ballards performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballard is probably a top-4 Dman in this league.

Amazing how people play to the positions they get put into, not their potential, isn't it?

He was a top-4 in Phoenix and Florida - no reason he couldn't be here too... probably the signing of Ham bumped him down, when what should have happened is he should have been traded at that point.

So Gillis: had too many top-4 D. He didn't make a move because he was expecting injury - which DID happen on the way to the SCF.

And AV: refused to use him - he is high risk, high reward, and that actually fit in very well... But AV didn't want that role for a 5-6... Even though Tanev an he were a great combo imho. Didn't use him down the stretch, and he wasn't ready when we needed him.

How humiliating is it when a minor league bum (with all respect to) Alberts is in the lineup and you are not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has 3 goals in his 3 seasons in Vancouver total.

He had 5 goals in his lowest season prior to coming to Vancouver.

He would have been a great addition if we weren't able to land Hamhuis. But once Hamhuis committed to Vancouver we pretty much had a set top-4 defense.

He wasn't able to adjust to a lesser role quickly enough and AV went with the reliable Aaron "HHOF'er" Rome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In no circumstance would Ballard have ever been a great addition. No matter what we gave up. His contract alone was one of the worst in the league. This trade will go down as one of the worst in Canucks history. We were so close to winning the cup. Ballards bloated 4.2 million hit could have been so much better used on a team that was one game from winning it. Ballard couldnt even crack our top 9 Dmen on said run. I watched him play this season. Every time he was in the ice. HE WASNT THAT GOOD. He was at fault on a ton of goals. He didnt help create very many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ballard is probably a top-4 Dman in this league.

Amazing how people play to the positions they get put into, not their potential, isn't it?

He was a top-4 in Phoenix and Florida - no reason he couldn't be here too... probably the signing of Ham bumped him down, when what should have happened is he should have been traded at that point.

So Gillis: had too many top-4 D. He didn't make a move because he was expecting injury - which DID happen on the way to the SCF.

And AV: refused to use him - he is high risk, high reward, and that actually fit in very well... But AV didn't want that role for a 5-6... Even though Tanev an he were a great combo imho. Didn't use him down the stretch, and he wasn't ready when we needed him.

How humiliating is it when a minor league bum (with all respect to) Alberts is in the lineup and you are not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...