Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

The September Camp Thread,list of invitees, cuts etc updated daily

Primal Optimist

By Primal Optimist
in Canucks Talk

Recommended Posts

In the Slot Canucks Prospect

In the Slot

Posted
Posted

But Schroeder on 3c is way too small, cuz Hansen isn't that big, and Higgins doesn't play big. Schroeder will cause that problem no matter where he is unless you put him between Booth and Jensen or something. A Booth - Schroeder - Jensen line wouldn't be bad, but you would have to move the 3rd line down to the 4th line, and make someone else the 2nd line LW.

Putting him beside Burr and Kes isn't all that bad. You're worried about space? They are 3 of our fastest players, and Kesler is great at creating space and drawing attention.

As it stands right now, Richardson is proving himself more worth the 3C spot. It's Schroeder's job to find a role. If 3C is the one he wants, he'd better pick up his socks. 2RW is open at the moment, unless Jensen cranks it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bananas Canucks Regular

Bananas

Posted
Posted

What is good about Higgins on the 3rd line, like Torres and Manny before him is that he (sort of) failed as a premium prospect capable of a top 6 role. I suppose he could play that role on a bad team or fill in for injuries, but you would always be looking for something extra. But (and he has size where a Schroeder has less of a chance to fall backwards) there is embracing of that role. Higgins is willing to be a digger, he is a hound on the boards, fore check, take on defensive match ups. So Higgins is routinely one of the two hardest workers on the ice. He has decided to "make it"in the league by doing what it takes to stay here!

And against 3rd tier match ups (or first tier offensive but poor defensive) he still has some of the scoring ability that made him a top prospects. Against those match ups; we can count on 35 to 45 points which is superb 3rd line performance. With his, and Hansen's, work rate there is also very little danger that performance will drop off; they already know how to be pro's.

When we will know we have arrived?

When Higgins or Booth is pushed to a 4th line by an even bigger, faster, or more talented rookie who wants it just as bad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigpush Abbotsford Regular

bigpush

Posted
Posted

But Schroeder on 3c is way too small, cuz Hansen isn't that big, and Higgins doesn't play big. Schroeder will cause that problem no matter where he is unless you put him between Booth and Jensen or something. A Booth - Schroeder - Jensen line wouldn't be bad, but you would have to move the 3rd line down to the 4th line, and make someone else the 2nd line LW.

Putting him beside Burr and Kes isn't all that bad. You're worried about space? They are 3 of our fastest players, and Kesler is great at creating space and drawing attention.

As it stands right now, Richardson is proving himself more worth the 3C spot. It's Schroeder's job to find a role. If 3C is the one he wants, he'd better pick up his socks. 2RW is open at the moment, unless Jensen cranks it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canuck Surfer Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Canuck Surfer

Posted
Posted

Yeah, that's a good way to put it.

At the bolded part: I really think that 3rd line has what it takes, and we can only hope Booth comes back and kicks it into gear after shaking that rust off, rather than injuring himself again.

Kassian and Jensen have the potential to be a couple of wingers who push those types of players down the line-up, like you say.

Shinkaruk is another "top 6 or bust" prospect unless he develops a defensive side to his game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
higgyfan Canucks Franchise Player

higgyfan

Posted
Posted

Clearly there are more and better options than last year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Shroeder on a one way now and would have to go through wiavers? I guy with his skills would be picked up for sure. If this is correct (and he doesn't find a place on the team), I can see them playing him much like Coho and seeing if they can improve his trading value. In the upcoming years, Jordon will be replaced by rookie forwards, so a trade will probably be the best thing for him and the team.

Of course, this scenario would be very bad, as it would be another 1st round failure for the team. Just because there are better Cs coming up in the ranks, doesn't change the fact that JS would become another team's treasure and the Nucks end up with whatever in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poetica Canucks First-Line

poetica

Posted
Posted

I mentioned Burr plays hard, I never suggested he doesn't. My point is the line still needs size. Burr is not 6'1 you can tell when he's on the ice he's 5'11 or 6'0 at best. Moreover, he's a tenacious skilled player not a hitter. Kesler hits but your center is not mean to be the hitter on a line (as he can't be playing behind the opposition's net alot given defensive responsibilities). Therefore one winger needs to have size to play hard on the boards and get to the net.

Moreover, I never suggested Kassian is simply a wrecking ball. He is big, has hands, can hit and can fight. He creates room down low for the Sedins because he plays the boards well and protects the puck well with his body. He also can get to the net in the playoffs because of his size.

The reason the Sedins are ineffective in the playoffs has to do with the size on their line. Burrows is not big enough to battle through to the net and create room all the time for them, it takes too much out of him. And the point is, you solve a problem on 1 and then by putting schroeder on 2 you create it there..

You are making alot of assumptions about my points without actually reading what I was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-DLC- Canucks Hall-of-Famer

-DLC-

Posted
Posted

I mentioned Burr plays hard, I never suggested he doesn't. My point is the line still needs size. Burr is not 6'1 you can tell when he's on the ice he's 5'11 or 6'0 at best. Moreover, he's a tenacious skilled player not a hitter. Kesler hits but your center is not mean to be the hitter on a line (as he can't be playing behind the opposition's net alot given defensive responsibilities). Therefore one winger needs to have size to play hard on the boards and get to the net.

Moreover, I never suggested Kassian is simply a wrecking ball. He is big, has hands, can hit and can fight. He creates room down low for the Sedins because he plays the boards well and protects the puck well with his body. He also can get to the net in the playoffs because of his size.

The reason the Sedins are ineffective in the playoffs has to do with the size on their line. Burrows is not big enough to battle through to the net and create room all the time for them, it takes too much out of him. And the point is, you solve a problem on 1 and then by putting schroeder on 2 you create it there..

You are making alot of assumptions about my points without actually reading what I was saying.

Um, Burr is 6' 1"?

And he plays hard on the boards and goes to the net. He actually is our best guy in front of the net. It's a bit of a fine art because you have to have the presence of mind and puck awareness to also be able to let shots through...if you have a big plug there, he also can get in the way of them. Burr knows how to do it, not sure you've made any true statements about him.

But I'm also not arguing the value of Kassian once/if he finds his groove. Sure, why not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bananas Canucks Regular

Bananas

Posted
Posted

Actually, I did read it and was just replying to what you said.

Specifically, you said, "we need Kass on 1 is because we need a 'space maker' on that line (regardless of his skill/effort/chemistry)." If you meant something else you should have said that instead of what you actually said which was that it didn't even matter if he was up to the skill or effort level of the Sedins or even if he had chemistry with them. What else would that make him other than a wrecking ball? While I actually see your point about what he can bring to that line, I also know he will not get an exemption from having to bring skill, maintain effort or create chemistry. There is NO room on the first line for anything else. Size or not.

Plus, Burrows has done rather well at creating space in front of the net because he is so tenacious. And if he gets moved to another line it will be because he can bring that to another line, not because he's not big enough to help the Sedins produce. After all, they have done rather well with him on their line. (There's even an article @ Canucks Army showing how the Sedins have done better with Burrows than with Kass thus far.)

Whether you think the center should be a big hitter or not, Kes is going to. That's the kind of hockey he wants to play and how he plays it best. He's a position definition unto himself sometimes.

Again, I still don't see your point with Schroeder. We can not hide him because of his size. We have to put him wherever he can be the most productive with his skill set, and that is not the 3rd line. Perhaps the way to address the problem of size as you see it would be to replace Burrows with Booth on that line? I could easily see Burrows on the 3rd (dude will play anywhere he's asked), but if you think his hitting is a problem for the 2nd wouldn't you think it's a bigger problem for the 3rd? Just like with Schroeder, we need to put Burrows where his skills are going to be the most useful.

As for Burr's height, unless you have proof I'm going to trust the CDC website (and all others with his details I could find) rather than your personal opinion that he looks shorter. (Plus, even in pics with other players, like this one, he doesn't look shorter than reported to me.) Furthermore, why people seem to think as little as a single inch in height would make such a big (or really any) difference is beyond me.

As for the Sedins in the playoffs, I firmly believe their biggest production issue the last few years has been the "whatever" attitude the entire team seemed to have been infected with. (Hopefully Torts will be able to sweat it out of all of them in training camp.) Even still, their postseason production hasn't been far off their regular season production recently. Last year against SJ, both Hank and Danny got 1 point in the first 3 games. And the year before against LA, Hank got a least a point in 4 of the 5 games, and 2 points in 1 game. Danny got a point in both of his games. In 2010/11, Hank was 2nd among all players for points. Daniel was 4th in both points and goals. And up until the SCF their point production was similar to the regular season. That was not ineffective. At least, not until the Boston series....

Speaking of which, we all need to get drunk, watch the highlights and cry one more time while listening to "The Hockey Song" (or the HNIC theme song, which ever seems more Alanis Morissette to you) and then let the Boston series go. We can not move our team forward trying to address problems in a series from 3 seasons ago. It's done and dusted. And doing so will only take us away from what made us successful to begin with. It also ignores that a HUGE part of why the Sedins were so badly outplayed -- the refs. Hank and Danny likely would not have had nearly as many problems in that series had Boston players not been allowed to hold, cross check, interfere and generally terrorize them at will. It wouldn't have mattered how big they or their linemate were if the other team were always able to do anything they wanted/needed to to stop them. If you want proof that size wasn't the issue look no further than Marchand. (And yes, I did just throw up in my mouth a little...) If size were such a major factor that annoying little pipsqueak (at least by NHL standards) wouldn't have gotten as many points in those playoffs as Kesler did, only 1 less than Danny and only 3 less than Hank. Nor would he have gotten more goals than any of them. Especially not playing on a line with 5' 10" Recchi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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