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

Are injuries actually hurting the team?


Sixteen W's

Recommended Posts

The Canucks' main problem is a lack of secondary scoring and powerplay goals.

The extra minutes to the Sedins and Kesler haven't slowed them, although they may get tired over time. Burrows is back and should get into form soon.

Hansen is the only injured player that would likely have an immediate positive impact. Shroeder, Weise, and Booth might eases some of the minutes from the top line, but I don't trust them to provide reliable secondary scoring.

Would the return of players like Schroeder or Booth improve the team significantly? The Canucks are a good team as is, and players returning form injury, with the exception of Hansen, would only marginally improve our situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injuries are always a problem for any team. A big problem over the last how many years for us has been injuries, no doubt. Booth may not make an impact for us when he returns, but then again he might. Again, it all depends on whether he can stay healthy for longer than a handful of games. Players and teams need to stay healthy in order to be successful, it's why Boston beat us to win the cup. We were banged up and without Raymond, Sammy, and Hammer... very key pieces.

So, to answer your question: only time will tell, if they can come back and remain injury free then yes, if not, then no. THe potential is there, but until they remain in the lineup, it will always remain as un-tapped potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injuries plague any team; we always seem to be top in that category for man hours lost. This year however, Torts is doing his best to squeeze out as much offensive creativity and lineup options as he can and probably has less to work with than AV or Crawford.

While we may have 'depth' they're not 'good or quality' depth that can score goals and be consistent.

We've got players playing wrong positions (Santorelli and Higgins on the 2nd??) and we have a bunch of 'bodies' who have zero chemistry nor are they put on the ice often which means the top line is the only chance for goal scoring and gives them excessive minutes which can't last all season.

Sedin-Sedin-Kassian

_____- Kesler - Burrows (playmaker or centerman and move Kes to wing)

Higgins - Santorelli - Richardson

Sestito - Welsh - Archibald

Gillis needs to address this and as always, seems VERY slow if not almost clueless to do so. Gagne or Prospal would do wonders with line combos, 2nd PP line and some offensive depth we so desperately need even with healthy bodies back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well our team really needed a shake up. Other teams had figured out our lines, strategy, etc, and our players were becoming a bit too comfortable in their roles.

Injuries at this time of year were a good thing. It could have gone either way, as we could have fallen behind in the standings and it is always tough to make up points later in the season. However, we have been forced to try new things. This is much different from simple line juggling, where the strategy remains constant. Injuries have provided opportunities. One example, every team needs good, young players to have continued success, yet how do you bring young guys in when you have a president's trophy lineup already? Sorry fellas, you were better than everyone else in the league but I'm replacing half of you with rookies, that type of mentality isn't going to go over well in a locker room. Similarly speaking, how do you preach new systems, new line mates, etc, when things are already going very well? When a team is firing on all cylinders, change is a tough sell, but team's that don't adapt constantly will eventually become predictable and easy to counter.

I think the combination of a new coach and a severe lack of personnel up front has forced the Canucks to get creative. Remember the last time we got creative? We put Kesler on Sundin's wing, and Burrows with the Sedins. Remember the epic losing streak that forced us in to that scenario? From there we completely changed the team dynamic, and everything went up from there. The team was looking pretty average during the Nonis years, yet the potential was there (adding a few pieces helped, but that is true of any team in any situation). Once again, the past couple seasons we have reverted to more or less to mediocrity, yet the talent is still there.

At the end of the day, we finished last season with a great coach, great team, all the potential we could ask for, but we had fallen in to a major rut, we needed change for the sake of change. Injuries have helped to provide just that. That said, hopefully we are healthy for the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significantly?

No.

Yup, there's a lot of difference between significant and hurting the team though.

I don't think there's any case where injuries don't hurt a team. Even if you think we're better without Booth in the lineup, if he's that bad he'll sit in the press box so an injury is worse since you don't even have that option.

Perhaps if you want to argue the Savard/Pronger angles (Savard for in the year he was injured, the LTI allowed the Bruins to get Horton, and Pronger for the continued ability to avoid his 35+ cap hit every remaining year) then there's a case for an injury not hurting a team, but then those teams would probably like to have those players healthy too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a good team with a healthy line up. At the very least I was hoping for the injured players to take a step further in their production this year. So they need to be playing in order for that to happen. It's hard not to want to scream at Booth but I really hope Tort's coaching has a positive effect on him and he turns things around. The team really needs a big, strong and fast power forward like him to be productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well our team really needed a shake up. Other teams had figured out our lines, strategy, etc, and our players were becoming a bit too comfortable in their roles.

Injuries at this time of year were a good thing. It could have gone either way, as we could have fallen behind in the standings and it is always tough to make up points later in the season. However, we have been forced to try new things. This is much different from simple line juggling, where the strategy remains constant. Injuries have provided opportunities. One example, every team needs good, young players to have continued success, yet how do you bring young guys in when you have a president's trophy lineup already? Sorry fellas, you were better than everyone else in the league but I'm replacing half of you with rookies, that type of mentality isn't going to go over well in a locker room. Similarly speaking, how do you preach new systems, new line mates, etc, when things are already going very well? When a team is firing on all cylinders, change is a tough sell, but team's that don't adapt constantly will eventually become predictable and easy to counter.

I think the combination of a new coach and a severe lack of personnel up front has forced the Canucks to get creative. Remember the last time we got creative? We put Kesler on Sundin's wing, and Burrows with the Sedins. Remember the epic losing streak that forced us in to that scenario? From there we completely changed the team dynamic, and everything went up from there. The team was looking pretty average during the Nonis years, yet the potential was there (adding a few pieces helped, but that is true of any team in any situation). Once again, the past couple seasons we have reverted to more or less to mediocrity, yet the talent is still there.

At the end of the day, we finished last season with a great coach, great team, all the potential we could ask for, but we had fallen in to a major rut, we needed change for the sake of change. Injuries have helped to provide just that. That said, hopefully we are healthy for the playoffs.

This is an interesting comparison. Agreeing that stress/adversity prompts adaptability, & may necessitate strategies which otherwise probably wouldn't have been considered. Thankfully with Torts' personality, it's possible change comes about other ways too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they're hurting the team, because injuries literally hurt by definition :bigblush: .

I would say that missing Burrows, Hansen and Booth has been the equivalent of losing the 2nd line (again, like last year) - but I can't agree that there is no secondary scoring.

Higgins, who is usually a third liner, has 4 goals, as do both the depth centers who were supposed to center the fourth line, and one was earmarked for Utica.

The blueline also has 35 points.

It's good to be able to move players into the lineup and still have success, but the injuries hurt - they just haven't resulted in the kind of record most people would have expected under the circumstances. The particularly doom and gloom types are at a loss what to complain about and have to contrive stories about not being able to beat contenders or good teams (when ironically, the opponents have consisted of 7 straight playoff teams from last year - and 5 of them in 7 nights on the road).

Kudos to the entire lineup, coaching staff, and management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canucks' main problem is a lack of secondary scoring and powerplay goals.

The extra minutes to the Sedins and Kesler haven't slowed them, although they may get tired over time. Burrows is back and should get into form soon.

Hansen is the only injured player that would likely have an immediate positive impact. Shroeder, Weise, and Booth might eases some of the minutes from the top line, but I don't trust them to provide reliable secondary scoring.

Would the return of players like Schroeder or Booth improve the team significantly? The Canucks are a good team as is, and players returning form injury, with the exception of Hansen, would only marginally improve our situation.

Hansen will be a positive impact upon his return. Two of the others are questions. Weise is ok, but not necessarily better than a call up like Archibald. Schroeder's ultimate impact is still an unknown. But Booth. No. He is not an upgrade if he returns. We're better to have other guys auditioning than have Booth back. Unfortunately, he's here until next summer when he is a guaranteed buy out.

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...