CrazyAL Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 That signing made no sense from the day it was signed, it's not even a knock on the player it's simply why are you spending this much money for a Dman on a already fat paycheck blueline when you lack scoring punch upfront? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 He has. He has been consistently put on the right side since arriving in Vancouver, and has done just fine. I'd say he has done well adjusting rather quickly. Yea, but if he's "just fine" on the right side, you would assume he would be even better playing his natural side. The side that he had his most success with in Florida. Forcing him to play the right side with Edler (who struggled big time), was not exactly the best thing for him IMO. We need to get away from having a top 4 that carries the bulk of the work load and spread it out through a balanced top 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 the problem with garrison's scoring is that it's a product of the team playing well, not a cause of it. 9 of garrison's 32 points came in a 10 game stretch in october. 13 more of them came in a 10 game stretch in november/december. that means that in the other 56 games he's played, garrison has 10 points. he's not a difference maker in the slightest, but he's paid like one and he occupies a roster spot that should be held by one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 the problem with garrison's scoring is that it's a product of the team playing well, not a cause of it. 9 of garrison's 32 points came in a 10 game stretch in october. 13 more of them came in a 10 game stretch in november/december. that means that in the other 56 games he's played, garrison has 10 points. he's not a difference maker in the slightest, but he's paid like one and he occupies a roster spot that should be held by one. I don't know, if you look around the league at D-men making around 4.5 mil, the majority of them don't exactly scream difference maker. That seems to be the price you have to pay for any average top 4 defenseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatsPajamas Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Seasons a write off for everyone. Booth is the only potential buyout material. Garrison was great in his first season, put up solid basic stats and the best advance stats of his career. Zero chance they buy him out. ZERO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Do people even think before making a thread? Why would anyone in their right mind buy out Garrison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silfverberg Snipes Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Booth is still garbage. Don't like him as a second liner or a third liner. Too streaky and too useless if he isn't scoring. Garrison is just plain being used wrong. He is NOT in any way shape or form an offensive defenseman so we should stop treating him like one.I bet the moment we tell him to stay back and play a defensive role he will excel. ATM he's trying to jump in on the rush and pinch which he simply isn't good at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I don't know, if you look around the league at D-men making around 4.5 mil, the majority of them don't exactly scream difference maker. That seems to be the price you have to pay for any average top 4 defenseman. that's why i feel i like its a far better strategy to buck up for a couple legitimate top end players and fill out the rest of the lower spots with solid yet unexceptional bargain rate players instead of going for "depth" without any impact players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 that's why i feel i like its a far better strategy to buck up for a couple legitimate top end players and fill out the rest of the lower spots with solid yet unexceptional bargain rate players instead of going for "depth" without any impact players. AKA get Shea Weber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 that's why i feel i like its a far better strategy to buck up for a couple legitimate top end players and fill out the rest of the lower spots with solid yet unexceptional bargain rate players instead of going for "depth" without any impact players. Well if Weber is available then for sure you go for him. However I can't imagine how much of our prospect pool we'd have to gut to get him. And I don't exactly see a whole lot of high end talent coming up in the free agent market. I think there's arguments to be made for both strategies. However with the way this team is set up now, I think we've gotta go with depth over high end talent. If we do get high end talent on D, it will have to be from moving up in the draft IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 the problem with garrison's scoring is that it's a product of the team playing well, not a cause of it. 9 of garrison's 32 points came in a 10 game stretch in october. 13 more of them came in a 10 game stretch in november/december. that means that in the other 56 games he's played, garrison has 10 points. he's not a difference maker in the slightest, but he's paid like one and he occupies a roster spot that should be held by one. Lol, so why concentrate on Garrison? Hamhuis, Edler, and Bieksa are all dmen who have led this team in defensive scoring at some point in their careers, where is their consistency? Garrison has put up 18 points at even strength this year. That is practically the amount of points Edler has in total (19) and yet more than half of Edler's points (10) have come from the PP (7 points being assists). Garrison hasn't played his best this season but he has played a better and more consistent game than his counterparts (on his off-side no less). I don't know if it is the players themselves, injuries or the coaching but this has been an abysmal year for our d-corps. What I do know is that Garrison is one of the better d-men I have seen in a long while for this team and he won't be going anywhere. I would also like to know which coach thinks it is a good idea to have the player with the longest stick in the NHL, play on his off-side. If anyone should be playing on their off-side, it should be the shortest player. Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Would people trade Tanev, Jensen, Hansen, and the 8th overall for Weber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinot blanc Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I would trade Bieksa in a heartbeat. Yes, he has been injured and banged up but he is a defensive liability out there. Notice when they show the other team scoring where he always is--out of position and trying to stick check guys. Same goes for Garrison. For Pete's sake knock someone on their butt! The only two defencemen I would keep around are Hamhuis and Tanev. Everyone else is fair trade bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zejono Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 anybody else notice that he uses the longest stick possible because he can't skate fast enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asian player Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I would trade Bieksa in a heartbeat. Yes, he has been injured and banged up but he is a defensive liability out there. Notice when they show the other team scoring where he always is--out of position and trying to stick check guys. Same goes for Garrison. For Pete's sake knock someone on their butt! The only two defencemen I would keep around are Hamhuis and Tanev. Everyone else is fair trade bait. Bieksa is a heart and soul leader who sticks up for his teammates. We could use more of those Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I would trade Bieksa in a heartbeat. Yes, he has been injured and banged up but he is a defensive liability out there. Notice when they show the other team scoring where he always is--out of position and trying to stick check guys. Same goes for Garrison. For Pete's sake knock someone on their butt! The only two defencemen I would keep around are Hamhuis and Tanev. Everyone else is fair trade bait. The two defencemen who are least likely to knock anyone on their butt is Hamhuis and Tanev. They are too busy trying to block shots and play goaltender to actually take the body in front of the net. Not really their fault IMO as it seems to be our new defensive strategy so everyone should get used to seeing our dmen laying on the ice making snow-angels while opposing forwards bang away at loose pucks. I HATE that strategy btw and would prefer to see opposing forwards laying on the ice instead of vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 The Canucks defense isn't good enough. Too small and too timid. Most upper echelon teams pick it apart pretty easily, as proven last night. With the underwhelming green goaltending Vancouver has now, the defense will need to be playing a consistently hard nosed and disciplined game. Neither is evident. With the present top 4, nothing will change and nothing will improve. Lets take the 7 teams in the league that have clinched playoff already & compare there defense to the Canucks defense in hits & shots blocked. (First number is hits, 2nd is shots blocked) Canucks: 559 H - 767 SB Anaheim: 788 H - 686 SB Boston: 769 H - 614 SB Colorado: 771 H - 661 SB Pittsburgh: 723 H - 671 SB Chicago: 449 H - 589 SB San Jose: 402 H - 721 SB St.Louis: 394 H - 691 SB So the Canucks defense is middle of the pack in hits, (while the Stanley cup champions are at the bottom, and FWIW they are dead last in the league in hits total) and easily ahead in shots blocked. Not so timid to me. Now size. (not that this really matters) Only 1 Canucks blueliner on the current roster isn't 6'1 or taller, & thats Weber (5'11). Compare to the other 7 teams that have clinched playoffs. St.Louis - 3 Chicago - 2 Boston - 1 Anaheim - 2 Colorado - 2 San Jose - 1 Pittsburgh - 2 I really don't see this argument. To me the problem isn't the defense, its not being too timid or small, making errors defensively like missed assignments & odd many rushes don't usually come from being too small or timid they come from making mistakes period. The problem this season was clearly offense. We were bottom 5 in basically all the offensive statistics. (PP, GF, GPG%, exc.) We had no finish. No one on our team has 50 or more points, (and its unlikely anyone will finish with 50 or more) and only 1 person has over 20 goals (Kesler). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soshified Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Take away Garrison's NTC and it's a great signing. You could already see the rebuild on the horizon when Gillis went out and got Garrison. So now we've committed to Edler and Garrison long term and with only 2 years left on Hamhuis and Bieksa are we going to continue to commit that much salary to 4 d men? Bieksa may be willing to sign for less, but not Hamhuis. Are we better off having Garrison or Dan Hamhuis for the next 5 years? Hamhuis was the guy who refused to sign with two teams just so he can come home and sign for less. I doubt he would want to sign anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 The problem this season was clearly offense. We were bottom 5 in basically all the offensive statistics. (PP, GF, GPG%, exc.) We had no finish. No one on our team has 50 or more points, (and its unlikely anyone will finish with 50 or more) and only 1 person has over 20 goals (Kesler). Offensive zone pressure and our transition game are a big factor in this too IMO. This team plays a dump and chase game but are not fast enough to retrieve the puck consistently. Therefore we're continually handing the other team the puck. This is a huge mistake in strategy. This team needs to be making plays off the rush and holding onto the puck, not trying to dump and cycle all the time. That's the number 1 reason why we need to get younger and faster. A deadly transition game is what makes this team successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 And I would keep him on the right side. And go with what we had earlier in the season. Hamhuis - Tanev Edler - Garrison Stanton - Bieksa Cause either way a LHer is going to have to play the right side, and I think Garrison is the best for it. Only other candidate for that IMO would be Stanton unless we want to replace him with Weber/Corrado. Hamhuis - Tanev Garrison - Bieksa Edler - Stanton/Weber/Corrado or Hamhuis - Bieksa Edler - Tanev Garrison - (RS/YW/FC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.