oldnews Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 I don't see much sense in stressing about the makeup of a division in the first place. The primary point of a division is just to create rivalries - marketing. The main opportunity is for the players and coaching staff to study, adapt over a season or series. Coming in with size or speed is still only an advantage. cdc seems preoccupied with how they measure up when we should only care about setting the tone. Still wouldn't mind a size vs. corsi qoc though... That would be very interesting - the only problem imo is that corsi on or relative corsi alone don't really tell much of a story - they need to be taken in the context of offensive/defensive zone starts, offensive zone finishes, quality and relative quality of competition... so imo an aggregrate or integrated metric of those underlying numbers would tell a lot more - and then applied to size, it would be quite interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 It is possible, of course, that the word Pacific has simply become synonymous with ROBOTMONSTERSMASH. During last night's LA / SJ game, I believe it was mentioned that there have been over 500 hits in the series thus far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 fast skilled > big powerful but whos to say you cant have a mixture of both? http://youtu.be/iqc7CEE0ekE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 http://youtu.be/iqc7CEE0ekE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 There was a great graphic I saw recently that charted player size per team... I'll try to find it! Edit: Eat your heart out, CDC. Worth noting - the Canucks are 7th in average weight, 25th in average height. Fat pigs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 There is size (Sestito) and then there is skilled size (Carter, Anze, Jumbo Joe, Backes) and that is what we lack. Kassian is headed in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 IMO the Canucks just need a couple more bigger impact players Like Kassian to build around, which is why I would be stoked to see the Canucks able to snag Virtanen either with an acquired draft pick or using their #6 on him (assuming the top 5 stay roughly the same). Canucks have some good speed + skill guys like Horvat/Shinkaruk/Jensen coming up, but I think a tough to play against guy like Virtanen would compliment the group well. Horvat is a tough to play against guy, as are Gaunce and Cassels. We have plenty of shooters in our pool as well, with Grenier, LaBate, Kenins, Fox, etc. fitting that mold along with Shinkaruk and Jensen. There's a decent amount of size there, and even some players that use it to their advantage, but who do we have that's a high end forward to feed all those shooters and 200' guys the puck? Schroeder? That's why I like the skill down the middle that could be available to us at #6 (particularly if someone falls out of the top 5) in this draft over some of the bigger, shooting wingers. Reinhart or Bennet would be great, Draisaitl isn't bad either, and Nylander is a realistic but still highly skilled (actually one of the highest skill levels in this draft) option for us if no one falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 There is size (Sestito) and then there is skilled size (Carter, Anze, Jumbo Joe, Backes) and that is what we lack. Kassian is headed in the right direction. Kassian, Jensen, Kesler's not tiny and the Sedins are say "medium" sized. It's not all bad. Realistically we need one more legit top 6 forward that's preferably ~190 lbs (and still growing) or 200+ lbs. But if Nylander at 176 lbs is the BPA at our 6 pick...I don't bat an eyelash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Horvat is a tough to play against guy, as are Gaunce and Cassels. We have plenty of shooters in our pool as well, with Grenier, LaBate, Kenins, Fox, etc. fitting that mold along with Shinkaruk and Jensen. There's a decent amount of size there, and even some players that use it to their advantage, but who do we have that's a high end forward to feed all those shooters and 200' guys the puck? Schroeder? That's why I like the skill down the middle that could be available to us at #6 (particularly if someone falls out of the top 5) in this draft over some of the bigger, shooting wingers. Reinhart or Bennet would be great, Draisaitl isn't bad either, and Nylander is a realistic but still highly skilled (actually one of the highest skill levels in this draft) option for us if no one falls. Agreed, but I won't mind Ritchie or 'Take Jake' either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrago Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I think what the OP is missing here is that having a large team does'nt mean much if all that size is in your bottom 6. You need to have size in your top 6 skilled forwards which we don't have at all. The other thing IMO is that size matters the further you go in the playoffs as the smaller guys get more and more worn out and injured as the rigers of the playoffs take its toll. Getting through the first round as a smaller speeder team is much easier then going through LA then STL then BOS if you are that unlucky as those smaller players will be much less effective than they were in the first round. That of course is no guaranty that a smaller team can't get lucky and escape injury and go on to win the SC. Nore does it mean that a bigger team can't also get injured but having bigger skilled guys gives you a much better chance of having more effective players in the SC finals. thats just my opinion take it for what its worth. Sorry if any of this was already said I didn't read all the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Can you do the size comparison again, but this time use just the top 3 forwards and top 2 defensemen on the teams? I'm curious.I don't think it's just a coincidence that this group of Canucks peaked when they finally had a big center in their lineup. Malhotra was so highly-regarded here that he had guys like Kesler saying he was the teams' MVP. Malhotra could come into any d-zone situation and quietly win the draw and Torres/Hansen would get it out easily.Man, I want to watch the 2011 Canucks again, because I miss those guys.Being in love with the past is what gets a sports franchise in trouble. So are you saying that Malhotra was one of the top 3 forwards on the 2011 team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Being in love with the past is what gets a sports franchise in trouble. So are you saying that Malhotra was one of the top 3 forwards on the 2011 team?I'm not sure how anyone could read what TOML wrote and get that impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I'm not sure how anyone could read what TOML wrote and get that impression.Fair question. So, falling in love with the past. He wrote: "Man, I want to watch the 2011 Canucks again, because I miss those guys". Suggesting that Malhotra was a top 3 forward:"Can you do the size comparison again, but this time use just the top 3 forwards and top 2 defensemen on the teams? I'm curious.I don't think it's just a coincidence that this group of Canucks peaked when they finally had a big center in their lineup. Malhotra was so highly-regarded here that he had guys like Kesler saying he was the teams' MVP." Isn't what he wrote pretty clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Fair question. So, falling in love with the past. He wrote: "Man, I want to watch the 2011 Canucks again, because I miss those guys". Suggesting that Malhotra was a top 3 forward:"Can you do the size comparison again, but this time use just the top 3 forwards and top 2 defensemen on the teams? I'm curious.I don't think it's just a coincidence that this group of Canucks peaked when they finally had a big center in their lineup. Malhotra was so highly-regarded here that he had guys like Kesler saying he was the teams' MVP." Isn't what he wrote pretty clear?Yeah I'm just not sure how that equates to him saying Malhotra was a top 3 forward. I think it suggests that you need more than a top 6 and a top 4. The best teams in the league all have fairly complete rosters. Maybe I'm wrong though, I certainly know better than to try to speak for TOML. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Fat pigs just imagine when we had wellwood on the roster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Horvat is a tough to play against guy, as are Gaunce and Cassels. We have plenty of shooters in our pool as well, with Grenier, LaBate, Kenins, Fox, etc. fitting that mold along with Shinkaruk and Jensen. There's a decent amount of size there, and even some players that use it to their advantage, but who do we have that's a high end forward to feed all those shooters and 200' guys the puck? Schroeder? That's why I like the skill down the middle that could be available to us at #6 (particularly if someone falls out of the top 5) in this draft over some of the bigger, shooting wingers. Reinhart or Bennet would be great, Draisaitl isn't bad either, and Nylander is a realistic but still highly skilled (actually one of the highest skill levels in this draft) option for us if no one falls. That's the toss up for me- getting either a potential top 2 C or top 6 power forward are excellent choices. I'm ok with either one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Being in love with the past is what gets a sports franchise in trouble. So are you saying that Malhotra was one of the top 3 forwards on the 2011 team?No. But Kesler (or whoever it was, not sure) had a point when he called out Manny's importance to the team. But yes, we have to move on. My top 3 forwards on the team question was more relating to how the Sedins and Kesler measure up to our rivals, just out of curiosity. Comparing top players to top players is probably more useful than an average, as it's the top players who are ultimately on the ice for up to half the game. That being said, depth is also important. We're lacking in all spots lately. A sharp decline from 2011. Hence, me still missing 2011, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzy Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 And likewise, not much value to claims that a team isn't big enough to compete in the 'new' Pacific division... The size differences aren't that significant overall, and even if they were considered significant, the myth doesn't stand up in results in any event. Season stats against the Cali teams may look positive from the past two years but playoff stats are something else. You honestly think this Canucks team could beat SJ, Kings or Anaheim in a best of 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Season stats against the Cali teams may look positive from the past two years but playoff stats are something else. You honestly think this Canucks team could beat SJ, Kings or Anaheim in a best of 7? This past year's? No. Next year's? Maybe. Year after that? Quite possible depending on who we draft, trade, sign, how prospects develop etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold Hard Truth Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 During last night's LA / SJ game, I believe it was mentioned that there have been over 500 hits in the series thus far ya exactly why size does matter.Both Sedins would have been knocked out of this series 4 games ago, Danny probably on stretcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.