Nikita Tryamkin | D

[Boudrias]

4 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

And it seemed fairly evident that Gudbranson didn't see the trade coming. He handled it admirably though.

 

I did notice too, when he was on the ice, that teams were far more tentative. He'll get it together.

Totally agree. 35 games +/- is no where near enough games to make any judgement. You're bang on about opposing teams being more physical with Guddy out. Our record dealing with Florida has not been exactly stellar. That said there were simply to many good hockey people back east, outside of Florisa, who were dismayed that Guddy was moved. IMHO a big, physical, d-core has to be the base for the Canucks to build from as a serious CUP contender.

[guntrix]

8 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Yes, yes, aaaaaand yes. Well said.

 

Too many on here are dying to write off Gudbranson after the season he's had here, but refuse to take into account the contributing factors to the underwhelming nature of the season.

 

• His injury was severe enough that it has essentially shut him down for the season. There is also talk that he had been playing with the injury for some time before being shut down.
• He came from Florida to Vancouver, so he went to a new division in a new conference, and went from playing for a seasoned coach to playing with a second year rookie coach.
• He was immediately tasked with carrying a defense pairing and essentially mentoring a player only six months his junior, who is having a lackluster season.

 

The knee jerk reaction to throwing Gudbranson under the bus is just ridiculous. The Canucks have been slapped around for far too long, and need a player with Gudbranson's size, and more importantly, his fearlessness and willingness to lead.

Despite popular opinion on here, size, "fearlessness" (whatever that means), willingness to lead, etc. doesn't make someone a good defender. 

 

Gudbranson's underlying stats portray that he hasn't been playing that much different from how he usually plays. He's been in the NHL for six seasons now. It's not like the sample size is small.

 

He's never been elite at anything, and likely never will be. Not defensively and certainly not offensively. Sure, he's a serviceable player but we have to stop pretending like we have some sleeping giant with top 4 potential in the works here. We can't blame the perennial scapegoat Willie for Gud playing how he usually did in Florida, we can't blame changing teams when he had the offseason to acclimate and we can't blame the injury for how he played before he got injured. 

 

Yes, Hutton is experiencing the infamous sophomore slump but now that he's been paired up with someone else, he's been noticeably better. This is reminiscent of how Panthers fans were complaining about Gud being the weak link in the Mitchell-Gudbranson pairing. 

 

Statistically, your premise simply doesn't make sense. He's the same old Gudbranson we've seen the past five seasons. Don't take my word for it:

 

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gudbrer01.html

[PhillipBlunt]

3 hours ago, guntrix said:

Despite popular opinion on here, size, "fearlessness" (whatever that means), willingness to lead, etc. doesn't make someone a good defender. 

Weber, Chara, Byfuglien are examples to the contrary. Your generalization is one that your trying to sell. Size is one factor, being a leader is another. These aren't mutually exclusive to being a good defenseman. Sound positioning and being able to read plays are also great characteristics. 

Quote

Gudbranson's underlying stats portray that he hasn't been playing that much different from how he usually plays. He's been in the NHL for six seasons now. It's not like the sample size is small.

 

 

 

 

 

He's never been elite at anything, and likely never will be. Not defensively and certainly not offensively. Sure, he's a serviceable player but we have to stop pretending like we have some sleeping giant with top 4 potential in the works here. We can't blame the perennial scapegoat Willie for Gud playing how he usually did in Florida, we can't blame changing teams when he had the offseason to acclimate and we can't blame the injury for how he played before he got injured.

Stats. Analyticzzzzzz. Using these as the crux of your argument, JD, is convenient, but doesn't speak to the intangibles that he brings to what is a great looking defensive corps. The team needed more size and strength on the back end to help to change the Canucks blueline from a porous free for all to no fly zone. As well, having some intimidating presence on the ice helps to prevent the team from being tossed around. 

 

Gudbranson's time with Florida while not your definition of a wet stat dream, Mr. Burke, left enough of an impression on his teammates and fans that many were extremely disappointed upon his departure. Of course, your buddies Fenwick and Corsi won't spell that out for you, but oh well... Analyticzzzzzz

 

Choosing to ignore the need to get used to a new team and how an injury can affect performance is convenient, but thins out your argument.

Quote

 

Yes, Hutton is experiencing the infamous sophomore slump but now that he's been paired up with someone else, he's been noticeably better. This is reminiscent of how Panthers fans were complaining about Gud being the weak link in the Mitchell-Gudbranson pairing.

Hutton sucked with every partner he had before his injury and since coming back he's been marginally better. He's only six months younger than Gudbranson yet you apply different optics to his performance.  Hmmmm....

Quote

 

Statistically, your premise simply doesn't make sense. He's the same old Gudbranson we've seen the past five seasons. Don't take my word for it:

 

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gudbrer01.html

I won't take your word for it because, to be perfectly honest, it only captures part of the picture. 

[guntrix]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Weber, Chara, Byfuglien are examples to the contrary. Your generalization is one that your trying to sell. Size is one factor, being a leader is another. These aren't mutually exclusive to being a good defenseman. Sound positioning and being able to read plays are also great characteristics. 

Stats. Analyticzzzzzz. Using these as the crux of your argument, JD, is convenient, but doesn't speak to the intangibles that he brings to what is a great looking defensive corps. The team needed more size and strength on the back end to help to change the Canucks blueline from a porous free for all to no fly zone. As well, having some intimidating presence on the ice helps to prevent the team from being tossed around. 

 

Gudbranson's time with Florida while not your definition of a wet stat dream, Mr. Burke, left enough of an impression on his teammates and fans that many were extremely disappointed upon his departure. Of course, your buddies Fenwick and Corsi won't spell that out for you, but oh well... Analyticzzzzzz

 

Choosing to ignore the need to get used to a new team and how an injury can affect performance is convenient, but thins out your argument.

Hutton sucked with every partner he had before his injury and since coming back he's been marginally better. He's only six months younger than Gudbranson yet you apply different optics to his performance.  Hmmmm....

I won't take your word for it because, to be perfectly honest, it only captures part of the picture. 

How are Weber, Chara, Byfuglien examples to the contrary? They're actually good players. Size and skill aren't mutually exclusive... those three players have both. Just because Gudbranson is big does not mean he's as good a player as the other three. 

 

Gudbranson was only playing injured for a few games, not the whole season. Like I said, his stats show that he was playing the same as he was in his prior FIVE seasons. Of course, you don't see that because you refuse to acknowledge this and would rather analyze his game with homerism and bias. 

 

Yes, Hutton is only six months younger but only has one season under his belt... a season that was already astronomically better offensively than any of Gudbranson's prior FIVE seasons while being defensively similar as well. Of course, you'll blow this off saying stats don't count because the intangibles, such as Gudbranson's table soccer skills and willingness to watch Suits with the boys. 

 

The rest of your response holds absolutely no water. We need players who get things done on the ice, not meat and potatoes guys with great intangibles who do little else. We're a hockey club that aspires to hopefully win the Stanley Cup one day, not your local boy scouts. 

[PhillipBlunt]

9 hours ago, guntrix said:

How are Weber, Chara, Byfuglien examples to the contrary? They're actually good players. Size and skill aren't mutually exclusive... those three players have both. Just because Gudbranson is big does not mean he's as good a player as the other three. 

You're clearly missing the point. I'm not sure whether it's an act of convenience or just that you don't get it. Yes being a defenseman isn't all about size. Thanks for that. One of the greatest defenseman in the history of the game was 6'1" and weighed 192 lbs.

 

However based on the style of defense the team employs, size can be a bonus, take the 2011 Boston team.

9 hours ago, guntrix said:

Gudbranson was only playing injured for a few games, not the whole season. Like I said, his stats show that he was playing the same as he was in his prior FIVE seasons. Of course, you don't see that because you refuse to acknowledge this and would rather analyze his game with homerism and bias. 

And you know this how? Based on some of his comments, he was playing with issues for sometime. I do pay attention to analytics, but unlike you, I don't base my entire opinion using that as the only metric.

9 hours ago, guntrix said:

Yes, Hutton is only six months younger but only has one season under his belt... a season that was already astronomically better offensively than any of Gudbranson's prior FIVE seasons while being defensively similar as well. Of course, you'll blow this off saying stats don't count because the intangibles, such as Gudbranson's table soccer skills and willingness to watch Suits with the boys.

And every defenseman on a team has to be a pushing the needle offensively? Again, I get it that because you live and die by analyticzzzzz that anyone who doesn't take them as absolute gospel is some relic from another age.

 

I get it, J.D, you don't like it when people don't give your precious analytics the respect you feel they deserve, so in turn, you eschew traits like leadership, and supporting your teammates through protecting them as relics of a bygone era, whereas they are constants in hockey that have been around long before Fenwick and Corsi.

9 hours ago, guntrix said:

The rest of your response holds absolutely no water.

And yours is full of something that I'm pretty sure isn't water.

9 hours ago, guntrix said:

We need players who get things done on the ice, not meat and potatoes guys with great intangibles who do little else. We're a hockey club that aspires to hopefully win the Stanley Cup one day, not your local boy scouts. 

Get things done on the ice. You do realize that a team needs players of varying skills, talents, sizes, and capabilities in order to be successful, right? The Canucks are looking to have a great defense going forward drawing from various strengths. Stecher's speed, agility, and focus, Tanev's rock solid defensive game and IQ, Edler's veteran leadership and steady play, Tryamkin's size and mobility, Gudbranson's size, and intimidation factor which actually made the Canucks goal a place where very few players wanted to hang out when he was on the ice.

 

You see, while being able to put up points is essential to winning hockey games, preventing goals by not allowing players to set up shop in front of the goaltender, and reacting in kind to aggressive forechecking is also a contributing factor to a teams success.

 

I don't think that anyone is looking at Gudbranson as an elite defenseman by NHL standards. You're just creating that narrative in hopes that it sticks. Good luck with that. Juolevi has the potential to be an elite defenseman by those standards based on how his game has progressed. If Benning happens to draft Liljgren as well, there could be two potential elite defensemen. However Benning also realizes that a truly effective defense has to have players that can manage the more physical aspects of the game and, aside from protecting their goaltenders (which Luongo truly appreciated in Gudbranson's game) they can also prevent their defensive partner and the three forwards on the ice from being manhandled and taken off of their game, which does effect how a team manages in their own end. Not necessarily something that Fenwick will teach you, but worth knowing all the same.

[Tre Mac]

The losses don't hurt as much when you see how far Tryamkin's game is coming along.  I thought he was the best defender last night vs. Pittsburgh.  Although a Defensive defenceman is the least sexy pick in terms of excitement he is as good defensively as some of the big name rookies are offensively - if that makes any sense lol.

[Western Red]

1 minute ago, Tre Mac said:

The losses don't hurt as much when you see how far Tryamkin's game is coming along.  I thought he was the best defender last night vs. Pittsburgh.  Although a Defensive defenceman is the least sexy pick in terms of excitement he is as good defensively as some of the big name rookies are offensively - if that makes any sense lol.

He's super aware defensively for sure. It's a dream, but I'd love to see him get at least a couple looks on the PP to show him he's important, while giving him the opportunity to feel like a real contributer. I think its apparent that he's earned it.

[HomeBrew]

On 2/14/2017 at 8:35 AM, PhillipBlunt said:

• His injury was severe enough that it has essentially shut him down for the season. There is also talk that he had been playing with the injury for some time before being shut down.

18 hours ago, guntrix said:

He's never been elite at anything, and likely never will be. Not defensively and certainly not offensively. Sure, he's a serviceable player but we have to stop pretending like we have some sleeping giant with top 4 potential in the works here. We can't blame the perennial scapegoat Willie for Gud playing how he usually did in Florida, we can't blame changing teams when he had the offseason to acclimate and we can't blame the injury for how he played before he got injured. 

If this discussion of whether Gudbranson should be our whipping boy or not was actually taking place in the Gudbranson thread, you probably would of seen an article where he says the injury had been an issue since late October. Of course, yada yada 5 seasons prior yada yada, but we have yet to really see him play to his skill level here yet and I guess since Sbiza has less to complain about in his game now, Gudbranson is the next target this year. 

 

In reality, this team needs BOTH Gudbranson and Tryamkin. I do not know why it would be a question of who to keep or to question if we still need Gudbranson, if Tryamkin is playing better. We need more jam in our game. Bertuzzi, and to a slightly lesser extent Kesler, made the era of Swedish hockey tolerable. With no one really bringing the push up front, this team needs players like Gudbranson and Tryamkin. I am looking forward to both of them taking another step in their game next year. 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

18 minutes ago, HomeBrew said:

If this discussion of whether Gudbranson should be our whipping boy or not was actually taking place in the Gudbranson thread, you probably would of seen an article where he says the injury had been an issue since late October. Of course, yada yada 5 seasons prior yada yada, but we have yet to really see him play to his skill level here yet and I guess since Sbiza has less to complain about in his game now, Gudbranson is the next target this year. 

 

In reality, this team needs BOTH Gudbranson and Tryamkin. I do not know why it would be a question of who to keep or to question if we still need Gudbranson, if Tryamkin is playing better. We need more jam in our game. Bertuzzi, and to a slightly lesser extent Kesler, made the era of Swedish hockey tolerable. With no one really bringing the push up front, this team needs players like Gudbranson and Tryamkin. I am looking forward to both of them taking another step in their game next year. 

 

Agreed. Why settle for one, when you can have both?

[SilentSam]

23 hours ago, guntrix said:

Despite popular opinion on here, size, "fearlessness" (whatever that means), willingness to lead, etc. doesn't make someone a good defender. 

 

Gudbranson's underlying stats portray that he hasn't been playing that much different from how he usually plays. He's been in the NHL for six seasons now. It's not like the sample size is small.

 

He's never been elite at anything, and likely never will be. Not defensively and certainly not offensively. Sure, he's a serviceable player but we have to stop pretending like we have some sleeping giant with top 4 potential in the works here. We can't blame the perennial scapegoat Willie for Gud playing how he usually did in Florida, we can't blame changing teams when he had the offseason to acclimate and we can't blame the injury for how he played before he got injured. 

 

Yes, Hutton is experiencing the infamous sophomore slump but now that he's been paired up with someone else, he's been noticeably better. This is reminiscent of how Panthers fans were complaining about Gud being the weak link in the Mitchell-Gudbranson pairing. 

 

Statistically, your premise simply doesn't make sense. He's the same old Gudbranson we've seen the past five seasons. Don't take my word for it:

 

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gudbrer01.html

Analytics are the reason EG was let go.. seems to be something your using here, even with Gudbranson being out for almost an entire season.

He's young, and yet to prime.

His motivation will be peaked next season,. A season where this team, and our new core of youth will be pushing to do the same.

Analytics hold no paitience,. 

They have expectations, an expiry date..  and a garbage can.

This is why Nik wasn't given a serious look in our draft system,. Even though he appeared in person to both live draft year events he was entered in.

Edited February 15, 2017 by SilentSam

[guntrix]

7 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

You're clearly missing the point. I'm not sure whether it's an act of convenience or just that you don't get it. Yes being a defenseman isn't all about size. Thanks for that. One of the greatest defenseman in the history of the game was 6'1" and weighed 192 lbs.

 

However based on the style of defense the team employs, size can be a bonus, take the 2011 Boston team.

And you know this how? Based on some of his comments, he was playing with issues for sometime. I do pay attention to analytics, but unlike you, I don't base my entire opinion using that as the only metric.

And every defenseman on a team has to be a pushing the needle offensively? Again, I get it that because you live and die by analyticzzzzz that anyone who doesn't take them as absolute gospel is some relic from another age.

 

I get it, J.D, you don't like it when people don't give your precious analytics the respect you feel they deserve, so in turn, you eschew traits like leadership, and supporting your teammates through protecting them as relics of a bygone era, whereas they are constants in hockey that have been around long before Fenwick and Corsi.

And yours is full of something that I'm pretty sure isn't water.

Get things done on the ice. You do realize that a team needs players of varying skills, talents, sizes, and capabilities in order to be successful, right? The Canucks are looking to have a great defense going forward drawing from various strengths. Stecher's speed, agility, and focus, Tanev's rock solid defensive game and IQ, Edler's veteran leadership and steady play, Tryamkin's size and mobility, Gudbranson's size, and intimidation factor which actually made the Canucks goal a place where very few players wanted to hang out when he was on the ice.

 

You see, while being able to put up points is essential to winning hockey games, preventing goals by not allowing players to set up shop in front of the goaltender, and reacting in kind to aggressive forechecking is also a contributing factor to a teams success.

 

I don't think that anyone is looking at Gudbranson as an elite defenseman by NHL standards. You're just creating that narrative in hopes that it sticks. Good luck with that. Juolevi has the potential to be an elite defenseman by those standards based on how his game has progressed. If Benning happens to draft Liljgren as well, there could be two potential elite defensemen. However Benning also realizes that a truly effective defense has to have players that can manage the more physical aspects of the game and, aside from protecting their goaltenders (which Luongo truly appreciated in Gudbranson's game) they can also prevent their defensive partner and the three forwards on the ice from being manhandled and taken off of their game, which does effect how a team manages in their own end. Not necessarily something that Fenwick will teach you, but worth knowing all the same.

Lol, apologetics galore. It doesn't matter how big Gud is; it doesn't matter how intimidating he is; it doesn't matter how good of a leader he is; it doesn't matter how supportive he is; it doesn't matter how good he is at clearing the crease, etc. if he's mediocre at playing the actual sport. I'm sure Luongo appreciated the smaller, weaker, less of a a leader that was Mitchell for being a better defender. Amazing, isn't jt? Gudbranson is statistically bad at preventing goals, and always has been. Just because he clears the crease doesn't mean he's half good at his job.

 

But alas, I understand statistics don't fly here when they don't prove your point. How can one be objective in analyzing a player's performance if we ignore certain metrics when they're not convenient to us? How can one be objective by choosing to see certain things and ignore others? This reminds me of when the Panthers' fan base and media weren't that high on Gudbranson but this board chose to only listen to Mitchell's comments on how good a player he was, as if it was surprising to see a teammate talk well about his fellow defensive partner. 

 

5 hours ago, HomeBrew said:

If this discussion of whether Gudbranson should be our whipping boy or not was actually taking place in the Gudbranson thread, you probably would of seen an article where he says the injury had been an issue since late October. Of course, yada yada 5 seasons prior yada yada, but we have yet to really see him play to his skill level here yet and I guess since Sbiza has less to complain about in his game now, Gudbranson is the next target this year. 

 

In reality, this team needs BOTH Gudbranson and Tryamkin. I do not know why it would be a question of who to keep or to question if we still need Gudbranson, if Tryamkin is playing better. We need more jam in our game. Bertuzzi, and to a slightly lesser extent Kesler, made the era of Swedish hockey tolerable. With no one really bringing the push up front, this team needs players like Gudbranson and Tryamkin. I am looking forward to both of them taking another step in their game next year. 

 

What people don't understand is that he had better possession metrics than his entire last season in this season alone. Objectively-speaking, his game was comparable to what it's always been.

 

But "analyticzzzzz," as how Phillip calls it, don't count here just because. 

 

4 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Agreed. Why settle for one, when you can have both?

Because this isn't NHL 16, we can't just "keep them all." If Tryamkin improves, he'll demand a higher salary, as he should. Gudbranson is an RFA at season's end and probably won't take a 3.5 mill contract that would take him through his peak. We either sign him to a bridge contract or pay up. This is without taking into account the other 5 defenders we already have on the team, most of which, imo, are better defenders than Gud. 

 

Before you say that Benning will negotiate Gud's new contract to a respectable sum, when has Benning ever impressed us with contract negotiations? 

 

[guntrix]

1 hour ago, SilentSam said:

Analytics are the reason EG was let go.. seems to be something your using here, even with Gudbranson being out for almost an entire season.

He's young, and yet to prime.

His motivation will be peaked next season,. A season where this team, and our new core of youth will be pushing to do the same.

Analytics hold no paitience,. 

They have expectations, an expiry date..  and a garbage can.

This is why Nik wasn't given a serious look in our draft system,. Even though he appeared in person to both live draft year events he was entered in.

This board blames his spotty defensive play on his injury.. this is why analytics is useful, because tells you that he was actually playing similar as he always does.

 

When he keeps on playing the same next season, this board will either keep blaming the injury or find some other thing to excuse him with. Such is life on here. It happened with Jake, it'll happen with Gud. 

[HomeBrew]

13 minutes ago, guntrix said:

This board blames his spotty defensive play on his injury.. this is why analytics is useful, because tells you that he was actually playing similar as he always does.

 

When he keeps on playing the same next season, this board will either keep blaming the injury or find some other thing to excuse him with. Such is life on here. It happened with Jake, it'll happen with Gud. 

Is it possible that you provide a comparison of these analytics? Between Tryamkin this year, Gudbranson's last 3 years and Sbiza's last 3 years? I don't disregard analytics but I do think a player can improve as they mature just as Sbiza has evidently done from his first 2 years here. Just because Gudbranson may not be a sound player at the moment does not mean he won't become a sound player - given that he is still relatively young. If Gudbranson can become as defensively sound as Sbiza has been this year (for the most part), then I don't really see a problem with keeping that type of player around. I agree with you that he has not played that well thus far, not many on the team has, and I hope he does not command a significant pay raise. I do think we need players like Gudbranson on the team though, and it might be easier to develop a defensively sound leader like Gudbranson than try to trade for one straight up. Granted, if we are forced to make a choice because of cap reasons, then of course we keep the best player. 

[PhillipBlunt]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, guntrix said:

Lol, apologetics galore. It doesn't matter how big Gud is; it doesn't matter how intimidating he is; it doesn't matter how good of a leader he is; it doesn't matter how supportive he is; it doesn't matter how good he is at clearing the crease, etc. if he's mediocre at playing the actual sport.

If you don't think that leadership matters in the sport, you truly have zero clue. I get it, you can only understand measurable metrics as you feel it gives you an airtight, ironclad argument if you have numbers to back up your claims.

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, guntrix said:

I'm sure Luongo appreciated the smaller, weaker, less of a a leader that was Mitchell for being a better defender.

Luongo appreciates anyone who makes his job of stopping pucks easier. Both Gudbranson and Mitchell formed a great pairing according to him. I'll take the word of the seasoned NHL goaltender over a calculator jockey any day of the week.

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, guntrix said:

 Amazing, isn't jt? Gudbranson is statistically bad at preventing goals, and always has been. Just because he clears the crease doesn't mean he's half good at his job.

Cherry picking certain stats makes your argument stronger how?

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, guntrix said:

But alas, I understand statistics don't fly here when they don't prove your point. How can one be objective in analyzing a player's performance if we ignore certain metrics when they're not convenient to us?

Stats and analytics are used here quite often. Maybe you're sore about your bitter and cantankerous views being not readily accepted here as much as they are on your blogs for Canucks Army. Your hypocrisy is laughable considering that all you're willing to consider are analytics.

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, guntrix said:

How can one be objective by choosing to see certain things and ignore others? This reminds me of when the Panthers' fan base and media weren't that high on Gudbranson but this board chose to only listen to Mitchell's comments on how good a player he was, as if it was surprising to see a teammate talk well about his fellow defensive partner. 

A huge swath of the Panthers fanbase were pissed about the trade. In fact, the only portion of the hockey world that viewed it negatively was the analytics crowd. You see...generally hockey fans will take the word of an actual player who plays the sport and knows what it actually takes to succeed in the NHL, over the usually self-righteous and rigid analytics peanut gallery who are so absolutely overcome by the need to be taken seriously, that they can't accept that there were methods used to measure player performance before John Chakya and Thomas Drance came along.

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, guntrix said:

What people don't understand is that he had better possession metrics than his entire last season in this season alone. Objectively-speaking, his game was comparable to what it's always been.

What people don't understand.....and you're here to teach them.....right.

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, guntrix said:

 

But "analyticzzzzz," as how Phillip calls it, don't count here just because. 

Analyticzzzzz is a very common phrase here, and it was penned by a poster who uses analytics in their arguments, but not as the sole metric. Tag me with it, if it makes you feel better, tiny Drancer.

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, guntrix said:

Because this isn't NHL 16, we can't just "keep them all." If Tryamkin improves, he'll demand a higher salary, as he should. Gudbranson is an RFA at season's end and probably won't take a 3.5 mill contract that would take him through his peak. We either sign him to a bridge contract or pay up. This is without taking into account the other 5 defenders we already have on the team, most of which, imo, are better defenders than Gud.

Ah the good old NHL 16 reference, for when you completely lack any kind of creativity whatsoever, riding a cliché into the sunset is ample.

 

Tryamkin will improve as will other defenders. And Gudbranson will too. He isn't some aging vet, or have the possession metrics so distorted your mind that you can't wrap your head around the fact that Gudbranson is younger than half the d-corps? Nah, you'd rather consign him to being a substandard defender because he has six seasons under his belt at the ripe age of 24. Hutton is also 24, but you give him a pass because he's relatively new to the league. Your rigid analytics world view probably doesn't take into account that players can grow their game in their 20's, and that defensemen actually peak later.

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:43 PM, guntrix said:

Before you say that Benning will negotiate Gud's new contract to a respectable sum, when has Benning ever impressed us with contract negotiations? 

Before you assume things to further your feeble argument, maybe you should just admit that your anti-Benning bias is the real engine behind your toothless diatribe. Maybe you Drance, Yost, and the rest can console each other by measuring how many tears of rage you spill talking about how much better of a job you could do as a GM, and how the Canucks should have realized what they had in Chayka.

[guntrix]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

If you don't think that leadership matters in the sport, you truly have zero clue. I get it, you can only understand measurable metrics as you feel it gives you an airtight, ironclad argument if you have numbers to back up your claims.

Luongo appreciates anyone who makes his job of stopping pucks easier. Both Gudbranson and Mitchell formed a great pairing according to him. I'll take the word of the seasoned NHL goaltender over a calculator jockey any day of the week.

 

I never said leadership didn't matter in the sport, you should probably read it better. I said it didn't matter if you were "mediocre at playing the actual sport." It doesn't matter if you have the leadership abilities of a young John F. Kennedy... if you're not a good player, you're simply not a good player.

 

What was Luongo going to say? "Oh thank god that guy is out of Florida, I absolutely despised him protecting the net"? Sometimes I feel like you like to think in the most simplistic terms possible to shield yourself from reality. The stats are there and they don't lie, no matter how much you want to shy away from objective analysis.

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Cherry picking certain stats makes your argument stronger how?

Stats and analytics are used here quite often. Maybe you're sore about your bitter and cantankerous views being not readily accepted here as much as they are on your blogs for Canucks Army. Your hypocrisy is laughable considering that all you're willing to consider are analytics.

 

What's funny is that the stats aren't cherry picked. You can go through them yourself and see that most are fairly underwhelming for an apparent top four D (not like you'll even bother considering your total disdain for facts). Again, intangibles are nice and all but they won't go far if the player is mediocre at actually playing hockey. This is what you don't understand about the distinction between Gudbranson and Chara. Both have leadership traits but only one of them actually plays like a top four D. 

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

A huge swath of the Panthers fanbase were pissed about the trade. In fact, the only portion of the hockey world that viewed it negatively was the analytics crowd. You see...generally hockey fans will take the word of an actual player who plays the sport and knows what it actually takes to succeed in the NHL, over the usually self-righteous and rigid analytics peanut gallery who are so absolutely overcome by the need to be taken seriously, that they can't accept that there were methods used to measure player performance before John Chakya and Thomas Drance came along.

What people don't understand.....and you're here to teach them.....right.

I must have missed this "huge swath of the Panthers fanbase." Most forums were quite content with the return. Again, you can shield yourself from the truth using fiction or you can face reality. Mitchell would naturally have good things to say about a teammate. Your insistence on looking at the world in a black and white manner to appease your homerism is what's alarming. 

 

No one's teaching anyone. I'm using the only piece of material that will allow someone to be objective and you're using... well... testimonials, "intangibles," and completely delusional comparisons.

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Analyticzzzzz is a very common phrase here, and it was penned by a poster who uses analytics in their arguments, but not as the sole metric. Tag me with it, if it makes you feel better, tiny Drancer.

My god, I've hit a nerve haven't I. Lmao.

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Ah the good old NHL 16 reference, for when you completely lack any kind of creativity whatsoever, riding a cliché into the sunset is ample.

 

Tryamkin will improve as will other defenders. And Gudbranson will too. He isn't some aging vet, or have the possession metrics so distorted your mind that you can't wrap your head around the fact that Gudbranson is younger than half the d-corps? Nah, you'd rather consign him to being a substandard defender because he has six seasons under his belt at the ripe age of 24. Hutton is also 24, but you give him a pass because he's relatively new to the league. Your rigid analytics world view probably doesn't take into account that players can grow their game in their 20's, and that defensemen actually peak later.

Thank you for COMPLETELY deflecting from the original point. How will you keep them all in 2-3 seasons time? Will you run for NHL commissioner in order to change the rules? Please say hi to Bettman if you do. Phillip, reality says hi.

 

As for Gudbranson, his underlying stats show little noticeable improvement that may dictate rapid ascension into a solid top 4 D (I know, you refuse to look at those). And as I've stated before, Hutton's already massively surpassed Gudbranson's best offensive season in one go while maintaining solid defensive numbers. I can repeat that later on again if you want.

 

And Hutton is currently 23 going on 24. Gudbranson is 25.

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Before you assume things to further your feeble argument, maybe you should just admit that your anti-Benning bias is the real engine behind your toothless diatribe. Maybe you Drance, Yost, and the rest can console each other by measuring how many tears of rage you spill talking about how much better of a job you could do as a GM, and how the Canucks should have realized what they had in Chayka.

Ah, the toothless "why don't you be the GM" insult. As if critiquing a move and a player were a total taboo in the world of sports. Give me a break. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by guntrix

[ShakyWalton]

arguments aside..the kid had a hell of a game last night..I was impressed...he is going to be our top D soon.

[canuckistani]

On 1/17/2017 at 9:47 AM, SilentSam said:

 

 

*Edit, i cant get rid of the above quote tag, so not directed t SilentSam*

 

Can we restrict Gudbranson talk to his thread and not Tryamkin ?

This whole 'analytics vs eye test' talk has been done to death.  Some people will consider stats to be all-encompassing, no-matter what and some people will keep pointing out that stats are limited view, which doesn't take every intangible in account. Both are right , which is why it is rare to see an actual mathematician/statistician get bent out of shape in this discussion.

 

[PhillipBlunt]

15 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

 

 

*Edit, i cant get rid of the above quote tag, so not directed t SilentSam*

 

Can we restrict Gudbranson talk to his thread and not Tryamkin ?

This whole 'analytics vs eye test' talk has been done to death.  Some people will consider stats to be all-encompassing, no-matter what and some people will keep pointing out that stats are limited view, which doesn't take every intangible in account. Both are right , which is why it is rare to see an actual mathematician/statistician get bent out of shape in this discussion.

 

Sounds good to me.

[Boudrias]

How many Florida draftees have been thrown into that meat grinder over the years. Gudbranson is similar to Sbisa as they both broke in at 18 and had some crash course learning to do. If Benning and Linden saw enough to want Guddy then I am willing to wait more than 35 games to pass judgement.

 

[Hairy Kneel]

What an epic battle between Try and Broewer tonight. Imagine that over a playoff series. In a series I'd put Gud in for Stecher. And go with size against Calgary's big forwards.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Hairy Kneel