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

I heard this comment from Ray Ferraro


Fred65

Recommended Posts

Well you deep thinkers may ridicule the question but obviously Benning spent considerable time with it before he dispatched his scouts off to look for the next big find. Benning MUST have a picture of what he is looking for and what will his finsihed product ( team roster ) look like. He doesn't just give them a wave and say some thing like tell me if you see any thing worth a look. Ferraro also thought it note worthy to bring it up. Maybe too much for the "he shoots he scores brigade" ..... I know it does need careful thought but heck surprise yourself how would you construct a roster....what sort of players is he looking for. But heck what does Ferarro and Benning know when compared with the deep thinkers on this board. Two of three yeasr from now will Vcr have the same look to it's roster of will there be a strong Benning finger print and a new direction

think it's important not to necessarily form a picture of what you're looking for, but to observe what/who is actually out there and available. Who is doing the looking is probably more important than what you are looking for. If you set your targets on a variable, you (can) miss or overlook other players / variables, and there are a lot of them - it's really the sum that matters imo. I think there are certain characteristics in general that you look for - some so obvious it's almost pointless to name them (ie size, speed, hockey intelligence, etc) - and then there is the sum of what you're looking for in the description "the type of player you win with". In the end everyone probably has certain biases/leanings - in general, I personally prefer a balanced two way game over 'upside' for example, but being too committed to an idea can get you in trouble imo. It's funny the way that people seem to arrive at formulas. There are some things that I think you generally need to heed - ie. building your team from the back forward and down the middle. But then there are trends.

Boston wins the Cup and people perceive that you need to build a big, mean hockey team in order to win.

Chicago wins the Cup - you need a fleet, skilled team that can apply pressure consistently over 200ft of ice.

L.A wins - what is LA doing? Detroit wins - what is Detroit doing?

Some teams built their contenders by remaining competitive and retooling, and knocking on the door year after year. Some teams were simply bad and stockpiled a bunch of high picks, and supplemented them. Some of the better teams have no high picks, but find top end talent regardless.

I don't think you can really identify a 'picture' of what it looks like or has to look like, but there are some things you can't really shortcut your way around - identifying talent, drafting well, developing well. You can be gifted with a boatload of high picks by virtue of being a bad hockey team, but if your franchise can't build a decent system, what are you doing with that talent? I think there are simply too many elements to oversimplify it by attempting to define a prototype or picture. Just as you develop that picture you might find that someone else has gone about things another way, and the sum is greater. It's what keeps it interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Benning did say if they came to the draft with two equal skilled players they would take a D before another forward. Personally I get the idea he favours the Boston model hence signing players like Tryamkin, Pedan, & MacKenzie, along with McCann/Virtanen forwards. He's taking a number of picks in that style and hopes one or maybe two will come through. I think he sees this team as size/toughness deficient. As Gary Valk noted today on 1040 if skill isn't doing it, you have to be able to throw grit and size at the opposition and score dirty goals.

It's long term thinking rather than short term

I think that is simply a situtational reality - or that the context of this particular team dictates that. The prospect pool at the forward and goaltending positions just look that much stronger than the future on the blueline (which is perhaps more difficult to assess, but nevertheless isn't as invested in as the other positions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At training camp he chatted with then brand sparkling new GM Jim Benning and asked where did he start. He apprently mentioned a discussion he had with the scouts regarding what will the Canuck player of the future look like.

So here's the question what sort of Canuck player do you see as a pro forma future player. ???

Bennings first 4 selection may give us a hint.

Vitanen

McCann

Demko

Tryamkin

This thread makes me so confused. Thats enough Internet for today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this regime has a Canuck model for the future.

Look at the most successful teams in the league. They have a theme to their draft selections. This is how you build and Identity and a brand. In the 1st round, sure pick the player that has the most upside. After that pick the players that fit your model.

I have used this example before. The Devils and Wings are, or were masters of this. Both teams built a brand or culture and enjoyed a great deal of success.

There are countless examples of players that can only be Red Wings or Devils and players that could not. Some would have great success as a Devil for example, and earn huge FA contracts in the summer only to completely suck out side of the organization because it wasn't the individual that made the team successful it was the brand the were part of.

Boston, LA, Anahiem, Tampa are some examples of teams starting to build an identity. Some draft heavy in the western hockey league, some draft speed, some size. Whatever.

I just think if a team has an identity they are so much easier to coach within a system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At training camp he chatted with then brand sparkling new GM Jim Benning and asked where did he start. He apprently mentioned a discussion he had with the scouts regarding what will the Canuck player of the future look like.

So here's the question what sort of Canuck player do you see as a pro forma future player. ???

Bennings first 4 selection may give us a hint.

Virtanen

McCann

Demko

Tryamkin

My two cents: he's looking for players with great physical tools that can be coached to play within a tight checking system. He's not looking for players like the Sedins, for example. They are incredibly talented players in their offensive creativity, but they are not very coachable. They have to play their own way to be successful, and this hurts the team concept. Coaches give them the most offensively productive minutes because they are wasted when they don't have the puck, and these are the players who eat up the most of your salary cap. The rest of the lineup has to eat up the harder minutes, play a different style than the team leaders, all while getting payed less with less opportunity to create the offence for which their leaders are so highly valued.

Players like Virtanen, McCann, Tryamkin, and Horvat (I think it is fair to add Horvat to this list because they seem to be giving his development priority) they all have great physical tools in their size, skating, speed, passing, and shooting. For a strong team concept, you need all your players to have those qualities in order to play within any system at a high level. They also must be role players willingly, and be disciplined enough to adhere to the system. Who they don't need to be are wizards with the puck, or think the game better than the rest of their teammates. (In fact, the only player who does need to be a wizard is your goalie, which is why I am happy he drafted Demko, despite the general feeling goalies are wasted draft picks)

Benning has said that he wants a team who can adapt stylistically to who they are playing against ("compete physically with teams like LA, and keep up with fast teams like Chicago") so it sounds like he values coaching and systems over offensive gamebreakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benning has said that he wants a team who can adapt stylistically to who they are playing against ("compete physically with teams like LA, and keep up with fast teams like Chicago") so it sounds like he values coaching and systems over offensive gamebreakers.

To be honest that's been my school of thought for years. What ever the other team throws over the boards you need to be able to match and beat. We know Boston in 2011 went to heavy hockey after they brought Shane Thornton into the line up ( when in game 3 Rome put out Nathan Horton ) and Vcr couldn't respond it was downhill from that point, that's an example of matching and bettering the opposition. This season like last season Vcr can't match the heavy teams, Benning recognizes the fact ( I'm sure this was discussed by Boston Management in 2011 ) Size may not be the same panacea today but it is none the less lacking on the Vcr roster. I wish Stestito was around in 2011 to neutralize Thornton. :lol:

Yes you need speed and skill but if that fails you need big grinders to take care of things. So IMO even Bennings skill guys are going to quote BB be rambunctious roster, they're going to be a bigger team that can handle the heavy going. The likes of

Vitanen

McCann

Demko

Tryamkin

are just the beginning and the draft in 2015 will confirm this direction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Character is the single best attribute.

Apparently Benning really does have a template for the prototypical "Canuck" in mind. His scouting staff have been instructed to keep this model in mind when they go out and scout. This is the single biggest difference in Bennings approach to scouting than what has been done in the past.

Benning has said that in general, he will select the BPA when he makes his picks. If faced with a choice of 2 who are similar, he will defer to need. In other words, this year, he would select a defenseman over a forward or goalie if he had a choice of 2 equal players.

What makes a player a BPA? What qualities? I can only guess. I expect the answer for individuals and how to build a team as a whole is more complicated that we think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is hilarious.

And I can't get enough of that follow-up response that he makes with one big blob of wall text, with plenty of run-on sentences.

5* for the comedy.

And the follow up asking if he needs to use smallers words and bigger fonts even though multiple people were confused. Ahh, thanks for the laugh tonight fred.

Early candidate for thread of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At training camp he chatted with then brand sparkling new GM Jim Benning and asked where did he start. He apprently mentioned a discussion he had with the scouts regarding what will the Canuck player of the future look like.

So here's the question what sort of Canuck player do you see as a pro forma future player. ???

Bennings first 4 selection may give us a hint.

Vitanen

McCann

Demko

Tryamkin

I'm sorry, I have no idea what this part means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benning does look for certain things in prospects, for example, he really stresses it when a prospect has a great shot.

He comes from a family of pro scouts but still gets really excited when a prospect can rip it.

When talking about a prototypical Canuck player one should realize that the attributes for a winger, goalie, or defenseman will differ.

Once all the Canucks have the attributes that JB is looking for at each position, we will see what he wants the team to look like.

So yeah, this year's picks show some of what Benning is looking for:

Virtanen - speed, physicality, shot - for the wing.

McCann - speed, shot, tenacity, leadership - for the centre.

Demko - size, speed, dexterity, vision, technique, aplomb - for the goalie.

Tryamkin - size, shot, toughness, speed, determination - for the defense.

Plus we can look at Benning's non-draft changes for hints:

Players that want to be here - i.e. no Kesler.

Players that give it their all every shift - Dorsett, Vey.

Players with speed - i.e. no Garrison.

Players who can really shoot the puck - e.g. Vrbata.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we are supposed to make inferences on his drafting rather than just listen to several Benning interviews where he clearly states in plain English that he wants more size and speed on the team?

He was interviewed when he made each pick and/or trade and made it pretty clear why he picked them up.

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...