Quarter Mark of the Season

[falcon45ca]

On November 17, 2015 at 12:54:48 AM, DeNiro said:

The story so far is the points that got away.

A bit more push back and execution, and we would likely be in a much better position.

Exactly.

[ABNuck]

Sadly, this is about what I expected. My viewpoint here is not going to be a popular one (and I expect to get flamed!) but here it goes: What did we expect when playing so many rookies? This is what the fans asked for, and it's how the "new" leadership (TL + JB) responded to what the fans were telling them they wanted. Well folks, despite all my protests in the past, you got the youth movement that you wanted. And this is the result.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...I would trade every pick we have at the draft for established NHL players...players who have proven that they can both play AND endure at the NHL level. I like our rookies very much...but let someone else develop them for the future and we'll pick them up when they're 20+ yrs old. Or if we insist on keeping our picks, let them develop before bringing them up. I wish they would change the CBA to allow 18 year olds to play in the AHL...they would develop much faster.

I already know that you're going to respond with "it's the veterans that are letting us down, not our rooks", to which all I can respond is "look who's leading the team". Now, I don't expect our Rookies to lead the team, but when you get to the third period and have to really pull it out, you either need the rookies to step up and play in some seriously pressure packed situations (to which they aren't ready) or you shorten your bench a bit. What happens when you shorten the bench? Your vets get tired, and it leads to blown 3rd period leads and OT losses. Am I right? Well, all you need to do is look at each of our losses this year for proof.

Any 18/19/20 year old is going to be physically immature when put head to head with a full grown man...and this is a big boy league. Last year against the Flames was everyone's proof that we needed to go younger. Totally different situation. That was a short series, not a long NHL season. We are in it for the long haul this season, and veteran NHL players are what will win...not 30+ year old vets, but players in their prime 23-28 years old.

Ideally the bulk of your team is in their mid 20's. Sprinkle in some 28-32 year olds and a couple 21-24 yr olds and you've got a team set in their prime (the right players of course, not just "any" player). Note that most of the stats leaders in the NHL so far this season are 23-26 years old.

We have never had so many rookies in our lineup, and few NHL teams actually have this many either. Over the long haul of this season it will come back to bite us (I hope I'm wrong). But what are we to do? We were put in this position due to lousy high dollar NTC contracts. So we're forced to either play a number of players on ELC's or go out and sign a bunch of plugs at 500K each. I like the route management has chosen, but I hate the fact that we are forced into this position by the previous management.

The silver lining? Our rookies get to develop into NHL players in a few years under the guidance of some fine veterans, something that other rookies/teams don't get the opportunity to do (cough *Oilers* cough). So the benefits will come in a couple seasons. Just be prepared Canuck fans to suffer a bit in the mean time.

And on a sidenote...why is the word "Canuck" considered to be a spelling mistake when used on the Canuck fan site? Can't it be added to the default dictionary? Just a suggestion.

[HC20.0]

4 hours ago, ABNuck said:

Sadly, this is about what I expected. My viewpoint here is not going to be a popular one (and I expect to get flamed!) but here it goes: What did we expect when playing so many rookies? This is what the fans asked for, and it's how the "new" leadership (TL + JB) responded to what the fans were telling them they wanted. Well folks, despite all my protests in the past, you got the youth movement that you wanted. And this is the result.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...I would trade every pick we have at the draft for established NHL players...players who have proven that they can both play AND endure at the NHL level. I like our rookies very much...but let someone else develop them for the future and we'll pick them up when they're 20+ yrs old. Or if we insist on keeping our picks, let them develop before bringing them up. I wish they would change the CBA to allow 18 year olds to play in the AHL...they would develop much faster.

I already know that you're going to respond with "it's the veterans that are letting us down, not our rooks", to which all I can respond is "look who's leading the team". Now, I don't expect our Rookies to lead the team, but when you get to the third period and have to really pull it out, you either need the rookies to step up and play in some seriously pressure packed situations (to which they aren't ready) or you shorten your bench a bit. What happens when you shorten the bench? Your vets get tired, and it leads to blown 3rd period leads and OT losses. Am I right? Well, all you need to do is look at each of our losses this year for proof.

Any 18/19/20 year old is going to be physically immature when put head to head with a full grown man...and this is a big boy league. Last year against the Flames was everyone's proof that we needed to go younger. Totally different situation. That was a short series, not a long NHL season. We are in it for the long haul this season, and veteran NHL players are what will win...not 30+ year old vets, but players in their prime 23-28 years old.

Ideally the bulk of your team is in their mid 20's. Sprinkle in some 28-32 year olds and a couple 21-24 yr olds and you've got a team set in their prime (the right players of course, not just "any" player). Note that most of the stats leaders in the NHL so far this season are 23-26 years old.

We have never had so many rookies in our lineup, and few NHL teams actually have this many either. Over the long haul of this season it will come back to bite us (I hope I'm wrong). But what are we to do? We were put in this position due to lousy high dollar NTC contracts. So we're forced to either play a number of players on ELC's or go out and sign a bunch of plugs at 500K each. I like the route management has chosen, but I hate the fact that we are forced into this position by the previous management.

The silver lining? Our rookies get to develop into NHL players in a few years under the guidance of some fine veterans, something that other rookies/teams don't get the opportunity to do (cough *Oilers* cough). So the benefits will come in a couple seasons. Just be prepared Canuck fans to suffer a bit in the mean time.

And on a sidenote...why is the word "Canuck" considered to be a spelling mistake when used on the Canuck fan site? Can't it be added to the default dictionary? Just a suggestion.

Mike Gillis really screwed over the Canucks badly. He did a lot of good, but his terrible drafting and mortgaging the farm is what put us here. This year shouldn't have been the start of the youth movement, it should have been in 2012 or 2013 when we starting bringing up prospects. His 2013 draft was fantastic, but it was too little too late, we had nobody to step up and replace stale vets. He really set the Canucks back years with his bumbles, and this is the result. Linden and Benning are doing the best job possible in cleaning up after Gillis, but unfortunately, because this is really the first year of the youth movement which has been needed for years, this is going to be a rough year full of growing pains. I am okay with it though. It was long overdue.

[ABNuck]

2 hours ago, HC20.0 said:

Mike Gillis really screwed over the Canucks badly. He did a lot of good, but his terrible drafting and mortgaging the farm is what put us here. This year shouldn't have been the start of the youth movement, it should have been in 2012 or 2013 when we starting bringing up prospects. His 2013 draft was fantastic, but it was too little too late, we had nobody to step up and replace stale vets. He really set the Canucks back years with his bumbles, and this is the result. Linden and Benning are doing the best job possible in cleaning up after Gillis, but unfortunately, because this is really the first year of the youth movement which has been needed for years, this is going to be a rough year full of growing pains. I am okay with it though. It was long overdue.

True...it's so sad we couldn't introduce say 1 a year instead of 3 or 4 all at once. But this is the price, and the next 2 years are gonna be rough. Don't get me wrong, I love the energy and skill that the lads bring, but that only gets you the lead. Physical endurance is what will keep it...til the final buzzer (not just the end of the 2nd buzzer).