Lack of hitting one of our BIGGEST problems

[carlsjunior]

On 11/26/2015, 10:06:14, Stormriders said:

For a long time now I have tracked the Canucks and hits per game, always feeling the Canucks do not play physical enough.  To me to be successful, you need the right balance of skill, speed, and physicality.  Since we peaked in 2011, our overall skill level has diminished, but at the same time, so has our physicality.  Simply put, we are not a tough enough team to play against, and here I am not referring to fighting but rather making other teams less willing to play against us because of the price they will have to pay to make plays.  The Canucks have trailed number of hit stats for years.  I look at that each and every game, and I think it is an indicator of how soft a team we are to play against.  There are very few games you will see where we are close in the hit department.   Here are some stats to support my opinion:

 

 

 

In hits per game, for the current season, we are 28th at 17.2 vs a league high of  36.4.  2015 we are  27th in hits at 19.2 vs a league high of 32.7.  2014 we were 21st at 20.9 vs. a league high of 31.8.  See the trend?

 

 

 

Year to date our highest hitter is Jake at 53, which ranks 40^th in the league.  Some surprises when you look at other individuals are Prust at only 12 [yes he was injured but that is only 1 hit pg], Sutter at 10 and Tanev at 6.

 

Until we start making other teams pay the price to compete against us, or, until we become an elite skilled team [not in the near future based on our roster and prospects], we will be a mediocre team that will never contend for a cup.

 

agreed! hitting is a problem when we don't have prust and dorsett...our biggest problem is face offs! zone time!

[Positive Canuck]

one forward and zero defencemen that throw a regular meaningful body check.

its officially a joke that after 5 years we are still here complaining about it.

 

[Yukoncanuck87]

Benning is drafting big bodied players that stick up for them selfs n others, and can score n hit. along with small speedy skaters that can cycle pass/ score.

the problem is we all want to win now but reality is we are in transition from the old core to the new one. A lot of the prospects in Utica n chl are physical big n fast that'll be taking over in the future. Sometimes the ride doesn't go as smooth as you'd like but you still get there in the end.

All we need is just a little "PATIENTS" 

[Madwolf]

3 hours ago, Positive Canuck said:

one forward and zero defencemen that throw a regular meaningful body check.

its officially a joke that after 5 years we are still here complaining about it.

 

Don't forget about Sbisa! He's the one guy on defense that can ring a bell or two.

[elvis15]

14 hours ago, riffraff said:

My post was in response to you oversimplifying and discounting ferlands impact.

and I'm sure jb sees the importance of gaining size and speed based on his dealings to date.

not being a jerk but your post is full of woulda couldas and More than likely we would lose that series again with our current roster.

anaheim has physicality throughout the lineup from lines 1-4.  We certainly do not.  

In in defence our physicality starts with sbisa and ends there.

Maybe we would have, particularly since we may have overachieved last year and are maybe more reflective of our current talent level this year, but that still doesn't mean that improving our transition game wouldn't have at least reduced Ferlund's effectiveness. He wasn't particularly effective outside of the forecheck and us not being able to move the puck - or score when we did get chances - really made that series harder than it needed to be.

13 hours ago, The Lock said:

He kind of said all 3 things actually. I even looked at a few interviews over the summer before replying to this. Over the course of the summer he acknowledged that we need to improve in all 3 categories.

He's certainly touched on all of them, but after the season he acknowledged we were getting beat with speed too often and added that to his existing trend of looking to improve on our size.

13 hours ago, Stormriders said:

Wow, really elvis?  It was because Sestito was overly physical, and not because the refs decided to be unfair and penalize one player 9 minutes and the other NOTHING.  Not an extra 2 or even 5, but nothing on the other side of 9 minutes to one player?  How many times have you see that?  At least be objective instead of trying to defend your position.  I clearly remember when it happened and everyone on here, and yes we can be a bit bias, could not believe the call and the penalties.  Maybe you didn't see the game.

12 - 10 - 3 is indeed above 500, but not by a lot, and hardly a landslide or total dominance.  And last time I checked, the cumulative total in a series does not really mean that much, since results are per game.  Check the scores of each game and see if I am right, because each game stands alone.  If one game you win 7 - 1, and the next you lose 2 - 1, it's still 1 - 1, not 8 - 3.

Your quote that '. . . if hitting was the be all and end all you're proposing', is not remotely accurate.  I clearly said at the start of this post 'To me to be successful, you need the right balance of skill, speed, and physicality. 

And BTW, hitting in 2011 was not a bonus, it was an integral part of the whole, and that's my point.  I never said hitting was the most important, just part of what is important.  And right now we could use a little more.

Again, even if the penalties were unfair, or if being close to 500 doesn't count, or total hits don't matter, or you're trying to blend things together but give hitting a more important role, you haven't demonstrated anything that supports your theory that our hits per game is the difference in us doing better in the win column. I've even said multiple times that the quality of hits is important (i.e. hitting to gain possession, not just hits to intimidate) and that takeaways alone can be more effective to a team's outcome than hitting itself but you keep ignoring that and the other factors that play significant parts in our results.

[duc_evo]

Ronald, Bo misses u.

[oldnews]

5 hours ago, Positive Canuck said:

one forward and zero defencemen that throw a regular meaningful body check.

its officially a joke that after 5 years we are still here complaining about it.

 

ironic, username is.

[spook007]

Just now, oldnews said:

ironic, username is.

Was thinking exact same thing... 

 

[Positive Canuck]

3 hours ago, Madwolf said:

Don't forget about Sbisa! He's the one guy on defense that can ring a bell or two.

ya but its once every 5 games. after peluso tuned him he might be done. but ya he's our only D with any beef at all on our D, thats shameful.

[Stormriders]

4 hours ago, elvis15 said:

Again, even if the penalties were unfair, or if being close to 500 doesn't count, or total hits don't matter, or you're trying to blend things together but give hitting a more important role, you haven't demonstrated anything that supports your theory that our hits per game is the difference in us doing better in the win column. I've even said multiple times that the quality of hits is important (i.e. hitting to gain possession, not just hits to intimidate) and that takeaways alone can be more effective to a team's outcome than hitting itself but you keep ignoring that and the other factors that play significant parts in our results.

I bet your wife and friends complains that you will never admit you are wrong, and, always have to have the last word.  Elvis, read my words.  I just responded to you quoting my original post, which again says 'To me to be successful, you need the right balance of skill, speed, and physicality. '  I have since added, in a post before this one of yours 'I agree entirely that it is not all about hitting and my post was never intended to imply that.  As I originally said, hitting is only part of the equation, but a very important component.'

So lets be very clear and finish your ignoring what I say.  I think hitting is one of several things that are important for a team to be successful in the NHL, meaning, there are several [many] other things that are important.  But in this thread, which is only talking about hitting, I was merely pointing out that imho, I felt the Canucks might be more successful if they hit more. You can argue with what 'hit' means all you like, but I also was clear in an earlier response that I don't want them running around trying to hit for hitting sake.

I for one would like the other team to have some concern that as they handle the puck or try and retrieve the puck that they might get hit and they might hear some steps and mishandle the puck.  We give others too much of a free ride.  You are entitle to not agree with all of this, but give it a rest.

[Positive Canuck]

Hitting causes turnovers which create scoring chances and possession.

Hitting makes opposing D make Sbisa-like pizza deliverys.

Hitting is very important and we need to get some guys in that cherish it. all we have is Virtanen and he's healthy scratched half the time for Sven Muffin.

[Canuck Surfer]

33 minutes ago, Positive Canuck said:

ya but its once every 5 games. after peluso tuned him he might be done. but ya he's our only D with any beef at all on our D, thats shameful.

He did not get beat up that bad? 

[elvis15]

39 minutes ago, Stormriders said:

I bet your wife and friends complains that you will never admit you are wrong, and, always have to have the last word.  Elvis, read my words.  I just responded to you quoting my original post, which again says 'To me to be successful, you need the right balance of skill, speed, and physicality. '  I have since added, in a post before this one of yours 'I agree entirely that it is not all about hitting and my post was never intended to imply that.  As I originally said, hitting is only part of the equation, but a very important component.'

So lets be very clear and finish your ignoring what I say.  I think hitting is one of several things that are important for a team to be successful in the NHL, meaning, there are several [many] other things that are important.  But in this thread, which is only talking about hitting, I was merely pointing out that imho, I felt the Canucks might be more successful if they hit more. You can argue with what 'hit' means all you like, but I also was clear in an earlier response that I don't want them running around trying to hit for hitting sake.

I for one would like the other team to have some concern that as they handle the puck or try and retrieve the puck that they might get hit and they might hear some steps and mishandle the puck.  We give others too much of a free ride.  You are entitle to not agree with all of this, but give it a rest.

Speaking of ignoring, your still missing my point. I did read your posts and that you've said those things, but you still haven't shown anything to say the hitting we are doing isn't quality already or how increasing hitting in general will make us more effective.

Let's leave it nice and short like that so you don't get confused and try and respond about how you've said other things are important too when you aren't addressing the part about hitting still that makes it useful or a waste of time chasing opponents.

[hearditall]

21 hours ago, elvis15 said:

When those guys start running around chasing hits, you move the puck and skate around them. That's how you combat teams with size, and especially when they're throwing guys like Ferlund and Peluso at you who aren't going to be effective outside of hitting.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Ferklund was arguably the most effective player in that whole series...So a big physical player like him can be very very effective.

[hearditall]

2 hours ago, elvis15 said:

Speaking of ignoring, your still missing my point. I did read your posts and that you've said those things, but you still haven't shown anything to say the hitting we are doing isn't quality already or how increasing hitting in general will make us more effective.

Let's leave it nice and short like that so you don't get confused and try and respond about how you've said other things are important too when you aren't addressing the part about hitting still that makes it useful or a waste of time chasing opponents.

Obviously U never played HOCKEY at a COMPETITIVE LEVEL.... Cause if U did U would know exactly how important every team has a physical presence on their teams. 

In the PLAYOFFS where the Refs put there whistles away & playing a team isn't a game it's a SERIES WAR. That is when it's CLEAR that you need that presence 100% to be successful... Not so much REGULAR Season But PLAYOFFS, It's a MUST.

And don't throw me the Blackhawk's. Look at the whole overall history of Stanley Cup Winners seeing you're a stats guy...

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, hearditall said:

Obviously U never played HOCKEY at a COMPETITIVE LEVEL.... Cause if U did U would know exactly how important every team has a physical presence on their teams. 

In the PLAYOFFS where the Refs put there whistles away & playing a team isn't a game it's a SERIES WAR. That is when it's CLEAR that you need that presence 100% to be successful... Not so much REGULAR Season But PLAYOFFS, It's a MUST.

And don't throw me the Blackhawk's. Look at the whole overall history of Stanley Cup Winners seeing you're a stats guy...

Keep posting, because I'm liking!

[elvis15]

You know your point is weak when you have to randomly capitalize words. How effective was Ferklund in the following series? How effective has he been since? Our ineffectiveness to move the puck doesn't equal his effectiveness.

Intimidation alone is not a reason to run around throwing hits. Since you're bringing up the history, how about you tell us why hitting was effective for "the whole overall history of Stanley Cup Winners" instead of missing my point completely just like the OP has done.

I'd take a whole team of Datsyuks - one of the best players ever at stripping the puck - over a whole team of Ferklunds or Lucics or whoever throwing random hits but not gaining possession. But cool, you enjoy that.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, elvis15 said:

You know your point is weak when you have to randomly capitalize words. How effective was Ferklund in the following series? How effective has he been since? Our ineffectiveness to move the puck doesn't equal his effectiveness.

Intimidation alone is not a reason to run around throwing hits. Since you're bringing up the history, how about you tell us why hitting was effective for "the whole overall history of Stanley Cup Winners" instead of missing my point completely just like the OP has done.

I'd take a whole team of Datsyuks - one of the best players ever at stripping the puck - over a whole team of Ferklunds or Lucics or whoever throwing random hits but not gaining possession. But cool, you enjoy that.

Surprisingly, Datsyuk can lay a mean body check.  Many of the top players can, when they choose to.  Datsyuk is extremely strong on and off the puck.  He's a great player, no doubt.  I bet, if called upon, he could fight too.  Before him, I really like Peter Foresberg. He too was a super stron player - on and off the puck.  Maybe we are confusing big hits, intimidating play, and fighting with strong on and off the puck play?  IMO the very best players are strong on and off the puck, and can lay big checks, take big hits, and fight too. You are all way too young, but that's how Gordie played.  He was Datsyuk and Lucic combined.  I think Datsyuk could play any game the other team wants to, much like Mr. Hockey.

[elvis15]

I know I'm not, but I think a few people are - at least in that they think I'm saying no to all bodychecking. Hits that separate a player from the puck and allow the team to gain possession are useful. Hits that go after a guy once the puck is already gone or don't allow the team to get the puck are very much for show.

[Canucks Prophet]

9 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

I know I'm not, but I think a few people are - at least in that they think I'm saying no to all bodychecking. Hits that separate a player from the puck and allow the team to gain possession are useful. Hits that go after a guy once the puck is already gone or don't allow the team to get the puck are very much for show.

Big and mean hitters have been the bane of the Canucks on several playoff occasions:

Byfuglien with Chicago (fingers crossed we can grab him in offseason)

Lucic with Boston

Brown with the Kings

 

For me, the Identity of the Canucks should be a good blend of skill, strength, and defence. A prime example would be the West Coast Express, arguably one of the best lines in Canucks history.