coastal1 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 11 hours ago, YEGCanuck said: I just decided t's time to play Grenier and Pedan. We are not winning with the guys we have so why not give these prospects a chance to strut their stuff in the show. Either that or send them to the farm for some game action. We are going nowhere fast. Interesting perspective on coaching decisions: "We are not winning with the guys we have so why not give these prospects a chance to strut their stuff in the show." Maybe you have not realized that these two rookies have had a chance to strut their stuff in the show. Maybe you do not realize that the Canucks are trying to win every game and get into the playoffs. Maybe you have not realized that Canucks management is trying to ice its best line up every game. If the reason you play someone is because you are not winning with the current players, what does that say about your ability to assess talent. I much prefer the current situation where JB and WD work together to ice the best line up possible every night instead of treating NHL games as a try out. Yes maybe, maybe, the team wins with Grenier and Pedan in the line up but right now the braintrust of the Canucks believe that they are MORE likely to win with other players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 10 hours ago, SuperReverb2 said: I would scratch Burrows and put Virtanen on left wing. I mean really. What have we got to loose? If you want to tank and hopefully pick up Austin Mathews then by all means put Virtanen in ahead of Burrows. When I watch the games or hear it on the radio it seems to me that Burrows is much more valuable to the team than Virtanen is at this point in time. Burrows has the experience, and while he might not be producing as everyone hopes he can, he is still not hurting the team. Let's not forget that if it wasn't for his assist and shootout winner, The Canucks would have lost to Aneheim. Against Kesler and Bieksa. He shows up when it counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positive Canuck Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 As much as I'm disgusted night in and night out watching Higgins/Weber/Burrows/Vrbata waste minutes i try and look forward to the fruit they will bear. Draftists light up with great excitement everytime they hop the boards. It's not pretty, but its necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, EdgarM said: What happened to making room for players on the roster who earn it? Make these veterans worried about keeping their jobs and give the rookies something to strive for. I think we can afford to sit Higgins/Weber a few games and replace them with basically ANYONE from Utica. In a just world, Gaunce would already have Higgins' job in his back pocket by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positive Canuck Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 8 minutes ago, EdgarM said: What happened to making room for players on the roster who earn it? Make these veterans worried about keeping their jobs and give the rookies something to strive for. I think we can afford to sit Higgins/Weber a few games and replace them with basically ANYONE from Utica. Playing Higgins and Weber while Pedan and Grenier grow mould reeks of #SoftTank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 34 minutes ago, J.R. said: The real problem here. Weber isn't going anywhere with our lack of right D depth. We so ridiculously, badly need a top 4 right side D it's not even funny. Getting one also puts Weber back in his rightful 6/7 slot where I can almost guarantee all the hate he gets nearly vanishes as he'll no longer be playing too many minutes, against better opponents and generally over his head. The right side depth is woefully inadequate, I agree. Does Pedan have the ability to play on his offhand? If so, that could be an option. As well, Luke Schenn is still available, and would be an upgrade on Weber. I don't think that Weber is even justifiable in a 6/7 position. He's a horrible defenseman. His imitation of a Zamboni last night behind Markstrom's net proves his uselessness. The guy is lost, and unlike Edler and others who have been thrust into positions above their ability (although I think Edler has all the tools, and just refuses to use them) Weber just isn't very good. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 35 minutes ago, Jack Fig said: Blunt, not just dumping Weber into the pressbox, but go one step further....re-sign Biega. I see he's a UFA after this year; I'd offer him a 2-year, 1-way deal for $1.25/year and I bet you Biega would jump all over it. You've got a solid, third-pair guy locked-up and Weber would be back in Lucerne or Zurich. Or even better, Edmonton or Calgary. Biega has the heart, willingness, and grit that Weber lacks. He needs to stay. He's proven his worth ten times over, while Weber has proven how much of an absolute liability he is. The sooner Benning can make moves to shore up the gaping hole on the right side of the defense, the sooner Weber can be gotten rid of. Edmonton please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Biega has the heart, willingness, and grit that Weber lacks. He needs to stay. He's proven his worth ten times over, while Weber has proven how much of an absolute liability he is. The sooner Benning can make moves to shore up the gaping hole on the right side of the defense, the sooner Weber can be gotten rid of. Edmonton please! Biega has defensive fundamentals Weber could only dream of. And even when he's physically overmatched, he still has the moxy to keep himself between the forward and the net. Weber...I've never seen a guy get turned around as easily as he does...and he routinely turns the wrong way. Opens up a path to the net for some forward every time. Enough is enough. Sbisa is due back soon, that should send Weber to the pressbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 53 minutes ago, Jack Fig said: Biega has defensive fundamentals Weber could only dream of. And even when he's physically overmatched, he still has the moxy to keep himself between the forward and the net. Weber...I've never seen a guy get turned around as easily as he does...and he routinely turns the wrong way. Opens up a path to the net for some forward every time. Enough is enough. Sbisa is due back soon, that should send Weber to the pressbox. You put it perfectly, and I don't just say that because I respect the hell out of you either. Biega understands what his job is. He's fearless and competent. Weber is incompetent and easily threatened. He lacks even the most fundamental understanding of his role and it's costing the Canucks games. Watching games and seeing the looks on the other Canucks faces when Weber screws up is a clear indication of how useless he truly is. He needs to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 9 hours ago, Fan since 82 said: Yes Burrows is good enough for the bottom 6 definitely, but unfortunately not for what he's being paid. Shame really because he IS a heart and soul player, but just looks like he's lost his scoring touch. Man I love your avatar....I remember screaming with laughter....great moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gino#29 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 i'm not watching this sh7t anymore.the entire league,from the refs to the front office to the duechebags that report on it sucks the high holy hard one.i'm not wasting another night watching clowns like higgens and weber either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 12 hours ago, SuperReverb2 said: I would scratch Burrows and put Virtanen on left wing. I mean really. What have we got to loose? A gold medal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleboy Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 There is limits as to how many young players you want to keep. I would love to see a team full of young players but the team wants them surrounded by vets. There is more then "playing" involved in their development. If you have noticed sometimes they bring up players to just to have them travel and practice with the team. Benning says they will not try and lose (tank) but the teams approach is clearly more about developing then making the playoffs. I hope they keep Jake hear and continue on with his development. I am very impressed with the teams overall approach to the rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 15 minutes ago, appleboy said: There is limits as to how many young players you want to keep. I would love to see a team full of young players but the team wants them surrounded by vets. There is more then "playing" involved in their development. If you have noticed sometimes they bring up players to just to have them travel and practice with the team. Benning says they will not try and lose (tank) but the teams approach is clearly more about developing then making the playoffs. I hope they keep Jake hear and continue on with his development. I am very impressed with the teams overall approach to the rebuild. The approach to the rebuild is a very deliberate and measured one that I think will be successful. I'm really excited to see what kind of deals Benning gets up to from here to FA day on the 1st of July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Positive Canuck said: As much as I'm disgusted night in and night out watching Higgins/Weber/Burrows/Vrbata waste minutes i try and look forward to the fruit they will bear. Draftists light up with great excitement everytime they hop the boards. It's not pretty, but its necessary. It is NOT necessary to be bad to become good. Not only is losing not necessary, it rarely leads to success. When was LA, LA of 2 Stanley cups, really bad, when were the Rangers really bad? Being really bad only proves one thing, that the team is mismanaged. It does not guarantee anything because mismanagement rarely leads to success. Failure typically leads to failure. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 12 hours ago, Provost said: Well if you take into account we have played more games, we are currently sitting at 4th worst record in the league. With how terrible the Pacific is, it is entirely conceivable that 2 point at the end of the season will mean the difference between making the playoffs or getting a top 5 lottery pick.... that is crazy. It is doubtful we are making the playoffs so it will be interesting to see if we are far enough out of it to become sellers at the deadline, and if any of our players can manage to look good enough to warrant a return from another team. (that isn't tanking by the way... it is just asset management when your season has already been lost) Just to add to the point, right now the Canucks are tied for 3rd in the Pacific Division -- tied for the last Divisional playoff spot, although they would lose on the tiebreaker (ROW). A win last night would have put them in 2nd place in the Division. And a win tomorrow (at home against a mediocre Carolina team) would put them back in playoff position. However, speaking of tie-breakers, their 12 regulation and OT wins puts them last in the Western Conference and 2nd to last in the entire NHL. With 40 games played the Canucks are getting traditional wins (regulation or OT) less than a third of the time. They are hanging in the playoff race with loser points, a few shootout wins, and by virtue of being in the weakest Division. In the playoffs the opponents are the better teams and there are no shootouts and no loser points in the playoffs. The implications for the playoffs look ugly if the Canucks do make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, JamesB said: The implications for the playoffs look ugly if the Canucks do make it. The term 'summarily dismissed' comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positive Canuck Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 20 minutes ago, coastal1 said: It is NOT necessary to be bad to become good. Not only is losing not necessary, it rarely leads to success. When was LA, LA of 2 Stanley cups, really bad, when were the Rangers really bad? Being really bad only proves one thing, that the team is mismanaged. It does not guarantee anything because mismanagement rarely leads to success. Failure typically leads to failure. Period. we need a top 3 draft pick asap, sedins almost done. feel free to think that not replacing the twins with elite talent will get us to the promised land but i disagree. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 46 minutes ago, Positive Canuck said: we need a top 3 draft pick asap, sedins almost done. feel free to think that not replacing the twins with elite talent will get us to the promised land but i disagree. cheers. yes, we need a top 3 draft pick like Naslund, like Bertuzzi, like Bure, like Morrisson, like Jovanoski.... So many great Canucks players were NOT top 3 picks by the Canucks. In fact, almost none were. But yes, the twins were, and that means that it is now essential?? So yes, I diasgree with you that the way to future success has to go through total failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positive Canuck Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 10 minutes ago, coastal1 said: yes, we need a top 3 draft pick like Naslund, like Bertuzzi, like Bure, like Morrisson, like Jovanoski.... So many great Canucks players were NOT top 3 picks by the Canucks. In fact, almost none were. But yes, the twins were, and that means that it is now essential?? So yes, I diasgree with you that the way to future success has to go through total failure. no cups crew, I'm talking cups, all I'm interested in. Toews was a #3 Kane the next year was #1 Doughty a #2 We need that. We've got McDavid up our ass here in no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.