gameburn Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said: With the number of young forwards we've got, it's not surprising that our scoring is way down. Baertschi, McCann, Virtanen and Horvat are all showing enough offense to suggest that the dip is temporary, though. Then there's Boesser. But if we can crash into the top 3 on the draft board, of course we go for one of those forwards. Until recently, I have been much more concerned about our defense, but with Tryamkin and Pedan stepping up, things are looking better on that front. Undoubtedly we still need a D prospect with #1 pedigree and will take a shot at that if we pick in the 5-10 range. But I like OP's observation because it does call for a fresh look at what our organization most needs. Things will get really interesting if we end up with the #4 pick and have to choose between Tkachuk and Chychrun (or whichever of the D prospects JB rates the highest). Would they consider that a tie as far as best player goes and go with organizational need? Is JB still leaning towards D as the highest organizational priority? As of a few weeks ago he seemed to be but all bets could be off if the Coil shut us out a few more times. Yes, Benning is not going to go around airing his latest take on the organization's needs. He knows hockey and I think he knows what the team is missing... (Tryamkin and Pedan are looking pretty good and they haven't even figured the NHL game out yet.) If we pick in the top 7 you may see him pass on Chychrun in favour of a forward. Only two other teams in the league have been as bad as us in the last 10 games, so I'm thinking we sink to 26 to 28. That brings us into range of 3-5th pick. Of course with that nasty lottery system, it could be 1st to 9th lol. I'd be happy with 3rd, 4th or 5th. Laine or Puljujarvi would be preferable if not A.M. but given our present state, the less prominent players such as Dubois, McLeod and Tkachuk would all make a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 So I did a quick analysis (some projections etc.) to see how we stack up compared to where we should be: You typically need about 130 goals from your top 6 F...we will probably finish with about 105 You typically need about 55 goals from your bottom 6 F...we'll finish with about 60 You typically need about 30 goals from your D corps...we will finish with about 20 and the rest (about 10 goals a year) come from your press box and call-ups Finishes out a successful offensive campaign with about 225 goals...we'll finish with about 190 So obviously we're about 25 short at the high end and 10 from the back end. So to beat a thoroughly dead horse (nothing but crushed bones left at this point)...we need a scoring top 6 F and an offensive D-man to round out our roster. The old adage is "defense wins championships"...obviously penned by an out of work defensive lineman looking for a job. Defense simply puts your team on an equal standing with the other team...your offense still has to score to win. Nobody wins a 0-0 game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said: What about getting the content of it to paste, like an image or gif? Only seems to include the text. it works for me....maybe it depends on yer device and or browser. im using a laptop with firefox. maybe ask stealth in the feedback and bugs thread..he may know whats up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwags Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Was that team just as depressing to watch? I don't think so. That team didn't have any upcoming youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 5 hours ago, smithers joe said: people wanted more young guys playing...they said they could live with it...they got what they wanted. I wanted Hamhius gone, (and still do) and Vrbata, HIggins (just recalled), Prust, Weber, Bartkowski and could have lived with Hansen gone, for picks. We got no picks. I wanted Kassian to be a Canuck success story, not a "Can't Do It" and Oiler reclaimation story. I wanted Virtanen and McCann sent to the WJC then Junior, still want McCann sent back although I will admit Virtanen has looked better since his return. But I can handle the loses. Nice to see you put a little more thought into your response than the usual though, thumbs up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 45 minutes ago, Toni Zamboni said: it works for me....maybe it depends on yer device and or browser. im using a laptop with firefox. maybe ask stealth in the feedback and bugs thread..he may know whats up. I'm using Firefox and it formats tweets but all it ever posts is the text. Will try with IE next time, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaBamba Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 14 hours ago, Honky Cat said: As bad as it sounds ,this season is nowhere near as dreary as some of the Canuck seasons of the 80's... I can honestly say we haven't had this much up and coming talent ever. The only other time I can think of that would be comparable is the Manitoba Moose days. Those moose became our 2011 core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87Crosby Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 5 hours ago, Harvey Spector said: I think he'll wear #92 for us. Much cooler number... Or 97/98 depending on the year he is born. its 98. Mathews can wear 97 for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davathor Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 1 hour ago, ABNuck said: So I did a quick analysis (some projections etc.) to see how we stack up compared to where we should be: You typically need about 130 goals from your top 6 F...we will probably finish with about 105 You typically need about 55 goals from your bottom 6 F...we'll finish with about 60 You typically need about 30 goals from your D corps...we will finish with about 20 and the rest (about 10 goals a year) come from your press box and call-ups Finishes out a successful offensive campaign with about 225 goals...we'll finish with about 190 So obviously we're about 25 short at the high end and 10 from the back end. So to beat a thoroughly dead horse (nothing but crushed bones left at this point)...we need a scoring top 6 F and an offensive D-man to round out our roster. The old adage is "defense wins championships"...obviously penned by an out of work defensive lineman looking for a job. Defense simply puts your team on an equal standing with the other team...your offense still has to score to win. Nobody wins a 0-0 game. Problem is you only chose 1 side.. What's the average goals against top pairing D compared to our D? +/-? You used goals to argue our defence is fine, but ignored all defensive stats. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 1 hour ago, ABNuck said: The old adage is "defense wins championships"...obviously penned by an out of work defensive lineman looking for a job. Defense simply puts your team on an equal standing with the other team...your offense still has to score to win. Nobody wins a 0-0 game. I don't know if this is one of those adages to be underplayed tbh - there are scarcely any truer imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Y'know, our D has been so bad, that I didn't even notice how terrible we are in goal scoring. I don't think that's a good thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 1 hour ago, LaBamba said: I can honestly say we haven't had this much up and coming talent ever. The only other time I can think of that would be comparable is the Manitoba Moose days. Those moose became our 2011 core. Only really the 2004-2007 Moose. We haven't had this much up and coming talent in over a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintPatrick33 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 17 hours ago, OptionalPants said: I just want to point out, that previous record was set in a very different era, with a lot more goals. This really shouldn't be too surprising, we're a bad team in a low scoring era and we haven't been bad since the games were a lot higher scoring. You nailed it dawgz, league wide there is a goal shortage, I would still be way more embarrased by that Messier team, what a disgrace. At least this year we have an excuse, 9 new rookies in the lineup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 8 hours ago, Cowardrobertford said: Vey and Nylander are not elite but are quite skillfull yet you hate em Elite game breaking skill? Seriously? I don't hate them. I hate how they play so soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 6 hours ago, Davathor said: Problem is you only chose 1 side.. What's the average goals against top pairing D compared to our D? +/-? You used goals to argue our defence is fine, but ignored all defensive stats. Lol 6 hours ago, oldnews said: I don't know if this is one of those adages to be underplayed tbh - there are scarcely any truer imo. Never did I say our defense was OK. I said it doesn't matter how good our defense is, we can't score. We could have the best defense in the league, but we would lose anyways. We only allowed 2 goals last night, and we lost 2-0. Tonight we've only surrendered 1 so far, and yet again we're losing...again. So tell me again how defense wins games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, ABNuck said: Never did I say our defense was OK. I said it doesn't matter how good our defense is, we can't score. We could have the best defense in the league, but we would lose anyways. We only allowed 2 goals last night, and we lost 2-0. Tonight we've only surrendered 1 so far, and yet again we're losing...again. So tell me again how defense wins games? Actually, it wins championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, oldnews said: Actually, it wins championships. Are you purposely trying to be obtuse? You do realize that you have to win games to win championships right? You're starting to sound like someone who has never played team sports. You do get that you have to score to win right? Again, nobody wins a 0-0 game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Just now, ABNuck said: Are you purposely trying to be obtuse? You do realize that you have to win games to win championships right? You're starting to sound like someone who has never played team sports. You do get that you have to score to win right? Again, nobody wins a 0-0 game. Not sure if you're serious, but.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, oldnews said: Not sure if you're serious, but.... And guess what, they had to SCORE to win! In fact, they had to score more than the other team. Weird concept huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 So it's 1-0 right now. I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and state (with100% certainty) that we'll have to score 2 goals to win. Nope, wait, it's 2-0. I am 100% positive we'll need to score 3 to win. Maybe we can just play better defensively and win without scoring. No wait it doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.