aGENT Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 6 minutes ago, Duodenum said: I think it'd be myopic to think he's the cause of our woes, but not to think he's a part of the problem. Moreso there are multiple small holes and we're trying to figure out how to plug one of them. I feel that Gudbranson would be best suited for a 3rd pairing role with a good two-way defenseman whose strengths lie in breakouts, defensive IQ, and gap control. But again, his 'problem' is that we don't have anyone either pushing him down the lineup and/or who plays a complimentary style to play with him. That's a team problem, not a player problem. Let's fix that much more urgent and real problem and then see what we have in EG, with an appropriate partner/role, when we get there. IMO, that's going to be a solid physical, complimentary guy on a 2nd pair or (with a hopeful embarrassment of riches ahead of him) similar role on a 3rd pair. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 some insider on 690 this morning said that teams are interested in gudbranson and like what he brings. he didn’t say what teams but made that comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 8 minutes ago, aGENT said: But again, his 'problem' is that we don't have anyone either pushing him down the lineup and/or who plays a complimentary style to play with him. That's a team problem, not a player problem. Let's fix that much more urgent and real problem and then see what we have in EG, with an appropriate partner/role, when we get there. IMO, that's going to be a solid physical, complimentary guy on a 2nd pair or (with a hopeful embarrassment of riches ahead of him) similar role on a 3rd pair. I should've given my expectations earlier. I'd like Gudbranson on the 3rd pair as I think a good top 3 makes us a playoff team, a good top 4 makes us a contender with Guddy and someone else on the 3rd pairing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 minute ago, smithers joe said: some insider on 690 this morning said that teams are interested in gudbranson and like what he brings. he didn’t say what teams but made that comment. I'm sure they would be as he's a: 10 minutes ago, aGENT said: solid physical, complimentary guy on a 2nd pair or (with a hopeful embarrassment of riches ahead of him) similar role on a 3rd pair. Problem is that without something like Tryamkin coming back or someone similar, we'd be severely lacking in the elements EG brings to the team. Trade EG and your simply stuck looking for a replacement. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, smithers joe said: some insider on 690 this morning said that teams are interested in gudbranson and like what he brings. he didn’t say what teams but made that comment. I'd imagine Toronto would like to have him for the playoffs. Florida has been linked again too. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Duodenum said: I should've given my expectations earlier. I'd like Gudbranson on the 3rd pair as I think a good top 3 makes us a playoff team, a good top 4 makes us a contender with Guddy and someone else on the 3rd pairing. It all depends on how the pieces come together. If in a couple years we have something like: Hughes, Karlsson Edler, Gudbranson OJ, Stecher I'm sure not going to complain about having him on our '2nd pair' and you can't tell me that's not likely a solid contender D (assuming kids develop to be suitably dominant in those roles). My crystall ball however is a bit hazy and it's not clear how our kids develop, whether we sign Karlsson etc though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 5 minutes ago, aGENT said: whether we sign Karlsson etc though Wouldn't that be the dream. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 11 minutes ago, Duodenum said: I should've given my expectations earlier. I'd like Gudbranson on the 3rd pair as I think a good top 3 makes us a playoff team, a good top 4 makes us a contender with Guddy and someone else on the 3rd pairing. Also: 54 minutes ago, Duodenum said: A weak defensively, zero offence, big d-man. He is akin to Andrew Alberts in my opinion and not the top 4 dman we had hoped we were getting. Come on... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therodigy Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 15 minutes ago, aGENT said: But again, his 'problem' is that we don't have anyone either pushing him down the lineup and/or who plays a complimentary style to play with him. That's a team problem, not a player problem. Let's fix that much more urgent and real problem and then see what we have in EG, with an appropriate partner/role, when we get there. IMO, that's going to be a solid physical, complimentary guy on a 2nd pair or (with a hopeful embarrassment of riches ahead of him) similar role on a 3rd pair. I'm very curious to see how he would look with Q. Hughes or O. Juolevi. If a successful pairing, it leaves Edler (assuming he stays) and Tanev (assuming he stays) as our top pair, and keeps Pouliot as a 7th D. I, too, am of the belief that I'd like to see Gudbranson in a position to recreate the success he had playing with Campbell in Florida. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 6 minutes ago, aGENT said: It all depends on how the pieces come together. If in a couple years we have something like: Hughes, Karlsson Edler, Gudbranson OJ, Stecher I'm sure not going to complain about having him on our '2nd pair' and you can't tell me that's not likely a solid contender D (assuming kids develop to be suitably dominant in those roles). My crystall ball however is a bit hazy and it's not clear how our kids develop, whether we sign Karlsson etc though Edler Karlsson Hughes Guddy OJ Stecher 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, therodigy said: I'm very curious to see how he would look with Q. Hughes or O. Juolevi. If a successful pairing, it leaves Edler (assuming he stays) and Tanev (assuming he stays) as our top pair, and keeps Pouliot as a 7th D. I, too, am of the belief that I'd like to see Gudbranson in a position to recreate the success he had playing with Campbell in Florida. Like I said above...not so sure about partnering him with Hughes. He doesn't tend to mesh well with more outright offensive guys (and their talents are largely wasted playing with a defensive guy). But Juolevi and Brisebois as prospects or Edler as a current player, all have an assortment of 2 way tools that would seem to fit well with EG and IMO, would likely lead to more individual (and hence team) success for him. Due largely to (team) circumstance, Gudbranson has not particularly been well set up for success here. It would be in our best interests to remedy that sooner than later. Sadly with OJ's injury setback he's probably starting next year in Utica. Perhaps Brisebois can come in and earn a spot on EG's left that would mesh well but that begs the question of what happens with Hutton...(assuming Edler's return and Hughes making the club). Should be another interesting summer but given those ^^ realities I'll be surprised to see this issue fixed by October. So that likely means another start of the season with folks painting his performance with a rather brown coloured brush And yes, if Pouliot has a future here next year, it's likely as a more appropriate 7th D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 9 minutes ago, aGENT said: Also: Come on... What? Andrew Alberts was on our third pairing once upon a time as well. Played 44 games in 2010-11 and played 9 games in our 2011 cup run. Think he got paired with Salo when he played, a really good two way defenseman. Pretty similar scenario to what I would prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Duodenum said: What? Andrew Alberts was on our third pairing once upon a time as well. Played 44 games in 2010-11 and played 9 games in our 2011 cup run. Think he got paired with Salo when he played, a really good two way defenseman. Pretty similar scenario to what I would prefer. Alberts was a better (7-8th) D than a lot of CDC gave him credit for (AHLberts was a popular nickname IIRC) but he couldn't hold EG's jock strap. Edited January 28, 2019 by aGENT 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therodigy Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 34 minutes ago, aGENT said: Like I said above...not so sure about partnering him with Hughes. He doesn't tend to mesh well with more outright offensive guys (and their talents are largely wasted playing with a defensive guy). But Juolevi and Brisebois as prospects or Edler as a current player, all have an assortment of 2 way tools that would seem to fit well with EG and IMO, would likely lead to more individual (and hence team) success for him. Due largely to (team) circumstance, Gudbranson has not particularly been well set up for success here. It would be in our best interests to remedy that sooner than later. Sadly with OJ's injury setback he's probably starting next year in Utica. Perhaps Brisebois can come in and earn a spot on EG's left that would mesh well but that begs the question of what happens with Hutton...(assuming Edler's return and Hughes making the club). Should be another interesting summer but given those ^^ realities I'll be surprised to see this issue fixed by October. So that likely means another start of the season with folks painting his performance with a rather brown coloured brush And yes, if Pouliot has a future here next year, it's likely as a more appropriate 7th D Brisebois would be nice option as well. I would like to see that opportunity for him this year over Sautner, who would probably look better paired with Stecher IMO. I'm curious as to why we haven't seen Guddy paired with Edler more often this year. They seemed to mesh pretty well last season. Is it mainly because of Edler's proven chemistry with Tanev? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 minute ago, therodigy said: Brisebois would be nice option as well. I would like to see that opportunity for him this year over Sautner, who would probably look better paired with Stecher IMO. I'm curious as to why we haven't seen Guddy paired with Edler more often this year. They seemed to mesh pretty well last season. Is it mainly because of Edler's proven chemistry with Tanev? IMO: 3 hours ago, aGENT said: He plays well with Edler but that isn't going to lead to more offense from Edler on a team desperate for offense from the D. And Edler, being our only legit first pair capable D wouldn't be full value if forced in to a 2nd pair, defense only role that would be more at the ceiling of Gudbranson's abilities. If we had the luxury of two other top pair D, they'd likely make a hell of a second pair though (and maybe that happens in a couple years as Edler ages/gets extended). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Duodenum said: I don't really care about bloggers. Don't know who they are or what qualifications they have. But it's better than this drivel. You seem to have this need to try and put down others when they are discussing Gudbranson in the Gudbranson thread. @aGENT made some good points which I agree with. You just have this need to put down anyone who doesn't like Gudbranson. Stop complaining, it's getting old. Keep up the important work. Stop complaining? I'm not complaining, merely reacting to posts that don't offer constructive criticism. Don't like it? Leave. You provided quotes from JD Burke and then claim you don't know bloggers? You repeat what writers have posted on blog sites regarding running down Gudbranson and don't expect a backlash or response? That's unfortunate, but for every poster that wants to lay blame on Guddy without taking other facts into consideration (that both aGENT and McGill have mentioned), there are fans of the team that appreciate how he's helped strengthen the resolve within the locker room. However that type of support isn't measured in Fenwick or Corsi, so it's ignored by those who rely on quantifiable "data" to make their assertions. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smyl and Snepst Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Gudbranson wasn't brought in to put up points. He is here for defensive zone starts, penalty killing and for a deterrent or response if something like that is needed. A steady stream of offensive zone starts with Petterson would make him look immensely better but admittedly not his forte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 10 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Stop complaining? I'm not complaining, merely reacting to posts that don't offer constructive criticism. Don't like it? Leave. You provided quotes from JD Burke and then claim you don't know bloggers? You repeat what writers have posted on blog sites regarding running down Gudbranson and don't expect a backlash or response? That's unfortunate, but for every poster that wants to lay blame on Guddy without taking other facts into consideration (that both aGENT and McGill have mentioned), there are fans of the team that appreciate how he's helped strengthen the resolve within the locker room. However that type of support isn't measured in Fenwick or Corsi, so it's ignored by those who rely on quantifiable "data" to make their assertions. Agent and McGill have made proper responses. You have given one-liners. Those aren't responses, it's trolling. I very much agree that he is good for the locker room and provides toughness that's limited in our line-up. Doesn't mean I'm ignoring them when I talk about his poor defensive and offensive play. I didn't ignore Jeff Cowen's willingness to drop the gloves but could still say he was a bad player. Similar in what I think about Gudbranson. Sorry but he's weak defensively in my opinion and the negatives outweigh his positives. I back up my position with statistics, I can't include any for toughness because, as you say, there are none. I'm not here to be a cheerleader or a fanboy, I'm here as a fan of the Canucks who wants them to win a cup. Why else are we all here if not for the desire to see the Canucks win a cup. Yea I'm cynical at times, but I've been watching for a long time and our history isn't the greatest. So when I see players who weaken our chance at the cup, I'll point them out. I don't know if you remember but I was pretty anti-Bieksa his last year here and thought he shouldn't be brought back. I got similar hatred against that as well but we all know how poorly he performed in Anaheim. The same things were said then: he's tough, he's good in the room, etc. But he was a bad player at that point and the Canucks weren't gonna go anywhere with him in the top 4 so I wanted him gone. Bieksa his first few years had the toughness and the play to be effective. I haven't seen that at all from Gudbranson his entire time with Vancouver. I've been wrong about players before as well. I think that's a fair position. Disagree with me if you like but the trolling isn't appreciated, that's all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Duodenum said: Agent and McGill have made proper responses. You have given one-liners. Those aren't responses, it's trolling. I very much agree that he is good for the locker room and provides toughness that's limited in our line-up. Doesn't mean I'm ignoring them when I talk about his poor defensive and offensive play. I didn't ignore Jeff Cowen's willingness to drop the gloves but could still say he was a bad player. Similar in what I think about Gudbranson. Sorry but he's weak defensively in my opinion and the negatives outweigh his positives. I back up my position with statistics, I can't include any for toughness because, as you say, there are none. One can say whatever they want here, and one should be prepared for a response that may not quite suit their feelings. You call it trolling (out of convenience), I call it responding. That being said, Gudbranson has struggled this season with some of his assignments. I've admitted that in GDTs, with the Toronto game being a standout. I'd like to see what he can do with a more experienced partner before making a real decision on what I think of his defensive game. With Hutton and/or Pouliot, he's struggled. When he was paired with Edler last season, he was much more solid defensively. Take the game against Boston in Vancouver last season. Those two equally neutralized the Pastrnak - Bergeron - Marchand line. It was great to watch and had me excited to see those two as a pair going forward, with maybe Tanev working with Hutton. 1 hour ago, Duodenum said: I'm not here to be a cheerleader or a fanboy, I'm here as a fan of the Canucks who wants them to win a cup. Why else are we all here if not for the desire to see the Canucks win a cup. Yea I'm cynical at times, but I've been watching for a long time and our history isn't the greatest. So when I see players who weaken our chance at the cup, I'll point them out. I, too, want to see this team hoist the Cup, especially before Ottawa does, or Winnipeg does (which seems likely pretty soon), and especially before Toronto does. I think that in the playoffs, when whistles are put away and physical play increases, will be when some will see Gudbranson's real worth. 1 hour ago, Duodenum said: I don't know if you remember but I was pretty anti-Bieksa his last year here and thought he shouldn't be brought back. I got similar hatred against that as well but we all know how poorly he performed in Anaheim. The same things were said then: he's tough, he's good in the room, etc. But he was a bad player at that point and the Canucks weren't gonna go anywhere with him in the top 4 so I wanted him gone. Bieksa his first few years had the toughness and the play to be effective. I haven't seen that at all from Gudbranson his entire time with Vancouver. I've been wrong about players before as well. I don't remember that. Bieksa was great, but time did catch up with him. I'd, once again, like to see Gudbranson given a shot with Edler, before writing him off as a liability. He excelled in Florida with Campbell, as previously mentioned, as he wasn't asked to do something outside of his ability. I also think that some onus has to fall on Nolan Baumgartner for the systems he utilizes. 1 hour ago, Duodenum said: I think that's a fair position. Disagree with me if you like but the trolling isn't appreciated, that's all. Point made. I hear you. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Duodenum said: The more you respond, the clearer it becomes that you have nothing. More of the same antics. How can we question Phillip's knowledge of the game with all of these solid posts he's bestowed upon us. All talk, no substance, as per usual. Go troll somewhere else. No offence but this post reeks of antics. See your bolded and then think of your post....... Edited January 29, 2019 by Kanukfanatic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now