Erik Gudbranson | #44 | D

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Zhukini said:

My favourite is the notion that we need to give Guddy certain players to get the best out of him. 

 

He's going to be 28, he is what he is, there's only one way for him to go, and it isn't up. He shouldn't be babied by having to play with Edler, if he isn't good enough on his own, he isn't good enough period. 

 

I HOPE they don't put him anywhere near Hughes when he gets here in March. 

 

On 1/24/2019 at 2:03 PM, aGENT said:

The vast majority of NHL'ers build perfectly good careers as complimentary players to the elite few who drive their particular line/pairing. That doesn't mean they have no function. 

 

A complimentary player with a needed skill set is a perfectly useful player. They're labeled 'complimentary' for a reason. They compliment more elite skill sets and play drivers. I'm sorry that you guys have trouble grasping the concept of how teams work.

 

[Duodenum]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

They may not be added in your totals but I'm discussing the player as a whole, not cherry picked information to suit a narrative. It's part of the reason he has a role on this team. Which would seem to be the question we're really asking here, no?

 

Guddy is at 47% Ozone, and yet you compare him to Stecher (52%), Hutton (50%) and Pouliot (53%) and our two top pairing guys who nobody is declaring he should replace. Gee I wonder why the first three have 'better analytics'? Is it because they're perhaps used in roles more suited to their skills with more offensive starts in more offensive situations? Guddy's here as a secondary option to Edler/Tanev, to give them those minutes and ozone starts. This is the problem with trying to sum up players and how they fit on a team when you simply don't understand different roles our how hockey is actually played, on ice, with actual people, and not a series of numbers on a spread sheet. Never mind that analytics frankly do a piss poor job of valuing/measuring defensive play, physicality etc. And if you don't think those have a role in hockey...

 

Hutton's bounced back to be a fairly decent D this year. Doesn't mean he hasn't been an ill fit with Gudbranson. In that situation I'd say they've both been 'suspect' together as they seem to have almost no chemistry. But that doesn't make Hutton a 'bad' D any more than it does Gudbranson.

 

Pouliot (while nowhere near as bad overall as many on CDC seem to think) is indeed 'suspect', while also being one of our better D at transitioning the puck and pushing offense (more a commentary on how badly we need Quinn and OJ). Also the reason he is still in the lineup much to the chagrin of those CDC'ers and despite sometimes suspect plays that frequently tend to Markstrom digging the puck out of our net.

 

Our D's biggest problem is a lack of bonafide, primary, top 4 (and more specifically top 2) D and a somewhat poor fit/loose collection of uncomplimentary parts in depth roles. If one of Tanev or Guddy played left rather than right, they'd likely make a half decent shut down 2nd pair. That's not our reality however.

 

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).

 

Then we have...Doesn't fit with Hutton, Stecher's also a righty (and likely also an ill fit) and Pouliot's a 6/7 D, also an ill fit and sometimes suspect. This is the symptoms of a rebuilding team with a mish mas of (sub par) parts. Pretty hard for any of them to find vast success in those conditions (particularly for a defensive player) and one of many reasons we've had a poor record and players have had poor years during this period.

 

Same reason Markstrom 'wasn't a starter' until we got healthy again and had better depth this year. Same reason Edler had 'poor years' the first few years of the rebuild... etc, etc... You can't separate individual performance from the team.

 

 

 

 

The difference between 47% ozone starts and 53% is almost zero, fyi. I've been playing and watching hockey my whole life and numbers are only a recent thing. I very much know what roles are and I'm discussing how terrible Gudbranson is at his. 

 

As I've said before, after compiling all the numbers and putting them together, Gudbranson comes out looking really really bad. 

 

Edler and Tanev get 36 and 38% dzone starts, that's actual defensive work. 47% is not, in any realm. You seem to think that Gudbranson is playing these hard defensive minutes when he clearly is not. He's getting blasted by 2nd/3rd/4th liners, is given average deployment (he's up to 48.5% now) yet is getting killed out there. You don't even seem to know who is playing what role. Edler/Tanev are getting all the hard minutes right now. 

Edler and Tanev are doing fine at their job, Gudbranson is still failing at his even on the third pairing now. 

 

How am I cherry picking stats when I've been giving tons of them? You've given one and used it inappropriately. The difference in results is not explained by a difference in deployment, that much is clear. Gudbranson has 84 ozone starts, 155 neutral zone starts, 89 dzone starts, and 643 on the fly starts. Nothing there screams hard minutes. I can quite clearly see what his role was supposed to be on the team but he wasn't any good at it. What's Gudbranson's excuse if we go by your argument when he was still getting trashed in 2016-17 when he had 53% ozone starts? Same as Pouliot now, but did way worse. 

 

Playing a role is only worthwhile if you aren't bad at it. Lots of defensive dmen that got harder minutes and much better results. His are some of the worst in the league and it's not explained by anything other than poor play. 

 

[Zhukini]

Can't quote your post for some reason @aGENT

 

Yes you're correct, the problem that for the most part he hasn't been treated as a complimentary player and certainly isn't being paid like one. 

His ice time has gone down now that our defence is healthy, because our coach is competent. 

 

The problem is and always was, when he was playing north of 17 minutes a game. He makes too many mistakes and doesn't impact the game positively enough to take that much ice.If he got paid 2M a year and got 13-14 minutes a game I'd be perfectly fine with him. Management has put unnecessary pressure on him with their previous views.

[Duodenum]

17 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Once again, when someone doesn't agree with you, the petulant child act comes out. At least you're consistent in your predictability. Go stat yourself.

Hey Pot! Meet Kettle.

 

All your posts are just telling me how little I know, how dumb I am, etc etc. If you could actually discuss the topic at hand, you wouldn't come out looking like a huge hypocrite. Others are disagreeing but I have nothing against them. It's just you and your constant attempts to be cool. 

 

Do I have to quote all of your posts in this thread? It won't be hard, they're mostly one-liner pot shots at others. Grow up man. Dish it constantly but start crying the second someone says anything back. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Duodenum

[Where'd Luongo?]

23 minutes ago, aGENT said:

They may not be added in your totals but I'm discussing the player as a whole, not cherry picked information to suit a narrative. It's part of the reason he has a role on this team. Which would seem to be the question we're really asking here, no?

 

Guddy is at 47% Ozone, and yet you compare him to Stecher (52%), Hutton (50%) and Pouliot (53%) and our two top pairing guys who nobody is declaring he should replace. Gee I wonder why the first three have 'better analytics'? Is it because they're perhaps used in roles more suited to their skills with more offensive starts in more offensive situations? Guddy's here as a secondary option to Edler/Tanev, to give them those minutes and ozone starts. This is the problem with trying to sum up players and how they fit on a team when you simply don't understand different roles our how hockey is actually played, on ice, with actual people, and not a series of numbers on a spread sheet. Never mind that analytics frankly do a piss poor job of valuing/measuring defensive play, physicality etc. And if you don't think those have a role in hockey...

 

Hutton's bounced back to be a fairly decent D this year. Doesn't mean he hasn't been an ill fit with Gudbranson. In that situation I'd say they've both been 'suspect' together as they seem to have almost no chemistry. But that doesn't make Hutton a 'bad' D any more than it does Gudbranson.

 

Pouliot (while nowhere near as bad overall as many on CDC seem to think) is indeed 'suspect', while also being one of our better D at transitioning the puck and pushing offense (more a commentary on how badly we need Quinn and OJ). Also the reason he is still in the lineup much to the chagrin of those CDC'ers and despite sometimes suspect plays that frequently tend to Markstrom digging the puck out of our net.

 

Our D's biggest problem is a lack of bonafide, primary, top 4 (and more specifically top 2) D and a somewhat poor fit/loose collection of uncomplimentary parts in depth roles. If one of Tanev or Guddy played left rather than right, they'd likely make a half decent shut down 2nd pair. That's not our reality however.

 

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).

 

Then we have...Doesn't fit with Hutton, Stecher's also a righty (and likely also an ill fit) and Pouliot's a 6/7 D, also an ill fit and sometimes suspect. This is the symptoms of a rebuilding team with a mish mas of (sub par) parts. Pretty hard for any of them to find vast success in those conditions (particularly for a defensive player) and one of many reasons we've had a poor record and players have had poor years during this period.

 

Same reason Markstrom 'wasn't a starter' until we got healthy again and had better depth this year. Same reason Edler had 'poor years' the first few years of the rebuild... etc, etc... You can't separate individual performance from the team.

 

 

 

 

I get what you are trying to say here, but there should be a stat to show that Gudbranson is better in the Defensive zone then. He should be causing more turnovers from his hits, enabling more exits from the defensive zone, making breakout passes, but he isn't. It's a fact that he isn't able to do those things. He throws some hits, but not as many as he used to, and none of them are bonecrushers like he used to. He has 2 fights this year, which is his specialty (the league just doesn't fight anymore). The fastest he has skated all year was chasing down Svech after he gave him a dirty hit.

 

The whole picture doesn't paint Guddy in a gud light, he still isn't very good. He is a physical presence, he is the Sestito of D and that's it. I hope he can improve, but so far that's all he is and anyone arguing something different is ignoring the reality in front of their face.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

The difference between 47% ozone starts and 53% is almost zero, fyi.

It's actually 6. 

 

3 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

As I've said before, after compiling all the numbers and putting them together, Gudbranson comes out looking really really bad. 

Without any context, sure.

 

4 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

You don't even seem to know who is playing what role. Edler/Tanev are getting all the hard minutes right now. 

 

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

...and our two top pairing guys who nobody is declaring he should replace.

 

If one of Tanev or Guddy played left rather than right, they'd likely make a half decent shut down 2nd pair. 

 

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.

I think I'm aware of who plays what 

 

7 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

The difference in results is not explained by a difference in deployment, that much is clear.

Tilt towards secondary defensive deployment and the context of:

 

28 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Our D's biggest problem is a lack of bonafide, primary, top 4 (and more specifically top 2) D and a somewhat poor fit/loose collection of uncomplimentary parts in depth roles. If one of Tanev or Guddy played left rather than right, they'd likely make a half decent shut down 2nd pair. That's not our reality however.

 

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).

 

Then we have...Doesn't fit with Hutton, Stecher's also a righty (and likely also an ill fit) and Pouliot's a 6/7 D, also an ill fit and sometimes suspect. This is the symptoms of a rebuilding team with a mish mas of (sub par) parts. Pretty hard for any of them to find vast success in those conditions (particularly for a defensive player) and one of many reasons we've had a poor record and players have had poor years during this period.

 

Same reason Markstrom 'wasn't a starter' until we got healthy again and had better depth this year. Same reason Edler had 'poor years' the first few years of the rebuild... etc, etc... You can't separate individual performance from the team.

 

 

 

 

 

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, Zhukini said:

Yes you're correct, the problem that for the most part he hasn't been treated as a complimentary player and certainly isn't being paid like one. 

Again, symptom of being a rebuilding team lacking top end depth and a mish mash of uncomplimentary parts.

 

And welcome to 2019, he is paid as a complimentary D. Primary, top 4 D make $6-$12'ish million, generally on 6+ year terms. Is he making that much money or have that much term?

[Duodenum]

23 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It's actually 6. 

 

Without any context, sure.

 

 

I think I'm aware of who plays what 

 

Tilt towards secondary defensive deployment and the context of:

 

 

Yes, it is 6...but the effect it has on other stats is almost negligible. 

 

I've given the statistics both in context and without. You said that Gudbranson plays hard defensive minutes but he hasn't so there's a disconnect there. 

 

Furthermore, Gudbranson isn't the only one playing this role in the league (or was). He is the one who has been getting scored on at huge rates, while being a hindrance offensively, both to a higher rate than comparable defenseman. He's in the Manning/Mathieson area of results, that's really bad. Regardless, it's a subjective observation and doesn't explain why his results are so poor. The regular "expected" results of a player in his role is far better than what he is producing. We traded for a top 4 dman who is getting #7/8 results. Lots of defensive dmen around the league who are doing much better. 

 

We do have a lot of sub par parts, our disagreement is that Gudbranson is one of them. 

 

Gudbranson has 5 more dzone starts than ozone starts and that includes icings. Green is actually deploying Guddy in the offensive zone more than the defensive zone when he has the choice. 

I do thank you for actually discussing the topic at hand, it's refreshing.  

Edited January 28, 2019 by Duodenum

[PhillipBlunt]

25 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

Hey Pot! Meet Kettle.

 

All your posts are just telling me how little I know, how dumb I am, etc etc.

Where did I state that you're dumb? Please find the post, I'll wait.

25 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

 If you could actually discuss the topic at hand, you wouldn't come out looking like a huge hypocrite. Others are disagreeing but I have nothing against them. It's just you and your constant attempts to be cool. 

Trying to be cool? You think that's what this is about? Simplistic view of the situation, really. Sorry, I have zero need to have an ego stroked or appreciation. I find the dumping on this player to be one-sided and vitriolic. You're merely aping what various bloggers in the local sports media already have. I'm annoyed by analytics junkies dumping on players. Spreadsheets will never compare to actual experience playing the game, no matter how many numbers you or your ilk provide.

25 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

Do I have to quote all of your posts in this thread? It won't be hard, they're mostly one-liner pot shots at others. Grow up man. Dish it constantly but start crying the second someone says anything back. 

Again, where's the crying coming from? I'm not insulted or hurt, just amused by your apparent need to devalue a player on the team. Stop complaining, it's getting old.

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

Yes, it is 6...but the effect it has on other stats is almost negligible. 

 

I've given the statistics both in context and without. You said that Gudbranson plays hard defensive minutes but he hasn't so there's a disconnect there. 

 

Furthermore, Gudbranson isn't the only one playing this role in the league (or was). He is the one who has been getting scored on at huge rates, while being a hindrance offensively, both to a higher rate than comparable defenseman. He's in the Manning/Mathieson area of results, that's really bad. Regardless, it's a subjective observation and doesn't explain why his results are so poor. The regular "expected" results of a player in his role is far better than what he is producing. We traded for a top 4 dman who is getting #7/8 results. Lots of defensive dmen around the league who are doing much better. 

 

I do thank you for actually discussing the topic at hand, it's refreshing.  

'Almost negligible' (arguable) =/= nothing. And no, I said he plays secondary defensive minutes. As is his role. 

 

He was down at 42.8 last year BTW.

 

Are those other players, in that role, also playing on a rebuilding Canucks team assailed by injuries, with a mish mash of young, inexperienced, largely offensively tilted D partners ill suited to playing with a secondary defensive D ? #Context.

 

 

 

 

 

[Duodenum]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

'Almost negligible' (arguable) =/= nothing. And no, I said he plays secondary defensive minutes. As is his role. 

 

He was down at 42.8 last year BTW.

 

Are those other players, in that role, also playing on a rebuilding Canucks team assailed by injuries, with a mish mash of young, inexperienced, largely offensively tilted D partners ill suited to playing with a secondary defensive D ? #Context.

 

 

 

 

 

That is your opinion and I would definitely label it as fair. The Canucks have been an injured mess the last 3 years which doesn't help Gudbranson at all. 

[aGENT]

14 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

That is your opinion and I would definitely label it as fair. The Canucks have been an injured mess the last 3 years which doesn't help Gudbranson at all. 

Doesn't help any of the players at all. It's why we've been picking high in the draft. #rebuild

 

You can repeat this line of thinking of yours in numerous player threads in here. Apologies for being blunt, but it's myopic and ignorant.

 

It's largely a symptom of being a rebuilding, injured team with young, ill fitting pieces. I'm honestly flummoxed so many people seem to miss this obvious (IMO) context. It's why there's so many scape goats du jour on CDC.

 

And it particularly effects the defensive oriented players who bare the brunt of the negative statistics both by their role (they tend to have iffy advanced stats even on good, healthy, more veteran teams) and by fact that they have the added burden of sheltering youth. Add in injuries having them play over their heads and it's not a recipe for good stats any way you slice it.

 

Like I said earlier, you can't separate the player from the team. That includes it's make up, experience, health, line mates/partners, role, usage etc. I'm not arguing his stats are better than they are, I'm saying his stats are what they are because context matters.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by aGENT

[Duodenum]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Doesn't help any of the players at all. It's why we've been picking high in the draft. #rebuild

 

You can repeat this line of thinking of yours in numerous player threads in here. Apologies for being blunt, but it's myopic and ignorant.

 

It's largely a symptom of being a rebuilding, injured team with young, ill fitting pieces. I'm honestly flummoxed so many people seem to miss this obvious (IMO) context. It's why there's so many scape goats du jour on CDC.

 

And it particularly effects the defensive oriented players who bare the brunt of the negative statistics both by their role (they tend to have iffy advanced stats even on good, healthy, more veteran teams) and by fact that they have the added burden of sheltering youth. Add in injuries having them play over their heads and it's not a recipe for good stats any way you slice it.

 

Like I said earlier, you can't separate the player from the team. That includes it's make up, experience, health, line mates/partners, role, usage etc. I'm not arguing his stats are better than they are, I'm saying his stats are what they are because context matters.

 

 

I agree that the team does not help Gudbranson in the slightest. 

 

I disagree in that I don't think Gudbranson is simply a product of his surroundings but a player who is actively aiding the poor showing the Canucks have had the past 3 years. 

 

His stats and results will improve as the team improves, but I believe that improving upon Guddy is one of the best ways to make the team do better. His stats will improve, but he'll still be the same player. 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. 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Duodenum said:

How many goals a guy lets in isn't really suspect though. If you have a guy who keeps the opposition to scoring 2 goals against for every 60 minutes he's out there, he's worth a lot more than the guy who lets up 4 in the same time frame. There's other things involved: deployment, quality of your teammates and opponent, etc. But Gudbranson has shown to be consistently bad for years on end. Pouliot was chugging along just fine next to Stecher and playing 16-17 minutes per game. Once he got paired with Gudbranson, his minutes have tanked as well. 

 

I hope Green has finally seen the light and realized the Canucks have a better chance of winning if Stecher gets more minutes and Gudbranson less. I only use Corsica as an add on. I didn't even look up Gudbranson's statistics until I saw just how poorly he has played for the Canucks since he arrived. 

 

It's worth a bobble or two, but he's giving up a lot more than that. His saving grace is that he doesn't usually turn the puck over (because he rarely passes forward). So, optically, it's more difficult to see how bad he is. Just watch the next few games. See how he gives up the blue-line so easily to opposing players. Watch how they can dump the puck behind him and gain control because he pivots so slowly. That's what I noticed first before realising just how bad his numbers are. 

 

I don't know, whatever you look up for Gudbranson, he's terrible at. So we can sit and question every single metric out there or accept that maybe he's not very good. I think people just look at giveaways and think that's what makes a defenseman good or not. There's so much that goes into defense like gap control that Guddy struggles at. It's just harder for people to see. 

GA can be a little but iffy, I'd argue. How much of that was Nilsson? Goldy blowing his coverage, etc. Not to make excuses but its not all always totally on the d. 

 

I have noticed that issue you point out, and for sure thats a weakness in his game. But I've also noticed tho from time to time he stands a guy up at the line too or they give up the puck more easily. 

 

With Guddy we need to look at the positives since its so easy to look at the stat charts: 

- he has had times where he's performed like a 2nd pairing d, particularly with Elder

- he does bring an important physical element

- he does make the team play with more confidence on nights where other teams are trying to push us around.

 

For me, I'd call him a 3rd pairing defenceman who brings valuable physicality and leadership, who can play up a pairing from time to time with the right partner if there are injuries. I do think with a more mobile partner the weakness of being able to dump the puck in around him can be mitigated a lot. I've seen people want him with Hughes but I think Juolevi would be the right pairing given his hockey IQ.

 

It will be interesting to see if the new tracking technology will start to give us real data on things like gap control, until we have that I don't know how useful stats are in assessing defensive play. 

 

 

[Duodenum]

On 1/5/2019 at 11:41 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

No, but you're the only one obsessively posting about it in two threads like a jilted ex. 

 

On 1/7/2019 at 7:39 AM, PhillipBlunt said:

A valiant effort, aGENT. Analyticzzzz gonna analyticzzzz. 

 

On 1/7/2019 at 5:56 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

Cool story, bro. You read The Canuck Way, don't ya. 

 

On 1/13/2019 at 8:58 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

You're referring to your post?

 

On 1/13/2019 at 9:11 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

Whatever excuse helps your narrative.

 

On 1/15/2019 at 7:50 AM, PhillipBlunt said:

You're crazy, aGENT. Gudbranson is holding this team back, clearly. The time to trade him is now, don't ya know?

 

On 1/21/2019 at 7:37 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

Gudbranson can skate better than Schenn and is a better player. The stats crowd don't watch hockey. &^@# them. 

 

Guddy kept the puck in that led to the Boeser shot and then Petey's deflection. He gets things done. And he's one of the meanest SOBs in the league. 

 

On 1/21/2019 at 7:38 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

Exactly bree. Every single player in the league screws up from time to time. Sadly, the weasels go after Guddy because of fancy stats. Nerds. What can you do? Hahaha

 

On 1/24/2019 at 8:32 AM, PhillipBlunt said:

I didn't know you came here to rate posts. I hope you get paid for that kind of work, because if you don't, well you need to get out more.

 

On 1/24/2019 at 12:54 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

But.....aGENT, if he isn't leading the Norris competition or beating every player down who breathes near Petterson, he's a joke. C'mon man!

 

16 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Anyone who quotes that turd JD Burke can't be taken seriously. Great points, 73. 

 

16 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

JD Burke, along with other local analytics parasites seemingly have a fetish for Gudbranson. They seem determined to undermine him and smear his name.

 

It's pretty pathetic and clearly some of the posters in this thread lately, are either disciples of Burke's stats only approach, or are Burke and company themselves. 

 

13 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Well done, JD. Lace up your skates and do better. Oh right, you don't play the game or know &^@# all about it. 

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I'm not really concerned what you're here to do, and really couldn't care less how you feel about posts that don't completely comply with your narrative. You can format your text until you're blue in the face, it won't change the fact that you're obsessed with Gudbranson, and are essentially trolling pretty hard on the player.

 

Deflect all you want in attempts to make it look otherwise. Hold on to the stats/analytics that have been proven to be inaccurate when concerning defensemen. The more you talk, the clearer it is that your actual knowledge of the game is basic and skewed.

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Once again, when someone doesn't agree with you, the petulant child act comes out. At least you're consistent in your predictability. Go stat yourself.

 

23 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Where did I state that you're dumb? Please find the post, I'll wait.

Trying to be cool? You think that's what this is about? Simplistic view of the situation, really. Sorry, I have zero need to have an ego stroked or appreciation. I find the dumping on this player to be one-sided and vitriolic. You're merely aping what various bloggers in the local sports media already have. I'm annoyed by analytics junkies dumping on players. Spreadsheets will never compare to actual experience playing the game, no matter how many numbers you or your ilk provide.

Again, where's the crying coming from? I'm not insulted or hurt, just amused by your apparent need to devalue a player on the team. Stop complaining, it's getting old.

 

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.

[aGENT]

19 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

I agree that the team does not help Gudbranson in the slightest. 

 

I disagree in that I don't think Gudbranson is simply a product of his surroundings but a player who is actively aiding the poor showing the Canucks have had the past 3 years. 

 

His stats and results will improve as the team improves, but I believe that improving upon Guddy is one of the best ways to make the team do better. His stats will improve, but he'll still be the same player. 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. 

Again, the problem with our D isn't the middle or bottom (including Gudbranson):

 

On 1/6/2019 at 9:43 PM, aGENT said:

Yeah, because we have a #2 and #3 D as our top pair and two #4D as our 2nd pair. We lack top players at the top of the D group because we're a rebuilding team. The problem isn't the middle.

 

We need more top 4 and particularly, top pair D. Getting those pieces lets you either have one of our better players (Edler?) partner with Gudbranson on a 2nd pair or pushes him to a 3rd pair where he'd be 'too good' for an average team - AKA we'd be much closer to a top team. 

 

Again, it's myopic to think he's the cause of our woes. We're a rebuilding, inexperienced, off-injured, mish mash of players - team. We need top end talent.

 

It's like there's a large hole in the bottom of the boat and you guys are arguing what colour the sail should be.

Edited January 28, 2019 by aGENT

[Duodenum]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

GA can be a little but iffy, I'd argue. How much of that was Nilsson? Goldy blowing his coverage, etc. Not to make excuses but its not all always totally on the d. 

 

I have noticed that issue you point out, and for sure thats a weakness in his game. But I've also noticed tho from time to time he stands a guy up at the line too or they give up the puck more easily. 

 

With Guddy we need to look at the positives since its so easy to look at the stat charts: 

- he has had times where he's performed like a 2nd pairing d, particularly with Elder

- he does bring an important physical element

- he does make the team play with more confidence on nights where other teams are trying to push us around.

 

For me, I'd call him a 3rd pairing defenceman who brings valuable physicality and leadership, who can play up a pairing from time to time with the right partner if there are injuries. I do think with a more mobile partner the weakness of being able to dump the puck in around him can be mitigated a lot. I've seen people want him with Hughes but I think Juolevi would be the right pairing given his hockey IQ.

 

It will be interesting to see if the new tracking technology will start to give us real data on things like gap control, until we have that I don't know how useful stats are in assessing defensive play. 

 

 

I very much agree with you on Joulevi over Hughes with Gudbranson, glad we are on the same page there. 

 

He did do better with Edler for sure, Stecher also did well there. That's the great thing about Edler, he's a true top 4 (top 2) dman who can help cover for other dmen's weaknesses. I agree with his toughness wholeheartedly, just wish we had a better player (or players) to play that role, preferably up front as you don't usually want a defenseman as your main tough guy. He is a good locker room guy too, by all accounts. 

 

Yea, the new player tracking is exciting. 

[Duodenum]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Again, the problem with our D isn't the middle or bottom (including Gudbranson):

 

 

We need more top 4 and particularly, top pair D. Getting those pieces lets you either have one of our better players (Edler?) partner with Gudbranson on a 2nd pair or pushes him to a 3rd pair where he'd be 'too good' for an average team - AKA we'd be much closer to a top team. 

 

Again, it's myopic to think he's the cause of our woes. We're a rebuilding, inexperienced, off-injured, mish mash of players - team. We need top end talent.

 

It's like there's a large hole in the bottom of the boat and you guys are arguing what colour the sail should be.

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. 

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I do think with a more mobile partner the weakness of being able to dump the puck in around him can be mitigated a lot. I've seen people want him with Hughes but I think Juolevi would be the right pairing given his hockey IQ.

Tend to agree that it's likely his more 'ideal' partner is more of a 2 way D that excels at moving the puck. He doesn't tend to mesh well with more outright offensive guys (and their offensive tools are largely wasted playing in the secondary defensive role that is his wheelhouse). That's OJ's ceiling (though he does need to work on his play in his own end at the AHL/this level).

 

I'm actually curious to see how Brisebois develops. He strikes me as a bit of a (young) left handed Tanev that plays more of a transitioning defensive D role. Could be a good secondary shutdown, 3rd pairing down the line.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Tend to agree that it's likely his more 'ideal' partner is more of a 2 way D that excels at moving the puck. He doesn't tend to mesh well with more outright offensive guys (and their offensive tools are largely wasted playing in the secondary defensive role that is his wheelhouse). That's OJ's ceiling (though he does need to work on his play in his own end at the AHL/this level).

 

I'm actually curious to see how Brisebois develops. He strikes me as a bit of a (young) left handed Tanev that plays more of a transitioning defensive D role. Could be a good secondary shutdown, 3rd pairing down the line.

I'm pretty sure Guddy's best performances were with Brian Campbell - who just happens to be a smallish, but very sound partner like you're talking about. 

 

Brisebois is a bit bigger than Campbell I think but might be a guy like that, I'd have to ask the regular Uitca viewers tho.