Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Monkey See, Monkey Do?


Recommended Posts

I'd argue a lot of GM's are influenced by recent trends of winners, particularly Cup champs.

 

So assuming this 3-1 lead plays out as Pens winning 2016, how might GM's be influenced by the Pens' make-up?

 

There are a lot of interesting attributes with Pitt..decisions/directions that could have gone the opposite way.

 

Consider:

~With a relatively successful team, they still changed their youngish GM(opting for an older, more exp'd Rutherford). It seemed a head-scratcher, at that time.

 

~Also changed their coach, mid-season. Which worked for them in 2009, & teams like the Devils in yrs past.

 

~In recent trades, they seem to have eschewed size/grit, mostly in favour of skill & speed.

 

~They've aggressively recycled MANY pieces, over a short period of time.(not shy to make deals)

 

~Could their apparent depth be more attributable to solid drafting, or savvy trades?(or, combo of the two?)

 

~They decided to run with a younger, cheaper, inexperienced 'tender, whilst they had an older option on the bench(sort of like our Schneids/Lu scenario in 2011~13)

 

~Didn't deal one of their 'big-3' contracts, over this half-decade. By now, I figured one of Cros, Malkin or Letang would move on for a treasure-haul of youth.

 

~They seem to have gone successfully with a number of 'recycled' vets. Guys that may have seemed to be trending downwards, over the past coupla' yrs(Fehr, Kessel, Cullen, Bones, Daley, Hagelin, HornQ). Some of these guys have likely been considered underachieving, at various times in their careers.

 

Will any of these points mentioned, prove influential going forward? What seperated this Pens team from their rosters of recent years?

 

Lastly, will the west remain with more of a bigger player, defensive-emphasis? Or might this PO indicate a change coming, league-wide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They spread out their offence over 3 lines which makes the other team not able to shut down everyone.  Secondly they got incredibly fast and they have the players in place that are very coachable and have all really bought into their system.  Having Crosby leading the team doesn't hurt either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mpt said:

They spread out their offence over 3 lines which makes the other team not able to shut down everyone.  Secondly they got incredibly fast and they have the players in place that are very coachable and have all really bought into their system.  Having Crosby leading the team doesn't hurt either.

If speed is one of the key factors, we might be up against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, shazzam said:

Their team just came together at the right time. Look at that defense they are icing right now and tell me you would have thought they could make it to the finals. 

Can't really say they just came together at the right time, they were one of the least scored against teams in the regular season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shazzam said:

Their team just came together at the right time. Look at that defense they are icing right now and tell me you would have thought they could make it to the finals. 

Yes, & maybe further proof that some formulaic-approach(of required ingredients) is just redundant, sporting-fan hot air.

 

So was this run(& team required) envisioned over a lengthy period(say, 2~3 yrs), by Lemieux, new GM & others, or rather, simply good fortune & timing that they stumbled into?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Yes, & maybe further proof that some formulaic-approach(of required ingredients) is just redundant, sporting-fan hot air.

 

So was this run(& team required) envisioned over a lengthy period(say, 2~3 yrs), by Lemieux, new GM & others, or rather, simply good fortune & timing that they stumbled into?

 

Fortune and timing are as big a part of this streak the Pens are on. When I think about it, Murray has been lights out, imagine if they had fleury and one of his meltdowns in a series? Or how about Rust and Sheary who came out of nowhere and scored the biggest goals of their season.....Another factor is the coaching change, every game I watch they all have 5 guys back behind the faceoff dot and all four lines do this. Little trades like Hagelin for Perron have made such a difference, and instead of getting big name acquisitions (Iglinla etc) they opted for a more balanced approach to building around their studs.  

 

A lot of playoff success derives from luck and getting hot at the right time. It also helps that you have 4 elite players (Crosby, Gino, Tanger and Kessel) but its their 3rd and 4th liners that are coming up with the clutch goals (Rust with 2 in game 7 vs lightning etc). That is exactly what you need to win a Cup these days. I still cant believe they are dominating the way they are, I thought the Sharks would put up a fight but they have been handled quite easily. 

 

So much needs to go right to win the Cup, alas may the stars align for the canucks one day :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, shazzam said:

Their team just came together at the right time. Look at that defense they are icing right now and tell me you would have thought they could make it to the finals. 

I predicted them to win the cup before the playoffs started, thinking that the team's overall defensive system would be successful, not because I thought they had a great group of defensemen. Injuries have not had much of a negative effect on their defense. They were also easily able to overcome Letang's suspension in game 4 against Washington, when Maatta was injured too. Those are signs of a good defensive system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO. Stay the course. My god, this organization needs to see something through to the end. We're building a tough, hard-nosed, 2way physical team with size, skill and mobility. Believe in it, and commit to go down this path. It's the right way to build a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, meh_wassup said:

NO. Stay the course. My god, this organization needs to see something through to the end. We're building a tough, hard-nosed, 2way physical team with size, skill and mobility. Believe in it, and commit to go down this path. It's the right way to build a team.

I don't think anyone here is strongly advocating to follow the Pens model(at all costs) ! It's more a discussion of whether they'll influence coming trends(all/any GM's), or did they simply luck out with a number of factors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Time Lord said:

I predicted them to win the cup before the playoffs started, thinking that the team's overall defensive system would be successful, not because I thought they had a great group of defensemen. Injuries have not had much of a negative effect on their defense. They were also easily able to overcome Letang's suspension in game 4 against Washington, when Maatta was injured too. Those are signs of a good defensive system

 

Haha you are right, you gave me heck for stating that the sharks bottom 6 is better than the pens! Little did I know just how fast the Pens are, the sharks haven't even been in this series at all. That game 1 set the tone for the rest of the series, sharks could not handle the Pens defensive system nor their counterattack. Touche Mr Time Lord, touche :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They bought while the market was low on certain players (Kessel, Bonino, Hagelin, Daley). Allowed them to add a lot of depth pieces for a very minimal return. Certainly favours the "asset management" group, who tend to view players as interchangeable.

 

And they're still built on the shoulders of two excellent #1 overall picks. That favours the tankers.

 

Tank and manage assets is quite different than the path Benning is forging. He seems to be more about identifying certain players he wants and paying a premium to get his guys. And he certainly wasn't trying to tank, or he wouldn't have signed big UFAs, and would have made sure to trade Hamhuis at the deadline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before that there is no one single formula to winning a cup in today's NHL. With the amount of parity in the game, any team that gets in to the playoffs has a legitimate shot at winning. I guess you can say that what the recent cup winners have in common is an elite center and a bonafide #1 D, but I think more importantly getting timely contribution from unexpected sources, having a hot goalie, and lots of puck luck is crucial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, we as Canucks fans know that a 3-1 lead in the SCF series is FAR from a given. But I have a feeling that unlike Boston, the Sharks seem out of their depth (pun intended)...virtually ineffective.

 

Secondly, GM's DO NOT copy other teams models, ever. They'll point to other GM's success in doing this or that, but unless they can trade for every player on the SCF teams and grab their coaches, trainers...their entire staff, get their team the exact same opponents and circumstances, well, you get the point. There is little value in chasing after that which cannot be duplicated. Most good GM's don't build teams to "match" other team's successes, they build teams to beat them. For example this year. Had Wilson known that it was PIT he'd up against, then maybe he would've traded a few slower players for more players that can beat PIT's D with speed (chip and chase)...but then would the Sharks have beaten St. Louis and been here anyways? It's always a gamble as to who you'll face, so you just have to build your team to compete in your own division (ie/ PAC DIV seems to consist of teams with big bruising style players and tactics so you build your team to compete here, take as many points as you can out of your division and then get ready for a playoff run).

 

And lastly, as pointed out above, GM's and coaches are each one unique, different philosophies, styles, preferences etc. So you'd effectively be telling a coach to coach outside his style (hey Torts, can you lighten up a bit, focus on offense)...not likely. A GM gets a coach that most closely matches his team's style (ie/ run and gun) and who will motivate those players to play to their strengths (ie/ why the "Torts" experiment failed miserably here). Once you get the most out of each player and coach a style that it conducive to that each game (ie/ don't ask your Swedish superstars to play a defensive, hold back, conservative style), you will win. And once that style is set, the GM can go out and further enhance that style by adding a couple of complimentary pieces, and VOILA! you have a winning combination that is your own, not a copy and paste of some other team's plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mpt said:

They spread out their offence over 3 lines which makes the other team not able to shut down everyone.  Secondly they got incredibly fast and they have the players in place that are very coachable and have all really bought into their system.  Having Crosby leading the team doesn't hurt either.

I think Toronto might question how "coachable" Kessel is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...