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

USA Today Sports - 2016-17 NHL Projections


AriGold

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, 70seven said:

LOVE being underrated.  This teams is far better than 65 points.  I dont know if theyll make the playoffs, but theyre definitely NOT that bad lol.

In theory, it only helps to be underrated at the beginning of the season because other teams will be prone to take you lightly. As long as it doesn't affect your game (or if it lights a fire under you) so much the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, coastal1 said:

Well it looks like Stecher will play ahead of Tryamkin.

Yeah but Tryamkin will get his ice time too.  My point was that we now have two ways to burn the opposition: skill with Stecher and Hutton (and eventually Juolevi) or muscle with guys like Guddy and Tryamkin (and Pedan and even Sbisa).  I don't think that Stecher is the guy to rub people out along the boards, though if he does that's a bonus and I won't be complaining.  GCG!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nux_win said:

Yeah but Tryamkin will get his ice time too.  My point was that we now have two ways to burn the opposition: skill with Stecher and Hutton (and eventually Juolevi) or muscle with guys like Guddy and Tryamkin (and Pedan and even Sbisa).  I don't think that Stecher is the guy to rub people out along the boards, though if he does that's a bonus and I won't be complaining.  GCG!

So, I agree with your thinking except for one term that you use: 2 ways to burn the opposition. The Canucks are not going to burn anyone this year. Their tough guys are slow and unskilled (Gud, Pedan, Tryamkin)  and their skilled guys are too small (Stecher).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, coastal1 said:

Their tough guys are slow and unskilled (Gud, Pedan, Tryamkin)  and their skilled guys are too small (Stecher).

 

None of those guys is slow. Gud and Pedan are actually quite quick and Tryamkin has average speed which is astounding given his size and quite made up for by his reach. Hutton is not small and Stetcher doesn't play it. Most skill guys are on the smaller side. When they're not, their names are Doughty, Subban etc and are paid like $8m+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, coastal1 said:

So, I agree with your thinking except for one term that you use: 2 ways to burn the opposition. The Canucks are not going to burn anyone this year. Their tough guys are slow and unskilled (Gud, Pedan, Tryamkin)  and their skilled guys are too small (Stecher).

I don't condone pessimism or needless negativity.  Winning starts with thinking that you can win, even against the odds.  We're going to win way more games than the "experts" predict and even if we don't we're still going to win more games if we think we will than if we think we won't.  GCG!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, coastal1 said:

So, I agree with your thinking except for one term that you use: 2 ways to burn the opposition. The Canucks are not going to burn anyone this year. Their tough guys are slow and unskilled (Gud, Pedan, Tryamkin)  and their skilled guys are too small (Stecher).

Pedan won the fastest skater competition last year, beating out Hansen...but don't let actual facts get in the way of making another banal post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

 

None of those guys is slow. Gud and Pedan are actually quite quick and Tryamkin has average speed which is astounding given his size and quite made up for by his reach. Hutton is not small and Stetcher doesn't play it. Most skill guys are on the smaller side. When they're not, their names are Doughty, Subban etc and are paid like $8m+

Yes those are the guys and we do not have one like that right now and that is one big reason why this team is going to struggle mightily this year and the next few years. Let's agree that Gud, Pedan and Tryamkin are fast, fine. But where you can't argue is that they have no skill or let's just say, no NHL skill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Reaffirming a stereotype? When I read this thread, the majority of posts are level headed, informed, and realistic.

 

However yours isn't one of them. The fact that you are actually concerned as to how other biased and negative sources view the Canucks or their fans just speaks to your sycophantic need to be accepted by a bunch of miserable bloggers.

 

 

One of the benefits of blocking serial trolls like that is you get to save your precious negative for use elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, coastal1 said:

Yes those are the guys and we do not have one like that right now and that is one big reason why this team is going to struggle mightily this year and the next few years. Let's agree that Gud, Pedan and Tryamkin are fast, fine. But where you can't argue is that they have no skill or let's just say, no NHL skill.

 

Most teams don't have a Doughty, Subban etc. There's like what 8-10 true #1 D's in the league and 30 (soon to be 31 teams). Do the math.

 

They have a ton of NHL skill :lol: Seriously, might want to cut down on the crack-sandwiches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nux_win said:

I don't condone pessimism or needless negativity.  Winning starts with thinking that you can win, even against the odds.  We're going to win way more games than the "experts" predict and even if we don't we're still going to win more games if we think we will than if we think we won't.  GCG!

There is pessimism and optimism and then there is reality. Optimism and pessimism have to be rooted in reality. The Canucks are not a good team right now. Optimistic means hoping they will do well for a bad team. Unrealistic is thinking they can challenge for a good playoff run. You compare the Canucks to the league elite, the TB, the Penguins... and you have to realize that the difference in the quality of ability is enormous. NYI are a decent team but they had zero chance against TB in last year's playoff. i say that because i watched that series and I felt bad for Tavares but those two teams should not have been in the same league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

 

Most teams don't have a Doughty, Subban etc. There's like what 8-10 true #1 D's in the league and 30 (soon to be 31 teams). Do the math.

 

They have a ton of NHL skill :lol: Seriously, might want to cut down on the crack-sandwiches.

Totally correct. And the Canucks are one of the teams without an offensive or defensive stud. Plus their supporting cast is very average. What is outrageous about saying that? And that is why this team will struggle this year and was picked by the Hockey News to finish in 30th spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, coastal1 said:

Totally correct. And the Canucks are one of the teams without an offensive or defensive stud. Plus their supporting cast is very average. What is outrageous about saying that? And that is why this team will struggle this year and was picked by the Hockey News to finish in 30th spot.

Because it's highly inaccurate and subjective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, coastal1 said:

There is pessimism and optimism and then there is reality. Optimism and pessimism have to be rooted in reality. The Canucks are not a good team right now. Optimistic means hoping they will do well for a bad team. Unrealistic is thinking they can challenge for a good playoff run. You compare the Canucks to the league elite, the TB, the Penguins... and you have to realize that the difference in the quality of ability is enormous. NYI are a decent team but they had zero chance against TB in last year's playoff. i say that because i watched that series and I felt bad for Tavares but those two teams should not have been in the same league. 

I don't condone the rationalization of pessimism by injecting the word "reality" either.  We have to want to win a lot more than that even if it isn't "realistic".  One makes ones own reality by one's attitude.  Go Canucks Go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

None of those guys is slow. Gud and Pedan are actually quite quick and Tryamkin has average speed which is astounding given his size and quite made up for by his reach. Hutton is not small and Stetcher doesn't play it. Most skill guys are on the smaller side. When they're not, their names are Doughty, Subban etc and are paid like $8m+

I was going to say something like that but you beat me to it.  Thanks for saying it for me.  GCG!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

Because it's highly inaccurate and subjective. 

What part is inacurate excatly? That the Canucks do not have a stud? Are you saying the 36 year old Sedins? Maybe Edler? That the Canucks support staff is very average? Baertschi, Sutter, Dorsett, Gudbranson... anyone of those a real solid supporting player? Like our own Seabrook, our own Malkin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nux_win said:

I don't condone the rationalization of pessimism by injecting the word "reality" either.  We have to want to win a lot more than that even if it isn't "realistic".  One makes ones own reality by one's attitude.  Go Canucks Go!

I see. So the Gudbranson that played in Florida was not the 'real' Gudbranson. The Dorsett that played last year was not the `real`Dorsett. Where is the real talent on this team beside a pair of 36 year old forwards with a pile of miles on them? The real talent is not ready yet, this is a rebuilding team. That is the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, coastal1 said:

What part is inacurate excatly? That the Canucks do not have a stud? Are you saying the 36 year old Sedins? Maybe Edler? That the Canucks support staff is very average? Baertschi, Sutter, Dorsett, Gudbranson... anyone of those a real solid supporting player? Like our own Seabrook, our own Malkin?

 

Sedins and Eriksson would qualify offensively, yup.

 

No, we don't have a #1D but with Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Gudbranson we're not lacking for quality top 4 D with a wide array of high quality skills and solid depth guys in Stetcher, Sbisa, Tryamkin etc.

 

We didn't have a #1D  in our 09-12 run of being one of the top teams in the league either FYI. We had solid depth and quality throughout the top 4.

 

Seabrook and Malkin aren't 'supporting' guys. Never mind that we're rebuilding, we're not contenders. You're comparing apples to kumquats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Reaffirming a stereotype? When I read this thread, the majority of posts are level headed, informed, and realistic.

 

However yours isn't one of them. The fact that you are actually concerned as to how other biased and negative sources view the Canucks or their fans just speaks to your sycophantic need to be accepted by a bunch of miserable bloggers.

 

The first 2 out of 3 replies to this thread disregard USA today because apparently only Canadians know anything about hockey.  I guess that's informed for CDC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, J.R. said:

 

Sedins and Eriksson would qualify offensively, yup.

 

No, we don't have a #1D but with Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Gudbranson we're not lacking for quality top 4 D with a wide array of high quality skills and solid depth guys in Stetcher, Sbisa, Tryamkin etc.

 

We didn't have a #1D  in our 09-12 run of being one of the top teams in the league either FYI. We had solid depth and quality throughout the top 4.

 

Seabrook and Malkin aren't 'supporting' guys. Never mind that we're rebuilding, we're not contenders. You're comparing apples to kumquats.

"we're rebuilding, we're not contenders. You're comparing apples to kumquats." Bang on.So please let's have expectations that make sense for a team that is rebuilding. This team is not designed to win now. The idea is to put up a good fight every game to entertain the fans while developing as many future players as possible.

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...