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

In to deep now?


danjr

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Aircool said:

 

It's not about whether you care or not. It's that you kept on restating opinion as if it was evidence or fact. And when opinions don't mesh with reality, why would anyone give them any credence? We definitely aren't built to win a cup that's 100% sure, but I'd further argue we aren't built to make the playoffs.

 

While I agree that CDC reactions are predictable and reactionary, I have been saying since the first couple games that this team was going to be unsuccessful. Even though we started out strong 3-0, our goal totals in those games were horrendous, and we were playing the chumpiest of teams. So CDC was being super reactionary saying that our team was going to play defense all the way to the playoffs, and I was saying, "if you take out our OT winners, our goal totals are pathetic against some of the worst teams in the league." Or something to that effect. I think there is being reactionary, and then there is just having an accurate depiction of the situation. Just because my negativity coincides with a losing streak, does not make me reactionary, it just seems that way since this is your first time hearing me voice this opinion. If it even seems that way to you at all, you didn't specifically accuse me of that.

 

This team won't start scoring, that's a point I was going to make earlier, but chose not to due to the length of my post, how often do the Sedins have multipoint games in their old age? There are no 4-point games coming from them this season, alright... maybe 1. They aren't a line that can explode and destroy a team anymore. And as I've said multiple times, our goal-scoring depth is so atrocious, that the team won't produce huge either. We might just marginally improve to producing like 2.25 goals per game on average for the rest of the season, but we aren't going to bring the season average up to any level of respectability. I would probably consider it a miracle if Loui Erikson scores 20 goals this year, I have my doubts given our offensive style.

 

Bold #1.

Bold#2.

See Bold#1.

 

                                         regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Tystick said:

I respect your argument, though I was never seeking to debate with you ::DOkay let's wait and see what happens, shall we?

 

Just curious, what would you prefer the Canucks do at this time?

 

I mean what can the Canucks do? There aren't any dramatic moves they can make to improve their scoring that don't mortgage the future. I've been wanting a rebuild for years now like many people. I don't think there is any way to compete with this team, so they shouldn't try. But I mean, we don't have many moveable assets, and those that we do have we've recently acquired and would hurt our reputation by moving. I wouldn't be opposed to moving Tanev, Edler, Virtanen, Hansen in the right deals. We have a lot of mediocre depth, who can fill in while this team rebuilds, so it couldn't really make the team any worse than it currently is in that way. Virtanen would have to get a substantial return though, and I don't think presently anyone would pay that. He's probably at the present time worth less than the draft pick we selected him with, that might well change in the future though. So the timing isn't great. 

 

I think we need to be acquiring young players, or premium assets to acquire high draft choices at the draft. These things are expensive, but I don't think trading McCann and a 2nd for Gudbranson, for example, will give help you in attempting to acquire high draft choices. I think it only hurts. That being said, just for clarity I did want McCann to be moved, I even said I thought he'd be moved at the draft in February (I think it was February... Might have been earlier). Just personally didn't like the return. 

 

25 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

 Not saying that the team will get better (maybe they will), or will remain troubled (perhaps they will). You criticize Ty for optimism and confidence for improvement without supporting evidence. Fine, but you take a small sample size, and from this you prognosticate an entire season? From what are you basing that the status quo will remain? Arbitrary opinion?

                                                        regards,  G.

 

I think it's okay to be optimistic, but when you say things like,

 

"Considering half of our team isn't scoring at the moment, we're definitely capable of more. "

"Well to be fair Eriksson eventually will be good for 60ish points a season. Baertschi should finish the year with 30+ points. Horvat with 40, perhaps 50. If Virtanen gets going I could see him ending with 30 points."

 

You have to consider the opposite of such opinions as well. Like, are we capable of more? Or is this team just that offensively anemic. I mean every team is "CAPABLE" of producing more, there is no upper bound on how much you can produce, but if your personel, or your system is deficient, then they are deficient... I see no indication that on a team that is as anemic as ours that Eriksson can score 60 pts, not without other players drawing the defensive attention away from him. He might have better hopes off the Sedins line to be honest, as he'll get matched up against less, but now he's playing with mediocre offensive players at that point, so it's a balance. 

 

The sample size is indeed small, but when the entire sample shows a trend, and that trend is your expectation, then the extreme likelihood is that while you may have some outliers the trend will remain. We're going to have one of the worst (if not the worst) offensive seasons in franchise history. Perhaps even NHL history. That's an extreme likelihood at this point, if not a foregone conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aircool said:

 

I mean what can the Canucks do? There aren't any dramatic moves they can make to improve their scoring, that don't mortgage the future. I've been wanting a rebuild for years now like many people. I don't think there is any way to compete with this team, so they shouldn't try. But I mean, we don't have many moveable assets, and those that we do have we've recently acquired and would hurt our reputation by moving. I wouldn't be opposed to moving Tanev, Edler, Virtanen, Hansen in the right deals. We have a lot of mediocre depth, who can fill in while this team rebuilds, so it couldn't really make the team any worse than it currently is in that way. Virtanen would have to get a substantial return though, and I don't think presently anyone would pay that. He's probably at the present time worth less than the draft pick we selected him with, that might well change in the future though. So the timing isn't great. 

 

I think we need to be acquiring young players, or premium assets to acquire high draft choices at the draft. These things are expensive, but I don't think trading McCann and a 2nd for Gudbranson, for example, will give help you in attempting to acquire high draft choices. I think it only hurts. That being said, just for clarity I did want McCann to be moved, I even said I thought he'd be moved at the draft in February (I think it was February... Might have been earlier). Just personally didn't like the return. 

 

 

I think it's okay to be optimistic, but when you say things like,

 

"Considering half of our team isn't scoring at the moment, we're definitely capable of more. "

"Well to be fair Eriksson eventually will be good for 60ish points a season. Baertschi should finish the year with 30+ points. Horvat with 40, perhaps 50. If Virtanen gets going I could see him ending with 30 points."

 

You have to consider the opposite of such opinions as well. Like, are we capable of more? Or is this team just that offensively anemic. I mean every team is "CAPABLE" of producing more, there is no upper bound on how much you can produce, but if your personal, or your system is deficient, then they are deficient... I see no indication that on a team that is as anemic as ours that Eriksson can score 60 pts, not without other players drawing the defensive attention away from him. He might have better hopes off the Sedins line to be honest, as he'll get matched up against less, but now he's playing with mediocre offensive players at that point, so it's a balance. 

 

The sample size is indeed small, but when the entire sample shows a trend, and that trend is your expectation, then the extreme likelihood is that while you may have some outliers the trend will remain. We're going to have one of the worst (if not the worst) offensive seasons in franchise history. Perhaps even NHL history. That's an extreme likelihood at this point, if not a foregone conclusion.

 

Could be. So if our sample size was the first 4 - 5 games (yes, there was some luck and good breaks in there) then we'd be doing really rosy.

 

                                                                   regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

 

Could be. So if our sample size was the first 4 - 5 games (yes, there was some luck and good breaks in there) then we'd be doing really rosy.

 

                                                                   regards,  G.

 

No not at all. I completely disagree. I made this exact same point I'm making now 3 games into the season. When at that point we were 3-0. With a grand total of 7 goals in the games, two of which were overtime winners. I said then, and I stand by it now, we were playing bad teams (okay St. Louis isn't bad.), and we couldn't score. 7 goals in 3 games is bad, and is not sustainable for winning. Take out the OT winners and adjust for them in a more reasonable manner and it's far worse than 2.33 goals per game, because how many OT winners are you going to have in a season? Not 28% of your total goals, that's for sure. It's more like 5 goals in 3 games, which is 1.67 goals per game, and then add at most 10 OT winners on the end. Something like 145 goals at that pace, which is actually better than our current pace, including the OT winners. Our goal scoring has been pathetic the ENTIRE season, not just during the losing streak. And I was making the same points now during the winning streak that I'm making now during the losing streak.

 

The trend is consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tystick said:

Honestly, I don't think anyone seen this coming.

I didn't think we would be bottom of the barrel and we're definitely capable of more.

We just need to start scoring. Guys like Eriksson, Sutter, Baertschi, Virtanen, even Burrows need to start scoring if we're going to win games.

 

We can't expect to win games if we're solely relying on the Sedin's and Hansen.

2000+ posts on CDC and you don't know pretty much the whole hockey media and almost all the knowledgeable hockey fans saw this coming?

 

You should always read more posts than you write. Perhaps 10 to 1 ratio should be a starting goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Aircool said:

 

No not at all. I completely disagree. I made this exact same point I'm making now 3 games into the season. When at that point we were 3-0. With a grand total of 7 goals in the games, two of which were overtime winners. I said then, and I stand by it now, we were playing bad teams (okay St. Louis isn't bad.), and we couldn't score. 7 goals in 3 games is bad, and is not sustainable for winning. Take out the OT winners and adjust for them in a more reasonable manner and it's far worse than 2.33 goals per game, because how many OT winners are you going to have in a season? Not 28% of your total goals, that's for sure. It's more like 5 goals in 3 games, which is 1.67 goals per game, and then add at most 10 OT winners on the end. Something like 145 goals at that pace, which is actually better than our current pace, including the OT winners. Our goal scoring has been pathetic the ENTIRE season, not just during the losing streak. And I was making the same points now during the winning streak that I'm making now during the losing streak.

 

The trend is consistent.

 

On a very small sample. Hopefully the win versus the Rangers hasn't screwed things up for you.  :)

 

                                                  regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gollumpus said:

 

On a very small sample. Hopefully the win versus the Rangers hasn't screwed things up for you.  :)

 

                                                  regards,  G.

 

1/6th of the season is a small sample? I think it's 1/6th of the season. It's fairly large. 1 game is a small sample. Regardless, It's great that they won, and 5 goals (4 with an empty netter.) is definitely an anomaly. No team in the league averages 5 goals, and the Canucks certainly won't for the rest of the season. But I sense the underlying troll in your posts, and I appreciate it thoroughly. I'm still pretty concerned about Eriksson though, while he scored that was just all the Sedins work, with tired Rangers on the ice. Like, the Sedins do that kind of thing with or without him. We need to find a way to get him scoring more independently. I think he is obviously capable of doing that, but he should probably do that on a different line. 

 

There is a part of me who thought our goals were of supremely low-quality and flukey nature (outside of the Eriksson goal). I mean how often does Henrik shoot? Haha. Bad defense by the Rangers to not have a man back either. And I also can't help but wonder how badly we'd have gotten shutdown by Henrik Lundqvist. I mean, I think it says something if they thought they didn't need their #1 against us. Still, can't deny a result, it happened. But I still suspect the validity of it in a way, and the reason I bother suspecting it, is because I don't believe this is going to impact what this team is offensively, and that is a extremely poor offensive team.

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...