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

What's happening with this team? The new core is learning to win by themselves


*Buzzsaw*

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, kloubek said:

I personally like this new core.   Yes,  I realize we haven't scored a lot,  and yes,  I realize our talent doesn't appear to largely be of the top end variety.  

 

I believe our d looks very good now,  and even better in the future.   

 

I feel our goaltending will continue to be strong... Perhaps excellent, depending on what happens with Demko.

 

I believe we have a strong forward core as well,  with lots of energy and potential on our bottom nine. 

 

The main issue I see , as mentioned from the start,  is the likely lack of first line talent,  or overall high end talent in our top six.  Let's face it...  We are really more a 2a,  2a,  3, 4 line team right now.   Once the Sedins retire,  we will be even worse.   We will rely too heavily on all our potential top six players hitting their potential,  and the odds of that are heavily against us. 

 

Still,  I feel the same way I did with our direction a year ago.   More depth,  better players overall,  and now a solid d.   And like a year ago,  I still don't know where Benning plans to get that top line from. 

Boeser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hearditall said:

5-3-1 in last 9.

Tryamkin Stetcher developing beautifully.

Horvat developing into a #1 centre.

Baer, Granlund, Eriksson coming along very nicely.

 

That F&!@#!N Willie D.

It's all his fault all right...:wacko:

we can agree to disagree with that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, *Buzzsaw* said:

Boeser.

 

So we have ONE guy in our system who MIGHT end up good enough for our #1 line?

 

Here comes the cup.

 

The fact is, even if all our guys hit their projected ceilings (which is unlikely) we end up with high end bottom 9, but are still lacking a good 1st line.  Without it, we will be hard pressed to be contenders.

 

This is why I figured Benning had to be SUPER high on Juolevi. Our d was already looking decent, so to not address our forward lines was a surprise to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-11-24 at 11:31 PM, FijianCanuck said:

If the canucks can put together a 5 game win streak and continue to get points from anyone not a Sedin then I'll be on your page. Beating the last place team twice doesn't change a thing. 

I think it's pretty different seeing Horvat lead the team in scoring after 22 games 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kloubek said:

 

So we have ONE guy in our system who MIGHT end up good enough for our #1 line?

 

Here comes the cup.

 

The fact is, even if all our guys hit their projected ceilings (which is unlikely) we end up with high end bottom 9, but are still lacking a good 1st line.  Without it, we will be hard pressed to be contenders.

 

This is why I figured Benning had to be SUPER high on Juolevi. Our d was already looking decent, so to not address our forward lines was a surprise to me. 

 

Goalie and D take longer to develop. Build from the net out. 

 

We're also not going to stop drafting, trading or signing guys out of college etc. It's not as though what we have now is what we'll be stuck with. 

 

Those high end, forwards tend to take less time to make the NHL. They're usually ready closer to 2 years (sometimes less) after being drafted. It makes sense to pick them closer to the middle/end of your rebuild. We're right on schedule IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kloubek said:

 

So we have ONE guy in our system who MIGHT end up good enough for our #1 line?

 

Here comes the cup.

 

The fact is, even if all our guys hit their projected ceilings (which is unlikely) we end up with high end bottom 9, but are still lacking a good 1st line.  Without it, we will be hard pressed to be contenders.

 

This is why I figured Benning had to be SUPER high on Juolevi. Our d was already looking decent, so to not address our forward lines was a surprise to me. 

 

D can be traded for forwards you know. And we do have some depth at D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

 

D can be traded for forwards you know. And we do have some depth at D.

 

Considering how injury prone we are on D the last thing we want to do is trade the depth we have that allows us to still compete instead of completely collapsing. We finally have a D core that can handle injuries to top D-men and still compete. Let's not dismantle something we've desperately needed for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

You forgot about Virtanen & McCann :rolleyes:

Yeah right.   At this rate, I'm not even confident Virtanen will crack the top six.  Good top nine ceiling perhaps? 

 

As for previous comments:  Drafting,  sure.   Unlikely to get a good enough pick for a likely top 3 player.   And even if we lucked out,  he won't be ready for that role for years. 

 

Mattrek said my thoughts regarding trading away any d that could get a return.   Perhaps in 2-3 years we can afford to give up a player like Tanev (or more likely Edler),  but the landscape and contract statuses will be quite different by then anyway,  so hard to predict anything that much in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mattrek said:

 

Considering how injury prone we are on D the last thing we want to do is trade the depth we have that allows us to still compete instead of completely collapsing. We finally have a D core that can handle injuries to top D-men and still compete. Let's not dismantle something we've desperately needed for years.

 

I didn't say today did I? There's more depth coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, J.R. said:

 

Goalie and D take longer to develop. Build from the net out. 

 

We're also not going to stop drafting, trading or signing guys out of college etc. It's not as though what we have now is what we'll be stuck with. 

 

Those high end, forwards tend to take less time to make the NHL. They're usually ready closer to 2 years (sometimes less) after being drafted. It makes sense to pick them closer to the middle/end of your rebuild. We're right on schedule IMO. 

Exactly look at the oilers they kept drafting forwards neglected the D n goalie positions n look how long it took for them to rebuild(mind you they're still In the process) they traded a league wide respected top 5 winger for a Tanev type player traded a but load for goalie all because they kept taking the yakupovs n ganer types instead of how they Really needed to start a rebuild which is from the defence/goaltending out. Well said J.R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, kloubek said:

 

So we have ONE guy in our system who MIGHT end up good enough for our #1 line?

 

Here comes the cup.

 

The fact is, even if all our guys hit their projected ceilings (which is unlikely) we end up with high end bottom 9, but are still lacking a good 1st line.  Without it, we will be hard pressed to be contenders.

 

This is why I figured Benning had to be SUPER high on Juolevi. Our d was already looking decent, so to not address our forward lines was a surprise to me. 

 

I agree, that was my thinking too. Mind you if we had got an even break in the lottery we would I'm sure picked a forward. There is always this year, and I don't buy into this year's draft being a weak one. I'm sure there are gems to be had if the right person does the assessing. That's where I think we are lucky with JB.

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...