Crabcakes Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 43 minutes ago, Boudrias said: IMO Gudbranson is a huge part of the new physicality that the Van d-core is developing. A god exercise might be watching a few of last spring's games. As a matter of course opposing teams were playing the Canucks physically. Yes, the improved FO% is making puck possession easier> There is no doubt that as a d-man having to turn into corners for puck retrieval exposes all sorts of problems and makes it easy for the forechecker to play the body. All that said Gudbranson-Sbisa-Tryamkin with Edler chipping in playing a more physical game is causing problems for opposing forwards. With Edler out there is a real opportunity for d-men like Sbisa and Tryamkin to show they might be top4 LD. Sbisa has shown that he is NOT top 4 D already. But he is a decent 5. He's 26 so what you see is what you get. The rest of what you said, I agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: Sbisa has shown that he is NOT top 4 D already. But he is a decent 5. He's 26 so what you see is what you get. The rest of what you said, I agree with. I think 26 is a bit early to suggest a dman has hit their eventual ceiling. While I agree Sbisa is a solid #5 guy, he has played pretty effectively this year so far with a few different partners. Having a #5 guy who can slide up to the top 4 when injuries demand it is a very valuable piece to have in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 19 hours ago, oldnews said: I think people are being too hard on Larsen. He and Sbisa played reasonably well enough at both ends of the ice imo. Of course, it's all relative - Stecher comes along and he's relatively disposable, but without Stecher, he was bringing some positives to the 3rd pairing imo. Larsen had a few breakdowns on coverage - but so has Stecher. Can't dwell on every little mistake any D man makes - it's a bloody hard position to play. One of the under-rated aspects of a player like Larsen is his ability to retrieve pucks before the forecheck gets in on him - he's often already turned in transition - so I think sometimes people don't look a the defensive upside of a guy like him because he gives up size and grit down low. I've been relatively satisfied with his play up to his injury - if anything the thing he could stand to improve on most might be offensive - getting his shots on net, but lots of D find it difficult to get seeing eyes through collapsing masses of players. Stecher seems to have that flair, something we haven't really had much of since Ehrhoff - say what you want about Ehrhoff, but he had a knack for taking a bit off his shot and getting it through. I agree, Larsen is a decent bottom pairing guy, good on the retrieval who is pretty good on the pp. The weakness is his down low and physical play like you say. The problem for him is that Stecher is dynamic and has the upside that the 26 year old Larsen does not. He pretty much does what Larsen does but better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Larsen is a bad signing, I didn't expect him to come to this team and get benched a few games into the season, that has got the be an awful feeling to go to a new team and sit in the press box most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattrek Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 17 hours ago, Fateless said: The team that deserves to win is the team that plays better during the game. I felt the Avs heavily outplayed the Canucks in overtime and deserved to win it. I disagree that the Canucks "deserved" to win just because they played better than expected in a back-to-back. That is like handing out participation ribbons. Saying the Avs deserved to win it in overtime ignores the prior 3 periods that resulted in overtime. Both Avalanche goals were flukey. Sutter deflected the puck in accidentally and Gigorenko batted a puck out of midair in. Our two were an Eriksson snipe and a 1-timer from Burrows set up by Horvat. Our goals were goal scorer goals, theirs were not. Luck played a big part in Colorado getting a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fateless Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Just now, Mattrek said: Saying the Avs deserved to win it in overtime ignores the prior 3 periods that resulted in overtime. Both Avalanche goals were flukey. Sutter deflected the puck in accidentally and Gigorenko batted a puck out of midair in. Our two were an Eriksson snipe and a 1-timer from Burrows set up by Horvat. Our goals were goal scorer goals, theirs were not. Luck played a big part in Colorado getting a point. Goals are goals. The scoreboard doesn't care if a goal was fluky or not. The Canucks played great in the 1st period but sat back and looked slow in the last two periods (likely due to playing in a back-to-back at altitude). The overall play was dictated by Colorado for the majority of the game and they absolutely dominated us in overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattrek Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 4 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said: Who gets called up? Pedan for his size Biega for his steadiness Curtis Valk as reward *not Larsen we already seen his Weber-isms enough #welcomemat Bring up Biega so we don't lose Sbisa for nothing. If he's not a part of the long term plans we can always trade him, but losing him to Vegas with nothing in return would suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattrek Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Fateless said: Goals are goals. The scoreboard doesn't care if a goal was fluky or not. The Canucks played great in the 1st period but sat back and looked slow in the last two periods (likely due to playing in a back-to-back at altitude). The overall play was dictated by Colorado for the majority of the game and they absolutely dominated us in overtime. Saying that goals are goals and how they're scored doesn't matter and then saying the Avalanche deserved to win because they played better is contradictory. Playing better has nothing to do with the eventual outcome. The Avalanche didn't score more goals so they lost. It doesn't matter who played better, a win is a win using your way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckleHorse Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 What I loved most was LaBate's fight he ducked his chin and took those punches biting down on his mouth guard like a crazy person also his punches didn't look so clumsy overall I'll give him a C but that's up from my D- the last time I seen him fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogersTowell Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 5 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said: Who gets called up? Pedan for his size Biega for his steadiness Curtis Valk as reward *not Larsen we already seen his Weber-isms enough #welcomemat I wouldn't mind Subban being given a shot. Make sure you give him a steady defensive partner like Tryamkin, Sbisa or Tanev (and make sure Stecher and Hutton get one too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fateless Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 2 hours ago, Mattrek said: Saying that goals are goals and how they're scored doesn't matter and then saying the Avalanche deserved to win because they played better is contradictory. Playing better has nothing to do with the eventual outcome. The Avalanche didn't score more goals so they lost. It doesn't matter who played better, a win is a win using your way of thinking. Using my way of thinking a win is a win. I don't dispute that. All I said is that we didn't necessarily deserve it. Just as Colorado may not have deserved their goals as much as we did. None of this changes my opinion that we didn't deserve to win the game based on our play after the first period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.