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

Rebuilding from the net out: The Current State of the Franchise


Bert Diesel

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, hearditall said:

Erik Johnson

Gord Kluzak

Doug Wickenheiser

Greg Joly

A. Daigle

Brian Lawton

R. Dipietro

Patrik Stefan

N. Yakopov

Ekblad

MacKinnon

RNH

Taylor Hall

Tavares

R. Nash

Kovalchuk

C. Phillips

B Berard

Hamrlik

etc. etc. etc

 

All these guys were #1 Overall & never won a CUP...

You could do this with every number in the draft... Unless you are claiming a number 1 pick will have less chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Westcoasting said:

You could do this with every number in the draft... Unless you are claiming a number 1 pick will have less chance?

 

Its ridicules. Having the opportunity to pick any player available in a draft is a very big deal. you Also get a good pick in the beginning of every round. This would be huge for a supreme drafter like Benning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, riffraff said:

 

i think that the Anaheim game was an example where line matching would have been helpful. Sedins were smothered by Ryan Kesler.  I don't know how more obvious that could be.  We are talking about one of the leagues best two way shutdown selke winning forwards who played with our top line for years.

I'm not sure there's a lot you can do when the opposition is hell-bent on a matchup like that.  What the Canucks have done, I agree with - which is to pair them with a fast, two way winger that can support them, forecheck/backcheck, play in the hard areas and be a threat in transition.  There's not much more they can do.  Imo the additional layer of challenge comes into play when your top pairing becomes Sbisa/Stecher (don't get me wrong - love them both) but they then wind up with the inevitability of the Sedins overlapping (5 on 5) with Larsen minutes (as worst case scenario).

 

I agree though that line matching is important for us - our forward group is not able to dictate - at least not at this point.

 

And the Toronto games for example - you see the difficulty with the Bozak (JVR Marner) line in particular.  Imo we had a weak spot that WD did his best to patchwork - but for example the Sedin line will have difficulty without the puck with that line - and the Granlund line (with Eriksson) could really use a Honey Badger to bring a few things it needs - Chaput does a good job imo of puck pressure, but Hansen provides a whole other level of threat in transition that the line does not have without his speed and overall ELITENESS.

So Toronto is able to take more risks without Hansen's transition threat - and to compound it, the blueline is a little thin under the circumstances.

I think three or four veteran absences make a pretty significant difference, but as things are I think the Canucks have to play somewhat of a road game every night to try to get through.

Now when we start adding a Boeser, Juolevi to the mix (the tank teams have their picks in their lineups already) - then I think we might start to see a whole new level of depth and threat that people may not quite be factoring in.  It's one thing to say that a team's prospects are better than ours - but another to realize that those teams don't have those players on the way, they are in their lineups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

 

Its ridicules. Having the opportunity to pick any player available in a draft is a very big deal. you Also get a good pick in the beginning of every round. This would be huge for a supreme drafter like Benning. 

It's huge for a team even if they are not the best at drafts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

 

Its ridicules. Having the opportunity to pick any player available in a draft is a very big deal. you Also get a good pick in the beginning of every round. This would be huge for a supreme drafter like Benning. 

tell it to the balls LB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'm not sure there's a lot you can do when the opposition is hell-bent on a matchup like that.  What the Canucks have done, I agree with - which is to pair them with a fast, two way winger that can support them, forecheck/backcheck, play in the hard areas and be a threat in transition.  There's not much more they can do.  Imo the additional layer of challenge comes into play when your top pairing becomes Sbisa/Stecher (don't get me wrong - love them both) but they then wind up with the inevitability of the Sedins overlapping (5 on 5) with Larsen minutes (as worst case scenario).

 

I agree though that line matching is important for us - our forward group is not able to dictate - at least not at this point.

 

And the Toronto games for example - you see the difficulty with the Bozak (JVR Marner) line in particular.  Imo we had a weak spot that WD did his best to patchwork - but for example the Sedin line will have difficulty without the puck with that line - and the Granlund line (with Eriksson) could really use a Honey Badger to bring a few things it needs - Chaput does a good job imo of puck pressure, but Hansen provides a whole other level of threat in transition that the line does not have without his speed and overall ELITENESS.

So Toronto is able to take more risks without Hansen's transition threat - and to compound it, the blueline is a little thin under the circumstances.

I think three or four veteran absences make a pretty significant difference, but as things are I think the Canucks have to play somewhat of a road game every night to try to get through.

Now when we start adding a Boeser, Juolevi to the mix (the tank teams have their picks in their lineups already) - then I think we might start to see a whole new level of depth and threat that people may not quite be factoring in.  It's one thing to say that a team's prospects are better than ours - but another to realize that those teams don't have those players on the way, they are in their lineups.

 

pointing to the importance or our honey badger...... 

 

I'm not piling on wd at any given opp. But I can't help be if the opinion that the Anaheim game could have been managed better relative to deployment.  Reducing the Bo line TOI justified by a "struggle" game seems self defeating.  That line deserves to play through most anything at this point.

 

anyone can see the sedins struggle so much more with speed and pressure this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, riffraff said:

 

pointing to the importance or our honey badger...... 

 

I'm not piling on wd at any given opp. But I can't help be if the opinion that the Anaheim game could have been managed better relative to deployment.  Reducing the Bo line TOI justified by a "struggle" game seems self defeating.  That line deserves to play through most anything at this point.

 

anyone can see the sedins struggle so much more with speed and pressure this year.

I think part of that was Burrows taking a shot to the foot in the 1st  (and perhaps a bit of Baertshi still recovering at that point / regaining game shape) - but I agree and think the 'middle six' lines will probably see more ice time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Westcoasting said:

You could do this with every number in the draft... Unless you are claiming a number 1 pick will have less chance?

Edmonton drafted 3 times #1 overall before McDavid. They also had many top ten picks as well during that time & they absolutely never improved.

I doubt Chicago wins cups without Duncan Kieth drafted #52 or Seabrook mid round pick...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, hearditall said:

Erik Johnson

Gord Kluzak

Doug Wickenheiser

Greg Joly

A. Daigle

Brian Lawton

R. Dipietro

Patrik Stefan

N. Yakopov

Ekblad

MacKinnon

RNH

Taylor Hall

Tavares

R. Nash

Kovalchuk

C. Phillips

B Berard

Hamrlik

etc. etc. etc

 

All these guys were #1 Overall & never won a CUP...

So flawed it hurts. 

 

Some of these guys aren't even that old.

 

And a lot of these guys were/are notable impact players in the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hearditall said:

Edmonton drafted 3 times #1 overall before McDavid. They also had many top ten picks as well during that time & they absolutely never improved.

I doubt Chicago wins cups without Duncan Kieth drafted #52 or Seabrook mid round pick...  

You're choosing the two extreme examples and using them as the norm though... that's like saying that the whole Canucks team should've been branded jerks solely because of Kesler's antics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, guntrix said:

So flawed it hurts. 

 

Some of these guys aren't even that old.

 

And a lot of these guys were/are notable impact players in the league. 

Impact players. So is Getlaf, Perry, Kesler, Gudreau, Toews, Horvat, Benn, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Bergeron, Krejci, Kopitar, Carter, Gallagher, Karlsson, Wheeler, Chara, Keith, Seabrook, Letang, Kunitz, J.Williams, Tarasenko, Byfuglien, etc., etc., etc...

None drafted #1 & Some of these guys were drafted after the 1st round...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hearditall said:

Impact players. So is Getlaf, Perry, Kesler, Gudreau, Toews, Horvat, Benn, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Bergeron, Krejci, Kopitar, Carter, Gallagher, Karlsson, Wheeler, Chara, Keith, Seabrook, Letang, Kunitz, J.Williams, Tarasenko, Byfuglien, etc., etc., etc...

Some of these guys were drafted after the 1st round...

I'm looking at your list and we should rule out Dmen and guys drafted more than 10 years ago.  Plus, let's rule out guys, who have WON NOTHING.  That leaves zero on your list.  Seriously, there is a draft based on (pretty much) inverted performance because the chances of getting an impact player go up the higher that player is drafted.  Yes, there are exceptions, but do you want to base your rebuild on exceptions?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hearditall said:

Impact players. So is Getlaf, Perry, Kesler, Gudreau, Toews, Horvat, Benn, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Bergeron, Krejci, Kopitar, Carter, Gallagher, Karlsson, Wheeler, Chara, Keith, Seabrook, Letang, Kunitz, J.Williams, Tarasenko, Byfuglien, etc., etc., etc...

None drafted #1 & Some of these guys were drafted after the 1st round...

Theoretically, the whole point of drafting higher is to ensure a higher mathematical probability of striking gold. The higher you draft, the larger the pool of players you have to choose from. There's absolutely no point in arguing that drafting 1OA isn't the best... it simply gives you first shot of picking ANYONE you want. 

 

Of course, there's always the chance that you draft a Seabrook or Benn but that comes down to sheer luck even for a good drafting team like Chicago rather than opportunity. Being able to get your hands on a Perry or Tarasenko in the first round really comes down to how deep the draft is. If it's not deep enough, you could end up getting Canuck'd and settling for the "best of the rest" like what happened this past draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I'm looking at your list and we should rule out Dmen and guys drafted more than 10 years ago.  Plus, let's rule out guys, who have WON NOTHING.  That leaves zero on your list.  Seriously, there is a draft based on (pretty much) inverted performance because the chances of getting an impact player go up the higher that player is drafted.  Yes, there are exceptions, but do you want to base your rebuild on exceptions?  

??? Why should we rule out anybody???

No kidding the odds go up for getting a better player when drafting #1. Thanks Sherlock Alf.  

My point is that there is only one 1st overall pick out of 30 & there's no guaranteed way to get that #1 pick... We had 3rd pick before lottery last year #6 before that & I'm pretty sure we'll get another top 10 this year.

How would U like us to get this GUARANTEED fantasy dream of yours #1 overall pick? Shall we just lose every game this year on purpose like half of CDC believes (but when we do we should fire WD, JB, etc. LMFAO) & then lose lottery anyways???

Also u don't necessarily get a cup because U drafted #1. U could win a cup if u draft after #1 too... eg. Boston, LA, Ana, Det...

Toews was not #1, Keith was not #1 Seabrook was not #1 & neither was any player on Chicago except one, KANE. 

Edmonton picked RNH #1,  Hall #1,  Yakupov #1  & went NO where with it.

Colorado picked Mackinnon #1 & he hasn't done anything for the Avs.

Eklblad went #1, Haven't seen him challenging for the Norris. Yet Keith ,S.Weber, Subban, Chara were all 2nd round or later picks...

 

More news flash: McJesus & Crosby aren't in every draft either.  History has shown it's usually every 10 years. Laine & Mathews changed that pattern but I doubt next years draft has a McJesus in it. Probably back to a Ekblad, Mackinnon, Yakupov like the 3 years before McJesus. So we might need #1 for the next 10 years before we see that talent U want + dealing with the lucky lottery pick that we are so lucky with.....

This is more my point, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hearditall said:

??? Why should we rule out anybody???

No kidding the odds go up for getting a better player when drafting #1. Thanks Sherlock Alf.  

My point is that there is only one 1st overall pick out of 30 & there's no guaranteed way to get that #1 pick... We had 3rd pick before lottery last year #6 before that & I'm pretty sure we'll get another top 10 this year.

How would U like us to get this GUARANTEED fantasy dream of yours #1 overall pick? Shall we just lose every game this year on purpose like half of CDC believes (but when we do we should fire WD, JB, etc. LMFAO) & then lose lottery anyways???

Also u don't necessarily get a cup because U drafted #1. U could win a cup if u draft after #1 too... eg. Boston, LA, Ana, Det...

Toews was not #1, Keith was not #1 Seabrook was not #1 & neither was any player on Chicago except one, KANE. 

Edmonton picked RNH #1,  Hall #1,  Yakupov #1  & went NO where with it.

Colorado picked Mackinnon #1 & he hasn't done anything for the Avs.

Eklblad went #1, Haven't seen him challenging for the Norris. Yet Keith ,S.Weber, Subban, Chara were all 2nd round or later picks...

 

More news flash: McJesus & Crosby aren't in every draft either.  History has shown it's usually every 10 years. Laine & Mathews changed that pattern but I doubt next years draft has a McJesus in it. Probably back to a Ekblad, Mackinnon, Yakupov like the 3 years before McJesus. So we might need #1 for the next 10 years before we see that talent U want + dealing with the lucky lottery pick that we are so lucky with.....

This is more my point, 

The lower we finish the better our chances of getting a higher pick.  That's my point.  JB seems to scout the lower picks better than the top picks, so maybe we should just trade our first rounders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, guntrix said:

Theoretically, the whole point of drafting higher is to ensure a higher mathematical probability of striking gold. The higher you draft, the larger the pool of players you have to choose from. There's absolutely no point in arguing that drafting 1OA isn't the best... it simply gives you first shot of picking ANYONE you want. 

 

Of course, there's always the chance that you draft a Seabrook or Benn but that comes down to sheer luck even for a good drafting team like Chicago rather than opportunity. Being able to get your hands on a Perry or Tarasenko in the first round really comes down to how deep the draft is. If it's not deep enough, you could end up getting Canuck'd and settling for the "best of the rest" like what happened this past draft. 

Explain to me how U get that #1 overall pick? Lose on purpose but then lose the lottery draft???

Also McJesus & Mathews aren't usually the norm.

Before them 2014 - Ekblad

2013 - Mackinnon

2012 - Yakupov

What's to say that isn't the calibre of players coming in the next few years again? More likely than another McJesus or Mathews. Not exactly guaranteed to march u to the parade players...

So if u are telling me that finishing dead last is the only way than sorry I'm not buying that especially with the lottery system...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/12/2016 at 5:36 PM, Aircool said:

 

I watched a couple NHL games yesterday from around the league... I was flicking between Buffalo-Boston and Chicago-Philadelphia... It's kind of sad to watch real hockey being played.... The puck movement is just so much better than our team, our puck movement is so pathetic.... I don't know if that's coaching or talent (probably a lot of both to be honest) but we're not winning a cup for at least 10 years.... Our team plays horrible hockey.... It's as simple as that.

I saw Vancouver put 70+ shots on net live against Mtl and then Ott back to back games in the middle of their losing streak outplaying two of the better teams in the league this year.  And it wasnt painful to watch.  This team won't hit their low cycle until the Sedins are done and right now it might not be perfect but at least it's entertaining.  

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...