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

The Gillis formula: 6 x 20


Live.&.Die.Nucks

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, spook007 said:

After 2011 everyone complained we weren't tough enough...too soft etc. He had to try to make us stronger...

Also, unless PP works there is no chance we will hit those kind of numbers again.

 

However if you can reach the play offs without relying on the PP, you have a decent chance once they put their whistles away.

Play is going to really tighten up now, or at least it's expected to.  Maybe, we don't get any 20 goal scorers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Play is going to really tighten up now, or at least it's expected to.  Maybe, we don't get any 20 goal scorers?

Maybe not, but if so, this team won't be strong enough to compete in the play offs anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

This team is still being built...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spook007 said:

Maybe not, but if so, this team won't be strong enough to compete in the play offs anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

This team is still being built...

True enough.  I bet Boeser scores 20 + next season for us:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Live.&.Die.Nucks said:

I remember reading about Gillis and some of his ideas before he put together back to back President's trophy winning Canucks teams. The guy was definitely a forward thinker, and analytical. One thing that always stuck out for me is his idea that to be successful, a team needed 6 - 20 goal scorers on their team. He then set out to build a fast team that could score, and the results are as such in 2010-2011:

 

Regular season

Player

GP

G

A

Pts

+/−

PIM

Sedin, Daniel

82

41

63

104

+30

32

Sedin, Henrik

82

19

75

94

+26

40

Kesler, Ryan

82

41

32

73

+24

66

Samuelsson, Mikael

75

18

32

50

+8

36

Ehrhoff, Christian

79

14

36

50

+19

52

Burrows, Alexandre

72

26

22

48

+26

77

Raymond, Mason

70

15

24

39

+8

10

Edler, Alexander

51

8

25

33

+13

24

Malhotra, Manny

72

11

19

30

+9

22

Torres, Raffi

80

14

15

29

+4

78

Hansen, Jannik

82

9

20

29

+13

32

 

One can argue that Daniel and Kesler count as 4 - 20 goal scorers, and then you have Burrows, and close calls with Henr1k and Samuelsson.  Almost 7 x 20. The Hoff, Raymond, and Torres all chipped in big time too (14, 14, 15).

Gillis of course gave up on this model after the painful loss to Boston, while other teams did not. In today’s NHL, speed and skill will win more than brawn. If Gillis had foreseen this, then perhaps we would have been contenders for much longer, and he’d still be with us.

Having said this, and should the formula still hold true, how many 20 goal scorers do you think we will have next year?

Optimistically, I count Bo and Baer, with maybes in Hansen/Sutter/Boeser/Granlund/D.Sedin. If they can all hit the mark, we may not be in as much trouble as some may think when it comes to scoring.

Thoughts?

without a doubt, no Christian Ehrhoff, no art ross trophies for the Twins.  That's how much of a difference a true offensensive dman makes to a team. Just like Keith to Chicago and Doughty to L.A.  He was our "Keith"  Getting Mikauel Samuelsson also helped Kesler with his offensive production, as that anchored our 2nd line.   Man oh man are we far away from building a team even close to that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Live.&.Die.Nucks said:

I remember reading about Gillis and some of his ideas before he put together back to back President's trophy winning Canucks teams. The guy was definitely a forward thinker, and analytical. One thing that always stuck out for me is his idea that to be successful, a team needed 6 - 20 goal scorers on their team. He then set out to build a fast team that could score, and the results are as such in 2010-2011:

 

Regular season

Player

GP

G

A

Pts

+/−

PIM

Sedin, Daniel

82

41

63

104

+30

32

Sedin, Henrik

82

19

75

94

+26

40

Kesler, Ryan

82

41

32

73

+24

66

Samuelsson, Mikael

75

18

32

50

+8

36

Ehrhoff, Christian

79

14

36

50

+19

52

Burrows, Alexandre

72

26

22

48

+26

77

Raymond, Mason

70

15

24

39

+8

10

Edler, Alexander

51

8

25

33

+13

24

Malhotra, Manny

72

11

19

30

+9

22

Torres, Raffi

80

14

15

29

+4

78

Hansen, Jannik

82

9

20

29

+13

32

 

One can argue that Daniel and Kesler count as 4 - 20 goal scorers, and then you have Burrows, and close calls with Henr1k and Samuelsson.  Almost 7 x 20. The Hoff, Raymond, and Torres all chipped in big time too (14, 14, 15).

Gillis of course gave up on this model after the painful loss to Boston, while other teams did not. In today’s NHL, speed and skill will win more than brawn. If Gillis had foreseen this, then perhaps we would have been contenders for much longer, and he’d still be with us.

Having said this, and should the formula still hold true, how many 20 goal scorers do you think we will have next year?

Optimistically, I count Bo and Baer, with maybes in Hansen/Sutter/Boeser/Granlund/D.Sedin. If they can all hit the mark, we may not be in as much trouble as some may think when it comes to scoring.

Thoughts?

I am not sure what we mean by "holding true". In today's NHL it is not true that a team "needs" six or even five 20-goals scorers to be successful.

 

Here are the number of 20+ goals scorers for the last six Stanley Cup winners:

Pitt in 2016 - 4

Chi in 2015 - 4

LA in 2014 - 2

Chi in 2013 - 2

LA in 2012 - 3

Boston in 2011 - 4.

 

So, the answer is "no", you do not need six 20 goal scorers to be successful. And there is nothing magic about the 20-goal plateau. Two guys at 15 and one guy at 30 are just as good as three guys at 20.

 

The Canucks obviously do need to score more in order to contend for a Cup, however. What we are really missing is anyone who is likely to be in the 30 goal range. As  Stanley Cup winners and Stanley Cup finalists indicate, you need a two or three franchise type players (Crobsy, Malkin, Letang or Toews, Kane, Keith, etc.) to contend for a Cup. Having a fairly large group of good or pretty good players might make a team competitive on a night-to-night basis and might get a team into the playoffs but without really high end talent it is hard to win a Cup.

 

I have become more optimistic about Horvat. He just keeps improving and is already the best player on the team by any reasonable measure. If he were on the first PP unit he would be running away with the team lead in scoring. But he is not at the "franchise player" level yet and is still a long shot to ever get that good. And we need one or two other really high players as well, including a legitimate #1 D-man.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Blömqvist said:

Benning is on that formula of speed/skill big/tough skill/tough... we have Horvat, Virtanen, Tryamkin, and Gudbranson in our future core to provide that size and toughness component, and skill-wise we have Baertschi, Boeser, Granlund, Juolevi, Stecher, and Hutton. Most of that future core can skate well too. I still think we need another forward with speed to burn and high-end offensive vision to make plays, however.

I'm with you on needing another forward prospect. I really hope that if a move is made at the deadline, it isn't to bring in another dman or defensive prospect (unless he is a projected #1 or #2 dman). This team is in dire need of another player with a fresh set of wheels, who isn't afraid to get into the dirty areas to make things happen, can roll with the punches and maybe give one or two. A game changer/breaker would be ideal, but I won't be upset as long as they can contribute and come to play every night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, stuman491 said:

Our only problem is we don't have anyone that will get much more than 20.  

 

 

The problem with our offence is that we're not getting any from our defense, which is a major reason why our power play sucks so much...and... the wheels on the bus go round and round...
Stecher and Tryamkin have added such much needed dynamics to our group, but they aren't proving anything in terms of offence (yet)

If we had 1 guy on our defense, say Ehrhoff circa 2011, we'd be a good 10 points ahead of where we are right now. That puts us hot on the heels of Edmonton for 3rd/division.

He had 50 points that year. Our ENTIRE DEFENSE this year so far only has about 60.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, darkpoet said:

The problem with our offence is that we're not getting any from our defense, which is a major reason why our power play sucks so much...and... the wheels on the bus go round and round...
Stecher and Tryamkin have added such much needed dynamics to our group, but they aren't proving anything in terms of offence (yet)

If we had 1 guy on our defense, say Ehrhoff circa 2011, we'd be a good 10 points ahead of where we are right now. That puts us hot on the heels of Edmonton for 3rd/division.

He had 50 points that year. Our ENTIRE DEFENSE this year so far only has about 60.

 

Ouch.  Yea our defense isn't helping us at all offensively.  Both Stetcher and Tryamkin will start to produce more offensively, but not this year.  They are both still learning a ton this year and focusing on their offensive game is probably the least of their worries.  If they show that side of their game next year things could be very different for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Live.&.Die.Nucks said:

I remember reading about Gillis and some of his ideas before he put together back to back President's trophy winning Canucks teams. The guy was definitely a forward thinker, and analytical. One thing that always stuck out for me is his idea that to be successful, a team needed 6 - 20 goal scorers on their team. He then set out to build a fast team that could score, and the results are as such in 2010-2011:

 

Regular season

Player

GP

G

A

Pts

+/−

PIM

Sedin, Daniel

82

41

63

104

+30

32

Sedin, Henrik

82

19

75

94

+26

40

Kesler, Ryan

82

41

32

73

+24

66

Samuelsson, Mikael

75

18

32

50

+8

36

Ehrhoff, Christian

79

14

36

50

+19

52

Burrows, Alexandre

72

26

22

48

+26

77

Raymond, Mason

70

15

24

39

+8

10

Edler, Alexander

51

8

25

33

+13

24

Malhotra, Manny

72

11

19

30

+9

22

Torres, Raffi

80

14

15

29

+4

78

Hansen, Jannik

82

9

20

29

+13

32

 

One can argue that Daniel and Kesler count as 4 - 20 goal scorers, and then you have Burrows, and close calls with Henr1k and Samuelsson.  Almost 7 x 20. The Hoff, Raymond, and Torres all chipped in big time too (14, 14, 15).

Gillis of course gave up on this model after the painful loss to Boston, while other teams did not. In today’s NHL, speed and skill will win more than brawn. If Gillis had foreseen this, then perhaps we would have been contenders for much longer, and he’d still be with us.

Having said this, and should the formula still hold true, how many 20 goal scorers do you think we will have next year?

Optimistically, I count Bo and Baer, with maybes in Hansen/Sutter/Boeser/Granlund/D.Sedin. If they can all hit the mark, we may not be in as much trouble as some may think when it comes to scoring.

Thoughts?

I don't recall Gillis ever thinking this way, it did work out that way but i don't recall a plan specifically to have 20 goal scorers on a particular team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stuman491 said:

Ouch.  Yea our defense isn't helping us at all offensively.  Both Stetcher and Tryamkin will start to produce more offensively, but not this year.  They are both still learning a ton this year and focusing on their offensive game is probably the least of their worries.  If they show that side of their game next year things could be very different for us.

I'm sure someone talked to Tryamkin over the last few weeks. 
He's been jumping into the rush (?!) and looking pretty damn good doing it. If that guy somehow has some untapped offensive potential, look out. There aren't a lot of guys strong enough to stop a guy that size who's got wheels AND hands?
Out of everyone on our team, including guys we might see next year like Boeser, I'm by far the most excited about Tryamkin. He just seems to get better and better. 
I can't remember every seeing anyone that size who skates and handles the puck like he does? 
Seems like he doesn't have "that attitude" that some Russian players do either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MoneypuckOverlord said:

without a doubt, no Christian Ehrhoff, no art ross trophies for the Twins.  That's how much of a difference a true offensensive dman makes to a team. Just like Keith to Chicago and Doughty to L.A.  He was our "Keith"  Getting Mikauel Samuelsson also helped Kesler with his offensive production, as that anchored our 2nd line.   Man oh man are we far away from building a team even close to that.  

The biggest difference was Burrows not Ehrhoff. Finally having a winger that could finish what the Sedins started was the biggest boost in their points. They're Art Ross seasons were Burrows most productive. The year before Ehrhoff arrived Bieksa had a 43 point season behind the Sedins. Ehrhoff only had one point more than that the following year when Henrik won the scoring title. The other change those two years was Kessler being moved to the top PP unit with the Sedins. Ehrhoff was good offensively but he's given far too much credit. people tend to ignore the Burrows/Kesler impact to their production. Which imo was far greater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at the end of the day to win a Cup you need the following:

 

1) Good two-way top players who can score goals but also and more importantly play good defence.

 

Why? Because in deep 7 game playoff series when top lines are matched up against top lines, the ones who can defend will shutdown the other lines. If a top lines defence > the other top lines offence, they're going to win that matchup easily. 

 

Eg. Krejci + Lucic + Marchard (Bergeron on the 2nd line did the same) vs the Sedins. Sedins with better offence but their defence was terrible and they got shredded.

Eg. Toews + Kane + Hossa (underated defence, couple of real Selke players there) vs Stamkos/Johnson

Eg. Kopitar + Brown (Kopitar in particular, brilliant defensive two-way center) vs the NJD forwards and Rangers top lines easily

 

 

 

2) Depth scoring in the forward group. That includes a semi-decent 4th line but most importantly, a 3rd line with 15-20 goal scorers.

 

Why? Because the top-2 lines are getting checked to death by the top-2 defensive pairs, in a deep series its often the 3rd and 4th lines that break games open in a deep even series. This is where the 6-20 "theory" comes in. Essentially, 20-goal scorers in the NHL are skilled enough to break games open. 5-10 goal scorers aren't really good enough in the playoffs to be on your 3rd line.

 

Eg. Rich Peverley etc. on the Bruins 3rd line

Eg. Ladd/Byfuglien/Versteeg/Saad for the Bruins in the past, these guys have been huge during the playoffs as tertiary scorers on the 3rd line

 

 

3) Star top pairing defencemen.

 

Why? Because these guys end up playing 23-30 minutes a night in the playoffs and have to go head-to-head with star forwards. If these D-men end up playing against the opponents top two lines and can shut them out, that's most of the job done, unlikely the other team can generate any offence against a star D-man. This usually has to be a top-3 defenceman in the NHL, if not a Norris trophy nominee or winner.

 

Eg. Chara

Eg. Keith and Seabrook

Eg. Doughty

Eg. Letang

 

In fact, the last 10 Stanley Cup winners have all had a Norris Trophy winner on their team. Not necessarily a Hart/Art Ross/Jack Adams/Vezina winner, but always a Norris winner. Defence wins championships.

 

 

4) Decent coach who can adapt in a long series and during games as well

 

Speaks for itself, those veteran smart coaches who can adjust a team's plan during series and even during a game end up winning in a long chess battle that is a 7 game series. 

 

Eg. Quinneville, one of the best obviously

Eg. Sutter, another future Hall of Fame coach

Eg. Claude Julien, quite a good tough playoff coach

 

 

5) Hot goalie

 

Doesn't have to be a consistent NHL star or Vezina winner, but as long as the goalie gets hot for 20 games you're going to win a Cup or have a good shot anyway. I think the top defender really help this out a lot, meaning the goalie often doesn't have to be a star, just good enough under a good defensive structure. Rarely do you get a goalie duel in the playoffs but when it happens the goalie needs to beat the other and that's often due to a mixture of top D-man vs depth scoring

 

 

 

 

TL;DR - yes having depth 20 goal scorers help but I think that's only one of 5 components of a Cup winning team.

 

 

The 2011 Canucks? We had depth scoring. We didn't have good defence from our first line (good from Kesler though). We had Ehrhoff and Edler (Ehrhoff voted 9th in Norris trophy rankings that year) who were far from Norris-worthy. We had a very good coach. We had a hot-and-cold goalie though. To be honest we were far from the perfect team. Boston really had all the components.

 

The 2016-2017 Canucks? Very far off everything to be honest.

 

The future Canucks? I think we'll be close. We'll have a good two way top line starting around Bo Horvat, but Baertschi and Boeser are good defensively too. We're grooming some real depth forward scoring with guys like Granlund and Virtanen. We've got a solid chance at a future Norris winner with Juolevi (may not pan out but he's the best shot the Canucks have had in a long time). We've got a chance at a hot goalie with Demko and even Markstrom. The coach is the wild-card but he's won at the AHL playoff level before and Hitchcock is available...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

We had Ehrhoff and Edler (Ehrhoff voted 9th in Norris trophy rankings that year) who were far from Norris-worthy.

 

I don't know why people bother bringing that up at all. Being 8th in the Norris voting is like the ugly bucktooth girl nobody wants to dance with. He got 21 votes. Likely German born writers and/or Vancouver homers. First received 1096 votes, second 831 votes and third 663 votes. That vote differential is embarrassing yet VanFans, or more particularly Ehrhoff fans, seem to love bringing up he was 9th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

I don't know why people bother bringing that up at all. Being 8th in the Norris voting is like the ugly bucktooth girl nobody wants to dance with. He got 21 votes. Likely German born writers and/or Vancouver homers. First received 1096 votes, second 831 votes and third 663 votes. That vote differential is embarrassing yet VanFans, or more particularly Ehrhoff fans, seem to love bringing up he was 9th.

And yet despite Gillis' formula, no Stanley Cup. Not to mention, that he completely changed his outlook after the Cup run, and tried to get bigger with no success. 

Why look at the past for success, when there wasn't any?  Build a deep team, with 3 lines that can score. a top 4 defensive unit that can handle anyone in the league, and get timely goaltending. Benning has drafted and now traded to improve the defence and goaltending. Let's see what he does now to get offence shall we? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Baggins said:

I don't know why people bother bringing that up at all. Being 8th in the Norris voting is like the ugly bucktooth girl nobody wants to dance with. He got 21 votes. Likely German born writers and/or Vancouver homers. First received 1096 votes, second 831 votes and third 663 votes. That vote differential is embarrassing yet VanFans, or more particularly Ehrhoff fans, seem to love bringing up he was 9th.

The fact that Ehrhoff got any Norris votes at all is bizarre. While he was good offensively, he was terrible defensively. Every time an opposition player brought the puck into his side of the zone when he was on the ice, I wanted to cover my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2017 at 10:49 PM, Baggins said:

I don't know why people bother bringing that up at all. Being 8th in the Norris voting is like the ugly bucktooth girl nobody wants to dance with. He got 21 votes. Likely German born writers and/or Vancouver homers. First received 1096 votes, second 831 votes and third 663 votes. That vote differential is embarrassing yet VanFans, or more particularly Ehrhoff fans, seem to love bringing up he was 9th.

That's the point I'm making - that he was 9th in the league at best. We need a D-man who is top-3.

 

Next time try reading the entire post and making sense of it before getting on your soap box buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe even since the Gillis era though, times have changed. Top end elite offensive forwards are more important now than what they were in 2011. You almost need that elite offensive skill to overcome the defence, whereas in the past defence always won.

 

At the end of the day it's a constant chess match and matchup of offence and defence.

 

The offence of the top forwards and D-men VS the defence of the opposing team's top lines and top defenders. 

 

For example, the offence of Kane/Toews/tertiary Blackhawk players really trumped the defence of the Bruins forwards and Chara etc. It was close, but at the end of the day that's the matchup. On the flipside, Toews and Hossa etc. had good enough defence to complement Keith/Seabrook and combined, they shutdown the Bruins forwards (not much O from their D).

 

What the Canucks need going forward is somehow two-way forwards who can still score (they have that in Baertschi, Horvat, Sutter, Granlund, hopefully Boeser and Virtanen too...), but more importantly, elite defencemen. Really hoping Juolevi can become a top-5 defenceman similar to say Hedman but it's unlikely. I think he'll be an Edler-type defenceman. Great #1 guy on our team, maybe top-15 or top-10 at the very best in the league in his prime.

 

A Liljegren or Hischier pick would change everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, you can look at all of the SCF teams in the past decade, but are they really that similar enough to form a "formula for winning"? Boston was a  totally different team from Pittsburgh yet both have cups. LA is, yet again, different from Chicago (albeit perhaps not as different as the first example, yet): both have cups.....

 

This is probably going to sound so obvious that it'll sound stupid: I think really you just need to have a good enough team in the end. You need your goal-tending to be hot at the right time and you need enough scoring and enough defense. It's easy to overthink the details, but I think those details in the end matter less than the overall picture.

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...