The Gillis formula: 6 x 20

[Crabcakes]

Gillis had a lot of good ideas.  A team needs production to come from many sources.  That is the point. So 2, 40 goal scorers don't count as 4, 20 goal men because they're only 2 sources.

 

Bottom line with Gillis.  He didn't do the whole job.  He pretty much ignored drafting until 2012 and by that time, they were in the pickle that Benning now has to clean up.

[Baggins]

48 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

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.

Chara won the Norris one year and was 8th in voting the next. Was he top 3 or 8th? My point is it's pointless to bring up a low vote count. Ehrhoff was a good offensive d-man. Not Norris good, but good all the same. Combined with Edler, Bieksa, and Hamhuis we had the most productive top 4 D in the league. It was good enough to win the cup if they all weren't damaged goods by the final. I don't buy the "we need a top 3 D-man" to win the cup at all. You need a good team front to back.

[DownUndaCanuck]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

Chara won the Norris one year and was 8th in voting the next. Was he top 3 or 8th? My point is it's pointless to bring up a low vote count. Ehrhoff was a good offensive d-man. Not Norris good, but good all the same. Combined with Edler, Bieksa, and Hamhuis we had the most productive top 4 D in the league. It was good enough to win the cup if they all weren't damaged goods by the final. I don't buy the "we need a top 3 D-man" to win the cup at all. You need a good team front to back.

Well yes of course you need a whole bunch of other things to create a Cup winning team, but look down the list of the last few Cup winners.

 

Doughty

Keith/Seabrook

Chara

Letang (arguably could have won the Norris if he was healthy all season long or been in the running at least)

 

The problem with above-average but good top-4s is that the top pairing defensive guys may be good, but not great. They may be a decent 6 man unit, but you need that elite defenceman for the clutch moments of the playoffs. When you're trying to defend a lead in the final minutes against elite skilled clutch scorers, you need that elite defenceman, not just another Edler/Ehrhoff in their prime.

 

Of course the 2nd pairing needs to  be good as well. It seems as though Cup winners get by with average (or slightly above average) bottom pairings however as they really don't play much in those important moments. But a top pairing that is elite is most important.

 

We had a decent defence back in 2011. We had Edler and Ehrhoff as a pretty darn good top pairing - they just weren't good enough defensively. We had Salo still playing 20 solid minutes in our top-4. We had Tanev creeping into the top-4 and a very good Bieksa at the time who could do it all. All of these guys were good at certain things, but no one was great at everything and that's what we really needed. 

 

When Edler, Ehrhoff, Salo and Bieksa went head to head with most forwards they did well but just couldn't handle a deep Boston forward group.

When the Sedins and an injured Kesler went head to head with Chara, we all saw what happened. Chara and Seidenberg absolutely nullified the Sedins like nothing else. Kesler was a ghost that series anyway.

 

Essentially, a top defender > a top forward, and that's why you need the elite defenceman to win a Cup. Just ask the Chicago Blackhawks. They have 2. Look at Los Angeles. Their defence is not very flash without Doughty. One star defenceman, a bunch of above-average D-men and some pretty average 3rd pairing guys over there. The Blackhawks and Kings have won 4 Cups thanks to really 3 defencemen (Keith, Seabrook, Doughty) - they've won Cups with some pretty average 2nd and 3rd pairing defencemen. Heck, we've got better defencemen now than they've had on their 2nd and 3rd pairings, but it's the stars who log 25-30 minutes a night in the playoffs that wins them the big games. They're the ones counted on in the clutch moments.

 

You'll go far with a decent, even defence, but you won't win a Cup without that elite defenceman.

[CanuckFan1981]

9 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Well yes of course you need a whole bunch of other things to create a Cup winning team, but look down the list of the last few Cup winners.

 

Doughty

Keith/Seabrook

Chara

Letang (arguably could have won the Norris if he was healthy all season long or been in the running at least)

 

The problem with above-average but good top-4s is that the top pairing defensive guys may be good, but not great. They may be a decent 6 man unit, but you need that elite defenceman for the clutch moments of the playoffs. When you're trying to defend a lead in the final minutes against elite skilled clutch scorers, you need that elite defenceman, not just another Edler/Ehrhoff in their prime.

 

Of course the 2nd pairing needs to  be good as well. It seems as though Cup winners get by with average (or slightly above average) bottom pairings however as they really don't play much in those important moments. But a top pairing that is elite is most important.

 

We had a decent defence back in 2011. We had Edler and Ehrhoff as a pretty darn good top pairing - they just weren't good enough defensively. We had Salo still playing 20 solid minutes in our top-4. We had Tanev creeping into the top-4 and a very good Bieksa at the time who could do it all. All of these guys were good at certain things, but no one was great at everything and that's what we really needed. 

 

When Edler, Ehrhoff, Salo and Bieksa went head to head with most forwards they did well but just couldn't handle a deep Boston forward group.

When the Sedins and an injured Kesler went head to head with Chara, we all saw what happened. Chara and Seidenberg absolutely nullified the Sedins like nothing else. Kesler was a ghost that series anyway.

 

Essentially, a top defender > a top forward, and that's why you need the elite defenceman to win a Cup. Just ask the Chicago Blackhawks. They have 2. Look at Los Angeles. Their defence is not very flash without Doughty. One star defenceman, a bunch of above-average D-men and some pretty average 3rd pairing guys over there. The Blackhawks and Kings have won 4 Cups thanks to really 3 defencemen (Keith, Seabrook, Doughty) - they've won Cups with some pretty average 2nd and 3rd pairing defencemen. Heck, we've got better defencemen now than they've had on their 2nd and 3rd pairings, but it's the stars who log 25-30 minutes a night in the playoffs that wins them the big games. They're the ones counted on in the clutch moments.

 

You'll go far with a decent, even defence, but you won't win a Cup without that elite defenceman.

The Canucks defense was decimated by injuries and suspensions in 2011.  Hamhuis was out, Rome (who was proving invaluable) was out, we had Ballard and Alberts playing major minutes.  Kesler was near invisible in the finals because he had torn ligaments but tried to play through it (put too much in carrying the team past Nashville), Raymond was crippled by Boychuk early in the series, Burrows was allowed to be legally raped at any time due to the Auger rule.  I recall Max Lapierre being our best player in the finals, which doesn't bode well.  All in all I think we had the team to do it, but ran into injuries and we took the 'us against the world' attitude a little too far and made the world hate us.  Boston played the only way they could to beat us and it worked, that's all it was in my mind.  And I don't blame Luongo at all, even though he had his meltdowns, he also was 1 shutout away from setting a record and winning the cup.