Not a time to panic. (Discussion)

[kingofsurrey]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

The issue with sending more guys down to Utica tho is we already have too many guys there already (i.e. unmovable veterans) so sending Brock down makes little sense to me. IMO its better for him to stay up here with NHL level competition and work on his defensive skills. i don't care how many goals Brock gets this year, thats the least of my concerns with his game. Same with Jake, he's clearly got the physical skills, he needs to figure out how to bring it every day up here.

 

As far as "panic" goes, I don't know if I'd call it that vs having to watch the same frustrating PP for 3 years in a row generating a lot of annoyance. Its obvious what needs to happen but we have a culture on the team that prevents trying all combinations and making hard decisions, and thats not the fault of any player, its management. 

 

 

Yes it is not panic.  It is stomach illness of watching the same tired slow PP1 unit   game after game  - year after year.  

Our PP 1 unit was done 3 year , and WE all knew it.    Time to bring in a new PP ! unit and give them serious minutes to see if it can be developed  / improved. 

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, JamesB said:

6. I think that if the Canucks had started a rebuild when Benning took over, and made the "obvious" picks with their high draft picks (Nylander or Ehlers, and Tkachuk) they would be on a legitimate upward trajectory by now.

Wanted to focus on this in particular. What's everyone's hurry? We really haven't been rebuilding all that long.

 

I mean I get it, it's hard watching all the other Canadian teams with their shiny trinkets but they've all been at this longer than we have. I'd argue Benning made those picks with the clear understanding and plan that he expected them to be further out from making the NHL. He's picking and planning long term, not who could have made the team slightly better this year. This year doesn't particularly matter.

 

Heck, if you're a 'tanker', being on an upward trajectory already could actually do harm to the rebuild 

[GritGrinder]

2 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

So to are most players who place in the top of the season points totals.  How did AV and the twins differ from Sather and how he used 99, or how Crow used Salic etc...  

 

 

That wasnt being sheltered, they faced the toughest defenders and teams had to develop whole defensive schemes to slow them down. 

 

Time and a reluctance by the twins or coaches has hurt them in the twilight of their NHL careers. IMO they should have been split up 3-4 years ago to present a different look and make the team as a whole less predictable.   

 

Its almost like apples and oranges trying to compare the 80's to today in terms of deployment. There are PP/PK "specialists" way moreso now than the Oilers heyday. Sather's first 2 forwards out for every PK were Gretzky and Kurri in the 80's, you throw Coffey in there and they were trying to generate offense even while shorthanded.

[TheGuardian_]

11 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Yes it is not panic.  It is stomach illness of watching the same tired slow PP1 unit   game after game  - year after year.  

Our PP 1 unit was done 3 year , and WE all knew it.    Time to bring in a new PP ! unit and give them serious minutes to see if it can be developed  / improved. 

You know that isn't true, we're fans, we know nothing, we don't do the jobs that those high schools grads can do, they are "all knowing", to do their job requires a degree in pyschophysicaltechnomatics and the ability to sell ice to eskimos. They hired the new coach so it must be a new PP, they said so. So who do you think you are hinting that there are any fans that know more than them!!!!

BAD kingofsurrey, now go to your room and sit in the corner!!! 

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Sorry but no.  Where did people say that in there predictions? They tend to take everything into consideration and come to a conclusion on the team.  There conclusion was a heck of a lot closer than most of us were thinking.   All you are doing now is making excuses rather than admitting they were right.  I can admit it, i was one of the people saying it was a joke. I was wrong. I can see that now,

 

No people were making fun of the predictions calling them leafs media, spewing hate. Two years in a row canucks have been a bottom 5 team in the league.  Fool me once, fool me twice. 

 

 

I don't know what you were smoking but you might want to check some facts on that.  There was a total of 5 weeks (the first 3 weeks of the season and 2 weeks in January) that canucks were ranked better than 20th.  The other 21 weeks of the year we were in the bottom 10 of the league.  AKA we weren't a 15-20 placed team.  So keep on dreaming.

 

You can say "people were still assuming Benning would hang on to Burr/Hansen" as an excuse to why we finished below your 15-20 range but Burr and Hansen were moved Feb 27 & 28th

 

Feb 26, 2017 canucks were tied for the 28th worst record (3rd last).  I guess that debunks that claim.

 

 

They make their predictions on the opening rosters. Not who or who may not get injured, for how long or be traded. 

 

And we weren't healthy, were we.

 

They were assuming that when making their beginning of the year predictions. By Feb, injuries and a lack of depth were already taking their toll.

 

Again, calling a team a 15-20 if they stay healthy/things go well is not a ringing endorsement. Since those things didn't happen, it was no surprise we finished handily in the bottom 10.

[TheGuardian_]

13 minutes ago, aGENT said:

We really haven't been rebuilding all that long

As is with one of the statements posted they aren't doing anything different than teams not rebuilding. You can't stack a dozen dimes and point to one and call it a penny, err, nickel, we don't have pennies anymore.

 

The teams mentioned have more recent picks introduced and playing meaningful minutes than a team that needs that more than them. They traded for more picks than this group.

 

This, IMO, is not even close to a rebuild, this is just replacing small parts.

 

I am staring to think it really is their plan to wait until the other teams get old.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, TheGuardian_ said:

The teams mentioned have more recent picks introduced and playing meaningful minutes than a team that needs that more than them. They traded for more picks than this group.

I honestly could give a rats fart who's prospects are playing in the NHL right now. All I care about is what the team, and hence our prospects, look like in 2+ years when it actually starts to matter again.

 

Now in 2-4 years if the prospects have all largely underwhelmed, by all means Benning should come under fire and be held accountable. Until then though it's all premature exasperation.

[TheGuardian_]

8 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I honestly could give a rats fart who's prospects are playing in the NHL right now. All I care about is what the team, and hence our prospects, look like in 2+ years when it actually starts to matter again.

 

Now in 2-4 years if the prospects have all largely underwhelmed, by all means Benning should come under fire and be held accountable. Until then though it's all premature exasperation.

It is 2 to 4 years now for some their prospects.

 

 

 

Jus because they say the team is a winner doesn't make it so any more than what their actions are compared to what they say.

 

Okay that needed huge editing.

[kingofsurrey]

Can't even Tank properly....

 

[CeeBee51]

33 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

I know you added a caveat to this statement but this is one of the things I get upset about is that the NHL has changed what .500 means and that some fans are drinking that kool aid.

 

2014 only 5 teams were not at .500

2015 only 6 teams

 

On the injury front, sure it looked worse than it was and certainly was sold that way, Of the huge amount of man games lost a significant number of those were to players not making an impact, Chaput - 2 games, Cramarossa - 10 games, Dorsett - 69 games, Rodin - 73 games, Skille - 21 games, Menga - 16 games, these players were not what you would consider impact players or true difference makers but they account for  almost half the total man games lost, which would drop the Nucks from the 2nd most to below the average for all the teams, just Rodin alone drops the team down 8 spots.

There were impact players that missed a lot of games but not more than other teams, Tanev - 29 games, Edler - 14 games, Hansen - 33 games, Hutton - 11 games, Baerstchi - 13 games, Granlund - 13 games, Sedins - 0 games, Eriksson - 17 games, Guddy - 52 games.

 

 

Are you saying that other teams didn't have marginal players or scrubs accounting for any of their injuries but we did?

[kingofsurrey]

Who is the coach of the Canucks . ?

 

Travis Green or  Hank/Daniel Sedin  ? 

 

Why are Hank and Danny not split up ?  Why do Hank and Danny get guarenteed PP1 minutes ?  

Who is calling the shots on this club ? 

 

 

[TheGuardian_]

Just now, CeeBee51 said:

Are you saying that other teams didn't have marginal players or scrubs accounting for any of their injuries but we did?

Most other teams didn't use that as an excuse year after year. Look a Pitts, they almost had ECHL players playing, their depth is horrid and yet.

 

All I saying is that using this skewed stat is not reflective of the value of "the game lost".

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just now, aGENT said:

They make their predictions on the opening rosters. Not who or who may not get injured, for how long or be traded. 

 

Based on what?  Predictions come from conclusions being drawn together.  Canucks getting injured is nothing new @TheGuardian_  has already went through injuries to prove it was nothing out of the norm. I already showed you this team sucked from our 9 game losing streak in November and onward, not because we traded Burrows and Hansen.  You can make excuses but that's all they are, excuses. 

 

We all made fun of those prediction,  why? because we all had are homer glasses on and expected more from the roster. (most, at least, I assumed we were moving burrows and Hansen, I even thought we might try moving Miller)  I just though Sven would have a better impact, Jake would show up and break 20 goals, rodin would notch 15, Eriksson would help rejuvenate the twins, and Hutton was going to take a leap forward.  None of that happened, excuses aren't the full reason to blame why we finished bottom 5 last year.  We (as canucks fans) over valued what we had,  being a middle of the pack team was a pipe dream, even if we stayed healthy we weren't doing that.  Everything needed to go right for that to happen, we'd have needed a miracle run and all those expectation we had hope for, didn't turn out. Bo was the only real bright spot last year.  

 

This year, people have giving up on that hope,  People don't expect Eriksson to score 25+, people don't expect sedins to be 60 point players, people don't expect Marky to be a top 10 goalie and that's why no one complains about predictions this year . People are starting to see this team for what it really is, we have taken on the homer glasses, full of previous years excuses.  We're not afraid to admit that this team, just isn't that good. 

 

 

[CeeBee51]

Just now, TheGuardian_ said:

Most other teams didn't use that as an excuse year after year. Look a Pitts, they almost had ECHL players playing, their depth is horrid and yet.

 

All I saying is that using this skewed stat is not reflective of the value of "the game lost".

Of course Pittsburgh won't use it as an excuse.... They won the cup.  

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, TheGuardian_ said:

It is 2 to 4 years now for some their prospects.

 

Are you buying that a team that is doing what they are doing, actually doing, and is not different than other teams not rebuilding, is rebuilding just because they were forced into saying it? How many times has Linden voluntarily called this a rebuild, he avoids those situations all together until asked and then adds that the fans want a rebuild so it is. He doesn't come out and say, "We are in year 1 of the rebuild" or even "We are rebuilding" without being coaxed by someone.

 

Jus because they say the team is a winner doesn't make it so any more than what their actions are compared to what they say.

Is that English?

 

I didn't say they had 2-4 years from when current management started drafting. I said they have 2-4 years from now.

 

Other than lotto picks and a select few other players from a given draft, most players take 2-4+ years to develop. Which means we're only just now starting to see their earliest picks trickle in the NHL (hi Boeser and Virtanen!).

 

Another 2-4 years should see the next wave of players taken from the following drafts join them (Gaudette, Demko, Juolevi, Petterson, Gadjovich, Lind etc) as well as a few of the guys we traded for like Dahlen and Goldobin.

 

Chances are we can add a surprise or two who surpass their initial expectations and Gordie willing, in one of the next couple drafts, we nab an elite player or two with a lotto win or sheer luck.

[TheGuardian_]

2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Who is the coach of the Canucks . ?

 

Travis Green or  Hank/Daniel Sedin  ? 

 

Why are Hank and Danny not split up ?  Why do Hank and Danny get guarenteed PP1 minutes ?  

Who is calling the shots on this club ? 

 

 

The last coach that spilt them up or had them other than the first unit ALL the time was Torts, since then, yeah, maybe the Sedins are running the entire show.

[TheGuardian_]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Is that English?

No really bad grammar, and thought process, I edited almost all of it out, it was incomprehensible to even me, too many thoughts, my fingers were not as fast as I thought they were.

[TheGuardian_]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Other than lotto picks and a select few other players from a given draft, most players take 2-4+ years to develop. Which means we're only just now starting to see their earliest picks trickle in the NHL (hi Boeser and Virtanen!).

So at the rate they are doing, almost 2 every 4 years then in 8 years there will be 8 new players? That is for a 3rd/4th liner and a high end prospect yet to be proven, Boeser needs a season, actually if he makes this season it can be considered a win.

1 "maybe" player/skater from the 2014 draft, Big T if he comes back.

1 player from the 2015 draft.

 

Man this is going to take the life time of a player at that rate.

[aGENT]

56 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Based on what?  Predictions come from conclusions being drawn together.  Canucks getting injured is nothing new @TheGuardian_  has already went through injuries to prove it was nothing out of the norm. I already showed you this team sucked from our 9 game losing streak in November and onward, not because we traded Burrows and Hansen.  You can make excuses but that's all they are, excuses. 

 

We all made fun of those prediction,  why? because we all had are homer glasses on and expected more from the roster. (most, at least, I assumed we were moving burrows and Hansen, I even thought we might try moving Miller)  I just though Sven would have a better impact, Jake would show up and break 20 goals, rodin would notch 15, Eriksson would help rejuvenate the twins, and Hutton was going to take a leap forward.  None of that happened, excuses aren't the full reason to blame why we finished bottom 5 last year.  We (as canucks fans) over valued what we had,  being a middle of the pack team was a pipe dream, even if we stayed healthy we weren't doing that.  Everything needed to go right for that to happen, we'd have needed a miracle run and all those expectation we had hope for, didn't turn out. Bo was the only real bright spot last year.  

 

This year, people have giving up on that hope,  People don't expect Eriksson to score 25+, people don't expect sedins to be 60 point players, people don't expect Marky to be a top 10 goalie and that's why no one complains about predictions this year . People are starting to see this team for what it really is, we have taken on the homer glasses, full of previous years excuses.  We're not afraid to admit that this team, just isn't that good. 

 

 

I assumed they'd be in the bottom 10 last year without a tonne of luck. 15-20 with a tonne of luck. I wouldn't call that 'homer-glasses'. YMMV.

 

As for Guardian's assesment, forgive me if I take his info with a grain of salt:

https://canucksarmy.com/2016/03/31/what-role-have-injuries-played-in-the-canucks-brutal-season/

 

Quote

By this measure, the Canucks are among those in the league most impacted by injury.

http://www.notey.com/@mangameslost_unofficial/external/15133290/nhl-man-games-lost-march-25-2017.html

 

Quote

Today’s NHL Injury Data Summary: The Vancouver Canucks and Winnipeg Jets have the most man-games lost in the NHL. On the other end of the scale the Washington Capitals and Calgary Flames have been the least injured teams in the league.

 

[thrago]

I have no expectations for this team and I don't plan to for next 5 years or so. So I'm going to just enjoy the train wreck laugh it off and hope Benning can build us a Cup winning team. 

 

Nothing to panic about at all what's the difference between 20 wins and 30 wins we miss the playoffs either way. Just enjoy the games for what they are.