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

(Rumour) Maple Leafs Have Interest In Erik Gudbranson


Bo53Horvat

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Bitter Melon said:

I'm sure this is completely unrelated and doesn't actually mean anything, but I walked by Rogers arena on the way home from work tonight and noticed Guddys banner near gate 8 was taken down. Probably just being cleaned or something but I thought it was weird.

Hmmmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rush17 said:

Guddys absence is clear.  but it will only help his trade value.

 

8 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Not sure I follow?

Guessing that means it is or will be evident how much easier this team is to play against without Gudbranson in the lineup?

 

I think that was the case last night in Edmonton.  Their forward group has some heaviness to it - Draisaitl, Lucic, Kassian, Maroon, Khaira - even Puljujarvi, Pakarinen are over 210.

Gudbranson makes a huge difference against teams like that - and you could see last night the difficulty the team had handling them.  It leaves an awful lot on Alex Edler (and Del Zotto).

 

I thought the team was ok for the most part last night, at least after a weak first period - but Gudbranson's absence imo is clear (as was the absence of Dorsett and Horvat) - three of the team's most difficult guys to play against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

Guessing that means it is or will be evident how much easier this team is to play against without Gudbranson in the lineup?

 

I think that was the case last night in Edmonton.  Their forward group has some heaviness to it - Draisaitl, Lucic, Kassian, Maroon, Khaira - even Puljujarvi, Pakarinen are over 210.

Gudbranson makes a huge difference against teams like that - and you could see last night the difficulty the team had handling them.  It leaves an awful lot on Alex Edler (and Del Zotto).

 

I thought the team was ok for the most part last night, at least after a weak first period - but Gudbranson's absence imo is clear (as was the absence of Dorsett and Horvat) - three of the team's most difficult guys to play against.

When New Jersey was in town a while back, Brian Boyle manhandled Troy Stecher from the half boards to almost behind the net. Stecher was doing everything right, but just couldn't stop Boyle's 240 lbs. When the bigger teams play us, the smaller version of our d line-up makes their eyes light up. We need a Gudbranson/ Tryamkin. Preferably both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SingleThorn said:

When New Jersey was in town a while back, Brian Boyle manhandled Troy Stecher from the half boards to almost behind the net. Stecher was doing everything right, but just couldn't stop Boyle's 240 lbs. When the bigger teams play us, the smaller version of our d line-up makes their eyes light up. We need a Gudbranson/ Tryamkin. Preferably both.

You are so bang on. Not just Stecher but MDZ and Tanev and even Poulliot. Not saying there is not room for smaller d-men and even those not that physical but as you point out you have to have a physical capability especially in CUP play. Look at Cherry's highlites of the Bruins-Habs game. Backes chased the Habs player after he hit him all the way back to the net. Cross checking etc. Cannot remember the kids name but there was no way he was taking on Backes and to be fair he was smaller. Cherry's point was that someone on the Habs team had to step up and they did not. It reminded me of many Canuck teams over the years.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SingleThorn said:

When New Jersey was in town a while back, Brian Boyle manhandled Troy Stecher from the half boards to almost behind the net. Stecher was doing everything right, but just couldn't stop Boyle's 240 lbs. When the bigger teams play us, the smaller version of our d line-up makes their eyes light up. We need a Gudbranson/ Tryamkin. Preferably both.

Absolutely - something that ironically escapes a lot of analytics.    Getting stuck in 'analyzing' abstractions/data - can lead to a belief that you can simply build a 'corsi' team - without realizing or understanding all the elements - and balance - it actually takes to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be so pissed if I was Gudbransons agent. You're in your contract year, you've been injured the last two years, and you spend your off week in Mexico where you injure your back.

 

Is this guy expecting to get paid simply because of his size and age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

 

Guessing that means it is or will be evident how much easier this team is to play against without Gudbranson in the lineup?

 

I think that was the case last night in Edmonton.  Their forward group has some heaviness to it - Draisaitl, Lucic, Kassian, Maroon, Khaira - even Puljujarvi, Pakarinen are over 210.

Gudbranson makes a huge difference against teams like that - and you could see last night the difficulty the team had handling them.  It leaves an awful lot on Alex Edler (and Del Zotto).

 

I thought the team was ok for the most part last night, at least after a weak first period - but Gudbranson's absence imo is clear (as was the absence of Dorsett and Horvat) - three of the team's most difficult guys to play against.

In cases where physicality is the determining factor that would be true.

 

But yesterday we got outplayed in every department for the better part of two periods.

 

Gudbranson doesn't solve the fact that they were faster, worked harder, out-hustled us and quite simply out-played us as a team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TU90 said:

I would be so pissed if I was Gudbransons agent. You're in your contract year, you've been injured the last two years, and you spend your off week in Mexico where you injure your back.

 

Is this guy expecting to get paid simply because of his size and age?

What makes you believe that Gudbanson's back spasms are a result of Mexico?

Should all the agents be mad at all the players that went?  Edler, Eriksson, Markstrom et al?

Who knows what Gudbranson is 'expecting' - but I don't expect these guys to spend every day off in a hyperbaric chamber.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oldnews said:

What makes you believe that Gudbanson's back spasms are a result of Mexico?

Should all the agents be mad at all the players that went?  Edler, Eriksson, Markstrom et al?

Who knows what Gudbranson is 'expecting' - but I don't expect these guys to spend every day off in a hyperbaric chamber.

 

 

If those players were underperforming in their contract years, then yes.

 

What did Bo do in the off week? That's a leader.

 

Guddy? The guy has been a massive disappointment to the Canucks and to his agent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, guntrix said:

In cases where physicality is the determining factor that would be true.

 

But yesterday we got outplayed in every department for the better part of two periods.

 

Gudbranson doesn't solve the fact that they were faster, worked harder, out-hustled us and quite simply out-played us as a team. 

guntrix now expects Gudbranson to solve everything.   sorry, but do you have a point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he hurt his back when he was in Mexico?

 

It must be somewhat serious if we put him on IR. Daniel only missed 1 game with back spasms, but we did have that 5 day break also. Is he on IR retroactive to an early date? Minimum 1 week he will be off then I believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Absolutely - something that ironically escapes a lot of people that claim to be 'analysts'.    They're unable, however, to analyze the game and instead get stuck in 'analyzing' abstractions/data.  It can lead to a belief that you can simply build a 'puck possession' team - without realizing or understanding all the elements - and balance - it actually takes to win.

It’s only the Analytic Gaffers that keep this trade / contract discussion alive.

I beleive that Canuck Management just want to see Gudbranson perform well so that he and the Canucks both get good value.

I think that Gudbranson will remain a Canuck.

We have 2 other Dmen whose skill set can be replaced, easier than the complete tool box that Gudbranson brings.

Either Tanev or Edler could bring an interesting return, or a strong platform to add to and bring an upgrade in their position.

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...