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

Pronman Rates Prospects #2 - Rebuild Done?


Provost

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I guess I compare past regimes to the 94' team and what they could accomplish with brutal calls going their way and they persevered on. Bure was literally getting manhandled and he took matters into his own hands and the problem was solved. Maybe not the most appropriate response but effective non the less. Linden played with broken ribs and still managed to score 2 goals in game 7. 

Then we had the Bertuzzi/Naslund incident which progressed because Naslund provided no response to what happened to him, same with the Sedin punching bag incident and the hit on Daniel from Keith. 

Odjick did not care if he was going to get a penalty, he had a line and no one passed it. Remember when he tried to take on the entire opposition team? 

Hockey is a rough sport and you cannot play it like your playing(no hit) hockey or ringette. And if you cannot at least stick up for yourself playing this sport well maybe you need to find another sport. 

By no means is a Keith or a Marchand a tough guy but they sure don't take any crap. That's the difference in the players we have had over the last couple of decades and what I hope we have with our new core. Those teams played well in the regular season but we all know how well they have done in the playoffs. Time for a change.

It's never been the job of players like them to deal with the rats of the NHL - in any era.   Two Sedins were never really the problem.

 

Marchand is/was a punk.  He chirps at pacifists while Chara, Thornton, McQuaid, Lucic stand behind him.  He doesn't "take crap"?  I can't agree with that characterization - he's a classic rat agitator that rarely if ever has to answer the bell he rings.

Likewise with Duncan Keith - what he did was a blindside cheapshot elbow to the head.  Nothing tough or 'honorable' about his antics.

 

Would I have liked to see them both run repeatedly and have to answer?  Yes.

But the fact of the matter is that the NHL is not what it was in the Bure/Odjick era.

 

Part of this, imo, should be kept in the context of the previous management group - and NHL trends.  Two things about that - Gillis was building this team on the "Detroit model".  Part of that model - aside from skill/puck possession, player development,etc was the end of the era of the enforcer.  The Wings were the first team in the NHL, under Babcock, to elect not to dress the traditional enforcer - and most teams followed suit to the point where now all teams have arguably done precisely that.  Part of Gillis' strategy was to build an elite powerplay that was supposed to act as a deterrence - however, as we saw, the NHL trends were turned backwards in the 2011 final, with throwaway whistles straight out of by-gone eras.  Should Gillis have anticipated that?  Does it really matter - as it's a question that doesn't really involve the current management's accountablility.

 

I don't think there is really any concern here at all - nor do I see the Sedins departure as necessarily a change of culture or end of an era in that sense.  They'll be younger, more mobile and perhaps more important than "pushback" they will be harder to play against between the whistles.  The team has always needed to have 'team toughness' - and it's highly likely that there'll be players in this generation that are not the 'stand up for themselves' type.  Pettersson, Hughes, etc - will be unlikely pugilists imo.  The object will still be to build team toughness around them.   The Sedins were here when Matt Martin jumped Troy Stecher - Ryan friggin Miller responded - as did Gudbranson at his next opportunity = the culture has had underlying changes well in progress.  And well before that, a notable example was the last run that Ben Eager ever took at a Sedin, with the result being Kassian breaking his face and effectively ending his career.  Hard to note an incident of the Sedins being cheap-shotted after that.

 

Benning has been bringing in players like Gudbranson, Dorsett - he's drafted guys like Gadjovich, he's signed players like MacEwen - and he's continuing to add depth veterans like Schaller, Roussel....I think that part of this team's build is well underway - and fortunately, they look like a team that will not only be better able to 'handle themselves', but their opponents are unlikely to be as 'tough' as those rivals of the past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if any of you watched the playoffs this past season, but there's something that is quite apparent.  It's no longer 2011.  The game has changed, and I'd say for the better.  The Rat has changed his game and now is a speed and skill guy rather than a cheap shot rat bastard.  It's time that we as Canucks fans let go of the past and moved on to this new reality of speed and skill.  Nothing wrong with finishing your checks, but you just don't see the cheap shots of days gone by.  When something bad happens (like what happened to Boeser last season) it's usually accidental rather than a blatant attempt to take a guys head off (like Chara in the past).  "The Hammer" Schultz would never make it in todays game.  Torres and Lapierre would because they were fast and moderately skilled, but even they would have to take a bit of the edge out of their game.  Hockey is no longer the WWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

rebuild is done when the prospect translate the talent into the NHL it doesn't matter if u have all the prospect in the world like buffalo and edmonton and ranked #1 in prospect they are still going no where till recently with their generational picks

I agree overall but doesn’t it feel like Edmonton / Buffalo hit some developmental speed bumps along the way? 

 

Edmonton is well chronicled and then you have OReilly in Buffalo saying stuff like he’d lost the love of the game and they became okay with losing.  

 

It feels like we’ve avoided that dysfunctional element so far.  We’re nowhere near out of the woods... but guys like Bo and Brock don’t seem like the types to slide into that.  Not with the vets JB has surrounded them with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

It's never been the job of players like them to deal with the rats of the NHL - in any era.   Two Sedins were never really the problem.

 

Marchand is/was a punk.  He chirps at pacifists while Chara, Thornton, McQuaid, Lucic stand behind him.  He doesn't "take crap"?  I can't agree with that characterization - he's a classic rat agitator that rarely if ever has to answer the bell he rings.

Likewise with Duncan Keith - what he did was a blindside cheapshot elbow to the head.  Nothing tough or 'honorable' about his antics.

 

Would I have liked to see them both run repeatedly and have to answer?  Yes.

But the fact of the matter is that the NHL is not what it was in the Bure/Odjick era.

 

Part of this, imo, should be kept in the context of the previous management group - and NHL trends.  Two things about that - Gillis was building this team on the "Detroit model".  Part of that model - aside from skill/puck possession, player development,etc was the end of the era of the enforcer.  The Wings were the first team in the NHL, under Babcock, to elect not to dress the traditional enforcer - and most teams followed suit to the point where now all teams have arguably done precisely that.  Part of Gillis' strategy was to build an elite powerplay that was supposed to act as a deterrence - however, as we saw, the NHL trends were turned backwards in the 2011 final, with throwaway whistles straight out of by-gone eras.  Should Gillis have anticipated that?  Does it really matter - as it's a question that doesn't really involve the current management's accountablility.

 

I don't think there is really any concern here at all - nor do I see the Sedins departure as necessarily a change of culture or end of an era in that sense.  They'll be younger, more mobile and perhaps more important than "pushback" they will be harder to play against between the whistles.  The team has always needed to have 'team toughness' - and it's highly likely that there'll be players in this generation that are not the 'stand up for themselves' type.  Pettersson, Hughes, etc - will be unlikely pugilists imo.  The object will still be to build team toughness around them.   The Sedins were here when Matt Martin jumped Troy Stecher - Ryan friggin Miller responded - as did Gudbranson at his next opportunity = the culture has had underlying changes well in progress.  And well before that, a notable example was the last run that Ben Eager ever took at a Sedin, with the result being Kassian breaking his face and effectively ending his career.  Hard to note an incident of the Sedins being cheap-shotted after that.

 

Benning has been bringing in players like Gudbranson, Dorsett - he's drafted guys like Gadjovich, he's signed players like MacEwen - and he's continuing to add depth veterans like Schaller, Roussel....I think that part of this team's build is well underway - and fortunately, they look like a team that will not only be better able to 'handle themselves', but their opponents are unlikely to be as 'tough' as those rivals of the past.

 

Yeah Odjick was an enforcer but Bure was a SNIPER! No matter what era you are in he was a guy who could score and didn't take any CRAP!

Yeah you can compare Vancouver to Detroit all you want but Detroit had a true playoff Captain in Stevie Y! Big diff in leaders in the playoffs.

You are definitely right, JB has assembled a different type of player who should be able to handle themselves. Finally!::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mikeyman109 said:

I dont think you are getting the core of it at all. The Sedins were not the whiners but everyone around them was, Burrows, Kesler especially. Way too much in fact to the point the refs turned a blind eye a lot of times to what happened to them . Say what you like Refs are human and will have bias if you give them a reason to.

The blame was not assigned to Henrik and Daniel specifically but the conversation was about the change in the culture of the dressing room of which Hank and Danny have been given credit for the good part of that and deservedly so. What will be different is the culture that develops within the room and on the ice now that they have left. Most of the old core is gone and thus an opportunity to create a team that stands up for each other on and off the ice. No more Marchand incidents ever. No more Granlund getting speared in the balls without repercussions like last year. I'm not advocating the broad street bully mentality but we need to create a culture of push back. We are here to play the game but don't mess with our players or we will mess you back. Playoff hockey is more like that.

As for Burke whining ... he has done a credible job of it and at times used it to take the heat away from his own players. So that they dont get frustrated and say what he has said for them. He has been good at that his whole career.

 

The twins were stellar role models, but that doesn’t get you the cup.  

 

They deserve praise and respect.  Had they had a winger like Bertuzzi then things would have been a lot different.  Love Burrows, but he was an agitator and what the twins could have used more was a deterrent with skill.  Having a pest playing with two ‘pacifist’ skilled guys IMO takes away from the skill.  

 

Someone to keep the morons like The Rat honest.  

 

The twins did so well, but I don’t think they maxed out their abilities, mostly because the team always struggled to get them that winger and later cause they always played together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Phat Fingers said:

The twins were stellar role models, but that doesn’t get you the cup.  

 

They deserve praise and respect.  Had they had a winger like Bertuzzi then things would have been a lot different.  Love Burrows, but he was an agitator and what the twins could have used more was a deterrent with skill.  Having a pest playing with two ‘pacifist’ skilled guys IMO takes away from the skill.  

 

Someone to keep the morons like The Rat honest.  

 

The twins did so well, but I don’t think they maxed out their abilities, mostly because the team always struggled to get them that winger and later cause they always played together. 

I don't think even Bert would have helped. That other rat Moore still took liberties to Naslund because he knew Nazzy would have done nothing about it and he didn't. 

Even little Cliff Ronning was the victim of cheap shots but not once did I see him back down from anybody.

As long as we have weasel's in the game, we will need to have players who will not take any crap because the rats of the NHL have the "instigator rule" to protect them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Phat Fingers said:

The twins were stellar role models, but that doesn’t get you the cup.  

 

They deserve praise and respect.  Had they had a winger like Bertuzzi then things would have been a lot different.  Love Burrows, but he was an agitator and what the twins could have used more was a deterrent with skill.  Having a pest playing with two ‘pacifist’ skilled guys IMO takes away from the skill.  

 

Someone to keep the morons like The Rat honest.  

 

The twins did so well, but I don’t think they maxed out their abilities, mostly because the team always struggled to get them that winger and later cause they always played together. 

This i totally agree with. What could they have done with a Neely on their line?

 

11 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I don't think even Bert would have helped. That other rat Moore still took liberties to Naslund because he knew Nazzy would have done nothing about it and he didn't. 

Even little Cliff Ronning was the victim of cheap shots but not once did I see him back down from anybody.

As long as we have weasel's in the game, we will need to have players who will not take any crap because the rats of the NHL have the "instigator rule" to protect them. 

The weasels are only allowed to do what they do if its on a team the NHL decides is a money maker for them. Otherwise we suspend players for four games in a final.

Ronning was one of the smartest players in history of the Canucks and knew how to avoid most of the crap.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, EdgarM said:

Yeah Odjick was an enforcer but Bure was a SNIPER! No matter what era you are in he was a guy who could score and didn't take any CRAP!

Yeah you can compare Vancouver to Detroit all you want but Detroit had a true playoff Captain in Stevie Y! Big diff in leaders in the playoffs.

You are definitely right, JB has assembled a different type of player who should be able to handle themselves. Finally!::D

no arguments here - if you can find us another Bure, godspeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, EdgarM said:

Yeah Odjick was an enforcer but Bure was a SNIPER! No matter what era you are in he was a guy who could score and didn't take any CRAP!

Yeah you can compare Vancouver to Detroit all you want but Detroit had a true playoff Captain in Stevie Y! Big diff in leaders in the playoffs.

You are definitely right, JB has assembled a different type of player who should be able to handle themselves. Finally!::D

Detroit also had arguably one of the best defenseman in the world, along with other defenseman, who are HOF'ers.  Vancouver has never had that.  Hopefully Hughes will be that guy for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

no arguments here - if you can find us another Bure, godspeed.

I still remember Bure taking out Shane Churla in the playoffs with an elbow..... payback time for the crap up the ice earlier on in the game. I think I also saw a clip of that on Youtube a year or two ago. I am betting the number of cheap shots on Bure declined after that. Bure was not known as being a cheap shot player but if pushed he would retaliate in kind..... My kind of player!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kootenay Gold said:

I still remember Bure taking out Shane Churla in the playoffs with an elbow..... payback time for the crap up the ice earlier on in the game. I think I also saw a clip of that on Youtube a year or two ago. I am betting the number of cheap shots on Bure declined after that. Bure was not known as being a cheap shot player but if pushed he would retaliate in kind..... My kind of player!

 

 

Definitely a special player - and strong as hell.  Bure's lower body was ridiculously solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, oldnews said:

It's never been the job of players like them to deal with the rats of the NHL - in any era.   Two Sedins were never really the problem.

 

Marchand is/was a punk.  He chirps at pacifists while Chara, Thornton, McQuaid, Lucic stand behind him.  He doesn't "take crap"?  I can't agree with that characterization - he's a classic rat agitator that rarely if ever has to answer the bell he rings.

Likewise with Duncan Keith - what he did was a blindside cheapshot elbow to the head.  Nothing tough or 'honorable' about his antics.

 

Would I have liked to see them both run repeatedly and have to answer?  Yes.

But the fact of the matter is that the NHL is not what it was in the Bure/Odjick era.

 

Part of this, imo, should be kept in the context of the previous management group - and NHL trends.  Two things about that - Gillis was building this team on the "Detroit model".  Part of that model - aside from skill/puck possession, player development,etc was the end of the era of the enforcer.  The Wings were the first team in the NHL, under Babcock, to elect not to dress the traditional enforcer - and most teams followed suit to the point where now all teams have arguably done precisely that.  Part of Gillis' strategy was to build an elite powerplay that was supposed to act as a deterrence - however, as we saw, the NHL trends were turned backwards in the 2011 final, with throwaway whistles straight out of by-gone eras.  Should Gillis have anticipated that?  Does it really matter - as it's a question that doesn't really involve the current management's accountablility.

 

I don't think there is really any concern here at all - nor do I see the Sedins departure as necessarily a change of culture or end of an era in that sense.  They'll be younger, more mobile and perhaps more important than "pushback" they will be harder to play against between the whistles.  The team has always needed to have 'team toughness' - and it's highly likely that there'll be players in this generation that are not the 'stand up for themselves' type.  Pettersson, Hughes, etc - will be unlikely pugilists imo.  The object will still be to build team toughness around them.   The Sedins were here when Matt Martin jumped Troy Stecher - Ryan friggin Miller responded - as did Gudbranson at his next opportunity = the culture has had underlying changes well in progress.  And well before that, a notable example was the last run that Ben Eager ever took at a Sedin, with the result being Kassian breaking his face and effectively ending his career.  Hard to note an incident of the Sedins being cheap-shotted after that.

 

Benning has been bringing in players like Gudbranson, Dorsett - he's drafted guys like Gadjovich, he's signed players like MacEwen - and he's continuing to add depth veterans like Schaller, Roussel....I think that part of this team's build is well underway - and fortunately, they look like a team that will not only be better able to 'handle themselves', but their opponents are unlikely to be as 'tough' as those rivals of the past.

 

The Canucks would have won a Cup if the Sedin's would have some push back like crosschecking Marchand in the teeth showing that kind of push back would have inspired this team . The Finals are a war so take no prisoners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

 

Definitely a special player - and strong as hell.  Bure's lower body was ridiculously solid.

Eye for an eye...

...remember coaching rep hockey and the team losing their sh$t when someone ran our goalie...it only happened twice, us always being a man down every time it happened because of our undiscipline play...

...changed things up and instituted an eye for an eye policy...if they ran our goalie, (we were smart about it, picked our spots) and ran their goalie...we no longer took undiscipline penalites.

Same thing applied to them running our skilled players, we ran their skilled player...didn't take long for teams to get the picture and respect that...we became the least penalized team because not as many liberties were taken against us...we had a pack mentality, which other teams respected and didn't act up as much.

 

By doing nothing, a coach is setting a standard...it's better to act and set a standard than do nothing and set a standard.

 

Liked the Bure play...he set a standard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, vannuck59 said:

The Canucks would have won a Cup if the Sedin's would have some push back like crosschecking Marchand in the teeth showing that kind of push back would have inspired this team . The Finals are a war so take no prisoners. 

Maybe.  Or cross-checking Marchand could have landed them in the press box next to Rome, in addition to the losses of Hamhuis, Malhotra, Raymond, Rome. and hobbling Kesler, Edler, Ehrhoff....  Regardless, you or I may have smashed Marchand in the face, but it wasn't their nature and can't really be expected of them - and the team wasn't really built to beat Boston at their game in any event.  They needed to dictate possession, which they could no longer do.  I'm not sure any 'inspiration' was going to change that.  If you're in a SCF and need 'inspiration'.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, vannuck59 said:

The Canucks would have won a Cup if the Sedin's would have some push back like crosschecking Marchand in the teeth showing that kind of push back would have inspired this team . The Finals are a war so take no prisoners. 

It would have been a nice feel good moment but I seriously doubt it would have helped them win.  

 

Trying to out-goon the Bruins would have been the dumbest strategy if you actually want to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pete M said:

Eye for an eye...

...remember coaching rep hockey and the team losing their sh$t when someone ran our goalie...it only happened twice, us always being a man down every time it happened because of our undiscipline play...

...changed things up and instituted an eye for an eye policy...if they ran our goalie, (we were smart about it, picked our spots) and ran their goalie...we no longer took undiscipline penalites.

Same thing applied to them running our skilled players, we ran their skilled player...didn't take long for teams to get the picture and respect that...we became the least penalized team because not as many liberties were taken against us...we had a pack mentality, which other teams respected and didn't act up as much.

 

By doing nothing, a coach is setting a standard...it's better to act and set a standard than do nothing and set a standard.

 

Liked the Bure play...he set a standard.

 

It's a good story - but I recall 'standards being set' by this team - and nevertheless they fell short.

 

Higgins ran Chara with an absolutely savage blind side hit in that final.

Aaron Rome served a suspension for retaliating and running Horton.

 

Chara, Thornton, McQuaid, Lucic, ratface....the Bruins weren't going to be dissuaded by "standards" wadr.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

It's a good story - but I recall 'standards being set' by this team - and nevertheless they fell short.

 

Higgins ran Chara with an absolutely savage blind side hit in that final.

Aaron Rome served a suspension for retaliating and running Horton.

 

Chara, Thornton, McQuaid, Lucic, ratface....the Bruins weren't going to be dissuaded by "standards" wadr.

 

Yeah, the Rome hit or was it the Torres hit... really woke up the Bruins...still believe the lose of Hamhuis in game 1 was the dagger that slayed the dragon...any team losing their best defenceman is a tough position to fill...Hamhuis was arguably their best dman (they had a few good ones, who were also playing hurt).

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...