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

[Discussion] Should the Canucks target Durabale Veterans? (and get rid of the injury prone ones?)


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

he grew up on a farm

and is talking about bales of hay . uses a bit of short hand

or a local idiom

 

you take durbale and stack it on another

durbales when all stack is a nice sight

stacking durbales is a lot of work

time for durbeer

That's possible..but could also be "Lead-rub"(alley talk for hit-men)..

 

As in, We need some Lead-rub vets to promptly take out the trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheRick said:

What does Durbale mean?:blink:

Milan Lucic is durable, but he sucks and has a terrible contract.

 

Your question is: Can the Canucks trade their often injured players for players that don't get injured lol Who would make that deal with Benning? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benning did go get durable veterans though. Beagle missed 3 games in the past two seasons, Schaller was there for all games for the Bruins, Roussel was the only one who missed a bunch of games. The Canucks either have bad luck or they need to develop safer strategies to defend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, luckylager said:

FIRE TAKAHASHI

Absolutely!  I heard that strengthening bone only requires regular treatment with a small hammer.  After months of these (some say beatings) treatments the players bones are much more resistant to breaking.  We need a training who is willing to (again, some say beat) use the newest methods to strengthen our players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Absolutely!  I heard that strengthening bone only requires regular treatment with a small hammer.  After months of these (some say beatings) treatments the players bones are much more resistant to breaking.  We need a training who is willing to (again, some say beat) use the newest methods to strengthen our players. 

His unwillingness to adopt modern practices makes him an easy fall guy. 

 

Obviously Tak's fault guys keep getting hit by pucks, concussed and randomly falling apart.

 

Does the hammer method work for concussions too? Just mild, daily head trauma training?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I have stated this before. We have far too many injuries to pretty much all key players to be just bad luck or coincidence. Answer me this. Why doesn't a player such as Pouliot ever get injured? Hmmm?

 

Training staffs aren't all cut from the same cloth. Some are better than others. It's like this across all sports. Some baseball teams have pitchers who rarely get arm injuries while other teams lose their whole rotation to injury year after year. 

 

My theory, based on nothing at all other than observation, I believe that 'sports nutrition' is the main culprit. Athletes eat formulated diets full of supplements and protein shakes in place of real food. While scientifically this makes sense, who knows how all the synthetic 'foods' work to build muscle and in effect strength, agility, etc. On the surface we have athletes who are in the best shape ever, yet are brittle on the inside. Again, I have no proof of any of this and modern athlete diet proponents would laugh me out of a room for even suggesting it but how are these finely tuned athletes so weak? You could probably factor in single sport specific training which focuses your muscle development in one specific way rather than through multiple disciplines. But again, just a thought with no proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Should the Canucks target Durbale Veterans? (and get rid of the injury prone ones?)

 

While I’ve defended and supported this management’s approach to the rebuild (i.e. forcing kids to earn their spots, surrounding the kids with proven vets that were either elite players at one point or are reknowned lockerrom leaders), there is one pet-peeve of mine that has NOT been addressed since 2015.  Durability.

 

Since our playoff loss to the Flames back in 2015, we have seen the Canucks field teams that  have been competitive for a Wildcard playoff spot.....when healthy.

 

The problem however, is that the Canucks have always suffered key injuries to key players which has always been followed by a massive free fall. Yes -all teams suffer key injuries, but I highly doubt that that there’s a team out there that has suffered as many key injuries to their team over the past three years than the Canucks have (perhaps Los Angeles?).

 

Regardless, there is an old saying:  “Fool me once.”

 

If a team gets decimated by injuries one year and free falls, we can forgive the team and management.  However - if this becomes a trend, and the same key injuries are occurring to the same players, then the onus is on management to make changes and realise that this is far more than bad luck.  As much as I have defended Benning in the past, I do believe that he deserves criticism here.

 

My solution?

 

Consider trading all of Baertschi, Tanev, Edler, Sutter, and Gudbranson.  Trade anyone that has a history of chronic injuries.  However - don’t trade all of these guys for picks.   Instead - consider trading most of these guys for DURABLE vets.....or vets that have a proven history of being DURABLE.

 

Even if you have to trade the above players for inferior veteran players, perhaps the “downgrade” can be offset by bringing in vets that are on shorter term contracts and are more durable.

 

what is achieved by this?  The Canucks can still benefit from their vision of having veterans mentor the incoming youth, but can also reap the benefits of not being a victim to man games lost.

Come on pal.

 

Every veteran is durable...until they come to the Canucks lol.   Don't be silly.

 

Edit: just look at Eriksson

 

 

 

 

LE.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, smokes said:

Benning did go get durable veterans though. Beagle missed 3 games in the past two seasons, Schaller was there for all games for the Bruins, Roussel was the only one who missed a bunch of games. The Canucks either have bad luck or they need to develop safer strategies to defend. 

 

My guess would be safer strategies to defend if that’s the case.

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...