Luke Schenn | #2 | D

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

6 minutes ago, The Lock said:

And yet, Columbus used toughness against Tampa. I think really all we need in the end is a good enough team.

I think "toughness" is a term that is far more complex now in today's NHL.

 

Toughness in today's game is no longer being a brute force to be reckon with.  This throw back hockey style really is a rarity in today's game.  Yeah there are times where we see it a lot, but I think toughness really comes down to the desire of a player to beat out and out work the opposition.  Players who are willing to take hits, beatings along the boards to win puck battles.  Players who are willing to go into the tough areas of the ice and being relentless until they are successful - that means playing in front of the net and taking the punishments, driving hard to the net, fighting through traffic, etc.  Also means coming back hard on the backcheck despite being tired, taking the few extra strides to seal off a passing lane, or taking away the oppositions time and space. This is toughness in today's NHL. 

 

As we saw in the playoffs so far, its not that intimidating, brutish, throwback toughness we saw from the 70's to early 2000's.  Toughness has embraced a whole new spectrum of play that really and truly reflects the nature of player's commitment and skill level together.  Columbus beat Tampa because they were tough, but not because they were bullying them, they simply out worked the Lightning in puck battles, driving hard to the net, making life difficult for their skilled players by beating them to pucks, and making them play to the outside.

 

The most prevalent theme that is also showing up in this years playoffs, is the idea that doesn't matter what role you play, role player, skilled player, star player etc, you have to play tough with all the things listed above.  Frankly, we don't have enough players who are 'tough', we have some, but we also have a handful of guys who aren't.

 

Sure team toughness is important, but frankly that develops not because of having a few players who play that style, it is cultivated from having players who play hard for one another.  That forms the culture of togetherness and a true team.  Team toughness becomes a natural progression due to dedication to one another on the ice that you are compelled to protect one another.  

[Kushman]

9 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

I think "toughness" is a term that is far more complex now in today's NHL.

 

Toughness in today's game is no longer being a brute force to be reckon with.  This throw back hockey style really is a rarity in today's game.  Yeah there are times where we see it a lot, but I think toughness really comes down to the desire of a player to beat out and out work the opposition.  Players who are willing to take hits, beatings along the boards to win puck battles.  Players who are willing to go into the tough areas of the ice and being relentless until they are successful - that means playing in front of the net and taking the punishments, driving hard to the net, fighting through traffic, etc.  Also means coming back hard on the backcheck despite being tired, taking the few extra strides to seal off a passing lane, or taking away the oppositions time and space. This is toughness in today's NHL. 

 

As we saw in the playoffs so far, its not that intimidating, brutish, throwback toughness we saw from the 70's to early 2000's.  Toughness has embraced a whole new spectrum of play that really and truly reflects the nature of player's commitment and skill level together.  Columbus beat Tampa because they were tough, but not because they were bullying them, they simply out worked the Lightning in puck battles, driving hard to the net, making life difficult for their skilled players by beating them to pucks, and making them play to the outside.

 

The most prevalent theme that is also showing up in this years playoffs, is the idea that doesn't matter what role you play, role player, skilled player, star player etc, you have to play tough with all the things listed above.  Frankly, we don't have enough players who are 'tough', we have some, but we also have a handful of guys who aren't.

 

Sure team toughness is important, but frankly that develops not because of having a few players who play that style, it is cultivated from having players who play hard for one another.  That forms the culture of togetherness and a true team.  Team toughness becomes a natural progression due to dedication to one another on the ice that you are compelled to protect one another.  

[RonMexico]

13 hours ago, RRypien37 said:

Pitts and Tampa had basically zero toughness on their rosters heading into the playoffs so not sure what you're talking about. 

 

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 12:48 PM, The 5th Line said:

Agreed.  Need a 4th liner player who can intimidate and a few more just overall tougher and bigger players up front as well, surround those few with speed and skill and away you go.  The sharks have Haley, the preds picked up Hendricks, the penguins pick up players like Reaves and gudbranson. (Reaves is a total beauty)Winnipeg is an example of total team toughness with all their monsters. Even those boys on Tampa, Cernak and Paquette, bring a different element and attitude to that team.  These players still have a place in the game, they instill courage in the rest of the team

 

 

That was the original quote. But why look at the context right? And I said it tongue in cheek.

Edited April 25, 2019 by RonMexico

[aGENT]

13 hours ago, The Lock said:

You know, people talk like team toughness is important, and yet we have a league where we see less tough teams like Pittsburgh win back to back cups and tougher teams like Washington win cups. Then you have the current playoffs where Vegas and Winnipeg are supposed to be tough and they are out. Nashville's supposed to have unbeatable defense and a goalie and they are out. Tampa and Pittsburgh have skill skill skill and they are out.

 

So my point here is is it really going to matter in the end if we go for toughness or not? Momentum: that's the key element, and there's not a whole lot we can do about that other than just having a good overall team, facing the right competitor in the playoffs at the right time, and feeding off of that.

Skill, nebulous 'toughness', depth, goaltending and a sizable dollop of luck (and as you point out, corresponding momentum). There's really no one size fits all answer that people seem to want.

 

9 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

I think "toughness" is a term that is far more complex now in today's NHL.

 

Toughness in today's game is no longer being a brute force to be reckon with.  This throw back hockey style really is a rarity in today's game.  Yeah there are times where we see it a lot, but I think toughness really comes down to the desire of a player to beat out and out work the opposition.  Players who are willing to take hits, beatings along the boards to win puck battles.  Players who are willing to go into the tough areas of the ice and being relentless until they are successful - that means playing in front of the net and taking the punishments, driving hard to the net, fighting through traffic, etc.  Also means coming back hard on the backcheck despite being tired, taking the few extra strides to seal off a passing lane, or taking away the oppositions time and space. This is toughness in today's NHL. 

 

As we saw in the playoffs so far, its not that intimidating, brutish, throwback toughness we saw from the 70's to early 2000's.  Toughness has embraced a whole new spectrum of play that really and truly reflects the nature of player's commitment and skill level together.  Columbus beat Tampa because they were tough, but not because they were bullying them, they simply out worked the Lightning in puck battles, driving hard to the net, making life difficult for their skilled players by beating them to pucks, and making them play to the outside.

 

The most prevalent theme that is also showing up in this years playoffs, is the idea that doesn't matter what role you play, role player, skilled player, star player etc, you have to play tough with all the things listed above.  Frankly, we don't have enough players who are 'tough', we have some, but we also have a handful of guys who aren't.

 

Sure team toughness is important, but frankly that develops not because of having a few players who play that style, it is cultivated from having players who play hard for one another.  That forms the culture of togetherness and a true team.  Team toughness becomes a natural progression due to dedication to one another on the ice that you are compelled to protect one another.  

This.

 

I believe Green/Benning refer to that as 'playing the right way' and 'guys you can win with'. We've got some on the team and prospects who look like they'll have it but we need to keep building it.

[Zhukini]

I think the idea that toughness is not needed is just silly. What we dont need to do is spend 4M on just toughness or actively seek it out. What Benning did with Schenn is absolutely the way to go about it. Use your resources and money on speed and skill and send your scouts to work to find players who can bring that toughness without being a "name" player like Simmonds or Ferland who will both be vastly overpaid this year. 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Zhukini said:

I think the idea that toughness is not needed is just silly. What we dont need to do is spend 4M on just toughness or actively seek it out. What Benning did with Schenn is absolutely the way to go about it. Use your resources and money on speed and skill and send your scouts to work to find players who can bring that toughness without being a "name" player like Simmonds or Ferland who will both be vastly overpaid this year. 

I'd pretty happily add Nelson or Lee if the price was right.

 

Ideally you do want to acquire (whether by draft, trade, UFA etc) some sort of skilled 'power forward' type that plays a hard corners/net front game and also has the requisite top 6 skill level. Though in today's game that guy isn't necessarily going to be around 6'4" and 220+ lbs. 

[Hairy Kneel]

I would take MTS toughness and his scoring. If he was on EPS line. 

[PhillipBlunt]

7 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I would take MTS toughness and his scoring. If he was on EPS line. 

Tcapuke doesn't really strike me as tough. His antics are seemingly more in line with a gutless and reckless agitator.

[Hairy Kneel]

18 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Tcapuke doesn't really strike me as tough. His antics are seemingly more in line with a gutless and reckless agitator.

I think of his total 174 points, a lot are in close to the net. Lottta garbage goals. We have Pearson now and maybe Lievo and Bo but a lot of our forwards are more skill than bulldog tenacity. 

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I think of his total 174 points, a lot are in close to the net. Lottta garbage goals. We have Pearson now and maybe Lievo and Bo but a lot of our forwards are more skill than bulldog tenacity. 

Certainly, he's willing to take a hit to get a goal. I can respect that work ethic. It's the cheapshots that I don't like.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Tcapuke doesn't really strike me as tough. His antics are seemingly more in line with a gutless and reckless agitator.

It's a shame Mark Stone didn't make it to July 1, would have FAR preferred his type of 'toughness and scoring'.

 

Likely a pipe dream he would have come here anyway though so... 

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

It's a shame Mark Stone didn't make it to July 1, would have FAR preferred his type of 'toughness and scoring'.

 

Likely a pipe dream he would have come here anyway though so... 

He's been tainted by Vegas now, aGENT. Not to worry, the Canucks will find players that will fill those needs.

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

He's been tainted by Vegas now, aGENT. Not to worry, the Canucks will find players that will fill those needs.

Haha, I'd gladly take some of his 12 points in 7 playoff games while playing a heavy game 'taint' 

 

Here's hoping, we could use a 'Mark Stone' (but then again so could probably 20'ish other teams).

[PhillipBlunt]

43 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Haha, I'd gladly take some of his 12 points in 7 playoff games while playing a heavy game 'taint' 

 

Here's hoping, we could use a 'Mark Stone' (but then again so could probably 20'ish other teams).

It's funny how removing the "ed" from the word taint brings a whole new meaning to it.

Edited April 26, 2019 by PhillipBlunt

[Goal:thecup]

If we could get Tryamkin back, there would be no need to show him Pronger videos anymore; just let Schenn mentor him.

 

I think Schenn's refound game would suit Tryamkin's development much better than old illegal Pronger's game; (how he got away with everything he did is beyond comprehension).

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, Goal:thecup said:

If we could get Tryamkin back, there would be no need to show him Pronger videos anymore; just let Schenn mentor him.

 

I think Schenn's refound game would suit Tryamkin's development much better than old illegal Pronger's game; (how he got away with everything he did is beyond comprehension).

Always thought it was a missed opportunity that Guddy was hurt during Tryamkin's time in Van. He could have helped. 

[J-P]

5 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

If we could get Tryamkin back, there would be no need to show him Pronger videos anymore; 

Yeah can’t really blame Nik for bailing, I never liked Pronger either. 

[Goal:thecup]

15 hours ago, J-P said:

Yeah can’t really blame Nik for bailing, I never liked Pronger either. 

The only thing I really didn't like about Pronger was he wasn't a Canuck.

Prototypical defenseman for the era, imo.

 

Schenn was also one of my favorites when he first came in to the league.

I was really hoping we would be able to get him, but it was not to be.

 

Until now!

And he is reborn as a valuable member of the Canucks and still only 29.

Lots of good miles left on that truck.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Goal:thecup

[Me_]

On 4/27/2019 at 9:54 AM, Goal:thecup said:

The only thing I really didn't like about Pronger was he wasn't a Canuck.

Prototypical defenseman for the era, imo.

 

Schenn was also one of my favorites when he first came in to the league.

I was really hoping we would be able to get him, but it was not to be.

 

Until now!

And he is reborn as a valuable member of the Canucks and still only 29.

Lots of good miles left on that truck.

And he’s only 29. If he can keep the edge he got from the wake up call of getting demoted and traded, then the Canuck may have yet another steal on their roster.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Schenn really was a revelation in his time with us.  There's absolutely no reason not to sign him for a year or two around 1 million if he'll take it.  Best case scenario, he continues to outperform and we have a serious bargain.  Middling scenario, he's serviceable depth who's in and out of the lineup or up and down between Utica and the big club.  Worst case scenario, we bury him in Utica with no cap consequences. 

My sense is that under Eakins, he really did re-tool his game to handle the new NHL, and that what we saw wasn't a fluke based on small sample size.  But even if JB is more skeptical, he's still a good depth option at 4 or 5 down the RD chart.  We seriously need to do this.