[PGT] Vegas Golden Knights at Vancouver Canucks | Mar. 09, 2019

[mikeyman109]

1 minute ago, Canuckster86 said:

Edler is only getting older and will slow down, the league is fast now and will get faster. It would not be a WISE decision to retain him if you are going to deploy him as a top pair D playing top minutes against teams best players. He can't anchor a PP either.

 

If we sign Edler with a limited ntc and use him on the 2nd pair that I can tolerate, but his role has to be limited, he just cant handle being a top pair guy. Our GM has not resolved any of our D issues, how long does he need to be given?

Our GM has had only a few drafts to work with and he was starting from a bare cupboard. Boeser, Petterson  have been great picks, Hughes may be as well, yet to be proven and Juolevi may be as well. He needs to continue to draft well and look for defensive gems like he stole Petterson and Boeser.

[Pete M]

8 hours ago, BlastPast said:

This is the only recap that matters.

Yeah and I'm wearing  comfortable shoes...lol

 

Like we all knew this year was a right off....next year, if we don't see improvement, then I would start to be concerned...looking forward to a new "D"

[NewbieCanuckFan]

6 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

Our GM has had only a few drafts to work with and he was starting from a bare cupboard. Boeser, Petterson  have been great picks, Hughes may be as well, yet to be proven and Juolevi may be as well. He needs to continue to draft well and look for defensive gems like he stole Petterson and Boeser.

Tanev was 24 when Benning was hired.  Hutton 20 or 21.  Edler 28.  Hamhuis today is still a capable #5 on a playoff team.  Marky was 24.  Yeah up front save Horvat, we had a bunch of old geezers but behind the blueline their was enough there to work with.  

[mikeyman109]

11 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Tanev was 24 when Benning was hired.  Hutton 20 or 21.  Edler 28.  Hamhuis today is still a capable #5 on a playoff team.  Marky was 24.  Yeah up front save Horvat, we had a bunch of old geezers but behind the blueline their was enough there to work with.  

I disagree, there was not really much to work with as the D core was aging Bieksa, Hamhuis, etc

Tanev was indeed young and he was young when we played in the 2011 finals. He is the best D man in my humble opinion but he is oft injured and not available right now either.

 

I loved Dan Hanhuis here but he was never the same player after the injury in the 1st game of the finals in 2011.

 

Edler for all i have ragged on him lately has been better than we could have hoped for when he arrived. He has been a good Canuck and has played many meaningful games

I thank him for his service.the same as I did with the Twins. Than you Alex but your time has come and we need to move on.

 

Other than those three players the blue line has been a mish mash of less talented prospects and throw aways from other teams.

Hutton and Stecher have had good games this year and I hope they continue to grow. But they are not a 1-2 pairing.

Pouliot and Biega are just there because we really have no one else ready, Hughes will bump one this year.

We still need to draft D and continue to draft D to stockpile Prospects. we need to develop three to four great D not just ok ones. They make the best trade chips at the deadline and are also needed to become a contender

[TheGuardian_]

Well that was sadly familiar, Markstrom had some bad luck and played like he did most of last year, had to happen eventually that he would have a bad game, but how Vancouver was credited with all those shots in the first period is nuts, Vegas just played with the Canucks until Demko was inserted then the backed off to save themselves for today's game vs Calgary.

 

Size matters, Stecher had a bad game, he couldn't move the big guys out from the front of the net and was caught out of position allowing goals, Edler ws abandoned to handle two players on Stastny's goal, he cut across and Stecher should have been there instead he was up by the blueline trying to interfere leaving Stastny a lane to skate into.

 

Clearly this game shows that the Canucks just are not ready yet.

 

The two teams play very similar styles, but one is bigger and all are NHL players and the other is much smaller and many AHLer's.

 

Next year go for the #1 draft pick, 2020. Draft players over 6'1", currently the Canucks have 15, soon to be 16 players UNDER the league average in size.

 

 

[Twilight Sparkle]

9 hours ago, CptCanuck16 said:

There isn't much analytics in John Garrett's colour commentary. He typically just remarks about how a player looks skyward after missing a chance or tapping the goalies pads after a save. If you noticed tonight Campbell and the other dude had many insights into aspects of the game and plays that had been made. Much more interesting than listening to Garrett saying  "head up, head up, head up, waits, waits waits" a dozen times a game.

Yeah, no. John gets dismissed too often for being "homer" I get that. I don't listen to commentary for analytics, I listen for how commentators tell a story within the game, and you don't get that from too many commentators anymore (ei. John shorthouse, Jim hushon, or even dave randorf) -- it's all too fake and robotic and lacks any sort of personality. Offering insight of how a play is broken down, step by step is all well and good, but when you know someone's in training, like a Cassie Campbell, it's noticeable and its bad. 

 

John Garrett brings just as much insight as anyone in the industry. Actually listen to what the man says when a play is being broken down, especially when he tells it from the goaltenders prospective, instead of cherry picking a line, when he calls a shot, to fit your narrative

 

I'm not hating on Cassie but she does annoy the hell out of me, with her Craig Simpsonish shakey voice, but Louie Debrusk is really good. He'd be a fine main commentator, but I expect a little personality out of the colour person

[NewbieCanuckFan]

I never claimed that Hamhuis was the same player as he was prior to 2011 only that he’s STILL today a capable #5 on a playoff team five seasons later.  BIG mistake not re-signing him and letting him walk.

[mikeyman109]

3 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Well that was sadly familiar, Markstrom had some bad luck and played like he did most of last year, had to happen eventually that he would have a bad game, but how Vancouver was credited with all those shots in the first period is nuts, Vegas just played with the Canucks until Demko was inserted then the backed off to save themselves for today's game vs Calgary.

 

Size matters, Stecher had a bad game, he couldn't move the big guys out from the front of the net and was caught out of position allowing goals, Edler ws abandoned to handle two players on Stastny's goal, he cut across and Stecher should have been there instead he was up by the blueline trying to interfere leaving Stastny a lane to skate into.

 

Clearly this game shows that the Canucks just are not ready yet.

 

The two teams play very similar styles, but one is bigger and all are NHL players and the other is much smaller and many AHLer's.

 

Next year go for the #1 draft pick, 2020. Draft players over 6'1", currently the Canucks have 15, soon to be 16 players UNDER the league average in size.

 

 

Edler is too busy trying to make up for what his partners do or dont do. He needs to play his game because when he does that he is effective. when he tries to cover the whole ice he leaves himself out of the play. Young Alex was fast enough to get back into position, old Alex is not .

I agree completely on the size comments

[mikeyman109]

2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

I never claimed that Hamhuis was the same player as he was prior to 2011 only that he’s STILL today a capable #5 on a playoff team five seasons later.  BIG mistake not re-signing him and letting him walk.

I certainly agree he could be top 5 on this team for sure

[WeneedLumme]

10 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

27 in just over a month.  Still feel the same about avoiding giving him a long-term deal.

 

Hansen's game fell of a cliff pretty fast around that age as well.  Granted one example doesn't mean all players will be like that but it seems logical that guys that 'burn at both ends of a candle tend to last half as long".

I don't really disagree with you about not wanting to see us sign Ferland for big $ and long term. But not sure what you are talking about regarding Hansen. He was the same age Ferland is right now when his offensive game first blossomed, scoring his first double-digit goals season and his first 30+ point season when he was 26. His play didn't drop off until he was in his 30's.

[vannuck59]

8 hours ago, WalkWithElias40 said:

Draft Bowen Byram and Sign Karlsson would be my motive if i was jim benning

 

i mean

 

Quinn Hughes - Erik Karlsson

Chris Tanev - Alex Edler

Ben Hutton - Troy Stetcher

Juolevi

Byram

 

 

now thats a NHL defense Core !

Really a very soft line up after last night No to Stetcher  no to Karlsson  trade Tanev

[How swede it is]

10 hours ago, MikeBossy said:

Let's not forget folks teams like Vegas were gifted a great roster through the expansion draft - not taking anything away from how they have gelled as a team but they did not have to deal with the restrictions other expansion teams did.

That's for sure, and now they won't be subjected to the expansion draft when Seattle comes in.

[SergioMomesso]

5 minutes ago, chilliwiggins said:

Feel bad for all that paid good money to go see what canucks icing these days.   I'm trying to think of why someone would pay 200 plus to buck up for this train wreck

My brother in law has 4 season tix. He figures 2 out of every 5 games, his seats are empty. Neither his clients or employees want to even bother going. 

[vannuck59]

Vegas has a cup contending team we do not. How would do in a seven game series when player hit to hurt. JB is way over his head. We the fan are going to suffer for it for years to come.

[ilduce39]

3 hours ago, Moe Knows said:

I prefer the wisdom of Samuel Clemens...There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics.....but point taken

 

7 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Actually after your post, I got curious on how bad Gudbranson was. So I spent maybe 10 minutes looking at just hockeydb, comparing him to other Defensemen thats played for the Canucks, guys like Ballard, Rome, Aaron Miller, Sbiza, Mike Weaver, etc., I looked at maybe 10 - 12 different guys. This isn't just underlying numbers, whatever crap that you're trying to convince that Gudbranson is actually good at other than being injured or looking like a moron on the ice. Statistically, there can be a very very very VERY strong arguement, if you were to take games played, salary, pts, + -, what pace he would be in an 82 game season, pts per game, that Gudbranson is probably the absolute worst defenceman to have ever worn a Canuck uniform in the last 10 years, and its only 10 because im not going to even bother looking at 2009 and earlier. The eye test says Gudbranson sucks, so do analytics, historical stats. You're trying to put Leipsic on a very very ugly pig

Anyways, the point wasn't to say Gudbranson was a strong defender (the article I quoted was pretty darn negative about him overall) the point is that he was one of the few Canucks who stood guys up at the blueline.  

 

He's gone so not trying to defend the guy, just trying to point out that we lost some of that when we shipped him out.  I still hope management replaces some elements of what Guddy did well this offseason.  

[beauskee]

11 hours ago, 40Dangles said:

He's only 26

Look at what happened with Milan lucic. Very similar trajectory. Size and banging bodies slows you down much faster. 

[CptCanuck16]

1 hour ago, Twilight Sparkle said:

Yeah, no. John gets dismissed too often for being "homer" I get that. I don't listen to commentary for analytics, I listen for how commentators tell a story within the game, and you don't get that from too many commentators anymore (ei. John shorthouse, Jim hushon, or even dave randorf) -- it's all too fake and robotic and lacks any sort of personality. Offering insight of how a play is broken down, step by step is all well and good, but when you know someone's in training, like a Cassie Campbell, it's noticeable and its bad. 

 

John Garrett brings just as much insight as anyone in the industry. Actually listen to what the man says when a play is being broken down, especially when he tells it from the goaltenders prospective, instead of cherry picking a line, when he calls a shot, to fit your narrative

 

I'm not hating on Cassie but she does annoy the hell out of me, with her Craig Simpsonish shakey voice, but Louie Debrusk is really good. He'd be a fine main commentator, but I expect a little personality out of the colour person

I'm not trashing John Garrett at all. I don't mind the guy. I was merely speculating as to why CBC hasn't brought him on board.

[Bo fan]

I thought I was having a flash back during the first period - that was as ugly as it was in Vegas.  But I did think they picked it up in the 2nd -  but you don't win games when you only play half a game.I felt horrible for Marky - I didn't watch After Hours - how was his interview?

There is definitely something missing - oh yeah - some top 6 wingers, 3 good D and some toughness.  Speed and skill are important  but we need some physical push back too.

 

[CptCanuck16]

2 hours ago, mikeyman109 said:

I thank him for his service.the same as I did with the Twins. Thank you Alex but your time has come and we need to move on.

 

Other than those three players the blue line has been a mish mash of less talented prospects and throw aways from other teams.

I don't understand the logic here. So you want to get rid of Edler and replace him with what exactly? A mishmash of less talented prospects and throw aways from other teams?  There is no harm in keeping him here while prospects develop. He's got 2-3 years left before retirement. He is like a rock on the back end and contributes offensively by starting the break out and potting a goal every now and again. When he was out with his broken face it was readily apparent that there was a HUGE hole on the back end with out him. We looked like an entirely different team. He's the best defenseman we've got and you just want to throw him out with the bath water?

[oldnews]

12 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

The advanced nerds didn't like Guddy but it was clear:

 

"But Gudbranson does have one clear strength: preventing the puck from entering the defensive zone in the first place.
Sean Tierney took Sznajder’s data (which now has a larger sample size than what was used in my previous article) and looked at how NHL teams perform when it comes to preventing zone entries. You can check out his data visualization and play around with it yourself, but here is where the Canucks’ defencemen land on the chart....The x-axis (horizontal) is break-up percentage, as in what percentage of zone entries against were broken up by the player. The y-axis is carry-in percentage, as in the percentage of zone entry attempts that are successfully carried in by the opponents. The higher you are on the chart, the lower the percentage of successful carry-in attempts against. The farther right, the higher the percentage of successful break-ups.
The Canuck ranked highest by both measures: Erik Gudbranson.
For all of Gudbranson’s struggles getting the puck out of the zone, he allowed the lowest percentage of carry-ins by opponents and aggressively broke up zone entries. Closing the gap on zone entries appears to be a legitimate strength of his game. Other defencemen near him on the chart include John Carlson, Brooks Orpik, and Kevin Connauton."

 

https://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/erik-gudbranson-led-the-canucks-in-one-defensive-category-1.21273381

 

It's an older article but from what I remember he was consistently the best Canuck at it.  

 

Idiot.

Bang on ilduce.

 

And you can extend the same effect to not simply repressing zone entries (ie standing up at the blueline) - but he has a similar strength beyond entries - when it comes to players being unwilling to drive the net, and players abandoning puck battles, the forecheck or attempting to beat him along the boards - he has a serious deterring effect in those circumstances - and it's something that was patently obvious to the 'eye test' - you could see it routinely, forwards peeling off or pumping the breaks when he had them lined up - and that counts for a fair amount of puck battles his partner doesn't necessarily have to engage in, or easy retrievals where there'd otherwise generally be a battle. 

But those are things that require more subtle observation than harping on a giveaway, an icing, or whatever.  Could Gud have moved the puck better here - maybe - but it's symptomatic of a number of defensemen, particularly when they're playing in the context of depleted and young transitioning rosters.  But here's another point I think that particular metric underlines - that Gudbranson, despite the impression that he's a poor skater - is actually able to get into position to create that deterrence at the blueline, and his mobility is part of what makes him able to take that risk.  In the process he may on the odd occassion put himself in a position where the entry succeeds and he has to maintain coverage into the zone, against smaller, quicker guys.  So yes, he was beaten on occassions in situations like that - like every single defenseman in the NHL - but the problem is the incident-gazers who thereby judge a player on a few select impressions that are the definition of confirmation bias.

Great pickup on the zone entries stats for Gud.

 

Btw, fwiw I consider you one of the most informed, level-headed posters here, who's posts are always worth reading - and one of the few people I can count on to learn some stuff from.

Highly ironic that some noob calls you an "idiot" for pointing out something that virtually no hockey person would argue with.  Welcome to CDC though - the guy will fit right in.