The one forward spot that is coveted above all - who will be anointed?

[ynwa]

12 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

Loui Eriksson will be playing with Reid Boucher and Kole Lind

It's fairly obvious that the best thing would be to move LE before the season starts. However if he's still on the books I don't think it would hurt to try him for a few games with those two. If it didn't work then they have a decision to make, but if it could re-ignite some of the form that induced them to sign him in the first place it would be a real bonus at no extra cost.

[kingofsurrey]

Give Loui E the Cody Hodgson treatment.

 

Pump up his stats with quality linemates and O Zone starts.....  then move him  ( for a 2nd round pick ) when he his value is regained somewhat......

[Dr. Crossbar]

I want to say Miller but I just can't see EP being exposed to have a repeat of the Matheson hit. Ferland is the deterrent that was missing last year. 

[Baggins]

12 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Ferland.  Because Benning doesn’t want this sh*t to happen ever again...

 

 

It wouldn't stop it. It never really has for those so inclined. Did having to fight stop Ferland from running players? The way I see it, putting Ferland with Petey and Boeser, increases their risk. Ferland will run guys and his line will wind up in scrums where Petey and Boeser are getting roughed up. My preference would be Miller, big and tough enough to protect them, without causing problems for them himself.

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

I want to say Miller but I just can't see EP being exposed to have a repeat of the Matheson hit. Ferland is the deterrent that was missing last year. 

I keep seeing comments like this.... It's not like Miller is some wilting flower. He's not at the same pugilistic level as Ferland but he's more than willing to both play physical and fight. He's also arguably more skilled and adds a second guy to win/backup Petey on draws. Things that happen FAR more often/are more useful than fighting (once every 14+/- games) which would be Ferland's main advantage over him. IMO, it's Miller's spot to lose.

 

By all means, I'm sure Ferland will see some time on that line. Perhaps if we're playing a bigger team or opponents are in fact actively attempting to take liberties (as well as line shuffling with injuries, penalties etc). But most of the time, I'd expect we see something along the lines of:

 

Miller, Pettersson, Boeser

Pearson/Baer, Horvat, Ferland

Pearson/Baer, Sutter, Virtanen/Leivo

Motte, Beagle, Virtanen/Leivo

 

Schaller/Goldobin (one waived)

 

*Roussel on IR

 

IMO, whomever 'loses' the Baer/Pearson battle (is playing 3rd rather than 2nd line) is likely to be moved to make room for Roussel in November-December'ish.

[Nucker 67]

9 minutes ago, Baggins said:

putting Ferland with Petey and Boeser, increases their risk

I'm not sure, I don't think Ferland is going to skate around running guys. Edler had around the same amount of PIMs last season as Ferland (and half of what Roussel took). But just having him on the ice will make opponents think twice about taking Pettersson or Boeser out with a cheap shot. Ferland can also play, he's got good hands and can chip in. 

[Baggins]

3 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

I'm not sure, I don't think Ferland is going to skate around running guys. Edler had around the same amount of PIMs last season as Ferland (and half of what Roussel took). But just having him on the ice will make opponents think twice about taking Pettersson or Boeser out with a cheap shot. Ferland can also play, he's got good hands and can chip in. 

Running over a guy doesn't automatically mean a penalty. Just as head contact doesn't always result in a penalty. Plenty of clean legal hits result in fighting and/or scrums. The only ones that think twice about cheap shots are the more skilled guys that don't want to get in fights. Those inclined to cheap shots are used to having to fight and aren't deterred at all. Look no further than Torres. The only thing that stopped him and his head shots was essentially being suspended out of the league. Those inclined to taking liberties, cheap shots, and throwing big hits aren't deterred by fighting. They expect it.

[spook007]

26 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I keep seeing comments like this.... It's not like Miller is some wilting flower. He's not at the same pugilistic level as Ferland but he's more than willing to both play physical and fight. He's also arguably more skilled and adds a second guy to win/backup Petey on draws. Things that happen FAR more often/are more useful than fighting (once every 14+/- games) which would be Ferland's main advantage over him. IMO, it's Miller's spot to lose.

 

By all means, I'm sure Ferland will see some time on that line. Perhaps if we're playing a bigger team or opponents are in fact actively attempting to take liberties (as well as line shuffling with injuries, penalties etc). But most of the time, I'd expect we see something along the lines of:

 

Miller, Pettersson, Boeser

Pearson/Baer, Horvat, Ferland

Pearson/Baer, Sutter, Virtanen/Leivo

Motte, Beagle, Virtanen/Leivo

 

Schaller/Goldobin (one waived)

 

*Roussel on IR

 

IMO, whomever 'loses' the Baer/Pearson battle (is playing 3rd rather than 2nd line) is likely to be moved to make room for Roussel in November-December'ish.

Well that's just the joy of it...endless options.

Think Baer will be on the second line though, simply because Pearson will be a better 3rd liner (more bullish) 

 

Regardless of what our line up will be, what joy it is to see us being able to field a really competitive line up with room for injuries... on paper at least... 

[D.B Cooper]

Ferland-Pete-Boeser

Miller-Horvat-Pearson.  

 

Gotta have a deterrent on a skilled, smaller line.  Ferland will be a great protector who can put up points.  

 

That second line is big, heavy, solid defensively, and can put up decent points.

Could be a fairly old school style line.  

I like it.  

 

For the first time in years we have close to 6 top 6 forwards.  Realistically, I’d call it 4, but it’s really close.   

[aGENT]

13 minutes ago, spook007 said:

Well that's just the joy of it...endless options.

Think Baer will be on the second line though, simply because Pearson will be a better 3rd liner (more bullish) 

 

Regardless of what our line up will be, what joy it is to see us being able to field a really competitive line up with room for injuries... on paper at least... 

Indeed. Any of Miller, Ferland, Baer, Pearson, Leivo, heck even longer shots of Goldobin, Virtanen (and when he get's back from injury) Roussel can play top/middle 6 when needed depending on game, injuries, penalties etc.

 

Baer on the 2nd is likely a more well rounded lineup...but he's going to have to retake that ground after Pearson showing solid chemistry with Bo.

[Dr. Crossbar]

58 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I keep seeing comments like this.... It's not like Miller is some wilting flower. He's not at the same pugilistic level as Ferland but he's more than willing to both play physical and fight. He's also arguably more skilled and adds a second guy to win/backup Petey on draws. Things that happen FAR more often/are more useful than fighting (once every 14+/- games) which would be Ferland's main advantage over him. IMO, it's Miller's spot to lose.

 

By all means, I'm sure Ferland will see some time on that line. Perhaps if we're playing a bigger team or opponents are in fact actively attempting to take liberties (as well as line shuffling with injuries, penalties etc). But most of the time, I'd expect we see something along the lines of:

 

Miller, Pettersson, Boeser

Pearson/Baer, Horvat, Ferland

Pearson/Baer, Sutter, Virtanen/Leivo

Motte, Beagle, Virtanen/Leivo

 

Schaller/Goldobin (one waived)

 

*Roussel on IR

 

IMO, whomever 'loses' the Baer/Pearson battle (is playing 3rd rather than 2nd line) is likely to be moved to make room for Roussel in November-December'ish.

Well, you're seeing comments like that because it's obvious who the greater deterrent is between Miller and Ferland. So, with such a "black or white, either or" type question, it only makes sense to go with the greater deterrent after the Matheson hit because we can't leave our franchise player that vulnerable. Ferland, imo, is that deterrent.

 

The reality, though, isn't this black and white.

 

If you take this it out of "either or" absolute of the question, by no means do I think Miller is soft or do I think Ferland will be with EP only. It'll come down to match-ups and we'll see both Miller and Ferland alternating between Top 6 lines.

 

And they both add that level of back-up, pushback that was missing yet with skill that doesn't leaves us vulnerable from a liability/physical only presence. We have two different options in both physicality and offense that we didn't have.

 

To think we also have Roussel coming near the end of year really (and finally) makes this team much harder to play against. I want to see Baer bounce back but my gut is telling me Pearson will likely win that battle. 

 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Well, you're seeing comments like that because it's obvious who the greater deterrent is between Miller and Ferland. So, with such a "black or white, either or" type question, it only makes sense to go with the greater deterrent after the Matheson hit because we can't leave our franchise player that vulnerable. Ferland, imo, is that deterrent.

Given that Ferland averaged a fight once every 14+/- games last year, IMO it does not in fact 'make sense' to go with who the greater deterrent is.

 

IMO, it makes sense to go with who the likely better hockey player is, who can help out on draws and is plenty 'deterrent enough' on his own, as that's what will be required 99% of the time they're on the ice together. It seems odd IMO to cater to the 1% of the time that fighting will be required at the expense of the other 99%. That's a LOT of hockey.

 

But who know's, perhaps chemistry etc will dictate otherwise. Perhaps Petey and Ferland are a chemistry match waiting to be made in heaven. Otherwise, I expect we're more likely to see them together more so situationally.

[PhillipBlunt]

16 hours ago, BrockBoester said:

Okay, so if you're a new or existing Canuck forward, where do YOU want your name written in the lineup?

 

Surely the biggest choice for Mr. Green going into this season is, WHO rides shotgun on the Petey/Brock line, and thus sees his point total skyrocket into the stratosphere?

Many figure that JT Miller is probably the more skilled offensive choice to slot in, but then there are others that think the Ferkster should be on line 1 to provide a police escort for Big Petey on his way to goaltown. And then there's the dark horse candidate, Loui "The Sniper" Eriksson!

Could there possibly be another Canuck forward lurking in the midst of the depth chart that could be a surprise pick to play sidekick to the Dynamic Duo?

Vote and discuss!
 

  Reveal hidden contents

Also LTIR trades should be outlawed and retroactively penalized kthx

 

As always, another solid and hilarious post, BrockBoester.

[Dr. Crossbar]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Given that Ferland averaged a fight once every 14+/- games last year, IMO it does not in fact 'make sense' to go with who the greater deterrent is.

 

IMO, it makes sense to go with who the likely better hockey player is, who can help out on draws and is plenty 'deterrent enough' on his own, as that's what will be required 99% of the time they're on the ice together. It seems odd IMO to cater to the 1% of the time that fighting will be required at the expense of the other 99%. That's a LOT of hockey.

 

But who know's, perhaps chemistry etc will dictate otherwise. Perhaps Petey and Ferland are a chemistry match waiting to be made in heaven. Otherwise, I expect we're more likely to see them together more so situationally.

You're not factoring in perception, which isn't necessarily governed by stats or accurate current reality. Among players it comes down to "the perception" of who the greater deterrent is on the ice. That's why it may not make sense. It doesn't need to if Ferland is already "perceived" as the greater threat throughout the league.

 

My guess is that Ferland is perceived as a greater threat than Miller among players wheras Miller is likely perceived as the better, more complete player. 

 

But yeah, chemistry will also shake this out as well. Hopefully Green can really key in on that sooner than later.

 

 

 

[theo5789]

45 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Well, you're seeing comments like that because it's obvious who the greater deterrent is between Miller and Ferland. So, with such a "black or white, either or" type question, it only makes sense to go with the greater deterrent after the Matheson hit because we can't leave our franchise player that vulnerable. Ferland, imo, is that deterrent.

 

The reality, though, isn't this black and white.

 

If you take this it out of "either or" absolute of the question, by no means do I think Miller is soft or do I think Ferland will be with EP only. It'll come down to match-ups and we'll see both Miller and Ferland alternating between Top 6 lines.

 

And they both add that level of back-up, pushback that was missing yet with skill that doesn't leaves us vulnerable from a liability/physical only presence. We have two different options in both physicality and offense that we didn't have.

 

To think we also have Roussel coming near the end of year really (and finally) makes this team much harder to play against. I want to see Baer bounce back but my gut is telling me Pearson will likely win that battle. 

 

If no one saw the play unfold as what happened with Matheson, then does it matter who's on the ice? I don't buy the whole deterrent thing in the sense they need to be on the same line. Ryan Reaves is probably one of if not the best deterrents in the NHL and he plays under 10 minutes a game.

 

If I was a pest, I'd try to throw Ferland off his game by going after the star player and goading him into taking a dumb penalty.

 

So IMO it's finding the best player to fit the line in terms of production offensively and defensively (it may very well be Ferland). If it's Miller, he more than a willing combatant that will stand up for his teammates for any immediate retribution and he's the higher ceiling offensive player. Miller may even end up centering the line if EP is having a tough night on the dot too. So on paper he's the better choice.

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, stawns said:

Personally, I see them walking away from Goldy........or sign and trade.

I don't think they would've qualified him if they felt he has nothing left to offer. He would have very little value in a trade, so I imagine he's at camp fighting for a spot. He may very well be waived, but I'd like to see him get a look.

 

We don't have a lot of offensive creativity, so while we did beef up our lineup, I think there needs to be a balance of some skill sprinkled in there and I'd argue that Goldy would be probably only after EP in creativity.

[J-Dizzle]

Gaudette EP Boeser 

 

Have fun figuring out the rest from there 

[stawns]

1 minute ago, J-Dizzle said:

Gaudette EP Boeser 

 

Have fun figuring out the rest from there 

I'd say theres a low probability of AG starting in Van.  Aside from not looking ready last year, he's also waiver exempt.

[aGENT]

26 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

You're not factoring in perception, which isn't necessarily governed by stats or accurate current reality. Among players it comes down to "the perception" of who the greater deterrent is on the ice. That's why it may not make sense. It doesn't need to if Ferland is already "perceived" as the greater threat throughout the league.

 

My guess is that Ferland is perceived as a greater threat than Miller among players wheras Miller is likely perceived as the better, more complete player. 

 

But yeah, chemistry will also shake this out as well. Hopefully Green can really key in on that sooner than later.

 

 

 

If I'm the opposition, I'd GLADLY take that trade off given that 99% of hockey is....wait for it...hockey.

 

Frankly I think a lot of you have this bass-ackwards  Whatever it is you're 'perceiving'.

[Dr. Crossbar]

17 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

If no one saw the play unfold as what happened with Matheson, then does it matter who's on the ice? I don't buy the whole deterrent thing in the sense they need to be on the same line. Ryan Reaves is probably one of if not the best deterrents in the NHL and he plays under 10 minutes a game.

 

If I was a pest, I'd try to throw Ferland off his game by going after the star player and goading him into taking a dumb penalty.

 

So IMO it's finding the best player to fit the line in terms of production offensively and defensively (it may very well be Ferland). If it's Miller, he more than a willing combatant that will stand up for his teammates for any immediate retribution and he's the higher ceiling offensive player. Miller may even end up centering the line if EP is having a tough night on the dot too. So on paper he's the better choice.

Well, it certainly mattered who was on the ice after the hit, our reaction, and the message it sent to opposing teams.

 

It's interesting how after that incident people were wishing we had a player like Ferland, calling for a player like Ferland, and then lo and behold, we actually get Ferland. It's not a coincidence.

 

At the time, I don't remember too many people saying, "You know, after that incident, what we really need is a guy like JT Miller!"

 

Keep in mind, the original question here is one or the other. That's where this is coming from. Of course I don't believe the deterrent needs to be on the same line at all times, I agree, but there's no room in the original question for that.