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

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

Rate this topic


BrockBoester

First line  

169 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

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!"

To be fair, I'd wager a LOT of Canuck-fandom had never/barely heard of JT Miller playing in New York/Florida (one of the main reasons for the uproar over the trade IMO as well). While simultaneously a good number still wake up in a cold sweat from what they remember Ferland doing to the Canucks in that playoff series.

 

# Familiarity bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

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.

 

 

But there is. We could choose the better "fit" where on paper Miller looks to be.

 

People were calling for Ferland to exact revenge. He wouldn't have stopped the play from happening, but maybe have someone do something about it after the fact. The problem was supposedly in game, no one saw what happened and it didn't even occur until the next time they faced that they looked for retribution. Ferland on the same line doesn't change that if he also did not see what happened. So it really comes down to who makes that line better in production as a "deterrent" doesn't need to be on the ice with your star player at all times. I understand if the thought process was Ferland may mesh well with said players in that he's played alongside skilled guys in Aho and Gaudreau, but I don't buy the reason for being a deterrent. If we want a guy that is simply willing to stand up for his linemates should they take a bad/dirty hit, then Miller is more than capable of doing this job.

 

People were calling for Reaves as well and like I mentioned, he's a under 10 minute a night player, and he's widely seen as the best deterrent in the NHL currently. He indeed is a good face puncher, but I wouldn't play him with EP and BB for this reason alone.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

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......

No team is ever paying a 2nd to acquire LE at that term. I'm happy with just trading him. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

But there is. We could choose the better "fit" where on paper Miller looks to be.

 

People were calling for Ferland to exact revenge. He wouldn't have stopped the play from happening, but maybe have someone do something about it after the fact. The problem was supposedly in game, no one saw what happened and it didn't even occur until the next time they faced that they looked for retribution. Ferland on the same line doesn't change that if he also did not see what happened. So it really comes down to who makes that line better in production as a "deterrent" doesn't need to be on the ice with your star player at all times. I understand if the thought process was Ferland may mesh well with said players in that he's played alongside skilled guys in Aho and Gaudreau, but I don't buy the reason for being a deterrent. If we want a guy that is simply willing to stand up for his linemates should they take a bad/dirty hit, then Miller is more than capable of doing this job.

 

People were calling for Reaves as well and like I mentioned, he's a under 10 minute a night player, and he's widely seen as the best deterrent in the NHL currently. He indeed is a good face puncher, but I wouldn't play him with EP and BB for this reason alone.

This just brings me back to my original comment. I want to say Miller but the Matheson incident calls for a different type of dererrent. We can't have a repeat of that so the deterrent needs to be more direct and straightforward. Ferland is better suited to that type of deterrent and also that role.

 

The first reaction was emotional with retribution but it didn't take long, or a genius to fugure out we needed a deterring presence and more pushback in the lineup to mitigate the opportunity for those incidents to occur.

 

Clearly we hired Miller more for his production and diversity in options, which does include physicality and pushback. That deterrent factor will be more secondary through his overall game whereas Ferland will be that primary direct deterrent with the ability to produce.

 

That's just how I see it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baer will only last 5-10 games this season on a light hit to the head ....i dont see him completing next season especially the hard hitting west after last years dizzyness/headaches and 5 concussions deep ....insert goldy for his vision and playmaking to create offence ya travis green i said it 

told you so football GIF by Mayhem

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

This just brings me back to my original comment. I want to say Miller but the Matheson incident calls for a different type of dererrent. We can't have a repeat of that so the deterrent needs to be more direct and straightforward. Ferland is better suited to that type of deterrent and also that role.

 

The first reaction was emotional with retribution but it didn't take long, or a genius to fugure out we needed a deterring presence and more pushback in the lineup to mitigate the opportunity for those incidents to occur.

 

Clearly we hired Miller more for his production and diversity in options, which does include physicality and pushback. That deterrent factor will be more secondary through his overall game whereas Ferland will be that primary direct deterrent with the ability to produce.

 

That's just how I see it.

 

 

I think my point is do you really think Matheson would've not done what he did simply because Ferland is on the ice at the time? Matheson was mad because he got dummied several times by EP and I don't think his thought process would've been "wait Ferland is on the ice I better not do this". It may have been "oh this team has no pushback so I can get away with this", but as you've explained, this no longer is an issue for us and he would have this "fear" regardless if Ferland is on their line or not much like how teams may fear of what Reaves could do to them.

 

If it's about fear of getting beat down, it could happen at anytime in the game regardless if it's immediately after or a shift after. He may be a deterrent, but I don't think it's necessary that he's on the ice as well. If he's on the line with EP and BB, it's because he is also the best suited to bring out the best from each other in many aspects of the game (which could very well be Ferland). The fact that Miller is capable and willing to defend his linemates and is the better offensive potential is what would make him dangerous on that line. Plus Miller provides other elements like being able to play center which is more suited with EP who isn't the strongest on the dot just yet and this aspect would be a waste on a line with Horvat who is stellar on faceoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I think my point is do you really think Matheson would've not done what he did simply because Ferland is on the ice at the time? Matheson was mad because he got dummied several times by EP and I don't think his thought process would've been "wait Ferland is on the ice I better not do this". It may have been "oh this team has no pushback so I can get away with this", but as you've explained, this no longer is an issue for us and he would have this "fear" regardless if Ferland is on their line or not much like how teams may fear of what Reaves could do to them.

 

If it's about fear of getting beat down, it could happen at anytime in the game regardless if it's immediately after or a shift after. He may be a deterrent, but I don't think it's necessary that he's on the ice as well. If he's on the line with EP and BB, it's because he is also the best suited to bring out the best from each other in many aspects of the game (which could very well be Ferland). The fact that Miller is capable and willing to defend his linemates and is the better offensive potential is what would make him dangerous on that line. Plus Miller provides other elements like being able to play center which is more suited with EP who isn't the strongest on the dot just yet and this aspect would be a waste on a line with Horvat who is stellar on faceoffs.

I'm not sure why people are so insistent to determine line mates based on something that happens (likely less than) 1% of the time vs the 99% of the time when players are playing hockey.

Edited by aGENT
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, theo5789 said:

I think my point is do you really think Matheson would've not done what he did simply because Ferland is on the ice at the time? Matheson was mad because he got dummied several times by EP and I don't think his thought process would've been "wait Ferland is on the ice I better not do this". It may have been "oh this team has no pushback so I can get away with this", but as you've explained, this no longer is an issue for us and he would have this "fear" regardless if Ferland is on their line or not much like how teams may fear of what Reaves could do to them.

 

If it's about fear of getting beat down, it could happen at anytime in the game regardless if it's immediately after or a shift after. He may be a deterrent, but I don't think it's necessary that he's on the ice as well. If he's on the line with EP and BB, it's because he is also the best suited to bring out the best from each other in many aspects of the game (which could very well be Ferland). The fact that Miller is capable and willing to defend his linemates and is the better offensive potential is what would make him dangerous on that line. Plus Miller provides other elements like being able to play center which is more suited with EP who isn't the strongest on the dot just yet and this aspect would be a waste on a line with Horvat who is stellar on faceoffs.

Well, I do believe the on-ice dynamics would have been different if Ferland was on the line. The tone would have been set differently from the get go. That's the essence of a deterrent. There was a lot of frustration simmering in Matheson that Ferland likely would have redirected before an incident even happened.

 

Just because Miller is capable doesn't mean he's better suited for that role. You say he's the better offensive potential. I don't disagree. But what overrides that is the making sure our franchise player is protected, which I feel Ferland is better suited to lead that role.

 

We need to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I'm not sure why people are so insistent to determine line mates based on something that happens (likely less than) 1% of the time vs the 99% of the time when players are playing hockey.

Because it only takes the 1% to end a career of a rising star. We were lucky EP came out of that without residual injury. 

 

Enter Ferland ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Well, I do believe the on-ice dynamics would have been different if Ferland was on the line. The tone would have been set differently from the get go. That's the essence of a deterrent. There was a lot of frustration simmering in Matheson that Ferland likely would have redirected before an incident even happened.

 

Just because Miller is capable doesn't mean he's better suited for that role. You say he's the better offensive potential. I don't disagree. But what overrides that is the making sure our franchise player is protected, which I feel Ferland is better suited to lead that role.

 

We need to agree to disagree.

I don't think we need to play afraid like this. Who plays with Crosby, McDavid, Kane, etc? They may have enforcers on their team, but none are putting players on their line strictly to police. The days of Semenko with Gretzky and Gino with Bure are long gone. Ferland plays with good players because he can skate well and produce decently alongside them and of course the physical aspect is an added bonus.

 

I'm not saying Ferland wouldn't be a good linemate with EP and BB, but I just don't think the reasoning of being a "deterrent" is reason enough to do so and Miller is perfectly capable and is right in the same weight class anyway. Matheson was going to make that play regardless and it's not Ferland would've read that play and knocked him over just before the slam. It was a quick sequence of events and not like Matheson was playing aggressive against Petey all game to lead to that moment. So maybe Ferland responds and gives Matheson a beating (in which case Miller could do the same), but it wouldn't have prevented the injury. Pettersson himself needs to get a bit stronger and learn the gamesmanship to avoid that situation (maybe pop him with an elbow, or simply get into more of a tussle until reinforcements arrive).

 

The purpose of a line with EP and BB is to generate offense, so IMO you'd want a linemate with the highest potential to do so while balancing out that they need physical support. Both Ferland and Miller do provide this but Miller with the higher offensive potential along with other added attributes.

 

We can agree to disagree, but I guess what we can agree on is that it's nice that we can even have this debate because we finally have the options to do so.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Because it only takes the 1% to end a career of a rising star. We were lucky EP came out of that without residual injury. 

 

Enter Ferland ...

Reeks of wee-man syndrome.

 

Happily I'm confident the coaches will actually put together lines to play the best hockey. AKA 99% of what goes on our there.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2019 at 6:35 PM, Stamkos said:

Why not - 

 

Ferland - Petey - Miller 

Baer - Bo - Brock 

 

This way we get intensity from the top 6, and we also don’t need to worry about our stars getting hurt. Boeser goes back to what seemed to work better (at least by the eye test) and Petey now gets 2 guys who’ll pass him the puck more often, but can shoot well too. 

 

Ferland on the top line if Boeser stays there though. We need a police officer and he could get pretty good offence there as well.  

I’m a fan of this type of line up it makes the team harder to play against. The opposing team will struggle with the right match up. I would work some games with EP 1line Center against top talent teams who win with puck possession and playmaking talent against talent.  When we play the grinder style teams in the league I would Start Bo first line center take pressure of Petey getting hammered by 1 D pairings. Bo can handle that game better in my opinion. The wingers suggested would fit either first or second line. I think you mix it around again on either line can be adjusted  based on opposing line up. One thing is certain when we play Calgary I want to see Ferlund 1st line with Bo and Miller, I’m expecting fireworks with the Cushing hits he laid down on us in the playoffs and a knuckle duster to set the tone !  He owes us that much. Redemption, finally we have a pushback team with Grit and Talent. 

Edited by Bertorama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a set of lines out of the box ... 

Ferland - Pettersson - Horvat

Virtanen - Miller - Boeser

Pearson - Gaudette - Sutter

Leivo - Beagle - Motte

Miller has the potential to be a great set up man for Brock, so why not have two raging bulls clearing some room for EP, and see what happens?  This gives Bo a chance to play his "to the net" style from a better position on the wing, and be available for harder draws when necessary.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2019 at 6:29 PM, 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

 

 

Ferland should go with Petey and Brock to start the year. See what kind of chemistry they can build.

 

That gives the offensively stronger of our two new top 6 forwards to play with Bo --> JT Miller.  Horvat deserves to be able to play with a legit 1st line talent for a change for a lot of games.

 

Shuffle them up if the chemistry doesn't seem to work.

Edited by Kanukfanatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2019 at 7:31 PM, theo5789 said:

I don't think we need to play afraid like this. Who plays with Crosby, McDavid, Kane, etc? They may have enforcers on their team, but none are putting players on their line strictly to police. The days of Semenko with Gretzky and Gino with Bure are long gone. Ferland plays with good players because he can skate well and produce decently alongside them and of course the physical aspect is an added bonus.

 

I'm not saying Ferland wouldn't be a good linemate with EP and BB, but I just don't think the reasoning of being a "deterrent" is reason enough to do so and Miller is perfectly capable and is right in the same weight class anyway. Matheson was going to make that play regardless and it's not Ferland would've read that play and knocked him over just before the slam. It was a quick sequence of events and not like Matheson was playing aggressive against Petey all game to lead to that moment. So maybe Ferland responds and gives Matheson a beating (in which case Miller could do the same), but it wouldn't have prevented the injury. Pettersson himself needs to get a bit stronger and learn the gamesmanship to avoid that situation (maybe pop him with an elbow, or simply get into more of a tussle until reinforcements arrive).

 

The purpose of a line with EP and BB is to generate offense, so IMO you'd want a linemate with the highest potential to do so while balancing out that they need physical support. Both Ferland and Miller do provide this but Miller with the higher offensive potential along with other added attributes.

 

We can agree to disagree, but I guess what we can agree on is that it's nice that we can even have this debate because we finally have the options to do so.

Just because I believe Ferland is the better option on Petey's line as a deterrent doesn't mean I advocate goonery/policing in the manner of Semenko and Gino. 

 

The thing is, that incident happened. It happened to our franchise star. And as a result, you can't do nothing. You have to, at the very least, mitigate the risk of that happening so freely and easily. 

 

I agree with you about purpose but because of that incident, the purpose must now also include a level of deterrent. We just can't run that risk like we did last year. This is where I believe Ferland's game addresses both the need for offense and a level of deterrence. 

 

Unlike last year, though, we do have more options both offensively and physically in the top 6. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally insulate the best player and protect Hughes at the same time (I can see Quinn often playing when Pete's on the ice).

 

Ferland  -  Pete  -  Miller

Baer  -  Bo   -  Boes

 

Switching Boes/Miller according to who the opponent is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Just because I believe Ferland is the better option on Petey's line as a deterrent doesn't mean I advocate goonery/policing in the manner of Semenko and Gino. 

 

The thing is, that incident happened. It happened to our franchise star. And as a result, you can't do nothing. You have to, at the very least, mitigate the risk of that happening so freely and easily. 

 

I agree with you about purpose but because of that incident, the purpose must now also include a level of deterrent. We just can't run that risk like we did last year. This is where I believe Ferland's game addresses both the need for offense and a level of deterrence. 

 

Unlike last year, though, we do have more options both offensively and physically in the top 6. 

 

 

 

 

In which case, Miller is perfectly capable with the higher offensive potential and other attributes that add to the line itself.

 

If the idea is to strike fear from a opponent from touching your star player, how does the player being on the same line achieve this goal that say an enforcer like Reaves isn't doing himself? You want a player that is capable of playing the physical game (both Miller and Ferland) if need be, but I don't know of many teams purposely putting a lesser offensive potential player with their top players to protect them (more?). Unless you are thinking Ferland will bowl through any guys before they even lay a finger on EP, then Ferland isn't going to impose that fear. Players are always going to annoy or pester your star guy to throw them off their game and maybe draw a reaction to draw a penalty (we have one of the best at it in Roussel) and if it's not in the form of a Semenko/Gino style policing, then I'm not sure where you're going with this concept. Pettersson himself needs to learn the game on how to protect himself as much as need the supporting cast to defend him.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...