Potential weaknesses in the Canucks line-up, and how to overcome them

[48MPHSlapShot]

8 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Moving Baertschi down was the correct move to make.    Baertschi doesn’t kill penalties, is soft, and isn’t great defensively.   The Canucks wanted and needed a 3rd line that was faster, more physical, and tougher to play against.

 

 

Nope. We have quite a few guys in our bottom six that are capable of doing what you described. We we don’t Have in our bottom six is a bonafide offensive threat. The way things are structured now, both bottom six lines are pure checking lines, with little offensive upside, meaning that if the top two lines aren’t going, chances are that game is lost. Having a scoring threat in your bottom six spreads the opposing D thinner, allowing your top two lines the opportunity to face up against 3rd pairing Dmen and forwards the opposing coach wouldn’t necessarily want to have out against an offensive line more often. Bottom line is you need three lines that can score in the modern NHL, and as it stands, I don’t think we do, which makes for a less dynamic, more one dimensional hockey club that’s easier to counter.

Edited October 2, 2019 by 48MPHSlapShot

[IBatch]

Others  might have mentioned this - but our top lines chances of “dominance “ go way up if EP isn’t looking over his shoulder and playing scared.  

 

Miller looked really good with Horvat so far - I’m in favour of Horavt finally getting a good winger, his line will be used at home like to match against other top lines AND will score their fair share too...before I saw them play together I also like the idea of Miller on the first line  - that disappeared the moment Tierney ran BB into the boards.  Ferland needs to play policeman - and I actually think he’s an upgrade on Goldobin offensively too.    EP was near the top of the leaderboard in PPG at the end of 2018, around 1.3 - he can do it again, and BB is a very good trigger man and underrated passer.  There is a good chance they can be at least middle of the pack compared to other first lines, and a small chance top five-ten.

 

 

Personally I think that if special teams are better this year, and we cut down on a few goals against that’s all it will take to get us into the playoffs...and our depth being the difference when injuries occur.  

 

As for the OP I’d say if we have a 1a and 1b line plus better special teams we definitely make the show and even do some damage.   Secondary scoring won’t be as much an issue in that case, but we also need more from our bottom six and defenseman too then we’ve had in the past four years.

[canuktravella]

ya  this post is flawed   our lines are fine and scoring is gonna be great 

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Nope. We have quite a few guys in our bottom six that are capable of doing what you described. We we don’t Have in our bottom six is a bonafide offensive threat. The way things are structured now, both bottom six lines are pure checking lines, with little offensive upside, meaning that if the top two lines aren’t going, chances are that game is lost. Having a scoring threat in your bottom six spreads the opposing D thinner, allowing your top two lines the opportunity to face up against 3rd pairing admen and forwards the opposing coach wouldn’t necessarily want to have out against an offensive line more often. Bottom line is you need three lines that can score in the modern NHL, and as it stands, I don’t think we do, which makes for a less dynamic, more one dimensional hockey club that’s easier to counter.

Hopefully AG gets some time and adds a little of this and JV progresses too.   I agree that we need better support both from our bottom six and our defenseman in producing more goals .... looking at our top scorers last year and comparing them to half the league it’s no surprise we didn’t make the playoffs.  The best teams are four lines deep with offense on all lines...think you have to go to the 12th top scorer to get below 30pts in Calgary last year...we had five over thirty, and their top five scorers all outscored our top scorer to boot.

 

Edit:  If we add Miller, Ferland and Myers to the team and take out three guys things match up well compared to all but the top teams.   50 points in a third line role, 20 goals up and down the lineup, and 30 plus points mostly 5 x5 with little pp time (second line only too)...we’d go from five to eight players with 30 plus points AND add 20-30 goals after substractions from lesser players.   Pearson maybe adds ten goals too...Benns a wash but plus thirty compared to Hutton ...

 

We should be a better team.

Edited October 2, 2019 by IBatch

[IBatch]

2 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

ya  this post is flawed   our lines are fine and scoring is gonna be great 

See my post above.   It may be flawed but the premise is valid (the OP).   We won’t score enough to win that way, we have to be better defensively and improve our special teams for this lineup to work the way it’s set up.   Our top two lines are taking the bulk of the scoring on their shoulders (again), thankfully they are both better, more seasoned and our core is far from peaking yet (we should expect some progression).  EP turning into a superstar  will help a lot, same with BB turning into a Taresenko type (he’s not far off now).  

 

Our bottom six is questionable.  It’s almost like we have a modest first line, and elite second line, and two very good  fourth lines ATM.  If we had an actual third scoring line that could match up to the likes of TB and CAL, we’d be in much better shape.   It should arrive in two or maybe three years internally, that team is going to be a much better version of the one we have now.   

 

It feels a little like the year we got Luongo....you can sense great things are coming - but know there is still some work to do.

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Ferland is a good fit for Pettersson and Boeser:  

 

Thank you for the feedback folks.   I just want to address one point from above.   Some posters seem to believe that I don’t think Ferland will be a good fit for the top line.   That’s not what I was trying to say however.  I think Ferland will be a good fit, and we already saw evidence of chemistry between Ferland and Pettersson during pre-season.

 

My thinking is this however:   Why have a good first line when you can have a great one instead?      JT Miller is a better hockey player than Michael Ferland.   

 

Ferland-Pettersson-Boeser is a good first line, but I wonder how this line will stack up against the top lines and top defensive pairings of other upper echelon teams.  Obviously, the Canucks need to actually play about 7-10 games before we have a big enough sample size to analyze, but my gut feeling tells me that our first line will need a little more prowess

 

I don’t want to have just a “good” first line.   I want something that can come close to being as good as the WCE......or Sedin-Sedin-Burrows.

 

Hence, my suggestion of placing Miller on the top line.

Why don’t we make it a “stupendous” first line and move EP to the L wing and bring up Horvat to play center?  And move J.T.  down to play second line center, bring back Bear put him on his off wing and go with Ferland Miller Bear.

 

Then have a third line of Pearson, Sutter Gaudette...and a fourth line of LE Beagle JV.... Leivo is out.  Ha ha this is fun.   But seriously why not?

[timberz21]

I don't agree at all.  In their dominant years Chicago, Pittsburgh did not play Crosby/Malkin and Toews/Kane on the same line.  They spread the scoring around.  Same with the Sedin, how many time did we try to "force" a more skilled player with the Sedins and it always ended up being Burrows playing with them.

 

Putting Miller on that line, weaken Horvat's line IMO, while it doesn't necessarily increase the production of the first line with the same ratio.  Petey and Boes will generate most of the scoring, but IMO playing with Ferland they'll be able to extract that "extra" offense from Ferland more than they could from Miller, if they were playing elsewhere.

 

Nowadays in the NHL, most lines are build on a duo of players with the 3rd spot kind of rotating players.

 

I think our duo should stay Petey-Boeser and Horvat-Miller,  if that were ever to change Boeser and Miller would just swap line.

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

This might be a year where the Canucks have 5, 6 even 7 20-goal scores. 

All will be well.

Bingo.   Maybe more.  EP, BB, Ferland, Horvat, Miller almost for sure - then maybe Pearson, JV and an outlier AG and who knows maybe LE even and Sutter.    As long as TG hits on chemistry, we are in for a good ride.

[Goat James]

I love how you include the fact that Horvat is the captain in your lineup twice 

[ReggieBush]

10 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Potential weaknesses in the Canucks line-up, and how to overcome them.

 

As of right now, I see three potential weaknesses in the Canucks’ line-up:

 

1) A lack of a dominant top line.

2) A lack of bottom 6 scoring (namely,

the 3rd line).

3) A lack of a true shut down pairing

1) That first line has the potential to be dominant. It may take some time, but you have 2 elite talents there.

 

2) That third line is going to score. JV and Leivo out up goals in the mid teens last year which is not bad for a 3rd line. You might have questions about Sutter but he has put up numbers in the past.

 

3) That is fair. I think Tanev/Benn can act as a defacto shut down pair in some circumstances

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Others  might have mentioned this - but our top lines chances of “dominance “ go way up if EP isn’t looking over his shoulder and playing scared.  

 

Miller looked really good with Horvat so far - I’m in favour of Horavt finally getting a good winger, his line will be used at home like to match against other top lines AND will score their fair share too...before I saw them play together I also like the idea of Miller on the first line  - that disappeared the moment Tierney ran BB into the boards.  Ferland needs to play policeman - and I actually think he’s an upgrade on Goldobin offensively too.    EP was near the top of the leaderboard in PPG at the end of 2018, around 1.3 - he can do it again, and BB is a very good trigger man and underrated passer.  There is a good chance they can be at least middle of the pack compared to other first lines, and a small chance top five-ten.

 

 

Personally I think that if special teams are better this year, and we cut down on a few goals against that’s all it will take to get us into the playoffs...and our depth being the difference when injuries occur.  

 

As for the OP I’d say if we have a 1a and 1b line plus better special teams we definitely make the show and even do some damage.   Secondary scoring won’t be as much an issue in that case, but we also need more from our bottom six and defenseman too then we’ve had in the past four years.

Pearson's pretty good too.  He's getting the short shrift here.  He's a former Cup Champ and he's put up more than 40 points a couple of times.

 

Baertschi puts up 2nd line numbers and Pearson's are better but he's bigger and harder to play against.

[JeremyCuddles]

9 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

Can we at least see them play a few games before we start dissecting them?

To be fair, the post does say "potential weaknesses".

[Crimson]

8 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Ferland is a good fit for Pettersson and Boeser:  

 

Thank you for the feedback folks.   I just want to address one point from above.   Some posters seem to believe that I don’t think Ferland will be a good fit for the top line.   That’s not what I was trying to say however.  I think Ferland will be a good fit, and we already saw evidence of chemistry between Ferland and Pettersson during pre-season.

 

My thinking is this however:   Why have a good first line when you can have a great one instead?      JT Miller is a better hockey player than Michael Ferland.   

 

Ferland-Pettersson-Boeser is a good first line, but I wonder how this line will stack up against the top lines and top defensive pairings of other upper echelon teams.  Obviously, the Canucks need to actually play about 7-10 games before we have a big enough sample size to analyze, but my gut feeling tells me that our first line will need a little more prowess

 

I don’t want to have just a “good” first line.   I want something that can come close to being as good as the WCE......or Sedin-Sedin-Burrows.

 

Hence, my suggestion of placing Miller on the top line.

They haven't even played a single game yet this season, how can you say Ferland won't be a good fit?

[Ihatetomatoes]

14 minutes ago, Crimson said:

They haven't even played a single game yet this season, how can you say Ferland won't be a good fit?

He's not saying Ferland isn't a good fit just that Miller is a better player and is promoting stacking the 1st line vs spreading out the scoring. 

 

Also while we haven't seen them play yet lots of people will argue Ferland shouldn't be on the top line because if you look at his possession metrics he's always made his lines worse when playing on top lines in Calgary and Carolina. Not my argument but something people have pointed out

Edited October 2, 2019 by Ihatetomatoes

[rychicken]

10 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

Can we at least see them play a few games before we start dissecting them?

after a few games we may need to disinfect them....

[Toyotasfan]

Hughes and Tanev might be a weak spot in the lineup.  If I were an opposing coach, I would look for that matchup.

Horvat’s line needs to be more aware when all three of them get down low , I’m not to worried about them, that’s a minor adjustment .

Edited October 2, 2019 by Toyotasfan

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, Toyotasfan said:

Hughes and Tanev might be a weak spot in the lineup.  If I were an opposing coach, I would look for that matchup.

We all love Hughes and wish the best for him but his defensive game isn’t up to par yet... Tanev is a good teacher 

[Hindustan Smyl]

1 hour ago, Crimson said:

They haven't even played a single game yet this season, how can you say Ferland won't be a good fit?

Where did I say that?

 

Please re-read my post.  

[Chickenspear]

9 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Ferland is a good fit for Pettersson and Boeser:  

 

Thank you for the feedback folks.   I just want to address one point from above.   Some posters seem to believe that I don’t think Ferland will be a good fit for the top line.   That’s not what I was trying to say however.  I think Ferland will be a good fit, and we already saw evidence of chemistry between Ferland and Pettersson during pre-season.

 

My thinking is this however:   Why have a good first line when you can have a great one instead?      JT Miller is a better hockey player than Michael Ferland.   

 

Ferland-Pettersson-Boeser is a good first line, but I wonder how this line will stack up against the top lines and top defensive pairings of other upper echelon teams.  Obviously, the Canucks need to actually play about 7-10 games before we have a big enough sample size to analyze, but my gut feeling tells me that our first line will need a little more prowess

 

I don’t want to have just a “good” first line.   I want something that can come close to being as good as the WCE......or Sedin-Sedin-Burrows.

 

Hence, my suggestion of placing Miller on the top line.

Here's how I see it. Ferland was pegged to be 1st line with Petey and Boeser since the signing. That pairing needed a big body to play against those other top lines, who can also contribute on the scoresheet, much like Bertuzzi in the WCE days. Not saying Miller isn't a physical presence, and yes that would be an exciting line to watch, but Bo needed solid wingers to play with, too many seasons where he was playing with rotating spare parts. Him and Pearson showed good chemistry toward the end of last year, and Miller and Bo showed great chemistry in the preseason. For the first time in a while it seems we finally have 2 proper scoring lines.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Chickenspear

[Noble 6]

1) I'm not sure if there's much we can do here besides wait for Pettersson to reach his prime. If Ferland is not on that line, he becomes another meat and potatoes guy lower in the lineup who can't generate his own offense all that well, so getting the most use out of him is fine by me. I agree that Miller would make that line better, but I think it would make our other lines worse. 

 

2) This has been the hot topic everywhere recently. Our bottom 6 was bad last year and it seems as though Green and Benning are comfortable going back with essentially the same unit. I really don't know how to justify this to be honest. 

 

 

 

I'm really not sure how anyone can justify having Eriksson still be on this team in particular. Killing penalties is not enough to warrant a spot with horrendous 5 on 5 play.

 

In my eyes, the third line out of camp should have been Baertschi - Gaudette - Leivo, leaving the 4th line as Pearson - Beagle - Sutter/Virtanen. 

 

3) Right now, our most defensively oriented pairing is probably Benn - Stetcher. I don't think our defense is built to have a dedicated shut down pairing though and Edler will still eat some hard minutes. I understand where you're coming from, but it's not as big of a concern for me right now. Also, I don't think we have many defensemen who are good enough to be on a shut down pair anyways (ideally it wouldn't include Benn).