[Friedman] Canucks looking to “overhaul blue line” ...Ekblad & Cernak could be available

[oldnews]

6 minutes ago, EP40. said:

He also said they were able to take the puck out of the zone and sustain offensive zone time which played a major factor in their success.

Here's what he said:

 

Quote

Stars sustained pressure in the offensive zone, which forced Vegas’s best forwards to change instead of rushing the puck up ice. Small thing, but a big thing.)

 

Sustained pressure in the offensive zone - interesting -  it's the blueline that applies the bulk of the pressure in the offensive zone, right...

 

so, the Canucks struggles to maintain ozone possession, would have nothing to do with their forwards - their top 3 lines limping...

 

So let's get this straight - the Stars blueline is not really any bigger or stronger, and a big difference was the ability to pressure in the ozone...(did you see, by any chance, the impact of Radulov, for example, on the forecheck?   Benn.  Nothing to do with ozone pressure....that's...the D...

Miller injured (EP to center), Ferland out, Leivo out, Toffoli limping severely and Pearson disappearing, Sutter to wing, Gaudette to center (requiring sheltering...)

None of that, of course, has anything to do with the ability to pressure, sustain pressure, forecheck effectively...

Seems like I may not be as wrong as you claim.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by oldnews

[EP40.]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Here's what he said:

 

 

Sustained pressure in the offensive zone - interesting -  it's the blueline that applies the bulk of the pressure in the offensive zone, right...

 

so, the Canucks struggles to maintain ozone possession, would have nothing to do with their forwards - their top 3 lines limping...

 

Sounds like I may not have been as wrong as you claim.

 

 

As I said it’s a mix of things. And yes a big part of that was the Stars blueline if you even watched the series (doubt). Stars forwards as well as defense sustained pressure by moving the puck up ice and not holding on to it like we did. Outside of Hughes, for the most part the rest of our defense was incapable of doing that constantly. 1/6 dmen is a recipe for disaster. The Stars clearly studied tape and applied that change to get the best of Vegas which turns out overwhelmed them as they took them out.
 

But again, stop going off topic and opening different avenues and doors. Honestly, I’m surprised and glad to see you drop the weight thing. It was outright dumb and wrong but even though you didn’t admit to it (which you’ve never done so wouldn’t expect you to), your silence and non-mention of it is something I’m proud of. Didn’t double down ! 

[JM_]

13 hours ago, oldnews said:

Miller is that for EP - he was simply injured.  Beyond that Gaudette wasn't really ready to handle center duty in the  playoffs - I'd lean towards him winding up a winger - and look to avoid an inexperienced center in that position - and therefore I'd look at a player like Richardson.

 

if people perceive dzone inadequacies - inability to handle the forecheck, inability to defend adequately against the waves of Vegas pressure - what better solution than a Barrie or a Krug?  /s

its pretty funny when you put it that way, the solution to Vegas as Barrie 

 

If this while OEL thing falls through I suspect that there will be some good options available to add a C to the F group 

[mll]

45 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

its pretty funny when you put it that way, the solution to Vegas as Barrie 

 

If this while OEL thing falls through I suspect that there will be some good options available to add a C to the F group 

 

Barrie was a good player for Colorado though.  He had a really strong showing in the post-season for Colorado vs Calgary and was the one pushing them back.  This was Peters at the time.  

 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Barrie was a good player for Colorado though.  He had a really strong showing in the post-season for Colorado vs Calgary and was the one pushing them back.  This was Peters at the time.  

 

At the right price (~5 mil) I think he might have a place here beside Edler with some very favourable usage in the o-zone. But is that what Green has been trying to build? dunno. As @oldnews has correctly pointed out, there are F issues to solve here as well if we're looking at the Vegas series as something to learn from. 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Robert Long

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, Robert Long said:

its pretty funny when you put it that way, the solution to Vegas as Barrie 

 

If this while OEL thing falls through I suspect that there will be some good options available to add a C to the F group 

I think both Tanev and Stecher had very good playoffs - the amount of margin to upgrade on them - will not be easy to do.  It might be easy to add slightly more size, but if it comes as the cost of mobility and effectiveness...it's certainly not a no-brainer.

 

I didn't realize the OP - and Friedman - weren't talking about actually getting bigger - that size is irrelevent....I get it now - by 'overhauling' to add more strength and size, they mean players more like the Sedins or Hansen.  They weren't big,  but they were strong.... Apparently that wouldn't apply to Tanev and Stecher, however...I must be getting mushy-minded because it would appear the entire thread becomes meaningless when the qualifiers for the necessity to begin an overhaul become so fluffy.   The team's blueline was no smaller than Dallas' - in the end Dallas was heavier up front (you just need to watch 10 minutes of Radulov - or Benn - to see they had a considerably heavier presence up front) in their top 6 (while the Canucks top 6 wingers were on the limp).

 

The reasons I don't like the idea of signing a Krug/Barrie - has little to do with perceived "physicality" - and I think I've stated them, repeatedly - the team doesn't need a powerplay quarterback, and with a young Hughes getting as high zone starts as they can provide him, it makes more sense imo to make the other two pairings as 'two-way' and solid defensively as possible.

It is the same principal as I take with the forward group - when you have EP's line that you are attempting to create the best conditions for, in order to be as successful as possible, if you then also have a 3rd line that is centered by a young Gaudette as opposed to a veteran shutdown center....it changes the team's balance fairly fundamentally.

Where Barrie is, at least a right-handed D, not quite as tilted towards needing powerplay production, and can't possibly hope to command the kind of term and cap (ie 6.5 x 6) that Krug wants, I still wouldn't get anywhere near the 6 million that posters I won't bother naming consider a no-brainer...Barrie - at a higher cost than Tanev - doesn't make sense to me - you can pair him with Edler, but then you have less cap to find a 3rd D - and reduced options of you can play with Hughes - which is a key factor for me - the priority should not be to find another player of that ilk, but if not Tanev, then to find the right partner for Hughes moving forward...  For me I'd re-sign Tanev and if we're spending our key young assets, look to return a player like Foote who gives us a potential succession plan - and all situations, two way type on the right side....The only way I'd entertain an option like Barrie - is if the team were to retain Tanev or a truly comparable replacement, and Barrie signed for no term and for relative peanuts.  Even then, I'd still be looking for that Foote type to deepen the emerging depth - and this offseason might be the best window of opportunity to make an acquisition like that.

[tas]

58 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

At the right price (~5 mil) I think he might have a place here beside Edler with some very favourable usage in the o-zone. But is that what Green has been trying to build? dunno. As @oldnews has correctly pointed out, there are F issues to solve here as well if we're looking at the Vegas series as something to learn from. 

 

 

if I'm reading this right and you're suggesting sheltering him by giving him as many offensive opportunities (and as few defensive ones) as possible, you're not sticking him with Edler. 

[oldnews]

59 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Barrie was a good player for Colorado though.  He had a really strong showing in the post-season for Colorado vs Calgary and was the one pushing them back.  This was Peters at the time.  

 

But he's talking about jumping into the rush - high risk/reward - and subject to counterpunching, odd man rushes the other way,  and precisely the kind of trading chances the team wanted to avoid in the latter stages of the playoffs.

When you have a limping forward group - only exacerbates your problems - and it does not solve the problem of sustaining a forecheck, maintaining pressure - the things that have been identified as limits the Canucks couldn't overcome in the end.

What they did do - however - was defend very effectively - frustrated the hell out of Vegas -  and had them on the verge of broken, in spite of their inability to get in deep, hit Theodore and Schmidt retrieving pucks behind their goal, cycle the puck, sustain ozone pressure and possession....

I think if you take a Tanev out of that scenario in the playoffs, and replace him with a Barrie/Krug type - I don't think the team is in the closing minutes of a game 7 - I don't think Hughes is as effective without him - particularly when Tanev's cap has been spent on a player to go on another pairing.

 

As I've mentioned above.... on ice sv%.....

Krug .892 = 31st on Boston (in spite of his deployment).

Barrie .902 = 21st on Toronto, (ditto).

Hughes .887 = last on Vancouver.

 

Playoffs

Krug .889

Barrie .907

Hughes .905

Tanev .940

Stecher .953

 

Go beyond sv% and look at zone starts, 5 on 5 goal metrics - and these do not indicate players that are solutions to a lack of size, strength or ability to handle dzone pressure - they are high risk/reward transition players that score a lot of powerplay points and conversely give up a fair amount of high quality scoring chances when they are on the ice....that would not seem to correlate with chasing the big, strong Dallas goalposts.

 

EP40 claims above that Hughes was the most capable D when it came to countering the pressure, moving the puck, etc.  I could not disagree more....Of course he's an outstanding offensive presence - that goes without saying - but realistically he also has the highest on ice goals against at 5on5, he has the highest ozone starts, he has the lowest on ice sv% - all things that are to be expected.

 

But when it comes to a big, strong D that can break Vegas (or Dallas, or Tampa down)  - you look to keep Hughes out of his zone as much as possible - you don't look to add another player like him - it is counterintuitive - and further it creates even greater need for 'big, strong' presence on your blueline that can counterweight those particular players strengths/weaknesses.   Instead of tipping the balance towards a Toronto model - that failed (even with Barrie at a mere 2.5 million cap hit this year) I think they shoud focus on Hughes' partner first and foremost, and add a two-way D as opposed to an overlapping powerplay specialist and players that aren't terribly effective 5on5.  Barrie is probably a better fit somewhere that lacks a Hughes, and going to one of those places probably makes more sense for his career, in spite of this being his home province.

 

Are they in the 7th game vs Vegas....without a Tanev, and a 2nd Barrie/Krug type in the lineup?  I really doubt that.

 

[DeNiro]

Demko was the only reason we were in game 7.

 

Thinking that maintaining the status quo on D will equal success is laughable. The strategy of sitting back and letting our goalie bail us out is not a strategy.

 

The only way this team will have success is by moving the puck and continuing to forecheck hard. Tanev is not a good puck mover. He’s good at limiting chances by blocking shots, which were still regularly in the 40’s.

 

Barrie is probably not the solution but at least it’s moving in the right direction. D men that can move the puck out of our zone efficiently is what is needed.

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, Robert Long said:

At the right price (~5 mil) I think he might have a place here beside Edler with some very favourable usage in the o-zone. But is that what Green has been trying to build? dunno. As @oldnews has correctly pointed out, there are F issues to solve here as well if we're looking at the Vegas series as something to learn from. 

 

 

It's hard to 'learn' from injuries, aside from trying to add the kind of depth that might prevent the team from relying on young centers, one that needed sheltering.

You might think that Miller, Horvat, Sutter and Beagle were enough - but that became Horvat and Beagle, unfortunately, and imo the scales tipped towards our forward group being overmatched.  My 'solution' would be to move as many winger placeholders as possible (with the exception of Leivo) - and add a second center like Richardson to the mix, so they are not only hard to play against, but there is more possibility of handling contingencies like we saw in the playoffs.   Really, though - I would not be over-reacting to what we saw in the Vegas series and instead balancing that against what we saw in the St Louis series.   Another 'wild card' here is  - if the team retains Gaudette this offseason and he doesn't become a trade chip - how much will he develop in the interim?  Does he take another step towards NHL readiness as a (defensive) center?  That is a possibility - he's young - he'll get better - but I'm not yet convinced that the best option for him in the end might be as a winger....

[JM_]

1 hour ago, tas said:

if I'm reading this right and you're suggesting sheltering him by giving him as many offensive opportunities (and as few defensive ones) as possible, you're not sticking him with Edler. 

there's no other spot for him really 

[tas]

1 minute ago, Robert Long said:

there's no other spot for him really 

on a defensively sheltered pair with hughes, leaving edler to play with myers?

[JM_]

1 minute ago, tas said:

on a defensively sheltered pair with hughes, leaving edler to play with myers?

eep, I think that could be a giveaway nightmare. Plus we don't need two d jumping up into the play.

[tas]

1 minute ago, Robert Long said:

eep, I think that could be a giveaway nightmare. Plus we don't need two d jumping up into the play.

I think they'd be fine. they likely see the game in a similar way. 

[JeremyCuddles]

17 minutes ago, tas said:

on a defensively sheltered pair with hughes, leaving edler to play with myers?

Hughes was so successful cause he could rely on Tanev to be responsible defensively. And with two hyper active d-men, sounds like we are gonna get lit with breakaways against. Edler and Barrie could work, it'd likely work better than Hughes and Barrie. Barrie is good for 40+ points with 50-55% ozone starts. His 57/59 point seasons were 63ish% but still. He has proven to have some success with slightly less favorable zone usage.

 

Barrie is a 22 minute a game d-man. There must be something coaches like about his game that at least 2 of them keep using him a lot. If he was this god awful defender I imagine his ice time would be closer to 18-19 with all 65+% ozone starts. Only 2 seasons has his deployment been above 60% in the ozone. I am not advocating we pick him up but at the same time I don't think he needs to be uber sheltered or anything. I will say I am not interested in Barrie but it's cause our team defense as a whole is booty cheeks and he doesn't really help that at all. Unless the game plan is to hopefully always control the puck. But fans cried when we did that with the Sedins. Lol.

[Gator]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

But he's talking about jumping into the rush - high risk/reward - and subject to counterpunching, odd man rushes the other way,  and precisely the kind of trading chances the team wanted to avoid in the latter stages of the playoffs.

When you have a limping forward group - only exacerbates your problems - and it does not solve the problem of sustaining a forecheck, maintaining pressure - the things that have been identified as limits the Canucks couldn't overcome in the end.

What they did do - however - was defend very effectively - frustrated the hell out of Vegas -  and had them on the verge of broken, in spite of their inability to get in deep, hit Theodore and Schmidt retrieving pucks behind their goal, cycle the puck, sustain ozone pressure and possession....

I think if you take a Tanev out of that scenario in the playoffs, and replace him with a Barrie/Krug type - I don't think the team is in the closing minutes of a game 7 - I don't think Hughes is as effective without him - particularly when Tanev's cap has been spent on a player to go on another pairing.

 

As I've mentioned above.... on ice sv%.....

Krug .892 = 31st on Boston (in spite of his deployment).

Barrie .902 = 21st on Toronto, (ditto).

Hughes .887 = last on Vancouver.

 

Playoffs

Krug .889

Barrie .907

Hughes .905

Tanev .940

Stecher .953

 

Go beyond sv% and look at zone starts, 5 on 5 goal metrics - and these do not indicate players that are solutions to a lack of size, strength or ability to handle dzone pressure - they are high risk/reward transition players that score a lot of powerplay points and conversely give up a fair amount of high quality scoring chances when they are on the ice....that would not seem to correlate with chasing the big, strong Dallas goalposts.

 

EP40 claims above that Hughes was the most capable D when it came to countering the pressure, moving the puck, etc.  I could not disagree more....Of course he's an outstanding offensive presence - that goes without saying - but realistically he also has the highest on ice goals against at 5on5, he has the highest ozone starts, he has the lowest on ice sv% - all things that are to be expected.

 

But when it comes to a big, strong D that can break Vegas (or Dallas, or Tampa down)  - you look to keep Hughes out of his zone as much as possible - you don't look to add another player like him - it is counterintuitive - and further it creates even greater need for 'big, strong' presence on your blueline that can counterweight those particular players strengths/weaknesses.   Instead of tipping the balance towards a Toronto model - that failed (even with Barrie at a mere 2.5 million cap hit this year) I think they shoud focus on Hughes' partner first and foremost, and add a two-way D as opposed to an overlapping powerplay specialist and players that aren't terribly effective 5on5.  Barrie is probably a better fit somewhere that lacks a Hughes, and going to one of those places probably makes more sense for his career, in spite of this being his home province.

 

Are they in the 7th game vs Vegas....without a Tanev, and a 2nd Barrie/Krug type in the lineup?  I really doubt that.

 

idk man. We were 1 goal in the first 2 periods away from possibly facing the Stars. Id argue we put way too much emphasis on defence in that series

[King Heffy]

 42 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

there's no other spot for him really 

Utica's press box.

6 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Hughes was so successful cause he could rely on Tanev to be responsible defensively. And with two hyper active d-men, sounds like we are gonna get lit with breakaways against. Edler and Barrie could work, it'd likely work better than Hughes and Barrie. Barrie is good for 40+ points with 50-55% ozone starts. His 57/59 point seasons were 63ish% but still. He has proven to have some success with slightly less favorable zone usage.

 

Barrie is a 22 minute a game d-man. There must be something coaches like about his game that at least 2 of them keep using him a lot. If he was this god awful defender I imagine his ice time would be closer to 18-19 with all 65+% ozone starts. Only 2 seasons has his deployment been above 60% in the ozone. I am not advocating we pick him up but at the same time I don't think he needs to be uber sheltered or anything. I will say I am not interested in Barrie but it's cause our team defense as a whole is booty cheeks and he doesn't really help that at all. Unless the game plan is to hopefully always control the puck. But fans cried when we did that with the Sedins. Lol.

Hav

you ever seen Barrie play in his own zone?  Even with sheltering, his defensive play isn't acceptable for an NHLer, and frankly he needed a coach to lay down the law and tell him that he will be in the press box until he stops playing like absolute trash.  It's likely too late for that now, unfortunately.  Sheltering him isn't enough; he simply is too much of a liability to justify a spot in the lineup.  Just because Toronto's coach is an absolute idiot and let him continue to stink up the joint doesn't mean that a coach with a functioning brain would allow that useless pylon to cost his teams games with his refusal to play any defense whatsoever.  Analytics can't emphasize enough how much of a tire fire Barrie is.

Edited October 4, 2020 by King Heffy

[aGENT]

47 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

eep, I think that could be a giveaway nightmare. Plus we don't need two d jumping up into the play.

Precisely why Barrie isn't a fit here.

 

As ON has stated, maybe for cheap on a sheltered 3rd pair, assuming we retain Tanev (or similar)... Maybe.

 

But then he's not going to get the same offensive opportunity, pp1 etc minutes that will allow him to actually produce the offense that's his bread and butter because we already have the better Hughes for that. So you're not putting him in position to get the most out of him.

 

Honestly in that scenario, I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off simply keeping Stecher for that role.

 

It's an ill fit.

Edited October 4, 2020 by aGENT

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Precisely why Barrie isn't a fit here.

 

As ON has stated, maybe for cheap on a sheltered 3rd pair, assuming we retain Tanev (or similar)... Maybe.

 

But then he's not going to get the same offensive opportunity, pp1 etc minutes that will allow him to actually produce the offense that's his bread and butter because we already have the better Hughes for that. So you're not putting him in position to get the most out of him.

 

Honestly in that scenario, I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off simply keeping Stecher for that role.

 

It's an ill fit.

It will be interesting to see how many RFAs don't get a QO in a few days.... maybe the RHD and F depth awaits us there. 

 

The longer things go on with no movement the more I think I'd like Jim to wait and not spend big dough or term on anyone this year. 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Robert Long

[DeNiro]

It’s obvious too many people are judging Barrie on his brief stint in Toronto.

 

Hes not that bad in his own end. Can anyone honestly say our D were that good in their own end this season?