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

Francesco Aquilini says "I have no plans to make changes."

Rate this topic


AriGold2.0

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

We also don't know for sure that he won't get better next year.

That's possible. But the fact is every year this team isn't competitive (which they are clearly not right now) with this core of elite players is a wasted year.

 

If elite players in their prime are subject to too many wasted years because management can't get their act together and assemble a decent supporting cast it's only a matter time before they start getting frustrated and begin to want out.

 

I really hope that doesn't happen. But as of now things are trending that way. And personally, Benning has shown me nothing so far that would make me believe things won't continue to go that way. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Still far too early to say that which you can’t seem to grasp for some reason. 

Just going off what the facts and history tells us.

 

"Most players hit their peak age by age 24 or 25 then decline gradually until age 30, at which point their performance can begin to tumble more noticeably with the risk of absolute collapse by age 34 or 35.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hockey-graphs.com/2017/03/23/a-new-look-at-aging-curves-for-nhl-skaters-part-1/amp/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dank.sinatra said:

That's possible. But the fact is every year this team isn't competitive (which they are clearly not right now) with this core of elite players is a wasted year.

 

If elite players in their prime are subject to too many wasted years because management can't get their act together and assemble a decent supporting cast it's only a matter time before they start getting frustrated and begin to want out.

 

I really hope that doesn't happen. But as of now things are trending that way. And personally, Benning has shown me nothing so far that would make me believe things won't continue to go that way. 

 

Management is assembling a strong supporting cast.  The roster may be underperforming,but there are a lot of prospects currently in the system that should be able to plug a lot of the holes in the near future, such as Podkolzin, Woo, Lind, Gadjovich.  Regarding the current roster, a lot of the issues have been caused by poor defensive systems and an unproductive PP.  Both those issues can be easily fixed by hiring qualified assistants.  Benning's assembled the best group of young players in Vancouver since the days of the big Irishman.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Lock said:

Don't you think this post is a little contradicting of itself?

 

Your own words: "Benning has shown me nothing so far that would make me believe things won't continue to go that way."

Also your own words: "with this core of elite players".

 

Where did you think the elite players come from? A stork?

Direct result of being a crap team for almost ten years.

 

A monkey could have assembled a decent core with the amount of top ten picks Benning has had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dank.sinatra said:

Direct result of being a crap team for almost ten years.

 

A monkey could have assembled a decent core with the amount of top ten picks Benning has had.

You didn't answer my question. Where do you think the players came from?

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, King Heffy said:

Management is assembling a strong supporting cast.  The roster may be underperforming,but there are a lot of prospects currently in the system that should be able to plug a lot of the holes in the near future, such as Podkolzin, Woo, Lind, Gadjovich.  Regarding the current roster, a lot of the issues have been caused by poor defensive systems and an unproductive PP.  Both those issues can be easily fixed by hiring qualified assistants.  Benning's assembled the best group of young players in Vancouver since the days of the big Irishman.

Powerplay was eighth in the league last year. Struggled a bit this year but that's indicative of the team's overall struggles.

 

Defensive systems are fine. It's players having complete breakdowns and not being able to follow the systems that's the issue on defense. If Benning could identify players with actual hockey HQ instead of pure "he's big, fast and can shoot" that wouldn't be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dank.sinatra said:

Powerplay was eighth in the league last year. Struggled a bit this year but that's indicative of the team's overall struggles.

 

Defensive systems are fine. It's players having complete breakdowns and not being able to follow the systems that's the issue on defense. If Benning could identify players with actual hockey HQ instead of pure "he's big, fast and can shoot" that wouldn't be a problem.

If the defensive system is not working for your current group, it's the responsibility of the coach to adapt the system.  Powerplay is problematic this year, with not enough movement and some sever issues entering the zone.  Given the personnel is mostly the same, that's on the coach as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

If the defensive system is not working for your current group, it's the responsibility of the coach to adapt the system.  Powerplay is problematic this year, with not enough movement and some sever issues entering the zone.  Given the personnel is mostly the same, that's on the coach as well.

And they actually have adapted the defensive system recently.

 

If you watched the games and could actually pick up on what's going on out there you might understand that.

 

They've been keeping their third fore-checker a lot higher instead of having all three forwards go all out on the forecheck. 

 

Results in easier options and more back-up for d-man. That little tweak worked wonders against Calgary.

 

I do agree that the powerplay is too stagnant. Would like to see more movement out there. But the results from last year speak for themself. They will likely pick it up and finish within the top ten, top half at least, by seasons end. 

 

 

Edited by dank.sinatra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dank.sinatra said:

Yes I did lmfao.

 

The players are a direct result of being a bad team for almost ten years.

 

Also Judd Brackett's drafting.

Okay, so you just don't want to say Benning drafted them. I get it. Dodgy. ;)

 

You're welcome to your opinion, but if Benning was truly bad, we would likely not even have Pettersson. Imagine picking Middlestadt or Rasmussen instead. So many people wanted those 2 players instead of Pettersson. So many wanted Juulsen instead of Boeser.

 

And before you mention Virtanen or Juolevi, give me one GM in this league who has done well in every 1st round since he became GM. Let's add in some context with all of this. Because if this is as easy as you say, the best GM's should have a perfect record, right?

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Okay, so you just don't want to say Benning drafted them. I get it. Dodgy. ;)

 

You're welcome to your opinion, but if Benning was truly bad, we would likely not even have Pettersson. Imagine picking Middlestadt or Rasmussen instead. So many people wanted those 2 players instead of Pettersson. So many wanted Juulsen instead of Boeser.

 

And before you mention Virtanen or Juolevi, give me one GM in this league who has done well in every 1st round since he became GM. Let's add in some context with all of this. Because if this is as easy as you say, the best GM's should have a perfect record, right?

I've literally already explained how Pettersson wasn't Benning's guy. 

 

We have Ron Delorme to thank for that.

 

Benning wanted Makar and likely would have taken Glass had Delorme not vouched for Pettersson.

 

Yes, Benning listened to his scout. So good for him on that. But most GM's would likely do the same. He doesn't deserve much praise for that.

Edited by dank.sinatra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dank.sinatra said:

I've literally already explained how Pettersson wasn't Benning's guy. 

 

We have Ron Delorme to thank for that.

 

Benning was wanted Makar and likely would have taken Glass had Delorme not vouched for Pettersson.

 

Yes, Benning listened to his scout. So good for him on that. But most GM's would likely do the same. He doesn't deserve much praise for that.

Well, if Makar's the alternative, Hughes and Makar on the ice on the same team instead of Pettersson? Is that a bad thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

24 year old Markstrom 

24 year old Tanev

19 year old Horvat

 

The problem was there wasn't any depth causing Benning to overspend on vets to fill out the team.  But that wasn't Gillis' goal.  It was to take the team to the next level & win the cup.  He failed in that last part.  

24 year old Markstrom was a failing prospect in 2014, who cleared waivers in 2015.(and nobody would have really cared if he got claimed)

24 year old Tanev was the only impact player in his prime years on the entire team in  2014

Horvat is the only impact player to show for 5 years of drafting (imagine if he's missed out on Bo?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dank.sinatra said:

I've literally already explained how Pettersson wasn't Benning's guy. 

 

We have Ron Delorme to thank for that.

 

Benning wanted Makar and likely would have taken Glass had Delorme not vouched for Pettersson.

 

Yes, Benning listened to his scout. So good for him on that. But most GM's would likely do the same. He doesn't deserve much praise for that.

Thats precisely the reason he has scouts.

  • Cheers 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Lock said:

Well, if Makar's the alternative, Hughes and Makar on the ice on the same team instead of Pettersson? Is that a bad thing?

Obviously not. But like I said, Benning doesn't much praise for not drafting a dud in a the top five of draft that had five great players.

 

It's expected he get a good player there, especially in that year. 

 

Stop praising people for simply doing the bare minimum.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, dank.sinatra said:

Just going off what the facts and history tells us.

 

"Most players hit their peak age by age 24 or 25 then decline gradually until age 30, at which point their performance can begin to tumble more noticeably with the risk of absolute collapse by age 34 or 35.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hockey-graphs.com/2017/03/23/a-new-look-at-aging-curves-for-nhl-skaters-part-1/amp/

 

Unless you're name is Ovechkin or Tom Brady this is true.

 

Hockey players' prime is 24 to 25 yrs age. A few years ago a UBC professor analysed the data and i remember reading about it in the media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

Exactly this. If Benning didn't listen to his scouts why have them? lol

Ok great, so you agree that any GM could have made the same picks given the same scouting staff.

 

Now hopefully we can move on to finding a GM actually competent in the other areas of managing a hockey team.

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...