[Edited] Bottom 5 Finish Now in Reach!

[Provost]

6 hours ago, ImConfused said:

There you go using words literally that you don't quite understand again like "mathematically eliminated"

 

I'm pretty sure there's SOMEBODY out there that thinks at least one other team has a worse bottom 6 than us, 

Yikes... if you have to resort to misquoting me and lying... that is a bad look on your level of desperation.

 

“The sum total of hundreds of years or hockey knowledge by actual experts gives a good sense of objective reality.  Our bottom 6 is universally considered to be amongst the worst in the league... those guys make up most of it.”

 

So as a grammar lesson... the “universe” was defined by the previous descriptor as the opinions presented by the experts in the hockey world (... oh, and “world” is not actually a planet in this context if you get confused on that point too).  

 

“Amongst the worst bottom 6” does not mean the very worst and that no team could be worse.  That is just not how sentences and words work.

 

So yes, if you don’t understand the language (and hey if you are ESL don’t worry about it, that is understandable ignorance)... no one was suggesting that undiscovered aliens in a far flung galaxy think our bottom 6 is the very worst in the league.

 

Please feel free to cite a source from a hockey expert stating they don’t believe that the Canucks have one of the worst bottom 6 in the league.  I will stand corrected on that point once you have something other than frustrated  snarkiness to actually offer.

 

All that random and incorrect silliness from you aside.  If your entire counter argument is reduced to trying to (incorrectly) pick apart grammar because you are frustrated by having no rational way to refute the actual point under discussion... then you need to really walk back into reality and take a really good look at the chances this team has.  Those odds are worse this morning than they were yesterday when I posted this... and will be worse by the end of tonight when one of Calgary and Edmonton get two more points... with the loser even possibly getting a third point.  
 

If you (wrongly) are worried about me not knowing English... you certainly don’t understand math and about focus in that instead.

 

If your name/handle is a built in an apology for why you are wrong... then apology accepted, and kudos for putting it right out there for the sake of efficiency.  That probably saves a lot of time explaining your problems.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Provost

[AK_19]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

Yikes... if you have to resort to misquoting me and lying... that is a bad look on your level of desperation.

 

“The sum total of hundreds of years or hockey knowledge by actual experts gives a good sense of objective reality.  Our bottom 6 is universally considered to be amongst the worst in the league... those guys make up most of it.”

 

So as a grammar lesson... the “universe” was defined by the previous descriptor as the opinions presented by the experts in the hockey world (... oh, and “world” is not actually a planet in this context if you get confused on that point too).  

 

“Amongst the worst bottom 6” does not mean the very worst and that no team could be worse.  That is just not how sentences and words work.

 

So yes, if you don’t understand the language (and hey if you are ESL don’t worry about it, that is understandable ignorance)... no one was suggesting that undiscovered aliens in a far flung galaxy think our bottom 6 is the very worst in the league.

 

Please feel free to cite a source from a hockey expert stating they don’t believe that the Canucks have one of the worst bottom 6 in the league.  I will stand corrected on that point once you have something other than frustrated snarkiness to actually offer.

 

All that random and incorrect silliness from you aside.  If your entire counter argument is reduced to trying to (incorrectly) pick apart grammar because you are frustrated by having no rational way to refute the actual point under discussion... then you need to really walk back into reality and take a really good look at the chances this team has.  Those odds are worse this morning than they were yesterday when I posted this... and will be worse by the end of tonight when one of Calgary and Edmonton get two more points... with the loser even possibly getting a third point.  
 

If you (wrongly) are worried about me not knowing English... you certainly don’t understand math and about focus in that instead.

 

If your name/handle is a built in an apology for why you are wrong... then apology accepted, and kudos for putting it right out there for the sake of efficiency.  That probably saves a lot of time explaining your problems.

 

 

Provost I agree with your original post. I feel like it's simply a descriptive explanation of the math it would take to make it into the playoffs which are unfortunately already bleaker than most realize. The reality is even if e went on big winning streaks, it's going to feel very slow in making ground with the games in hand + games against only divisional opponents for everyone.

 

However, what you're asking in bold is nonsensical. It is not on an individual to prove the absence of something otherwise we'd be reaching conclusions like unicorns exist in society. IMO, our bottom 6 is an issue in the cap problems it has created but the actual play of the overpaid bottom six players has been fine. They were playing better in comparison to their role than our top 6 when we first started the season. It's not on our bottom six that we didn't score on our first 15-16 PPs, and a significant number of breakdowns were on our new players adjusting to the system.  

[Provost]

56 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

 

However, what you're asking in bold is nonsensical. It is not on an individual to prove the absence of something otherwise we'd be reaching conclusions like unicorns   

Except it isn’t the absence of something, it is the existence of something I am asking him for.  If you read the thread.. he is the one using logic that would require chasing down the absence of evidence.

 

He said I was wrong and his reasoning was that there were probably hockey experts who didn’t think our bottom 6 was amongst the worst in the league... that

 

He made a claim... then him supporting it with a shred of evidence isn’t an unreasonable ask if he wants to be taken seriously.  Why would I chase around trying to prove that something doesn't exist if he hasn't bothered to show that it does exist... aside from something he pulled out of his imagination.

 

I pay a lot of attention and try to do the homework to inform my opinions... the universal opinion of all the pundits/writers/hockey folks going into the season was that we were a top heavy team that would rely on our high end talent to make up for a terrible and overpaid bottom six.

 

They haven’t been as bad as expected so far this season... but that is because the bar was set so low.  We are still one of the very bottom teams in the league once you factor in games played.  Our bottom six is a big part of that failure.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Provost

[AV.]

7 hours ago, ImConfused said:

Wait.

 

So what you're saying is, we should sign better players.. and try to pay them less money?

 

WHY HASN'T ANYONE TOLD BENNING ABOUT THIS INGENIOUS AND DASTARDLY SCHEME!?

You can try to laugh at this all you want, but deep down you know Benning isn't capable nor skilled enough to be able do what 80% of GMs are doing, and have done, with limited cap-space.  I mean, Benning was handed 20M in cap-space in 2018 and what did he do?  Throw it all away on 4th liners.  In 2019, when he had another 10M+ in cap-space, what did he do?  Throw it away on a 5th defenceman in Myers and a hospital patient in Ferland.  So irresponsible, so mind-boggling, and definitely worthy of termination.  This GM blamed THE &^@#ING CLOCK and said he ran out of time for signing his free-agents, meanwhile, Tampa Bay, with negative cap-space to start the off-season, found a way to retain their whole core.  It really, really makes you wonder...

 

In general, this is such a weird hill to die on for you, defending a GM that will 95% be gone at the end of this season.  But hey, much like Trump supporters, I guess Benning supporters aren't known for being the smartest cookies.  Hope you're having fun defending a lame duck GM.

[ImConfused]

5 hours ago, Provost said:

Yikes.

No I was just saying that I'm pretty sure that opinion is not "universal", nothing to do with your English, just your faulty logic.

 

5 hours ago, Provost said:

 

If you (wrongly) are worried about me not knowing English... you certainly don’t understand math and about focus in that instead.

 

 

Although, that one is pretty ironic, you have to admit.

 

3 hours ago, Provost said:

I pay a lot of attention and try to do the homework to inform my opinions... the universal opinion of all the pundits/writers/hockey folks going into the season was that we were a top heavy team that would rely on our high end talent to make up for a terrible and overpaid bottom six.

Please cite at least 20 sources for this, should be easy considering it is so "universal"

 

Have a good day friend and enjoy your pessimism and negativity

Edited February 20, 2021 by ImConfused

[Provost]

On 2/19/2021 at 10:29 AM, oldnews said:

 

 

Jay Beagle's objective reality.

 

24.1% ozone starts

44.6% corsi

 

Yeah - the team would look "significantly better" without Jay Beagle (patented noob-speak).

 

You keep regurgitating these same couple stats over and over again when they don't mean what you are trying to suggest they mean at all.  They aren't defined the way you think and don't tell you what you are incorrectly inferring about the players... and this is why you are always wrong on your player assessments.  You keep using them as the main hallmark of player usefulness.

I know most folks don't really care about the details of stats... but if you are going to believe what someone posts, take a minute to read this so you can know why they aren't telling you the truth and are trying to make numbers lie to make a predetermined opinion rather than using numbers to inform their opinion.

oZone start% is a tiny, extremely limited stat (and it is also just 5 on 5 shifts, but you keep leaving off that part).  It doesn't mean that only 24.1% of Beagle's starts are in the oZone and that 75.9% of this shifts start in the dZone...that is the way you keep presenting it, that he is somehow getting the hardest defensive minutes because he is taking most of the team's tough defensive assignments.

That has 0% truth to it.  It isn't a matter of opinion... it is just the definition of the stat and how it is calculated.

oZone% (5v5) and dZone% (5v5) simply measure the ratio of a small subsection of a player's shifts.  It ignores all shifts that start on the fly and that start in the neutral zone... which is most of them.  Just that fact in and of itself makes the stat of only relatively insignificant importance because it takes away anywhere from 50-80% of any particular player's shifts and entirely disregards them from the measurement.  In Beagle's case for the above stats, you are ignoring 77% of his total 5v5 shifts by using that stat... so it only measures 23% of his 5v5 workload.  Making sweeping authoritative statements while ignoring 3/4ths of a player's on ice performance is ridiculous.  In truth, only 18% of Beagle's total 5v5 shifts start in the defensive zone.. not the 75.8% that you infer the stat actually means.  That is because most shifts start on the fly or in the neutral zone... and your favourite stat doesn't account for that.  If you add in all strength shifts, that oZone% stat only represents 3% of his total shifts... combine it with the dZone% number and it is only 17% of his total shifts that your "major" and most important stat is even measuring.

Even with the limited use that stat has, which is to give a little sense of how a player is deployed... using the ratio (%) instead of their actual usage leads you even farther down the wrong path.  At 75.9% dZone % (5v5), you could be led to believe he is getting by far the hardest defensive usage on the entire team because no other player is anywhere near that bar.  That isn't true either.  Horvat has had exactly the same number of dZone (5v5) starts as Beagle at 61 shifts this year... and Horvat's dZone% is 57.4%...almost 20% less than Beagle's 75.9%... the dumb dzone% starts stat is just a way to lie about relative usage and importance to the team because it corrects for the fact some players are on the ice way less and inflates the importance of those players since in reality, they just aren't leaned on as much because they are on the bench.  Again, your ignorance of what the stat means keeps leading you to overestimating the importance of players like Sutter, Beagle, Gudbranson, etc.. who are sitting on the bench (translation: not helping their team during that time) a lot more than the better players.

To illustrate why you favourite stat is even more ludicrously useless.  Boeser has a massively "protected" Dzone % start of just 30% this year, almost the mirror of Beagle's "massive" defensive responsibility of 75.9%.  Boeser has 25 dZone starts to Beagle's 61 over the entire season so far.  That represents just a 1.7 shifts per game difference in how many dZone starts they are getting, and that is about the widest difference in that stat you are going to find.  Most players range from 45%-55% oZone/dZone%... and that represents way less of a difference representing far less than a shift a game between them.  So your entire house of cards when you tout a player at 45% dzone usage being sheltered and a guy at 55% being given the hard matchups is simply completely bogus as it represents such an insignificant difference between the two players' actual time on the ice.

Last year where we actually have a big enough sample size to be useful (another basic flaw of yours.. using sample sizes that are too small to have statistical relevance), Horvat had 259 shifts (5v5) start in the dZone... and Beagle only had 171 shifts (5v5) start in the dzone... clearly that means Horvat's dZone start % must be massively higher than Beagle's right... he was relied on to take the toughest defensive zone match ups FAR more often than Beagle?  Nope... Horvat was again relatively "sheltered" compared to Beagle with only a 57% dZone start % compared with Beagle's 77% dZone start%... how strange if that stat even remotely captures how tough their defensive usage is like you keep suggesting.  Oh and again, look at those pure numbers.  171 shifts for Beagle over an 82 game season is just 3 shifts a game that number is capturing... or about 2:30 of his 15:30 minutes per game playing time and ignoring the vast bulk of his usage and actual time on the ice.  Another example to show how ludicrous using that stat is... Petterson last year had an incredibly sheltered 22.5% dzone% starts last year!  Stunning how much he was protected compared with Beagle's usage!  Except Petterson had 60 dZone shift starts that season as well... which represent about 1:00 of his time on the ice per game... just 1:30 less than Beagle's.  That is the tiny difference that stat is measuring EVEN when picking the widest variation that exists between players like I just did.  If you measure Pearson's 53.5% Dzone Start usage to Virtanen's 48%...in your world that means one is sheltered and one is used much more defensively... in the real world you are just looking at a difference of one shift every two games between the two for how they are used even though the stat seems to show a big difference in their usage.

Now as for the entirely flawed way you try to relate the Corsi% to the oZone% and dZone% to come up with some relative value of a player's outcomes vs. usage.  As above, the one stat is only measuring a tiny fraction of a player's actual time on ice which even to start makes that comparison meaningless.  Even more basic an error you are making is that they aren't measuring the same population (denominator)... which means is it absolutely a basic statistical error to use them in relation to each other.  People who just regurgitate numbers without understanding them see that they are both a % so think that means they are comparable.  That just isn't true at all... they need to be measuring the same population (total number of 5v5 shifts for example) to be able to be put side by side and used together like you are (incorrectly) doing.  They have nothing to do with each other.  You keep suggesting that having a higher Corsi than oZone% start means they are performing well... you defend players with a low Corsi because they get more dZone% starts (as above... less than a shift a game difference in almost every instance).  That is just not correct and just not knowing what the numbers represent and how to use them.  A player's dzone% may have some impact on their Corsi because it shows they might be slightly more used in the defensive zone... but really explains very little of it because it reflects such a small number of shifts and an even small amount of difference between players.

Forget your favourite stats of those oZone and dzone%... they are just WADR (in your terms) to try to justify your take on a player and mean almost nothing, certainly not what you purport they do.  Beagle takes a lot of PK minutes.. we know that means he spends more time in defensive assignments, stick with that.  Your favourite stats exclude that entirely.

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Provost

[ImConfused]

@Provost Is there any point to this thread by the way? Like, what is it supposed to accomplish? You just want to point out how bad the team is and how bad Benning is and how we're so screwed and we'll never win the Cup? Or is it just you trying to stir up discord?

 

3 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

In general, this is such a weird hill to die on for you, defending a GM that will 95% be gone at the end of this season.  But hey, much like Trump supporters, I guess Benning supporters aren't known for being the smartest cookies. 

At least I'm smart enough not to have to resort to ad hominem

Edited February 20, 2021 by ImConfused

[oldnews]

21 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Nobody said anything when Malholtra was signed, mostly because he was useful and the impacts he had were both tangible and visible, unlike whatever it is we're supposed to believe Beagle brings.

Nonsense once again. 

 

There was a lot of the usual peanut gallery armchair complaining about signing Malhotra - to a $7.5 million deal over 3 years in 2010 - from the usual suspects in this market at the time. 

 

And ironically, Malhotra was here when they then signed Beagle - I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a year after Malhotra joined this team as an assistant coach they went out and got Beagle.

 

And that's a cool one-liner about Malhotra's utility and 'impacts'....they've played virtually identical roles and had very similar 'impacts'/outcomes.

 

Quote

It’s fitting, then, that the Canucks are one of the best faceoff teams in the NHL, with a 54.9% faceoff percentage, second behind only the Philadelphia Flyers. It helps that they have Jay Beagle, one of just a few active NHLers with a career faceoff percentage better than Malhotra’s.

 

[oldnews]

On 2/19/2021 at 12:19 PM, Provost said:

Yes... there is a reason they are an authority and you aren't and why people should listen to them and not you.

You are sitting in your basement

Post a source of one of your authorities.   You never do.  As in your avoidance of qualifying that 'it was rumoured' story regarding Virtanen to Ottawa to take LE, which you allege Benning rejected.  Until you post a source it's nothing but another of your cool stories.

 

You just prattle on - that's all you have.  And you whine about non-existent 'ad hominems' so you can feel entitled to do what you always do, as above.

 

Seriously - can't be bothered to read the rest let alone waste time responding to it.

If you ever have any sources - or actual hockey talk - it would be a departure from your one-note nonsense.  Won't be holding my breath waiting - your record is a consistent fail.

[oldnews]

21 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Beagle brings a lot of the same elements Malhotra did.  People whined about that signing too.

Exactly.

Extremely high dzone starts, very high faceoff percentage, very high on ice sv%, very low on ice goals against, territorial gain that goes to the top 6, high end penalty killing - basically an all around quality shutdown center - which makes it fitting that they went out and added him to this mix, with Malhotra as an assistant coach - who knew full well what a player like Beagle could do for the EP line, for example (EP is not getting 77.5% ozone starts were it not for Beagle types).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AV.]

30 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Nonsense once again. 

 

There was a lot of the usual peanut gallery armchair complaining about signing Malhotra - to a $7.5 million deal over 3 years in 2010 - from the usual suspects in this market at the time. 

 

And ironically, Malhotra was here when they then signed Beagle - I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a year after Malhotra joined this team as an assistant coach they went out and got Beagle.

 

And that's a cool one-liner about Malhotra's utility and 'impacts'....they've played virtually identical roles and had very similar 'impacts'/outcomes.

 

 

Malholtra was an established 30 pt scorer that could play both ends of the ice quite admirably.  Jay Beagle hasn't even hit 30 pts total in 3 seasons here and has only exceeded 20 pts three times in his career.  They are not the same.

 

"Some" people may have thought 2.5M annually was a lot for Maltholtra but make no mistake, he was essentially replacing Wellwood's offensive output (1.5M) and Johnson's defensive contributions (1M) for his price.  Any bit of critical thinking could have demonstrated that for the "peanut gallery GMs" you seem to think existed.

 

And like I said before, if signing Beagle was necessary, then what does that make the Sutter signing?  I know that Malholtra freed up Ryan Kesler, but what exactly did Beagle do for Sutter, or Horvat?  Makes you wonder...

Edited February 20, 2021 by Alain Vigneault

[Provost]

On 2/19/2021 at 12:08 PM, Provost said:

Try to trade Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, or Virtanen... that is all that you need to know about their value around the league.  The sum total of hundreds of years or hockey knowledge by actual experts gives a good sense of objective reality.  Our bottom 6 is universally considered to be amongst the worst in the league... those guys make up most of it.

Pretend to know better than everyone else... but you have zero experience, knowledge, or track record of being right for anyone to believe you over folks that are professionals in this arena.  You are not smarter than they are... this has been proven repeatedly by just going back to your numerous bad takes on things.

None of them garner any significant return, if they are moveable at all without taking equivalent bad money back.  Once they get to the trade deadline of their pending UFA status year, they get some modicum of value because no one cares about their cap hits.

 

On 2/19/2021 at 12:14 PM, oldnews said:

LOL.

The patented laughable appeal to authority buried in a soliloquy/narrative.

chirp chirp.

.

the 'analytics' are delicious.

 

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Post a source of one of your authorities.   You never do.  As in your avoidance of qualifying that 'it was rumoured' story regarding Virtanen to Ottawa to take LE, which you allege Benning rejected.  Until you post a source it's nothing but another of your cool stories.

 

You just prattle on - that's all you have.  And you whine about non-existent 'ad hominems' so you can feel entitled to do what you always do, as above.

 

Seriously - can't be bothered to read the rest let alone waste time responding to it.

If you ever have any sources - or actual hockey talk - it would be a departure from your one-note nonsense.  Won't be holding my breath waiting - your record is a consistent fail.

ok...here is just the first page of Google.  All the predictions were that we were likely to miss the playoffs despite having the best defenceman in the country, and some of the best high end talent.  Do some work and go back to all the radio and TV commentary about our roster, lack of depth at the bottom end, and poor value contracts that fill it.  I know in your mind each one of those people is stupid (as you have repeatedly said), but they just know more than you.
... as for the Ottawa rumour... it was a response regarding one posted on this actual thread
... oh, and I am sure you won't read my above post because you either wouldn't understand it or would never admit that just about every post you have made about a player's stats has relied on a complete flight of fancy and basic math errors on your part.

https://theathletic.com/2166869/2020/11/06/nhl-teams-contract-efficiency-grade-2020/

https://thehockeywriters.com/canucks-worst-contracts-2020-21-beagle-sutter-eriksson/

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-spent-money-wrong-time-players

 

https://theathletic.com/1901503/2020/07/01/the-10-worst-free-agent-signings-in-vancouver-canucks-history/

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/breaking-canucks-contracts-outlooks-player/

https://twitter.com/RobTheHockeyGuy/status/1349199352309239808/photo/1

 

 

 

[Tyndall2]

Anyone know how the draft lottery is going to go at the end of the season?  Same odds depending on your finish?  Problem this year is that we aren't comparing apples with apples in that some teams are stuck in a strong division while other division have a bit more balance.

[Gurn]

4 minutes ago, Tyndall2 said:

Anyone know how the draft lottery is going to go at the end of the season? 

Yes, whatever position the Canucks finish in, they will drop at least 3 spots, it's tradition.

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Malholtra was an established 30 pt scorer that could play both ends of the ice quite admirably.  Jay Beagle hasn't even hit 30 pts total in 3 seasons here and has only exceeded 20 pts three times in his career.  They are not the same.

 

"Some" people may have thought 2.5M annually was a lot for Maltholtra but make no mistake, he was essentially replacing Wellwood's offensive output (1.5M) and Johnson's defensive contributions (1M) for his price.  Any bit of critical thinking could have demonstrated that for the "peanut gallery GMs" you seem to think existed.

 

And like I said before, if signing Beagle was necessary, then what does that make the Sutter signing?  I know that Malholtra freed up Ryan Kesler, but what exactly did Beagle do for Sutter, or Horvat?  Makes you wonder...

Malhotra went from 44.4% ozone starts in San Jose (ie 'established' 30 pt player )  - to 24.3% in Vancouver - the context of his deployment - and his role changed - he became far more of an exclusive shutdown center - like Beagle is - and comparing production in those contexts is misleading (both in terms of deployment and playing on a deep contender) - secondary production was not the crux of his role whatsoever or why they signed him.

 

And regardless, the complaining was widespread (and uninformed imo).  Ironically what Beagle is bringing is a Canucks-hockey staple since the Gillis era.

[oldnews]

7 minutes ago, Provost said:

 

 

ok...here is just the first page of Google.  All the predictions were that we were likely to miss the playoffs despite having the best defenceman in the country, and some of the best high end talent.  Do some work and go back to all the radio and TV commentary about our roster, lack of depth at the bottom end, and poor value contracts that fill it.  I know in your mind each one of those people is stupid (as you have repeatedly said), but they just know more than you.
... as for the Ottawa rumour... it was a response regarding one posted on this actual thread
... oh, and I am sure you won't read my above post because you either wouldn't understand it or would never admit that just about every post you have made about a player's stats has relied on a complete flight of fancy and basic math errors on your part.

https://theathletic.com/2166869/2020/11/06/nhl-teams-contract-efficiency-grade-2020/

https://thehockeywriters.com/canucks-worst-contracts-2020-21-beagle-sutter-eriksson/

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canucks-spent-money-wrong-time-players

 

https://theathletic.com/1901503/2020/07/01/the-10-worst-free-agent-signings-in-vancouver-canucks-history/

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/breaking-canucks-contracts-outlooks-player/

https://twitter.com/RobTheHockeyGuy/status/1349199352309239808/photo/1

 

 

 

 

twitter Rob LOL.

thw - "the hockey writers" lol.   "experts".  thanks for coming out.  anyone, literally anyone can publish for them - they may be even more amateur than canucksmarmy.

evidently every Botchford or twitterer  is an 'expert' to you.

thanks for coming out.

 

 

[Provost]

48 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

twitter Rob LOL.

thw - "the hockey writers" lol.   "experts".  thanks for coming out.  anyone, literally anyone can publish for them - they may be even more amateur than canucksmarmy.

evidently every Botchford or twitterer  is an 'expert' to you.

thanks for coming out.

 

 

Couldn't be bothered to actually click on the links hey... naturally.  The TSN links have all been taken down, but other links referencing those are still left.  even "Hockey Rob" (the PHWA member and professional sports writer) who was quoting the various TSN predictions is vastly more qualified than you are as an expert... so not quite sure your mocking is working very well.

 

Please give even the slightest bit of citation for why you have any valid or meaningful level of knowledge or expertise which puts you in a position to judge relative expertise?  That is one do the most amusing parts about your constant whining about every hockey writer, former player, former executive, coach, professional analytics expert, etc that disagrees with you.. you are sitting in your basement rage posting about them when you are drastically far below even the worst of them as an “authority”.   Complete hubris.

 

Please cite anything from a legitimate source suggesting that Roussel, Eriksson, Sutter, and Beagle are a strength of the team... you always want everyone else to do your work for you but never provide anything.

the next link on Google...

https://www.si.com/hockey/news/instant-buyers-remorse-the-worst-contracts-handed-out-from-2018-free-agency

https://theathletic.com/2272679/2020/12/27/canucks-season-preview-2021/?utm_source=vancouver is awesome&utm_campaign=vancouver is awesome&utm_medium=referral


... still waiting for your "expert" sources suggesting those players are not a weakness of our roster?  crickets again as always.  It is funny that one of your tactics when made to look foolish is to try to bury that post behind a bunch of nonsense in hopes that other people don't bother reading it... don't worry, I will keep it ready as a cut and paste each time you pull the silly oZone and Dzone stats out to make a fake point.

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Provost

[Junkyard Dog]

Personally with the losses of Marky/Tanev/etc, the only way this season could be successful is if we outscored our opponents by a lot because we don't have a goalie that can steal games as consistent as Marky could. With the players we had last year we still gave up a lot, though not as bad as early this season.

 

Last year our offense was playing better. Virtanen/Gaudette were reliable secondary scorers and this year they've been snake bitten. The lotto line hasn't been as good as it was last year.

 

Simply put the offense hasn't been good enough to mitigate our weaknesses and even when we've had some good D performances we haven't been scoring enough.

 

Over the course of an 82 game season we probably would have enough time for our offense to find themselves but under the circumstances where we play in are not ideal enough to find ourselves and make something out of our season.

[grandmaster]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

 

twitter Rob LOL.

thw - "the hockey writers" lol.   "experts".  thanks for coming out.  anyone, literally anyone can publish for them - they may be even more amateur than canucksmarmy.

evidently every Botchford or twitterer  is an 'expert' to you.

thanks for coming out.

 

 

You’re acting like a troll. You asked for sources and he gave you some. The thing about you is that you could never admit you are wrong 

[grandmaster]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

Couldn't be bothered to actually click on the links hey... naturally.  The TSN links have all been taken down, but other links referencing those are still left.  even "Hockey Rob" (the PHWA member and professional sports writer) who was quoting the various TSN predictions is vastly more qualified than you are as an expert... so not quite sure your mocking is working very well.

 

Please give even the slightest bit of citation for why you have any valid or meaningful level of knowledge or expertise which puts you in a position to judge relative expertise?  That is one do the most amusing parts about your constant whining about every hockey writer, former player, former executive, coach, professional analytics expert, etc that disagrees with you.. you are sitting in your basement rage posting about them when you are drastically far below even the worst of them as an “authority”.   Complete hubris.

 

Please cite anything from a legitimate source suggesting that Roussel, Eriksson, Sutter, and Beagle are a strength of the team... you always want everyone else to do your work for you but never provide anything.

the next link on Google...

https://www.si.com/hockey/news/instant-buyers-remorse-the-worst-contracts-handed-out-from-2018-free-agency

https://theathletic.com/2272679/2020/12/27/canucks-season-preview-2021/?utm_source=vancouver is awesome&utm_campaign=vancouver is awesome&utm_medium=referral


... still waiting for your "expert" sources suggesting those players are not a weakness of our roster?  crickets again as always.  It is funny that one of your tactics when made to look foolish is to try to bury that post behind a bunch of nonsense in hopes that other people don't bother reading it... don't worry, I will keep it ready as a cut and paste each time you pull the silly oZone and Dzone stats out to make a fake point.

 

Give up my friend. Some folks will never be open to anything when they are so ignorant and arrogant like old news