Are the Canucks too much of a Featherweight team to push through the playoffs?

[wallstreetamigo]

5 minutes ago, GarthButcher5 said:

I think a lot of weight has been put recently on reguilar season power play sucess and having puck moving d-men who can quarter back the power play. This is all and good but to win in the playoffs you need defenders that can keep the other team from scoring and keep the cores low. 

 

Case in point Vegas, they have behemoth defenders and their powerplay was fairly abysmal by NHL standards at 22nd overall but they could win in the trenches throughout the year. In fact the only final 4 team with a top ten pp is Tampa, the other three teams are below average in this department.

 

As for the Canucks I think they are OK with a smallish guy like Hughes on the backend but he needs to be partnered with a defensive partner and the team needs to play a solid backchecking style.

Lots of truth in this. Regular season hockey and playoff hockey are two different things. 

 

Relying primarily on your PP to win in the playoffs puts far too much control in the hands of the officials. 

 

Solid defense and goaltending with solid secondary scoring wins cups. Top players get matched up and stifled offensively. You have to have solid play as a team to win a cup.

[The Lock]

I think there's almost too much focus when it comes to team size when there are so many other factors to the game, such as goal-tending, defending, scoring, discipline, etc.

 

If you look at the makeup of each team who's won the cup in the past 10 years, all of them are different in terms of this makeup. Don't get me wrong: each team had some of each area to their advantage, but often it would be different strengths on each team. The only real similarity between the teams is they had key pieces in each position that would complemented by other players. Depth (or just not getting injured) could also be argued as a factor.

 

In my opinion, there's nothing in the past 10 or 20 years that really tells me that size is the end all. It helps, but if you don't have the skill with that size, you're not going to get anywhere. For example, Winnipeg's been a large team for a long time now; yet, there were a lot of seasons where they didn't even make the playoffs.

 

I think just focusing on size is putting a simplistic spin on something that's really not meant to be that simple in the first place. Unfortunately, there are so many intangibles with all of this that I don't think it's necessarily that helpful just to focus on one area. Perhaps more size can help, but also perhaps not.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I think there's almost too much focus when it comes to team size when there are so many other factors to the game, such as goal-tending, defending, scoring, discipline, etc.

 

If you look at the makeup of each team who's won the cup in the past 10 years, all of them are different in terms of this makeup. Don't get me wrong: each team had some of each area to their advantage, but often it would be different strengths on each team. The only real similarity between the teams is they had key pieces in each position that would complemented by other players. Depth (or just not getting injured) could also be argued as a factor.

 

In my opinion, there's nothing in the past 10 or 20 years that really tells me that size is the end all. It helps, but if you don't have the skill with that size, you're not going to get anywhere. For example, Winnipeg's been a large team for a long time now; yet, there were a lot of seasons where they didn't even make the playoffs.

 

I think just focusing on size is putting a simplistic spin on something that's really not meant to be that simple in the first place. Unfortunately, there are so many intangibles with all of this that I don't think it's necessarily that helpful just to focus on one area. Perhaps more size can help, but also perhaps not.

Exactly!  The Leafs have 3 D at 220, and one more at 210.  Yet they are trash in the heavy hockey of the playoffs.  Character, skill, and compete are more important.  

[aqua59]

22 hours ago, UKNuck96 said:

I’m not saying this team is tough I’m refuting that they are the second lightest  team, they are not. 
 

The question wasn’t they are not tough enough but they are too light. 

They are far too light and soft they go together in the long run.

[ShawnAntoski]

On 6/13/2021 at 10:14 AM, debluvscanucks said:

Our team can't get away with much and the zebras HAVE BEEN active when it comes to seeing infractions that shouldn't be called in playoff hockey, but are.  It's still lopsided and it's hard to gain traction.  I do agree that you have to have that going to war mentality...but not all can executive that without it doing more harm than good.  Except I'm past that now because if you're going to go down, go down swinging.

 

You REALLY have to lean on great goaltending in the playoffs...I'm convinced that's the biggest factor overall.  (I misread your comment the first time).  So I agree.

 

Injures, officiating also come into play - but if you have a great goaltender, you let him work his magic.  Thing is, some goaltenders PREFER to be really involved...keeps them sharp through the game.

 

It's not really "at the cost of" a goaltender - it's HAVING a goaltender in place who's up to the challenge.  People cry over Demko having to perform at that level but that's why you have him.  Habs without Price?  Vegas relied pretty heavily on Fleury last (critical) game.  It's just how it is...goaltenders have to be ready to perform at a peak level if you have a chance at all.

 

Keeping the shots to the outside and giving a clear view is important and I'm not against that strategy.  Sure, a firing range is an issue....but I've noticed that teams are also blocking an incredible amount of shots these days.  Not just our team.

Somewhat agree on most points, especially about the importance of goaltending in the game of Hockey.  There are three teams that I can remember that won the cup based (mostly) on goaltending: 93 Habs led by playoff MVP winner, Patrick Roy (last Canadian team to win a cup), Devils with Brodeur and (to a lesser extent) the Blues.  These teams were built to grind it out defensively and solid goaltending with the guidance of a defensive minded coach: Burns for the Habs and three for the Devils (Lemaire, Robinson and Burns).  It is not impossible but it is tough to do, it will take the whole team buying into the system and a coach to put it all together in the ice.

 

Imo, when it come to toughness, it is better to go about with a team approach: from the staff, that coaches the team to be hard on the puck and the players - were even the stars are not afraid to get dirty cause it is all about sending the right message (especially, in the playoffs).  I get your point cause in 94, it seems that both game 6 & 7 was managed to have the team of destiny win the cup; and from my experienced, this type of game managing is nothing new outside of NA pro sports were it is more obvious.   

Edited June 15, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[Toyotasfan]

A forward like Blake Coleman (Tampa) wood be a good UFA target . They are 20 million over the cap, they have to lose someone.

[ShawnAntoski]

According to Bieksa - the Canucks are fun to play against.

[86Viking]

10 hours ago, ShawnAntoski said:

According to Bieksa - the Canucks are fun to play against.

He would know a thing or 3 about that too..miss Juice, if only we had more even Sports coverage in this country...We could have a panel with Don Taylor and Juice doing pre and post game canucks talk or something. But, everything in the sports world in Canada revolves around 1 province and 1 city back in OnTerrible maple Laffville...really is sad but more so pathetic to be so 1 sided considering it is an entire country they are suppose to cover equally no?

[ShawnAntoski]

3 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:

He would know a thing or 3 about that too..miss Juice, if only we had more even Sports coverage in this country...We could have a panel with Don Taylor and Juice doing pre and post game canucks talk or something. But, everything in the sports world in Canada revolves around 1 province and 1 city back in OnTerrible maple Laffville...really is sad but more so pathetic to be so 1 sided considering it is an entire country they are suppose to cover equally no?

Great idea: pre, mid and post show of Bieksa, Taylor and friends would be a must watch TV.  It would be faaaaaar better than McLean and friends; personally I don’t really watch them except for when Bieksa is in the panel.

[Dats hockey]

So when a team with a beefy Blue line doesn’t win do we just say their blue line was 2 Beefy?

[lmm]

On 6/14/2021 at 1:27 PM, The Lock said:

I think there's almost too much focus when it comes to team size when there are so many other factors to the game, such as goal-tending, defending, scoring, discipline, etc.

 

If you look at the makeup of each team who's won the cup in the past 10 years, all of them are different in terms of this makeup. Don't get me wrong: each team had some of each area to their advantage, but often it would be different strengths on each team. The only real similarity between the teams is they had key pieces in each position that would complemented by other players. Depth (or just not getting injured) could also be argued as a factor.

 

In my opinion, there's nothing in the past 10 or 20 years that really tells me that size is the end all. It helps, but if you don't have the skill with that size, you're not going to get anywhere. For example, Winnipeg's been a large team for a long time now; yet, there were a lot of seasons where they didn't even make the playoffs.

 

I think just focusing on size is putting a simplistic spin on something that's really not meant to be that simple in the first place. Unfortunately, there are so many intangibles with all of this that I don't think it's necessarily that helpful just to focus on one area. Perhaps more size can help, but also perhaps not.

 

Or maybe you are just looking at this argument with a simplistic spin .

Did anyone here say we need 18 Dana Murzyns?

It might be that some of us are arguing that we need size, without stating the obvious, that  the size we need needs skill.

We have had our Gudbransons, Virtanens Sestitos and Mathias'

It pretty much goes without saying that size needs heart, skill and speed

look at the 5 guys I just mentioned 3 had heart but not enough skill and no speed,

the other 2 had speed but not enough skill and no  heart

none of them think the game fast enough

Having size + one (Heart, Speed, Skill) is not enough

 

 

now lets look at Pietragelo, Weber and Hedman, they are big, what are they lacking?

And they think the game at a big league pace

Nobody has to tell then, "Hey Shea, you're big but you need to be smart too"  it goes without saying

[The Lock]

16 hours ago, lmm said:

 

Or maybe you are just looking at this argument with a simplistic spin .

Did anyone here say we need 18 Dana Murzyns?

It might be that some of us are arguing that we need size, without stating the obvious, that  the size we need needs skill.

We have had our Gudbransons, Virtanens Sestitos and Mathias'

It pretty much goes without saying that size needs heart, skill and speed

look at the 5 guys I just mentioned 3 had heart but not enough skill and no speed,

the other 2 had speed but not enough skill and no  heart

none of them think the game fast enough

Having size + one (Heart, Speed, Skill) is not enough

 

 

now lets look at Pietragelo, Weber and Hedman, they are big, what are they lacking?

And they think the game at a big league pace

Nobody has to tell then, "Hey Shea, you're big but you need to be smart too"  it goes without saying

If you're going to make statements where other people are just supposed to mind read everything else you meant to say, then you're assuming too much right off the bat. I could just as easily point out that no one's also saying that you need skill with size just like how you are saying everyone is. Unless if someone explicitly says all of this, it's just assumptions.

 

I see people saying we need more size; therefore, I'm taking that at face value if they don't say otherwise. If you want to say that skill should be with that size then say that explicitly. Otherwise, it's safe to assume that that's not what you mean.

 

I see this too many times where people want to make what they think are "rhetorical statements" that are not even close to being rhetorical. Size can mean many different things and doesn't imply skill.

Edited June 16, 2021 by The Lock

[The Lock]

Double post

Edited June 16, 2021 by The Lock

[Fred65]

17 hours ago, lmm said:

 

Or maybe you are just looking at this argument with a simplistic spin .

Did anyone here say we need 18 Dana Murzyns?

It might be that some of us are arguing that we need size, without stating the obvious, that  the size we need needs skill.

We have had our Gudbransons, Virtanens Sestitos and Mathias'

It pretty much goes without saying that size needs heart, skill and speed

look at the 5 guys I just mentioned 3 had heart but not enough skill and no speed,

the other 2 had speed but not enough skill and no  heart

none of them think the game fast enough

Having size + one (Heart, Speed, Skill) is not enough

 

 

now lets look at Pietragelo, Weber and Hedman, they are big, what are they lacking?

And they think the game at a big league pace

Nobody has to tell then, "Hey Shea, you're big but you need to be smart too"  it goes without saying

I always remember two players who hated ! Hated playing against Dana Murzyn   ... Cliff Ronning and Wayne Gretzky. You paid a price for every inch of space. He wouldn't fit in todays game but he was ruthless during his years the NHL and successfully partnered Lumme for years. He swung his stick like it was an axe. He wasn't much of a scrapper but never ever turned any one down. he was a great Pro for Vcr

[lmm]

On 6/14/2021 at 1:27 PM, The Lock said:

I think there's almost too much focus when it comes to team size when there are so many other factors to the game, such as goal-tending, defending, scoring, discipline, etc.

 

If you look at the makeup of each team who's won the cup in the past 10 years, all of them are different in terms of this makeup. Don't get me wrong: each team had some of each area to their advantage, but often it would be different strengths on each team. The only real similarity between the teams is they had key pieces in each position that would complemented by other players. Depth (or just not getting injured) could also be argued as a factor.

 

In my opinion, there's nothing in the past 10 or 20 years that really tells me that size is the end all. It helps, but if you don't have the skill with that size, you're not going to get anywhere. For example, Winnipeg's been a large team for a long time now; yet, there were a lot of seasons where they didn't even make the playoffs.

 

I think just focusing on size is putting a simplistic spin on something that's really not meant to be that simple in the first place. Unfortunately, there are so many intangibles with all of this that I don't think it's necessarily that helpful just to focus on one area. Perhaps more size can help, but also perhaps not.

 guess it is a matter of where you want to start and where you want to end

I do not really believe in intangibles

Intangibles is really the same thing we are discussing

intangibles are actually tangible, but the list is long, so for brevity a long list of qualities you do or do not want in a player is called intanibles.

I'll give you a short list but it could probably go on for 1000 points

we are talking defensemen

tangible intangibles

can they skate backward?

do crossovers :left"

 "right?

turn Left?

Right?

do they get mad ?

or wither against tough opposition?

is their shot hard?

Accurate?

make bad decisions under pressure?

 

there is 10,

we could go on for a long time

so it is called Intangibles.

 

but do you really want to go through this whole list every time we talk about needing more size?

because it is all relevant,

but 

at some point you have to assume that the people you are talkiing to have a grasp of  what is required

 

the same is true of any business or trade

if you are hiring a cook you hope htey know the difference between chop, slice , julienne and mince

if you hire a carpenter you expect them to know how to make stairs

if you hire a scout and you ask can player x skate, you don't expect to find out later that he can only turn left

 

 understand that not all things can be assumed, but some things do need to be, otherwise we spend all of our time going over what should be understood

 

[PhillipBlunt]

21 hours ago, Dats hockey said:

So when a team with a beefy Blue line doesn’t win do we just say their blue line was 2 Beefy?

[EmilyM]

Canucks featherweights? But I look at their roster and see tons of dead weight 

[Trebreh]

if Seattle takes MacEwen from us that would SUCK. 

 

Roussel would be our only gritty/tough guy. 

[Junkyard Dog]

1 minute ago, Trebreh said:

if Seattle takes MacEwen from us that would SUCK. 

 

Roussel would be our only gritty/tough guy. 

Roussel would try but I am not sure he’d succeed as much as Mac in that regard. 

[tas]

On 6/14/2021 at 1:23 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

Lots of truth in this. Regular season hockey and playoff hockey are two different things. 

 

Relying primarily on your PP to win in the playoffs puts far too much control in the hands of the officials. 

 

Solid defense and goaltending with solid secondary scoring wins cups. Top players get matched up and stifled offensively. You have to have solid play as a team to win a cup.

to add to this, I'd also argue that it's easier for a team defensively, over a 7 game series, to adapt and shut down a more-or-less static system like a powerplay than it is to adapt and shut down a free-flowing, 5-on-5 game of odd man rushes, cycling, turnovers, and forechecking.