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

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 6/16/2021 at 1:48 PM, lmm said:

 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

 

Just because you don't believe in intangibles, it doesn't mean they're not there. You can believe/not believe in anything. It doesn't really matter as it doesn't change if they exist or not. lol

 

The thing is, not everyone here does have a grasp of what they're talking about; therefore it's not safe to assume. The only reason why you want me to assume this stuff is because it's convenient for you. It fits with your agenda. If it didn't you wouldn't bring it up.

 

Sure that some things "need to be assumed". This isn't one of those things though. It's just lazy debating is all it is.

 

Question for you: are you assuming size is the correct course of action? If so, then this thread wouldn't exist in the first place if it were that "obvious". ;)

Edited by The Lock
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Lock said:

Just because you don't believe in intangibles, it doesn't mean they're not there. You can believe/not believe in anything. It doesn't really matter as it doesn't change if they exist or not. lol

 

The thing is, not everyone here does have a grasp of what they're talking about; therefore it's not safe to assume. The only reason why you want me to assume this stuff is because it's convenient for you. It fits with your agenda. If it didn't you wouldn't bring it up.

 

Sure that some things "need to be assumed". This isn't one of those things though. It's just lazy debating is all it is.

 

Question for you: are you assuming size is the correct course of action? If so, then this thread wouldn't exist in the first place if it were that "obvious". ;)

how many intangables can you name?

how do you define intangables?

how many intangables can you not name?

 

there were a reasonable number of people who did not have the same difficulty as you with "assuming" that skill was a given

there are also a number who require everything spelled out or they get confused

this is not news to me, I have friends in both camps

I have been told many times that I speak cryticly

I am aware that it is a left brain/right brain thing

I also assume that people who struggle with this type of conversation also posess skills that I lack

I do not see it as something to get worked up over

you might see it as a situation where everyone should conform to your way of thinking/acting because it makes your life easier

I do not see things as being that black and white

Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be some size in the line-up but I don't think it needs to be the main focus.  Tampa is a big team in terms the median weight of players on its roster, but they have some smaller players in their line-up not the least of which is Brayden Point.  Few of their forwards outside of Killorn and Maroon are truly "big" players.  An important characteristic of all their players however is that they are essentially all able to engage in and push through the physicality of the playoffs.  IMHO, skill and tenacity/resilience needs to be more heavily weighted in a roster than just size.  It's great if you can build a team of mostly above averaged sized players who check all the boxes (e.g. Kings '11-'12, Ducks '06-'07), but that's a fairly unlikely scenario.

 

In terms of skaters, if there's one position where size does seem to be a more significant objective advantage, then it would be D (IMHO).  This is purely from observation over the years.  It's not that a team with a small defenseman can't compete but more that a team with a great skating and skilled D core seems to hold up better over the course of the playoffs.  If I had to guess, then I would attribute this to the wear and tear that the D core experiences to a greater degree due to the forecheck.  I wonder if there are any statistics that indicate whether Dmen are on average more likely to be the recipient of a hit than the deliverer of one (notwithstanding a few hits leaders being Dmen).

 

As for where the Canucks sit in all this, I think the young players showed in '19-'20 that they can play through the grind of the playoffs.  Bo was no surprise but it was good to see Pettersson and Hughes produce.  Hughes obviously got worn down in the series against Vegas.  The Canucks did take Vegas to Game 7 even if the last few games were a crazy strategy of rope-a-dope with Demko holding the fort in net, and that was with Toffoli missing a good chunk of the series.

 

The issue with the Canucks remains the supporting cast.  The '19-'20 playoff run was promising but showed some significant missing components which remain unaddressed.  We'll see what they can do this offseason with all the cap constraints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, lmm said:

how many intangables can you name?

how do you define intangables?

how many intangables can you not name?

 

there were a reasonable number of people who did not have the same difficulty as you with "assuming" that skill was a given

there are also a number who require everything spelled out or they get confused

this is not news to me, I have friends in both camps

I have been told many times that I speak cryticly

I am aware that it is a left brain/right brain thing

I also assume that people who struggle with this type of conversation also posess skills that I lack

I do not see it as something to get worked up over

you might see it as a situation where everyone should conform to your way of thinking/acting because it makes your life easier

I do not see things as being that black and white

Intangibles such as mental abilities when playing, how they use their size could be arguably considered an intangible, how they play with and without the puck, their decision making skills. The intangibles list is huge. I honestly don't know how you cannot see that. It's like one of the most obvious things. You hear the media talk about it, you hear hockey players talk about them, you hear scouts talk about them. If you think I'm going to believe you over everyone else then you'd be delusional at that point. I don't even consider you to be an expert, just someone with an opinion which is fine and great that you're passionate about hockey, but let's not pretend it's anything beyond that.

 

Simply put, just because you don't think they exist, it doesn't mean they don't exist. You can't just wish this stuff away. They're there whether you like them or not.

 

I would say that I thought this stuff would be obvious but that would make me a hypocrite in terms of what I said about making assumptions, so just take it as what intangibles are. There's a reason why everyone talks about them. ;) You can fight this all you want, but it won't make you right.

 

I'm not worked up over anything by the way. You're the one who came at me in the first place and I'm simply defending myself, which has be pretty easy to do so far.

Edited by The Lock
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Lock said:

Intangibles such as mental abilities when playing, how they use their size could be arguably considered an intangible, how they play with and without the puck, their decision making skills. The intangibles list is huge. I honestly don't know how you cannot see that. It's like one of the most obvious things. You hear the media talk about it, you hear hockey players talk about them, you hear scouts talk about them. If you think I'm going to believe you over everyone else then you'd be delusional at that point. I don't even consider you to be an expert, just someone with an opinion which is fine and great that you're passionate about hockey, but let's not pretend it's anything beyond that.

 

Simply put, just because you don't think they exist, it doesn't mean they don't exist. You can't just wish this stuff away. They're there whether you like them or not.

 

I would say that I thought this stuff would be obvious but that would make me a hypocrite in terms of what I said about making assumptions, so just take it as what intangibles are. There's a reason why everyone talks about them. ;) You can fight this all you want, but it won't make you right.

 

I'm not worked up over anything by the way. You're the one who came at me in the first place and I'm simply defending myself, which has be pretty easy to do so far.

Ok 

we are basically saying the same thing now.

I guess what I should have said is that I don't believe "Intanible " is the correct term.

I know it is widely used, yes I have heard it often.

But I can list them, and you can list them and I'd be willing to bet our lists are quite similar

What I meant was, that I think "intangible" is a mis-nomer

I believe "intangible" is a lazy term for "Things that do not have stats"

You have just said, "the intangible list is huge", and I agree.

 

So lets stop arguing for a minute 

and let me ask you this, what is intangible about "intangibles"?

Is it a ssimple as "Things without stats"?

 

Sorry for the confusion, I could have worded better my believe that intangables are not intangible

if we put our heads together, we could probably come up with a bunch of stats, at least as interesting as Corsi, and call them "Tangibles"

Then I would be right, and we could be rich.

 

Tangible #8 ( the first Tangible) - plays so cool ,  could play with a cigarette in they mouth 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

There needs to be some size in the line-up but I don't think it needs to be the main focus.  Tampa is a big team in terms the median weight of players on its roster, but they have some smaller players in their line-up not the least of which is Brayden Point.  Few of their forwards outside of Killorn and Maroon are truly "big" players.  An important characteristic of all their players however is that they are essentially all able to engage in and push through the physicality of the playoffs.  IMHO, skill and tenacity/resilience needs to be more heavily weighted in a roster than just size.  It's great if you can build a team of mostly above averaged sized players who check all the boxes (e.g. Kings '11-'12, Ducks '06-'07), but that's a fairly unlikely scenario.

 

In terms of skaters, if there's one position where size does seem to be a more significant objective advantage, then it would be D (IMHO).  This is purely from observation over the years.  It's not that a team with a small defenseman can't compete but more that a team with a great skating and skilled D core seems to hold up better over the course of the playoffs.  If I had to guess, then I would attribute this to the wear and tear that the D core experiences to a greater degree due to the forecheck.  I wonder if there are any statistics that indicate whether Dmen are on average more likely to be the recipient of a hit than the deliverer of one (notwithstanding a few hits leaders being Dmen).

 

As for where the Canucks sit in all this, I think the young players showed in '19-'20 that they can play through the grind of the playoffs.  Bo was no surprise but it was good to see Pettersson and Hughes produce.  Hughes obviously got worn down in the series against Vegas.  The Canucks did take Vegas to Game 7 even if the last few games were a crazy strategy of rope-a-dope with Demko holding the fort in net, and that was with Toffoli missing a good chunk of the series.

 

The issue with the Canucks remains the supporting cast.  The '19-'20 playoff run was promising but showed some significant missing components which remain unaddressed.  We'll see what they can do this offseason with all the cap constraints.

Point plays big. Impossible to knock off puck and wins battles.

I think we just want a team with stars that plays big and with intensity, are hard to knock off puck and win trench battles... dont care if they are under 6 ft.  

Give me a team full of Hogz anyday.

 

Edited by EddieVedder
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time we get a physical player CDC gets a hard on then he flops and the answer is quite simple, anyone showing aggression gets benched, they literally get the toughness coached out of them and since that was their strength as hockey players they get written off. You all make fun of me for hating Green, how many more years of this crap before you admit I’m right?

  • Hydration 2
  • Burr 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's important is how hard you can play.  That being said, its easy to say size doesnt matter when your battling guys 30-50 pounds heavier than you with a height advantage.  

 

IMO regardless of weight, are you an effective player in tough defensive match ups?  Are injuries a legit concern?  Lots that can go into it.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Angry Goose said:

I think what's important is how hard you can play.  That being said, its easy to say size doesnt matter when your battling guys 30-50 pounds heavier than you with a height advantage.  

 

IMO regardless of weight, are you an effective player in tough defensive match ups?  Are injuries a legit concern?  Lots that can go into it.

I agree we need a bigger team, but we saw Hoglander this season prove you dont have to be over 6'2" to win puck battles and play heavy.

We need more players like Hogz to offset the physically weak Hughes and Boesers of the team.    

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2021 at 11:48 PM, Dumb Nuck said:

Every time we get a physical player CDC gets a hard on then he flops and the answer is quite simple, anyone showing aggression gets benched, they literally get the toughness coached out of them and since that was their strength as hockey players they get written off. You all make fun of me for hating Green, how many more years of this crap before you admit I’m right?

Well said.  This team needs to shed it's love affair with it's Soft Sweedish Finesse polite mentality and realize that building your team around soft regular season Swedish finesse players and instilling that meek, gentlemanly mentality may win you a Lady Byng trophy but will NEVER win you the Stanley cup.    That's what has plagued this team for the last two decades and facilitated by coaches like Green who cater to that mentality.    Just watch the Stanley cup winners over the last several decades and you'll see that Size, Grit and toughness Trump polite gentlemanly regular season "wow" players in the playoffs.   

Watching Tampa over the last few weeks has shown that the present Canucks line up is completely incapable of competeing against the "BIG BOYS" and JB has had little success fixxing this and why he must be replaced ASAP along with Green, who should be managing a cushy country club.  Until that is done, this team will continue in it's never ending rebuilding mode and continue getting pushed around, beat up and out muscled.

 

This is not the Euro League - it's the NHL !

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, EddieVedder said:

I agree we need a bigger team, but we saw Hoglander this season prove you dont have to be over 6'2" to win puck battles and play heavy.

We need more players like Hogz to offset the physically weak Hughes and Boesers of the team.    

But he's also getting keyed on more, teams are not taking him lightly anymore. We don't want to wear him out by expecting him to be Gallagher type when he's more  Point type. 

Why lean on kids for their physical play? We need more complementary players like Roy, Tuch and Anderson. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2021 at 3:29 PM, UKNuck96 said:

image.png.7025e1b994fe275057829ff259c7399b.pngNot sure where your second lightest figures come from 

Yes.   Curiously though look where the final four teams are.   1,2,3 and 7th.  St. Louis was also near the top when they won (AP out, Krug in).  WSH 4th...

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

Well said.  This team needs to shed it's love affair with it's Soft Sweedish Finesse polite mentality and realize that building your team around soft regular season Swedish finesse players and instilling that meek, gentlemanly mentality may win you a Lady Byng trophy but will NEVER win you the Stanley cup.    That's what has plagued this team for the last two decades and facilitated by coaches like Green who cater to that mentality.    Just watch the Stanley cup winners over the last several decades and you'll see that Size, Grit and toughness Trump polite gentlemanly regular season "wow" players in the playoffs.   

Watching Tampa over the last few weeks has shown that the present Canucks line up is completely incapable of competeing against the "BIG BOYS" and JB has had little success fixxing this and why he must be replaced ASAP along with Green, who should be managing a cushy country club.  Until that is done, this team will continue in it's never ending rebuilding mode and continue getting pushed around, beat up and out muscled.

 

This is not the Euro League - it's the NHL !

That last line.   It's been trending that way since the lockout.    The days of an entire D being built around 6'3"-6'5" 220-240 pounders is gone.    When we drafted Ohlund he was on the small size for D's on our team, same thing when we traded Bure for Jovo.    They became the larger D's for the WCE era.   Then it was Bieksa, Hamhuis sized guys with Edler being our large guy lol.   Definitely still comes down to the size of the fight in the dog (Bieksa didn't play like he was 190-205lbs),  Hogs is a good example of this, led our team in takeaway/giveaway differential at plus 22.    That doesn't make them "soft".   Also the Sedins were never in the Byng conversation, neither was Naslund, if you re-call they took a lot of stick infractions, it's how they survived the dead puck era and it carried through their entire career (at the end had to use their sticks because they'd lost their speed).   

 

TB is loaded with small skilled forwards. Hedman and McDonagh, Cernak etc scew their overall size scale.   Point, Johnson, Kucherov are all little players, Stamkos is maybe as big as D Sedin.  The only kind of big team in the league is Vegas.   The average height and weight is now the same as it was in 1989.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, EddieVedder said:

I agree we need a bigger team, but we saw Hoglander this season prove you dont have to be over 6'2" to win puck battles and play heavy.

We need more players like Hogz to offset the physically weak Hughes and Boesers of the team.    

Boeser wins just as many puck battles as Pearson and TT do, more actually during our bubble run (took some big hits to make plays too).   So i wouldn't include him.  Built like a little truck, 6' 1 and 210 lbs is decent size for a guy with his skill set, actually a little bigger then both those guys too.   Miller has even better size.    QHs and Rathbone concerns me, but i'm will to see how it goes.   We for sure need some bigger bodies in the bottom six and the top six, one is coming ... Podz size varies from 6'2 and 6'4" 218 lbs that will help.   Plus he uses it all the time.   

 

Don't mind the topic, it's concerned me for a decade now how the game has lost some of its heart and soul with the death of the enforcer.    From what i've read pre-enforcer every single player was expected to stick up for themselves and fight their own fights (original six).   Problem is, after nearly 4 decades of having a big brother to do that for you, players just don't have the same upbringing anymore.   Why throwbacks are so important.   Gads is one of these guys too.   Scoring a goal a game pace in the AHL and making other defenseman and goalies lives miserable is an ingredient this team needs.   Between him and Podz our trucelence factor is going up, same with our average size, at least upfront. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2021 at 1:35 AM, MikeyD said:

That absolutely surprises me that we are the 2nd lightest team in the league. Thought we'd be around league average. 

The OP was wrong.  We are the 16th right in the middle...a whole 8.2  lighter then the top teams and 8.3 heavier then the lightest team.   Range is 207.2-l90.7...ours comes in at 199.  

 

To me it's about balance.  Skill and size is always better.   Guys like Perry, Anderson and Staal have for sure helped MTL smaller guys like Caufield and Gallagher (who plays like a little pit bull) by wearing their D down.    Podz and Miller will help us in that department.   McEwen IMO hasn't learned to use his size well enough yet.  Should be parking himself infront of the net and laying the body every shift.   JV never ever did this right.   Not that he's as big as some think he is, but he never hit enough either.   Frustrating.   Sutter is thin as a rake.  Beagle did just fine but he's gone too.   Pearson isn't big but does know how to go to the net very well, same as TT.    Torres was the last player we had who's game was all about contact.   Biega maybe but his hits weren't that great.    Here's to hoping, Podz is our Russian Linden. 

 

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Team as currently constructed isn't good enough to even make the playoffs, let alone pushing thru the playoffs.

 

Let's see how Benning fills out the roster (*and* the team starts making the post-season) before drawing any further conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

Well said.  This team needs to shed it's love affair with it's Soft Sweedish Finesse polite mentality and realize that building your team around soft regular season Swedish finesse players and instilling that meek, gentlemanly mentality may win you a Lady Byng trophy but will NEVER win you the Stanley cup.    That's what has plagued this team for the last two decades and facilitated by coaches like Green who cater to that mentality.    Just watch the Stanley cup winners over the last several decades and you'll see that Size, Grit and toughness Trump polite gentlemanly regular season "wow" players in the playoffs.   

Watching Tampa over the last few weeks has shown that the present Canucks line up is completely incapable of competeing against the "BIG BOYS" and JB has had little success fixxing this and why he must be replaced ASAP along with Green, who should be managing a cushy country club.  Until that is done, this team will continue in it's never ending rebuilding mode and continue getting pushed around, beat up and out muscled.

 

This is not the Euro League - it's the NHL !

I use to think somewhat along those lines as well,, but our Swedes were a welcome relief and Sweden does quite well on the World stage in Tournaments, I am thinking  it is not what country they are from, (Forsberg would have been awesome), we just need team toughness, even smaller players like Gallagher as long as they play bigger than their size (we had players like that in the past as well)

AQUA  won't be replacing JB or Green, because of the term and he didn't want to pay double on a GM salary for 2 years and why Green was given the same timeline

That being said, if the Canucks do not have a good year,(he will not be interested in excuses of injuries, travel, bad calls etc) he will expect results and i believe he would not hesitate in eating a years salary of both and move on from both

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...