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

Defensive trends in the league, and the Canucks plan

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

No.  He's a liability on his strong side, I can only imagine how worse he would be playing the right side as a left shot.  It would confuse the heck out of him.  It changes the whole dynamic of defending when you are on your off side.  Schmidt can do it effectively but he's been playing primarily on the right side for awhile now.

To be fair, the bigger issue playing on your weak side isn't on defence, it's on offence.  In your own end you play whichever side you find yourself on, depending on where the play is and where your d partner is.

 

It's when you're on the point and you forehand is in the centre and the puck comes up the boards and you have to play it on your backhand to keep the puck in.   That's the single biggest issue playing on your offside.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My philosophy is you cannot have more than two defencemen under 6 foot and if they are small, they better be good skaters (which Quinn and Wrath are). 

 

I'm excited to see what defensive guru Shaw will do to Myers and Quinn specifically. I think Quinn's numbers might drop a little bit  next season but his +- will go up.

 

It will be interesting what he can do to Myers too. He's got the size and the reach to be a really effective shutdown D man. I think he was given too much freedom last couple seasons and think Shaw will make him play a more simpler style that fits with our new defensive structure. 

 

Also I hope management is kicking tires on Parayko or Severson :ph34r:

Edited by Trebreh
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Unbelievable, in the article it says benning gave up 2 prospects and 2 draft picks for toffoli. I mean why lie about the trade? If you wanna be taken seriously theres no need to lie like that.

hahaha 

Schaller was a prospect!!??

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, stawns said:

To be fair, the bigger issue playing on your weak side isn't on defence, it's on offence.  In your own end you play whichever side you find yourself on, depending on where the play is and where your d partner is.

 

It's when you're on the point and you forehand is in the centre and the puck comes up the boards and you have to play it on your backhand to keep the puck in.   That's the single biggest issue playing on your offside.

This is true. But the same can be said when you are defending on your off side and the puck is against the boards in your own end. You would be on your backhand instead of your forehand trying to get the puck out with an opposing forward on your back. 

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

Imagine believing that getting rid of a good young player like Hughes or Rathbone simply because they're not huge is a good idea.

 

This place has been spoiled with good young players over the last few years. Let's also remember that we're not particularly close to being a cup contender yet. Maybe let the kids play and see what the trends are in a few years when we're actually ready, rather than chasing a trend that may be outdated by the time we're in position to make a run.

Edited by 48MPHSlapShot
  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

But here is the 6.5 Million dollar question...................

 

Can Quinn Hughes play even strength hockey as well on RHD as LHD

 

Not talking about PP, just even strength, because that changes things if he is as good

 

I know what he says.....but what is the reality?

Sounds like a decent pre-season experiment

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Imagine believing that getting rid of a good young player like Rathbone simply because they're not huge is a good idea.

 

This place has been spoiled with good young players over the last few years.

It's using assets to trade for other assets.  They'd be using that value to fill a need elsewhere.  Hughes and Rathbone are a bit redundant

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stawns said:

It's using assets to trade for other assets.  They'd be using that value to fill a need elsewhere.  Hughes and Rathbone are a bit redundant

In theory, maybe, but in practice? Maybe let's give them a bit more than a handful of games together in a weird season before making that determination.

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

In theory, maybe, but in practice? Maybe let's give them a bit more than a handful of games together in a weird season before making that determination.

No argument here, but is anyone saying do it tomorrow?  I like both players, but I think they're going to have to choose at some point.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stawns said:

No argument here, but is anyone saying do it tomorrow?  I like both players, but I think they're going to have to choose at some point.  

I don't see why that has to happen any time soon. And if trends in the league change, as they always do, maybe they don't have to choose as all. Point being that selling a good young player to chase a trend when we're not all that close to being a contender yet seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Just let the kids play and let the chips fall where they may for now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Imagine believing that getting rid of a good young player like Hughes or Rathbone simply because they're not huge is a good idea.

 

This place has been spoiled with good young players over the last few years. Let's also remember that we're not particularly close to being a cup contender yet. Maybe let the kids play and see what the trends are in a few years when we're actually ready, rather than chasing a trend that may be outdated by the time we're ready.

imagine a world where trading players was an opportiity to improve your club

rather than tossing them in the toilet

 

here is one example of a good player trade for value multiple times

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=5417

 

here is another within the same traded tree

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4616

 

here is a 3rd within the saem trade tree

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=5177

 

those 3 players were each traded for both of the other in separate deals

those type of trades are made by GM who are honest with themselves on the value of players both coming and going.

 

It seem this fan base has been taken by the idea of "Winning" or "Losing" every trade

Where as some GMs ( I can't speak for their fan bases) make trades based on value.

When players are traded for value, it makes it easier to bring that player back, and also makes it more likely you (as a GM) will make more trades with the other GM in the future

Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance is important. We have a few puck-movers who are not at all physical. We should surround them with players who are. Usually defenseman who are physical defensive D are not as good with the puck so a puck-mover and a physical-defensive D both make up for each others weaknesses and make a good two-way pairing. An example of this would be McNabb-Schmidt in Vegas last couple of years prior to this one.

 

Poise defensive D like a Tanev(with Hughes), Martinez(with Theodore) or Toews(with Makar) also work with offensive-minded D in a more offensive role because those types are better with the puck. Guys like Makar and Theodore have also played with physical-types like Graves and McNabb.

 

Myers isn't a bad(or great) D but he isn't the best fit for the other guys we got. Edler is in the same sort of boat here and has taken a step back with age. If Seattle somehow took Myers we'd be able to seek out better fits for the Hughes/Schmidt/Rathbone types we have. Doubtful he gets moved though but he's only here 3 more seasons and isn't nearly as much of an anchor like Eriksson.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lmm said:

imagine a world where trading players was an opportiity to improve your club

rather than tossing them in the toilet

 

here is one example of a good player trade for value multiple times

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=5417

 

here is another within the same traded tree

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4616

 

here is a 3rd within the saem trade tree

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=5177

 

those 3 players were each traded for both of the other in separate deals

those type of trades are made by GM who are honest with themselves on the value of players both coming and going.

 

It seem this fan base has been taken by the idea of "Winning" or "Losing" every trade

Where as some GMs ( I can't speak for their fan bases) make trades based on value.

When players are traded for value, it makes it easier to bring that player back, and also makes it more likely you (as a GM) will make more trades with the other GM in the future

I don't realistically see a trade where we can get the type of value you're talking about, considering Rathbone is still largely an unknown to the rest of the league and Hughes is coming off a down year.

 

I mean, if someone is dead set on moving our players to chase the trend, maybe at least let Rathbone play out the season to show what he can do or land Hughes a proper partner so he can do his thing with a partner that can clean up after him so he isn't a -74639 so we can sell high?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

So.....Edvinsson?  Lambos?

 

Lambos is only 6'0.

 

I think we need to try to bargain hunt for a 6'3 or taller.  

 

My Suggestion is Zack Bogosion, David Savard, Luke Schenn, or a Oleksiak.  big righty's. Hoping for nothing more then 2 years for these guys. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, tas said:

do we indeed?

 

can you quote some examples so we have context to work with?

 

Just to show I’m not pulling this out of my ass, even though I know we have all heard the idea that the league is starting to lean towards smaller faster puck movers...

These are all first page google responses.  Some are a couple years old some are more recent. 
it took all of 15 seconds to google and be able to get an idea of what I’m talking about.  

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/puckprose.com/2020/04/20/new-age-nhl-defenseman-taken-league-storm/amp/
 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/theathletic.com/218997/2018/01/24/mirtle-nhls-rise-of-the-small-defenceman-continues-with-samuel-girard-and-joe-hicketts/%3famp


https://www.flohockey.tv/articles/6293291-chase-priskie-quinn-hughes-more-5-ncaa-to-nhl-defensemen

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.huffingtonpost.ca/amp/entry/nhl-preview-league-is-trending-towards-smaller-faster-and-quicker_n_8253988/


 

Edited by drummerboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Imagine believing that getting rid of a good young player like Hughes or Rathbone simply because they're not huge is a good idea.

 

This place has been spoiled with good young players over the last few years. Let's also remember that we're not particularly close to being a cup contender yet. Maybe let the kids play and see what the trends are in a few years when we're actually ready, rather than chasing a trend that may be outdated by the time we're in position to make a run.

I don't think having big defencemen is a trend.  It's been that way since I can remember dating back to the 80's.  Here is a snapshot of the Edmonton Oilers defencemen when they won the Cup in 1985.  Do you see any small defencemen on that roster?  Even Coffey was 205 pounds...

 

image0.jpeg

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I don't think having big defencemen is a trend.  It's been that way since I can remember dating back to the 80's.  Here is a snapshot of the Edmonton Oilers defencemen when they won the Cup in 1985.  Do you see any small defencemen on that roster?  Even Coffey was 205 pounds...

 

image0.jpeg

sure but back then they would have a smoke between periods 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I don't realistically see a trade where we can get the type of value you're talking about, considering Rathbone is still largely an unknown to the rest of the league and Hughes is coming off a down year.

 

I mean, if someone is dead set on moving our players to chase the trend, maybe at least let Rathbone play out the season to show what he can do or land Hughes a proper partner so he can do his thing with a partner that can clean up after him so he isn't a -74639 so we can sell high?

My point wasn't that we should trade Rathbone for Tocchet,

it was that we need to be realistic

You used the term "Getting rid of" which to me sounds like Dumping/waiving/tossing to the curb

my point was that good trades happen between good GMs

 

 

and I agree with the above poster, this deal does not have to happen this summer

so in effect we are in agreement, we can wait and see how things pan out

however its still a crapshoot, Rathbone 9or any prospect) could become the next Horvat or the next Virtanen

 

I think you mis-read the OP, 

OP said the trend is toward smaller defense, we have that, so we would bucking the trend rather than following it

which is an aside and irrelevant to my pont

 

Edited by lmm
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

No I don't think Buffalo or Philly make that deal.  However, Boston does that deal any day of the week.  They would pair Hughes with Carlo.  Would be a great top pairing.  I've proposed getting Carlo to Vancouver many times to pair with Hughes.

Bruh... McAvoy is pretty damn good.

  • 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...