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

The absolute last thing I want the Canucks to do with their defense or otherwise is chase a trend.

 

I want to see the Canucks bring in the best defensemen they can where they can build complementary pairings and build their own defensive system to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of that particular group of players. 

 

A lot of people forget that defense is a 6 man endeavour. The D and goalie are only half that equation. And they get the lions share of the blame for defensive breakdowns and inefficiency.

 

How the forwards support defensively and on the breakout/transition is, imho, as big a defensive issue with the Canucks as the D is.

 

How many times have we seen a forward blow their coverage to allow a trailing player a prime shot from a dangerous area? A lot. How many times have we seen the D double and triple pumping on a long breakout pass (only to turnover the puck or ice it) because the forwards are not giving them any clean options or are standing motionless at the boards? A lot.

 

The entire team needs to be more committed to playing congrous team defense.

  • Sedinery 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The absolute last thing I want the Canucks to do with their defense or otherwise is chase a trend.

 

I want to see the Canucks bring in the best defensemen they can where they can build complementary pairings and build their own defensive system to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of that particular group of players. 

 

A lot of people forget that defense is a 6 man endeavour. The D and goalie are only half that equation. And they get the lions share of the blame for defensive breakdowns and inefficiency.

 

How the forwards support defensively and on the breakout/transition is, imho, as big a defensive issue with the Canucks as the D is.

 

How many times have we seen a forward blow their coverage to allow a trailing player a prime shot from a dangerous area? A lot. How many times have we seen the D double and triple pumping on a long breakout pass (only to turnover the puck or ice it) because the forwards are not giving them any clean options or are standing motionless at the boards? A lot.

 

The entire team needs to be more committed to playing congrous team defense.

I don't know Amigo is it still considered a trend when teams have icing 6'2" 205+# defensemen for 50 years?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The absolute last thing I want the Canucks to do with their defense or otherwise is chase a trend.

 

I want to see the Canucks bring in the best defensemen they can where they can build complementary pairings and build their own defensive system to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of that particular group of players. 

 

A lot of people forget that defense is a 6 man endeavour. The D and goalie are only half that equation. And they get the lions share of the blame for defensive breakdowns and inefficiency.

 

How the forwards support defensively and on the breakout/transition is, imho, as big a defensive issue with the Canucks as the D is.

 

How many times have we seen a forward blow their coverage to allow a trailing player a prime shot from a dangerous area? A lot. How many times have we seen the D double and triple pumping on a long breakout pass (only to turnover the puck or ice it) because the forwards are not giving them any clean options or are standing motionless at the boards? A lot.

 

The entire team needs to be more committed to playing congrous team defense.

I agree with everything you've said here.  The only thing I'd add is that a solid defensive system and the committment to play that way isnt something that just happens with a young team, it's something they grow into over years of playing together and building trust in one another.  

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, stawns said:

I agree with everything you've said here.  The only thing I'd add is that a solid defensive system and the committment to play that way isnt something that just happens with a young team, it's something they grow into over years of playing together and building trust in one another.  

absolutely. I think one of the most important seasons in canucks history was 06-07, vigneault's first year, when the team had the dreaded "popgun offense" but bought into the defensive system and put up a 100+ point season, I think won their division, and I think av won the jack adams that year, and they lost in the 2nd round to the ducks. 

 

even though the year after was a step back and led to some major change, that season laid the foundation for that core group and their eventual elite status. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stawns said:

I agree with everything you've said here.  The only thing I'd add is that a solid defensive system and the committment to play that way isnt something that just happens with a young team, it's something they grow into over years of playing together and building trust in one another.  

The Canucks are in a good position next summer to build a team that can play together for several years.

 

The decisions this summer and next are critical. They cannot afford bad pro scouting and long term anchor contracts being handed out.

 

I would be happy to see them sign some 1 year placeholders this year, trade them at the deadline to accumulate more picks and prospects if they arent a clear top cup contender (not just a bubble playoff team even) at the deadline, and use those assets and cap space to trade for and sign some key players next summer. Set the team up for a 3,4,5 year run of playing together.

 

The UFA crop next year, particularly on D, is much more enticing.

Edited by wallstreetamigo
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The Canucks are in a good position next summer to build a team that can play together for several years.

 

The decisions this summer and next are critical. They cannot afford bad pro scouting and long term anchor contracts being handed out.

 

I would be happy to see them sign some 1 year placeholders this year, trade them at the deadline to accumulate more picks and prospects if they arent a clear top cup contender (not just a bubble playoff team even) at the deadline, and use those assets and cap space to trade for and sign some key players next summer. Set the team up for a 3,4,5 year run of playing together.

 

The UFA crop next year, particularly on D, is much more enticing.

That's what they have been doing until this point.  No contract signed until now will have any serious implication on the development of the young core beyond next year.  There's no reason to think that they'll do anything to hamstring that development going forward.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2021 at 7:18 PM, lmm said:

I don't know Amigo is it still considered a trend when teams have icing 6'2" 205+# defensemen for 50 years?

You can ice a team full of 6'2" 205+ guys and still not play physical or tough and still be terrible defensively.

 

Do the Canucks need more size and strength on D? Of course. But the main thing they need is guys who are actually effective and can play at a high level no matter what their size.

 

If Hughes is a guy they are building around (which he should be) then they clearly need to find him a specific, complementary long term partner to get the best out of him. Ideally a guy who can play at a very high level defensively, can chip in offensively, has the booming, accurate shot Hughes doesnt, and who can add a physical element in the D zone.

 

To me, that sounds an awful lot like a true #1 dman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone wants the good old days when our smallest d-man on the roster was Dana Murzyn. We need to accept that NHL average d-man size has been declining since about 2005 due to the trend of more skilled players. We do need some size on the back end but I don't think that should be at the expense of skilled d-men that may be slightly undersized vs the league average.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2021 at 12:24 AM, wallstreetamigo said:

You can ice a team full of 6'2" 205+ guys and still not play physical or tough and still be terrible defensively.

 

Do the Canucks need more size and strength on D? Of course. But the main thing they need is guys who are actually effective and can play at a high level no matter what their size.

 

If Hughes is a guy they are building around (which he should be) then they clearly need to find him a specific, complementary long term partner to get the best out of him. Ideally a guy who can play at a very high level defensively, can chip in offensively, has the booming, accurate shot Hughes doesnt, and who can add a physical element in the D zone.

 

To me, that sounds an awful lot like a true #1 dman.

If we are building our d around Hughes we are dead for the forseeable future.

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...