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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

I liked Hamonic as well but I have two issues with him.

 

1) His age and style.  He’s 30 and also plays a fairly physically demanding game.  Guys like him tend to fall off a Cliff fairly drastically.  It’s also why I’m not keen on signing David Savard.

 

2) Canucks need a top “defensive defenseman” that can take on the toughest match ups.  Edler used to be that guy but is no longer than guy due to age.  Hamonic is a good 2nd pairing option but doesn’t fulfill this requirement either.  Hence, why I prefer that we go all in on Adam Larsson.

I've seen you mention this several times in many different threads.  Where are you getting this conclusion from?

 

Some of the more well known guys that played well into their 30s and never changed their playing style (physically demanding):

 

Zdeno Chara

Shea Weber

Chris Chelios

Scott Stevens

Chris Pronger

 

And some of the not as BIG name guys:

 

Willie Mitchell

Nicklas Kronwall

Brooks Orpik

Hal Gill

 

And many more... I really don't see why playing a physically demanding game as a defenceman causes their career to fall off a cliff drastically... primarily because defencemen are usually the ones delivering the hits.

Edited by HKSR
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

We should just sign chara for a year lol

I'd be down with that if he signed for $1M ... would love to see him and Myers on the 3rd pair in the playoffs causing havoc lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

I liked Hamonic as well but I have two issues with him.

 

1) His age and style.  He’s 30 and also plays a fairly physically demanding game.  Guys like him tend to fall off a Cliff fairly drastically.  It’s also why I’m not keen on signing David Savard.

 

2) Canucks need a top “defensive defenseman” that can take on the toughest match ups.  Edler used to be that guy but is no longer than guy due to age.  Hamonic is a good 2nd pairing option but doesn’t fulfill this requirement either.  Hence, why I prefer that we go all in on Adam Larsson.

I was only mentioning Hamonic as a depth D, 3rd pairing for the right price - not a savior or fix by any means. 30 years old doesn't really scare me, I'm not sure why you mention that as being a red flag - that's not old.  Hamonic has a history of missing games - thus him being on the 3rd pairing would limit his ice time. Depth is king on the blueline:

 

Larsson - 56 GP, 10 Points, +2

Hamonic - 38 GP, 10 Points, -3

 

There's not a big gap between the two, Hamonic would have averaged many more points (also with lower avg. ice time) if he played the same amount of games.. Two years separates them in age, your kinda comparing apples to apples and Hamonic would cost millions less, just saying. 

Edited by CJ44
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HKSR said:

I've seen you mention this several times in many different threads.  Where are you getting this conclusion from?

 

Some of the more well known guys that played well into their 30s and never changed their playing style (physically demanding):

 

Zdeno Chara

Shea Weber

Chris Chelios

Scott Stevens

Chris Pronger

 

And some of the not as BIG name guys:

 

Willie Mitchell

Nicklas Kronwall

Brooks Orpik

Hal Gill

 

And many more... I really don't see why playing a physically demanding game as a defenceman causes their career to fall off a cliff drastically... primarily because defencemen are usually the ones delivering the hits.

Fair enough and thank you for citing those examples.   Maybe the physical style “drop off a Cliff” is more common amongst forwards? (Backes, Lucic, Ladd, etc.).  Nonetheless, I do stand corrected.

 

ps - You expressed concern in another thread that teams might be hard pressed to win with a small defenseman on the back-end.  Although the Bruins lost in the Game 7 in 2019, they had Torrey Krug at the time and he actually played quite well for them.   
 

I would rather see the Canucks cater to an individual’s strengths and weaknesses (ie Hughes - just as Boston did with Krug) rather than moving certain pieces because they don’t fit a particular mold. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

Fair enough and thank you for citing those examples.   Maybe the physical style “drop off a Cliff” is more common amongst forwards? (Backes, Lucic, Ladd, etc.).  Nonetheless, I do stand corrected.

 

ps - You expressed concern in another thread that teams might be hard pressed to win with a small defenseman on the back-end.  Although the Bruins lost in the Game 7 in 2019, they had Torrey Krug at the time and he actually played quite well for them.   
 

I would rather see the Canucks cater to an individual’s strengths and weaknesses (ie Hughes - just as Boston did with Krug) rather than moving certain pieces because they don’t fit a particular mold. 

Yeah, I can totally agree that the physical style impacts forwards much more as they lose speed and strength as they age.

 

I could live with one of Hughes or Rathbone in the Top 4... but having both means the opposition will always have an easier path to the net on the LHD for most of the game.  That just screams defensive letdowns in a physical 7 game series.

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...