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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

Poolman has been better than expected. So much negative attention was placed on Pooly while our whole D generally, has been pretty much a dog's breakfast. And Hamonic being in and out of the line up so much has effected our D formations quite a bit. Also noted, Burr has been fairly good too, and adds some toughness.

So OEL and Hughes are our star defense, they stay. We need a stay at home for both. 

However, Hamonic coming back we lose a lot of toughness taking Schenn out. And Burr has more mobility than Schenn. If there was a way to keep Schenn in.. maybe via team match up. Schenn separates players from the puck on the pk. Our D requires so much coaching and finding out the best 6 that work together. 

 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Poolman has been better than expected. So much negative attention was placed on Pooly while our whole D generally, has been pretty much a dog's breakfast. And Hamonic being in and out of the line up so much has effected our D formations quite a bit. Also noted, Burr has been fairly good too, and adds some toughness.

So OEL and Hughes are our star defense, they stay. We need a stay at home for both. 

However, Hamonic coming back we lose a lot of toughness taking Schenn out. And Burr has more mobility than Schenn. If there was a way to keep Schenn in.. maybe via team match up. Schenn separates players from the puck on the pk. Our D requires so much coaching and finding out the best 6 that work together. 

 

 

Last season demonstrated that this team needs a stay at home D-Man, but our GM Jim Benning wasn't able to get this done.    You can say that Schenn is a stay at home D-Man, yes he is, but he is fairly slow and a bottom pairing D-Man at best. It was obvious for a lot of fans that Canucks needed a top 4 stay at home D-Man. Again, Jim and his crew were not able to get this done and so here we are: easy to play against, make-up of the D core is terrible.

This franchise needs change. Change starts at the top and with the firing of personnel.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2021 at 5:31 AM, Hairy Kneel said:

Poolman has been better than expected. So much negative attention was placed on Pooly while our whole D generally, has been pretty much a dog's breakfast. And Hamonic being in and out of the line up so much has effected our D formations quite a bit. Also noted, Burr has been fairly good too, and adds some toughness.

So OEL and Hughes are our star defense, they stay. We need a stay at home for both. 

However, Hamonic coming back we lose a lot of toughness taking Schenn out. And Burr has more mobility than Schenn. If there was a way to keep Schenn in.. maybe via team match up. Schenn separates players from the puck on the pk. Our D requires so much coaching and finding out the best 6 that work together. 

 

 

Poolman has been average at best reflecting  below average defense.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aqua59 said:

Poolman has been average at best reflecting  below average defense.

Our whole defense is pretty much a patchwork design. We're a defense by committee. There has to be a concerted effort by all for this team to have a chance. It was nice to get the extra goals and take the pressure off our D. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Our whole defense is pretty much a patchwork design. We're a defense by committee. There has to be a concerted effort by all for this team to have a chance. It was nice to get the extra goals and take the pressure off our D. 

I have to agree about Schenn, perhaps he becomes more consistent than Hamonic in Hamonics absence?

Poollmans curve is still rising,. And Burroughs,. What a great find..

yes it’s the Cabage patch kids on Defence.

for now ;) 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SilentSam said:

I have to agree about Schenn, perhaps he becomes more consistent than Hamonic in Hamonics absence?

Poollmans curve is still rising,. And Burroughs,. What a great find..

yes it’s the Cabage patch kids on Defence.

for now ;) 

Schenn at 15 minutes is great. He has really stepped it up. His goal was great but I thought that hit in the 2nd was even better.

Poolman struggles at times. I thought he would be steadier with his Jets experience. Burroughs is a big win for JB. I think he has enough smarts to adjust his game to NHL speed. Just needs the reps.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2021 at 5:31 AM, Hairy Kneel said:

Poolman has been better than expected. So much negative attention was placed on Pooly while our whole D generally, has been pretty much a dog's breakfast. And Hamonic being in and out of the line up so much has effected our D formations quite a bit. Also noted, Burr has been fairly good too, and adds some toughness.

So OEL and Hughes are our star defense, they stay. We need a stay at home for both. 

However, Hamonic coming back we lose a lot of toughness taking Schenn out. And Burr has more mobility than Schenn. If there was a way to keep Schenn in.. maybe via team match up. Schenn separates players from the puck on the pk. Our D requires so much coaching and finding out the best 6 that work together. 

 

 

It depends on who’s expectations you are taking about.

 

Go back to the early part of the thread.  He was immediately going to be much better than Tanev and under Shaw’s tutelage would be a premiere shut down defenceman with a physical edge who could also skate really well and provide offence.

 

Folks were mocked and insulted when they dared to say he would probably be an OK 3rd pairing guy who was an upgrade on Benn and  could occasionally play up the lineup in cases of injury.

 

He has pretty much exactly performed to the latter expectations though you can see really quickly how he starts to have issues when asked to do too much and play higher in the lineup.  Just like Myers.

 

Stecher was a far superior defensive D who could handle more minutes without hurting you when asked.  If we were ditching him we needed to upgrade to a bigger version of him.  Tryamkin at a lower cap hit and half the term would have been a smarter bet to me.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Provost said:

It depends on who’s expectations you are taking about.

 

Go back to the early part of the thread.  He was immediately going to be much better than Tanev and under Shaw’s tutelage would be a premiere shut down defenceman with a physical edge who could also skate really well and provide offence.

 

Folks were mocked and insulted when they dared to say he would probably be an OK 3rd pairing guy who was an upgrade on Benn and  could occasionally play up the lineup in cases of injury.

 

He has pretty much exactly performed to the latter expectations though you can see really quickly how he starts to have issues when asked to do too much and play higher in the lineup.  Just like Myers.

 

Stecher was a far superior defensive D who could handle more minutes without hurting you when asked.  If we were ditching him we needed to upgrade to a bigger version of him.  Tryamkin at a lower cap hit and half the term would have been a smarter bet to me.

Stecher can't even a crack a bad Red Wings team, FYI.

 

I know it's hard to keep track of reality when you have opinions that you don't care to reflect on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Stecher can't even a crack a bad Red Wings team, FYI.

 

I know it's hard to keep track of reality when you have opinions that you don't care to reflect on.


Tucker Poolman, 21 games tied with Hughes on D for top +/- at +4. He is second on D in blocked shots it’s 36, Myers leads with 48. 1G+2A

Troy Stetcher, 6 games +1, 7 blocked shots, 1 assist.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Stecher can't even a crack a bad Red Wings team, FYI.

 

I know it's hard to keep track of reality when you have opinions that you don't care to reflect on.

If you want to talk about reflection, you might want to go back to your comments in this thread there sparky.

 

Trashing folks for saying this guy wasn’t going to be a top 4 guy who is more physical and faster version of Tanev…. And even more amusingly you and your mentor Oldnews using Dickinson as the example of how badly people people like me underrate excellent players. :D

 

That aged badly as do most of your takes where you hand out dozens of paper bag emojis to other posters who history shows have a much better grasp on “reality” than you do.

 

Stecher was an excellent fit here, as his numbers indicated.  How he played here with our team is the metric you judge him on when deciding to extend him… not how his fit is with another team a couple of years later.

 

He was also cheap.  I was absolutely fine moving on from him to upgrade which I also said at the time, but not for a guy who has performed worse and for more money and term.


Go look back at my posts vs. your (now proven to horribly inaccurate) ones.

 

I expressed concern that removing our best shot suppressors two years running in Tanev, Stecher, Edler, and Schmidt was going to be problematic…. and that Poolman was a bottom pairing guy who couldn’t replace that.  You thought they take was worthy of ridicule.

 

Who lives in reality? (That is a rhetorical question by the way)

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that no you said that no you said that  you said that no you said that no you said that  you said that no you said that no you said that   you said that no you said that no you said that  you said that no you said that no you said that  you said that no you said that no you said that    you said that no you said that no you said that  you said that no you said that no you said that  you said that no you said that no you said that   you said that no you said that no you said that  you said that no you said that no you said that  you said that no you said that no you said that   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Provost said:

It depends on who’s expectations you are taking about.

 

Go back to the early part of the thread.  He was immediately going to be much better than Tanev and under Shaw’s tutelage would be a premiere shut down defenceman with a physical edge who could also skate really well and provide offence.

 

Folks were mocked and insulted when they dared to say he would probably be an OK 3rd pairing guy who was an upgrade on Benn and  could occasionally play up the lineup in cases of injury.

 

He has pretty much exactly performed to the latter expectations though you can see really quickly how he starts to have issues when asked to do too much and play higher in the lineup.  Just like Myers.

 

Stecher was a far superior defensive D who could handle more minutes without hurting you when asked.  If we were ditching him we needed to upgrade to a bigger version of him.  Tryamkin at a lower cap hit and half the term would have been a smarter bet to me.

Hopefully by next March Try could be available. 

Pool started bottom pairing in Winnipeg. Worked his way up and did well in last years playoffs. I like him more than Benn.

Stecher has trouble in the playoffs, under rougher play when whistles are put away. 

Myers is up and down. In playoff mode he can be a beast. But with the long season we see some inconsistencies. 

Poolman has taken on a good chunk of the pk, especially with Hamonic out so much. 

I think he still may prove to be more effective than Tanev in the playoffs. With the way Pool seals off guys on the boards. He takes forwards out of the play that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Provost said:

If you want to talk about reflection, you might want to go back to your comments in this thread there sparky.

 

Trashing folks for saying this guy wasn’t going to be a top 4 guy who is more physical and faster version of Tanev…. And even more amusingly you and your mentor Oldnews using Dickinson as the example of how badly people people like me underrate excellent players. :D

 

That aged badly as do most of your takes where you hand out dozens of paper bag emojis to other posters who history shows have a much better grasp on “reality” than you do.

 

Stecher was an excellent fit here, as his numbers indicated.  How he played here with our team is the metric you judge him on when deciding to extend him… not how his fit is with another team a couple of years later.

 

He was also cheap.  I was absolutely fine moving on from him to upgrade which I also said at the time, but not for a guy who has performed worse and for more money and term.


Go look back at my posts vs. your (now proven to horribly inaccurate) ones.

 

I expressed concern that removing our best shot suppressors two years running in Tanev, Stecher, Edler, and Schmidt was going to be problematic…. and that Poolman was a bottom pairing guy who couldn’t replace that.  You thought they take was worthy of ridicule.

 

Who lives in reality? (That is a rhetorical question by the way)

 

You are correct. Stecher was a very good bottom pairing dman who could step up big minutes without issue. He was defensively solid, could move the puck, kill penalties. His size held him back from being a staple top four. 

Poolman is simply a fringe NHL player. At 27 years old he had 107 NHL games with ok results in a minimal role but horrible results playing up the lineup. He is a 1 million dollar defenseman tops that we paid 4/5 numbers for. He isn't good at anything but is maybe just good enough to fill in a #6 or #7 spot. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, canucklehead44 said:

You are correct. Stecher was a very good bottom pairing dman who could step up big minutes without issue. He was defensively solid, could move the puck, kill penalties. His size held him back from being a staple top four. 

Poolman is simply a fringe NHL player. At 27 years old he had 107 NHL games with ok results in a minimal role but horrible results playing up the lineup. He is a 1 million dollar defenseman tops that we paid 4/5 numbers for. He isn't good at anything but is maybe just good enough to fill in a #6 or #7 spot. 

As I said, I was fine if they could upgrade on Stecher as he had limitations due to his size.

 

There we’re times he played over 30 minutes a game against the toughest competition and his numbers showed he was above average even then instead of getting buried.

 

Hard to beat the value for a 3rd pairing D who we could probably have signed for 3 years at a total of $4.5-5 million, vs. Spending $10 million over 4 years for a bigger guy isn’t really physical and is a worse on the defensive side.

 

Also, look back to all the press conferences and the fact they trotted out Stecher to sit and have media availability all the time.  He was clearly a big part of the team younger leadership group or they don’t send him out like that.  Our leadership group sure seems to have taken a huge hit over the last couple years to become really fragile.

 

Folks can trash Stecher all they want, the guy was good at his job, outplayed his contract, and would chew through walls to win for the team he loved.  I will take that any day.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...