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

(Prediction) Under Brad Shaw Poolman will be better than Tanev

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 8/1/2021 at 12:29 PM, Arrow 1983 said:

That's right I am predicting Tucker Poolman will be better than Tanev. He will bring the same defensive game as Tanev but bring more grit and offensive side than Tanev ever did. I predict That Poolman will play in the top 4 as a partner either with Hughes or OEL with Myers on the third pairing with Rathbone.

I make this predicting because I simply ask myself who is going to be the defensemen on the PK.

Hughes, no.

Myers, no

OEL and Poolman yes

Rathbone and Hamonic yes

 

Poolman will have to play top PK mins and this will make him better defensively. I fully expect that Shaw will be running the PK and in extension the defense. This signing screams Shaw all over it. Poolman is a player who will give a team everything because it took everything from him to get here and under the guidance of Shaw he will even become better. If Ian Clark is the top goalie coach I would call Shaw a top 3 defensive coach. Poolman will be our next Burrows but just on defense. The guy making 2.5 mill who deserves 5 mill.

This prediction is so far off. Poolman doesnt have the iq or fundamentals Tanev had.  And Rath cant play pk... he is as bad as Hughes defending.

 

  • Wat 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

The regulars on here loved him. 

Maybe I have selective reading but that's not what I saw here when he was let go and replaced by Schmidt.

 

A lot of "he's not the right age for that contract" and "he's injured too often".

 

For a regime that seems to put a lot of time, effort and resources in "culture carriers" I didn't see much of a fuss being made about a guy who set the tone/culture perhaps better than anyone that has worn a Canucks jersey under Benning.

 

And in general, little is made here about how going into this off-season we were looking to add 1 or 2 Tanev type players. Which is just laughable in general.

Edited by kanucks25
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Maybe I have selective reading but that's not what I saw here when he was let go and replaced by Schmidt.

 

A lot of "he's not the right age for that contract" and "he's injured too often".

 

For a regime that seems to put a lot of time, effort and resources in "culture carriers" I didn't see much of a fuss being made about a guy who set the tone/culture perhaps better than anyone that has worn a Canucks jersey under Benning.

 

And in general, little is made here about how going into this off-season we were looking to add 1 or 2 Tanev type players. Which is just laughable in general.

saying Tanev was injured a lot wasn't a slag, it was just true. His deal is really good for him, you could argue it could have worked here but he was a cap casualty. 

 

I think a lot of people were sad to see him go, not sure where you're getting this idea from. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

saying Tanev was injured a lot wasn't a slag, it was just true. His deal is really good for him, you could argue it could have worked here but he was a cap casualty. 

 

I think a lot of people were sad to see him go, not sure where you're getting this idea from. 

The bolded is my point. He's been the best D-man we've had (when in the lineup) consistently under Benning, the perfect partner both on and off the ice for our young star D-man, and exactly the type of player we now need desperately.

 

He wasn't made a priority, which is insane given the above. I know he's not a #1 D-man or anything but considering what he meant to this team on and off the ice, losing him has been understated. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

The bolded is my point. He's been the best D-man we've had (when in the lineup) consistently under Benning, the perfect partner both on and off the ice for our young star D-man, and exactly the type of player we now need desperately.

 

He wasn't made a priority, which is insane given the above. I know he's not a #1 D-man or anything but considering what he meant to this team on and off the ice, losing him has been understated. 

But you are entirely ingnoring the reason why we was let go (and why the fans were ok with it). His contract term was too long for a guy who had averaged missing around 20-25. We didn't have a solid enough D core depth to be able to replace his minutes when he was out of the lineup, so we had to let him walk. Then last couple years Chris has been lucky with his health and had some very solid seasons. No guarantees that continues for the next 3.

 

I don't really remember any of the real fans around here being ok with Tanev leaving. But the majority understood it was likely the right play at that point in his career. Schmidt on paper was an upgrade to Tanev. I feel like that's still a fair statement today. Unfortunately Schmidt was a poor fit for our team.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shayster007 said:

But you are entirely ingnoring the reason why we was let go (and why the fans were ok with it). His contract term was too long for a guy who had averaged missing around 20-25. We didn't have a solid enough D core depth to be able to replace his minutes when he was out of the lineup, so we had to let him walk. Then last couple years Chris has been lucky with his health and had some very solid seasons. No guarantees that continues for the next 3.

 

I don't really remember any of the real fans around here being ok with Tanev leaving. But the majority understood it was likely the right play at that point in his career. Schmidt on paper was an upgrade to Tanev. I feel like that's still a fair statement today. Unfortunately Schmidt was a poor fit for our team.


Tanev being the warrior that he is could have easily missed games again this year. Props to him that he was able to play through them but that is always the risk with him. I’m happy for the guy that he was able to get the contract that he did at this point in his career but our D just was not deep enough to risk the four years at his age. Nothing but respect for him but  it was time to move on with these things in mind.

 

 

 

 

EFC8D5A8-8684-4161-8526-3E2131251715.jpeg

Edited by 4petesake
  • Like 2
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2021 at 9:44 AM, Baratheon said:

If this is the case, do you think it will have an affect on his ability to coach the forwards and power play?  Officially that is what he is supposed to be doing.  If he's doing a bit of everything then it sounds like he's pretty close to being the head coach.

His focus is team defence.  That’s it as far as I’m aware… unsure about special teams

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things can be true.

 

1) Moving on from Tanev due to injury/age concerns is, at the very least, a defensible decision.

 

2) Tanev was a ridiculously good defensive player and expecting Poolman to even come close to that is both insane and unfair to the player. Hell, even expecting him to compare to how Schmidt did in shutdown minutes is unfair.

Edited by Josepho
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when I thought we had managed to temper the negative feedback on Poolman you just had to go all:

 

image.gif.15e5101ecae00cf67fca88cd35607458.gif

 

Didn’t you Arrow1983?!

 

Edited by Millerdraft
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2021 at 12:24 PM, 70seven said:

His focus is team defence.  That’s it as far as I’m aware… unsure about special teams

This has not been made clear.  When the hiring was announced, they said that Baumer was still running the defense while Shaw would coach the PP.  In the interview that Shaw gave to 650 afterwards, he says that he'll have his hands in everything.  He specifically mentions that his experience coaching the PK has given him insight in to what makes an effective PP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2021 at 4:16 PM, EddieVedder said:

This prediction is so far off. Poolman doesnt have the iq or fundamentals Tanev had.  And Rath cant play pk... he is as bad as Hughes defending.

 

Dude at least wait a year and see how it goes.   Poolman vs Tanev yes that's hilarious.   But Rathbone!  Why pick on him? 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2021 at 2:28 AM, kanucks25 said:

The bolded is my point. He's been the best D-man we've had (when in the lineup) consistently under Benning, the perfect partner both on and off the ice for our young star D-man, and exactly the type of player we now need desperately.

 

He wasn't made a priority, which is insane given the above. I know he's not a #1 D-man or anything but considering what he meant to this team on and off the ice, losing him has been understated. 

Sorry, but I thought you were one of the unhappy ones, with players over 30 being signed to long contracts?

If I'm mistaken, I do apologise, however non of the faithful ever thought anything but good about Tanev. He was/is an absolute machine defensively.

Wonder what would be the reaction here, had Benning given Tanev a 4x4 contract?

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2021 at 9:16 PM, EddieVedder said:

This prediction is so far off. Poolman doesnt have the iq or fundamentals Tanev had.  And Rath cant play pk... he is as bad as Hughes defending.

 

Poolman hasn't played a single game, and Rathbone is just starting out.  How about you give them a chance before crapping all over them.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2021 at 3:27 PM, Josepho said:

Two things can be true.

 

1) Moving on from Tanev due to injury/age concerns is, at the very least, a defensible decision.

 

2) Tanev was a ridiculously good defensive player and expecting Poolman to even come close to that is both insane and unfair to the player. Hell, even expecting him to compare to how Schmidt did in shutdown minutes is unfair.

Poolman to me is a four year Benn deal but he actually plays the right side not a switch hitter.    I get the trepidation because historically JB had to overpay for vets to get them here on a bad team during the rebuild.    It's tough during the summer not to over think things.   There is a reason why JB still had a job and why we have to the team we do.   Plan seems to be to do the best we can with EP and QHs on their ELCs and to give the team as many reps as possible.   We have an entire decade plus before QHs, EP and Podz are around where the Sedins were when things went off the rails.    Two different cores.   In this era reps and playoffs matter, and recently at least we've just watched SIX teams in a row win the cup with a lot of their key players in that age range.  

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IBatch said:

Dude at least wait a year and see how it goes.   Poolman vs Tanev yes that's hilarious.   But Rathbone!  Why pick on him? 

You're probably both right of course but I DO remember a time when Tanev wasn't expected to ever be more than a bottom pairing defenseman.  "He's responsible but not dynamic enough in any one area" Or something along those lines is what I remember hearing a lot of.  

 

I'm probably being overly optimistic but I'm taking the "who knows" approach with Poolman.  

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 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...