[discussion] Canucks first line

[John_Guest]

Do you think it's possible EP is playing a little scared, right now?

[Angry Goose]

3 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

One thing that surprises me is how Green hasn't tried the Hoglander-Miller-Boeser line as of yet.  

 

If you recall, the Canucks went 8-3-2 post Petey injury last year before the Canucks-covid broke out.  It was the Canucks' best stretch of hockey last season and this line was leading the way.  I would even go as far as saying that if the Canucks hadn't had that covid outbreak last season, the Canucks might have caught up to 4th place.  

 

Anyways, I'd try this:

 

Pettersson-Horvat-Garland

Hoglander-Miller-Boeser

Pearson-Dickinson-Bailey

Highmore-Lammiko-Chiasson

 

Podkolzin to Abby.

Yes I want to see this. 

[DownUndaCanuck]

I prefer Horvat to be honest to any of Petey or Miller in terms of "1st line" centers. Horvat can do it all and look at the type of centers who win Cups in the playoffs - big, strong leaders who can play a good defensive game, win faceoffs and kill penalties. Ryan O'Reilly, Kopitar, Toews all spring to mind.

 

I think we should really forget about Petey as our true star and focus around Horvat, rather than having him as an after-thought. He produces and plays consistently for this team, no matter which crumby linemates he gets. Now he's finally got some skill in Garland and you can see them produce offence. I'd build a bit more offence around Horvat with something like this:

 

Boeser - Horvat - Garland (Boeser the shooter, Horvat the net-presence/physical guy, Garland the playmaker)

Pearson - Miller - Pettersson (Miller and Petey can stick together but they need a defensive-minded forward with grit to play alongside in Pearson)

 

It's a small, simple swap but a big mental swap demoting Petey and Miller who have been average, and promoting Horvat with Boeser who has been great the last couple of seasons.

 

[wallstreetamigo]

34 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I prefer Horvat to be honest to any of Petey or Miller in terms of "1st line" centers. Horvat can do it all and look at the type of centers who win Cups in the playoffs - big, strong leaders who can play a good defensive game, win faceoffs and kill penalties. Ryan O'Reilly, Kopitar, Toews all spring to mind.

 

I think we should really forget about Petey as our true star and focus around Horvat, rather than having him as an after-thought. He produces and plays consistently for this team, no matter which crumby linemates he gets. Now he's finally got some skill in Garland and you can see them produce offence. I'd build a bit more offence around Horvat with something like this:

 

Boeser - Horvat - Garland (Boeser the shooter, Horvat the net-presence/physical guy, Garland the playmaker)

Pearson - Miller - Pettersson (Miller and Petey can stick together but they need a defensive-minded forward with grit to play alongside in Pearson)

 

It's a small, simple swap but a big mental swap demoting Petey and Miller who have been average, and promoting Horvat with Boeser who has been great the last couple of seasons.

 

I actually am starting to believe EP and the team might be better served with him playing the wing. He is not strong enough or good enough on faceoffs to be a true 1C.

 

Horvat is being wasted under this coach. They have him glued to Pearson and typecast as their matchup defensive guy. Maybe out of necessity to some degree. But Horvat is underrated offensively and overrated defensively. He absolutely would be a much better option as a 1st line C than Petey if playoff wins are the goal.

 

Gotta have Hoglander in that top 6 IMO.

 

EP-Horvat-Garland

Hoglander-Miller-Boeser

Pearson-Dickinson-Podkolzin

Motte-Lammikko-Chiasson

 

I think that would be a far more dangerous lineup. Two top quality 1A/1B scoring lines and puck possession groups, a competent two way matchup line, and an energy line that can chip in (not ideal but not bad based on what we have).

 

Boeser can slide up - and maybe even play his off wing for one timers off the rush and off the puck retrieval skill of his line mates - and EP can slide down to give that 2nd line a good playmaker. Hoglander being good at both sides adds flexibility too.

 

I think if the Canucks can get a near elite level 2C, they could ice a formidable 3 scoring line team.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[IBatch]

16 hours ago, PetterssonOrPeterson said:

 

Boeser had all that hype in his first year of being that amazing scorer maybe being capable of 50 goals at some point, but I don't see that happening. 

 

His development has sort of stagnated since that explosive first year. I still think he is a first line calibre player. Albeit, a 1B/2A type player for that role.

I remember in his draft there was some comparisons to Patrick Sharp and IMO, that's exactly the type of player he will end up being like in terms of production. 

And absolutely nothing wrong with that.   Also, or so i've heard, like sharp he's easy on the eyes for the gentler sex.   Kidding aside 30/30 guys are awesome. Oshie is another good comp. 

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I actually am starting to believe EP and the team might be better served with him playing the wing. He is not strong enough or good enough on faceoffs to be a true 1C.

 

Horvat is being wasted under this coach. They have him glued to Pearson and typecast as their matchup defensive guy. Maybe out of necessity to some degree. But Horvat is underrated offensively and overrated defensively. He absolutely would be a much better option as a 1st line C than Petey if playoff wins are the goal.

 

Gotta have Hoglander in that top 6 IMO.

 

EP-Horvat-Garland

Hoglander-Miller-Boeser

Pearson-Dickinson-Podkolzin

Motte-Lammikko-Chiasson

 

I think that would be a far more dangerous lineup. Two top quality 1A/1B scoring lines and puck possession groups, a competent two way matchup line, and an energy line that can chip in (not ideal but not bad based on what we have).

 

Boeser can slide up - and maybe even play his off wing for one timers off the rush and off the puck retrieval skill of his line mates - and EP can slide down to give that 2nd line a good playmaker. Hoglander being good at both sides adds flexibility too.

 

I think if the Canucks can get a near elite level 2C, they could ice a formidable 3 scoring line team.

 

 

I'd try that too.   Isn't the first time i've suggested putting him on the wing ... that said he does have tendencies to use the wing coming in so not sure how much of a difference it would actually make other then giving him more freedom for a breakaway pass etc (less D responsibility.   The blender won't stop until something breaks so maybe this will happen at some point. 

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I prefer Horvat to be honest to any of Petey or Miller in terms of "1st line" centers. Horvat can do it all and look at the type of centers who win Cups in the playoffs - big, strong leaders who can play a good defensive game, win faceoffs and kill penalties. Ryan O'Reilly, Kopitar, Toews all spring to mind.

 

I think we should really forget about Petey as our true star and focus around Horvat, rather than having him as an after-thought. He produces and plays consistently for this team, no matter which crumby linemates he gets. Now he's finally got some skill in Garland and you can see them produce offence. I'd build a bit more offence around Horvat with something like this:

 

Boeser - Horvat - Garland (Boeser the shooter, Horvat the net-presence/physical guy, Garland the playmaker)

Pearson - Miller - Pettersson (Miller and Petey can stick together but they need a defensive-minded forward with grit to play alongside in Pearson)

 

It's a small, simple swap but a big mental swap demoting Petey and Miller who have been average, and promoting Horvat with Boeser who has been great the last couple of seasons.

 

Off wing ... better off doing what Amigo suggested in this case and adding EP to the line.  

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

I'd try that too.   Isn't the first time i've suggested putting him on the wing ... that said he does have tendencies to use the wing coming in so not sure how much of a difference it would actually make other then giving him more freedom for a breakaway pass etc (less D responsibility.   The blender won't stop until something breaks so maybe this will happen at some point. 

It’s one of the only blender moves we have very rarely seen tried. It’s obvious that for Green to survive he needs his “Burrows moment”. This might be it.

 

So I kind of hope it’s the next coach who tries it lol.

[IBatch]

6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

It’s one of the only blender moves we have very rarely seen tried. It’s obvious that for Green to survive he needs his “Burrows moment”. This might be it.

 

So I kind of hope it’s the next coach who tries it lol.

Gotcha.   I'm not convinced it's just Green yet.   Maybe he can pull it off.  Maybe he can't.   But aside from that 10-15 game threshold a new coach has, where every player is all of a sudden fighting for ice time again,  im not that confident much will change with a new coach either.    Guess we are all going to find out soon enough. 

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Gotcha.   I'm not convinced it's just Green yet.   Maybe he can pull it off.  Maybe he can't.   But aside from that 10-15 game threshold a new coach has, where every player is all of a sudden fighting for ice time again,  im not that confident much will change with a new coach either.    Guess we are all going to find out soon enough. 

I think the problems are deeper. More on the culture of the team level than anything else. A new coach would obviously need to build a system that fits this group of players better but I really believe (as I have with most teams that have gone through similar stretches of years losing and rebuilding) that it’s almost a necessity to start your uptick window of competitiveness with a new coach after you come out of that. In many ways it’s simply a psychological but powerful statement that the past losing is buried.

 

It’s never only the coaches fault. But it’s the easiest and most impactful change the Canucks can make aside from firing Benning. I feel pretty much the same way about the leadership team too btw.

 

 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I think the problems are deeper. More on the culture of the team level than anything else. A new coach would obviously need to build a system that fits this group of players better but I really believe (as I have with most teams that have gone through similar stretches of years losing and rebuilding) that it’s almost a necessity to start your uptick window of competitiveness with a new coach after you come out of that. In many ways it’s simply a psychological but powerful statement that the past losing is buried.

 

It’s never only the coaches fault. But it’s the easiest and most impactful change the Canucks can make aside from firing Benning. I feel pretty much the same way about the leadership team too btw.

 

 

Change management takes time.   A new GM new coach fine.   But the results won't flip a switch like too many CDCers on  this ... fire this ... fire that bandwagon think.   Said a year ago i'm willing to wait this one out on JB/TG and that they've earned the chance to make it work, which they both have.   Haven't changed my mind.  And odds are it won't work of course/either way.  Odds were always stacked against us.   The only thing that bugs me is dragging Linden into all of this to "placate" fans.   Like we are all kindergarteners or something.   They have done better then I expected really.   That's just odds.  That's all it is.   EDM lol, the media right now is writing about how lucky they are to win games they should have lost. 

 

The BEST odds ... and maybe i should be mad about this but am not (anymore at least), the best odds were always going to at BEST, part of this core (EP?QHs? Podz? Someone else?) and the NEXT one - that we could get back to becoming a contender again.  With 32 teams there can only be 6-8 at a time.   Really.     Is Dallas a contender?  Lol no of course not.   Lucky that's it.   SJ probably too.   Blew their wad they are done.   NSH lol where are they now!  Done.    St. Louis and LA x 2.    That's the carrot.   So we shouldn't be too quick to judge.   In the last ten years - three cup winners were crap regular season teams really.     I still think we won't get lucky enough to contend until the late 2020's and that's if we are lucky.   It follows our timeline with expansion.   The cup we should have won is long gone now.   And doubt we will be a top team like that for a very, very, very long time yet no matter whom is running the show.    That said that carrot is too big to ignore.   All i want right now is playoff reps.   If that means we should fire or keep Green i don't care.   More reps, better chances.  

[wallstreetamigo]

7 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Change management takes time.   A new GM new coach fine.   But the results won't flip a switch like too many CDCers on  this ... fire this ... fire that bandwagon think.   Said a year ago i'm willing to wait this one out on JB/TG and that they've earned the chance to make it work, which they both have.   Haven't changed my mind.  And odds are it won't work of course/either way.  Odds were always stacked against us.   The only thing that bugs me is dragging Linden into all of this to "placate" fans.   Like we are all kindergarteners or something.   They have done better then I expected really.   That's just odds.  That's all it is.   EDM lol, the media right now is writing about how lucky they are to win games they should have lost. 

 

The BEST odds ... and maybe i should be mad about this but am not (anymore at least), the best odds were always going to at BEST, part of this core (EP?QHs? Podz? Someone else?) and the NEXT one - that we could get back to becoming a contender again.  With 32 teams there can only be 6-8 at a time.   Really.     Is Dallas a contender?  Lol no of course not.   Lucky that's it.   SJ probably too.   Blew their wad they are done.   NSH lol where are they now!  Done.    St. Louis and LA x 2.    That's the carrot.   So we shouldn't be too quick to judge.   In the last ten years - three cup winners were crap regular season teams really.     I still think we won't get lucky enough to contend until the late 2020's and that's if we are lucky.   It follows our timeline with expansion.   The cup we should have won is long gone now.   And doubt we will be a top team like that for a very, very, very long time yet no matter whom is running the show.    That said that carrot is too big to ignore.   All i want right now is playoff reps.   If that means we should fire or keep Green i don't care.   More reps, better chances.  

What do you think bringing in the Sedins was? A cheap stunt from ownership/management perspective. The Sedins could turn out to be good executives but they were brought in for the wrong reasons just like Linden.

 

No one should expect a switch to be flipped if a change in management and coaching occurs. They should expect that there is a culture change and a clear path to competitiveness laid out.

 

I also suspect that there will need to be another at least partial rebuild to get over the hump for this team. The difference is I think that’s the culture laid down from Benning and Green more than a personnel or on ice issue.

[PetterssonOrPeterson]

7 hours ago, IBatch said:

And absolutely nothing wrong with that.   Also, or so i've heard, like sharp he's easy on the eyes for the gentler sex.   Kidding aside 30/30 guys are awesome. Oshie is another good comp. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that I agree.

Sharp was a very solid player and a major contributor to the Hawks' cup wins.

 

I think he could even be a bit better than Sharp and be more of a consistent 30 goal scorer but I always thought the Sharp comparison was a good one overall.

[PetterssonOrPeterson]

12 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I actually am starting to believe EP and the team might be better served with him playing the wing. He is not strong enough or good enough on faceoffs to be a true 1C.

 

Horvat is being wasted under this coach. They have him glued to Pearson and typecast as their matchup defensive guy. Maybe out of necessity to some degree. But Horvat is underrated offensively and overrated defensively. He absolutely would be a much better option as a 1st line C than Petey if playoff wins are the goal.

 

Gotta have Hoglander in that top 6 IMO.

 

EP-Horvat-Garland

Hoglander-Miller-Boeser

Pearson-Dickinson-Podkolzin

Motte-Lammikko-Chiasson

 

I think that would be a far more dangerous lineup. Two top quality 1A/1B scoring lines and puck possession groups, a competent two way matchup line, and an energy line that can chip in (not ideal but not bad based on what we have).

 

Boeser can slide up - and maybe even play his off wing for one timers off the rush and off the puck retrieval skill of his line mates - and EP can slide down to give that 2nd line a good playmaker. Hoglander being good at both sides adds flexibility too.

 

I think if the Canucks can get a near elite level 2C, they could ice a formidable 3 scoring line team.

 

 

These are some solid points.

 

Although the thing is, I thought the Lotto line was working well, let's say just prior to and including the bubble playoffs.

Miller was our top scorer, Petey was being Petey (in a good way) and Boeser was doing alright. 

 

Was that luck? Or is it right now it's just the players are so far apart because of their respective injuries and time off (not to mention Covid) that the chemistry just completely broke? 

 

We already saw what they could do at their best altogether once so it's possible they could go back into that form.... but what are your thoughts on that? 

 

It's kind of sad that this is what we've come to.

[EddieVedder]

7 hours ago, IBatch said:

And absolutely nothing wrong with that.   Also, or so i've heard, like sharp he's easy on the eyes for the gentler sex.   Kidding aside 30/30 guys are awesome. Oshie is another good comp. 

Funny thing is that I only notice men talking about Boesers looks. 

 

Lets get read here.  Boeser is no Sharp.  Sharp was such a complete and clutch player, that was good enough to make it onto a stacked team Canada.

 

[Patel Bure]

I come into this thread hoping to read about possible 1st line options and instead, see a discussion going on about “cute hockey men.”   :-|
 

:::Leaves thread::::

 

Ps:

Pettersson-Horvat-Garland

Hoglander-Miller-Boeser

 

However, I think Green will proceed forward with the Lotto line with a few minor adjustments:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser 

Pearson-Horvat-Hoglander

Podkolzin-Dickinson-Garland

[48MPHSlapShot]

22 hours ago, khay said:

Agree that we should move Miller rather than handing him a contract that takes him to age 35.

 

But you serious about EP?

 

EP has been producing like a legitimate first liner since the day he came into the league. Even last season, he went on a PPG pace after setting the record on the number of posts hit in the first x number of games.

 

This is the first time he's struggled to generate offence and the problem may not be him because the whole team is underperforming, except Demko. Like the whole team is struggling...  

 

I did say center.

 

I see him struggling to drive play as a center 5 v 5. It's easy to dump on him now, but even when he is netting points he still doesn't drive the play like I feel a top line center should, and with his frame I don't see him getting to that point. That's to say nothing about his FO percentage. He's a pretty peripheral player imo, which is fine even for a top line winger, but as a top line center I don't think he's our guy. I think he's been miscast.

[khay]

5 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

I did say center.

 

I see him struggling to drive play as a center 5 v 5. It's easy to dump on him now, but even when he is netting points he still doesn't drive the play like I feel a top line center should, and with his frame I don't see him getting to that point. That's to say nothing about his FO percentage. He's a pretty peripheral player imo, which is fine even for a top line winger, but as a top line center I don't think he's our guy. I think he's been miscast.

Tonight, he played like a top center. He was more engaged physically and he was noticeably quicker. Having Garland on their wing in the 3rd period may have open up some space as well but Petey was great in all 3 periods + OT.

 

I think his recent struggle had more to do with timing being completely off when it comes to playing with Miller. Play runs through Miller more and more and I think Petey needs to figure out a way to adjust to the way Miller plays. Great centers should and will accommodate different style of wingers.

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Stick Garland with Petey.

 

Garland makes things happen.

[Patel Bure]

Power play one:

 

Garland-Horvat-Pettersson

Miller-OEL