Why Does The Media And Many Fans Still Consider Our Defense Suspect?

[PhillipBlunt]

The defense was woeful when Bungardener was running it, as he seemed very limited in his strategical approach to the defense, and Green fully supported that ineptitude. Since those two were given their walking papers and Shaw's fully taken over, the defense has drastically improved. Anyone pushing the narrative that this defense is shambolic is ridiculous. 

 

Keeping Shaw should be of the utmost importance. Once Rutherford and (insert GM name here) shape the defense going forward, Shaw's influence will be paramount. 

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, thrago said:

I think he was a excellent developmental coach but lacked experience on how to take it to the next level after that so a rebuilding team would work well for him. But I still think if he wants to take it to the next level he should get a few years under an experienced coach, whether or not that's something he is willing to do is another story though.   

See that's where i get a little dumbfounded.   What makes an experienced coach?  And when are you one yourself?   Green WHL team and barely lost a team as head coach.   And this dialogue that Markstrom helped him is funny as an AHL coach, we had nobody in the system that made the team but Markstrom at the AHL level.  2008.   That's a decade of coaching experience.  

[Sbriggs]

13 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

I've had no issues with our defense this year.  

 

That's the narrative that's been written this off-season and media is refusing to actually look at the play on the ice that's contradicted them.  Our biggest need is a quality, middle of the lineup center IMO.  

 

Schenn - Hughes 

Myers - OEL 

 

Those two pairings can eat up 70% of the minutes, and I'm really not that concerned with having a combination of Poolman, Burroughs or Hamonic out there as the 3rd pairing. 

Schenn is not a top 4 D we need to replace him up there. I like Schenn in a lesser role

[PhillipBlunt]

4 minutes ago, Sbriggs said:

Schenn is not a top 4 D we need to replace him up there. I like Schenn in a lesser role

Sure he's not, but in a pinch he acquits himself quite well.

Edited January 6, 2022 by PhillipBlunt

[Maniwaki Canuck]

One of the ways people have underestimated our defense is by giving each player a number from 1 to 8 or a pairing designation from 1 to 4.  It doesn't always work like that.  Schenn might count as a 6 to 8 guy in that way of thinking, but he complements Hughes really well so we get a lot more value out of him than would be the case when paired with somebody else.  If we went out and spent 6M on a "better" partner for Hughes, how much better would that pairing be overall?  If it's only 20-30%, you might be better off sticking with a guy like Schenn, asking Hughes to drive the pairing and spending the money elsewhere.  But of course there are cases where it works the other way around, like pairing Myers with OEL, which seems to be bringing the best out of both.  The point is to have 3 effective pairings without completely sacrificing cost efficiency.  Mechanical thinking like "we need a top pairing RD to play with Hughes" isn't necessarily correct and can lead to sub-optimal cap allocation.

[13231]

6 hours ago, thrago said:

I don't think Green was a bad coach, but I do think he should have come into the league as an assistant coach.  I think that the lack of tools he had to work with due to his lack of experience, plus the fact he was surrounded with other rookie coach's put him in a situation that when his system wasn't working he didn't know what to do to fix it.  I think if his next gig is as an assistant coach under an experienced coach he can go on to have a good career or even if he had more experienced assistants, would help him out a lot as well.

Green was a bad coach, all facts and information point to that conclusion. His stubbornness & inability to adapt his systems to the strengths of the roster was just one of multitude mistakes that he made. I honestly can't find a single redeeming factor in his coaching, every aspect of it was disastrous or close to it. 

 

I also cannot see how he could be useful to any team as an assistant. What does he bring to the table to any coaching staff? His clear inability to see and adjust to the ineptitude of his systems for such long periods is not something most GMs would just overlook. They will not easily forget how horrendous this season was under his coaching. 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

One of the ways people have underestimated our defense is by giving each player a number from 1 to 8 or a pairing designation from 1 to 4.  It doesn't always work like that.  Schenn might count as a 6 to 8 guy in that way of thinking, but he complements Hughes really well so we get a lot more value out of him than would be the case when paired with somebody else.  If we went out and spent 6M on a "better" partner for Hughes, how much better would that pairing be overall?  If it's only 20-30%, you might be better off sticking with a guy like Schenn, asking Hughes to drive the pairing and spending the money elsewhere.  But of course there are cases where it works the other way around, like pairing Myers with OEL, which seems to be bringing the best out of both.  The point is to have 3 effective pairings without completely sacrificing cost efficiency.  Mechanical thinking like "we need a top pairing RD to play with Hughes" isn't necessarily correct and can lead to sub-optimal cap allocation.

I have all sorts of time for the discussion that "first pair, second pair,#2 (or 3,4 etc) D" is very limited and oversimplified when having a detailed understanding of how a defense unit, as a whole works. Is Hughes on our first pair? Or is that OEL and Myers? Was Myers a "third pair D" last year? Is a guy like Tanev who "only" plays 20 minutes but gets all the hard match ups, PK and shut down minutes a "2nd pair" D or...?

 

Oversimplified. Agreed.

 

That said, if we want to be a contender in a couple years, we need to replace Schenn, "added value" or not, and who expires next year anyway, with someone who has a higher ceiling. Ideally with someone on a cheaper ELC/bridge deal for a good few years.

 

Mechanical thinking that we need to spend $6-$10m on a UFA, top pair D to accomplish that isn't correct either

 

[King Heffy]

3 hours ago, Wanless said:

That has been something the canucks have never really done since the linden trade. Its something that needs to be done from time to time.

 

it is just tiring seeing it and if anyone opposes it, the “miller is getting traded” mob jumps in and starts to smother the other thoughts and even at times has called the other train of thought moronic to sum it up

 

it also seems like this is devouring topics for pages at a time as opposed to staying on the subject

Bertuzzi.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I have all sorts of time for the discussion that "first pair, second pair,#2 (or 3,4 etc) D" is very limited and oversimplified when having a detailed understanding of how a defense unit, as a whole works. Is Hughes on our first pair? Or is that OEL and Myers? Was Myers a "third pair D" last year? Is a guy like Tanev who "only" plays 20 minutes but gets all the hard match ups, PK and shut down minutes a "2nd pair" D or...?

 

Oversimplified. Agreed.

 

That said, if we want to be a contender in a couple years, we need to replace Schenn, "added value" or not, and who expires next year anyway, with someone who has a higher ceiling. Ideally with someone on a cheaper ELC/bridge deal for a good few years.

 

Mechanical thinking that we need to spend $6-$10m on a UFA, top pair D to accomplish that isn't correct either

 

Agree 100%.  And for the record, I wouldn't at all rule out spending more (or moving some assets) on the next partner for Hughes.  It all depends on what he needs, who's available, and where we get the most bang for our buck.  What's been fascinating about the Boudreau era is how much better the same personnel is looking under a different system and how much (or not) that changes our assessment of the team's strengths and weaknesses.  Wherever you ultimately fall on that question, it's better to re-examine the assumptions we formed under Green before making any moves.  Rutherford is watching with eyes wide open, I'm pretty sure, even when he seems to be suggesting that it's clear where the upgrades need to happen. 

[wai_lai416]

demko is the only reason this defense looks better than it is stat wise.. considering we have the 3rd most expensive defense unit in the league.. you expect much better. they are neither good or bad just average.. and 0 value for how much it cost. Also the fact they contribute next to nothing offensively other than hughes.. 7 goals scored by our defenseman put us near last in the league.. most teams occupying a playoff position their defense contribute double to quadruple the amount of goals our defense scores. if they were getting a lot of assist then i guess that's ok.. but that's not even the case.. other than hughes.. not much contribution from the defense offensively period.. they don't score.. and they don't play air tight defense and they are paid the 3rd most in the league.. therefore they are suspect.. 

[aGENT]

17 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Agree 100%.  And for the record, I wouldn't at all rule out spending more (or moving some assets) on the next partner for Hughes.  It all depends on what he needs, who's available, and where we get the most bang for our buck.  What's been fascinating about the Boudreau era is how much better the same personnel is looking under a different system and how much (or not) that changes our assessment of the team's strengths and weaknesses.  Wherever you ultimately fall on that question, it's better to re-examine the assumptions we formed under Green before making any moves.  Rutherford is watching with eyes wide open, I'm pretty sure, even when he seems to be suggesting that it's clear where the upgrades need to happen. 

I have little doubt Rutherford has a pretty good idea of where this teams strengths and weaknesses are moving forward, and with a view to being highly competitive in two years, as is his stated plan.

 

This is why I don't think he'd hesitate, at all, to make a move this TDL if he thinks it improves the team's prospects longer term. Regardless of whether we might be near a playoff position or not.

[Nuxfanabroad]

17 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

Lol this goes against what the OP has written. Our defence has been fine so why would we trade poolie and a good young prospect when the defense hasn't let us down?

Do agree with the gist of the original post, but it's based upon the first 2, 3 dozen games of this season. Have often stated there's a pre & post(Jan 1st, approx) separation into 2 seasons, where whistles tend to get thrown away. In the rigged deck league, it's best to prepare for shifting standards of officiating. Size & durability are an increased requirement, as campaigns go deeper.

 

That, & it appears we have far more serviceable-depth on our RH-side(Burroughs, Bowey, Juulsen..JB prepared well here). The Poolman/Rath for an exp'd, tough LhD(like Edmundson) would help to balance our complete corps.

 

Got no problem with Poolman either - feel he's given his all. Not sure we want that AAV for 4 yrs, however. Since Habs are entering rebuild-territory, would say these two assets(Poolman & Rath) could serve them well.

 

Lastly, not really surprised by how all of this has played out. Had expected our D would outperform the BS media-portrayals. Started my own thread, on Oct 13th(Canucks talk..14 pages back), where I forecast that Green would be kiboshed halfway thru, but we would STILL land 2nd in the Pac Div. Go have a gander, it's in black & white. No LOL's Necc!

[Sbriggs]

4 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Sure he's not, but in a pinch he acquits himself quite well.

You bet he does

[Wanless]

2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Bertuzzi.

Right

 

we got that goalie who was pretty good

[MaxVerstappen33]

4 hours ago, Sbriggs said:

Schenn is not a top 4 D we need to replace him up there. I like Schenn in a lesser role

On his good days he seems to look like a top 4 D.  Same was said about Edler and he's playing top 4 in LA

[MaxVerstappen33]

There was a poster or two trying to make the case that the D wasn't that bad before Bruce B. got here. And they were laughed at and called a Benning bros. I was one of them. But its good to see some ppl coming around on it. In the middle of the losing streak, ppl were actually saying that Myers shouldn't be in the top 4 at all. The whole media got in on it. Jeff Paterson and his whole group. Even Yannick Hansen in his interviews was slagging off the D. I'll give Hansen credit for speaking his mind though.

 

OEL Myers and Hughs is solid. Just need a journeyman 4th guy and Poolman is looking like that now. Burroughs is good. Rathbone hasn't played under Bruce B. He looked decent even under Green.

 

 

[Sbriggs]

6 minutes ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

On his good days he seems to look like a top 4 D.  Same was said about Edler and he's playing top 4 in LA

I guess maybe it depends on the team but my opinion is he''s a 5-6 guy who can fill in at times in the top 4 which is what he is doing right now with Hamonic out

[MaxVerstappen33]

22 hours ago, Coconuts said:

It hasn't been bad this last stretch of ten or so games, but that's a rather small sample size given how the season's gone. But it's definitely questionable when you consider how it's constructed. Our defense certainly ain't spectacular and has questions on RD going forward. If this roster currently has a strength it's probably it's top 9, if we've got a weakness it's probably.. well, defense. 

 

OEL's been fine, but I can't help but wonder if Benning made that sort of move a year or two too early. Regardless of how he players we're stuck with him at this point. 

 

Myers has looked better, but he'll be 32 in under a month and 34 by the time he deal is up. We've nobody in the system ready to step up and eat top 4RD minutes. I'd be looking to get younger once his deal expires.

 

Hughes, we all know what Hughes is, but he's also the only top 4D we have who's 25 or younger. We should definitely look to get younger on D if we can. 

 

Hamonic hasn't played enough this season to really get a gauge on where he's at, but he's got a season left on his deal and any replacement via UFA would absolutely cost more than the 3M he's currently making.

 

Schenn is fine in a bottom pairing role, he is what he is. Burroughs has played alright this season, but he's no more than a bottom pairing/depth guy. If our D was constructed better I'd be surprised to see much of him. Hunt probably shouldn't see NHL ice, but it is what it is. 

 

Poolman's looked alright when played as a bottom pairing guy, which is what he is. 

 

 

You really didn't sell me on it

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, JM_ said:

big kid tho. I'm hoping there's a right shot out there too. We should be a good destination now for some of these guys. 

Googled him for gits and shiggles and found this FWIW:

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2021/12/31/big-strong-ncaa-free-agent-defenceman-vancouver-canucks-sign/

[JM_]

26 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Googled him for gits and shiggles and found this FWIW:

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2021/12/31/big-strong-ncaa-free-agent-defenceman-vancouver-canucks-sign/

sounds like an interesting bet to me. How soon can teams sign these guys?