Just want to know you guys' opinion about Canucks identity

[IBatch]

7 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Hate this idea of an identity. Every team's identity is the same. Look at Toronto - "speed and skill". Look at Colorado - "speed and skill". It's a nonsense idea for the media to run with to try and create headlines.

 

Every team in this modern era pretty much play the same way - top scorers up front, one or two puck moving defencemen with 4-5 shutdown guys and one goalie who's better than the other.

 

Where's the variation? You could argue Edmonton are a bit different because they have two 100 point players and no good goalie. You could argue Toronto have an almost-goal per game scorer in Matthews but inconsistent defending.

 

Identity is a joke and basically just comes down to the playstyles of the top stars of the team, not so much the team itself. 

Why do you hate that though?   To me every team we've had since the start had an identity.    This is a decent thread because our team is still finding theirs.   You can see long glimpses at times.   To me it's strength down the middle.   Something we've never had really as an identity.    Sure the early 90's Linden teams had one year of Nedved - go check out how many goals that team scored ... even with a 6-7% adjustment for save percentage - or even 10% (way too high), it wasn't even close.   Peak Sedin era had its issues too.   Kesler was the second line really, best he had to work with was Higgins and Samuelson (for a short time), Pearson level guys really.      But it for sure had an identity.   Sedin was an elite line, Kesler was an elite two-way C.    Our third line didn't add much offense really, but was solid and gritty enough (team for sure missed Maholtra that run), and spot on as far as defense went.   Fourth line meh but good enough.   D was top four all the way down to their 7th spot.   Needed that with Salo made of glass.   Ballard had his moments but wasn't quite the right fit.    Hamhuis -Bieksa was our top pairing during the cup run.   

 

That team for sure had an identity.   "Nobody Likes us We don't Care" lol.    Or just an incredibly well made up team. Not many teams manage first in PP and PK.   

 

WCE era was equal parts skill and blunt force.    Linden teams another level same thing but way better balanced.   Also went through a massive transition from the guys left from the 80's .... 

 

As a team - Bridesmaids - wouldn't be a bad overall identity.   Sure looking forward to that time when we can build a cup winner.   And enjoying the heck out of this team, even if it's not quite there yet.   Demko reminds me more of McLean then Luongo.    Looking forward to seeing what rabbits he can pull out of his hat, come playoff time. 

[Kevin Biestra]

12 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Why do you hate that though?   To me every team we've had since the start had an identity.    This is a decent thread because our team is still finding theirs.   You can see long glimpses at times.   To me it's strength down the middle.   Something we've never had really as an identity.    Sure the early 90's Linden teams had one year of Nedved - go check out how many goals that team scored ... even with a 6-7% adjustment for save percentage - or even 10% (way too high), it wasn't even close.   Peak Sedin era had its issues too.   Kesler was the second line really, best he had to work with was Higgins and Samuelson (for a short time), Pearson level guys really.      But it for sure had an identity.   Sedin was an elite line, Kesler was an elite two-way C.    Our third line didn't add much offense really, but was solid and gritty enough (team for sure missed Maholtra that run), and spot on as far as defense went.   Fourth line meh but good enough.   D was top four all the way down to their 7th spot.   Needed that with Salo made of glass.   Ballard had his moments but wasn't quite the right fit.    Hamhuis -Bieksa was our top pairing during the cup run.

 

I suppose it's worth mentioning that the 1982 squad had Gradin, Boldirev and Hlinka at C, plus Lupul or Minor as the 4th guy.  Of course given the centers of the day or even in the division (Gretzky, Hawerchuk, Dionne, Nilsson - a 130 point guy on each team) we never had a primo Art Ross kind of guy but we had depth anyway.

[CanucksFan8353]

If you want to know the identity of this team, I have 2 numbers for you.  They are 53!  The Canucks are Bo Horvat and Bo Horvat is the Canucks.  A very solid identity to have.   His team, his leadership, his style and soon to be his cup!   Wait until you see his playoff performance.  Conn Smythe, anyone?

Edited April 9, 2022 by CanucksFan8353

[mll]

On 4/8/2022 at 6:53 AM, DownUndaCanuck said:

Hate this idea of an identity. Every team's identity is the same. Look at Toronto - "speed and skill". Look at Colorado - "speed and skill". It's a nonsense idea for the media to run with to try and create headlines.

 

Every team in this modern era pretty much play the same way - top scorers up front, one or two puck moving defencemen with 4-5 shutdown guys and one goalie who's better than the other.

 

Where's the variation? You could argue Edmonton are a bit different because they have two 100 point players and no good goalie. You could argue Toronto have an almost-goal per game scorer in Matthews but inconsistent defending.

 

Identity is a joke and basically just comes down to the playstyles of the top stars of the team, not so much the team itself. 

 

Speed is less and less of a separating factor - if all teams have speed, then it's no longer a unique asset but a requirement to just be able to keep up.  Same with skills.

 

Teams have different identities - defensive team, offensive team, rush team, cycle team, puck management team etc.  I don't really see how you can lump a team like Vancouver in the same basket as NYI for example and it's not about roster construction.

 

Trotz says he couldn't care less if opponents spend considerable time in NYI's end because they won't give them anything (- maybe not this season given their injuries but generally he hasn't been worried about staying in their own end and find the right breakout opportunity).  Boudreau says his philosophy is why play in your own end if you don't have to and wants to break out as quickly as possible.  

 

Trotz talks of not wasting shots, he wants them to 1st try and create a high danger scoring opportunity and then take a shot.  Quite a few other teams prefer the "get shots on net and good things will happen" approach.

 

[mll]

On 4/8/2022 at 12:36 AM, kloubek said:

Does a team ever REALLY have a true "identity"? I mean, it's talked about here and there but at the end of the day, either you have a successful group or you don't. You have big bruisers or you don't. You have speed or you don't. You have skill or you don't. There are many elements that go into a successful team, and I don't think there is a "secret recipe" that makes it work every time.

 

Maybe there is a big, tough team with nasty players who bruise their opponents into submission, but they don't have enough skill to be successful. Or maybe they are a highly skilled team with a bunch of great guys, but they get pushed around and fall short when the pressure is on. These teams are generally viewed as not having an identity because they haven't found the right combination yet.

 

And sometimes, a team manages to have a good amount of all these traits, and then all of a sudden we say they "found their identity". What I believe that REALLY means is that the team simply "works". They found the combination that gains them wins. Tampa is a good example of this. They have some sizable players, they are quick and skilled, and it all generally just "works", and the results are in their record over the last several years.

I think our team has the great guys. I think we have a fair amount of skill - though not top-notch. I don't think we have quite enough size. Any way you look at it though, nobody is likely to herald our "identity" until we start making a serious impact in the league again.

 

Quite a few teams refer to their identity and build accordingly.  

 

McLellan after Washington finally won a Cup listed being heavy and physical as one of the 5 key reasons they won.  He talked of how a lot of teams went to speed and skill while they still believed in heavy.  Armstrong in St Louis says he wants a heavy D-corps and compares it to playing through a car wash.

 

Hynes just this week talked of their identity:  That's our game," Preds Head Coach John Hynes said Tuesday night. "Our game is toughness, physicality and speed. We have it throughout the lineup, and it's really the fabric of our identity. So, if teams try to push us in those areas, we have very good power play that's been very good all year long. But I just like the push back in our team, and that's a big part of our identity. We've got a lot of sandpaper, we've got a lot of highly competitive guys, and I think the more intense the game gets, the better our team is. The more physical the game is, the better our team is, and I thought that was indicative tonight." 

 

On the Wild their GREEF line is also referred to as their identity line. That line sets the tone - hardworking, north-south, get to the net.  Evason always complains when they play east-west.  He even broke up their lines after an important win because he felt they were playing too cute when he wants straightforwardness:

 

“You want to have your group playing with skill and creativity and trying stuff. You have to let them have some free rein, but you also have to remember who you are and what we do to have success. And that’s going straight, going north, getting pucks to the net and establishing our offensive-zone structure, which starts with shooting the puck and getting to the net and having a person at the net.”