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

Canuck D Pairings -- Some Surprises

Rate this topic


JamesB
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hammertime said:

I like Burr. But I did feel letting Stetcher walk was the wrong move he bled blue and green. For a lil fella the defended zone entries fearlessly. Similarly to being a big Garland fan. These are the lil dogs you keep and surround with bigger meaner dogs. Burr is a great #7 guy. 

I agree. I hope Stecher comes back. I am sure he would sign a team-friendly contract to play in Vancouver. He never got the respect he deserved, largely because of his size. But he certainly has the right attitude and plays a high intensity game.  I am not saying you would be happy with him on your top pairing and I admit that a pairing of Stecher and Hughes would look kind of small out here. 

 

But Stecher at 1.5 million would be much better value relative to the cap than Myers at 6 million. 

 

The Canucks still need a legitimate top pairing RD and those guys are hard to get. One rumor is that they wanted Schneider from the Rangers in a Miller trade. He is a potential #1 RD, but I don't see the Rangers letting him go. The Canucks are no doubt looking hard to identify young RD candidates who have the potential to play on the top pairing and will try to achieve that if they trade Miller,. But I am not holding my breath.  

 

If Poolman can play there is probably no room for Stecher but if Poolman's health is iffy or if he can be traded Stecher could fill the bottom pairing RD role well and move up when needed. 

 

I also like Burroughs but, based on the numbers (and the eye test), he is no better than a #7/#8 guy. 

 

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hammertime said:

I like Burr. But I did feel letting Stetcher walk was the wrong move he bled blue and green. For a lil fella the defended zone entries fearlessly. Similarly to being a big Garland fan. These are the lil dogs you keep and surround with bigger meaner dogs. Burr is a great #7 guy. 

I think the call was more about that we know hughes is a mainstay for many year to come and more than likely rathbone will become a regular sooner than later and is their room for 3 undersized d?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, flat land fish said:

I think the call was more about that we know hughes is a mainstay for many year to come and more than likely rathbone will become a regular sooner than later and is their room for 3 undersized d?

I think the same thought process that let Stech walk will lead to Rathbones departure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hammertime said:

I think the same thought process that let Stech walk will lead to Rathbones departure. 

It’s a fair point arguably rathbone is a hughes lite better shot but notch or two lower skating and passing.  Probably needs a situation where he can run power play 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, flat land fish said:

It’s a fair point arguably rathbone is a hughes lite better shot but notch or two lower skating and passing.  Probably needs a situation where he can run power play 1

I think they are both great skaters, few people can approach Q’s edge work but Rathbone has great acceleration and high end speed. Q really needs to make his shot a threat. 
Will be curious to see how Rathbone shakes out. 
And to answer the question above, can we have three undersized, with Hunt it is 4 and Dermott isn’t exactly a hulking beast. Oh and no, 3 is probably too many.

Will be good to get Rathbone some NHL games early but he kind of feels like a player that will be a sweetener in a deal at some point. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I think they are both great skaters, few people can approach Q’s edge work but Rathbone has great acceleration and high end speed. Q really needs to make his shot a threat. 
Will be curious to see how Rathbone shakes out. 
And to answer the question above, can we have three undersized, with Hunt it is 4 and Dermott isn’t exactly a hulking beast. Oh and no, 3 is probably too many.

Will be good to get Rathbone some NHL games early but he kind of feels like a player that will be a sweetener in a deal at some point. 

Totally agree.

Unless the craziest thing happened whereby the craziest poster here becomes prophetic and they allow Rathbone to grow into Hughes spot - thus making way for a massive franchise-altering haul from Hughes.

Ridiculous and far-fetched, but maybe not impossible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Putgolzin said:

Ridiculous and far-fetched, but maybe not impossible?

I'd say that IS virtually impossible. Hughes is the best defenseman we've EVER had, and by the time his career is done, he will go down as one of the most prolific defensemen of all time, along with Makar.

 

Rathbone can't even crack the lineup. To think he would develop into a player of that caliber by this point is just suggesting false hope.

 

Not saying Rathbone won't succeed in the NHL, but he will never be at the same level. And the offer that would be required to move Hughes would be beyond enormous. He ain't going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, -DLC- said:

What makes your opinion any more "realistic" than the rest of ours? (Hint, nothing).

 

There are always rumours but that's exactly what they are. Media needs something to fill the space and they speculate and chatter.

 

Don't under estimate our core either....we've beat the Av's (and MacKinnon) fairly recently and in some great games in the past. Any team that gets momentum in the playoffs looks great. Also: number one picks should be getting it done so to compare them you have to keep that in perspective. There's a reason they go first overall.

It's not about who's giving the opinion it's what the opinion is, and obviously some are more realistic than others. If I said Arizona is a cup contender next season I think you would agree that's not very realistic. We still have huge holes on the roster, and until those are addressed it's unrealistic to expect this team to make deep playoff runs. I'm not sure if you're trying to suggest that we could be competitive with Avs in the playoffs, because that's entering delusional territory. They're in the cup finals and have lost only 2 games this entire playoffs.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before Luke Hughes was drafted didn't he say somewhere in an interview that Quinn was almost as good playing the right side as the left ? I think it was in reference to the 2 of them being a pair if the Canucks drafted higher in his draft year . If he could it would help solve a lot of problems in the short term until the Canucks find a top RHD . 

  • Upvote 1
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 11:26 AM, whysoserious said:

 

It's this type of mindset that has led us to where we are today. We keep Miller, maybe scrape into the playoffs and get bounced by one of the elite teams. Then what? Miller walks as a UFA or we pay him a contract that we can't afford. 

 

 

You need to pick a side:

On 10/28/2021 at 11:54 AM, whysoserious said:

Miller's contract ends next year, can we really afford to trade him if we're trying to compete? It's unrealistic to just assume that Podkolzin and Klimovich will be ready to replace Miller's production.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

You need to pick a side:

 

Where did I jump sides? Go back and read my posts and context surrounding it, and you'll see that my position has been consistent. This team has too many holes to be truly competitive, and we don't have the prospect pool nor the cap space to fill those holes. Trading Miller to fill some of those holes, having Podkolzin and Klimkovich come in and replace Miller's production and still expecting that we can keep moving forward and be competitive is unrealistic. I've always said that we are a bubble playoff team at this point, and if we need to take a few steps back (i.e. trading Miller) before we can move forward, so be it. I want to see this team be a perennial contender, not continuing to tread water and barely scrapes into the playoffs because "anything can happen in the playoffs". 

 

You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, but don't try to pick and choose things that I've said and take them out of context and act like it's some sort of gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whysoserious said:

Where did I jump sides? Go back and read my posts and context surrounding it, and you'll see that my position has been consistent. This team has too many holes to be truly competitive, and we don't have the prospect pool nor the cap space to fill those holes. Trading Miller to fill some of those holes, having Podkolzin and Klimkovich come in and replace Miller's production and still expecting that we can keep moving forward and be competitive is unrealistic. I've always said that we are a bubble playoff team at this point, and if we need to take a few steps back (i.e. trading Miller) before we can move forward, so be it. I want to see this team be a perennial contender, not continuing to tread water and barely scrapes into the playoffs because "anything can happen in the playoffs". 

 

You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, but don't try to pick and choose things that I've said and take them out of context and act like it's some sort of gotcha.

Gotcha.

 

"Too many holes" is your opinion/assessment. You make it sound so much worse than it really is. Under Bruce, we were a different team than before he arrived.

 

We aren't what you say we are because you say it. Perennial contenders come over time, they aren't add water and stir deals. Most of the teams that do go on to find continued success have top draft picks who often take time to develop and get there. So maybe you should afford ours the same luxury. Picking in the top 3 provides a bit of an advantage and some teams have had multiple top picks, and it shows. A whole lot of suffering often came before that.

 

On paper doesn't always pan out as expected. One thing you have to factor in is chemistry and how teams can start to gel (and click) over time with some familiarity and I feel this team is JUST really starting to settle in under Bruce. I'd like a bit longer to see what that looks like.

 

I don't argue that we need to upgrade but it's not what you make it out to be. IMO

 

 

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

11 hours ago, kloubek said:

I'd say that IS virtually impossible. Hughes is the best defenseman we've EVER had, and by the time his career is done, he will go down as one of the most prolific defensemen of all time, along with Makar.

 

Rathbone can't even crack the lineup. To think he would develop into a player of that caliber by this point is just suggesting false hope.

 

Not saying Rathbone won't succeed in the NHL, but he will never be at the same level. And the offer that would be required to move Hughes would be beyond enormous. He ain't going anywhere.

This is probably right but I wonder what New Jersey would give up to acquire Quinn and put able to put "Hughes brothers" (at least two of them) on the ice. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 7:06 PM, hammertime said:

I like Burr. But I did feel letting Stetcher walk was the wrong move he bled blue and green. For a lil fella the defended zone entries fearlessly. Similarly to being a big Garland fan. These are the lil dogs you keep and surround with bigger meaner dogs. Burr is a great #7 guy. 

Burr was a #7 guy for the Avs last year, wasn't he? 

 

We have #7 guys for both Avs and Bolts from last year. Our defensive depth is elite! Just need a top 4 RHD ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Burr was a #7 guy for the Avs last year, wasn't he? 

 

We have #7 guys for both Avs and Bolts from last year. Our defensive depth is elite! Just need a top 4 RHD ;)

I would wager that a shut down Pking LD a Nick Hague/Siegenthaler/Graves or someone of that ilk would be much cheeper to acquire than a top 4 RD and allow Hughes OEL to spend less time PKing and play more to their strengths improving our lineup overall without paying the huge price tag for the top 4 RD we'd all love to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 2:36 PM, Me_ said:

Our prospects are playing in the NHL. 

That’s a good perspective but I think if you say okay take every teams players and prospects under 25 and rank them we still don’t rank all that highly. 
The prospects are also what give a team near the cap cost controlled players coming in to fill gaps and give depth, we can do that on left D and goal currently with NHL level players and that is about it. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hammertime said:

I would wager that a shut down Pking LD a Nick Hague/Siegenthaler/Graves or someone of that ilk would be much cheeper to acquire than a top 4 RD and allow Hughes OEL to spend less time PKing and play more to their strengths improving our lineup overall without paying the huge price tag for the top 4 RD we'd all love to get.

No guys we bring in to play bottom pair minutes will PK as we’ll as Hughes.  Hughes is amazing in that role, because he’s just a great player.  Petey is great at PK too.  These are great players, who will make the sacrifice needed to win.  

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has everyone forgot about Brady Keeper.  Big hard game looked like really solid depth add before breaking leg. 
Just having him back as depth will give this D a better looking option.

26 now but lost an entire season last year.

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alflives said:

No guys we bring in to play bottom pair minutes will PK as we’ll as Hughes.  Hughes is amazing in that role, because he’s just a great player.  Petey is great at PK too.  These are great players, who will make the sacrifice needed to win.  

That's how you break your toys. 

 

It's probably not smart to have 21m Hughes Pete OEL on the ice PKing. If Hughes brakes his foot blocking a shot bye bye playoffs. Would be better to get them some better quality ice time and have guys like Schenn Burr Myers Dermott PK. If they aren't up to the task then you look to make some adjustments to that group. 

 

my $0.02

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...