(discussion) With stats/facts to back it up, explain where you think our d group ranks.

[JM_]

Just now, Viper007 said:

I blame the PK formation.  I don't understand why they lined up 2 guys in front of 1 shooter.  It was really bad.

I did like how BB allowed the younger guys to contribute on the PK on those short shifts once Green was turfed, that seemed to give it as boost. 

[Viper007]

Just now, JM_ said:

I did like how BB allowed the younger guys to contribute on the PK on those short shifts once Green was turfed, that seemed to give it as boost. 

Putting EP and Hughes on the PK changed everything.  Spread out the PK time more so that more people can rest.

[hammertime]

Just now, Viper007 said:

Putting EP and Hughes on the PK changed everything.  Spread out the PK time more so that more people can rest.

Sure it's also hugely counter productive when you take your top 2 offensive players and plunk them on your PK because your bottom 6 and bottom pair can't handle the assignment.  

[Ilya Mikheyev]

2 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Sure it's also hugely counter productive when you take your top 2 offensive players and plunk them on your PK because your bottom 6 and bottom pair can't handle the assignment.  

Plenty of top players on PK regularly every year: Mitch Marner, Justin Huberdeau, Sasha Barkov, Vinny Trochek, JT Miller, Jesper Fast, Logan Couture, Teravainen, Mangiapane, Nichushkin, Hischier, Anze Kopitar, Brad Marchand are all names that you would see in the upper echelon of pk time. I agree that it's better to have a versatile bottom-6 who can play that role when needed, but it's not a necessity to cut out your top players if they want the assignment and do it well.

[Baggins]

28 minutes ago, hammertime said:

This is a very good question. Especially when you take into account his deployment.  

It certainly blows the empty net excuse out of the water. 

[Baggins]

24 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

To make the +/- even better you can add +10 to most of those guys.  That's how many EN goals were scored against them.

Well you need to add that +10 to Boeser alone to bring him into line the other five. Unless you want to try and convince me Boeser was out there alone for the EN goals against. EN goals doesn't explain how far Boeser was behind the other five.

[Viper007]

15 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Sure it's also hugely counter productive when you take your top 2 offensive players and plunk them on your PK because your bottom 6 and bottom pair can't handle the assignment.  

It gives them a threat SH.  So I don't think it's counter productive.  It let's the players get into the game more also, especially if the Canucks are stuck PKing for a prolonged period of time.  Mikheyev is going to be a good example of this.  He's going to be a threat short handed because of his speed.  EP is a threat because of his high hockey sense.  His anticipation is unreal.

[Viper007]

2 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Well you need to add that +10 to Boeser alone to bring him into line the other five. Unless you want to try and convince me Boeser was out there alone for the EN goals against. EN goals doesn't explain how far Boeser was behind the other five.

Well we will just have to wait and see how this next season unfolds.  I believe Boeser will have a bounce back season and this +/- talk will not be a discussion.

[hammertime]

9 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

Well we will just have to wait and see how this next season unfolds.  I believe Boeser will have a bounce back season and this +/- talk will not be a discussion.

And I believe if you gave Garland Brocks PP mins he would out produce Brock for 2m less and be a + player. 

 

Maybe play Brock on the PK that seems to be where people think our top 6 should play. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by hammertime

[RU SERIOUS]

3 hours ago, Vinny in Vancouver said:

Checking the latest EA Sports' NHL video game players ratings... 

...................The "National Enquirer" source of NHL Facts !

[Baggins]

Just now, hammertime said:

And I believe if you gave Garland Brocks PP mins he would out produce Brock for 2m less. 

I'm not entirely certain of that. I'd say Boeser has the better shot but Garland is the better playmaker. But I'm sure it would boost Garland's numbers and could end up quite comparable. 

[Viper007]

6 minutes ago, Baggins said:

I'm not entirely certain of that. I'd say Boeser has the better shot but Garland is the better playmaker. But I'm sure it would boost Garland's numbers and could end up quite comparable. 

Also Boeser was used as the net front presence.  Boeser took Pearson, or Chaissons spot.  Garland was on the half wall.  So if hammertime wants to make this argument, he should say that Miller/Pettersson are the players that took his spot.  But I don't think you want to make that argument.

[hammertime]

Just now, Baggins said:

I'm not entirely certain of that. I'd say Boeser has the better shot but Garland is the better playmaker. But I'm sure it would boost Garland's numbers and could end up quite comparable. 

Lol I'm just illustrating a point I think Garland's deployment is the way he should be used and I wouldn't actually take Brock off the PP as thats the best use for him. 

 

Though I really do like Garlands ability to control the puck below the hashes. I would suggest that a PP of 

 

Brock

Miller Garland 

Pete Hughes

 

Bo 

Kuzmenko Pod

OEL ____

Would be very dangerous. 

 

 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

14 minutes ago, RU SERIOUS said:

...................The "National Enquirer" source of NHL Facts !

 

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Facts and stats?  Don't need that to see how lacking the D is.

 

OEL and Myers are older and make too much

Poolman has health issues

Rathbone is an unknown, and smallish

Dermott is an acceptable bottom pairing D, as is Burroughs

 

Quinn's real good, Schenn is dependable and tough

 

4/10 IMO

Well i'd rank them 5/10 ... but QHs ascending a little could bring that up to maybe 5.5 or even 6! .    Our D is average ... but expensive for what we get out of it , that's undeniable.    Coaching could maybe push it a little further.    That said our forward depth and goaltending aren't too shabby.   As soon as we trade Miller for a D upgrade ... that goes from a 9 down to a 5 too lol.   Yeah for us! 

[Baggins]

1 minute ago, Viper007 said:

Also Boeser was used as the net front presence.  Boeser took Pearson, or Chaissons spot.  Garland was on the half wall.  So if hammertime wants to make this argument, he should say that Miller/Pettersson are the players that took his spot.  But I don't think you want to make that argument.

So you don't think Garland could play the down low (below the red line) and go to the net role? He didn't show any reluctance to go to the net or into traffic last season. Having a shifty playmaker down there could even lead to more opportunities for Horvat in the bumper spot. I was somewhat surprided Garland never really got the opportunity on the 1st unit despite some injuries.

[hammertime]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Well i'd rank them 5/10 ... but QHs ascending a little could bring that up to maybe 5.5 or even 6! .    Our D is average ... but expensive for what we get out of it , that's undeniable.    Coaching could maybe push it a little further.    That said our forward depth and goaltending aren't too shabby.   As soon as we trade Miller for a D upgrade ... that goes from a 9 down to a 5 too lol.   Yeah for us! 

I think it's better than that I feel we currently have  a top 16 D in the league. The problem is age Myers is declining OEL isnt getting younger Schenn isn't a long term solution we are going to need 2-3 top 4 D in the next 2 years of which we have D under 25.

 

Hughes, Dermott(25), Rathbone, Woo, Johansen, Juulsen(25) Pettersson

 

This is the real problem. This is the panic. The current D as of today I have minor solvable problems with. (add 1 true shut down D to allow Hughes OEL Rathbone better minutes. I don't care if the guy is an offensive black hole)

Edited July 17, 2022 by hammertime

[Viper007]

1 minute ago, Baggins said:

So you don't think Garland could play the down low (below the red line) and go to the net role? He didn't show any reluctance to go to the net or into traffic last season. Having a shifty playmaker down there could even lead to more opportunities for Horvat in the bumper spot. I was somewhat surprided Garland never really got the opportunity on the 1st unit despite some injuries.

He's not big enough to screen the goalie, IMO.  Net front presence has to block the eyes of the goalie.  Garland will make it too easy for the goaltender to look around.  He hasn't really shown me to be adept at deflecting pucks either.  He might be able to do it, I can't say, but I would prefer a bigger body.  I think Pearson is possibly going to lose his powerplay time with Kuzmenko joining the team.  Personally I would prefer Miller or Bo in front as the net presence with Boeser and Petey shooting the one timers.  But I can't really complain about the PP.  They were in the Top 10.  

 

Anyways, I think the thread is going off track with Boeser talk, this is suppose to be about the Defense.  I will stop now.  Sorry JM_.

[Attila Umbrus]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

yeah I did want to see him up here, not really clear on why he didn't get a couple of games? but camp should tell us if jack is ready. 

I think it was more due to injuries with Rathbone, he had a couple small ones last year and would come back, start ripping it up, then go down again. I could see management being gun shy on bringing him up when he was getting hurt quite frequently.

 

I think Rathbone has all the tools to succeed  offensively in the NHL. His defence is passable, not great, but that’s ok. My major red flag is his injuries and how he takes contact when getting hit. He puts himself in some dangerous positions from time to time. He needs to clean that part up and be more aware…when he got smeared on the boards last season I think it taught him a valuable lesson. After that hit when he come back a few games later he was definitely more aware. If he learns that end of things he will have a long career in the NHL. Every time he makes mistakes he has shown strong willingness to learn and move on from them. 

[iceman64]

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

Great thread if all it does is throw some water on the narrative / perception that we have the worst defence in the league. 
 

I agree with the idea that they’re overpaid - but I’m not sure it’s not as extreme as some of the figures say.  Sure looks like D aren’t going for a bargain these days.
 

Hoping that this group can keep it up with maybe a little boost from a healthy Poolman and adding Rathbone.  Then a more consistent year from our deeper forward group.  

First we don't have the worst D in the league, 2nd in actuality if out forwards had been better positioning and played like we started to play on the PK at the end of the season then this wouldn't be a issue so much, that's where all the stats don't take in the big picture. 

 I don't get the OEL slam on the boards, he picked up speed in the latter half of the season and is still a top pairing D but it's not even that is the biggest thing about him, it's this... Can't remember who ran Hughes at the end of the season but within 5 seconds OEL was throwing punches and he's not small.. we need that kind of pushback and that doesn't show on the +/- 

 I just think in his case, it took awhile to get back to his old self after playing for a nowhere team for as long as he did and not to 100% but that's coming. 

It's not like he's 35 and won't ever play high end to the same extent as before at his best, that's just not true. 

 I happen to expect him to be better by far this season and that wouldn't take much.

 The pushback aspect of his game is something we can't have enough of and it's worth paying extra for, in any player that hits this roster. 

 I know we're all antsy and leery to get excited about this team but even if D was awful it's not like it has to be solved right away, asap yes but JR will address it but it'll get done. 

Why am I so sure? JR has pretty much done exactly what he said he was going to do after watching closely last season for faults and addressing them onward. 

 Don't kid yourself into thinking we can just spend tons everywhere, we have that to some degree but we also need developing ELC'S to balance it out. 

 I think JR can get that done and I think we have all our picks next year or close, and we need to keep it that way, investing in the farm instead of selling it seems to be catching on in Vancouver for the first time in franchise history. Good to see!