Unpopular opinion: Don't need top 10 defense to make the playoffs

[Coconuts]

3 hours ago, JM_ said:

Crosby and Malkin did win one without Letang, so its possible. 

 

For our group, can Hughes be our Doughty? would an average d group be good enough?

 

All depends on Demko imo. Its certainly possible. Its too hard to put some kind of percentage on it, so much depends on the other playoff brackets and team injuries. 

Problem is that team, and the Carolina team, we're outliers 

 

Pens also had two first ballot hall of famers with a good supporting cast of front, and Kessel was a legit threat at the time 

 

Do we have players who can lead offensively like that? Bubble was a small sample size and the distance between now and then continues to grow.

 

Every team needs their goalie to steal games to go deep, but do the Canucks rely on him less than they did last season going forward? 

 

Our PK may be better this season but can the team D step up enough to bail out our weak D? Can our bottom five keep their heads above water?

 

Was never going to be a single season turnaround but there's no denying D has been this team's weakness for years now.

[KirkSave]

15 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

The delusions of thinking we are anywhere near the top for forward groups

Time will tell. Fans can hope. Every fanbase hopes for the best. Why can't we?

 

I am of the belief that this current forward group (very talented on paper) experiencing a full training camp with BB and his systems will be lights out good. Bruce has always had an offensive flair with his teams. Plus, if our young guys take another step, along with having 2 very strong PP units, I can see this F group doing very well from a production standpoint.

 

Going into this season I predict career years for:

 

Petey

Brock

Horvat

Garland

Podz

 

The unknowns for me are Miller (he will be very good but another 99 pt campaign will be tough to repeat) Kuzmenko, Mik and Hogz (will he even make opening night roster)?. That being said, I am excited to see how these players fair as well. This F group is going to be very good.

[Chris12345]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Memo... PIT.  x 2.  Have fun with that.  At least the advanced stats guys and possession were left out in the ocean without a lifeboat for awhile on that. "The great Ian Cole and Shultz" ouch.  Ouch ouch ouch.   So the OP has a point.  And PIT and thank you so much Malkin and Crosby, and Kessel for this, sunk the CHI/LA battleship that possession was king forever. 

There is always an exception. Sure there might be 2 or 3 teams in 20 years. Not good odds.

[Kuzy]

5 hours ago, EddieVedder said:

Hes not a true number 1 dman.  Try again.

He kind of fits the definition. Top minutes at regular strength, PP, and now a bit of PK as well. He's out there protecting leads at the end of games.

[Goal:thecup]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

For about the millionth time. There's nothing wrong with Myers the player individually. Perfectly fine, 2nd pair RHD, with size and complimentary offense. But he doesn't fit the skill set this team needs given other (better and/or younger) players on the roster. He's an ill fit on this roster (even if a good player individually), and his cap is preventing from fixing our top 4. He's also not young and expiring the season after this one, something we currently have no succession plan for. He's not a part of the solution.

What if we re-sign him for less?

Will you let up on Myers then?

[JM_]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Sure, but that's not finding an external solution that addresses the issue/"fixes" our D.... More: "Which square peg that we already have, fits best in our round hole?"

pretty much, unless Dermott has more than we've seen. Which he might? dunno. 

 

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

If we're discussing external options that address the deficiencies on our D, I don't think Myers is part of that (other than where we move him to, to make the cap and roster space to actually improve).

I can see a bigger bodied, defence first LHD with him now, who can be there for Myers replacement. Can't solve it all in one year but maybe take positive steps this year. 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

Problem is that team, and the Carolina team, we're outliers 

 

Pens also had two first ballot hall of famers with a good supporting cast of front, and Kessel was a legit threat at the time 

 

Do we have players who can lead offensively like that? Bubble was a small sample size and the distance between now and then continues to grow.

 

Every team needs their goalie to steal games to go deep, but do the Canucks rely on him less than they did last season going forward? 

 

Our PK may be better this season but can the team D step up enough to bail out our weak D? Can our bottom five keep their heads above water?

 

Was never going to be a single season turnaround but there's no denying D has been this team's weakness for years now.

I also like the LA Kings analogy for our team.

 

Looking at the 2011/12 LA team, there were only 4 guys over 40 points. Astounding really. Prime Sutter coaching. 

 

But looking at the make up of that team I do see some interesting comp's between Doughty and Hughes, Quick and Demko, Richards and Bo, Miller+Petey for Kopitar, etc. 

 

And please anyone that wants to freak out please stow it, no comp is exact. 

 

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Muttley said:

Myers didn't exactly pass the eye test for much of last year but his stats for the year are better then decent. Unfortunately, you gotta think Mother time is not

on his side. LOL, now watch him have a great year. He's got a reputation for hanging onto guys with the officials. Get's more then his share of penalties. 

Think he's a decent leader in the room though. 

I feel like we pick on chaos giraffe kind of how we ran poor Sbisa into the ground. Yes Myers makes some glaring gaffes but on the whole he did pretty well with OEL didn't he? 

 

 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

It doesn't need to yet. Has any team gone from rebuilding to cup champion without the "make the playoffs" part first? 

Yet. No and not really expecting them to (but happy to be surprised!). Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't "walk before they run," but the sentiment that simply making playoffs is an acceptable end goal, is asinine.

 

1 hour ago, Goal:thecup said:

What if we re-sign him for less?

Will you let up on Myers then?

Let up? I've outright said he's a good second pair D and have been one of the few here defending him, and his contract, for years. Doesn't change that he's an ill fit in our top 4, given the rest of our personnel, and that his cap is preventing us from improving it.

 

Unless he re-signs for under $1.5m (doubtful IMO), he'd still be preventing us from improving the top 4.

[Coconuts]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

I also like the LA Kings analogy for our team.

 

Looking at the 2011/12 LA team, there were only 4 guys over 40 points. Astounding really. Prime Sutter coaching. 

 

But looking at the make up of that team I do see some interesting comp's between Doughty and Hughes, Quick and Demko, Richards and Bo, Miller+Petey for Kopitar, etc. 

 

And please anyone that wants to freak out please stow it, no comp is exact. 

 

I largely disagree, though I thing some of your comparisons might not be far off. I'm not freaking out but I'll explain my rational. 

 

I can maybe see the Hughes and Doughty comp if Hughes takes steps forward defensively which I think is absolutely doable, I can see the Quick and Demko comp. Bo and Richards? Bo's a faceoff ace and he can maybe hit similar totals but he's no Richards defensively. He holds his own though, absolutely. I don't think we have the equivalent of a Kopitar, even between the two. Kopitar is a unicorn, one of my favourite players of the past decade honestly. But that's fine, depending on how management builds the team going forward maybe we get away with not having that. 

 

The key to your whole post though is Sutter coaching, those Kings teams were tough and ground you down. I can't find it, I wish I could, but I remember reading about an NHL player commenting on those Kings teams. During the first half of the 2010's they were really something unique, said player made reference to how that entire team played like third and fourth liners. They just came at you in waves and ground you down. They were a defense first team, it was their bread and butter, I wouldn't say that's the case about the roster we've got. Which isn't to say they shouldn't be capable of playing good defense. Unless we witness a significant culture change I just don't see that LA grit infused game from our group though, that's a tough thing to replicate. They had the roster to play the game they played, I question whether our current lineup is capable of it. People can knock Sutter all they want but up until the Kings tuned him out he had complete buy in over in LA, similar to what we saw in Calgary last season.

 

Coaching is a big one, we're coached by a guy who's historically coached an up-tempo, offensively oriented game. He's a great coach, he's coached some really good teams, but he's not Sutter. I expect we'll perform better defensively out of the gate but I expect the emphasis to still be on offense as opposed to more of a counter-attack, grindy style game. Bruce's philosophy seems to lean more towards the best defense is a strong offense, which is fine as every team has it's own style. But a team's style stems from coaching in part, not just it's personnel. 

 

If you can't tell I really enjoyed those Kings teams, I was rooting for them against the Rangers in particular. They were a dominant team defensively, that was very much their identity and you don't see that too often from teams. Most teams try to do a bit of both, or lean more towards offense, the Kings really were an anomaly in their defense first approach. The league also seems to have moved away from that style of game more, the Boston team of that period also had similarities to those Kings teams. 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Coconuts

[Ghostsof1915]

For Shannon, he has the unpopular opinion that the Pacific Division isn't as bad as people say it is.

 

 

[Coconuts]

3 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

For Shannon, he has the unpopular opinion that the Pacific Division isn't as bad as people say it is.

 

 

I was touching on this earlier, it's really not. At a minimum there are four teams we likely have to jockey with in Calgary, Edmonton, LA, and Vegas. Anaheim made some interesting additions and can't be counted out with Gibson in net. San Jose is in no man's land but can still take points off every other team in the division. Seattle's the really interesting team though imo, it might be too early to call them a divisional dark horse but I could see it. If you actually look at their roster they've got a solid collection of top 7 options if you include their two first round prospects. They've also got some solid role players in their forward group. If their D can hold their own and Grubauer can bounce back they might surprise, I'd expect them to look to try and strengthen their D over the next couple years. 

[Goal:thecup]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Yet. No and not really expecting them to (but happy to be surprised!). Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't "walk before they run," but the sentiment that simply making playoffs is an acceptable end goal, is asinine.

 

Let up? I've outright said he's a good second pair D and have been one of the few here defending him, and his contract, for years. Doesn't change that he's an ill fit in our top 4, given the rest of our personnel, and that his cap is preventing us from improving it.

 

Unless he re-signs for under $1.5m (doubtful IMO), he'd still be preventing us from improving the top 4.

I see what you are saying (and $2m AAV would be ok imo).

Personally (as you probably know by know, lol) I think Myers is good enough at 4D for this year and next.

 

Then RD3 at much lower contract that keeps the big, tough, character guy that wants to be here, here.

Not worth shaking the lineup up, imo, imo, imo (wtf w/the echo in here)?

 

[Googlie]

17 hours ago, Kuzy said:

Genuinely curious, and I'm all for it, are there many (or any) female refs in pro hockey? Not something I've really thought about but I've never heard of one so...

Last season there were 7 female referees and 3 linesmen (linespersons?) in the AHL

 

https://theahl.com/ahl-staff-female-officials

 

 

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

I think overall when I think of defense, it has to be an overall cohesive group to have success.

 

The team defense (from the dmen to the forwards) needs to be better. Defense is not solely on the 6 defensemen, the forwards need to be better. Too many times, saw a lot of the forwards such as Miller, Horvat, Boeser etc cheat defensively to get offensive looks. The forwards would leave the zone that created too far a gap for the dmen to make passes and led to stretch passes being picked off and a lot of turn overs. Get the forwards to help buy in better, the defensemen won't be stretched out so thinly in their own end. 

 

Personnel helps yes, but sometimes you just need the right pieces who will buy into the system and their roles on the team, don't necessarily need an all-star cast to fill the d-core.

 

 

 

 

Funny given your handle.  Naslund and Bertuzzi both did the same thing all the time.  So guess you remember this.    And i agree with you.   That said please no more five man box either.   If you can't have at least one guy back to press their attack it's ... terrible to watch. 

[Goal:thecup]

The Goal Is To Win The Stanley Cup.

(This year, and every year hereafter.)

 

To Make The Playoffs Is A Goal Needed To Advance Towards The Goal.

(You need to make the playoffs every year.)

 

Nobody wants a, 'blow it up, tear it down, wallow in the weeds for picks' for years (loser) kind of team.

And I doubt anybody real here wants that anyway; we had a team that lost all the time (without trying to bottom out) and it was difficult to watch the team play so poorly.

 

We want the excitement of a winning team, right now!

Last night, in fact; our kids beat the Flames' kids; and our tender let in zero goals; and it was a lot of fun watching 'Canucks' play well; and WIN.

 

[Elias Pettersson]

8 hours ago, EP Phone Home said:

We already have a team in this city that’s just content with making the playoffs in The Whitecaps. The difference is that this team has been in the league for 53 years instead of 11 years.

 

 

Long time fans are sick of hearing “just make the playoffs” if some fans are just content with making the dance then perhaps cheering for the Kraken,CBJ and the Coyotes would suit your expectations a bit better.
 

 

 

I’m at the age now I question if I’ll ever see the Canuck win a cup, so pardon my post for sounding a bit prickly but I start shouting at clouds when I hear people just talking about making the playoffs not a cup win. 

The Vancouver Whitecaps have won more championships than the Vancouver Canucks. 

[VanCan2023]

26 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I largely disagree, though I thing some of your comparisons might not be far off. I'm not freaking out but I'll explain my rational. 

 

I can maybe see the Hughes and Doughty comp if Hughes takes steps forward defensively which I think is absolutely doable, I can see the Quick and Demko comp. Bo and Richards? Bo's a faceoff ace and he can maybe hit similar totals but he's no Richards defensively. He holds his own though, absolutely. I don't think we have the equivalent of a Kopitar, even between the two. Kopitar is a unicorn, one of my favourite players of the past decade honestly. But that's fine, depending on how management builds the team going forward maybe we get away with not having that. 

 

The key to your whole post though is Sutter coaching, those Kings teams were tough and ground you down. I can't find it, I wish I could, but I remember reading about an NHL player commenting on those Kings teams. During the first half of the 2010's they were really something unique, said player made reference to how that entire team played like third and fourth liners. They just came at you in waves and ground you down. They were a defense first team, it was their bread and butter, I wouldn't say that's the case about the roster we've got. Which isn't to say they shouldn't be capable of playing good defense. Unless we witness a significant culture change I just don't see that LA grit infused game from our group though, that's a tough thing to replicate. They had the roster to play the game they played, I question whether our current lineup is capable of it. People can knock Sutter all they want but up until the Kings tuned him out he had complete buy in over in LA, similar to what we saw in Calgary last season.

 

Coaching is a big one, we're coached by a guy who's historically coached an up-tempo, offensively oriented game. He's a great coach, he's coached some really good teams, but he's not Sutter. I expect we'll perform better defensively out of the gate but I expect the emphasis to still be on offense as opposed to more of a counter-attack, grindy style game. Bruce's philosophy seems to lean more towards the best defense is a strong offense, which is fine as every team has it's own style. But a team's style stems from coaching in part, not just it's personnel. 

 

If you can't tell I really enjoyed those Kings teams, I was rooting for them against the Rangers in particular. They were a dominant team defensively, that was very much their identity and you don't see that too often from teams. Most teams try to do a bit of both, or lean more towards offense, the Kings really were an anomaly in their defense first approach. The league also seems to have moved away from that style of game more, the Boston team of that period also had similarities to those Kings teams. 

Very much agree about those Kings teams. Can't remember which cup, but what did they lose 3 games all playoffs? Probably could have gave any Team Canada all they can take. The team knew what they had and let the top tier conference teams beat the hell out of each other for the "advantage" of home ice. Just need to sneak in healthy with everyone on board ready and willing to do whatever it takes and you never know.

[Elias Pettersson]

5 hours ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

I get that Jim. I was just posing a solution to the poster. I think the question is, are you better getting a $5,000,000 2nd pairing, rather than a $7,500,000 1st pairing Dman?

 

Personally, I think that there are ways to reduce the cost, but they all cost something, aka, a pick or a player, etc. I mean you could even have a 3rd party come in and take a million cap for a pick, etc....................

 

I mean Jones for a 6.5 to 7.5 cap hit, is not a bad thing is it?

The problem though is that we already have 2 defencmen making $7.5 million. So not sure we can afford a 3rd one at that price point. I think $5 to $6 million maximum is our budget for another to 4 Dman unless we are able to get rid of most of our deadweight. 

[JM_]

55 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I largely disagree, though I thing some of your comparisons might not be far off. I'm not freaking out but I'll explain my rational. 

 

I can maybe see the Hughes and Doughty comp if Hughes takes steps forward defensively which I think is absolutely doable, I can see the Quick and Demko comp. Bo and Richards? Bo's a faceoff ace and he can maybe hit similar totals but he's no Richards defensively. He holds his own though, absolutely. I don't think we have the equivalent of a Kopitar, even between the two. Kopitar is a unicorn, one of my favourite players of the past decade honestly. But that's fine, depending on how management builds the team going forward maybe we get away with not having that. 

 

The key to your whole post though is Sutter coaching, those Kings teams were tough and ground you down. I can't find it, I wish I could, but I remember reading about an NHL player commenting on those Kings teams. During the first half of the 2010's they were really something unique, said player made reference to how that entire team played like third and fourth liners. They just came at you in waves and ground you down. They were a defense first team, it was their bread and butter, I wouldn't say that's the case about the roster we've got. Which isn't to say they shouldn't be capable of playing good defense. Unless we witness a significant culture change I just don't see that LA grit infused game from our group though, that's a tough thing to replicate. They had the roster to play the game they played, I question whether our current lineup is capable of it. People can knock Sutter all they want but up until the Kings tuned him out he had complete buy in over in LA, similar to what we saw in Calgary last season.

 

Coaching is a big one, we're coached by a guy who's historically coached an up-tempo, offensively oriented game. He's a great coach, he's coached some really good teams, but he's not Sutter. I expect we'll perform better defensively out of the gate but I expect the emphasis to still be on offense as opposed to more of a counter-attack, grindy style game. Bruce's philosophy seems to lean more towards the best defense is a strong offense, which is fine as every team has it's own style. But a team's style stems from coaching in part, not just it's personnel. 

 

If you can't tell I really enjoyed those Kings teams, I was rooting for them against the Rangers in particular. They were a dominant team defensively, that was very much their identity and you don't see that too often from teams. Most teams try to do a bit of both, or lean more towards offense, the Kings really were an anomaly in their defense first approach. The league also seems to have moved away from that style of game more, the Boston team of that period also had similarities to those Kings teams. 

thats a great response, thanks.

 

The difference for us will be coaching for sure. Sutter dominated via a suffocating defence and grinding. I think Bruce can wear teams out in a different way, more through using our C depth, speed and forechecking we have now. So as you say through a stronger offence.

 

I'm not under any illusions that we're in the same level defensively as that team, but we do have the potential to run four lines that can hold their own and push the pace of the game, and we should be a much more higher scoring team.

 

The comp for me is more about the number of key pieces a team needs to have to be successful, those LA teams were not star packed, like Tampa e.g.

 

I do think buy in is another important point. Sutter is good at that, but so is Bruce, he seems to be an excellent communicator that the guys trust. 

 

So I see some parallels from this pov.