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

FINAL Canucks "Top DAWG" Report under Tocchet - Just released.

Rate this topic


RU SERIOUS

Recommended Posts

Here's the link ( Tocchet’s top-DAWGs: The Vancouver Canucks’ DAWG ratings under head coach Rick Tocchet (msn.com) to the Final Report showing just who the Top & Bottom DAWGs were for the Canucks in the final 36 games of the season under Tocchet.

 

No surprise who the TOP DAWGS were under Tocchet;

Forwards: Joshua & Miller

Defense: Burroughs & Schenn 

 

....and of course who the obvious BOTTOM DAWGS were under Tocchet:

Forwards: Boeser & Horvat

Defense: Still-Man & OEL

 

 

 

 

Edited by RU SERIOUS
typo
  • Thanks 2
  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think tocchet playing joshua with pettersson and kuzmenko and burroughs with hughes, spoke volumes as to the type of players this team needs to be successful.  MR. T wants more grit and speed. MR. A can't get any of those type of players without moving some contracts off the team. catch 22.

  • Like 2
  • Cheers 1
  • There it is 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

This rating system makes little sense. We don’t need a DAWG rating to see Hughes is brilliant and OEL struggled badly. 

It's simply another perspective on players performance but backs-up general opinions and re-confirms who is working well with Tock-It's methods and who needed/needs to be removed from this roster. 

 

When you look at the results - there's really not a whole lot to argue with, as I suspect most "Normal" Canuck fans can agree that OEL & Boeser (for instance) really don't "Fit-In" on a Tock-It Type/Systems structured team - where you have to at least "show-up" every night.

Edited by RU SERIOUS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are taking it too seriously. 
It is a statistical model created for fun to measure the “intangibles” that don’t show up in traditional or advanced stats. 
Like any stat you take it for what it is. It doesn’t say that he is a better player or not. 
 

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

Here's the link ( Tocchet’s top-DAWGs: The Vancouver Canucks’ DAWG ratings under head coach Rick Tocchet (msn.com) to the Final Report showing just who the Top & Bottom DAWGs were for the Canucks in the final 36 games of the season under Tocchet.

 

No surprise who the TOP DAWGS were under Tocchet;

Forwards: Joshua & Miller

Defense: Burroughs & Schenn 

 

....and of course who the obvious BOTTOM DAWGS were under Tocchet:

Forwards: Boeser & Horvat

Defense: Still-Man & OEL

 

 

 

 

Here's the thing... this model doesn't explain why Boeser started to play much better hockey under Tocchet.

  • Cheers 2
  • There it is 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

No surprise that they've already purged two of the four bottom Dawg's and the other two are high-up on most "Normal" Canucks fans "Wish List" to go next!

Yeah it's not really news but Garland as well, I like him but he's inconsistent and on the smaller side when we need to get bigger and tougher which I'm a fan of, the game the other night was a classic case of post season brutality, FLA and Boston and it's something most people forget, soft teams gets smoked as we of all franchises should know..

 Idk about you but it way past old, get us some depth along with the 2011/12 roster and we'd at least have a better shot of actually getting somewhere. All those long term contracts by MG handcuffed us for years and years! Glad to be back on the right side of things and actually actually be able to finish building a roster with depth... Wow, hard to fathom! We've never once even had a team with depth.  

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alflives said:

This rating system makes little sense. We don’t need a DAWG rating to see Hughes is brilliant and OEL struggled badly. 

Kuzmenko wasn't much above Boeser. The top d-men were Burroughs, Schenn, Juulsen and Bear, while Hughes was just above Wolanin and Rathbone. Garland ranked higher than Hughes. Not sure what that says about the formula in regards to quality of player.

  • Cheers 1
  • There it is 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

You guys are taking it too seriously. 
It is a statistical model created for fun to measure the “intangibles” that don’t show up in traditional or advanced stats. 
Like any stat you take it for what it is. It doesn’t say that he is a better player or not. 
 

You realize you're being too honest for some of the one dimensional patrons of this forum.   Being correct will get you no-where with "SOME" people !:)  

  • Tanks a lot 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Yeah it's not really news but Garland as well, I like him but he's inconsistent and on the smaller side when we need to get bigger and tougher which I'm a fan of, the game the other night was a classic case of post season brutality, FLA and Boston and it's something most people forget, soft teams gets smoked as we of all franchises should know..

 Idk about you but it way past old, get us some depth along with the 2011/12 roster and we'd at least have a better shot of actually getting somewhere. All those long term contracts by MG handcuffed us for years and years! Glad to be back on the right side of things and actually actually be able to finish building a roster with depth... Wow, hard to fathom! We've never once even had a team with depth.  

Yes, things could be worse like when MG departed and left us with 11 or 13 NTC's - if memory serves me correctly - and I agree 100%, that after watching several 1st Rd. playoff games that our soft Euro-Centric Team of Regular-Season Finesse Kittens would be torn to shreds in 1 - perhaps 2 games flat.   

 

I can barely count on one hand the number of players on our team with any inherent "Fire in the Belly" that is essential to survive round after punishing round of playoff hockey.    It's been too long since any players on our team have faced real adversity and highly physical play - having only played one year of playoff hockey in the last 7 or 8 years (and will be close to a decade next year if we actually make the playoffs) and so they've become a bunch of small, slow & soft - spring time golfers. 

 

Even JR eventually couldn't deny and hide the facts and broke down a few months back - finally admitting openly that he needed to get this team built Bigger, Faster and Grittier so we'd have some sort of chance of getting out of the basement of the league - which hopefully Tock-It can assist with too.

Edited by RU SERIOUS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Here's the thing... this model doesn't explain why Boeser started to play much better hockey under Tocchet.

No model explains why Boeser was living in a fog after his father died or predicted when he started to come out of it.

 

 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Yeah it's not really news but Garland as well, I like him but he's inconsistent and on the smaller side when we need to get bigger and tougher which I'm a fan of, the game the other night was a classic case of post season brutality, FLA and Boston and it's something most people forget, soft teams gets smoked as we of all franchises should know..

 Idk about you but it way past old, get us some depth along with the 2011/12 roster and we'd at least have a better shot of actually getting somewhere. All those long term contracts by MG handcuffed us for years and years! Glad to be back on the right side of things and actually actually be able to finish building a roster with depth... Wow, hard to fathom! We've never once even had a team with depth.  

You're right.  They can have highly skilled small guys but if they do, they've got to have bigger, tougher support players.  So Garland (5-10, 165) and Beauvillier (5-11, 182) and all the other smurfs can move along.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...