HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Vancouver Canucks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Luongo Thread - Scorcher 6: Global Meltdown (Mod Warning Post # 694) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1248751)

Mr. Canucklehead 08-19-2012 05:49 PM

Luongo Thread - Scorcher 6: Global Meltdown (Mod Warning Post # 694)
 
Continue.

Shareefruck 08-19-2012 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel
As of right now it looks like Chris Higgins will be in the top 6. He's been the best compliment to Kesler and helps cover for Booth's defensive deficiencies. And if Higgins is struggling or injured than Jannik Hansen probably takes his place.

I just think it's a bit premature to assume Schroeder, a player with zero NHL games under his belt will be ready to excel in a 3rd line role. Normally when breaking in a young player it's best to have them used sparingly as an injury replacement IMO and go from there. Unfortunately the Canucks couldn't find a way to get Schroeder a look last season - it would have given us a better idea where he's at.

If there's a legitimate top 6 talent like Kris Versteeg that the Canucks could pry away in a Luongo deal, I'm all for it. Unfortunately Florida is already very thin on talent up front and there don't appear to be many good fits out of Chicago or Toronto.

The Canucks still have 2 glaring holes up front IMO. If Luongo can be used to fill one of them, while adding some quality youth or picks we're a better team for it. There's still other assets that could be moved to address needs, likely at or near the deadline.

What we were debating is which line hurts us more.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Kassian - Kesler - Booth or
Higgins - Schroeder - Hansen

Malhotra - Lapierre - Weise

If we chose "give Schroeder a shot and get a top 6 guy", then that assumes Higgins will be on the 3rd line. If we choose "give Kassian a shot and get a 3rd line center", that still assumes that Higgins will be on the 3rd line as well.

Yes, if Higgins is going to be on the second line, Schroeder will have problems on the 3rd, but then what does that have to do with giving Kassian a shot on the second line?

Another argument, in my mind, is that if you give Schroeder a shot, Kassian still makes our 4th line so much better. If you give Kassian a shot, the 4th line is the same trainwreck it always is, and we lose whatever Schroeder would have been able to bring. We're not going to be able to fill all our holes with proven guys, so you may as well take advantage of everything you have.

Scurr 08-19-2012 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53705717)
If we chose "give Schroeder a shot and get a top 6 guy", then that assumes Higgins will be on the 3rd line. If we choose "give Kassian a shot and get a 3rd line center", that still assumes that Higgins will be on the 3rd line as well.

If Kassian isn't ready for a top 6 winger spot we still have Higgins, Hansen and Raymond to compete for the spot. If Schroeder isn't ready, we have Lapierre, Malhotra and Ebbett. Considering that Higgins, Hansen and Raymond have all scored at a second line clip in the past and none of Lapierre, Malhotra or Ebbett have scored at a 3rd line clip, I think it's safe to say that Kassian is the more reasonable gamble. Also Kassian is the much better prospect.

Drop the Sopel 08-19-2012 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53705717)
What we were debating is which line hurts us more.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Kassian - Kesler - Booth or
Higgins - Schroeder - Hansen

Malhotra - Lapierre - Weise

If we chose "give Schroeder a shot and get a top 6 guy", then that assumes Higgins will be on the 3rd line. If we choose "give Kassian a shot and get a 3rd line center", that still assumes that Higgins will be on the 3rd line as well.

It doesn't make sense to use Higgins on the 2nd line to evaluate anything, because then the scenarios are unbalanced.

The problem is we have no idea how Schroeder will fare. Which could leave Lapierre as the 3rd line centre. IMO having Lapierre and last years Malhotra occupying both bottom 6 centre positions will hurt us just as much as having Kesler and Booth lined up with one of Higgins, Hansen, Kassian or Raymond...

I agree that getting a bonafide top 6 talent in return for Luongo would be more beneficial than adding a guy like Goc. I just question whether that top 6 forward is available - not to mention Goc would likely come with a good prospect and possibly a high pick, whereas a top 6 forward may not come with any other valuable assets...

But what if it came down to a choice between Clarke MacArthur/Nik Kulemin or Marcel Goc as the main roster player coming back? In this instance, Goc could very well provide the biggest impact IMO.

Vankiller Whale 08-19-2012 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53705717)
What we were debating is which line hurts us more.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Kassian - Kesler - Booth or
Higgins - Schroeder - Hansen

Malhotra - Lapierre - Weise

If we chose "give Schroeder a shot and get a top 6 guy", then that assumes Higgins will be on the 3rd line. If we choose "give Kassian a shot and get a 3rd line center", that still assumes that Higgins will be on the 3rd line as well.

Yes, if Higgins is going to be on the second line, Schroeder will have problems on the 3rd, but then what does that have to do with giving Kassian a shot on the second line?

Another argument, in my mind, is that if you give Schroeder a shot, Kassian still makes our 4th line so much better. If you give Kassian a shot, the 4th line is the same trainwreck it always is, and we lose whatever Schroeder would have been able to bring.

As of now I want:

Sedin-Sedin-Kassian
Booth-Schroeder-Burrows
Higgins-Malhotra-Raymond
Hansen-Lapierre Weise

to start, and end up with

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Booth-Kesler-Kassian/Raymond
Higgins-Schroeder-Hansen
Lapierre-Malhotra-Kassian/Raymond

Hopefully one of Kassian/Raymond will be able to handle 2nd line duties by the time Kesler returns.

Shareefruck 08-19-2012 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 53705875)
If Kassian isn't ready for a top 6 winger spot we still have Higgins, Hansen and Raymond to compete for the spot. If Schroeder isn't ready, we have Lapierre, Malhotra and Ebbett. Considering that Higgins, Hansen and Raymond have all scored at a second line clip in the past and none of Lapierre, Malhotra or Ebbett have scored at a 3rd line clip, I think it's safe to say that Kassian is the more reasonable gamble.

But like I said, it isn't just about the point production of that one guy, but rather how the entire line will perform.

IMO, the only second line combination that would conceivably work out well if Kassian falters is Higgins - Kesler - Booth, whereas if Schroeder doesn't work out well, you've got Higgins - Lapierre - Hansen, Higgins - Malhotra - Hansen, both of which are fine 3rd lines.

The 3rd line has been fantastic last season, without the third line C being significantly better than anything we have now. The pieces that made it fantastic are still here, and are likely to help it continue to be fantastic.

The second line was awful last season, and we don't have anyone now that we didn't have then. The pieces that made it awful are still here, and we don't have anyone who are likely to change that.

opendoor 08-19-2012 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 53705243)
The Kings bottom 6 contributed 13 goals in 20 games, ours pitched in 9 in 25. That's pretty significant production, no?

Top 6 and bottom 6 are generally fluid over a playoff run. 3 of the Kings' bottom 6 goals were scored when those guys were playing in the top 6 (as was 1 of Hansen's). Conversely 2-3 of Higgins and Raymond's goals in 10-11 came when playing in the bottom 6. So it's hard to say where those goals exactly are coming from. Penner spent a fair bit of time in the bottom 6 with LA and was 8th among forwards in TOI/G, but he didn't generate a single goal outside the top 6.

That's why I focused on point production. Having 10 goals from a player on your 3rd line is great, but if you're only getting a goal out of each 2nd line winger then you're not further ahead. The Canucks top 4 point producers are reasonably in line with other teams, but after that there's a precipitous drop off and that drop off is the problem. By the time you get to the 7th-12th guys the difference is slight enough that's it's really not a huge issue in terms of offensive output.

If you account for what line the goals were scored from and throw in a goal or two from the 4th line (I doubt we'll ever see a 4th line with as pathetic production as the Canucks one had in 10-11) then I don't see the big deficit. That's not to say it's a huge strength for the Canucks, but I see the 2nd line being a bigger issue in the playoffs. Regular season they'll do well enough, but I'm not confident in any of the Canucks' wingers outside of Daniel or Burrows producing well in the playoffs.

The Canucks should look to improve their bottom 6 for sure, but I think they could win the cup with a 3rd line of Higgins-Lapierre-Hansen; I just don't see it happening with Booth and Raymond as the 2nd line wingers.

Scurr 08-19-2012 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53706025)
you've got Higgins - Lapierre - Hansen, Higgins - Malhotra - Hansen, both of which are fine 3rd lines.

Only if you don't care if that line scores or not, which is a real waste with those wingers imo.

Scurr 08-19-2012 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor (Post 53706057)
Top 6 and bottom 6 are generally fluid over a playoff run. 3 of the Kings' bottom 6 goals were scored when those guys were playing in the top 6 (as was 1 of Hansen's). Conversely 2-3 of Higgins and Raymond's goals in 10-11 came when playing in the bottom 6. So it's hard to say where those goals exactly are coming from. Penner spent a fair bit of time in the bottom 6 with LA and was 8th among forwards in TOI/G, but he didn't generate a single goal outside the top 6.

That still leaves our bottom 6 significantly outscored and it was an even wider margin vs. Boston where they had a third line of Ryder/Kelly/Peverly, Seguin

Comparing recent Canucks playoff scoring to 3+ years ago is useless, everyone scored more then, including the Canucks.

Shareefruck 08-19-2012 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 53706083)
Only if you don't care if that line scores or not, which is a real waste with those wingers imo.

Relative to a Raymond - Kesler - Booth line, who wouldn't be good at either? Yeah, I'd take that.

Shareefruck 08-19-2012 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor (Post 53706057)
Top 6 and bottom 6 are generally fluid over a playoff run. 3 of the Kings' bottom 6 goals were scored when those guys were playing in the top 6 (as was 1 of Hansen's). Conversely 2-3 of Higgins and Raymond's goals in 10-11 came when playing in the bottom 6. So it's hard to say where those goals exactly are coming from. Penner spent a fair bit of time in the bottom 6 with LA and was 8th among forwards in TOI/G, but he didn't generate a single goal outside the top 6.

That's why I focused on point production. Having 10 goals from a player on your 3rd line is great, but if you're only getting a goal out of each 2nd line winger then you're not further ahead. The Canucks top 4 point producers are reasonably in line with other teams, but after that there's a precipitous drop off and that drop off is the problem. By the time you get to the 7th-12th guys the difference is slight enough that's it's really not a huge issue in terms of offensive output.

If you account for what line the goals were scored from and throw in a goal or two from the 4th line (I doubt we'll ever see a 4th line with as pathetic production as the Canucks one had in 10-11) then I don't see the big deficit. That's not to say it's a huge strength for the Canucks, but I see the 2nd line being a bigger issue in the playoffs. Regular season they'll do well enough, but I'm not confident in any of the Canucks' wingers outside of Daniel or Burrows producing well in the playoffs.

The Canucks should look to improve their bottom 6 for sure, but I think they could win the cup with a 3rd line of Higgins-Lapierre-Hansen; I just don't see it happening with Booth and Raymond as the 2nd line wingers.

Definitely.

I'm very surprised that people still have so much confidence in that second line, and so little confidence in Higgins and Hansen.

Scurr 08-19-2012 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53706425)
Relative to a Raymond - Kesler - Booth line, who wouldn't be good at either? Yeah, I'd take that.

I don't understand this? Higgins/Lapierre, Malhotra/Hansen is a good third line because Booth/Kesler/Raymond is a bad 2nd line? I'm confused.

Scurr 08-19-2012 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53706517)
I'm very surprised that people still have so much confidence in that second line, and so little confidence in Higgins and Hansen.

That's not what I'm trying to say. My point is that Higgins is a better option as a 2nd line winger than Malhotra or Lapierre are as a 3rd line centre.

Shareefruck 08-19-2012 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 53706547)
I don't understand this? Higgins/Lapierre, Malhotra/Hansen is a good third line because Booth/Kesler/Raymond is a bad 2nd line? I'm confused.

Higgins - Lapierre - Hansen is a very solid 3rd line even if it isn't ideal. It's more than passable in the event that Schroeder falters. Raymond - Kesler - Booth isn't passable in the event that Kassian falters, IMO.

It's unlikely that we'll plug both holes via trade/free agency, so yes, considering that we'd need one of these guys to hopefully step up, the two lines being compared are directly related.

Shareefruck 08-19-2012 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 53706621)
That's not what I'm trying to say. My point is that Higgins is a better option as a 2nd line winger than Malhotra or Lapierre are as a 3rd line centre.

I was never really arguing against that-- my argument was strictly in the direction of guys who thought that Kassian deserved as much of a shot on the second line as Schroeder does on the 3rd.

I'd be fine with

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Higgins - Kesler - Booth
Raymond - Really strong 3rd liner who isn't Schroeder - Hansen
Malhotra - Lapierre - Kassian

as well. Then again, a speed line of Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen could potentially click.

Drop the Sopel 08-19-2012 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53706517)
I'm very surprised that people still have so much confidence in that second line, and so little confidence in Higgins and Hansen.

I don't think that's the case. Higgins and Hansen are both better than Booth and Raymond IMO. I don't think a 2nd line of Higgins, Kesler and Hansen looks that bad. Booth, Schroeder and Raymond however looks like a potential mess IMO.

IMO people are focusing too much on what looks best on paper without taking into account injuries and team depth. Especially when you consider Ryan Kesler has been healthy and performing well once in the past 4 playoffs. Look at our lineup without Kesler in it - it's putrid up the middle. Now take out a 1st or 2nd line winger and look at the roster... Much stronger IMO.

I just don't like the idea of hinging the entire season on the health of Ryan Kesler. If he goes down or is labouring through injury once again come playoff time we're done. Bring in a Marcel Goc or Dave Bolland that can step into that top 6 role and at least there's a fighting chance.

Al Swearengen 08-19-2012 06:59 PM

Delete

Shareefruck 08-19-2012 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 53705875)
If Kassian isn't ready for a top 6 winger spot we still have Higgins, Hansen and Raymond to compete for the spot. If Schroeder isn't ready, we have Lapierre, Malhotra and Ebbett. Considering that Higgins, Hansen and Raymond have all scored at a second line clip in the past and none of Lapierre, Malhotra or Ebbett have scored at a 3rd line clip, I think it's safe to say that Kassian is the more reasonable gamble. Also Kassian is the much better prospect.

The problem I have with this is that you're plucking Kassian backups from every line besides the first and you're plucking Schroeder backups from every line besides the first and second. Of course the latter's options are going to look worse.

You wouldn't say "if Schroeder falters, we'll just put Kesler there" because you're just filling that hole by creating a huge hole somewhere else. IMO, if you're including Higgins/Hansen as Kassian backups, you're doing the same.

Sure, Higgins/Hansen - Kesler - Booth in isolation would be better backups (of course, because they'd be improvements) in comparison to Higgins - Lapierre/Malhotra - Hansen, but it in reality, the former would hamstring the rest of the lines in a way that the latter wouldn't.

Vankiller Whale 08-19-2012 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53707141)
The problem I have with this is that you're plucking Kassian backups from every line besides the first and you're plucking Schroeder backups from every line besides the first and second. Of course the latter's options are going to look worse.

You wouldn't say "if Schroeder falters, we'll just put Kesler there" because you're just filling that hole by creating a huge hole somewhere else. IMO, if you're including Higgins/Hansen as Kassian backups, you're doing the same.

But Schroeder is more likely to falter that Kassian, imo.

Shareefruck 08-19-2012 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale (Post 53707281)
But Schroeder is more likely to falter that Kassian, imo.

Schroeder in a 3rd line role sheltered by great third line wingers vs. Kassian in a second line role picking up slack playing on a struggling second line who's never managed to find their groove? Really?

Would you at least agree that if they were equivalent players, (like, let's say Hodgson vs. Hodgson), it would be much easier to adapt to the game playing with Higgins and Hansen rather than Kesler and Booth? I think that far outweighs the likely gap between Kassian and Schroeder, personally.

In my opinion, Schroeder would just need to be ready to play at the NHL level in order to have success playing with Higgins and Hansen. Kassian would have to be ready to put up points and carry the bulk of the play with Kesler in order to have success playing with Kesler and Booth.

Don't get me wrong, I think Kassian is the better player in vacuum, but I don't think he's ready for the challenge of playing on our second line specifically.

Vankiller Whale 08-19-2012 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53707387)
Schroeder in a 3rd line role sheltered by great third line wingers vs. Kassian in a second line role picking up slack playing on a struggling second line who's never managed to find their groove? Really?

Would you at least agree that if they were equivalent players, (like, let's say Hodgson vs. Hodgson), it would be much easier to adapt to the game playing with Higgins and Hansen rather than Kesler and Booth? I think that far outweighs the likely gap between Kassian and Schroeder, personally.

Although one is undersized, may be put in a checking role, and has never played an NHL game before, while the other is a big sophomore who has already shown offensive flashes in his NHL play so far.

shortshorts 08-19-2012 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53707387)
Schroeder in a 3rd line role sheltered by great third line wingers vs. Kassian in a second line role picking up slack playing on a struggling second line who's never managed to find their groove? Really?

Would you at least agree that if they were equivalent players, (like, let's say Hodgson vs. Hodgson), it would be much easier to adapt to the game playing with Higgins and Hansen rather than Kesler and Booth? I think that far outweighs the likely gap between Kassian and Schroeder, personally.

The team will live or die with how Kesler plays. If Kesler is distributing the puck, we'll (Us, Kassian, Schroeder) succeed. If not, see everyone falter.

Scurr 08-19-2012 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53707141)
The problem I have with this is that you're plucking Kassian backups from every line besides the first and you're plucking Schroeder backups from every line besides the first and second. Of course the latter's options are going to look worse.

The options look worse because we have worse depth at centre. Moving Higgins or Hansen to the 2nd line leaves Raymond on the 3rd, I don't see a problem with that. He's a + offensively on the third line while Malhotra or Lapierre would be a - .

If the choice is add a top 6 winger or 3rd line centre then the choice is obvious. That doesn't mean that a really good 3rd line centre wouldn't be worth trading for or add considerably to the team.

Shareefruck 08-19-2012 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 53707521)
The options look worse because we have worse depth at centre. Moving Higgins or Hansen to the 2nd line leaves Raymond on the 3rd, I don't see a problem with that. He's a + offensively on the third line while Malhotra or Lapierre would be a - .

If the choice is add a top 6 winger or 3rd line centre then the choice is obvious. That doesn't mean that a really good 3rd line centre wouldn't be worth trading for or add considerably to the team.

Is it really though? Or does it just look that way because we just happen to rely on Kesler so much?

Sedin vs. Sedin vs. Burrows
Higgins vs. Kesler vs. Hansen
Raymond vs. Lapierre vs. Booth
Weise vs. Schroeder vs. Kassian
Volpatti vs. Malhotra vs. ??
?? vs. Ebbett vs. ??

Scurr 08-19-2012 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shareefruck (Post 53707739)
Is it really though? Or does it just look that way because we just happen to rely on Kesler so much?

Sedin vs. Sedin vs. Burrows
Higgins vs. Kesler vs. Hansen
Raymond vs. Lapierre vs. Booth
Weise vs. Schroeder vs. Kassian
Volpatti vs. Malhotra vs. ??
?? vs. Ebbett vs. ??

Raymond and Booth both have a history of producing at a 2nd line rate. Lapierre is a 3/4 tweener at best.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.