Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel
It's funny that you neglect to mention those teams were also better than the Canucks. It's also funny that you neglect to mention the biggest, most physical team in the West went out in 4 games to the Hawks.
I take it you're totally oblivious to the fact those teams the Canucks lost to also had Chris Pronger, Scott Niedermayer, Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook - 3 Norris winners and an excellent top pairing defensemen.
The funniest part is you cry into everone's beer on a daily basis about adding more size and physicality than complain about the price the Canucks pay to address these voids in the lineup. It's like you're just finding out now these types of players are the most overpriced assets in the NHL.
The problem isn't the Canucks refuse to draft players with size and physicality - the problem is none of the guys they do pick that posess these traits ever seem to develop into impact players in the NHL. They're just a very difficult breed of player to accumulate.
In your opinion why did the Hawks move their 3 biggest, baddest forwards and hold on to a handful of small, softer players that make similar money?
|
Drop the Sopel:
Serious question- How tall are you, 5'8"?
No doubt you are correct in your assessment that our defense was poor (mush of that due to injury, but most of it due to a lack of balance and missing a #1 guy).
At this stage, however, Gillis has said that we need to get BIGGER. Equally, Gillis has said that we needed to change the type of players that we have surrounding our core top 6 forwards. There can be no doubt that we have been run out of the building, injured and worn down by a bigger, meaner Hawks team 2 years in a row. We had no push back. That push back can come in several ways: experience, composure, etc. or by using tougher and grittier guys. Size DOES MATTER. It isn't everything, for certain, but it is something we needed to add.
We are better on defence. Frankly, I am not sure we are better by enough and I am still concerned about a lack of balance (RHanded contributing defensemen).
I am not sure Gillis has addressed getting tougher in our bottom 6 at this point. And that is a bigger concern. He has added bigger bodies but they may not be ones who can actually play. The Armstrong/Ladd (even Eager) or other level James Neal/Backes types are needed here. If we can't get them, we need the next best thing, but we need some gritty pushback guys who don't hurt us in our end.
As for your question as to why Chicago dropped the big guys and kept the little ones, who are the little ones they kept (one- Kane). The reason, Kane is better than the others- he has special qualities. But he also dumped a little Versteeg. He kept his top players, and some of them are physical and gritty monsters. He moved the next level down because he had to. And now we await the result of this Chicago "rebuild"