Ehrhoff spent a lot of time on the bottom pair with O'Brien that first year. It doesn't matter where you play in the lineup, or what style you play, no good team is going to let you go out there and play a high risk game. Ehrhoff didn't. The problem with Ballard is he played on bad teams that put up with it.
Hoff has a flat out better hockey IQ than Ballard, though. It's a reason why Ballard works well with Tanev but not so much with Rome or Alberts. When you have a guy who plays on instincts you want a cerebral player complimenting him (i.e. Bieksa-Hamhuis).
Not that Ballard and Ehrhoff are just "different types" - Hoff is by all accounts the better player - but some players compliment others better than others.
Hoff has a flat out better hockey IQ than Ballard, though.
If Ballard can't figure out how to play the way our coaches want he's never going to be effective. All this talk about him not fitting our system is B.S., the Canucks are asking him to do what he needs to do to be a good player. Gap control, positioning, puck management etc. aren't optional on a good team.
Keith Ballard is just not a very good hockey player, and this isn't going to change. He's been crap for 3 straight years and isn't just going to magically flick a switch and turn into something decent.
Positionally mediocre, always chasing and reacting to the play instead of being in control. And doesn't contribute offensively because he's such a poor passer of the puck.
Basically he can skate pretty well and occasionally have a rush that looks nice. Other than that, he's a mediocre #6 defender. $800k player making $4.2 million.
Keith Ballard is just not a very good hockey player, and this isn't going to change. He's been crap for 3 straight years and isn't just going to magically flick a switch and turn into something decent.
Positionally mediocre, always chasing and reacting to the play instead of being in control. And doesn't contribute offensively because he's such a poor passer of the puck.
Basically he can skate pretty well and occasionally have a rush that looks nice. Other than that, he's a mediocre #6 defender. $800k player making $4.2 million.
Were you one of the people claiming Bieksa would be addition by subtraction a few years ago?
What MS said. What I would like to know is when people say AV misuses or has some weird vendetta against Ballard, if they can qualify that at all.
He just isn't a very good defenseman in ANY system. It boggles the mind how hard posters are on some players for no apparent reason yet after a long period of mediocre or bad defending for our team Ballard still gets a pass.
Were you one of the people claiming Bieksa would be addition by subtraction a few years ago?
Yup. Not going to deny that.
And just because Bieksa had an absolutely miraculous turnaround (thanks, Hamhuis) doesn't mean Ballard will.
Just as the fact that Alex Burrows went from the ECHL to NHL 35-goal scorer doesn't mean that Anthony and Archibald will do so, also.
Bieksa is an utterly bizarre case. Spent 3 seasons as statistically the worst top-4 defender in the NHL and then immediately did a 180 when paired with Hamhuis. But at least in Bieksa's case he always had spurts of excellent play surrounded by much larger spurts of dire play. Ballard is just consistently a 4/10.
And just because Bieksa had an absolutely miraculous turnaround (thanks, Hamhuis) doesn't mean Ballard will.
Just as the fact that Alex Burrows went from the ECHL to NHL 35-goal scorer doesn't mean that Anthony and Archibald will do so, also.
Bieksa is an utterly bizarre case. Spent 3 seasons as statistically the worst top-4 defender in the NHL and then immediately did a 180 when paired with Hamhuis. But at least in Bieksa's case he always had spurts of excellent play surrounded by much larger spurts of dire play. Ballard is just consistently a 4/10.
What stat(s) are you looking at?
I don't know that people appreciate the slim margin of error for an NHL defensemen. The difference between hero and goat can be one play. It's not like Ballard is a train wreck every shift or he doesn't have the talent to play in the league. A lot like Bieksa a few years ago, he tends to make one terrible play a game. If he develops the habits that the coaching staff is asking him to, not only can he avoid that one big mistake, he'll start making a great play every game or two.
Bieksa isn't a bizarre case, he was never as bad as people said he was. Same goes for Ballard.
What MS said. What I would like to know is when people say AV misuses or has some weird vendetta against Ballard, if they can qualify that at all.
He just isn't a very good defenseman in ANY system. It boggles the mind how hard posters are on some players for no apparent reason yet after a long period of mediocre or bad defending for our team Ballard still gets a pass.
But he was a good defenseman in Phoenix and Florida. Good enough to convince Florida to make him the key piece in their Oli Jokinen trade (when Jokinen was still a legit star center), and again for Mike Gillis to give up a 1st rounder + extra's for him.
It's circumstantial evidence vs people's personal scouting opinion from his time in a Canucks jersey. Personally I'm not one that trusts the eye here, calling him nothing more than a $700k 6th/7th dman doesn't explain why he was so much more before he got here.
What MS said. What I would like to know is when people say AV misuses or has some weird vendetta against Ballard, if they can qualify that at all.
He just isn't a very good defenseman in ANY system. It boggles the mind how hard posters are on some players for no apparent reason yet after a long period of mediocre or bad defending for our team Ballard still gets a pass.
Why blame AV? Again, the blame should go to Bowness. He's the guy in charge of the blueline. He was the guy that you hoped would know what Ballard can or cannot do given his prior experience coaching him.
It's crazy to think about how such a small thing - slightly overrating Keith Ballard's utility - led to such a misfire for this franchise - dumping a first and Grabner and Mitchell who then goes to LA and became a huge part of their Cup win.
Not blaming Gillis for this by any means, it's just bizarre to see what an effect it had.
Why blame AV? Again, the blame should go to Bowness. He's the guy in charge of the blueline. He was the guy that you hoped would know what Ballard can or cannot do given his prior experience coaching him.
Ballard can do everything the Canucks want, that's not the problem. He doesn't lack talent. Unfortunately because of injury and his lack of confidence it hasn't come as fast as people expected. That does not mean it's not going to happen.
It's crazy to think about how such a small thing - slightly overrating Keith Ballard's utility - led to such a misfire for this franchise - dumping a first and Grabner and Mitchell who then goes to LA and became a huge part of their Cup win.
Not blaming Gillis for this by any means, it's just bizarre to see what an effect it had.
I'm pretty sure the idea to move away from Mitchell and to Ballard was due to a few things, the Canucks had doubts on Mitchell's recovery from the Malkin hit which left him with a quite bad concussion, while also demanding a 2 year deal. Not mention Mitchell was not fitting into the skating defence Gillis had been putting together.
Ballard on the other hand already carried a long term contract, was known to have a physical edge to his game, and was a proven skating Dman who liked to carry the puck.
I honestly like what Ballard brings to the table, beyond Bieksa; Ballard is our second most physical defenceman. The two are similar in many aspects of the game and I believe Ballard to really be able to grab another gear as shown by his performance last spring. Also throughout the Run to the Finals he was a consistent physical force from the back end. The hip check on Jamie McGinn still makes my spine tingle, the guy can flat out throw the hip and doesn't shy away from dropping the gloves.
I'm pretty sure the idea to move away from Mitchell and to Ballard was due to a few things, the Canucks had doubts on Mitchell's recovery from the Malkin hit which left him with a quite bad concussion, while also demanding a 2 year deal. Not mention Mitchell was not fitting into the skating defence Gillis had been putting together.
Ballard on the other hand already carried a long term contract, was known to have a physical edge to his game, and was a proven skating Dman who liked to carry the puck.
It's not surprising that the first two major free agent defensemen Gillis acquired had a history of not getting injured given our problems of maintaining a healthy blueline.
Course, just typical 'Canuck-luck'; these two guys promptly miss a big chunk of games their first years as a Canuck.
It's not surprising that the first two major free agent defensemen Gillis acquired had a history of not getting injured given our problems of maintaining a healthy blueline.
Course, just typical 'Canuck-luck'; these two guys promptly miss a big chunk of games their first years as a Canuck.
Ballard was coming off of hip surgery the summer we traded for him. But then he gets a concussion then that weird knee twist that should have left him a gimp. I still think he can play, he has the tools.
