HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Do we need a game breaker?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-14-2012, 12:05 AM
  #26
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
His back gave out after largely shutting does Toews in the Hawks series and carrying the team past the Preds. Last year, he clearly wasn't 100% in the post-season - and his performance reflected that. He's not that offensively gifted to center a "helicopter line" ala Pat LaFontaine (eg., no wings). Give him a legitimate playmaking winger & watch what happens.
You make it sound like I'm against Kesler. I've been waiting for another forward to take this team to the cup.

shortshorts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:12 AM
  #27
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Canuck View Post
If we didn't have game breakers, we wouldn't be a Stanley Cup contending team.
We do have game breakers. Kesler (when he's healthy and not playing by himself), and the Sedins. However, it seems like they are not the consistent game breaker as to what the OP is suggesting to obtain.

Kesler carried us through the Nashville series, the Sedins carried us through the others. (I am not going to argue with anyone whether they believe this to be true or not.)

However, as evident through last year and the end of the year before, is that we don't have the sufficient secondary offense to supplement when the Sedin's get smothered and when Kesler is inevitably injured.

I am never going to agree with Burrows being a "game breaker". He's a great 50point two way forward and nothing more.

There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I am arguing that we don't need more "game breakers". It would be nice, but it is much easier and much more economic to obtain another top 6 forward.


Last edited by shortshorts: 11-14-2012 at 12:26 PM.
shortshorts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:15 AM
  #28
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,611
vCash: 50
Game breakers come on defense, too. Imagine Pronger or Weber on the back end during virtually any playoff series in the last three years.

Whats really an ongoing irritant for me is Gillis poo-pooing the conventional wisdom and posing as the innovator. Great! He invented the regular season champions, a dynasty! That's like being lord of the gym or best team on paper. Lame.

Gillis is not a killer. He does not have the instinct. He did not display it on the ice and he has not displayed it in the boardroom. Quite the opposite, in fact! Gillis wants to be cerebral man in a physical world, imposing his thoughts on the actions of others. A problem that has developed is that other teams do not really give a damn what Gillis thinks. The league doesn't either.

If Gillis was a bit more bloodthirsty I imagine the Canucks would have had thier cup by now. If, three years ago, he'd sold the future and augmented the Olympic year Road Warriors they might have done it, except that Gillis refuses to employ a goon or even a tough guy. This might work in other ventures, but NHL playoffs are a primitive affair, devoid of rules or policing. Playoffs are a type of battle, won the hard way, by fighting.

Gillis cannot understand this. Vignault does not preach this. The team's leaders do not play this way. The team is not built for it.

Would a gamebreaker help? Sure, if he became the new leader. If he waded in and showed the team how to battle and led by example, then yes, it would help.

This window has closed, though. The players might still be competitive and may even win another President's Trophy, but the thinking behind the team is faulty. There won't be a change, either, as evidenced by Vignault's new contract and the outright failure of Gillis to captitalize on the recent trade climate. Where was the Weber offer? Where was the unrefuseable offer for Nash?

Like the league realizing too late that Bettman is a major mistake, the Canucks will eventually realize that Gillis isn't the guy. That is not going to happen soon enough for this core group, though. It's already kind of too late.

JuniorNelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:15 AM
  #29
PG Canuck
Global Moderator
 
PG Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,502
vCash: 1512
I'd rather have a 3rd line that has a good C and can provide offense while taking pressure off the top 6. You don't always need a gamebreaker IMO. I'm big on depth, and think depth is every bit just as important as a gamebreaker. A gamebreaker is one player, but depth can be 3-5 players that are essential to winning games as well.

PG Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:29 AM
  #30
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,522
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
Game breakers come on defense, too. Imagine Pronger or Weber on the back end during virtually any playoff series in the last three years.

Whats really an ongoing irritant for me is Gillis poo-pooing the conventional wisdom and posing as the innovator. Great! He invented the regular season champions, a dynasty! That's like being lord of the gym or best team on paper. Lame.

Gillis is not a killer. He does not have the instinct. He did not display it on the ice and he has not displayed it in the boardroom. Quite the opposite, in fact! Gillis wants to be cerebral man in a physical world, imposing his thoughts on the actions of others. A problem that has developed is that other teams do not really give a damn what Gillis thinks. The league doesn't either.

If Gillis was a bit more bloodthirsty I imagine the Canucks would have had thier cup by now. If, three years ago, he'd sold the future and augmented the Olympic year Road Warriors they might have done it, except that Gillis refuses to employ a goon or even a tough guy. This might work in other ventures, but NHL playoffs are a primitive affair, devoid of rules or policing. Playoffs are a type of battle, won the hard way, by fighting.

Gillis cannot understand this. Vignault does not preach this. The team's leaders do not play this way. The team is not built for it.

Would a gamebreaker help? Sure, if he became the new leader. If he waded in and showed the team how to battle and led by example, then yes, it would help.

This window has closed, though. The players might still be competitive and may even win another President's Trophy, but the thinking behind the team is faulty. There won't be a change, either, as evidenced by Vignault's new contract and the outright failure of Gillis to captitalize on the recent trade climate. Where was the Weber offer? Where was the unrefuseable offer for Nash?

Like the league realizing too late that Bettman is a major mistake, the Canucks will eventually realize that Gillis isn't the guy. That is not going to happen soon enough for this core group, though. It's already kind of too late.
There's a lot wrong with this post, but I'll just reply to the bolded.

Gillis was absolutely in on Weber, as was widely reported. The reason Weber never went anywhere is because Holmgren went insane and signed him to an offer sheet. Nashville matched. Gillis knew any offer sheet would be matched, as Poile proved, so there was literally nothing Gillis could've done. Holmgren screwed every other team (including ours) out of any legitimate shot at Weber.

Nash? What do we have to give? Are we going to decimate our defense and give them Edler and then roll with HamJuice, Garrison, Ballard, Tanev, Alberts? Are we going to trade Kesler for him which makes it pretty much a lateral move? We did not have the assets to move for Nash short of maybe something like Schneider, Hansen/Burrows, and Kassian. Any of the offers we could've put together would've created more holes than they would have filled.

Your post is littered with bad hindsight.

CCF23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 01:11 AM
  #31
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,600
vCash: 500
Yes, the Canucks need a guy that will make them win every game.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 01:58 AM
  #32
ProstheticConscience
Seeing is believing
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,380
vCash: 883
Okay, it's just not worth it.

Yeah, can always use more game-breakers. Ask Junior Nelson how to get them, he knows better. Gillis should have pulled a few out of his ass and because he didn't the team's clearly doomed.

Right.

I hate self-hating Canucks fans.


Last edited by ProstheticConscience: 11-14-2012 at 02:00 AM. Reason: Hell with it.
ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 02:07 AM
  #33
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 9,985
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProstheticConscience View Post
Okay, it's just not worth it.

Yeah, can always use more game-breakers. Ask Junior Nelson how to get them, he knows better. Gillis should have pulled a few out of his ass and because he didn't the team's clearly doomed.

Right.

I hate self-hating Canucks fans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PG Canuck View Post
I'd rather have a 3rd line that has a good C and can provide offense while taking pressure off the top 6. You don't always need a gamebreaker IMO. I'm big on depth, and think depth is every bit just as important as a gamebreaker. A gamebreaker is one player, but depth can be 3-5 players that are essential to winning games as well.
Agreed, don't think this team needs a 'gamebreaker' so much as more guys with good shots (and the size to get to the net, wishful thinking as that may be). And would much rather have a wealth of offensive talent across many lines as opposed to just one superstar.

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:32 AM
  #34
Bougieman
Registered User
 
Bougieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
Calling Kesler and Burrows game breakers is laughable.

Kesler when he's hot, maybe. Burrows?

Excuse me?? How many times does this guy have to be the hero on a team where so many other players make twice what he does for people to recognize that he ABSOLUTELY is a game-breaker. Regardless of how you feel about his stats throughout the year, Burrows is one of those players that has proven that he gets that much better in poop-or-get-off-the-pot situations. That is when he shines.

Laughable my butt.

Bougieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:26 AM
  #35
kevinsane
Lundqvist clone.
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dawson Creek, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
We do have game breakers. Kesler (when he's healthy and not playing like a retard), and the Sedins. However, it seems like they are not the consistent game breaker as to what the OP is suggesting to obtain.

Kesler carried us through the Nashville series, the Sedins carried us through the others. (I am not going to argue with anyone whether they believe this to be true or not.)

However, as evident through last year and the end of the year before, is that we don't have the sufficient secondary offense to supplement when the Sedin's get smothered and when Kesler is inevitably injured.

I am never going to agree with Burrows being a "game breaker". He's a great 50point two way forward and nothing more.

There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I am arguing that we don't need more "game breakers". It would be nice, but it is much easier and much more economic to obtain another top 6 forward.
Was it necessary to use "like a retard"? That **** just negates every intelligent point you made.

kevinsane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:30 AM
  #36
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Boy View Post
I just watched Bure's induction ceremony and during it Pat Quinn said something that struck me, something along the lines of 'we knew that even if we were down and out, we had a game breaker that could win it for us'

I know we have elite level talents up front with the Sedins and Kesler but I don't see them as game breakers - though during that Nashville series in 2010 Kesler turned it on.


Is that something we need, someone who one-on-one can win the game for us?


Or is out team built different than that?

(mods if this is more appropriate in the Armchair thread, feel free to move it, I wasn't sure if it garnered a new thread or not)
Pavel Bure was not a game breaker in the most important NHL game of his life.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:34 AM
  #37
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
Game breakers come on defense, too. Imagine Pronger or Weber on the back end during virtually any playoff series in the last three years.

Whats really an ongoing irritant for me is Gillis poo-pooing the conventional wisdom and posing as the innovator. Great! He invented the regular season champions, a dynasty! That's like being lord of the gym or best team on paper. Lame.

Gillis is not a killer. He does not have the instinct. He did not display it on the ice and he has not displayed it in the boardroom. Quite the opposite, in fact! Gillis wants to be cerebral man in a physical world, imposing his thoughts on the actions of others. A problem that has developed is that other teams do not really give a damn what Gillis thinks. The league doesn't either.

If Gillis was a bit more bloodthirsty I imagine the Canucks would have had thier cup by now. If, three years ago, he'd sold the future and augmented the Olympic year Road Warriors they might have done it, except that Gillis refuses to employ a goon or even a tough guy. This might work in other ventures, but NHL playoffs are a primitive affair, devoid of rules or policing. Playoffs are a type of battle, won the hard way, by fighting.

Gillis cannot understand this. Vignault does not preach this. The team's leaders do not play this way. The team is not built for it.

Would a gamebreaker help? Sure, if he became the new leader. If he waded in and showed the team how to battle and led by example, then yes, it would help.

This window has closed, though. The players might still be competitive and may even win another President's Trophy, but the thinking behind the team is faulty. There won't be a change, either, as evidenced by Vignault's new contract and the outright failure of Gillis to captitalize on the recent trade climate. Where was the Weber offer? Where was the unrefuseable offer for Nash?

Like the league realizing too late that Bettman is a major mistake, the Canucks will eventually realize that Gillis isn't the guy. That is not going to happen soon enough for this core group, though. It's already kind of too late.
Hilarious stuff junior, don't ever change. Maybe it's time to let Senior Nelson do the posting.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:35 AM
  #38
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,693
vCash: 500
Kirk McLean was a "game breaker" that post-season to the Cup - which is the more important thing to have for any kind of sustained run (unlike you're like that Cup winning Hawks team who were stacked *everywhere* else in the lineup). No Kirk McLean fantastic save in OT - no Bure fantastic goal later in that game. McLean *stole* game 1 of the Cup Finals.

Barney Gumble is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:53 AM
  #39
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Kirk McLean was a "game breaker" that post-season to the Cup - which is the more important thing to have for any kind of sustained run (unlike you're like that Cup winning Hawks team who were stacked *everywhere* else in the lineup). No Kirk McLean fantastic save in OT - no Bure fantastic goal later in that game. McLean *stole* game 1 of the Cup Finals.
No Courtnall OT goal in game 5 or Linden OT goal in game 6......it goes on and on.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:11 PM
  #40
blendini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 428
vCash: 500
'Nucks don't need a game breaker, they need a rugged 2nd line playmaker. (Who could end up being a game breaker if they won a cup).

blendini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:25 PM
  #41
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinsane View Post
Was it necessary to use "like a retard"? That **** just negates every intelligent point you made.
Sincere apology. I will edit that out. It was my age speaking, and I should have used a better, less offensive word.

Hopefully that doesn't take away away from the points I've made.

Again, another apology.

shortshorts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:37 PM
  #42
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,796
vCash: 500
henrik and daniel have broken many many games in the last three years. hell, game six against chicago in 2009: who pulled us back into that game in the second period, then even gave us the lead in the third, while the defense and luongo were falling apart?

they don't break every game, obviously. no player in the league is like a video game cheat code. but it's not like pavel bure himself was never shut down in a series. e.g., by the oilers in the second round of his rookie season, by the kings (especially zhitnik) in the second round of '93, and by scott stevens in a first round sweep the year stevens won the conn smythe.

i'm not saying the sedins have been nearly the playoff performers that bure was at his best, but i'm just saying: we have our game breakers. they can break games. what we really need is reliable secondary scoring and team toughness (and "battle") to support those game breakers. i have high, but tempered, hopes that booth might end up being part of that solution.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Canuck View Post
There was a lot more to Boston getting Chara than just "signing" him.

It was complete luck that Ottawa had no cap space for him and chose Wade Redden over Zdeno, Boston was just in the right place at the right time.
well, to be fair, the bruins gutted their team during the labour stoppage anticipating a glut of elite UFAs hitting the market. that obviously didn't happen, and they sucked at the start of the post-lockout year. then they followed through with the gutting by trading thornton for pennies on the dollar. in the end, that recuperated their earlier failed gambit because they had not only the cap space to throw at chara, but also a near-blank slate to offer him, saying "zdeno, come here, you'll be the captain, and we'll mould this team in any way you want." they of course also picked up top five assist man/top ten scorer marc savard that summer.

in a sense, they were lucky to be in that position. but the idea of tearing the team down and starting again through free agency had been there well before the thornton trade, so in another sense the situation they found themselves in was at least partly planned.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 07:00 PM
  #43
eeddieedwards
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 136
vCash: 500
One thing I will say, without commenting on anything else in this thread, was that watching Bure play was watching one of those players who were so dangerous whenever they touched the puck.

I could be being nostalgic here, but I remember even when the Canucks were playing atrociously, he had the individual skill to be dangerous night-in and night-out. I'm not saying he was as clutch as other former and present Canucks, but I don't think we've had another player who was so individually dangerous.

eeddieedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 07:19 PM
  #44
Nick the Viking
Registered User
 
Nick the Viking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Republic of Colwood
Country: Canada
Posts: 420
vCash: 500
Keep in mind, I was not slagging the talent level of the twins or Kesler (or Lu or Schneider even for that matter) as I agree with most of you who have said they do break games.

ProstheticConscience - there's no self-hating here. Chill. I'm just curious if our team makeup would be better served if we targeted someone with more pure speed and skill, like Bure, versus going with a killer deep defence and, IMO, solid forward core. Yup, we'd have to make sacrifices and yup getting a guy even near Bure's skill is going to cost, but is that a route we should consider.

Just looking at a different avenue instead of the "2nd line playmaker" route we're all looking to (something to which I feel is a logical need for our team)

Nick the Viking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 07:24 PM
  #45
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,922
vCash: 5555
A gamebreaker doesn't necessarily have to be an all-star either. A guy like Byfuglien for example, could occasionally dominate a team. Or someone like Briere, who's really clutch in the playoffs.

Should we target players like these to help make us more effective in the playoffs?

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 07:52 PM
  #46
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,953
vCash: 500
Would a future HoF'er in his prime like Bure was help out this team? Yes, he would help out any team he played for in this league. Do we need this type of player to win the cup? Debatable, probably not. This team isn't far removed from pushing the 2011 cup final to game 7. Lately, role players have been just as important as star players. Look at the Capitals for example last year. Ovechkin wasn't even getting much ice time.


Last edited by Hammer79: 11-14-2012 at 07:59 PM.
Hammer79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:55 PM
  #47
blendini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eeddieedwards View Post
One thing I will say, without commenting on anything else in this thread, was that watching Bure play was watching one of those players who were so dangerous whenever they touched the puck.

I could be being nostalgic here, but I remember even when the Canucks were playing atrociously, he had the individual skill to be dangerous night-in and night-out. I'm not saying he was as clutch as other former and present Canucks, but I don't think we've had another player who was so individually dangerous.
Bure was a generational talent. Those guys are usually gotten through the draft (occasional #1 pick). Nucks lucked out, but those scenarios don't happen anymore.

blendini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:59 PM
  #48
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blendini View Post
Bure was a generational talent. Those guys are usually gotten through the draft (occasional #1 pick). Nucks lucked out, but those scenarios don't happen anymore.
Bure would have been a #1 pick, if other teams thought he was available to play and eligible to be drafted. He didn't come out of nowhere, scouts were well aware of his talent level and potential.

Hammer79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 01:21 AM
  #49
PG Canuck
Global Moderator
 
PG Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,502
vCash: 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
A gamebreaker doesn't necessarily have to be an all-star either. A guy like Byfuglien for example, could occasionally dominate a team. Or someone like Briere, who's really clutch in the playoffs.

Should we target players like these to help make us more effective in the playoffs?
No, we should target players that make us more well-rounded. I don't get why we need a game-breaker, we need depth. Y'know, a third line that can score and take pressure off the top six. Boston had depth, LA definitely had depth. Both teams had an individual or two that scored a few big goals and what not, but we also have those players: Kesler, Burrows, Sedin, Sedin.

I don't get why we should sell the farm for one player (when our future isn't the brightest to begin with) when all we truly need is a top six winger (who we could maybe get from a Luongo trade) and depth.

I believe depth wins games. It's pretty hard for the opposition to handle three waves of offense, especially in a seven game series where fatigue can take a toll when you're constantly trying to keep the puck out of your net while up against three lines, and then a fourth line that wears you down even further.

PG Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 11:34 AM
  #50
craigcaulks*
Registered Luser.
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Van!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
Bure would have been a #1 pick, if other teams thought he was available to play and eligible to be drafted. He didn't come out of nowhere, scouts were well aware of his talent level and potential.
Perhaps a 1st round pick if that's what you meant, but certainly not a shoe in for #1 overall. In fact, definitely not. Commies were not going early in the Reagan/Bush era.

craigcaulks* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.