You would rate Edler ahead of Phaneuf? They have identical skill-sets, except Phaneuf adds meanness that Edler does not have. This makes him exactly what the Canucks currently lack on their 'd'.
How do you quantify "meanness" in hockey sense?
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
Meanness is not measurable, it's judged. Is a player willing to really hurt another player, and do they enjoy inflicting pain. These types of players are extremely difficult to play against. Chara has meanness. Pronger has meanness. Weber has meanness. The Canucks hope that Kassian has meanness. There are plenty of players with meanness, but only a few that have a skill-set that includes high end talent too.
I still did not see the point of getting prospects for a team that is supposed to be contending for a cup, a first round pick is not going to score in the playoff, lupul is a second line player who had a career year, and Lupul is the best player coming back? That's it? If that is all Burke is going to offer then no thanks we should be keeping him, when we trade away player with elite talent, we want elite talent back.
Agreed. For example: which player would the current Canucks need more, Alex Burrows or Milan Lucic? Simply looking at statistics many would choose Burrows. However, considering the intangible of 'meanness' (and its necessity for the current Canucks roster to succeed in the playoffs) there are many more who would select Lucic.
So, do the Canucks need another top six forward who's best quality is scoring, or do they need a skilled defense-man that has meanness to play in the top pair?
Agreed. For example: which player would the current Canucks need more, Alex Burrows or Milan Lucic? Simply looking at statistics many would choose Burrows. However, considering the intangible of 'meanness' (and its necessity for the current Canucks roster to succeed in the playoffs) there are many more who would select Lucic.
So, do the Canucks need another top six forward who's best quality is scoring, or do they need a skilled defense-man that has meanness to play in the top pair?
I would not trade Alex Burrows for Milan Lucic. I know that sounds like a ridiculous statement, but if you're going to be using unquantifiable means to pump a players tires, then I'm going to point to Burrows's heart and clutchiness.
So, do the Canucks need another top six forward who's best quality is scoring, or do they need a skilled defense-man that has meanness to play in the top pair?
I will not rest until the Canucks have someone as mean as Nick Lidstrom on their top pair.
I still did not see the point of getting prospects for a team that is supposed to be contending for a cup, a first round pick is not going to score in the playoff, lupul is a second line player who had a career year, and Lupul is the best player coming back? That's it? If that is all Burke is going to offer then no thanks we should be keeping him, when we trade away player with elite talent, we want elite talent back.
Then offer him to the Rangers, Kings, Flyers and other top teams...they may have "elite" talent they feel is expendable.
How do you feel about Bozak, specifically defensively. Why the poor Corsi?
Quite honestly, because he plays with Kessel. That and TO's defensive numbers are negatively skewed by Ron Wilson's "to Hell with defense!!" approach to coaching. My honest opinion of Bozak...above average 3C...decent 2C fill in. I think his defense is fine, has a good eye for passing...not overly physical.
Quite honestly, because he plays with Kessel. That and TO's defensive numbers are negatively skewed by Ron Wilson's "to Hell with defense!!" approach to coaching. My honest opinion of Bozak...above average 3C...decent 2C fill in. I think his defense is fine, has a good eye for passing...not overly physical.
That's not supported by the stats though. Bozak seemed to get worse without Kessel.
That's not supported by the stats though. Bozak seemed to get worse without Kessel.
If you mean offensive stats....wouldn't that be obvious?
Again, to only look on paper (which i understand is sometimes the only option), all of the Leafs Defensive stats are not good. The fact is, for 75% of the season, it was an offense first system, Also the fact that alot of times the Leafs were playing from behind and Bozak's line were taking more chances on offense. Not a sales pitch, just reality.
Last edited by Liferleafer: 11-16-2012 at 03:02 PM.
If you mean offensive stats....wouldn't that be obvious?
Again, to only look on paper (which i understand is sometimes the only option), all of the Leafs Defensive stats are not good. The fact is, for 75% of the season, it was an offense first system, Also the fact that alot of times the Leafs were playing from behind and Bozak's line were taking more chances on offense. Not a sales pitch, just reality.
His CORSI stats got worse when he wasn't with Kessel than when he was, suggesting Kessel wasn't the reason they were dragged down.
I would not trade Alex Burrows for Milan Lucic. I know that sounds like a ridiculous statement, but if you're going to be using unquantifiable means to pump a players tires, then I'm going to point to Burrows's heart and clutchiness.
I like Burrows too; he is an excellent player. The Canucks, however, are in need of a Lucic more than they need a Burrows. Lucic provides: "pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence" as Brian Burke is so fond of stating. Could you not imagine the Sedins with Lucic? Are you old enough to remember Gino Odjick? If so, do you remember how important he was to Pavel Bure's success?
I like Burrows too; he is an excellent player. The Canucks, however, are in need of a Lucic more than they need a Burrows. Lucic provides: "pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence" as Brian Burke is so fond of stating. Could you not imagine the Sedins with Lucic? Are you old enough to remember Gino Odjick? If so, do you remember how important he was to Pavel Bure's success?
I think the Sedins with Brock Lesnar on the wing is even scarier. That guy is very mean.
