My way of thinking is that although we don't have a bunch of blue-chippers, we have some potentially decent guys. If we have a couple of down years after the Sedins go, we'll not only have an opportunity to draft some blue-chippers, but guys like Gaunce, Jensen, Kassian and Tanev will provide a solid nucleus for them to play with.
I don't mind a year or two or three of poor finishes if it means a decade or more of good finishes... after all, we got the Sedins because we sucked. I just don't want a team that wanders in the wilderness endlessly sucking. I was there for the 15 consecutive losing season streak... it was terrible. Hopefully we won't trade Kassian (and a first) to Boston for Savard.
not sure why clay is getting this type of flack. the canucks prospect pool is most definitely trash and likely bottom 3 in the league.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster
Not one person discounted that one point.
It was the box score scouting of most of the prospects that drew 'flack'. For good reason.
We all no their isn't a blue chipper and it's not deep, but the top of its pretty good considering.
Exactly. It wasn't that he was wrong, but that his analysis was purely based on offensive output and took nothing else into consideration. Simon Gamache must've been a can't miss in his analysis.
considering most of us don't have many ways to watch the prospects not playing on the wolves it's pretty hard to knock him on which methods he used. especially when his final conclusion is right
the bottom line is you shouldn't make bold, definitive statements that run against convention if you don't actually have the knowledge or experience to back those statements up.
To be honest, i think he was spot on when it came to Tanev
Really, Lukas Kraijcek?
Throwing Lukas' name into the breakdown shows me he was just looking to ruffle feathers.
Kraijcek never displayed Tanev's poise or defensive awareness...he did have a better shot and possibly better offensive instincts, but I think its pretty telling AV coached both and seems to really like Tanev, and hardly ever played Kraijcek.
Tanev's already THIS TEAMS #5, at 22...count me in the group that doesn't think he's peaked.
Throwing Lukas' name into the breakdown shows me he was just looking to ruffle feathers.
Kraijcek never displayed Tanev's poise or defensive awareness...he did have a better shot and possibly better offensive instincts, but I think its pretty telling AV coached both and seems to really like Tanev, and hardly ever played Kraijcek.
Tanev's already THIS TEAMS #5, at 22...count me in the group that doesn't think he's peaked.
Sorry not about the Lukas Kraijcek part.
But he truly doesn't have the strength/physical edge or shot to be more than a 5th D man on a real good team.
But he truly doesn't have the strength/physical edge or shot to be more than a 5th D man on a real good team.
Sure he does. Hi shot is still a work in progress but his strength has vastly improved. He's still a great skater and passer. 5th D-man don't play shut down like he can.
Sure he does. Hi shot is still a work in progress but his strength has vastly improved. He's still a great skater and passer. 5th D-man don't play shut down like he can.
How many NHL top 4 D men on top teams are only good skaters and passers and completely lack strength and shot? Youre simply hoping his shot and strength increase.
The guy possesses half of the tools needed and to be honest, a big body and strength is probably the most important ones. Typically when you lack that, you have to be able to produce numbers, the same goes for undersized forwards
Im not saying there aren't exceptions but being super high on this kid like everybody is on this board is a bit much. Though it is nice that we have him and hes a good 5th D to have. But to predict he'll turn into some real good top 4 D is still quite the reach.
But he truly doesn't have the strength/physical edge or shot to be more than a 5th D man on a real good team.
The guy literally grew over a foot in a couple years. I'm willing to let him learn his body. I think Tanev will eventually be a great minute munching second pairing defensemen in this league. Very high on Tanev.
How many NHL top 4 D men on top teams are only good skaters and passers and completely lack strength and shot? Youre simply hoping his shot and strength increase.
The guy possesses half of the tools needed and to be honest, a big body and strength is probably the most important ones. Typically when you lack that, you have to be able to produce numbers, the same goes for undersized forwards
Im not saying there aren't exceptions but being super high on this kid like everybody is on this board is a bit much. Though it is nice that we have him and hes a good 5th D to have. But to predict he'll turn into some real good top 4 D is still quite the reach.
This is super tiresome. We all watched what he did in the NHL last year at 22, and he excelled in a top 4 role with Hamhuis. You're going to pretend that didn't happen?
The strength is there now - I saw it last year and I see its improved when watching the Wolves play. A lot of puck battles he would have lost before he's winning now. The offense is still a question mark, but given what else he brings to the table, anything he can provide there is just bonus. I'm hopeful there and think the ammount of production he gets out of the AHL translates to the NHL one day (he's on pace for 30 to 40 points).
My way of thinking is that although we don't have a bunch of blue-chippers, we have some potentially decent guys. If we have a couple of down years after the Sedins go, we'll not only have an opportunity to draft some blue-chippers, but guys like Gaunce, Jensen, Kassian and Tanev will provide a solid nucleus for them to play with.
I don't mind a year or two or three of poor finishes if it means a decade or more of good finishes... after all, we got the Sedins because we sucked. I just don't want a team that wanders in the wilderness endlessly sucking. I was there for the 15 consecutive losing season streak... it was terrible. Hopefully we won't trade Kassian (and a first) to Boston for Savard.
Agreed. We don't have a top pool, but it doesn't mean we have nothing. Even though we don't have many blue-chippers to me it seems this is the first time in a very long time where we have a lot of solid depth across the board, and even guys ranked as far down as #10 on our fan-voted rankings have a decent chance to become an NHLer. In previous years there were only 3 or 4 guys at most who stood any chance and the rest was crap.
Sure nobody in the pool is 'elite' but that's what you get - you can't help it when you've been winning so much the last few years; you're bound to draft late.
But the number of players who look like they'll reach at least the AHL has increased, and that's a sign the cupboard's improved compared to the past.
WHL isn't even Delorme anymore, but it's still crap.
It doesn't even matter when we don't even go to the Dub anymore.
Q scouting also very suspect... but I'm hoping that Mallet is an outlier. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be changes made though, if they haven't already.
This is super tiresome. We all watched what he did in the NHL last year at 22, and he excelled in a top 4 role with Hamhuis. You're going to pretend that didn't happen?
The strength is there now - I saw it last year and I see its improved when watching the Wolves play. A lot of puck battles he would have lost before he's winning now. The offense is still a question mark, but given what else he brings to the table, anything he can provide there is just bonus. I'm hopeful there and think the ammount of production he gets out of the AHL translates to the NHL one day (he's on pace for 30 to 40 points).
There are alot of D men who could play well for a string of games while playing with Hamhuis (the guy is a one of the most solid/consistent D's in the league).. But hey what do I know, youre completely right, its obvious by your condescending attitude, its always interesting that the critical/realistic things people say, get described as tiresome but the non stop hyping up certain talent and defending certain players doesn't.
Im not saying hes poor, im saying the odds of him becoming a top 4 on the top team in the league is a bit of a reach considering his deficiencies. And its quite common for a 5th d man to be able to play in the top 4 for a short amount of time.
There is a chance he does become that player, but there is much more of a chance he does not. Alot of people would rate him as our top prospect. Which goes to show you that his opinion of our prospect pool isn't exactly that far off. He just exaggerated certain things.
And dont you think maybe Tanev received the 5th most in minutes because he was paired with Hamhuis because it made sense as a pairing because Hamhuis is our best D man and he could handle carrying a young rookie and his natural position is a RD which has been a blessing for him?
Last edited by pseudonymous01: 11-26-2012 at 02:21 AM.
There are alot of D men who could play well for a string of games while playing with Hamhuis (the guy is a one of the most solid/consistent D's in the league).. But hey what do I know, youre completely right, its obvious by your condescending attitude, its always interesting that the critical/realistic things people say, get described as tiresome but the non stop hyping up certain talent and defending certain players doesn't.
Im not saying hes poor, im saying the odds of him becoming a top 4 on the top team in the league is a bit of a reach considering his deficiencies. And its quite common for a 5th d man to be able to play in the top 4 for a short amount of time.
There is a chance he does become that player, but there is much more of a chance he does not. Alot of people would rate him as our top prospect. Which goes to show you that his opinion of our prospect pool isn't exactly that far off. He just exaggerated certain things.
And dont you think maybe Tanev received the 5th most in minutes because he was paired with Hamhuis because it made sense as a pairing because Hamhuis is our best D man and he could handle carrying a young rookie and his natural position is a RD which has been a blessing for him?
Tanev's usually paired with Keith Ballard actually. He spent 81% of his ice time in this past playoffs paired with Ballard... playoffs before that it was Alberts for 40% and Ballard for 35% of the time. However this past season it was Hamhuis (39%) but only because Ballard played 47 games due to injuries. The season before that it was yet again Ballard at 49%
Tanev's usually paired with Keith Ballard actually. He spent 81% of his ice time in this past playoffs paired with Ballard... playoffs before that it was Alberts for 40% and Ballard for 35% of the time. However this past season it was Hamhuis (39%) but only because Ballard played 47 games due to injuries. The season before that it was yet again Ballard at 49%
Whats your point? I was responding to:
"Tanev's already THIS TEAMS #5, at 22"
I know who he is usually paired with. I was referring to ice time in the recent post season. And im sure that 20 percent with the top D man on our team increased his ice time average.
Tanev wasn't our 5th D man anytime previous to that
I know who he is usually paired with. I was referring to ice time in the recent post season. And im sure that 20 percent with the top D man on our team increased his ice time average.
Tanev wasn't our 5th D man anytime previous to that
Tanev carried the Ballard pairing, that was easy to see.
Anyone paired with Alberts is carrying the pairing.
Canucks defense from last season in order -
Hamhuis
Bieksa
Edler
Salo
Tanev
Rome
Ballard
Alberts
It could be argued you could flip Rome and Tanev, but he's already and effective NHL player, why discount that?
