HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Armchair GM Thread - Part XXXII - Kessel Run Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-18-2013, 06:45 PM
  #976
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
If their shots never go in and the team doesn't score when they're on the ice, then yes, a player's shot is mostly irrelevant. Just like Ryan Johnson's shot blocking prowess was irrelevant because it did nothing to help the PK (and arguably made it worse).

Physical play is great, but if the end result is you spend a bunch of time in your own zone getting bailed out by your goalie then it's not a useful attribute.
Oh man.

Good thing they don't play hockey games in math class.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 06:55 PM
  #977
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Oh man.

Good thing they don't play hockey games in math class.
You can be snarky all you want, but he does have a point. For reference see Jeff Tambellini (shot). Or Andrew Alberts (hitting).

Tiranis is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 07:15 PM
  #978
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,033
vCash: 250
Isn't Martinek playing in Europe right now? Is he a good option to play the right side here? If so, wonder how much it would take to acquire him from the Isles?

vanuck is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 07:52 PM
  #979
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Oh man.

Good thing they don't play hockey games in math class.
Good argument; I'm convinced.

opendoor is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 08:26 PM
  #980
94eleven
fka Loosemonkeys
 
94eleven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,157
vCash: 500
I'm wondering if they are "showcasing" Ballard a la Hodgson with an eye on moving him. He and Tanev are playing 14 minutes a night against other teams 3rd and 4th lines. They are playing essentially no special teams time. I think Garrison could play quite well with Tanev (like Weaver in Florida) playing tough minutes well. But for now they want Ballard as comfortable and sheltered as possible to keep his level of play up.

With regards to people who have said Ballard and Tanev's play has regressed, they had a .980 save % when they were on through the first 11 games. That was bound to come down and they were going to let in a few goals that might have been stopped earlier in the season.

94eleven is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 08:45 PM
  #981
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
I have no doubt they're sheltering Ballard (both for effectiveness and probably part of it is to make him look better), but the type of minutes he's getting aren't much different than what he got in his first 2 years here. He's playing against mostly the 3rd and 4th lines with some 2nd lines sprinkled in there and he's on the ice with the same types of guys (mostly the Canucks' 3rd line with some time with the Sedins).

He was always getting fairly easy minutes on the Canucks but until this year he wasn't up to the task of handling even those. IMO what's different this year is more his play (and maybe a more solid partner in Tanev) than it is his ice time. Which is good IMO, because it suggests he might be able handle tougher minutes if he gets put in that situation due to injuries.

opendoor is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 08:54 PM
  #982
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Edler has been as good or better on the RS as he was on the LS last year. The stats speak to this.

Garrison has played really well the last few games and he'll keep getting better. Calling out the pro-scouting after 15 games is ridiculous.
1) No they don't.

2) That wasn't my point.


shortshorts is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 09:49 PM
  #983
David71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,194
vCash: 500
should alberts be traded? or does van really need alot of depth on D as possible. he hasnt played because most of the guys that are playing arent hurt or whatever..

David71 is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 09:51 PM
  #984
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by David71 View Post
should alberts be traded? or does van really need alot of depth on D as possible. he hasnt played because most of the guys that are playing arent hurt or whatever..
I would look to trade him, and bring up Vandermeer. Alberts is a crap defenseman IMO.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 09:55 PM
  #985
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I would look to trade him, and bring up Vandermeer. Alberts is a crap defenseman IMO.
Yet you want Vandermeer called up?

shortshorts is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 10:02 PM
  #986
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
You can be snarky all you want, but he does have a point. For reference see Jeff Tambellini (shot). Or Andrew Alberts (hitting).
I know I can and I will.

I just think its simplistic to suggest hockey is scoring and not allowing scoring.

LA's size and physicality was a huge factor in why they scored and didn't allow scores en route to hoisting lord Stanley's mug.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 11:12 PM
  #987
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I know I can and I will.

I just think its simplistic to suggest hockey is scoring and not allowing scoring.

LA's size and physicality was a huge factor in why they scored and didn't allow scores en route to hoisting lord Stanley's mug.
Who's saying physicality can't positively affect a team's fortunes? People are just saying it's not an end but rather a means to an end.

LA was successful because they were able to control the game. This was clearly reflected in their numbers both in the stretch run and the playoffs. Here's an article prior to the playoffs highlighting their dominant possession numbers to end the season:

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...k-nhl-playoffs


A team being physical is of no benefit if it doesn't lead to good results. The Kings won because they used physicality to run the play just as a team like Chicago used mobility and skill to win. They're all tools that can be used for success, but that's all they are is tools used to reach the goal of winning hockey games.

opendoor is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 11:40 PM
  #988
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Physical play is great, but if the end result is you spend a bunch of time in your own zone getting bailed out by your goalie then it's not a useful attribute.
IMO Bieksa's physical play does show up in shots for and against. People are quick to point to shifts where he gives the puck away and spends it in our zone but tend not to mention really good pinches that give us a shift of zone time. Despite his -0.28 corsi rating he has contributed positively to the team and his physical play is part of that.

I have no way to quantify this but imo a guy like Kevin Bieksa also makes his teammates play bigger and more physical.


Last edited by Scurr: 02-19-2013 at 12:17 AM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
02-18-2013, 11:52 PM
  #989
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
1) No they don't.

2) That wasn't my point.

Edler's corsi is 3+ points better and he's up .5 P/60

His PPG is up .11, his GPG is also up.

He's playing at least as good and probably better.

Scurr is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 12:21 AM
  #990
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
IMO Bieksa's physical play does show up in shots for and against. People are quick to point to shifts where he gives the puck away and spends it in our zone but tend not to mention really good pinches that give us a shift of zone time. Despite his -0.28 corsi rating he has contributed positively to the team and his physical play is part of that.

I have no way to quantify this but imo a guy like Kevin Bieksa also makes his teammates play bigger and more physical.
He's still much better than he's shown thus far, IMO.

I don't think he's been terrible or anything and I think he's been improving as the season goes on, but we're not seeing Bieksa play where he's capable of just yet. And to be fair to Bieksa you can say that about all the top 4 to some degree.

When he's on his game I fully agree that his physical game and aggressiveness is an asset that greatly benefits the Canucks, but that's not a replacement for the other aspects of his game which are far more crucial to his and the team's success IMO. Given the choice I'd take a less aggressive Bieksa that plays solid hockey over the inverse. Luckily he's capable of doing both.

opendoor is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 12:55 AM
  #991
VanCanucks14
Registered User
 
VanCanucks14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momesso View Post
At this point, I'd trade Ballard for Ehrhoff or M. Streit out of NYI (adding a minor prospect or a pick to even it up).

Though Ballard has played well, I liked Edler when he was the defensive conscience on his pairing. Not that Ehrhoff didn't have his faults (and his contract is just goofy).

Anyhow, I'd expect (hope?) Edler continues to improve. He looks jittery out there at times, and I wonder how he'd to against an aggressive forecheck.
What? Why would Buffalo even consider that

VanCanucks14 is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 12:59 AM
  #992
Momesso
Registered User
 
Momesso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Who's saying physicality can't positively affect a team's fortunes? People are just saying it's not an end but rather a means to an end.

LA was successful because they were able to control the game. This was clearly reflected in their numbers both in the stretch run and the playoffs. Here's an article prior to the playoffs highlighting their dominant possession numbers to end the season:

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...k-nhl-playoffs


A team being physical is of no benefit if it doesn't lead to good results. The Kings won because they used physicality to run the play just as a team like Chicago used mobility and skill to win. They're all tools that can be used for success, but that's all they are is tools used to reach the goal of winning hockey games.
Wow, that is incredible. And you're right. Being physical means nothing itself - you have to use that physical forecheck to wear out your opponents and force them to make mistakes (see Edler). It worked for the Canucks against the Hawks as well.

I'm also a big believer that the team that initiates physicality will end up healthier than the team that is more on the receiving end in any given series. The physical edge is so important. But again, you have to be able to make it work. Nashville initially worried me because they seemed so physical, but the Canucks neutralized their forecheck by playing so well in the neutral zone. Nashville could never get in.


Last edited by Momesso: 02-19-2013 at 01:08 AM.
Momesso is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 01:13 AM
  #993
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
I think you're too focused on pairings. Ballard's problem wasn't that he was too expensive for the 3rd pairing; it's that he was terrible and bordering on unplayable in even the most sheltered roles. He was about as effective as Andrew Alberts at 4 times the cost and was outplayed by Rome.

If Garrison does find himself in the 3rd pairing at ES, it's not the end of the world. So far this season the Canucks are fairly equal in terms of ice time among their defense at ES with only 1:30 separating #1 Bieksa from #6 Tanev. If Garrison got Ballard's ES minutes with his own special teams ones he'd be a 21 minute a night defenseman which is basically exactly what was expected.

You're okay with 4.6 million dollars for 5 additional years on the third pairing?

shortshorts is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 01:16 AM
  #994
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Edler's corsi is 3+ points better and he's up .5 P/60

His PPG is up .11, his GPG is also up.

He's playing at least as good and probably better.
Stats must be followed up with the visual test. It is clear he is less comfortable there than on the leftside.

In addition, those stats are extremely minimal under a much smaller sample size.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 02:51 AM
  #995
Royal Canuck
HF's Bounty Hunter
 
Royal Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I would look to trade him, and bring up Vandermeer. Alberts is a crap defenseman IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
Yet you want Vandermeer called up?
I see where y2k is coming from.

At least Vandermeer has that toughness to him, Alberts just doesn't do anything in general.

But both aren't good defensively, I just think Vandermeer brings more to the table, (For less $ too).

__________________

Twitter |HFBoards Contact | Blog
Xbox Live Gamertag: "CxC Canuck"
"You're never a loser until you quit trying. " - Mike Ditka
Royal Canuck is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 03:12 AM
  #996
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
You're okay with 4.6 million dollars for 5 additional years on the third pairing?
It depends on the makeup of the rest of the defense. If Garrison played 15-16 minutes at ES and 5 minutes of special teams per game what does it matter which pair he's on? Ehrhoff played primarily on the 3rd pair at even strength in 09-10 and he led the team in ice time.

Why couldn't you have the ice time distributed like this with Tanev taking up one of the blank spots:

Edler (23 min) - _______ (18 min)
Hamhuis (21 min) - Bieksa (22 min)
Garrison (20 min) - ______ (16 min)

And those numbers could be even higher once you factor in OT (I was basing it on 120 minutes divided up between the 6 players).


In fact other than last season, going with 5 guys at 20+ minutes has pretty much been the Canucks MO under Vigneault the last few years. Ehrhoff, Edler, Bieksa, and Salo have all gotten tons of time from the 3rd pairing at times and I don't see why it'd be considered a big failure to have Garrison there if neither he nor Edler can get comfortable on the right side.

opendoor is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 04:22 AM
  #997
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
You're okay with 4.6 million dollars for 5 additional years on the third pairing?
Only if the 3rd can actually fill a role that the others can't.

I would suggest a pairing of say Garrison and Weaver which has been one of the NHL's premier shutdown pairings over the last two years would be a great. Use that pairing to shutdown basically anybody.

The other pairings are more two-way pairings:
Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa

So you have Garrison - Weaver against a team's top line, Hamhuis - Bieksa against a team's 2nd scoring line, Edler - Tanev grabbing the rest of the minutes.

DJOpus is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 07:58 AM
  #998
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,963
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Edler's corsi is 3+ points better and he's up .5 P/60

His PPG is up .11, his GPG is also up.

He's playing at least as good and probably better.
And what's to say those numbers would not be better if Edler was playing on the left side? While he is not playing particularly bad per se. That may have more to do with his talent than anything else. It is quite evident on the ice Edler is uncomfortable and I do not see it as a hindrance to swap him and Garrison for a few games to see what comes out it.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 09:36 AM
  #999
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Only if the 3rd can actually fill a role that the others can't.

I would suggest a pairing of say Garrison and Weaver which has been one of the NHL's premier shutdown pairings over the last two years would be a great. Use that pairing to shutdown basically anybody.

The other pairings are more two-way pairings:
Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa

So you have Garrison - Weaver against a team's top line, Hamhuis - Bieksa against a team's 2nd scoring line, Edler - Tanev grabbing the rest of the minutes.
How about getting just one defense-man that can consistantly play in the top pairing, rather than this rotation of 2nd and 3rd pairing players?

Alflives is offline  
Old
02-19-2013, 10:17 AM
  #1000
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
How about getting just one defense-man that can consistantly play in the top pairing, rather than this rotation of 2nd and 3rd pairing players?

We have two: Edler and Hamhuis. Just so happens they play together... on the top pairing. It seems to going OK so far. Edler has faced tougher competition and is still producing at a top rate. 10 point in 14 games. Average time on ice about 23min.


The defense, with about 24 million allocated to it, if extremely unlikely to change. I would just make peace with that and roll with it. It's not likely we see any drastic changes to the back end.




As an aside: If this is Edler being uncomfortable on the right side, then I'm especially amped to see him get comfortable. If he can, look out.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:01 AM.

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.