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

Jason Garrison

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-23-2013, 03:56 AM
  #126
medgett
Registered User
 
medgett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Sorry Orca, just not getting it. Can't understand why context doesn't matter. I could leave the discussion of other Dmen out, but I won't, because it matters. It offers perspective of Garrison's current environment. You not liking it is irrelevant. I'm talking about Jason Garrison as a cog of the Vancouver Canucks. That includes him, and others, and how fits, relative to others.

But perhaps it's who it's coming from that bothers you, so here's another way of putting it that might get through:

It doesn't make it acceptable, it makes it understandable. Right now, the play of the entire defense is unacceptable based on prior standards, but until all the other pieces right their games, we can't fully infer how "off" Garrison is in his game. There's Garrison "the player" and then there's Garrison "the player among players". Both his ability and his ability within the context of the group matters. Overall, it gives us the complete picture. Notice that I have not refrained on giving an analysis of Garrison's play itself, it's just that I include the context, which you have failed to do.

So somehow saying that the top4 has struggled/looked like crap is akin to calling for a buyout on a newly signed player 13 games in? Not that I want to get into this line of reasoning because it's irrelevant, but the hyperbole is still clearly with you. It remains with you. It's was a poor statement at a poor time. But hey, I'm not going to even get into it further than that so whatever.

I put those numbers up to show you that looks can be deceiving. Which actually plays into the team still winning, despite the hand-wringing about the players. Be it Garrison or others. You tried to make your buyout argument based on the "look" of Garrison. Remember? That he is appearing to struggle. I agreed that he looked awkward out there, but my analysis extends beyond that to include context and objective statistics. It's why I'm not calling for a buyout. Plus, you know, the fact that it's only been 14 games without a proper training camp... That too. Basically, I'm saying that your analysis lacked context and objectivity. The numbers bear that out. Now your only course of action is to prove that the "look" of a player (to which I have also provided my account) is more relevant than his effectiveness and is context. Good luck.

14 games in, limited camp, new team, everyone struggling, underlying stats, history of the team working with players (Ballard) etc... is a direct indictment on your comments. They were, and remain, unjustified.

It's not about making you eat your words, it's about having patience and not uttering an extreme statement until you see things play out first...
1) Context does certainly have some impact on the play of an individual. It isn't everything though and just as many have explained, there are many reasons/explanations for some of Garrison's perceived weaknesses that should resolve themselves at some point. Some of the weaknesses that I, orcatown and others have pointed to are not related to the play of others. For example, not following up the play is definitely something Garrison himself is responsible for and as I posted yesterday, I feel its something he's improved significantly on in the last 2 games, (IMO he stayed up with the play more often than not against the preds tonight). Also, he has very little poise and patience with the puck in his own zone specifically. This is something that can be judged as an individual strength or weakness. It may be a result of unfamiliarity with the system, but for now, its an issue. Context is important to consider, but it isn't everything. If Orcatown was criticizing aspects of the game that depended on the play of his teammates, (+/-, PK GA, 5 on 5 GA, offensive output, etc.) then I'd agree with you. He isn't and thus your counterargument regarding context is somewhat irrelevant.

2) I don't really want to get into the entire cap situation in this thread given that there is another one currently available to discuss that specifically, but there are reasons to consider buy outs. If you would like to have a read through that thread, it may make what I'm about to say a little clearer. The canucks will basically be forced to utilize the compliance buy outs this offseason to get to the 64.3m cap. Assuming they want to bring back Tanev, Raymond, Schroeder and Higgins, (others would be resigned as well, but not bringing them back doesn't result in significant savings aka Volpatti, Wiese, Lapierre), they will need to shed somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-9m. Even if you trade Luongo for pure futures, buying out Booth or Ballard still is likely to not get you there as you need to replace them on the roster. For this reason alone, the organization needs to be considering and building contingencies around who to use the buyouts on and potentially finding another way to get under the cap for next season. So to reiterate what has been said a thousand times here, it is premature to say that Garrison or, in fact anyone on the roster, should be bought out. It is not premature to start building a list of names of guys that could be considerations.

3) Analyzing someone's play based on how they look isn't everything and its subjective to a large degree. Still, you're quick to point out hypocrisy so I'd like you to consider your statement regarding Bieksa "floating hopers towards the net" when you talk about the stats bearing things out. As far as most are concerned, goals and assists are still pretty important stats and if you're asking others to show how stats bear out their arguments, you should probably try not to disregard them when they are counter to other arguments you're putting forth. That said, I do think its important to combine subjective analysis with statistics and in Garrison's case I find them those two to be somewhat at odds. I have already stated my opinion regarding his play without the puck in the d zone and I'm not suprised to see that reflected. I am suprised that his possession stats are as good as they are considering that when I watch the games I see him continually get caught in puck battles where a quick play could've avoided it, he gives the puck away up the boards fairly consistently, and I don't really notice him connecting on many passes, (If someone could further explain the posession stat, I would be apppreciative). As I've said, much of this has improved in this back to back, but I still find him to be slow with the puck in his own end. Lastly here, your bolded statement seems to imply that his "effectiveness" is directly and perfectly reflected in advanced statistics which I think we can all agree is not true.

medgett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 04:06 AM
  #127
medgett
Registered User
 
medgett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
That would assume that the principle reason for acquiring him wasn't for this play without the puck or defensive ability.
Absolutely not. If you're acquiring a guy you know is a poor puck mover and is not going to contribute significantly to the offence, then you don't pay him 4.6m for the next 6 years. To reiterate my original point, I'm not saying Garrison can't do these things, but to say that the canucks would sign a player to this contract without believing those were abilities he posessed is difficult to support.

medgett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 05:03 AM
  #128
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by medgett View Post
1) Context does certainly have some impact on the play of an individual. It isn't everything though and just as many have explained, there are many reasons/explanations for some of Garrison's perceived weaknesses that should resolve themselves at some point. Some of the weaknesses that I, orcatown and others have pointed to are not related to the play of others. For example, not following up the play is definitely something Garrison himself is responsible for and as I posted yesterday, I feel its something he's improved significantly on in the last 2 games, (IMO he stayed up with the play more often than not against the preds tonight). Also, he has very little poise and patience with the puck in his own zone specifically. This is something that can be judged as an individual strength or weakness. It may be a result of unfamiliarity with the system, but for now, its an issue. Context is important to consider, but it isn't everything. If Orcatown was criticizing aspects of the game that depended on the play of his teammates, (+/-, PK GA, 5 on 5 GA, offensive output, etc.) then I'd agree with you. He isn't and thus your counterargument regarding context is somewhat irrelevant.


Completely disagree. How can context ever be irrelevant? It _never_ is. This is a team sport and context is always a factor in that regard. If you want to weight context differently, feel free, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. Everyone places a different emphasis upon it. But to me, it's one of the three major factors when judging a player: There are the things Garrison does in isolation, things he is asked to do as a function of team play, and his apparent effectiveness vs his actual effectiveness. Some have chosen to overvalue the first, and not even delve into the remaining two factors... which breeds an incomplete analysis.

Like I said, opendoor's quote says this pretty well. If you don't like hearing it from me, fine. Just read his post.

Lastly, poise and supporting the play are "issues". I actually listed the lack of poise here myself (I think). But are these things enough of an issue to start calling for a buyout? Not a chance... not a chance.



Quote:
2) I don't really want to get into the entire cap situation in this thread given that there is another one currently available to discuss that specifically, but there are reasons to consider buy outs. If you would like to have a read through that thread, it may make what I'm about to say a little clearer. The canucks will basically be forced to utilize the compliance buy outs this offseason to get to the 64.3m cap. Assuming they want to bring back Tanev, Raymond, Schroeder and Higgins, (others would be resigned as well, but not bringing them back doesn't result in significant savings aka Volpatti, Wiese, Lapierre), they will need to shed somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-9m. Even if you trade Luongo for pure futures, buying out Booth or Ballard still is likely to not get you there as you need to replace them on the roster. For this reason alone, the organization needs to be considering and building contingencies around who to use the buyouts on and potentially finding another way to get under the cap for next season. So to reiterate what has been said a thousand times here, it is premature to say that Garrison or, in fact anyone on the roster, should be bought out. It is not premature to start building a list of names of guys that could be considerations.


I think it's even premature to start building lists. Just think about the Ballard situation pre and post 13 games. He went from a player with heavy consideration for a buyout (after 2 years of data) to the best performing Dman in the early season. Now he has value back. Now people can imagine getting a return for him. A lot can change. In that sense, the mere considerations are premature. 13 games in doesn't provide enough data. It just doesn't. If it did, Ballard would have been bought out a long time ago, amnesty or not.

On the cap situation: I have seen and have posted many line-ups in that thread. As a result, I think I'm pretty up to speed on the matter. Some good rosters posted there come from poster Proto. In them, he has Raymond and Higgins re-signed at 3m and 2.5m respectively, and gives appropriate raises to the remaining players. The key changes come in the form of Ballard and Luongo. Luongo is dealt for pure futures, and Ballard is assumed to be dealt for the same. With those two off the books like that, the resulting roster has about 500-700k in cap space with Raymond. Without him, it's about 2.5m in space.

Now, if Raymond insists on more than that, he will be allowed to walk in FA, IMO. Plus you have Malhotra and Alberts coming off the books as well. Point being, at worst, it should come down to a decision to buy out Ballard or trade him for futures (which I think is completely feasible). With that, there's no need to even get into Garrison's contract. Now add the precedent of patience the team has taken with Ballard and it becomes even more of a stretch to put Garrison's name on that list so early. Any way you look at it, it's a reach.



Quote:
3) Analyzing someone's play based on how they look isn't everything and its subjective to a large degree. Still, you're quick to point out hypocrisy so I'd like you to consider your statement regarding Bieksa "floating hopers towards the net" when you talk about the stats bearing things out. As far as most are concerned, goals and assists are still pretty important stats and if you're asking others to show how stats bear out their arguments, you should probably try not to disregard them when they are counter to other arguments you're putting forth. That said, I do think its important to combine subjective analysis with statistics and in Garrison's case I find them those two to be somewhat at odds. I have already stated my opinion regarding his play without the puck in the d zone and I'm not suprised to see that reflected. I am suprised that his possession stats are as good as they are considering that when I watch the games I see him continually get caught in puck battles where a quick play could've avoided it, he gives the puck away up the boards fairly consistently, and I don't really notice him connecting on many passes, (If someone could further explain the posession stat, I would be apppreciative). As I've said, much of this has improved in this back to back, but I still find him to be slow with the puck in his own end. Lastly here, your bolded statement seems to imply that his "effectiveness" is directly and perfectly reflected in advanced statistics which I think we can all agree is not true.


Sorry, what's not true? Garrison still drives play even when looking out of synch and jumpy. This is truth borne from stats. His effectiveness is directly reflected in those stats. So far, his lack of poise and slow reads have not negatively impacted his underlying numbers to the point where he both looks bad _and_ is objectively ineffective/detrimental to his team. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are referring to as untrue?

How do Bieksa's stats run counter to my arguments? AFAIK, both Orca and I have recognized Bieksa's game to be poor, regardless of his conversion recently. The "hoper" comment is meant to illustrate that I don't think Bieksa is playing well, despite his recent _unsustainable_ conversion rate. Do you think he's playing well based on his goals scored? I don't. If I'm off on this interpretation of your comment, please clarify further...


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 02-23-2013 at 09:00 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 05:21 AM
  #129
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by medgett View Post
Absolutely not. If you're acquiring a guy you know is a poor puck mover and is not going to contribute significantly to the offence, then you don't pay him 4.6m for the next 6 years. To reiterate my original point, I'm not saying Garrison can't do these things, but to say that the canucks would sign a player to this contract without believing those were abilities he posessed is difficult to support.



I agree with Barney Gumble here. The main thrust to acquire Garrison had to have been his defensive attributes, first and foremost. Before Campbell, his defensive statistics were 2nd only to Hamhuis. With Campbell, they were still very strong, but now he displayed his rocket shot, resulting in 16 goals. The common theme still being defensive play.

The goals and offense will fluctuate with Garrison depending on role and opportunity, but the defense will be his calling card throughout.

The money and term given depends a lot on the market and comparative salaries. What is the average defensive Dman worth in the NHL these days? 4m doesn't seem out of line. Gleason got 4m per. Hainsey is making 4.5m per. At the time, Suter was the only FA Dman that was better than Garrison, so that's a factor as well.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 02-23-2013 at 09:02 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 07:19 AM
  #130
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
For more outside perspective on Garrison, here's a CanucksArmy written by Thomas Drance. In it, he gives perspective on Garrison's numbers and deployment. He also touches on Edler's right-side experiment:


http://canucksarmy.com/2013/2/21/on-...ide-experiment


Quote:
...As for the idea that Jason Garrison is being demoted in the first place, it's worth remembering that Vancouver is deploying their defensive pairings in a uniquely balanced fashion so far this season. In fact, no Canucks defenseman is even in the top-90 in the NHL in even-strenght ice-time per game and that's essential context here.


Consider that at evens the difference between Chris Tanev's ice-time (he's sixth in even-strength ice-time among Canucks defenseman so far this season) and Kevin Bieksa's (he's first on the club) is about thirty total even-strength minutes in aggregate through fourteen games. That's just a tick over two-minutes of ice-time per contest and that's the difference between the first and third pairings (the difference between the second and third pairings is closer to sixty seconds per game).


When we consider the context of Vancouver's balanced blue-line deployments, it's clear that we need to be very careful about how we apply labels to Vancouver's six blue-liners this season. Put simply: being a "third-pairing defenseman" on the Canucks at the moment doesn't mean as much as it does to be a "third-pairing defenseman" on one of 29 other teams in the NHL...

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 10:25 AM
  #131
rban*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
For more outside perspective on Garrison, here's a CanucksArmy written by Thomas Drance. In it, he gives perspective on Garrison's numbers and deployment. He also touches on Edler's right-side experiment:


http://canucksarmy.com/2013/2/21/on-...ide-experiment
He's absolutely right. In that vein all breathless talk of Vancouver's 8 million dollar third line is sensationalist nonsense as well.In our system, even Tanev can get more icetime than Edler and it wouldnt mean much, since all 6 dmen are evenly balanced.

rban* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 11:50 AM
  #132
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,650
vCash: 500
The Canucks are trying to elevate the level of our possession game this season imo and it's been hard on our returning D... Garrison needs to get a pass here. We are dumping the puck less, supporting the puck better and trying to be more aggressive in all zones. Get the puck back as soon as possible and try not to give it up when you do. That's how it should be but it's a big contrast to the low event games the Panthers play.

I know I've said this before but I'm not sure people are hearing me. It is difficult for defensemen to always be up in the play, always be in good position and always trying to make a play.

It would have been easier to ease everyone into this season. We can win low event games like they did last night. I like that the team is challenging our players and our coach is stepping out of his comfort zone. I think long term it pays off for us.

Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 01:32 PM
  #133
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The Canucks are trying to elevate the level of our possession game this season imo and it's been hard on our returning D... Garrison needs to get a pass here. We are dumping the puck less, supporting the puck better and trying to be more aggressive in all zones. Get the puck back as soon as possible and try not to give it up when you do. That's how it should be but it's a big contrast to the low event games the Panthers play.

I know I've said this before but I'm not sure people are hearing me. It is difficult for defensemen to always be up in the play, always be in good position and always trying to make a play.

It would have been easier to ease everyone into this season. We can win low event games like they did last night. I like that the team is challenging our players and our coach is stepping out of his comfort zone. I think long term it pays off for us.
There's one thing I hate about the current coaching and it's the forcing of the long pass when it's not available. So many times I've seen Schroeder and Lapierre circle back to provide a passing option only to have the D pass it to a winger and lose possession. Most of those times the neutral zone is already clogged so the long pass isn't accomplishing anything anyway. Just get it to the center and then have him distribute it.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 01:37 PM
  #134
Stories Tales Lies
and Exaggerations
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
There's one thing I hate about the current coaching and it's the forcing of the long pass when it's not available. So many times I've seen Schroeder and Lapierre circle back to provide a passing option only to have the D pass it to a winger and lose possession. Most of those times the neutral zone is already clogged so the long pass isn't accomplishing anything anyway. Just get it to the center and then have him distribute it.
Yea and I would think that if they carried the puck out it my catch the opposition cheating, waiting for the long pass. Like when Eddy went straight threw Columbus last year, have to think they were waiting for the drop pass, or they are that bad.

Stories Tales Lies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 01:45 PM
  #135
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by medgett View Post
Absolutely not. If you're acquiring a guy you know is a poor puck mover and is not going to contribute significantly to the offence, then you don't pay him 4.6m for the next 6 years. To reiterate my original point, I'm not saying Garrison can't do these things, but to say that the canucks would sign a player to this contract without believing those were abilities he posessed is difficult to support.
Willie Mitchell was signed to a $3.5mil deal under a $40mil cap. Garrison's contract represents a smaller percentage of the csap than Mitchell's when he was signed. Mitcehll was not expected to provide puck movement or any offense.

If people haven't seen the strength of Garrison over the last handful games they're just never going to like what he brings. He's been strong in his own end and providing exactly what he was signed for.

Drop the Sopel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 01:59 PM
  #136
serge2k
Registered User
 
serge2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Willie Mitchell was signed to a $3.5mil deal under a $40mil cap. Garrison's contract represents a smaller percentage of the csap than Mitchell's when he was signed. Mitcehll was not expected to provide puck movement or any offense.

If people haven't seen the strength of Garrison over the last handful games they're just never going to like what he brings. He's been strong in his own end and providing exactly what he was signed for.
People don't seem to get this in general.

serge2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 02:24 PM
  #137
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,986
vCash: 500
Tony G was team 1040 yesterday and he suggested the reason he was struggling is that Garrison's skating wasn't where it needed to be without a pre-season. That he was constantly a half-step behind from where his game usually is and was getting beaten to pucks. Dunno if he's guessing or has insider information, but it's Tony so the the latter is likely. Garrison is the biggest defensemen on the roster, and has traditionally been a great skater, so It makes sense to me a guy that size will struggle with skating if he's not at his peak.

The good thing is that's one problem that can be sorted out as the season goes on and may already be happening. Will it help him put up more consistent efforts like he has the last several games? That's what I expect/hope for.


Last edited by Wisp: 02-23-2013 at 02:31 PM.
Wisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 02:56 PM
  #138
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Willie Mitchell was signed to a $3.5mil deal under a $40mil cap. Garrison's contract represents a smaller percentage of the csap than Mitchell's when he was signed. Mitcehll was not expected to provide puck movement or any offense.

If people haven't seen the strength of Garrison over the last handful games they're just never going to like what he brings. He's been strong in his own end and providing exactly what he was signed for.
Willie Mitchell is probably the most overrated guy to play for the Canucks in recent memory, so there's that.
Seriously, though, Garrison is from BC and looks rugged. He just needs to stick at it for a little while and maybe fight someone and then the tone of these threads will change.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 03:04 PM
  #139
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
There's one thing I hate about the current coaching and it's the forcing of the long pass when it's not available. So many times I've seen Schroeder and Lapierre circle back to provide a passing option only to have the D pass it to a winger and lose possession. Most of those times the neutral zone is already clogged so the long pass isn't accomplishing anything anyway. Just get it to the center and then have him distribute it.
Agreed. I think the coaches are aware of this though. I've seen more regrouping and our centre's have been doing a nice job getting deep for puck support. We're also running the far side play that Washington used to use with Ovechkin.

I don't think you're going to find any coach happy with forcing that long pass. The read is on the D-man. Clearly that long pass is something you want if it's there, we need our D to make better reads. It's similar to a QB, you can't take that pass away or it makes them much less dangerous. You have to trust them to make the play when it's there and check it down when it's not.

Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 03:31 PM
  #140
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertKron View Post
Willie Mitchell is probably the most overrated guy to play for the Canucks in recent memory, so there's that.
Seriously, though, Garrison is from BC and looks rugged. He just needs to stick at it for a little while and maybe fight someone and then the tone of these threads will change.
What?

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 03:39 PM
  #141
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
What?
Knew this was coming.

He was really good, don't get me wrong. But a combination of him being a local-ish guy, good in the community, and a "Good Canadian Kid" type player has led to this weird aura being built around him. People act like he was some kind of mythical elite piece of the puzzle that would have fixed all of this team's problems.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 03:44 PM
  #142
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertKron View Post
Knew this was coming.

He was really good, don't get me wrong. But a combination of him being a local-ish guy, good in the community, and a "Good Canadian Kid" type player has led to this weird aura being built around him.
Let's not act like you didn't say it exactly with that intention in the first place.

I think when Mitchell was here, he was our best defenseman after Salo, personally (maybe Edler as he started getting better at the tail end).

Hamhuis has really made his leaving less signicant though. He was great in LA too.

I think we really jumped the gun losing him either way though-- Chicago made him look bad, and then when he could have came in handy against Boston, he wasn't there.

That weird aura has more to do with him being a favorite, not how good people think he is, IMO. Unless you think he's an overrated character as well, which makes more sense to me.


Last edited by Shareefruck: 02-23-2013 at 03:57 PM.
Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 03:56 PM
  #143
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,033
vCash: 250
Was it just me, or did Mitchell look pretty bad in that '09 series against the Hawks?

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 04:05 PM
  #144
Bgav
We Stylin'
 
Bgav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,135
vCash: 1752
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
Was it just me, or did Mitchell look pretty bad in that '09 series against the Hawks?
Still remember game 4

Bgav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 04:19 PM
  #145
CanadianPirate
Registered User
 
CanadianPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,114
vCash: 500
Garrison has looked excellent the last couple of games. He has quietly been fantastic defensively and has slowly been figuring out the offensive responsibilities the Canucks want. There was one play last night where he pinched in and took the puck to the corner. He then came out of the corner and put it on net for a scoring chance. He has done this a couple times over the last few game and to me it really shows how he is gaining confidence in his ability to play in this system.

CanadianPirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 04:31 PM
  #146
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,033
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bgav View Post
Still remember game 4
Game 4 was only part of it (he wasn't to blame for the tying goal - but he was the goat on the OT goal). It's just that he made so many mistakes that led to goals against that it wasn't even funny. Seemed very uncharacteristic of him. Worst part was that it wasn't even the Hawks' speed that forced him into making those errors.

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 05:02 PM
  #147
FloydTheBarber
Registered User
 
FloydTheBarber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,567
vCash: 500
How is discussing a Vancouver Canuck in the Vancouver Canuck forum off-topic?

FloydTheBarber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 05:22 PM
  #148
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertKron View Post
Willie Mitchell is probably the most overrated guy to play for the Canucks in recent memory, so there's that.
Seriously, though, Garrison is from BC and looks rugged. He just needs to stick at it for a little while and maybe fight someone and then the tone of these threads will change.
I disagree. Willie Mitchell is an elite defensive defenseman and was during his tenure in Vancouver. He was outstanding at shutting down the opposition's top players and that is invaluable.

Garrison isn't quite at that level defensively IMO but he's not too far off. And where he's inferior to Mitchell defensively he makes up for it by having a rocket of a shot. So much offense in the NHL right now is generated off point shots, screens, deflections, rebounds and 2nd chance opportunities and Garrison will help our offense in this regard, even if his puck movement and offensive instincts are mediocre, which IMO they are.

We're not going to get great value out of the contract but we also didn't have to move any assets to aquire him, or expend a draft pick to draft him. This has to factor into how his contract is viewed.

Drop the Sopel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 05:28 PM
  #149
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
Was it just me, or did Mitchell look pretty bad in that '09 series against the Hawks?
Of course it's not just you, that was virtually the entire reason he was let go.

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2013, 05:35 PM
  #150
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,033
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
Of course it's not just you, that was virtually the entire reason he was let go.
I thought we let him go because we offered him only a 1-year deal due to the concussion risk and he wanted a longer term. Kings paid up and there he went.

vanuck 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 02:47 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.