Shirokov must be called up, there is no other option.
There are other options. Bernier played a solid game on the first line.
Shirokov simply was not ready for the pace of the NHL. Time and space is at a premium and he needs to adapt his game to the North American rink. The best place to learn that is in the AHL.
There are other options. Bernier played a solid game on the first line.
Shirokov simply was not ready for the pace of the NHL. Time and space is at a premium and he needs to adapt his game to the North American rink. The best place to learn that is in the AHL.
You think Guillaume Desbiens is a better option than Shirokov? he can't even handle the puck or make a pass. Shirokov should be on the 3rd line with Wellwood and Glass.
If they really like Desbiens and think he will be a good player, he should take Rypiens spot.
You think Guillaume Desbiens is a better option than Shirokov? he can't even handle the puck or make a pass. Shirokov should be on the 3rd line with Wellwood and Glass.
I will hold off my assessment until Desbiens has played more than one game.
Shirokov and Wellwood would be a disastrous combination IMHO.
Shirokov only got two games and a period to show he "was not ready for the pace of the NHL". Is that really any different?
And that's despite the fact there was no point at which he played worse than Desbiens did last night.
Shirokov had the pre-season as well to be evaluated. It was pretty clear once the regular season began he was not yet up to the NHL pace and needed to learn to adapt to the North American game. The Canucks judgment was that would be best accomplished by playing some games in the AHL. I agree.
If there was a spot open in the Top Six then maybe you call up Shirokov but at the moment there is not. If Bernier fails to fill in adequately or there is another injury then perhaps you re-consider.
Bad news for Canucks - those shoulder injuries are very tricky, if its not rehabbing well, is that a sign of further surgery? If so, I guess he would be lost for the season?
Shirokov - he had 3 friggin' NHL games, that's not enough for anyone to prove themselves except Pavel Bure and Jean Beliveau. Draw that conclusion after 20 games if you want but not 3.
Grabner - so he had a bad pre-season but what would be the downside of calling him up for 10 games and playing him instead of Glass or Rypien or Hordi or Desbiens? Personally, I really don't see any but I do see upside if he can repeat his AHL playoff performance. In any event, he has zero NHL games so far.
Part of the problem I see with the above 2 is the unwillingness of the team to take chances on prospects...
Bernier on the 1st line - he may do ok because he's strong on the puck and he's not a bad passer actually but Canucks cannot afford to play 2 lines, he has to go back to the 3rd line.
Desbiens - well he has the most scoring potential of the 4 grinders (Rypien, Hordichuk, Glass and himself) and has the least amount of NHL games. In fact, he most closely resembles Bernier in his playing style which is not a bad thing, with added toughness. Glass has not been very good so far - I guess preseason and regular season is 2 different things.
All this points to what I said before - Canucks started the year with 3 lines and now with Shirikov's demotion, Hansen's injury, Daniel's foot and Wellwood's ineffectiveness, they're down to 2.
Changes I would make:
Call up Grabner and play him on the 1st line or try him with Wellwood, Glass is out of the lineup.
Tell Wellwood defense first, play high, look for Grabner or Desbiens.
Replace Johnson with Bolduc. That should cut 1 PK goal against per game...
Last edited by Outside99: 10-12-2009 at 12:41 PM.
Reason: added stuff
Shirokov had the pre-season as well to be evaluated. It was pretty clear once the regular season began he was not yet up to the NHL pace and needed to learn to adapt to the North American game. The Canucks judgment was that would be best accomplished by playing some games in the AHL. I agree.
But in the preseason he looked quite capable of keeping up with the teams he faced, as evidenced by the fact they kept him on the roster, so my point still stands. Two games and period was enough to determine that Shirokov couldn't handle the pace of the NHL game yet one game isn't enough to make a determination of Desbiens? What's the practical difference?
But in the preseason he looked quite capable of keeping up with the teams he faced, as evidenced by the fact they kept him on the roster, so my point still stands. Two games and period was enough to determine that Shirokov couldn't handle the pace of the NHL game yet one game isn't enough to make a determination of Desbiens? What's the practical difference?
Shirokov simply did not look NHL ready once the regular season hit.
He seemed overwhelmed by the lack of time and space. A good part of that is likely the smaller rink and he will need to learn to play a slightly different game and to go to different areas of the ice than he was used to on a bigger ice surface.
He seems to have the skills but he needs to ramp up his intensity and ice awareness. It seems to me that a stint in the AHL is beneficial and obviously so do the Canucks.
Shirokov simply did not look NHL ready once the regular season hit.
You're avoiding the issue. The question I'm asking has nothing to do with how Shirokov looked and everything to do with the number of games it took to make that determination.
No, but in the top six, particularly playing on the top line to replace Daniel, he does.
You thought Bernier had a good game on the top line, but I disagree. They were not effective 5-on-5. Shirokov plays a puck possession game that should be more suited for that line. I'm not convinced that Burrows will last on the top line with the current configuration either.
In addition, the Canucks could use another guy on the PP if Salo is indeed injured. With Samuelsson playing on the point, it opens another spot up front.
I wonder if this continues if Demitra will retire. Didn't he mention before the season in a Slovak newspaper that this is likely his last year? If he has major problems getting back from this injury, it wouldn't be surprising to see him call it a career. As much as we need him back, if he can't get healthy...
You're avoiding the issue. The question I'm asking has nothing to do with how Shirokov looked and everything to do with the number of games it took to make that determination.
The issue is a red herring IMHO.
It seemed obvious regardless of the number of games. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes not. In this case it appeared to the Canucks after that amount of games they were in position to make a decision.
It seemed obvious regardless of the number of games. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes not. In this case it appeared to the Canucks after that amount of games they were in position to make a decision.
So you're saying there's a practical difference between making an evaluation of a player after 3 periods of hockey and after 7 periods of hockey?
The point I'm trying to make is that aside from the best players in the league, almost every player in the league will go through a three game stretch (and in the case of most players, multiple three game stretches) where they will accomplish as little as Shirokov did his first three games, and it has nothing to do with the pace of the game and everything to do with the natural ebbs and flows of the season. To me, making a decision about someone's NHL readiness after 7 periods of hockey is ridiculous. You acknowledged that making a decision about Desbiens after three periods was premature, so obviously there is some limit where the sample size is too small to make any definitive conclusions.
Ryan Kesler was pretty terrible through three games as well but here is now at a PPG. It didn't mean he wasn't ready to play in the NHL at the beginning of the season.
Last edited by pitseleh: 10-12-2009 at 01:39 PM.
Reason: typo
So you're saying there's a practical difference between making an evaluation of a player after 3 periods of hockey and after 7 periods of hockey?
The point I'm trying to make is that aside from the best players in the league, almost every player in the league will go through a three game stretch (and in the case of most players, multiple three game stretches) where they will accomplish as little as Shirokov did his first three games, and it has nothing to do with the pace of the game and everything to do with the natural ebbs and flows of the season. To me, making a decision about someone's NHL readiness after 7 periods of hockey is ridiculous. You acknowledged that making a decision about Desbiens after three periods was premature, so obviously there is some limit where the sample size is too small to make any definitive conclusions.
Ryan Kesler was pretty terrible through three games as well but here is now at a PPG. It didn't mean he wasn't ready to play in the NHL at the beginning of the season.
Players are different - and have different issues. The Canucks had Shirokov from the opening of prospects camp so to say that the decision was just based on 3 NHL regular season game time would not be accurate.
For Shirokov he is coming to new country, language, etc and add to that a different style of play, a different system and a different size rink.
CHL and NCAA players do not that much of an adjustment.
Think back to Steve Kariya who looked great in camp but never was able to translate that into regular NHL games. IMHO Shirokov has the skills and abilities, he just needs to learn the North American game and it seems the best place to do that is the AHL.
Down in Manitoba he will be playing within the same systems used by the Canucks and will be able to learn the defensive assignments and where he needs to go to have success on a smaller rink. It seemed clear to me he was pretty much lost without the puck and in the NHL unless you are Alexander Ovechkin or Evgeni Malkin that is going to be a problem for a Russian player.
Fortunately for Kesler he had already proven himself at the NHL level.
Players are different - and have different issues. The Canucks had Shirokov from the opening of prospects camp so to say that the decision was just based on 3 NHL regular season game time would not be accurate.
Again, that would be relevant if in those other games he also demonstrated the same negative qualities. He didn't. He emphatically earned his spot in the lineup, clearly beating out every other prospect that the Canucks had. He only struggled through those first three games and was sent down based on those struggles.
Quote:
Down in Manitoba he will be playing within the same systems used by the Canucks and will be able to learn the defensive assignments and where he needs to go to have success on a smaller rink. It seemed clear to me he was pretty much lost without the puck and in the NHL unless you are Alexander Ovechkin or Evgeni Malkin that is going to be a problem for a Russian player.
Desbiens was lost with the puck, lost without the puck, and a step behind the play all night. He was worse last night than Shirokov was at any point this season, was more of a defensive liability including three giveaways and a penalty, and he doesn't bring the potential offensive upside that Shirokov does.
Quote:
Think back to Steve Kariya who looked great in camp but never was able to translate that into regular NHL games. IMHO Shirokov has the skills and abilities, he just needs to learn the North American game and it seems the best place to do that is the AHL.
I'm not saying that Shirokov won't turn into another Steve Kariya. It's entirely possible. My point is that 7 periods of hockey is too small of a sample size to make any conclusions about any individual player. There's just far too much fluctuation in a player's play due to the natural ebbs and flows of a season in that short of a period of time to definitely say anything.
