All great points. I find it funny how some people think there are actually valid comparisons between us and the Sharks, like we have a Pavelski just waiting to score 40 goals and clutch up in playoffs or a Brent Burns to finish as a Norris nominee. It's like they can't see beyond the Thornton-Marleau = Sedins parallel and completely miss the rest of the team. It's a ludicrously inaccurate comparison that people have latched onto for no other reason than desperation to believe that what Benning is trying to do has some chance of success.
It's farcical.
Yeah, for sure. I mean, I'm probably a bit more "on the fence" or whatever about Benning than you are (though I certainly also dislike the man and his apparent mandate to "retool" on the fly) but I would have to agree that the comparisons are laughable...
I was thinking a bit more about it and some of the other reaches people tend to make in comparing our two teams... seeing as I can't sleep, what the hell, I'll keep rambling in the event someone else finds it relevant/interesting/whathaveyou
a) On defense, perhaps the two teams have a comparable top end. They have Burns/Vlasic, we have Edler/Tanev; I won't get into semantics here as people seem to have very different ideas of what constitutes a #1 d-man ~ let's just call them "top pairing guys".
What the Canucks don't have in their top pairing guys is the dynamic element of a Brent Burns type player... and no, I'm not just referring to the legendary - albeit also mildly off-putting - Sasquatch beard... the element Burns brings to their power play, or the ability to almost function as a fourth forward, it cannot be understated. It's one of the primary reasons they went as deep as they did IMO. Burns is as important a player as the Sharks have.
(I also would argue that their other top end guy is significantly better than either of ours, that Vlasic *is* a #1, or at least a #1a who can carry a pairing... but I won't really push that agenda here)
b) And in continuing the defense theme, the Sharks also had guys like Paul Martin and Justin Braun. They had phenomenal support for their top guys, and could build two very solid pairings. We just let our Paul Martin comparable in Hamhuis walk for nothing. (Honestly, *that* pained me as much as any of our other moves, non-moves or attempted moves of late!) But whatever, it's done, and there seems such a varied number of views on Dan and his play on these forums that I won't spend a great deal of time on this.
As for our Braun comparable, I'm not sure we really have one... at least one of similar ability & quality... Gudbranson honestly probably compares more as a Polak, albeit a more "intangible'd" one with with better skating, who represents less of an offensive black hole; or, if you're more generous, perhaps a Dillon.
Hutton might be the closest thing we have to a Braun comparable, but I daresay that's a bit of a reach right now. I really like the guy, and I was as encouraged by his progression this year as the next guy, but this management team consistently writes down names in pen where they should probably write them in pencil (translation - they bet against the odds). There's no guarantee his progression continues in such an orderly, linear fashion this year; and even if he *does* step into a full-time top 4 role *now* and relatively hiccup-free, it'll be a while before he approaches a Braun-level of defensive dependability. (Granted, Braun has a few years on him...)
c) The Sharks were ridiculously healthy throughout their run (so were the Pens, for that matter). There was certainly an element of luck to that, but it's also hard to argue that it's not pretty much a given that many of our blueliners will miss some fairly significant time due to injury.
d) Furthermore, in terms of coaching and management, our teams are night and day different. While I think Wilson makes his share of meatheaded moves - such as the Polak deal - he also seems to possess an uncanny ability to sniff out free agents. Joel Ward, for example, is a very underrated playoff player, versatile and great depth. He's made his share of gambles - the Jones deal and even the Burns deal (which saw him surrender valuable pieces at the time) - but they were always calculated. Benning & Co, as I alluded to earlier, like to bet against the odds. At best, they seem to break even (i.e. Baertschi tracking decently as a middle six guy with the potential for more or Etem providing a warm body who could *maybe* become a poor man's pre-2016 Jannik Hansen)... at worst, they bleed value and show about as much direction & foresight as a schizophrenic Maggie the Monkey
As for coaching, I simply see Desjardins as overwhelmed and inadequate for this level. DeBoer has his flaws but he came in and seemed to push all the right buttons in San Jose. He's now made a couple of runs to the Finals, so it's pretty hard to argue he doesn't have some level of coaching acumen
