Player Discussion: Erik Gudbranson

[DadBod]

Oh boy...sometimes discussing hockey on here is a lot like talking to a 3 year old.

No one should suggest "intimidation" outweighs skills (when making roster decisions). Being tough will not win you more games than being skilled. But to imply and argue that size, physical play and intimidation absolutely does not exist is asinine. You're out of your gord if you think hockey players don't grit their mouthpiece going against certain players. Fact is, it exists, and its very real. Again, sitting behind your keyboard you can spew whatever nonsense you want but when actual NHL players clamor for these type of players on their team suggests You're wrong. Again I'm not suggesting intimidation should be more valued than skill, I'm just stating that it's a part of the game. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble but if you disagree, you're simply wrong.

If you want to discuss which players are more timid and nervous to play that part of the game, sure, fire away. Not all players will be intimidated but spare yourselves the embarrassment by pretending that NHL players have zero fear of any player, in any league, in the whole world.

 

[CanaFan]

There you go, you said it, it's a positive thing. Who really cares in the terminology used?

I care because it's stupid and lazy not to? Use the words you mean, not some distantly related word that you think has the same effect but doesn't mean the same thing at all. It's like the equivalent of saying "Jake Virtanen is fast. He is so fast that defenseman don't even both trying to stop him on a break-away, they just skate to the bench and hope their goalie saves it". Speed is useful if you can use it, not because it makes players give up and not try at all. Ditto for physicality. There are advantages to being physical but that is not the same thing as being intimidating . Players may not LIKE going up against a physical guy but they do anyway. That is the difference between what I'm saying and what the other post said.

Physical = Having to battle and having a better chance to win
Intimidation = Not having to battle at all and always winning cause the other guy is too scared to try

Physical =/= Intimidation

Clear?

Even hockey players have a sense of self preservation, go into the corner with a 20% chance of making a play or an 80% chance of getting mauled. I don't know about you but it would cause me to think it over.
So, I'm not sure if it's mythical.

And there's your mistake. Assuming that your own thinking is the same as a guy who has made the highest level of hockey possible.

 

[CanaFan]

Oh boy...sometimes discussing hockey on here is a lot like talking to a 3 year old.

No one should suggest "intimidation" outweighs skills (when making roster decisions). Being tough will not win you more games than being skilled. But to imply and argue that size, physical play and intimidation absolutely does not exist is asinine. You're out of your gord if you think hockey players don't grit their mouthpiece going against certain players. Fact is, it exists, and its very real. Again, sitting behind your keyboard you can spew whatever nonsense you want but when actual NHL players clamor for these type of players on their team suggests You're wrong. Again I'm not suggesting intimidation should be more valued than skill, I'm just stating that it's a part of the game. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble but if you disagree, you're simply wrong.

If you want to discuss which players are more timid and nervous to play that part of the game, sure, fire away. Not all players will be intimidated but spare yourselves the embarrassment by pretending that NHL players have zero fear of any player, in any league, in the whole world.

They can have all the fear they want but if they won't do their job they have a coach that will bench them, cut their ice time, or demote them to the minors. Fear can exist but it doesn't mean you have to succumb to it. Those that do aren't playing hockey at that level. They are the ones typing on their keyboards describing how they wouldn't go into a corner with Gudbranson. News flash, players HAVE gone into corners with Gudrbranson and lived. The way you and others describe it is like a school of fish avoiding a shark. It doesn't happen that way.

 

[Nomobo]

I care because it's stupid and lazy not to? Use the words you mean, not some distantly related word that you think has the same effect but doesn't mean the same thing at all. It's like the equivalent of saying "Jake Virtanen is fast. He is so fast that defenseman don't even both trying to stop him on a break-away, they just skate to the bench and hope their goalie saves it". Speed is useful if you can use it, not because it makes players give up and not try at all. Ditto for physicality. There are advantages to being physical but that is not the same thing as being intimidating . Players may not LIKE going up against a physical guy but they do anyway. That is the difference between what I'm saying and what the other post said.

Physical = Having to battle and having a better chance to win
Intimidation = Not having to battle at all and always winning cause the other guy is too scared to try

Physical =/= Intimidation

Clear?

This subject has been a thing for a few pages now, you're nitpicking. You know what's implied by the various ways to describe intimidation but you choose to draw a line in the sand because you won't budge from your position.

The Vitanen analogy doesn't work. Giving up because he's too fast shows a lack of will and that's incompatible with being an NHL payer. Giving up because you'll be putting yourself in a very bad spot is human.



And there's your mistake. Assuming that your own thinking is the same as a guy who has made the highest level of hockey possible.

Are you saying that NHL players are super humans? They're not affected by fear?

 

[Hit the post]

[/B]

Are you saying that NHL players are super humans? They're not affected by fear?

Batman has no fear and he isn't superpowered.

 

[Nomobo]

Oh boy...sometimes discussing hockey on here is a lot like talking to a 3 year old.

No one should suggest "intimidation" outweighs skills (when making roster decisions). Being tough will not win you more games than being skilled. But to imply and argue that size, physical play and intimidation absolutely does not exist is asinine. You're out of your gord if you think hockey players don't grit their mouthpiece going against certain players. Fact is, it exists, and its very real. Again, sitting behind your keyboard you can spew whatever nonsense you want but when actual NHL players clamor for these type of players on their team suggests You're wrong. Again I'm not suggesting intimidation should be more valued than skill, I'm just stating that it's a part of the game. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble but if you disagree, you're simply wrong.

If you want to discuss which players are more timid and nervous to play that part of the game, sure, fire away. Not all players will be intimidated but spare yourselves the embarrassment by pretending that NHL players have zero fear of any player, in any league, in the whole world.

Exactly, thanks.

 

[CanaFan]

[/B]

Are you saying that NHL players are super humans? They're not affected by fear?

Are Australians? Their country is full of venomous snakes and spiders that would kill them in an instant and yet they continue to live there.

Australians = super humans?


Edit: Also you've mucked up your post on the Virtanen analogy so I can't quote it but basically you've created an artificial distinction between "giving up" and "putting yourself in danger". Except that is exactly "giving up". And that is what 99% of NHL players have been trained and conditioned never to do. And those that do (see: Etem, Emerson) are on the verge of earning an AHL paycheck instead.

 

[Nomobo]

Are Australians? Their country is full of venomous snakes and spiders that would kill them in an instant and yet they continue to live there.

Australians = super humans?

Yes, Australians are also affected by fear.

 

[CanaFan]

Yes, Australians are also affected by fear.

But why don't they move to Canada? How do they live their lives if they are affected by fear?

Edit: I'll cut to the chase cause I don't feel like dragging this out. Australians have more to fear from living in their own country than NHL hockey players have to fear by going into a corner with Erik Gudbranson. But people (of which NHL players are) can overcome their "fear" if properly motivated to do so. Millions of dollars and a dream lifestyle are a sufficient motivator to go into a corner with Erik Gudbranson. As far as I know, he has never ended anyone's life or even career. The "fear" you are attributing to playing against Gudbranson is a bodycheck into the boards, a punch to the head (possible penalty?), or a whack to the back of the legs (penalty again?). There is a limited amount of damage that an NHL player can do to another NHL player outside of the occasional Todd Bertuzzi or Marty McSorley moment. A bit of pain is pretty standard for an NHL player and isn't enough to be a significant deterrent. Yes there are those that like to avoid those areas in general but those players (soft, perimeter players) tend to avoid traffic no matter who is there because that is their game. You don't need Gudbranson to keep Vrbata to the outside because he avoids all traffic like the plague anyway.

 

[MS]

Yeah ok, just conveniently don't respond to my first point I made.

Really sorry I offended your sensibilities.

There are a million reasons that Lucic could have had a bad game. Being confused and intimidated by a player about as tough as Andrew Alberts isn't one of them.

Lucic is 0-2-2 in 7 games against us over the past two years. Has Yannik Weber been intimidating him for those games?

They can have all the fear they want but if they won't do their job they have a coach that will bench them, cut their ice time, or demote them to the minors. Fear can exist but it doesn't mean you have to succumb to it. Those that do aren't playing hockey at that level. They are the ones typing on their keyboards describing how they wouldn't go into a corner with Gudbranson. News flash, players HAVE gone into corners with Gudrbranson and lived. The way you and others describe it is like a school of fish avoiding a shark. It doesn't happen that way.

It's just such a small thing in the NHL in 2016. Fighting is basically dead and physical play is mostly dead. None of the teams who succeeded in the playoffs last year had a defender who was remotely 'intimidating'.

It's like 1% of what makes up a winning team but there is still a generation of fans stuck in the 1980s with Don Cherry and SEMENKO! who think it's 50% of a winning team and more important than actually playing hockey and it's just so completely, utterly wrong in today's NHL I'm not really even sure how to respond to this mentality.

The game has changed. Whether you like it or not, it's been ********* and 'fear' isn't even remotely what it used to be 20-30 years ago.

 

[Nomobo]

But why don't they move to Canada? How do they live their lives if they are affected by fear?

You're just being silly now, you need to get out more in the real world.

 

[DadBod]

They can have all the fear they want but if they won't do their job they have a coach that will bench them, cut their ice time, or demote them to the minors. Fear can exist but it doesn't mean you have to succumb to it. Those that do aren't playing hockey at that level. They are the ones typing on their keyboards describing how they wouldn't go into a corner with Gudbranson. News flash, players HAVE gone into corners with Gudrbranson and lived. The way you and others describe it is like a school of fish avoiding a shark. It doesn't happen that way.

I'm confused here. Who implied players won't go into corners with big defenseman? You're either fabricating a false narrative in your head to convince yourself physical players can't impact the game or you just don't get it at all. I happen to think it's the latter.

If you don't think that some players would be hesitant to battle with players like Chara, Lucic, Gudbranson etc etc then I don't know what to tell you other than you're wrong.

 

[Nomobo]

There are a million reasons that Lucic could have had a bad game. Being confused and intimidated by a player about as tough as Andrew Alberts isn't one of them.

Lucic is 0-2-2 in 7 games against us over the past two years. Has Yannik Weber been intimidating him for those games?



It's just such a small thing in the NHL in 2016. Fighting is basically dead and physical play is mostly dead. None of the teams who succeeded in the playoffs last year had a defender who was remotely 'intimidating'.

It's like 1% of what makes up a winning team but there is still a generation of fans stuck in the 1980s with Don Cherry and SEMENKO! who think it's 50% of a winning team and more important than actually playing hockey and it's just so completely, utterly wrong in today's NHL I'm not really even sure how to respond to this mentality.

The game has changed. Whether you like it or not, it's been ********* and 'fear' isn't even remotely what it used to be 20-30 years ago.

Yeah ok, maybe he had the flue or a hangover or something and that makes the way I see it totally nonsensical. Gudbrabson is a much better player than Alberts and a lot tougher too.

That's just cherry picking and you know it.

 

[opendoor]

I'm confused here. Who implied players won't go into corners with big defenseman? You're either fabricating a false narrative in your head to convince yourself physical players can't impact the game or you just don't get it at all. I happen to think it's the latter.

If you don't think that some players would be hesitant to battle with players like Chara, Lucic, Gudbranson etc etc then I don't know what to tell you other than you're wrong.

Sure, but if it doesn't create an advantage for the Canucks, who cares? If Gudbranson still allows just as many shots, scoring chances, and goals against as a similar but less intimidating defenseman, why is it even worth mentioning?

 

[Nomobo]

But why don't they move to Canada? How do they live their lives if they are affected by fear?

Edit: I'll cut to the chase cause I don't feel like dragging this out. Australians have more to fear from living in their own country than NHL hockey players have to fear by going into a corner with Erik Gudbranson. But people (of which NHL players are) can overcome their "fear" if properly motivated to do so. Millions of dollars and a dream lifestyle are a sufficient motivator to go into a corner with Erik Gudbranson. As far as I know, he has never ended anyone's life or even career. The "fear" you are attributing to playing against Gudbranson is a bodycheck into the boards, a punch to the head (possible penalty?), or a whack to the back of the legs (penalty again?). There is a limited amount of damage that an NHL player can do to another NHL player outside of the occasional Todd Bertuzzi or Marty McSorley moment. A bit of pain is pretty standard for an NHL player and isn't enough to be a significant deterrent. Yes there are those that like to avoid those areas in general but those players (soft, perimeter players) tend to avoid traffic no matter who is there because that is their game. You don't need Gudbranson to keep Vrbata to the outside because he avoids all traffic like the plague anyway.

That's a good move, it's self preservation in a way.

 

[CanaFan]

I'm confused here. Who implied players won't go into corners with big defenseman?

This is the who...

Those D also don't intimidate the **** out of the opposition....he made Lucic look as soft and non threatening as that Nylander kid

Still floored by the amount of people on here who just don't get "it". Guds will get paid more than 4 mill and will deserve it...Is he "better" than Tanev? No. But Tanev's presence also doesn't make opponents flip the puck in and go for a line change.

I think only people that actually played hockey growing up will understand this though.

As for the rest ...

You're either fabricating a false narrative in your head to convince yourself physical players can't impact the game or you just don't get it at all. I happen to think it's the latter.

If you don't think that some players would be hesitant to battle with players like Chara, Lucic, Gudbranson etc etc then I don't know what to tell you other than you're wrong.

They could be "hesitant" - though I'm not sure exactly what that translates to on the ice - but at the end of the day they do go into that corner and they force Gudbranson, Chara, etc to actually battle with them. THAT'S my only point in this. I have never argued that players enjoy or look forward to it. But that at the end of the day it doesn't matter if it is Gudbranson or Weber, they go into the corner (or to the net, along the boards, etc) because their NHL careers depend on it. I don't really care about how they feel in their heart or think in their head, I care what they do about it on the ice. And it was posited earlier in this thread that Gudbranson "scares" players away from going anywhere near him when he is on the ice. That is a long ways away from saying they are "hesitant". Now granted you never said the original thing, but you jumped into that discussion and seemingly on that side of things.

 

[ahmon]

Both are correct.

However, neither example that you just described can be considered "intimidation".

Nobody will argue against the fact that toughness and physicality can have a significant impact on the outcome of a game/series. That much is pretty well objectively undeniable. Every one of us greatly values those attributes. The question is whether or not it is a deterrence mentally, to a degree where it will cause a half-way decent professional player at the NHL level to become less effective than they are physically able to be, out of fear of injury.

I care because it's stupid and lazy not to? Use the words you mean, not some distantly related word that you think has the same effect but doesn't mean the same thing at all. It's like the equivalent of saying "Jake Virtanen is fast. He is so fast that defenseman don't even both trying to stop him on a break-away, they just skate to the bench and hope their goalie saves it". Speed is useful if you can use it, not because it makes players give up and not try at all. Ditto for physicality. There are advantages to being physical but that is not the same thing as being intimidating . Players may not LIKE going up against a physical guy but they do anyway. That is the difference between what I'm saying and what the other post said.

Physical = Having to battle and having a better chance to win
Intimidation = Not having to battle at all and always winning cause the other guy is too scared to try

Physical =/= Intimidation

Clear?



And there's your mistake. Assuming that your own thinking is the same as a guy who has made the highest level of hockey possible.

But physicality and intimidation go hand in hand.

For example, Raffi Torres hitting someone and injuring them is physical play leading to an injury.

What if a defenseman is retrieving a puck, and he sees Torres coming in full speed?

The physical contact hasn't occurred yet. But you don't think that defenseman would make a different play than say Daniel Sedin coming at them?

You telling me the defenseman would make the exact same play?

If the dman rushes the play or braces himself for a hit from Torres, does that not take focus away from the defenseman on making the optimal play? (ie become less effective?


On the other hand, if you are a forward, you are charging the net, you don't think seeing Chara in his prime in front of the net or Tobias Enstrom change the play you make, before any contact?


And I've seen countless times dmen rush the play because of an incoming hit, forward rushing a shot because they " felt they had less time than they did".

 

[MS]

Yeah ok, maybe he had the flue or a hangover or something and that makes the way I see it totally nonsensical. Gudbrabson is a much better player than Alberts and a lot tougher too.

That's just cherry picking and you know it.

Gudbranson is a better player than Alberts at actual hockey, obviously. But we aren't talking about that.

He is absolutely not bigger or tougher or more physical. And if Gudbranson's physicality is so intimidating that he scares Milan Lucic into not even competing, apparently, than Alberts should have been no different.

It's not 'cherry picking'. Lucic doesn't have a good track record in Vancouver over the course of his career - for whatever reason. Again, the notion that he was poor the other night because he was quivering in fear about Gudbranson is just comical.

 

[CanaFan]

That's a good move, it's self preservation in a way.

Time preservation actually.

My "self" isn't really a concern, though it might be for you and you are projecting it onto me which seems to be a habit for you

 

[CanaFan]

But physicality and intimidation go hand in hand.

For example, Raffi Torres hitting someone and injuring them is physical play leading to an injury.

What if a defenseman is retrieving a puck, and he sees Torres coming in full speed?

The physical contact hasn't occurred yet. But you don't think that defenseman would make a different play than say Daniel Sedin coming at them?

You telling me the defenseman would make the exact same play?

If the dman rushes the play or braces himself for a hit from Torres, does that not take focus away from the defenseman on making the optimal play? (ie become less effective?


On the other hand, if you are a forward, you are charging the net, you don't think seeing Chara in his prime in front of the net or Tobias Enstrom change the play you make, before any contact?


And I've seen countless times dmen rush the play because of an incoming hit, forward rushing a shot because they " felt they had less time than they did".

You are mistaking "situational awareness" for "reputational intimidation".

If a player sees Torres charging at him as he skates into the corner, of course he'll rush it because ... well, a big, heavy, fast player is charging at him RIGHT NOW. It could be Torres or any player that is currently barrelling down on them. That is very different than rushing the play because you know that Torres is somewhere on the ice and because he has a reputation.

Ditto for Gudbranson. Gubranson's actual physical play may be effective against a player BECAUSE he is big and strong. But not because his being big and strong keeps that player from going to the net or battling on the boards with him. Gudbranson may win the battle because he is bigger and stronger, but he has to earn it. There are no "freebies" because he intimidates players too much to even bother.

 

[Rex Banner]

You are mistaking "situational awareness" for "reputational intimidation".

If a player sees Torres charging at him as he skates into the corner, of course he'll rush it because ... well, a big, heavy, fast player is charging at him RIGHT NOW. It could be Torres or any player that is currently barrelling down on them. That is very different than rushing the play because you know that Torres is somewhere on the ice and because he has a reputation.

Ditto for Gudbranson. Gubranson's actual physical play may be effective against a player BECAUSE he is big and strong. But not because his being big and strong keeps that player from going to the net or battling on the boards with him. Gudbranson may win the battle because he is bigger and stronger, but he has to earn it. There are no "freebies" because he intimidates players too much to even bother.

Obviously we'll never know, but I have to wonder if Keith throws that elbow on Daniel if he knows a guy like Gudbranson is watching.

I just hope that days of other teams taking cheap shots at our skilled guys is a thing of the past.

 

[Nomobo]

Gudbranson is a better player than Alberts at actual hockey, obviously. But we aren't talking about that.

He is absolutely not bigger or tougher or more physical. And if Gudbranson's physicality is so intimidating that he scares Milan Lucic into not even competing, apparently, than Alberts should have been no different.

It's not 'cherry picking'. Lucic doesn't have a good track record in Vancouver over the course of his career - for whatever reason. Again, the notion that he was poor the other night because he was quivering in fear about Gudbranson is just comical.

Glad you agree that Gudbranson is a better player because some may have thought that you were equating the two. Of course he is bigger, tougher and more physical and that's part of what makes him a better player. I didn't say Lucic he was "quivering", that an attempt from you to skew what I said.
Lucic has always used intimidation to further his game, do you remember his "I'm gonna kill you" handshake? Having players like Gudbranson will not neuter him but will make players like him less effective.

 

[tantalum]

Obviously we'll never know, but I have to wonder if Keith throws that elbow on Daniel if he knows a guy like Gudbranson is watching.

I just hope that days of other teams taking cheap shots at our skilled guys is a thing of the past.

Of course he would. Keith has thrown so many cheap shots in his career and you can be damn sure some of them have come when the other team had a mouth breather on the ice or bench. He doesn't care and Gudbranson certainly isn't going to make him change the way he plays.

All teams take cheap shots at skilled players on every other team. A good or physical player or two isn't going to change it. Hell the Sharks were taking runs last night. They didn't care a Dorsett or Pedan or LaBate or whoever was around to drop some gloves or hit or whatever. It is such a non-issue. Lucic isn't going to prevent someone from trying to go after McDavid with a cheap shot. Lucic may however help create space for McDavid with strong board play and recovery skills because he actually has some talent and can play with talent.

 

[ahmon]

You are mistaking "situational awareness" for "reputational intimidation".

If a player sees Torres charging at him as he skates into the corner, of course he'll rush it because ... well, a big, heavy, fast player is charging at him RIGHT NOW. It could be Torres or any player that is currently barrelling down on them. That is very different than rushing the play because you know that Torres is somewhere on the ice and because he has a reputation.

Ditto for Gudbranson. Gubranson's actual physical play may be effective against a player BECAUSE he is big and strong. But not because his being big and strong keeps that player from going to the net or battling on the boards with him. Gudbranson may win the battle because he is bigger and stronger, but he has to earn it. There are no "freebies" because he intimidates players too much to even bother.

I think you are twisting definitions here.

How is "situational awareness" different than fear in my example?

You see a bear, you are scare because there is fear it will hurt you. You are intimidated by the bear...

You can say the same well its not fear, its only situational awareness, you are only "aware" that its a bear..

To me its the same thing.

Using my example, you are intimidated by Torres forechecking you instead of someone who is less likely to hurt you.

Which is what made Lindros so intimidating in his prime, because he was so fast, so big, so strong and so mean.

If he's charging at you, you are forced to adjust.

Intimidation is part of situational awareness. You are just creating any vocabulary to redirect the meaning

 

[Hit the post]

Obviously we'll never know, but I have to wonder if Keith throws that elbow on Daniel if he knows a guy like Gudbranson is watching.

heh....



(yes, Lucic was on the ice on the play)