Player Discussion 3 Reasons Why the Canucks Will Be a Tougher Team This Season

[Javaman]

I was responding to your claim doubting the team was in fact any harder to play against. That's where you jumped into this thread.
<snip>

Doubting a claim is not the same thing as making a claim.

SMH.

 

[F A N]

Apparently,..the Flames tried to acquire Reaves (according to Eric Francis),but it didnt work out...Now that they have acquired Lucic ,he seems of the opinion that the Flames have solved the problem...Only problem is that Lucic falls under that out dated Tom Sestito type enforcer.

Is it just me ...or is there a 'grit' arms race in the Pacific Division?

The Flames were after Reaves last summer but Reaves chose to re-sign with Vegas.

It's kind of funny how fan base differs. The Flames fan base seems to think that the team has needed size and toughness for years. For years the Jets were drafting guys who were seemingly big and fast. That was how the Jets envision their team to be like.
A large segment of our fan base here seems to equate size and toughness as dinosaur thinking. Granted, adding talent and skill has been the bigger priority but like I said in a previous post, it's eventually going to be a problem if you don't have it.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The Flames were after Reaves last summer but Reaves chose to re-sign with Vegas.

It's kind of funny how fan base differs. The Flames fan base seems to think that the team has needed size and toughness for years. For years the Jets were drafting guys who were seemingly big and fast. That was how the Jets envision their team to be like.
A large segment of our fan base here seems to equate size and toughness as dinosaur thinking. Granted, adding talent and skill has been the bigger priority but like I said in a previous post, it's eventually going to be a problem if you don't have it.

...and the Leafs traded the very last of their' grit' guys (Kadri) for more skill...?..Go figure..?

 

[Hit the post]

It does feel like the Western GMs feel the need to have a couple known fighters in the organization. Ducks traded for Sieloff, Sharks signed Prout, Oilers have a bunch of bodies, Flames got themselves Lucic. All teams have had more than a couple tough guys on the roster since 2011 at least.

Flames ONLY got Lucic because they had a crap player like Neal.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Still waiting for anyone to provide any gathered by anyone anywhere that demonstrates being a tougher team means being a better team. And I don't mean anecdotal evidence from the "Do you even lift, bruh?!" crowd.

your question is worthless and weak.

 

[Hoghandler]

You made a claim. Therefore you bear the "burden of proof". That's how it works. Elsewise, nobody should give the least bit of credence to anything you have to say.

Why don't you go back and review this discussion on page 1 and see how many times you moved the goalposts.

It started with you claiming you didn't believe we would be harder to play against, based on past history. I disagreed, and said why I thought they were. Then by the end of it you were demanding I prove that the team was better in the standings because of them being harder to play against, which had absolutely nothing to do with your initial claim.

Again, things like 'grit' and 'being hard to play against' are subjective descriptions. Someone doesn't need to bear the 'burden of proof' to claim Antoine Roussel is harder to play against than Markus Granlund. It's an opinion. If you claim Elias Pettersson has a higher hockey IQ than Jake Virtanen, nobody is going to tell you to 'prove it'. Subjective descriptions are just that, subjective.

 

[valkynax]

I think it depends on the context. Sestito is actually a decent skater for his size and has pretty soft hands but I digress. I think a guy who can get in the forecheck and throw big hits can be a disruptive presence, especially in the playoffs. I think a championship contender can field a guy like Ryan Reaves. But it's not like we have a Ryan Reaves or Sestito here.

Oh I'm fine what most if not all of what you just said.

I'm mainly referring to this very annoying notion going around that toughness can substitute for skill, which, like I said, is complete bullshit.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Oh I'm fine what most if not all of what you just said.

I'm mainly referring to this very annoying notion going around that toughness can substitute for skill, which, like I said, is complete bull****.

Who's making this claim, and what specifically are they saying? I'm only seeing people say toughness matters and helps win games.

 

[valkynax]

Who's making this claim, and what specifically are they saying? I'm only seeing people say toughness matters and helps win games.

See what FAN posted? He said toughness helps with a champion calibre team, which means a team already backed up by tons of skills.

Toughness alone won't do much when your opponent is skating circle around you and the best you can do is shaking your fist really hard.

 

[bandwagonesque]

See what FAN posted? He said toughness helps with a champion calibre team, which means a team already backed up by tons of skills.

Toughness alone won't do much when your opponent is skating circle around you and the best you can do is shaking your fist really hard.

Toughness does help skilled teams win. That isn't what you claimed posters were saying -- that toughness is a substitute for skill. Can you show me where anyone said that? Again, I haven't seen it or any sentiment that could be construed to support it in this thread. The Canucks added toughness with speed and skill. That's the kind of toughness that improves a team, and even really pessimistic posters mostly concede it should improve this one to some degree.

 

[valkynax]

Toughness does help skilled teams win. That isn't what you claimed posters were saying -- that toughness is a substitute for skill. Can you show me where anyone said that? Again, I haven't seen it or any sentiment that could be construed to support it in this thread. The Canucks added toughness with speed and skill. That's the kind of toughness that improves a team, and even really pessimistic posters mostly concede it should improve this one to some degree.

Not in this thread, I can't think of it of the top of my head, but it's definitely a recurring and incredibly annoying theme that came up in various posts.

I remember some used that argument in order to prove how awesome Gudbranson was.

 

[Hit the post]

See what FAN posted? He said toughness helps with a champion calibre team, which means a team already backed up by tons of skills.

Toughness alone won't do much when your opponent is skating circle around you and the best you can do is shaking your fist really hard.

It's a pretty "Captain Obvious" statement. ie., Toughness + skill > skill.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Not in this thread, I can't think of it of the top of my head, but it's definitely a recurring and incredibly annoying theme that came up in various posts.

I remember some used that argument in order to prove how awesome Gudbranson was.

That was years ago. In any case, watching Gudbranson probably educated a few people.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

your question is worthless and weak.

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to post that. You rock.

 

[Dough72]

it shouldn't be this hard to figure out why toughness is a valuable skill in a sport that allows body checking and physical play.

 

[bobbyb2009]

It's a pretty "Captain Obvious" statement. ie., Toughness + skill > skill.

I guess one of the challenges with stating how obvious this is, as sometimes there seems to be a few posters who seem to argue against this quality.

I am also guessing it just seems that way and they believe we have to add the skill as a priority and then add toughness around it, but that isn't as easy to do as we all think. Tough to find players that can play with skill and add toughness.

Around here, there does not seem to be a lot of value placed on the toughness piece. People seem to be happy considering having 3 <5' 9" defensemen, for example- without much thought to the strength of the others, as long as we can keep attacking. I am not so sure that a balance like that works very often without a counter balance somewhere of toughness and size.

 

[Hit the post]

your question is worthless and weak.

 

[VanJack]

Sure the Canucks will be tougher to play against next season, but the biggest thing they could have going for them is the decline in the Pacific Division.

The two Southern Cal teams are in full tear-down and rebuild mode. The Sharks could go one of two ways, but there's no doubt they'll miss Pavelski and their goaltending might be the worst in the entire NHL. Vegas looks strong. But up North, the Oilers are in perpetual rebuild mode, and although it's only a gut feeling, a lot of the Flames had career seasons last year and their goaltending is still a huge question mark. So a falloff wouldn't a be a huge shock.

So all the Canucks need to do is find a way to slide into the third position in the Pacific to guarantee a playoff spot. Still a huge ask I know, but doable if they avoid major injuries and get the goaltending from the Markstrom-Demko combo.