Post-Game Talk: Arooooo 3 @ Canucks 2 || Horvat scored so there's that.

[Proto]

Which line was that?

The Sedins carried every line for the past decade.

drive play != carry a line.

Burrows improved the possession numbers of basically everyone he played significant time with for 5 or 6 years. Even last year he was able to do that for large parts of the season. You could put him on a line that was, say, 48% CF and push them up to a 50-52% line or whatever. The Sedins typically had better possession numbers with him than anyone else, as well.

 

[Addison Rae]

drive play != carry a line.

Burrows improved the possession numbers of basically everyone he played significant time with for 5 or 6 years. Even last year he was able to do that for large parts of the season. You could put him on a line that was, say, 48% CF and push them up to a 50-52% line or whatever. The Sedins typically had better possession numbers with him than anyone else, as well.

Yeah it's ridiculous that he never gets the credit he deserves, he's done a ton of heavy lifting and is a very good possession driver on top of being an elite defensive winger. If he produces at a 40 point pace (like last year) he's totally worth his contract.

 

[Proto]

Also, being asked to "carry lines" for the complementary players refers to being put with young players who are right now poor possession players. Nothing wrong with that, as it's fairly common for younger players. Higgins/Burrows aren't really good enough to pull those guys above water anymore though, and being good possession players was a large part of what made them effective players (and good "third men" on whatever line they were on).

 

[fancouver]

drive play != carry a line.

Burrows improved the possession numbers of basically everyone he played significant time with for 5 or 6 years. Even last year he was able to do that for large parts of the season. You could put him on a line that was, say, 48% CF and push them up to a 50-52% line or whatever. The Sedins typically had better possession numbers with him than anyone else, as well.

Ok, you were using both "drive" and "carry" interchangeably, so this is a bit different from your initial stance:

Also, Burrows at this point can't drive a line anymore (as he could for 5 or 6 seasons there). That makes sense at his age. A lot of what we're seeing is complementary players being asked to carry lines with young kids on them

And I was responding to your initial stance.

 

[CanaFan]

Not worth it at all. Peca was a leader and one of the best two way players in the NHL long after Mogilny left this team.

In hindsight? Sure.

At the time? 99.9999% of Vancouver fans were doing cartwheels believing we'd fleeced Buffalo and were reuniting 2/3 of one of the greatest junior lines in WJC history.

And I was actually a big Peca fan at the time but even I never saw him becoming the elite two-way player he eventually became. I can't put any blame on Quinn for how that deal turned out, even though as it turned out Bure and Mogilny never actually clicked on the same line as most everyone expected they would.

 

[Proto]

Ok, you were using both "drive" and "carry" interchangeably, so this is a bit different from your initial stance:


And I was responding to your initial stance.

I said Burrows could drive play on every line he was on but that players like he/Higgins are now being asked to carry lines. But you're right that I could have been a bit more clear in explaining what I meant

 

[Hardyvan123]

I get the reference (one of the best open ice hits i've ever seen) but i'd be amazed if more than a handful of posters here do. You're going waaaaaaay back on that one.

that's not that far back, Hilliard Graves is and that hipcheck.

 

[CanaFan]

that's not that far back, Hilliard Graves is and that hipcheck.

You're probably right though I tend to think anything pre-Sedins is akin to silent films and Sputnik for most of the posters around here.

 

[mathonwy]

Well, I've worked for companies where people become unmotivated because their friends left the company. Maybe players are sad that Bieksa left.

I've worked for companies where employees were not motivated because they had an outside addiction. Maybe some players have been partying too much.

Maybe some of the players aren't motivated because they are in the middle of a long contract and have little financial incentive.

Nobody has any idea, and the truth is it doesn't matter why players aren't playing well anymore.. just the results. Spinning it in an obscure way to blame management is pointless, unless your point is to blame management for everything and not hold people accountable for their own play.

I'm really not spinning anything.

What I was suggesting is there might have been a correlation between team success and individual player success with Higgins. The reason I was suggesting such a correlation was based on my observation of Higgins having a strong game versus the Coyotes and having lackluster games in most other games this season.

Higgins having a strong game versus the Coyote means Higgins was putting in that extra effort to drive play in the ozone. This extra effort was most definitely not present in most other games this season which means that Higgins wasn't motivated to put in that extra effort.

So two questions:

1. What was special about last night to motivate Higgins to put in that extra effort?

Here is Higgins production in every game he's played the Coyotes

Starting March 14, 2012, Higgins seems to consistently put in an extra effort against them. Last night Higgins didn't hit the scoreboard but the extra effort was quite apparent.

So I postulate the reason for Higgins extra effort last night was because it was against Shane Doan. Doan seems to be the most likely common denominator.

2. Why doesn't Higgins always play like this?

Well, based on my own general observation of Higgins play over the last few seasons, I've come to the conclusion that Higgins normally ISN'T an extra effort player. I don't really recall Higgins ever having a consistently high intensity to his game like Burr usually does.

I crunched the numbers on his point production over the last 5 years and looked at his even strength point production partitioned by linemates.

So the conclusions I extrapolate from this are:

- Higgins plays his best game when he's paired with a good center and it doesn't matter if that center is a playmaking one (Bonino) or a shooting one (Kesler).
- His numbers in 2012-13 and 2015-16 suggests that Higgins will not drive play (put in that extra effort) unless he's got a good center except when he's playing against Doan.
- The fact that he had a 0.5 PnTPG in the 2013-14 season of the Torts tire fire suggests that his production is linked to the quality of his linemates and not to fortunes of the team (so my correlation suggestion is wrong)

So what does this all mean?

It means that the only way we'll get some consistent production out of Higgins this season is to pair him with a good veteran center and that's Sutter. His performance last night suggests that there is nothing physically wrong with him anymore.

So it's Sutter or bust.

Too bad we traded Bonino. Having a traditional playmaking center would be of real benefit to the Canucks.

 

[m9]

He plays better with good linemates and against bad teams, just like most other guys in the league. Not much else needs to even be added. He's played well vs Buffalo, too.

I don't even know what to say about the Doan theory. Probably one of the craziest things I've read here.

 

[Hit the post]

that's not that far back, Hilliard Graves is and that hipcheck.

Jiri Bubla was no slouch in that department either.

 

[mathonwy]

He plays better with good linemates and against bad teams, just like most other guys in the league. Not much else needs to even be added. He's played well vs Buffalo, too.

I don't even know what to say about the Doan theory. Probably one of the craziest things I've read here.

Thanks for your contribution.