Bravo Benning. The D is pretty much rebuilt.

[Ainec]

If Juolevi develops according to plan, I wouldn't be opposed to creating a 'super pairing' with him and Tanev. A Juolevi-Tanev pairing would be up there with the best defensive pairings in the league.

A future Hutton-Gudbranson pairing would be a solid 2nd pairing.

Once Juolevi is truly ready for Top 4 duty, you can move Edler.

Edler is our best d right now

Feels bad

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Our defence really rides or dies on Woo panning out and the potential for Tryamkin to come back. Assuming one of these comes true, we might have a future core of:

Hughes - Tanev
Hutton - Stecher
Tryamkin/Juolevi - Woo
Rathbone/Brisebois/Sautner/Brassard

Which is respectable assuming Hughes is a top pairing/top 4 dman.


We really need a top ~7 pick to draft Byram, or to make a deal for Fabbro. That would be huge for this core going forward.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

When Hughes gets here, he should push a player or two off of the depth chart..I still think they need to try and acquire a top 4 D on the right side via UFA (it won't be cheap)

 

[Phenomenon13]

Our defence really rides or dies on Woo panning out and the potential for Tryamkin to come back. Assuming one of these comes true, we might have a future core of:

Hughes - Tanev
Hutton - Stecher
Tryamkin/Juolevi - Woo
Rathbone/Brisebois/Sautner/Brassard

Which is respectable assuming Hughes is a top pairing/top 4 dman.


We really need a top ~7 pick to draft Byram, or to make a deal for Fabbro. That would be huge for this core going forward.

No it doesn't. Our D rides or dies on us being able to draft more defenseman. Perferably of the top pairing kind.

I'm also skeptical about Hughes being able to handle the top pairing role. I think the only guy similar in stature to him that has shown to have success doing it is Spurgeon. It's extraordinarily rare but I wouldn't be surprised if Hughes is able to and wouldn't be surprised if he fails to.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

No it doesn't. Our D rides or dies on us being able to draft more defenseman. Perferably of the top pairing kind.

I'm also skeptical about Hughes being able to handle the top pairing role. I think the only guy similar in stature to him that has shown to have success doing it is Spurgeon. It's extraordinarily rare but I wouldn't be surprised if Hughes is able to and wouldn't be surprised if he fails to.

Agreed,..expecting Hughes to walk in and immediately be a top pairing D off of the bat is unrealistic...I think he will definitely be a huge upgrade on the PP though.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

No it doesn't. Our D rides or dies on us being able to draft more defenseman. Perferably of the top pairing kind.

I'm also skeptical about Hughes being able to handle the top pairing role. I think the only guy similar in stature to him that has shown to have success doing it is Spurgeon. It's extraordinarily rare but I wouldn't be surprised if Hughes is able to and wouldn't be surprised if he fails to.

I agree, my comment was more in the context of our defensive core + prospects today. Of course I expect Benning and Brackett to draft high-end dmen in the upcoming drafts, depending on where we pick.

The Hughes-Tanev pairing could be our second pairing, with Edler - Stecher or something for the top pair.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Some fun posts to look at:

What a convenient narrative.
Add Doughty Pietrangelo Ekman-Larsson Lindholm Reilly

Tkachuk could as easily be the next Dal Colle or Hodgson.

It was a solid pick......the more i watched of this kid the more impressed i was. Hes a much better prospect than Hamhuis. We just acquired a 15yr anchor and probably the best ever Canuck defenseman.

As mentioned its disapointing we didnt get a goal scorer but you build from the backline and we can now move Edler in a year or 2 for a forward.

Oh so wrong. You're still very pro-Benning despite being wrong in defending him time and time again. Tkachuk was not the next Dal Colle or Hodgson, meanwhile Juolevi has not developed well since being drafted. And no, he was not a much better prospect than Hamhuis. In fact, I was wrong in giving Juolevi too much credit calling him another Hamhuis.

Love that we picked Olli!! He's exactly who I would have taken given the circumstances. I think he will become our #1 D in time and we desperately need a pmd.

I would have been happy with PLD but I can totally understand why Columbus took him where they did. I think the talent drops off past the first four. Seems he's got a great attitude in coming here and think our Europeans will do a great job in mentoring him. Would love to see him play here for the next 15 years plus!

I hope to see him on the big club next season but not depending on it. He's got a big frame but needs to fill it out. He's got a good support staff in London.

It would be really very nice and good if all the people who keep ******** all over every single thing Benning and linden do could find another team to cheer for and stop posting here.

Maybe all the people who keep shitting all over every single thing Benning and Linden do are right? I mean...the results are there. But hey, I'm glad you loved the Canucks picking a worse prospect.

Juolevi is closer to OEL than Hamhuis

Whether Juolevi can be a #1 defenseman obviously remains to be seen, but without a doubt the long term future of our D core looks much better than it did a year or two ago. Juolevi and Hutton as the long term options as left shooting, puck moving D, while Tanev and Gudbranson slot in as right shooting, shutdown D partners. Throw in some nice looking young D wild cards like Tryamkin, Subban, and Brisebois and you have to think that there's the foundation for stability and balance on the back end for the forseebale future.

I think there very much was doubt, and those doubters were proven correct.

I think "pretty much rebuilt" is a big stretch but I like the direction.

I'm in the Gudbranson is young, will continue to make improvements to his game, and will ultimately prove to be a very solid 2nd pairing D-man that compliments an offense first guy like Hutton.
Even if Hutton's trajectory slows significantly (hard to believe it won't), he still projects as a good offensive D-man who can at least be a second pairing PP QB and eat minutes. Tanev is Tanev and is still young. Edler will be 33 at the end of his current contract and very likely will have tailed off by then.

top 4 in 3 years

Joulevi Tanev
Hutton Gudbranson

It's very reasonable to anticipate that at least two of Tryamkin, Subban, Stetcher, Pedan, Brisebois, Neill, Olson will develop into solid NHLers.

Larsen, Edler, and Sbisa are the transition guys while we wait for these other guys to develop.

Overall, the D is a little soft (thinking Pedan will turn out to be a 7/8 guy) but it is big, mobile, young with a very good balance of O and D.

A lot would have to go right for the core to be a good as when Bieksa and Hamhuis were in their prime, but it's hard to complain about the direction.

Well it's 3 years later...if that's our top 4, ouch.

Yall can quote me but I think Juolevi will make the third-pairing next year and settle down Sbisas game, much like hutton did. We will also use him on the PP unit.

This kid thinks the game at an NHL level.

Edler-Tanev
Hutton-Gudbranson
Juolevi-Sbisa

Depth:Larson, Tryamkin, Stetcher

Okay, I quoted you. You were wrong.

Gotta say im feeling a lil suprised and good about are d now. And everyone keeps saying Gubranson IS a top 4 guy so.... maybe not so bad. Imagine in 3 years

Juol
Tanman
Edler
Hutty
Goober
Sbisa Man
Trammer
Briesbois

Those are all good dmen. Even if not all around or made it by then thats kinda impressive

Nicely played Benning

Nicely played? That list is terrible.

Juolevi in 2-3 years will replace Gudbranson on the 2nd pairing.

Well...Gudbranson certainly isn't on the 2nd pairing, but Juolevi isn't even on the team (Gudbranson shouldn't be either).

Juolevi is a LHD, Gudbranson is a RHD.

Juolevi will most likely replace Edler.

Yeah, no. But at least you admitted you were wrong so that's nice

Like I said: Florida called the league idiot and took him for all he was worth.

^^^This guy gets it.

What i said is actually likely to happen..

No, it wasn't. And it didn't happen.

Benning has assembled a solid, young, mobile back end. He added a top end prospect at the draft. I have no worries with defensemen and goalies under Benning's regime. He gets it. If he hadn't been gifted with a top line he might have built a new top six, too?

No, he didn't assmble a solid, young, mobile back end. He assembled junk. I was right 3 years ago, and have been proven right since.

If Juolevi develops according to plan, I wouldn't be opposed to creating a 'super pairing' with him and Tanev. A Juolevi-Tanev pairing would be up there with the best defensive pairings in the league.

A future Hutton-Gudbranson pairing would be a solid 2nd pairing.

Once Juolevi is truly ready for Top 4 duty, you can move Edler.

Hutton-Gudbranson together was trash, because Gudbranson is trash.

I have only really been appalled with Benning twice, both on traded away players. That's pretty good. I'm mostly on board with what he's trying to do.

My concerns are that the team might need different coaching tactics if they go to a one and one-A forward line model. One of the things that worked really well for the Sedins at their peak was sensible deployment by Alain Vigneault. I feel that their declining years should be done with active coaching to modify their minutes.

Benning can contribute by adding a winger to their line. If he only does that single addition, this will be a good off-season. I'd like to add two wingers to the Sedin line, Okposo and Eriksson. I think they would both be good and depth here is a reasonable precaution. Also, they can show different looks on different nights. If that's your second line behind a speedy young line, I think the top six looks good.

Etem, Sutter, Hansen sound like a capable two way line (to me). They can function as the checking unit and do PK duty.

The fourth line will feature veteran Dorsett with raw rookie Guance and lightweight center Granlund. That doesn't sound bad, considering the minutes they'll play.

It all sounds pretty good on paper. Canucks have demonstrated a refreshing lack of concern about smaller players being stapled here. It seems cruel but this is a blood sport. It's all in good fun, then they trade you to Calgary, I guess?

This post will be remembered as someone actually wanting the Canucks to sign Loui Eriksson.

I don't give Benning credit for that much of it, but I do think that these five guys are a solid group of D to build from

Tanev
Juolevi
Hutton
Tryamkin
Gudbranson
I disagree with the commonly accepted narrative that they're equal priority pieces and that you necessarily need a top 15 type 1D and 1G to compete and/or win a cup. It's a luxury and often something that can put you over the top, but I would be perfectly content with just a well rounded and solid D core 1 through 6.

A 1C is an absolute prerequisite to get ANYWHERE in this league-- you're unlikely to even make the playoffs without one, IMO.

That said, this idea I'm hearing of Ohlund not being a #1 guy is absolutely ludicrous. There were not 15 defenseman better than him when he was playing well.

Yeah no. That's a recipe for an awful defense.

If you exclude Gudbranson and Sutter from being good pieces for the team to move forward with it certainly makes Jim's retool look really bad.

Don't need to exclude Gudbranson and Sutter. They weren't good pieces for the team. But I'm glad you admit Jim's retool looks really bad.

Gudbranson is a good enough top 4 piece. However I think Sutter is a anchor on our capspace and needs to be traded for a cheaper option.

what a joke. take a hike buddy. "Much better" lol both guys are in the same category. In order for Larrson to be *much* better he needs to up an additional 15 points to be considered "much better"

Adam Larsson isn't very good, but he certainly is much better than Erik Gudbranson. Telling someone else to take a hike when you're wrong with your assessment.....

This is just an example that people shouldn't openly ridicule others for their opinions unless they know for certain they're correct. If you're not using anything factual to support your own opinion, then don't ridicule others. Use facts. Educate yourself on analytics, and then you can tell someone to take a hike.

 

[Phenomenon13]

This core completely hinges on Juolevi panning out and hitting his potential as a #1 defenseman. Otherwise if he's just a top four defender, the dcore is rather mediocre with no top end talent which all championship teams are built on. Hutton realistically is going to a top four (second pairing guy). Tanev is top pairing obviously. Gudbranson is #4 at best. .

I'm not sold on tryamkin as a top four guy as I see him to be a bottom pairing guy. Pedan is going to be bottom pairing. Edler is going to regress to a second pairing player by the time juolevi hits his prime.

If juolevi doesn't become at least a number two, our defense isn't going to be contender level and based on what I've read up on none of the defenseman in this draft are number ones

I don't think the cup is hard to win without a number one d. It's hard to win regardless of your team composition. I don't believe there's been a single team in the past ten years that has won without a number one d man anchoring the team.

You can try to win with depth but it doesn't change the fact that this entire defense core hinges on Juolevi panning out. If he busts this defense core will be lucky to make this team a dark horse contender. Depth also requires to you to pay more money for better quality bottom pairing guys but from what I've seen its doesn't equate to the value of a true number one.

Edit: pronger was traded several times in his career. Niedermeyer and chara were signed as ufa. Keith and subban are second rounders. It's definitely hard but not impossible if you don't draft one. drafting one is obviously ideal. I'm merely saying that everyone here is saying how great our core is but we need to be more cautious as the entire plan is centered around a player who hasn't even played a single game in the NHL. We need to temper expectations.

Luck into drafting top five LOL.
You mean suck so hard because of incompetence that we draft top five consistently despite trying not to. That is practically oiler level bad if it happens.

OP is right.

The defense has been rebuilt by Benning. The three best defenseman on this team were all acquired by his genius intellect. Not to mention that great bottom pairing defense of tryamkin sbisa.

I wonder where khl super star Larsen fits. Has he even signed with the mighty Canucks yet? We might not even need him with how stacked we are getting.

No words for this. OP was wrong. You were wrong.

I was being sarcastic. These are pretty much all the quotes I've said in the thread. If you read 2 pages ahead of where you quoted that last one.

 

[timbermen]

Its different.

Maybe it's his opera moderanti.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I was being sarcastic. These are pretty much all the quotes I've said in the thread. If you read 2 pages ahead of where you quoted that last one.

My mistake, and removed from the list. To be fair, when reading some of those posts it's hard to tell what's sarcasm and what's serious.

 

[iceburg]

Some fun posts to look at:

Well it's 3 years later...if that's our top 4, ouch.

Well I was dead wrong on Gudbranson. At best he's a bottom pairing guy and that's only if his partner is a top 4 guy....

Pretty close on Hutton (even predicted the down year) but he isn't a PP QB. At best he should be occasionally filling in on the 2nd unit. Stecher has developed. Tryamkin would have. Brisebois still might - I was only asking for two.

Edler being looked at for another contract is a little bit of a surprise but this year had been one of his best despite the injuries.

And then there's Juolevi...ugh...I said at the beginning of the year that this was an important year for him and he needed to play singificant minutes in the NHL or the bust conversation would be a reasonable one to have. I'm not sure how I feel now because he was doing ok in Utica but the long term injury really was a blow to his development at this stage.

But, the most interesting thing about this is that you find it entertaining to spend time digging up posts just to tell people they're wrong...

 

[CherryToke]

Juolevi was a dumb pick and I'm pretty sure I raged when we picked him but he's not a write off yet..

 

[y2kcanucks]

Well I was dead wrong on Gudbranson. At best he's a bottom pairing guy and that's only if his partner is a top 4 guy....

Pretty close on Hutton (even predicted the down year) but he isn't a PP QB. At best he should be occasionally filling in on the 2nd unit. Stecher has developed. Tryamkin would have. Brisebois still might - I was only asking for two.

Edler being looked at for another contract is a little bit of a surprise but this year had been one of his best despite the injuries.

And then there's Juolevi...ugh...I said at the beginning of the year that this was an important year for him and he needed to play singificant minutes in the NHL or the bust conversation would be a reasonable one to have. I'm not sure how I feel now because he was doing ok in Utica but the long term injury really was a blow to his development at this stage.

But, the most interesting thing about this is that you find it entertaining to spend time digging up posts just to tell people they're wrong...

With all the crap I, and others, put up with from the rah rah pro-Benning side, I get a lot of enjoyment out of this.

 

[Phenomenon13]

My mistake, and removed from the list. To be fair, when reading some of those posts it's hard to tell what's sarcasm and what's serious.

You made me think I was drunk or got hacked.

I think what happened was I gave up debating with other posters since it was going nowhere and just decided to "agree" with em. Edler tanev and hamhuis were our top three and that was also the year of the deadline debacle. Rebuilding the d core was discussed but our best guys weren't even Benning acquired.

I will say I was a believer in Juolevi. He's not tracking to be the number two d I hoped he was. I'm hoping for a number four d at this point. We need all the defense prospects to hit.

 

[xtra]

Man I wanted to do that but didn’t have the time. I love how petty it was because of the abuse y2k (and others anti-benning) have taken

 

[TruKnyte]

You made me think I was drunk or got hacked.

I think what happened was I gave up debating with other posters since it was going nowhere and just decided to "agree" with em. Edler tanev and hamhuis were our top three and that was also the year of the deadline debacle. Rebuilding the d core was discussed but our best guys weren't even Benning acquired.

I will say I was a believer in Juolevi. He's not tracking to be the number two d I hoped he was. I'm hoping for a number four d at this point. We need all the defense prospects to hit.

I just want to see one injury free year from him to know if he's a total bust or not.

 

[Shareefruck]

Yeah no. That's a recipe for an awful defense.

For the record, I was reasonably high on Juolevi (less than the average poster, but still thinking he would be a #3/4 type, which may be awful for 5th overall, but it's not nothing), Hutton (who I still like), and Tryamkin at the time (I still contend that Tryamkin would be a fantastic piece if handled properly), and thought Gudbranson would be serviceable as a half-way decent but frustrating #5 guy-- like Marek Malik level or something (although I still found him grossly overrated and misevaluated in terms of play-style, being compared to Willie Mitchell for some stupid reason).

I was saying that I thought that it was a solid starting point of five guys considering that we were working with nothing before that on both forward and defense. I was not in any way shape or form implying that that was a stacked group that we were set with. I also said "build from" and not "build around", which is a very important distinction.

By no means was I singing Benning's praises at that point. It was also more of a comment on how the forward group was in far greater shambles at the time, and how we were in far greater need of adding younger forwards instead (which we eventually did).

Context and expectations at the time are key here.

What I'll eat crow about is that I thought Juolevi would be better. I didn't think he'd be a stud, but I thought he'd at least be a sure-fire two-way NHLer who could be effective at this level.

 

[sting101]

Jesus @y2kcanucks if i was to pull out half the crap you spew around here we could go around in circles for days.

Ripping me for liking Juolevi post draft and at least thinking that he had the talent and look of a Hamhuis or Suter comp i used Initially is beyond laughable.

To think that you have some jedi mind powers to see the future of 17/18 yr old kids beyond pro scouts is embarrassing for you. I was a Tkachuk guy at the time but unlike yourself rather than mire in a world of anger and disdain i moved on and tried to digest and disect the reasoning and positives than back into a corner of right or wrong.

How is Vilardi vs Pettersson working out for ya

 

[iceburg]

With all the crap I, and others, put up with from the rah rah pro-Benning side, I get a lot of enjoyment out of this.

All good. Thing is I'm not pro-or anti-Benning. I'm more objective truth driven
Glad you're having fun.

 

[RandV]

Juolevi is still only 20 years old, you may yet be right on him as well. Guys bust young on this forum; Kyle Connor was a bust when he was 19 or 20 and he seems to be rounding into form. I'd wait another year on Juolevi.

Not the best example here, you must be thinking of a 20 game NHL callup in Connor's D+2 year. Otherwise:

Kyle Connor
D1 - UM - 38-35-36-71
D2 - AHL - 52-25-19-44
D3 - NHL - 76-31-26-57

Juolevi is in his D3 year, not horrible but still learning at the AHL level in the 19 games he got in before his season was shut down with injuries. At this point if he was going to be an elite he would have shown something by now, as it is it's extremely unlikely. The best you can hope for is something like Virtanen's projection.

 

[Shareefruck]

All good. Thing is I'm not pro-or anti-Benning. I'm more objective truth driven
Glad you're having fun.

These things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If objective truth shows that he's either doing well or poorly, it would make sense to either be pro or anti-Benning.

Standing in the middle does not make one's opinion or approach more credible/sensible. That's one fallacy that typically annoys me.

 

[Phenomenon13]

Agreed,..expecting Hughes to walk in and immediately be a top pairing D off of the bat is unrealistic...I think he will definitely be a huge upgrade on the PP though.

Im not sure if he will be able to handle the top pairing role when he's at his prime. I'm thinking he's a shattenkirk defenseman.

I agree, my comment was more in the context of our defensive core + prospects today. Of course I expect Benning and Brackett to draft high-end dmen in the upcoming drafts, depending on where we pick.

The Hughes-Tanev pairing could be our second pairing, with Edler - Stecher or something for the top pair.

To be honest, I hope it's not. Tanev and Edler always get injured and we need to move them for their value. I feel they are depreciating assets. The sooner the better. Neither of those two will be big time players when our team is playing for contention.

Hutton and stecher as a top pairing with Hughes and a vet like stralman. With out current projection of defense for next year, we are still going to be a nonplayoff team.

I just want to see one injury free year from him to know if he's a total bust or not.

I don't think he's a total bust at the moment but he is trending in that direction.

Injuries are part of the evaluation. I think you'll be having a biased assessment if you remove injuires out of it.

 

[iceburg]

These things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If objective truth shows that he's either doing well or poorly, it would make sense to either be pro or anti-Benning.

Standing in the middle does not make one's opinion or approach more credible/sensible. That's one fallacy that typically annoys me.

Ah but now you're putting words in my mouth or, at very least, telling me what my position is. Extract Benning out of the mix because the discussion becomes very polarized. Then ask the question, was the move good or bad, or the collection moves, good or bad. You can then make an assessment of whether the management is doing a good or a bad job. The problem arises when this assessment is done in the opposite direction....I am anti-Benning therefore every move he makes is either bad or he got kucky. Or, I'm pro-Benning and every move he makes is good to decent or there must have been extraneous circumstances out of his control...
Seeking objective truth doesn't mean one can't form an opinion good or bad. It just means the opinion isn't based in preconceived biases.
See the difference...

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

These things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If objective truth shows that he's either doing well or poorly, it would make sense to either be pro or anti-Benning.

Standing in the middle does not make one's opinion or approach more credible/sensible. That's one fallacy that typically annoys me.

Agreed, it's the textbook definition of 'weasel words', i.e. believing you are more reasonable/objective because you don't take a hard position on something.

 

[Shareefruck]

Ah but now you're putting words in my mouth or, at very least, telling me what my position is. Extract Benning out of the mix because the discussion becomes very polarized. Then ask the question, was the move good or bad, or the collection moves, good or bad. You can then make an assessment of whether the management is doing a good or a bad job. The problem arises when this assessment is done in the opposite direction....I am anti-Benning therefore every move he makes is either bad or he got kucky. Or, I'm pro-Benning and every move he makes is good to decent or there must have been extraneous circumstances out of his control...
Seeking objective truth doesn't mean one can't form an opinion good or bad. It just means the opinion isn't based in preconceived biases.
See the difference...

My point is that being pro or anti-Benning does not require that one make judgments about every move based on their preconceived biases about him. It is merely a position that describes whether or not you've assessed that he's done a good or bad job as GM.

I'm not necessarily accusing you of standing in the middle, per say, but I do think that choosing to correct the idea of being pro or anti-Benning by stating that you're pro-objective truth instead implies that you think they aren't compatible. The only way they wouldn't be is if you stood in the middle, which I do not think is any more or less credible/sensible/in line with objective truth.

That's my point. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just objecting to the implications of the way that you phrased that, whether intended or not.