me2
Go ahead foot
He's got 81 shots on goal over the last 2 years. He'll start scoring eventually.
Player Discussion Brendan Gaunce (Canucks will not extend qualifying offer - Dhaliwal)
- Thread starter Bleach Clean
- Start date
- Status
He's got 81 shots on goal over the last 2 years. He'll start scoring eventually.
HSD19
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2009
- 1,492
- 359
Never said he was deserving of anything but my point was currently most of his play is in the defensive end. He's playing the tough minutes and seems to be doing a good job. He would obviously have better numbers if he was getting offensive zone starts.
HSD19
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2009
- 1,492
- 359
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,160
- 16,018
HSD19
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2009
- 1,492
- 359
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Melvin
21/12/05
Not on the ice for a goal during a 6-1 loss where basically every player was a minus except for him.
"*bump* LOL no goals!!"
"*bump* LOL no goals!!"
Not only that, he was our most dangerous offensive player in that game while doing a great job defensively in the toughest minutes on the team.
I feel that there are a lot of people who were super stoked about Benning's off-season and how many picks we'd trade his great signings for who now really, really don't want to talk about that anymore and for whom LOL GAUNCE 0 GOALS is the easiest bit of low-hanging BUT GILLIS! fruit for them to latch onto and try to deflect with.
Likewise, these same people are suddenly really negative about Hutton while somehow thinking the worse Pouliot is just terrific.
Melvin
21/12/05
It is strangely sycophantic behaviour. You have to wonder if these people are somehow related to Benning or report to him or something.
I did not watch much of the game, but just based on the stats, we are talking about a guy who led the team in PK minutes and did not surrender a goal until the very end, didn't get scored on at ES in 11 or so minutes of ES play, and was on the ice for the most shots at ES (6) despite only 2 offensive-zone faceoffs. As a comparison, Vanek took 7 O-zone faceoffs (0 D-zone) and was on the ice for just 1 shot (4 against.)
I dunno, I didn't watch more than half the game but it seems unlikely to me that this player cost us the game in any meaningful way.
Yet someone bumps this thread "OMG this guy is losing us hockey games." I don't really see it.
I am sure we would all like to see more production out of Gaunce but in a 6-1 loss I don't really think Gaunce not scoring a goal was one of the bigger problems.
Megaterio Llamas
el rey del mambo
Megaterio Llamas
el rey del mambo
I'm not hung up on goals myself as I can see plenty of value in the other things Brendan does to contribute to this team. And it just isn't true that he doesn't contribute to offense, his forecheck pressure has been instrumental in a few goals scored this season even if he hasn't always been credited with an assist he was still in on those scoring plays by pressuring and turning pucks over in the offensive zone.
Clearly he's a player that the coach trusts, even relates to from his own personal playing days. There's just a bond between the two forged in battle over the years in Utica. The coach simply trusts in Gaunce.
Clearly he's a player that the coach trusts, even relates to from his own personal playing days. There's just a bond between the two forged in battle over the years in Utica. The coach simply trusts in Gaunce.
Melvin
21/12/05
If Benning had drafted/signed Gaunce he would be playing on the Sedins wing and getting 5 minutes of PP time per game, where he would probably put up 20 points or something. You know, like Sutter last season.
Speaking of Sutter, nobody was really bagging on him too much before he got hurt, because people understood he was doing okay for his role, although he was way overpaid.
Now Sutter is hurt and Gaunce is filling his role just fine while being used in an even more defensively-extreme fashion, and making 15% the salary.
If Gaunce had one goal on a goalie like Sutter does this year, would it really make so much of a difference that all the guys bagging on him would immediately cease? If so, it should make you re-evaluate your stance.
Last edited:
Melvin
21/12/05
You obviously cannot have 12 forwards like GAunce, but someone has to take defensive zone faceoffs, and he is used almost exclusively by Green in that fashion. His deployment has been the most extreme we've seen of a forward since Malhotra. His job is to basically get the puck up the ice so that the goalie freezes the puck and wins us an O-zone faceoff. Then the Sedins can come on and generate the goal. If you can't figure out how that contibutes to offense then I don't really know what to say to you.
Melvin
21/12/05
Weird that the anti-stats crowd cannot grasp that a player can be useful without having goals or assists.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,887
- 14,748
Did i comment on how he contributes to offense.
May want to re read what i posted
Megaterio Llamas
el rey del mambo
Megaterio Llamas
el rey del mambo
Problem here is that Guance is not judged on the same objective standards as others. I would say that a player like Granlund is having a bad season to date. And most seem to agree.
But Granlund has almost identical face off % (both around 40 %) the same number of hits (although Gaunce in less games) and a slightly better Corsi rating (CF%) . On top of that Granlaud actually has some goals and points and about twice as many shots as Gaunce.
Are these stats really that meaningful. Probably not. Frankly I think you can lost in a maze of statistics and use them a dozen way to Sunday to prove what you want. But these stats and others certainly don't indicate that Gaunce is statistically much above Granlund and I think it is almost universally agreed that Granlund is not an effective player for the team this year.
And here I am not saying Granlund is doing well or even that he is a better player than Gaunce. They are probably equally bad. But there are some here that would be outraged at this suggestion Some would insist that Gaunce is infinitively better and is some kind of face off stalwart (he's not) or is some kind of defensive dynamo. (and I believe they go here b/c being defensively good is hard to quantify and thus allows for massive degrees of interpretation).
What we do know is the following:
1. Gaunce is terrible offensively. I watched him in Utica for years and he was never the offensive star that some indicate. He played in spurts and was really hot and cold. He scored most goal by being part of the forecheck (which is what Utica was best at) when the other team was forced into a turn over which Gaunce was able to one time the puck or to a loose puck which Gaunce could bat in. He was not a player controlling the puck and distributing it. At his best he could bull rush the puck thru the neutral zone and get off a heavy shot which could beat AHL type goaltenders. He was never in the upper echelon of AHL offensive players. Those players were the ones that had the puck and could beat people one on one and control the play. Utica has had very few of these players. Probably the only players who fit this category are Cal O'Reilly, Baertschi and lately Boucher and Goldobin. Just for comparison Grenier was much better offensive player than Guance at the AHL level.
I never thought the kind of offensive skills Gaunce had would transfer to the NHL and they surely haven't. Again Gaunce is the lowest scoring forward in Canuck history. People should let that sink in -I mean that's been since since 1967. And I think he is the lowest scoring forward (in terms of goals per game) in the history of the League. How anyone can excuse the futility of that is truly mind blowing.
2. Gaunce provides no physical deterrence. People were upset that there was no physical push back against Nashville when their players started cuffing Canuck players around. And really right now we have no one who can really stand up for the team. Virtanen makes an effort but he has zero support if he gets into altercations. Certainly Gaunce never got involved. I watched Gaunce avoid one situation after another in the AHL. He never jumped in for a team mate that I saw. People talk as though he was this big physical player who bangs people around. Well when he tried this in the AHL or Junior hockey and got push back he backed off immediately and I have seen nothing to suggest he wants to play a hard nosed game in Vancouver. That's a problem. If you are going to be a non -scoring winger in the NHL you have to bring something else to the table. Often that is toughness and an ability to make other teams accountable for dishing out dirt to your team. Gaunce has not provided this and will not provide this.
3. Gaunce is mediocre on faceoffs. The idea that he is somehow the new Manny Malhotra on face-offs is ridiculous. One reason he went to the wing in Utica is because he was poor on face offs. He never took crucial draws and doesn't in Vancouver. Up to injury the team was double shifting Horvat on faceoffs because everyone (outside of Sutter) was not good enough. With Horvat and Sutter out they have had to use others and Gaunce has taken a few more. But the other night against Calgary, when he was supposedly having this tremendous game, he was 25% in the circle.
Is Gaunce ok defensively. Yes he is ok but nothing special. He is not the re-emergence of Bob Gainey and certainly people saying he a one of the top defensive forwards in the NHL is an extreme exaggeration. If he had that reputation he would be great demand at the trade deadline. That would be great but unfortunately is untrue.
But Granlund has almost identical face off % (both around 40 %) the same number of hits (although Gaunce in less games) and a slightly better Corsi rating (CF%) . On top of that Granlaud actually has some goals and points and about twice as many shots as Gaunce.
Are these stats really that meaningful. Probably not. Frankly I think you can lost in a maze of statistics and use them a dozen way to Sunday to prove what you want. But these stats and others certainly don't indicate that Gaunce is statistically much above Granlund and I think it is almost universally agreed that Granlund is not an effective player for the team this year.
And here I am not saying Granlund is doing well or even that he is a better player than Gaunce. They are probably equally bad. But there are some here that would be outraged at this suggestion Some would insist that Gaunce is infinitively better and is some kind of face off stalwart (he's not) or is some kind of defensive dynamo. (and I believe they go here b/c being defensively good is hard to quantify and thus allows for massive degrees of interpretation).
What we do know is the following:
1. Gaunce is terrible offensively. I watched him in Utica for years and he was never the offensive star that some indicate. He played in spurts and was really hot and cold. He scored most goal by being part of the forecheck (which is what Utica was best at) when the other team was forced into a turn over which Gaunce was able to one time the puck or to a loose puck which Gaunce could bat in. He was not a player controlling the puck and distributing it. At his best he could bull rush the puck thru the neutral zone and get off a heavy shot which could beat AHL type goaltenders. He was never in the upper echelon of AHL offensive players. Those players were the ones that had the puck and could beat people one on one and control the play. Utica has had very few of these players. Probably the only players who fit this category are Cal O'Reilly, Baertschi and lately Boucher and Goldobin. Just for comparison Grenier was much better offensive player than Guance at the AHL level.
I never thought the kind of offensive skills Gaunce had would transfer to the NHL and they surely haven't. Again Gaunce is the lowest scoring forward in Canuck history. People should let that sink in -I mean that's been since since 1967. And I think he is the lowest scoring forward (in terms of goals per game) in the history of the League. How anyone can excuse the futility of that is truly mind blowing.
2. Gaunce provides no physical deterrence. People were upset that there was no physical push back against Nashville when their players started cuffing Canuck players around. And really right now we have no one who can really stand up for the team. Virtanen makes an effort but he has zero support if he gets into altercations. Certainly Gaunce never got involved. I watched Gaunce avoid one situation after another in the AHL. He never jumped in for a team mate that I saw. People talk as though he was this big physical player who bangs people around. Well when he tried this in the AHL or Junior hockey and got push back he backed off immediately and I have seen nothing to suggest he wants to play a hard nosed game in Vancouver. That's a problem. If you are going to be a non -scoring winger in the NHL you have to bring something else to the table. Often that is toughness and an ability to make other teams accountable for dishing out dirt to your team. Gaunce has not provided this and will not provide this.
3. Gaunce is mediocre on faceoffs. The idea that he is somehow the new Manny Malhotra on face-offs is ridiculous. One reason he went to the wing in Utica is because he was poor on face offs. He never took crucial draws and doesn't in Vancouver. Up to injury the team was double shifting Horvat on faceoffs because everyone (outside of Sutter) was not good enough. With Horvat and Sutter out they have had to use others and Gaunce has taken a few more. But the other night against Calgary, when he was supposedly having this tremendous game, he was 25% in the circle.
Is Gaunce ok defensively. Yes he is ok but nothing special. He is not the re-emergence of Bob Gainey and certainly people saying he a one of the top defensive forwards in the NHL is an extreme exaggeration. If he had that reputation he would be great demand at the trade deadline. That would be great but unfortunately is untrue.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,046
- 6,611
Well yeah, Granlund is considered a better player.
The issue here is that you are prioritizing one "objective standard" over all other objective standards. Gaunce is a low scoring player. Everyone has acknowledged this. The disagreement is: Is a low scoring player still useful at the NHL level?
For the people that value possession (objective standard), he's useful. As a fringe player facing heavy QoC, that buys him time. Does it absolve him from scoring though, IMO, no. He still has to score to have any NHL longevity. For now though, his non-points based work is enough to keep him in this line-up. Agree/Disagree?
Rather than dispute your assertion that Gaunce is merely "ok" defensively, how do you rate his defensive ability relative to his teammates? If he's not one of the best, in your opinion, then you will face disagreement. He's getting increased TOI for exactly this reason. And if you acknowledge that, then you've kind of acknowledged why he's still on the roster...
- Status
