Canucks need SNIPERS

[Snatcher Demko]

Gillis is out to lunch and needs to be fired if he thinks all the Canucks need to do is vaguely get "bigger" or "younger".

The single biggest impediment to this team's lack of playoff success is that the Canucks lack snipers.

Look at several key Canucks ES goals in the last series. Kesler or Burrows snipes off of turnovers or the rush. Why did the Sharks beat the Canucks? Because they were bigger and bullied us around? No - the players that killed them were Couture, Pavelski and Marleau. All of whom have great shots and wil go into the dirty areas. Size is not the issue. Even Torres had a nice snipe on that 2 on 1 that broke the Canucks' backs. In the playoffs, time and space are precious, and rebounds are quickly collapsed upon or cleared. If you can't get shots through a maze or fire a quick snapshot or one-timer, you're in tough.

Why did the Kings steamroll their way to the Cup last year? They didn't play a single team in the WC that had more than one 30 goal scorer. The seas parted for them. Canucks, Blues and Coyotes. The only Canuck who scored 30 last year was Daniel and he was concussed. Kesler was hurt. The Devils had three 30 goals scorers and took them to 6 with an otherwise far inferior roster. Kovalchuk being a legitimate sniper, with Parise and Clarkson having very good years. I'd compare the latter two with Kesler and Burrows (2-way players with pretty good shots, although for Clarkson, 2012 may be an anomaly).

If Edler is to be traded, the likes of Couturier will NOT help this team. It had better be Bobby Ryan, Loui Eriksson, Eberle or Evander Kane or a less developed (but ready to break out) young forward with a great shot and isn't afraid to get his nose dirty.

Kesler and Burrows for this reason are untouchable. Higgins, Hansen, Booth, Kassian, JS and any other forward the Canucks intend to have on the roster next season must spend the entire off-season focusing on shooting quickly and with accuracy.

If the Canucks go after any big UFAs, it should be Ryder or Iginla. Horton can shoot as well but I think he gets ridiculous money and I doubt he leaves the East anyway.

One sniper who could come relatively cheap is Cammalleri.

It was a mistake to trade Grabner and Hodgson for players who could not shoot the puck. Both were important pieces for this reason on an otherwise impotent roster. If we had somehow gotten Bobby Ryan last year for a Hodgson package who knows what could have been.

Jensen is the only player in the pipeline with the potential to be a sniper and it is why he is a valuable prospect and it is imperative he develops well.

And finally, when Gillis is evaluating the return for Luongo, this type of player (either directly or via 3-way deal) needs to be his ultimate target - even if the Canucks take on a bad contract to buy out. For example, something off-the-wall like Luongo for Neiderreiter (or Grabner) plus Dipietro. Someone else suggested that one and I think it's crazy enough to work.

Click to read more...

 

[Jack Tripper]

canucks team shooting percentage has indeed gone into tank the past three playoff series, and i'd be happy for someone to try and explain why...a lack of 'snipers' if you will might be too simplistic an explanation

i think opendoor had a post a while back where he researched that the even-strength shooting percentage of the team the past three seasons clearly dropped the last 1/4 of the season (ie from around 9%-6%) and went further into the abyss in the playoffs (which will obviously happen when you score 21 goals in 15 playoff games)

not sure if it's accountable to the low quality shots the canucks generate (ie shots from the point or weak mason raymond-like shots off the half boards rather than rebounds or odd-man rushes), hot opposition goaltending, terrible execution of chances due to a lack of 'snipers', or just plain bad luck

 

[Hammer79]

Gillis is out to lunch and needs to be fired if he thinks all the Canucks need to do is vaguely get "bigger" or "younger".

The single biggest impediment to this team's lack of playoff success is that the Canucks lack snipers.

Look at several key Canucks ES goals in the last series. Kesler or Burrows snipes off of turnovers or the rush. Why did the Sharks beat the Canucks? Because they were bigger and bullied us around? No - the players that killed them were Couture, Pavelski and Marleau. All of whom have great shots and wil go into the dirty areas. Size is not the issue. Even Torres had a nice snipe on that 2 on 1 that broke the Canucks' backs. In the playoffs, time and space are precious, and rebounds are quickly collapsed upon or cleared. If you can't get shots through a maze or fire a quick snapshot or one-timer, you're in tough.

I think younger is more important than bigger. They need more of their prospects to make the jump and contribute with the cap crunch coming up. They need to find hidden gems in the draft.

Why did the Sharks win? Terrible special teams play, bad discipline, goaltending breakdowns, and they didn't win the key defensive zone faceoffs. The Canucks beat themselves, it was not because the Sharks had better snipers.

Why did the Kings steamroll their way to the Cup last year? They didn't play a single team in the WC that had more than one 30 goal scorer. The seas parted for them. Canucks, Blues and Coyotes. The only Canuck who scored 30 last year was Daniel and he was concussed. Kesler was hurt. The Devils had three 30 goals scorers and took them to 6 with an otherwise far inferior roster. Kovalchuk being a legitimate sniper, with Parise and Clarkson having very good years. I'd compare the latter two with Kesler and Burrows (2-way players with pretty good shots, although for Clarkson, 2012 may be an anomaly).

Yes, the seas did part for them, but for the reason you describe. They played banged up Blues and Canucks teams in the first two rounds, and two teams that didn't even make the playoffs this year in the last two rounds. They were arguably the weakest Cup winner since the Hurricanes in 2006.

If the Canucks go after any big UFAs, it should be Ryder or Iginla. Horton can shoot as well but I think he gets ridiculous money and I doubt he leaves the East anyway.

Iginla chose the Penguins, he isn't going to pick the Canucks this late in his career, and with the team not having played like contenders since Jan 2012. I don't know how active they can be on the UFA market unless trades are made first.

It was a mistake to trade Grabner and Hodgson for players who could not shoot the puck. Both were important pieces for this reason on an otherwise impotent roster. If we had somehow gotten Bobby Ryan last year for a Hodgson package who knows what could have been.

I'm not giving up on Kassian yet. He's shown potential, he just needs consistency.

Jensen is the only player in the pipeline with the potential to be a sniper and it is why he is a valuable prospect and it is imperative he develops well.

Schroeder could be too, but yes the prospect pool needs a boost.

And finally, when Gillis is evaluating the return for Luongo, this type of player (either directly or via 3-way deal) needs to be his ultimate target - even if the Canucks take on a bad contract to buy out. For example, something off-the-wall like Luongo for Neiderreiter (or Grabner) plus Dipietro. Someone else suggested that one and I think it's crazy enough to work.

I don't think they will need to eat a buyout contract to trade Luongo.

 

[nameless1]

The league seemed to revert back to a grabbing and holding style of play...
Maybe I am misinformed...
But I have noticed that the Sedins are being checked a lot harder now...
And it really limited their effectiveness.
Snipers and scorers cannot do it alone...
They also need big players to give them time and space.

I say in the perfect world...
A team should be filled with size and skill.
However...
Those players are few and far in between.

That was why Gillis got Kassian.
He is not contributing that much right now...
But the potential is there.
These types of players take longer to develop...
And he is only 22.
Lots of time.

I am not as high on Bobby Ryan as you are.
I love the overall package...
But his skating is a mess.
Once he slows down as he gets older...
I think he is the type of player that will deteriorate very quickly.
He will also cost a lot to acquire...
With the Canucks possibly giving up Jensen.

Ryder is interesting...
But he is too streaky.
He almost always follow up a good year or two with a bad year.
He will also be awfully expensive.

Always love Cammalleri...
But the guy is probably starting to slow down.
He will probably have 1 or 2 more good years left in him.

To be honest...
I am not sure what the Canucks should do.
I think they should rebuild...
But how big of a rebuild is the question.
Personally...
I like to see a massive one to get more young talents in the pipe line...
Because I think this is as far as the team can go.
It is also a good time to do it...
With this year and next year's draft touted as some of the best in years.

I doubt that will happen though.
Gillis will probably just trade or get rid of the excess weight...
And give the current group 1 more shot...
Which is fair.
He is the GM...
And he has shown he knows what he is doing.

 

[nameless1]

Why did the Sharks win? Terrible special teams play, bad discipline, goaltending breakdowns, and they didn't win the key defensive zone faceoffs. The Canucks beat themselves, it was not because the Sharks had better snipers.

Agreed.
I will add that the Sharks had a killer powerplay...
And their big players came through.

The Canucks' big players...
Meanwhile...
Were largely silent.

 

[digger18]

The single biggest impediment to this team's lack of playoff success is that the Canucks lack players who will consistently go into the dirty areas.

Fixed for you.

 

[nameless1]

Why did the Kings steamroll their way to the Cup last year? They didn't play a single team in the WC that had more than one 30 goal scorer. The seas parted for them. Canucks, Blues and Coyotes. The only Canuck who scored 30 last year was Daniel and he was concussed. Kesler was hurt. The Devils had three 30 goals scorers and took them to 6 with an otherwise far inferior roster. Kovalchuk being a legitimate sniper, with Parise and Clarkson having very good years. I'd compare the latter two with Kesler and Burrows (2-way players with pretty good shots, although for Clarkson, 2012 may be an anomaly).

Vrbata had 35.

You have to give Parise some more credit.
While Kesler plays selke level defense...
Parise is a lot better offensively.
He really is just a step below superstardom.

L.A. won because they had a really hot goalie...
And the supporting cast...
Especially the 3rd and 4th line...
Played very well...
Shouldered a lot of responsibilities.
Even Penner played well enough to get another contract.
It allowed the stars to be stars.

 

[604]

What young snipers are options in trades... I'm thinking Connlly from TB or Niederritter from NYI. If we are willing to trade a top 4 dman, we may be able to get one of these guys plus a first (in the case of TB, likely not this year).

 

[me2]

Booth, need more Booths.

 

[solitary]

The Canucks need to shoot the puck. Everyone is always too busy looking for that perfect pass or always dumping it in. Shoot the damn puck.

 

[TheBleedingEdge]

canucks team shooting percentage has indeed gone into tank the past three playoff series, and i'd be happy for someone to try and explain why...a lack of 'snipers' if you will might be too simplistic an explanation

i think opendoor had a post a while back where he researched that the even-strength shooting percentage of the team the past three seasons clearly dropped the last 1/4 of the season (ie from around 9%-6%) and went further into the abyss in the playoffs (which will obviously happen when you score 21 goals in 15 playoff games)

not sure if it's accountable to the low quality shots the canucks generate (ie shots from the point or weak mason raymond-like shots off the half boards rather than rebounds or odd-man rushes), hot opposition goaltending, terrible execution of chances due to a lack of 'snipers', or just plain bad luck

I stongly feel it is a mix of perimeter play and not capitalizing on the rush. The current play is to rush into the zone and then setup with too much pritty passing. They dont catch the goalie moving latterally or lift the puck. It it time for a change if not for the head coach then for the asst coaches.

 

[richardsequalscup*]

Funny, seems to me the Canucks don't have defenseman who can stop anybody. Looks like you need to play better defense.

 

[King of the ES*]

If Edler is to be traded, the likes of Couturier will NOT help this team. It had better be Bobby Ryan, Loui Eriksson, Eberle or Evander Kane or a less developed (but ready to break out) young forward with a great shot and isn't afraid to get his nose dirty.

I agree, Couturier would not make sense unless Brendan Gaunce is going the other way. Too much depth at C as it is in the short to medium term.

As for the other guys - I don't think it'd be possible, really. No chance Edmonton or Winnipeg would even consider trading Eberle or Kane for him, and I'm just not sure that Ryan or Eriksson would be very good fits (certainly not Eriksson).

 

[Tirefire]

The Canucks need referees who love them more.

 

[Freakshow]

Yes...they definitely need a youngish scorer and maybe, just maybe, Mike Gillis can put an actual second line together.

 

[Pip]

 

[CherryToke]

but the league is changing.. you have to adapt to the new league. Maybe snipers aren't part of this said new league that is adapting so rapidly.

 

[Pip]

but the league is changing.. you have to adapt to the new league. Maybe snipers aren't part of this said new league that is adapting so rapidly.

Moar grinders!

this new glorious league!

 

[Seatoo]

The league seemed to revert back to a grabbing and holding style of play...
Maybe I am misinformed...
But I have noticed that the Sedins are being checked a lot harder now...
And it really limited their effectiveness.
Snipers and scorers cannot do it alone...
They also need big players to give them time and space.

I say in the perfect world...
A team should be filled with size and skill.
However...
Those players are few and far in between.

That was why Gillis got Kassian.
He is not contributing that much right now...
But the potential is there.
These types of players take longer to develop...
And he is only 22.
Lots of time.

I am not as high on Bobby Ryan as you are.
I love the overall package...
But his skating is a mess.
Once he slows down as he gets older...
I think he is the type of player that will deteriorate very quickly.
He will also cost a lot to acquire...
With the Canucks possibly giving up Jensen.

Ryder is interesting...
But he is too streaky.
He almost always follow up a good year or two with a bad year.
He will also be awfully expensive.

Always love Cammalleri...
But the guy is probably starting to slow down.
He will probably have 1 or 2 more good years left in him.

To be honest...
I am not sure what the Canucks should do.
I think they should rebuild...
But how big of a rebuild is the question.
Personally...
I like to see a massive one to get more young talents in the pipe line...
Because I think this is as far as the team can go.
It is also a good time to do it...
With this year and next year's draft touted as some of the best in years.

I doubt that will happen though.
Gillis will probably just trade or get rid of the excess weight...
And give the current group 1 more shot...
Which is fair.
He is the GM...
And he has shown he knows what he is doing.

The first time I read this it made my brain hurt, but then the second time I read it like a poem and it
flowed beautifully!

 

[donut]

I suggest GMMG should go after Cam Atkinson. He's 23 years old. Underrated player as he is playing in Columbus and was playing under Nash when he was there and now Gaborik. The guy is a sniper, someone we need desperately. Some may say he's a small guy and we don't need it but he's a player that has a nose for the net and works hard. Fast and plays really well in all 3 zones.

I'm sure he'd do well in our Top 6 and no one really brings he puck hard to the net.

 

[Yossarian54]

Why did the Kings steamroll their way to the Cup last year? They didn't play a single team in the WC that had more than one 30 goal scorer. The seas parted for them. Canucks, Blues and Coyotes. The only Canuck who scored 30 last year was Daniel and he was concussed. Kesler was hurt. The Devils had three 30 goals scorers and took them to 6 with an otherwise far inferior roster. Kovalchuk being a legitimate sniper, with Parise and Clarkson having very good years. I'd compare the latter two with Kesler and Burrows (2-way players with pretty good shots, although for Clarkson, 2012 may be an anomaly).

Turn this around. Look at the Kings instead of the opponents they faced. Where are their snipers?

Jeff Carter and... maybe Justin Williams (at a stretch perhaps).

How about the Bruins. Any snipers there?

Equally you could say that it matters more to be a tougher team, as LA and Boston were (are). I don't entirely disagree with your contention that we need a 'sniper', but I don't think that's born out here.

canucks team shooting percentage has indeed gone into tank the past three playoff series, and i'd be happy for someone to try and explain why...a lack of 'snipers' if you will might be too simplistic an explanation

i think opendoor had a post a while back where he researched that the even-strength shooting percentage of the team the past three seasons clearly dropped the last 1/4 of the season (ie from around 9%-6%) and went further into the abyss in the playoffs (which will obviously happen when you score 21 goals in 15 playoff games)

not sure if it's accountable to the low quality shots the canucks generate (ie shots from the point or weak mason raymond-like shots off the half boards rather than rebounds or odd-man rushes), hot opposition goaltending, terrible execution of chances due to a lack of 'snipers', or just plain bad luck

IMO, it is low quality shots. I'm unsure of the particular criteria places like canucksarmy use to generate their data on 'scoring chances', which would obviously include but not necessarily be limited to quality shots, but personally I think there's a qualitative difference in our shots against our opponents.

One area this stems from, in my opinion, is the zone entry system we have used a fair amount this season - the tip in and forecheck in an attempt to establish a cycle. There's less shots off the rush. Look at game 3 in the sharks series for example. In the first period the Sedins utilised this method, and didn't score (no idea about scoring chances though). The goal to Burrows in game 3 came of the rush with a shot that beat the Niemi clean - a snipe if you will. Some of the Sharks goals came very quickly after they entered our defensive zone, one or two quick passes largely contained to the corridor in the centre of the ice and a shot in (relative) space. We don't get these opportunities because we don't try to set up these plays offensively. We go more for a cycle and an attempt to feed someone in front of or near to the net from behind the goal line. Admittedly, that's a Sedin speciality, but it's evidenced on other lines as well. Nor is it the only thing the Sedins are capable of.

It kind of feeds in to another pet frustration of mine, which is that we seem to completely ignore the slot as an area to get shots from. I honestly can't remember a time where a Canucks forward was deliberately set up alone in the high slot. It may be a memory bias, but it seems that once we set up in the offensive zone, we go almost exclusively for the doorstep or to the side of the net (i.e. out to the face-off dots) for shots. Conversely, we seem to get burned by other teams in the slot a bit.

IMO this isa result of the offensive system that we employ, and although it does play to the Sedins strengths a bit, it's so prevalent that I personally think it's a coaching problem.

 

[RobertKron]

Booth, need more Booths.

Honestly, for that one short stretch when he was healthy, Booth was kind of what they need. Everyone goes on about "one shot scorers" or whatever, but what they often don't see is the other guys consistently making a beeline to the net to give the shooter space and generally create havoc. If there's one thing Booth does well, it's to drive the net with or without the puck. That's also part of what made Burrows effective - he creates chaos around the crease, which draws attention away from his linemates.

If Jensen can get himself sorted out after his euro excursion, playing him with a guy like Booth (or tell Kassian that his job is to retrieve picks, smash guys, and drive the net all day long) and a centre like Schroeder could be the "sniper" were talking about, but unless we're looking at some absolute top-flite guys, a sniper isn't going to get much sniping done if the rest of his line waits around on the periphery.

 

[Hyzer]

Jensen is a sniper. Why do you think GMMG chose him at the draft? He's a pure offensive forward.

 

[Lindt]

I agree with most of your post. Gillis' comments really concern me. I hope he's not looking to add more Steve Berniers to this team

We need somebody who can score anywhere inside the blueline. Right now it's only Kesler and his one move has been figured out by everyone in the league, so his shot rarely gets through. We need someone with offensive creativity. The Sedins have that in spades but it's more from the passing/playmaking side. We need someone who can do it himself. Not easy to find though. For all the hate Kessel gets, I would take him in a hearbeat for Edler.

 

[Pump n Dump]

Turn this around. Look at the Kings instead of the opponents they faced. Where are their snipers?

Jeff Carter and... maybe Justin Williams (at a stretch perhaps).

How about the Bruins. Any snipers there?

Equally you could say that it matters more to be a tougher team, as LA and Boston were (are). I don't entirely disagree with your contention that we need a 'sniper', but I don't think that's born out here.



IMO, it is low quality shots. I'm unsure of the particular criteria places like canucksarmy use to generate their data on 'scoring chances', which would obviously include but not necessarily be limited to quality shots, but personally I think there's a qualitative difference in our shots against our opponents.

One area this stems from, in my opinion, is the zone entry system we have used a fair amount this season - the tip in and forecheck in an attempt to establish a cycle. There's less shots off the rush. Look at game 3 in the sharks series for example. In the first period the Sedins utilised this method, and didn't score (no idea about scoring chances though). The goal to Burrows in game 3 came of the rush with a shot that beat the Niemi clean - a snipe if you will. Some of the Sharks goals came very quickly after they entered our defensive zone, one or two quick passes largely contained to the corridor in the centre of the ice and a shot in (relative) space. We don't get these opportunities because we don't try to set up these plays offensively. We go more for a cycle and an attempt to feed someone in front of or near to the net from behind the goal line. Admittedly, that's a Sedin speciality, but it's evidenced on other lines as well. Nor is it the only thing the Sedins are capable of.

It kind of feeds in to another pet frustration of mine, which is that we seem to completely ignore the slot as an area to get shots from. I honestly can't remember a time where a Canucks forward was deliberately set up alone in the high slot. It may be a memory bias, but it seems that once we set up in the offensive zone, we go almost exclusively for the doorstep or to the side of the net (i.e. out to the face-off dots) for shots. Conversely, we seem to get burned by other teams in the slot a bit.

IMO this isa result of the offensive system that we employ, and although it does play to the Sedins strengths a bit, it's so prevalent that I personally think it's a coaching problem.

I think you're on to something here.