Defense

[Jay Cee]

And why do the coaches not like to play Canuck's D on their wrong side?

It's a philosophy that has a lot of proponents in the league. Not just on defense but every position.

When teams drive the play they often do so along the boards where a defenseman playing on his weak side will be on the non dominant side of his body on the backhand. Therefore, often times it provides a team with a weakness to exploit. Even some of the most skilled defenseman are not preferred on their opposite side for this reason.

Alex Burrows is notorious for burning hockey players all over the ice on their "wrong" side - really smart hockey player.

 

[Alflives*]

It's a philosophy that has a lot of proponents in the league. Not just on defense but every position.

When teams drive the play they often do so along the boards where a defenseman playing on his weak side will be on the non dominant side of his body on the backhand. Therefore, often times it provides a team with a weakness to exploit. Even some of the most skilled defenseman are not preferred on their opposite side for this reason.

Alex Burrows is notorious for burning hockey players all over the ice on their "wrong" side - really smart hockey player.

Interesting response. Mike Gillis should shoulder a lot of the blame (therefore) for not acquiring depth guys that are right handed. Plus, why sign Garrison, and not a right handed D for that money to better balance the pairings? Further, why not trade Edler (in a hockey trade) for a right handed D?

 

[Back in 94]

Interesting response. Mike Gillis should shoulder a lot of the blame (therefore) for not acquiring depth guys that are right handed. Plus, why sign Garrison, and not a right handed D for that money to better balance the pairings? Further, why not trade Edler (in a hockey trade) for a right handed D?

Garrison was arguably the most sought after defencemen during free agency. There were no good RH defencemen available that fit the needs of the Canucks. He's is also one of the few left handed dman that can play the opposite side effectively.

 

[Angry Little Elf]

Garrison was arguably the most sought after defencemen during free agency. There were no good RH defencemen available that fit the needs of the Canucks. He's is also one of the few left handed dman that can play the opposite side effectively.

He was 2nd after Suter. (another LHD)

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

Garrison was arguably the most sought after defencemen during free agency. There were no good RH defencemen available that fit the needs of the Canucks. He's is also one of the few left handed dman that can play the opposite side effectively.

Wideman was best RHD on the FA market last summer.

edit: I guess CGY traded for his rights and signed him before he hit FA.

 

[Angry Little Elf]

Wideman was best RHD on the FA market last summer.

A guy who refuses to skate backward, nice.

 

[deckercky]

Garrison was the best replacement for the role Salo's departure was vacating, and was a long-term replacement in that role.

Wideman being brought in, particularly at the salary he ended up getting, would be one step forward and three steps back compared to Ehrhoff, who could likely have been retained for less. Carle is pretty much the same situation.

I don't think a player like Garrison and a player like Wideman are really comparable at all. Suter was the clear #1 free agent, but Vancouver had no shot at him, and he's effectively being paid twice what Garrison is.

 

[Alflives*]

Garrison was the best replacement for the role Salo's departure was vacating, and was a long-term replacement in that role.

Wideman being brought in, particularly at the salary he ended up getting, would be one step forward and three steps back compared to Ehrhoff, who could likely have been retained for less. Carle is pretty much the same situation.

I don't think a player like Garrison and a player like Wideman are really comparable at all. Suter was the clear #1 free agent, but Vancouver had no shot at him, and he's effectively being paid twice what Garrison is.

Salo would have looked good beside Edler this season. One could argue he was the Canuck's best D-man, and should have been resigned for two more years. Gillis could have still signed Garrison, and found the cap-space elswhere.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

Garrison was the best replacement for the role Salo's departure was vacating, and was a long-term replacement in that role.

Wideman being brought in, particularly at the salary he ended up getting, would be one step forward and three steps back compared to Ehrhoff, who could likely have been retained for less. Carle is pretty much the same situation.

I don't think a player like Garrison and a player like Wideman are really comparable at all. Suter was the clear #1 free agent, but Vancouver had no shot at him, and he's effectively being paid twice what Garrison is.

I wasn't advocating Wideman over Garrison, although I was hoping Gillis at least would kick the tires if he got to FA, just not at that price.

 

[Karl Hungus]

He's the 27th highest paid defenseman in the league in terms of cap his and 18th in terms of salary this year. I don't really see the internal logic where he's been worth his contract while at the same time being a 3/4 defenseman.

He's being paid like a high end #2 guy and I think that's a pretty good representation of how he's performed. I honestly think the coaching staff is underusing him. There's no way given their relative performances this season that Bieksa should be getting a minute more of ES ice time per game than Garrison.

Yes, you're right. I was going off my idea of what a championship team would look like on paper rather than the reality of current defenseman contracts. I believe that he's the one most often playing on his off side with Hamhuis. That's a significant contribution on a team with an imbalance of right and left defense.

 

[biturbo19]

The way i see it, we realistically have a collection of two #2 type guys and two #1/3 type guys in some respects. Garrison, Hamhuis and Edler, Bieksa respectively. While it would be nice to have a true reliable #1 guy, that's obviously not in the cards...very few teams have that. And having the kind of top-end depth outside of that, in 4 guys who can all play at a very high level, is not the end of the world at all. There's absolutely no reason we can't win with the guys we have...but it will require some luck and specifically, we have 2 guys who i think can play stretches at the sort of level of a #1D who truly dictates the play...one of those guys has to step up big.

Those two guys to me, are Edler, and Bieksa. With Edler, we've all seen the potential there. When he's playing well, he's awfully close to being a true #1D, who can be leaned on in all situations, and most importantly, can really control the game. That one's pretty self-explanatory.

The other one, I know it might sound ludicrous given the way Bieksa has played this year...but when he's in a groove and going 'beast mode', he is virtually indistinguishable from a #1D imo. He is capable of playing the toughest minutes, while dictating the tone and pace of a game. We saw it when that HamJuice pairing started to really click, and into the playoffs that year. It's what rocketed him from 'universal whipping boy, good riddance' to 'omg we must sign him!!!' And in that sense, in some ways he's probably the closest thing we have to an actual #1 Defenceman. When he's good, he is absolutely 'the straw that stirs the drink' so to speak. It's the fact that he far too often (this entire year for example), plays like he's off in lala land, at which point he looks more like a bottom-pairing guy a lot of nights, that clearly holds him back from being a #1D. There is the ability and upside there, but there isn't anywhere near the consistency and reliability of a #1D.

Hamhuis and Garrison to me, are firm #2D types, for almost the very opposite reason to that. They both tend to be very steady, very reliable, very consistent. But neither of them has the ability to completely take over a game from the back end. It's what makes them 'complementary' pieces, as #2D. They're good players...but they're not tone-setters, they're not 'impact guys'. When they're most 'on their game', you're hardly noticing them...they're just logging big minutes without event.

And that's essentially why i don't particularly like the current D-pairings. It's sticking the two 'steadying presences' together and asking one of them to step up to a role they're not comfortable/capable of effectively managing as a dynamic presence. And then it leaves our two most 'volatile' but also our two most 'dynamic' defencemen together, asking one of them to 'calm down' and play a 'complementary role' where they don't appear overly comfortable of capable.

It just doesn't make much sense.

 

[Alflives*]

The way i see it, we realistically have a collection of two #2 type guys and two #1/3 type guys in some respects. Garrison, Hamhuis and Edler, Bieksa respectively. While it would be nice to have a true reliable #1 guy, that's obviously not in the cards...very few teams have that. And having the kind of top-end depth outside of that, in 4 guys who can all play at a very high level, is not the end of the world at all. There's absolutely no reason we can't win with the guys we have...but it will require some luck and specifically, we have 2 guys who i think can play stretches at the sort of level of a #1D who truly dictates the play...one of those guys has to step up big.

Those two guys to me, are Edler, and Bieksa. With Edler, we've all seen the potential there. When he's playing well, he's awfully close to being a true #1D, who can be leaned on in all situations, and most importantly, can really control the game. That one's pretty self-explanatory.

The other one, I know it might sound ludicrous given the way Bieksa has played this year...but when he's in a groove and going 'beast mode', he is virtually indistinguishable from a #1D imo. He is capable of playing the toughest minutes, while dictating the tone and pace of a game. We saw it when that HamJuice pairing started to really click, and into the playoffs that year. It's what rocketed him from 'universal whipping boy, good riddance' to 'omg we must sign him!!!' And in that sense, in some ways he's probably the closest thing we have to an actual #1 Defenceman. When he's good, he is absolutely 'the straw that stirs the drink' so to speak. It's the fact that he far too often (this entire year for example), plays like he's off in lala land, at which point he looks more like a bottom-pairing guy a lot of nights, that clearly holds him back from being a #1D. There is the ability and upside there, but there isn't anywhere near the consistency and reliability of a #1D.

Hamhuis and Garrison to me, are firm #2D types, for almost the very opposite reason to that. They both tend to be very steady, very reliable, very consistent. But neither of them has the ability to completely take over a game from the back end. It's what makes them 'complementary' pieces, as #2D. They're good players...but they're not tone-setters, they're not 'impact guys'. When they're most 'on their game', you're hardly noticing them...they're just logging big minutes without event.

And that's essentially why i don't particularly like the current D-pairings. It's sticking the two 'steadying presences' together and asking one of them to step up to a role they're not comfortable/capable of effectively managing as a dynamic presence. And then it leaves our two most 'volatile' but also our two most 'dynamic' defencemen together, asking one of them to 'calm down' and play a 'complementary role' where they don't appear overly comfortable of capable.

It just doesn't make much sense.

Great post. Maybe you're right, and we need to accept the Canucks' current D is made up of complementary players? I would argue though, that a lot more NHL teams do have #1 D-men. The very type of player you define. (Able to log big minutes in all circumstances. The coach can keep sending him over the boards - like AV does with Kesler - without any worry about match-up or scenario) I don't want to make a list but I can think of guys like Phaneuf in Toronto and Johnson in Columbus being more the #1 D-man than what is here in Vancouver.

 

[deckercky]

Phaneuf and Johnson are both inferior to Edler IMO, and aren't anywhere near being the defensive stalwarts that Bieksa, Hamhuis and Garrison have shown the ability to be at times.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

Phaneuf and Johnson are both inferior to Edler IMO, and aren't anywhere near being the defensive stalwarts that Bieksa, Hamhuis and Garrison have shown the ability to be at times.

Might be the first time I've ever heard "Bieksa" and "defensive stalwart" in the same sentence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Bieksa, but he's never been that great defensively unless paired with a guy like Mitchell or Hamhuis.

 

[Wheatley]

Phaneuf and Johnson are both inferior to Edler IMO, and aren't anywhere near being the defensive stalwarts that Bieksa, Hamhuis and Garrison have shown the ability to be at times.

I'm not a Phaneuf fan by any means, but stick Bieksa with some of the defense partners that Phaneuf has had, and it wouldn't be pretty.

 

[Tiranis]

Phaneuf is a good D-man. Jack Johnson?

 

[Wizeman*]

There is some excellent conversation going on here .

I am still of the opinion that 4 1/2 defense men is better off against fatique and injuries than having 2 true clear cut 28min a game #1s and a lesser second pair. Its far harder to get away from match ups.

In fact, Bowness and AV have done very well in rotating them so much that all 4 can play with any of the other 3. So opposing coaching cant key in a particular pairing.

 

[Angry Little Elf]

Jack Johnson is only good for PP's. Even then...

There is some excellent conversation going on here .

I am still of the opinion that 4 1/2 defense men is better off against fatique and injuries than having 2 true clear cut 28min a game #1s and a lesser second pair. Its far harder to get away from match ups.

In fact, Bowness and AV have done very well in rotating them so much that all 4 can play with any of the other 3. So opposing coaching cant key in a particular pairing.

This.

 

[biturbo19]

Phaneuf and Johnson are both inferior to Edler IMO, and aren't anywhere near being the defensive stalwarts that Bieksa, Hamhuis and Garrison have shown the ability to be at times.

I'd put Phaneuf in very much the same boat as Edler. They're both guys who have the physical tools and ability to be a true #1 and completely take over games at times. But when they're off, they're both #3s or worse.

Johnson on the other hand...i'd put him in the same category as Phaneuf/Edler/Bieksa in that he has a lot of aspects of a #1D but as with all of them, none of the consistency. But Johnson to me is a lot further off and a lot more 'miss' than 'hit' in terms of his ability to positively impact a game. His ability to start a one man firedrill at the drop of the hat is remarkable.

Might be the first time I've ever heard "Bieksa" and "defensive stalwart" in the same sentence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Bieksa, but he's never been that great defensively unless paired with a guy like Mitchell or Hamhuis.

Yeah. That's really the crux of the matter. Bieksa has a lot of attributes of a #1D and can at times play a very convincing version of that role with the right partner. But by his lonesome, he's not what i'd call a 'defensive stalwart'.

There is some excellent conversation going on here .

I am still of the opinion that 4 1/2 defense men is better off against fatique and injuries than having 2 true clear cut 28min a game #1s and a lesser second pair. Its far harder to get away from match ups.

In fact, Bowness and AV have done very well in rotating them so much that all 4 can play with any of the other 3. So opposing coaching cant key in a particular pairing.

I'm inclined to agree to an extent, in that having 4 guys who can play a significant role is certainly not something that will hold a team back from winning and a great deal of success. And the insurance against injury/fatigue/etc is a very good point.

But if someone were to ask straight up, the rest of the d-corps staying the same:

Shea Weber or say...Garrison + Bieksa? Which makes the team better?

There are merits both ways, but i'd be hard pressed not to say you go with the big dog in Weber.

Hamhuis-Garrison
Edler-Bieksa

vs.

Hamhuis-Weber
Edler-???

with that ??? being Tanev, or in that hypothetical, you find a way to make Ballard's salary + the ~$1.5M difference in salary from Weber to Garrison+Bieksa. Which sounds unfair on the surface, but i say that...because i'm talking about a hypothetical 'top-loading' scenario, where you'd be sacrificing 'depth' for 'top-end'.

I can see merits either way, but i think i'd be inclined to just roll with the true superstar. It's a bit like asking...'Kesler + Roy or Crosby'? And i think you've gotta go with the bigtime superstar over the added depth.

But it's all a moot point really, as those sort of players of that ilk are so rarely available and in those rare instances, acquisition costs are so prohibitively high...But as food for thought in terms of ideal 'team construction' philosophies...i think i'd still take the Norris contender over a pair of of #2/3 guys.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Great post. Maybe you're right, and we need to accept the Canucks' current D is made up of complementary players? I would argue though, that a lot more NHL teams do have #1 D-men. The very type of player you define. (Able to log big minutes in all circumstances. The coach can keep sending him over the boards - like AV does with Kesler - without any worry about match-up or scenario) I don't want to make a list but I can think of guys like Phaneuf in Toronto and Johnson in Columbus being more the #1 D-man than what is here in Vancouver.

I think if you put any one of our top 4 D on a team such as, Columbus since you brought them up... and others, and the Coach uses them the same way as Johnson, logging big minutes in all circumstances. the reason you don't see that on the Canucks is because we have a well rounded D corps that dose not need to rely on one guy, our teams strength is in its balance, something MG talks about trying to achieve anyways.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Hamhuis-Garrison
Edler-Bieksa

vs.

Hamhuis-Weber
Edler-???

with that ??? being Tanev, or in that hypothetical, you find a way to make Ballard's salary + the ~$1.5M difference in salary from Weber to Garrison+Bieksa. Which sounds unfair on the surface, but i say that...because i'm talking about a hypothetical 'top-loading' scenario, where you'd be sacrificing 'depth' for 'top-end'.

This is all well and good but it is totally theoretical and not at all practical.

In theory you could be correct about Weber (Weber > Garrison+Bieksa) , and IMO if MG could have put together the 2nd lineup he would have , he did have talks with Weber about how to get him here, but it just could not pan out

But in reality Garrison+Bieksa > Weber, since that was the only possible option.

The other thing to consider is that in a long playoff run

Hamhuis-Garrison
Edler-Bieksa
Ballard-Tanev

is greater then

Hamhuis-Weber
Edler-Tanev
Tweedledee-Tweedledum

Because one injury makes that second lineup thin.

Edit: Just noticed your last paragraph... so yea your right.

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

The biggest issue with the D right now is that Bieksa is our only real top-pairing RHD, teams will target him during the playoffs because of that. He's a tough guy but still, it'd be nice to have someone to take the pressure off. Tanev too, he'll be targeted a bunch and he's not great at avoiding hits. Other than the RHD issue, the D is good, they took a while to come around but they are doing well now. Lots of balance top to bottom, and I like the way AV and Bowness have shuffled the pairings and sat some guys out all season so everyone's comfortable together and also more rested than they would've been if Alberts and Barker hadn't gotten all those games.

 

[Shareefruck]

Salo would have looked good beside Edler this season. One could argue he was the Canuck's best D-man, and should have been resigned for two more years. Gillis could have still signed Garrison, and found the cap-space elswhere.

This would be pretty sweet right about now

Edler - Salo
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Tanev (would make a great shutdown pairing, and Tanev would be excellent at setting up Garrison's shot)

Only Edler and Bieksa the defensive question-marks for a core like that. Everything else is virtuallly impenetrable.

 

[King Crimson]

The biggest issue with the D right now is that Bieksa is our only real top-pairing RHD, teams will target him during the playoffs because of that. He's a tough guy but still, it'd be nice to have someone to take the pressure off. Tanev too, he'll be targeted a bunch and he's not great at avoiding hits. Other than the RHD issue, the D is good, they took a while to come around but they are doing well now. Lots of balance top to bottom, and I like the way AV and Bowness have shuffled the pairings and sat some guys out all season so everyone's comfortable together and also more rested than they would've been if Alberts and Barker hadn't gotten all those games.

Just a little thing, but I honestly believe that Tanev could be great at avoiding hits--he's gotten faster and more agile this year. Not burning speed, but enough to get away from checks, and what he lacks in outright pace he makes up for with high hockey IQ. The problem is that he doesn't play that type of game; he almost always takes the hit to make the right play, which is why we love him so much. He doesn't panic when going after the puck, and as such doesn't just throw the puck away as fast as possible. It may be just me, but it seems to me that Tanev hardly ever makes a straight up clear, but rather always tries to start the breakout. But, on the other hand, since he never goes looking to avoid a hit, he always gets hit. Hopefully his body is made up of rubber and magic.

 

[Scurr]

This would be pretty sweet right about now

Edler - Salo
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Tanev (would make a great shutdown pairing, and Tanev would be excellent at setting up Garrison's shot)

Only Edler and Bieksa the defensive question-marks for a core like that. Everything else is virtuallly impenetrable.

Salo and Edler were a disaster the second half of last season, why would it be different now? Edler is still playing the same game, no matter who he plays with.