Do you consider this version of the Canucks a perimeter team?

[Another Empty Netter]

Seems like a lot of the scoring plays are on tips from close to the paint and there also seems to be an opinion that the Canucks are a perimeter team.

Curious how our type of play will pan out in the next few games.

Click to read more...

 

[geebster]

Seems like a lot of the scoring plays are on tips from close to the paint and there also seems to be an opinion that the Canucks are a perimeter team.

Curious how our type of play will pan out in the next few games.

Part of getting those tips and having guys there for rebounds is having guys take a netfront or slot presence when without the puck. That isnt perimeter play even if the puck is at the perimeter when it is shot. We dont do a lot of high tips from further out, its a lot more in tight with screening.

As such I dont consider our often-used tip strategy to be because we dont have guys willing to sacrifice to get to the netfront, its actually the opposite. Also when you have Quinn Hughes walking the line its no wonder we often operate from the tops of the circles.

 

[Siludin]

I think some people might think this about the forwards. I don't think anyone has this stereotype regarding the Canucks defense (though "perimeter" isn't typically a critique of the defensemen)
Some forwards have to pick their battles more than others (Garland, for instance, due to size) but I don't really think that's true of the the majority of the team. Garland consequently also has the highest takeaway:giveaway ratio on the team.
Elias Pettersson had 125 hits - more than any Canucks defenseman except Zadorov - I think there's a stereotype that needs breaking there.
Miller had 200+ hits this year, and Joshua, Podkolzin, Lafferty, Juulsen, and Di Giuseppe all hit at a higher rate than Miller.
The Canucks generate a solid amount of traffic. It's part of their gameplan. I don't really think it's a major issue.
I know Kuzmenko isn't on the team anymore, but I believe he led the league in deflections last year; it's in their repertoire.

 

[Pennask]

It depends who's on the ice and if they are on the PP. You can't say that about any line combo that has Garland and Joshua on it. They like to play off the boards in deep to net front and make up arguably the best 3rd line in the NHL.

Petey and Boeser get a lot of goals on the edge of the blue paint cleaning up rebounds as well.

Canucks have no shortage of net crashers who score... Garland, Joshua, Hoglander, and a couple more in the bottom 6...

I think it is most prevalent on the PP. RT says he's in charge of the first PP unit. Maybe thats what he's instructing. I don't know...

 

[Peen]

Not at all.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

At even strength, no. I think we've done a good job going to the middle, the hard areas, the net, etc. all season at evens.

I think our PP was tending to be quite perimeter based (and statuesque, not a ton of movement). I like the recent shifts to multiple bodies in front causing havoc and pucks on net. Hope they can continue to build off that.

 

[Nucker101]

Not at all, Canucks generate more shots close the net than average, they also do an elite job of suppressing shots from near the net/slot.

If you look at the charts, compared to league average they take more shots than most teams down the middle, mostly net front and center part of the blueline, basically implying that their strategy is point shots from the middle of the ice with traffic in front for deflections and rebounds.

This teem is actually below average in shots taken from near the boards/circles, I think Tocchet prefers them not shooting from those angles

 

[PuckMunchkin]

We struggle getting the puck in the middle for sure.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Since I began watching in 2004, they have always been a perimeter team…or so the fans would have us believe.

I think some fans just can’t accept that the NHL is nothing like playing chel on easy mode where you can just do everything with impugnity. It’s hockey, not rugby. So the answer for me is this team? I think that’s a resounding no.

That and the public outcry consistently every year how the team is either soft or mentally weak. In short, people sometimes just don’t understand the game to the extent they think they do, which is true for most fans at some point

 

[LiveeviL]

The team lack forward/s dedicated to screening the opposition's goaltender. Tipping due to generating traffic at the crease is contemporary NHL game-play.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Since I began watching in 2004, they have always been a perimeter team…or so the fans would have us believe.

I think some fans just can’t accept that the NHL is nothing like playing chel on easy mode where you can just do everything with impugnity. It’s hockey, not rugby. So the answer for me is this team? I think that’s a resounding no.

That and the public outcry consistently every year how the team is either soft or mentally weak. In short, people sometimes just don’t understand the game to the extent they think they do, which is true for most fans at some point

They are below average at generating shots from high danger areas on the ice.

Yours truly,
Rugby playing Chel champion I guess...

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

They are below average at generating shots from high danger areas on the ice.

Yours truly,
Rugby playing Chel champion I guess...

You guys are always good for a few rucks so I’ll give ya that.

 

[Britton]

They are below average at generating shots from high danger areas on the ice.

Yours truly,
Rugby playing Chel champion I guess...

Any you came to this conclusion how? According to NHL edge and natural stat trick the Canucks top 10 in both shots and chances from high danger area's. Edge has them at 71 percentile for actual shots, and Natural stat trick has them at 7th HDCF in raw numbers.

 

[sting101]

We have a bunch of forwards (Garland Pettersson Suter Mikhayev Hoglander ) in our top9 that that are knocked off pucks and/or lose 1v1 battles on the easier side but we make up for it in speed and skill.

Garland Hoglander and Petetrsson tilt the ice so who cares and it's more about stature/physics than a issue of compete or lack of willingness

Suter and Mikhayev we could stand to improve on but Mikhayev when healthy makes us faster and Suter for his salary is quality depth

Ideally we add a heavier top6 winger or 2 to help the balance but it's not that much of an issue other than trying to survive 4 rounds and staying healthy is probably not great odds when your a smaller group.

 

[Regal]

We have a bunch of forwards (Garland Pettersson Suter Mikhayev Hoglander ) in our top9 that that are knocked off pucks and/or lose 1v1 battles on the easier side but we make up for it in speed and skill.

Garland Hoglander and Petetrsson tilt the ice so who cares and it's more about stature/physics than a issue of compete or lack of willingness

Suter and Mikhayev we could stand to improve on but Mikhayev when healthy makes us faster and Suter for his salary is quality depth

Ideally we add a heavier top6 winger or 2 to help the balance but it's not that much of an issue other than trying to survive 4 rounds and staying healthy is probably not great odds when your a smaller group.

I wouldn’t say Hoglander or Garland are easy to knock off the puck and they both win puck battles more often than not. Their tenacity and ability to use their leverage is quite good.

 

[Regal]

I think the team does a good job at having players battle around the net and try for tips and rebounds, but I don’t think they’re particularly adept at getting chances in the middle through passing or skating/stickhandling.

 

[Diversification]

Their standard gameplan in the offensive end is to maintain possession. Much easier to maintain possession by ringing the puck around the outside (perimeter). But attitudinally, I don't think the majority of the players are averse to going the 'hard areas'. It's more that it's more likely that you will give the puck back by going to those hard areas so the system discourages it until a decent offensive opportunity can be created.

 

[RobertKron]

I think there's almost always a lack of nuance when folks talk about a team being soft or playing on the outside or whatever, and it almost invariably ends up that any team that isn't just a bunch of total ogres laser-focused on driving the middle and shooting the puck every time they touch it gets criticized for being too soft and not brave enough and whatever else.

I don't think I'd ever say this team plays a perimeter game, but they're also far from the most goal crease-fixated team I've ever seen, which is fine.

 

[Bankerguy]

No, but i dont think they're a net driving crease crashing team either.
They're a set-play type team. Anytime they're in the O-zone , they pass up driving to the net and pass up other perimeter plays in order to try to set up something pretty.
sometimes the pretty play goes to the net, sometimes its not....

 

[Diversification]

Watching the Leafs-Bruins. Leafs sure do like to funnel the puck into the tough areas every chance they get... Just saying.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

I think they will penetrate the shit out of the Preds tomorrow.

 

[Petey O]

I think they will penetrate the shit out of the Preds tomorrow.

Wouldn't predators rather be doing the penetrating?

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Wouldn't predators rather be doing the penetrating?

Predators want to take advantage and eat you.

Time to reverse course and stick it to them.