Does this team lack secondary scoring?

[Win One Before I Die]

the real problem is that Burrows is useless (scoring wise) without the Sedins. He looks awful playing with Kesler.

 

[arttk]

Lots of strange ideas on what we have on this team.


I'll bite: Yeah, we are lacking in secondary scoring. I don't there's a magical trade or UFA that can fix this. It will have to come from our young players. And that may mean waiting past this year for them to be ready.

If Burrows can produce with Kesler and Kassian with the Sedins, that goes a long way to helping us out.

Plus there is no other year like a cap crunch year to give the kids a chance. Pretty sure there will be a lot of teams playing kids to fill out their roster.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Definitely. What I hope is that if Booth struggles or is injured yet again. Gillis looks to address this with actual help, whether it be internally should one of the kids exceed expectations or by chasing Vanek or Cammalleri. Hell, we should consider the latter regardless. The past couple years we have entered the playoffs on a hope and a prayer. I'd rather not continue the cycle.

the real problem is that Burrows is useless (scoring wise) without the Sedins. He looks awful playing with Kesler.

One game, bro.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

People ***** about us not having secondary scoring and how we are playing young players like Schroeder, Kassian, Jensen, Hunter and Gaunce. You know how Boston, LA, Chicago got their secondary scoring? They gave their kids a chance and let them play.

Boston traded for Eriksson and signed Iginla. LA traded for Carter and Richards, and Chicago traded for Sharp and signed Hossa as a UFA.

We don't have a single impact forward acquired via trade or UFA. I'm not saying it's a prerequisite, obviously it's not. But it's certainly an option to help address scoring needs that has given teams success in the past.

 

[MS]

We do, although perhaps not quite as badly as it looked last year. Losing Kesler and Booth for the majority of the season probably cost us close to 20 goals relative to the guys that replaced them in the roster - ie. a healthy Kesler probably scores 20-22 goals in 48 games, but we got 7 combined from Kesler/Schroeder.

Burrows' decline is an issue. He's still playing great defense and the Sedin line is winning their matchups, but scoring at 43 point/82 game pace with those guys as linemates for most of the year is a major concern.

 

[thepuckmonster]

I don't think our secondary scoring is as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be.

When every player sucks in the post season aside from the goalies, it's generally a reflection of the coaching staff and system rather than the players.

Unless every ****** playoff performer somehow gravitates to Vancouver.

I'm very excited to see what Torts can make happen, he got a lot of secondary support from ****** bottom 6 players in NY.

 

[arttk]

Boston traded for Eriksson and signed Iginla. LA traded for Carter and Richards, and Chicago traded for Sharp and signed Hossa as a UFA.

We don't have a single impact forward acquired via trade or UFA. I'm not saying it's a prerequisite, obviously it's not. But it's certainly an option to help address scoring needs that has given teams success in the past.

And all the team you listed sucked **** for a period of time as well and built their deep foundation based off those draft picks. We haven't had the same "luxury", so yeah our foundation is not as deep. I like the idea of giving the kids a chance until the trade deadline and then we can add more depth at that time. We need 2 top6 forwards, 1 3rd line center, why not let the kids prove they can do fill those spots until the trade deadline. If one of the kids can fill up one of those spots, then we can save that money and use it better at the deadline.

 

[canuck4life16]

Boston traded for Eriksson and signed Iginla. LA traded for Carter and Richards, and Chicago traded for Sharp and signed Hossa as a UFA.

We don't have a single impact forward acquired via trade or UFA. I'm not saying it's a prerequisite, obviously it's not. But it's certainly an option to help address scoring needs that has given teams success in the past.

well Ducks manage to do it without UFA forward but they do have all star D-men signed......but their forward group had two rookies in Getzaf and Perry who was just in their second year when they won the cup.......

 

[David71]

well Ducks manage to do it without UFA forward but they do have all star D-men signed......but their forward group had two rookies in Getzaf and Perry who was just in their second year when they won the cup.......

ELC guys are the only way to contribute scoring. all teams have them. chicago/l.a guys that can step up when your top 6 isn't firing on all cylinders. everything has to go right. wonder what kind of system torts implements for the nucks offensively.

 

[Wisp]

the real problem is that Burrows is useless (scoring wise) without the Sedins. He looks awful playing with Kesler.

He and Kesler destroyed the Blackhawks playing together. Destroyed Toews.

 

[canuck4life16]

He and Kesler destroyed the Blackhawks playing together. Destroyed Toews.

they just need some time to regain their chemistry 5 on 5

 

[Jack Tripper]

in recent playoff years scoring from the top two lines has hovered just behind a respectable 2 goals/game while the production from the bottom 6 forwards has been almost non-existent

under vigneault the canucks basically conceded any production from the 4th line, we'll see if any of that changes under tortorella (the head scratching 2-year deal gifted to sestito during the offseason doesn't exactly fill me with optimism on this point)

 

[opendoor]

If you consider anything other than the top line "secondary" scoring the GF/G numbers look like this:

Year || GF/G|| GF/G (minus top line)
2012-13 || 2.54 || 1.79
2011-12 || 2.94 || 2.06
2010-11 || 3.15 || 2.10
2009-10 || 3.27 || 2.14
2008-09 || 2.96 || 1.97

A better metric would be the G/G with the top line on the bench. If the Sedins set up a defenseman (or someone like Hansen or Kassian for that matter) for a goal, it's hardly fair to consider that anything other than a top line goal. H. Sedin is probably the best proxy for that since he is the center and has played every single game, so here's the Canucks' output without H. Sedin on the ice:

12-13: 1.33 G/G
11-12: 1.62 G/G
10-11: 1.53 G/G
09-10: 1.64 G/G
08-09: 1.66 G/G


Decent, though last year was pretty bad. The real problem is what has happened to the bottom 3 lines in the playoffs the last few years:


12-13: 1.00 G/G
11-12: 0.40 G/G
10-11: 1.08 G/G
09-10: 2.08 G/G
08-09: 1.40 G/G


As a comparison, here's last year's Chicago team with Toews on the bench:

Regular season: 1.70 G/G

Playoffs: 1.65 G/G


So the Canucks' depth scoring hasn't been hopelessly bad in the regular season, but it sure has been in the playoffs.

 

[arsmaster*]

We do, although perhaps not quite as badly as it looked last year. Losing Kesler and Booth for the majority of the season probably cost us close to 20 goals relative to the guys that replaced them in the roster - ie. a healthy Kesler probably scores 20-22 goals in 48 games, but we got 7 combined from Kesler/Schroeder.

Burrows' decline is an issue. He's still playing great defense and the Sedin line is winning their matchups, but scoring at 43 point/82 game pace with those guys as linemates for most of the year is a major concern.

Had burrows even declined?

Expecting more than 50-55 points is crazy, he's only ever done that once and it was in he and Henrik's peak season (also Daniel's best pace to a season).

I don't think he's regressed yet, he very well may starting this season but again I don't want people to take me for just some shmuck sippin' Gillis' kool aid, but the whole team sucked last year. It really was a weird year and I'm sure if you actually look at the games he played with the twins his production would be on average.

Yeah I want more than 43 points too, but I also want the Sedin's at or above PPG. If they aren't there you can expect Burrows' to be below his 5 year average too (it's a vice versa thing, because they both depend on eachother).

 

[Chubros]

We only have 4 legitimate top-6 forwards.

I'd say yes, we do need some secondary scoring, unless Booth rebounds or Kassian breaks out.

This is correct.

But if the lack of scoring problem is in the top 6 is that a secondary scoring problem of a primary scoring problem?

Had burrows even declined?

Expecting more than 50-55 points is crazy, he's only ever done that once and it was in he and Henrik's peak season (also Daniel's best pace to a season).

I don't think he's regressed yet, he very well may starting this season but again I don't want people to take me for just some shmuck sippin' Gillis' kool aid, but the whole team sucked last year. It really was a weird year and I'm sure if you actually look at the games he played with the twins his production would be on average.

Yeah I want more than 43 points too, but I also want the Sedin's at or above PPG. If they aren't there you can expect Burrows' to be below his 5 year average too (it's a vice versa thing, because they both depend on eachother).

The Sedins are better with Burrows than without.

 

[Shareefruck]

People ***** about us not having secondary scoring and how we are playing young players like Schroeder, Kassian, Jensen, Hunter and Gaunce. You know how Boston, LA, Chicago got their secondary scoring? They gave their kids a chance and let them play.

Who has **** about letting the young guys play?

He only brought that up to outline how many question-marks we have this upcoming year.

I haven't heard anyone not be in favor of it.

 

[arttk]

Who has **** about letting the young guys play?

He only brought that up to outline how many question-marks we have this upcoming year.

I haven't heard anyone not be in favor of it.

There are a bunch of people *****ing about Kassian on the top line ( or anywhere in the top6) in the Kassian thread. Or earlier in the off season when people were *****ing about having Schroeder as our 3rd line center.
I think it's the common attitude of "if we have to play the kids in the top6 or in key positions, we are f#@#ed" that annoys me the most. The team is going to make the playoffs just by the virtue of having Sedins, Luongo, Kesler and our D corp. We might as well see if any of the kids can holdon to a key roster spot before spending the rest of the money on filling those spots. 2-3 million will equal to 5-6 million at the trade deadline (correct me if I am wrong). That money could be better used if we have to acquire 1 or 2 player less.

 

[The Optimist]

Whatever lack of scoring the Canucks have up front is made up for by the offensively inclined defense.

 

[biturbo19]

Yes. This team needs to improve in terms of secondary scoring. Our 2nd line has be a revolving door of square pegs in round holes, ever since the cup run year where Raymond and Samuelsson seemed to work with Kesler. And therein lies the problem in part...trying to find linemates that work with 'New Kesler'.


We also lack the tertiary scoring that great cup contending teams have. Young guys who start to break out at the right time, or contribute through the lineup. A 4th line that isn't just out there wasting minutes until the 'real scorers' can come back on. A 3rd line that is not only sound defensively, but also chips in appreciable offense come playoff time in particular. We haven't had that.

 

[shortshorts]

Burrows and Kesler run around hitting things/forecheck and hope they create turnovers. That's the type of offense they create. It's not very reliable.

It is however a very good defensively line.

 

[tc 23]

I don't think our secondary scoring is as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be.

When every player sucks in the post season aside from the goalies, it's generally a reflection of the coaching staff and system rather than the players.

Unless every ****** playoff performer somehow gravitates to Vancouver.

I'm very excited to see what Torts can make happen, he got a lot of secondary support from ****** bottom 6 players in NY.

Yeah, that's what I believe too. We have a decent group of players offensively after the Sedin line. The problem is getting them to show up and perform.

 

[lush]

Yes, but that doesn't mean I don't hope it's getting fixed with youth... optimistic but that doesn't mean we'll get it

 

[Bleach Clean]

We do, although perhaps not quite as badly as it looked last year. Losing Kesler and Booth for the majority of the season probably cost us close to 20 goals relative to the guys that replaced them in the roster - ie. a healthy Kesler probably scores 20-22 goals in 48 games, but we got 7 combined from Kesler/Schroeder.

Burrows' decline is an issue. He's still playing great defense and the Sedin line is winning their matchups, but scoring at 43 point/82 game pace with those guys as linemates for most of the year is a major concern.

Don't think Burrows has declined relative to the Sedins own "perceived" decline.

Your first paragraph lists the main issue with the 2nd line: Injuries. Unlike some here, I consider the team to have 7 legitimate top6ers. Only, Higgins and Hansen output drops in the playoffs, and Booth's injuries don't allow for him to be a factor.

I'd say yes, the team does lack secondary scoring. Not easy to fix without further hurting the pipeline though. That said, I think the team did the right thing bringing in guys like Richardson and Santorelli to infuse the depth with some skill. Schroeder will also help in this regard, theoretically.

 

[Scurr]

The Sedins are better with Burrows than without.

This is overstated imo. Burrows is a much better player than anyone else they've played with... of course they've had more success with him than with the other plugs.

 

[dave babych returns]

Boston traded for Eriksson and signed Iginla. LA traded for Carter and Richards, and Chicago traded for Sharp and signed Hossa as a UFA.

We don't have a single impact forward acquired via trade or UFA. I'm not saying it's a prerequisite, obviously it's not. But it's certainly an option to help address scoring needs that has given teams success in the past.

Those are steep acquisition costs. And you can't get a player like Hossa at that cap hit any longer anyways so it's not something this team can pursue.

As for the trade route, Eriksson cost Tyler Seguin, Richards cost Schenn and Simmonds and Carter cost a first round pick and Johnson (not a player I like but obviously still marketable to some).

As for Sharp he had 15 career points in 60ish games, then played a season and a half in Chicago before breaking out in a big way. Not really a ready made secondary scorer in the same mould as the rest.

The Canucks don't really have the kinds of assets to make those moves at this point given the context of rebuilding the organization's depth. At the end of one of those rebuilds franchises can often part with a young NHLer with promise and a high draft pick without losing much depth but we are not there.

We do, although perhaps not quite as badly as it looked last year. Losing Kesler and Booth for the majority of the season probably cost us close to 20 goals relative to the guys that replaced them in the roster - ie. a healthy Kesler probably scores 20-22 goals in 48 games, but we got 7 combined from Kesler/Schroeder.

Burrows' decline is an issue. He's still playing great defense and the Sedin line is winning their matchups, but scoring at 43 point/82 game pace with those guys as linemates for most of the year is a major concern.

Yeah. A correction in shooting percentages will probably net Burrows a few more points this year alone but he's not going to get another handful of points on top of that from a fully functioning powerplay like the Sedins will.

I don't think Burrows is in sharp decline yet but it's going to happen and it will happen before the end of this deal. I think it's one where if the cap doesn't rise rapidly, the team might have to make a tough decision on an extremely popular player where the best path going forward does not have great optics.. but we'll see.