Post-Game Talk: GAME #41 - Avs def. Canucks 4-3

[mossey3535]

Ehhhh, sort of.

Would we like Bieksa to be better? Yes. However, he is extremely serviceable for what he's paid and what he's used for. He's a fantastic puck-mover, aggressive, a bit nasty and provides great leadership. He's basically what you expect for a 2nd pairing defensemen.

Edler may be overrated... or he may not be. He's a 1st pairing D-man on pretty much any team in the league, though not a "franchise defensemen" or "number 1 D". There is barely a player in the whole league I'd take over him considering his salary and what he brings to the table.

In addition, Edler still has room to grow. Most defensemen don't come into their own until 29-31. He still has plenty of time to develop into a real franchise guy. And if he never does, he's still plenty good as is.

Agree. It's easy to forget that serviceable d-men in the league generally cost >$4M nowadays. Most teams banking on cheaper guys can do it because those guys are on ELC or something similar.

 

[biturbo19]

I wholeheartedly agree. Bieksa and elder should be explored as trade bait. Is bieksa on a full NTC? Elder NEEDs to be moved before his kicks in. He is horrendously overrated.

lol.

How about before we start taking drastic measures like shipping two of our potentially best defencemen out, we try not playing them together on the same pairing?

It's honestly getting comical at this point, that the two of them are still playing together. It just doesn't make any sense, on any level.

 

[NuxFan09]

Now that Garrison has adjusted to the team's system and is playing very well, I would try the Edler-Garrison experiment again.

Edler - Garrison
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Tanev (when he returns)

 

[Orca Smash]

I think i would do Garrison hamhuis, Tanev edler, and bieksa ballard.

Or the above works to.

 

[Orca Smash]

I agree, Schneider might have let in twice as many goals as he usually does but it wasn't a bad outing for him. All the goals were off turnovers, it's not really a performance that necessitates a bounce-back game.

Well for bounce back I just meant wanting to get him in the crease again right away after a loss. Did not think it was his fault either.

But suppose we will see. I am just guessing what av will do.

 

[Virtanen2Horvat]

Well Schneider just came back from the flu. Anyways two of those goals should have not been converted on. It should have been a 3-2 win, if it were not for those Bieksa and Lapierre giveaways.

 

[biturbo19]

Now that Garrison has adjusted to the team's system and is playing very well, I would try the Edler-Garrison experiment again.

Edler - Garrison
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Tanev (when he returns)

Correct.

But maybe it's just too logical...

We are running out of games to try this experiment out again. If it works, it makes our d-corps so much more stable and balanced. If not, we go back to the current configuration i guess...but i just don't see the point. Hamhuis-Garrison is okay, but it's not the sort of 'do not touch' chemistry that would warrant keeping this Edler+Bieksa trainwreck together any longer. It would be really nice...to give guys at least a half dozen games to get acquainted before we hit full-bore playoffs.

I think i would do Garrison hamhuis, Tanev edler, and bieksa ballard.

Or the above works to.

Dear lord, NO. Please no Ballard+Bieksa pairing.

I like Edler-Tanev too, but there are two major problems there. 1)As good as Tanev is, come playoff time i just don't think he's at the point where he'd be able to hold up to the kind of pounding he'd take in the top-4 like that, over the course of any sort of long haul. 2)Assuming Ballard-Bieksa is an absolutely non-starter...that leaves probably Garrison playing with Ballard/Alberts, and Garrison is too valuable a defender to waste on that.

 

[Shareefruck]

Correct.

But maybe it's just too logical...

We are running out of games to try this experiment out again. If it works, it makes our d-corps so much more stable and balanced. If not, we go back to the current configuration i guess...but i just don't see the point. Hamhuis-Garrison is okay, but it's not the sort of 'do not touch' chemistry that would warrant keeping this Edler+Bieksa trainwreck together any longer. It would be really nice...to give guys at least a half dozen games to get acquainted before we hit full-bore playoffs.



Dear lord, NO. Please no Ballard+Bieksa pairing.

I like Edler-Tanev too, but there are two major problems there. 1)As good as Tanev is, come playoff time i just don't think he's at the point where he'd be able to hold up to the kind of pounding he'd take in the top-4 like that, over the course of any sort of long haul. 2)Assuming Ballard-Bieksa is an absolutely non-starter...that leaves probably Garrison playing with Ballard/Alberts, and Garrison is too valuable a defender to waste on that.

For these reasons I would have liked the team to give the Edler - Garrison pairing another try now that Garrison's playing so much better.

Edler - Garrison
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Tanev

Everything would fall into place very nicely if it works, and in theory, their playing styles shouldn't clash this much.

 

[biturbo19]

For these reasons I would have liked the team to give the Edler - Garrison pairing another try now that Garrison's playing so much better.

Edler - Garrison
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Ballard - Tanev

Everything would fall into place very nicely if it works, and in theory, their playing styles shouldn't clash this much.

The only...and i mean only conceivable reasons i can see for not trying this are:

1)They want 'size' on each pairing. HamJuice isn't a 'big' pairing, and it lumps our two biggest defenders together in Edler+Garrison.

2)Worries about footspeed, short area quickness, getting exposed by quick, shifty opponents lines.


As for the first point, the 'size thing'...i wouldn't really worry about it. Bieksa and Hamhuis are capable of handling most lines, with Juice being probably our 'hardest to play against' defender when he's engaged at least. And if it were to really become an issue where Hamhuis-Bieksa is getting outmuscled regularly...you throw Edler-Garrison out there and hope Edler can keep his head on straight enough to pull off a quasi-shutdown role, with Garrison cleaning up after him.

And the second point, i can see it being a small issue...but honestly, i'd take a small issue over a huge disaster. And Edler+Bieksa is a disaster, there's no two-ways about it really.

So yeah, it's really silly not to try Edler-Garrison out again at this point. This time...with Garrison playing the Right side, so Steady Eddy can stay comfy on his natural side.

 

[opendoor]

Yeah, given that the Canucks basically can't move up and are fairly unlikely to move down in the standings, now would be the time to try some things out prior to the playoffs. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[Orca Smash]

Dear lord, NO. Please no Ballard+Bieksa pairing.

I like Edler-Tanev too, but there are two major problems there. 1)As good as Tanev is, come playoff time i just don't think he's at the point where he'd be able to hold up to the kind of pounding he'd take in the top-4 like that, over the course of any sort of long haul. 2)Assuming Ballard-Bieksa is an absolutely non-starter...that leaves probably Garrison playing with Ballard/Alberts, and Garrison is too valuable a defender to waste on that.

Why?

That is our bottom pairing? Ballard despite the flack he gets on here has been generally good imo. I dont see how ballard is defensively less responsible then edler currently... And bieksa edler are currently playing in the top 4.

And again bieksa ballard that is our bottom pairing. Getting the easy minutes, if ballard and bieksa cannot handle the bottom pairing then we have no hope. They actually did these pairings earlier this year before the kb injury or right after he returned i cant remember, and it looked good to me. Or you could do bieksa alberts if you really want, I think that was what we rolled against the kings in the afternoon game but i prefer ballard over alberts.

I like the balance of garrison edler and hamhuis bieksa but im not sure if I see a good shut down line here given the play this year of KB and edler in the defensive zone. And tanev edler is a pairing i also really like. You have shut down the other suggestions in your analysis such as garrison alberts for good reason.


I really have no big issue with bieksa hamhuis, garrison edler, and tanev ballard either. I just dont know if bieksa hamhuis is going to work as a number 1 shut down unit like it did in 2011. Garrison hamhuis have been good in my estimation, i couldn't ask for much more, I hate to break that up, and edler tanev played some very solid games earlier this year as a pair. That leaves bieksa and ballard/alberts as the left overs and i dont see how they can't handle the easy minutes.

 

[biturbo19]

Why?

That is our bottom pairing? Ballard despite the flack he gets on here has been generally good imo. I dont see how ballard is defensively less responsible then edler currently... And bieksa edler are currently playing in the top 4.

And again bikeksa ballard that is our bottom pairing. Getting the easy minutes, if ballard and bieksa cannot handle the bottom pairing then theirs no hope. They actually did these pairings earlier this year before the kb injury or right after he returned i cant remember, and it looked good to me. Or you could do bieksa alberts if you really want, I think that was what we rolled against the kings in the afternoon game but i prefer ballard over alberts.

I like the balance of garrison edler and hamhuis bieksa but im not sure if I see a good shut down line here given the play this year of KB and edler in the defensive zone. And tanev edler is a pairing i also really like. And you have shut down the other suggestions in your analysis such as garrison alberts for good reason.


But again I really have no big issue with bieksa hamhuis, garrison edler, and tanev ballard either. I just dont know if bieksa hamhuis is going to work as a number 1 shut down unit like it did in 2011.

I can certainly understand the concern, and honestly...yes, Bieksa has played his way down to a bottom-pairing role this year again, in terms of merit. What i'm advocating, is predicated on the idea that Bieksa obviously needs someone stable beside him to get the most out of what he can offer. Obviously, it's built on the idea that Hamhuis+Bieksa back together, Bieksa gets his head the right way up and starts playing at the sort of level he's capable of...The sort of level that we saw in the 'HamJuice' pairing when we went to a Stanely Cup Final. They can be a top notch shutdown pairing.

And while you're right again, in that Ballard-Bieksa as a bottom pairing playing limited minutes probably isn't any worse than Edler-Bieksa, i dislike that Ballard-Bieksa pairing when it's been tried for the same reasons i think Edler-Bieksa is a terrible fit. It's a ticking timebomb. At any moment...you could have two guys on the ice, doing really stupid things at exactly the same time. And in the playoffs if that happens at the wrong time...it's curtains.

It just makes the most sense to me to try out the pairings which could potentially stabilize the whole thing. If Hamhuis-Bieksa can get back to where they were in the 'glory days', that's one extremely solid pairing that can get work done. I rarely hear people talking about the way we went into last year's playoffs and AV was tooling around with a Hamhuis-Tanev shutdown pairing and goofing around with things like that. HamJuice can be a top-tier shutdown pairing, with a feisty edge and offensive upside. If you put it back together for a stretch and it becomes clear that the problem isn't pairings, but rather Bieksa having his head lodged directly up his own rear end...then yeah, go with something else like Tanev in the top-4. But at least try it first...right?

And Garrison with his steady, patient, measured approach to defence, is at least theoretically, the stabilizing presence needed to clean up after Edler while he adventures around doing Edler stuff. I mean, i think we want Edler taking some risks...because there's huge reward there. But sometimes those risks are going to go belly side up, and Garrison is the sort of player who made a name for himself cleaning after Campbell. It's what he's best at imo.

And because that leaves Tanev in a '3rd pairing' role, you can get some functional value out of Ballard...and honestly roll that pairing out without real fear. If they're caught out on an icing? No worries, Tanev is on the case. etc.

 

[Orca Smash]

I can certainly understand the concern, and honestly...yes, Bieksa has played his way down to a bottom-pairing role this year again, in terms of merit. What i'm advocating, is predicated on the idea that Bieksa obviously needs someone stable beside him to get the most out of what he can offer. Obviously, it's built on the idea that Hamhuis+Bieksa back together, Bieksa gets his head the right way up and starts playing at the sort of level he's capable of...The sort of level that we saw in the 'HamJuice' pairing when we went to a Stanely Cup Final. They can be a top notch shutdown pairing.

And while you're right again, in that Ballard-Bieksa as a bottom pairing playing limited minutes probably isn't any worse than Edler-Bieksa, i dislike that Ballard-Bieksa pairing when it's been tried for the same reasons i think Edler-Bieksa is a terrible fit. It's a ticking timebomb. At any moment...you could have two guys on the ice, doing really stupid things at exactly the same time. And in the playoffs if that happens at the wrong time...it's curtains.

It just makes the most sense to me to try out the pairings which could potentially stabilize the whole thing. If Hamhuis-Bieksa can get back to where they were in the 'glory days', that's one extremely solid pairing that can get work done. I rarely hear people talking about the way we went into last year's playoffs and AV was tooling around with a Hamhuis-Tanev shutdown pairing and goofing around with things like that. HamJuice can be a top-tier shutdown pairing, with a feisty edge and offensive upside. If you put it back together for a stretch and it becomes clear that the problem isn't pairings, but rather Bieksa having his head lodged directly up his own rear end...then yeah, go with something else like Tanev in the top-4. But at least try it first...right?

And Garrison with his steady, patient, measured approach to defence, is at least theoretically, the stabilizing presence needed to clean up after Edler while he adventures around doing Edler stuff. I mean, i think we want Edler taking some risks...because there's huge reward there. But sometimes those risks are going to go belly side up, and Garrison is the sort of player who made a name for himself cleaning after Campbell. It's what he's best at imo.

And because that leaves Tanev in a '3rd pairing' role, you can get some functional value out of Ballard...and honestly roll that pairing out without real fear. If they're caught out on an icing? No worries, Tanev is on the case. etc.

I agree with most of what your saying. I actually edited my post that you quoted so I will just reiterate below.

This is my only concern though, garrison and hamhuis have been a very good pairing imo. I hate to break up a solid shut down pairing like that in an effort to try to get bieksa going, i would prefer not to break up something that has been very good in my estimation and I feel that is one pairing that should be left alone. Now if bieksa can get to 2011 playoff form, then thats fine but thats a big if. I am also concerned with kevins energy and effort level night in night out as a number 1 shut down guy again in playoffs.

Tanev and edler were very good as a pair when they played together and I fully believe that works as well.

And the odd men out is bieksa and ballard. If we do really need to get bieksa going then I understand what your saying, I guess I just have a bit less faith in kb defensively that I am looking to give him less minutes in the defensive zone as a bottom pairing, and more time on our 2nd unit PP.

But I would not object to trying bieksa hamhuis, edler garrison again. And your right it also maybe worth a try due to the upside if KB can round back into form with hamhuis again.

 

[biturbo19]

I agree with most of what your saying. I actually edited my post that you quoted so I will just reiterate below.

This is my only concern though, garrison and hamhuis have been a very good pairing imo. I hate to break up a solid shut down pairing like that in an effort to try to get bieksa going, i would prefer not to break up something that has been very good in my estimation and I feel that is one pairing that should be left alone. Now if bieksa can get to 2011 playoff form, then thats fine but thats a big if. I am also concerned with kevins energy and effort level night in night out as a number 1 shut down guy again in playoffs.

Tanev and edler were very good as a pair when they played together and I fully believe that works as well.

And the odd men out is bieksa and ballard. If we do really need to get bieksa going then I understand what your saying, I guess I just have a bit less faith in kb defensively that I am looking to give him less minutes in the defensive zone as a bottom pairing, and more time on our 2nd unit PP.

But I would not object to trying bieksa hamhuis, edler garrison again. And your right it also maybe worth a try due to the upside if KB can round back into form with hamhuis again.

Yeah. That makes lots of sense to me as well really.

If Hamhuis-Bieksa can't get back to the high level we've seen that they're capable of, it absolutely makes sense to try the alternative you're suggesting.

But i really do think that getting Bieksa and Edler 'going' again, will be crucial to our playoff success. I mean, right now, they both look like a big steaming deuce. And not surprisingly...our defence as a whole looks disjointed and not exactly 'cup calibre'.

The thing with Kasual Kev, is that he's made me look stupid before. I was admittedly among the mob exclaiming, 'get rid of Bieksa, trade him for whatever, blah blah blah, rabble rabble'. And for exactly the same reasons we're all down on Bieksa right now...he looks like he's trying out for Kurt Browning's Figure Skating show tour or something, low effort, ridiculous decision-making, floating around doing extremely frustrating things. And then he does a complete 180 alongside Hamhuis once they got comfortable together...and we go to the cup finals and herald Bieksa as a crucial cog in the wheel (and rightly so i think). He's absolutely an enigma, but i've kinda learned not to underestimate him...despite the absurd way he plays when he's not engaged.

And i don't think there's any guarantee Edler-Garrison would work either...but what we have right now clearly isn't working, and while Hamhuis-Garrison have been an acceptable top-pairing most of the time...i don't think we're seeing the most out of either right now. And Hamhuis hasn't looked the same this year either...making all kinds of uncharacteristic mistakes.

Basically, i just don't understand why AV doesn't think it's worth a try at least...to attempt to stabilize the pairings, by going with 2 duos that have worked well in the past, and the other 2 guys who seem like a good fit together.

 

[604]

Bah! Bet on the Canucks when they were down 1-0 (got decent odds)...was stoked when they came back...just to see my $150 flushed down the drain.

 

[LiveeviL]

Bah! Bet on the Canucks when they were down 1-0 (got decent odds)...was stoked when they came back...just to see my $150 flushed down the drain.

It could have been worse, it could have been vcash!

 

[Orca Smash]

Basically, i just don't understand why AV doesn't think it's worth a try at least...to attempt to stabilize the pairings, by going with 2 duos that have worked well in the past, and the other 2 guys who seem like a good fit together.

I should mention i keep forgetting tanev is hurt, so I very much agree with this, and think giving this a try next game should happen, with tanev out now is the time to try these pairs, and then we can see where tanev fits best.

And i don't think there's any guarantee Edler-Garrison would work either...but what we have right now clearly isn't working, and while Hamhuis-Garrison have been an acceptable top-pairing most of the time...i don't think we're seeing the most out of either right now. And Hamhuis hasn't looked the same this year either...making all kinds of uncharacteristic mistakes.

I actually think hamhuis is getting better lately defensively again and its mainly due to working with garrison, hamhuis had been paired with bieksa earlier this year while having trouble as well, they were running into enough problems av split them, but they are going to need more time together again to be properly evaluated so its definitely worth a try to put kevin and dan together again for a trial run. But I actually feel we are getting a very good return out of garrison/hamhuis this last while. Garrison and hamhuis have not been on ice for very many goals against at all while playing the other teams top lines.

But if bieksa and hamhuis can be that top pairing all the better it is for us since then it free's up garrison. But i do have my doubts.

 

[John Bender*]

Ehhhh, sort of.

Would we like Bieksa to be better? Yes. However, he is extremely serviceable for what he's paid and what he's used for. He's a fantastic puck-mover, aggressive, a bit nasty and provides great leadership. He's basically what you expect for a 2nd pairing defensemen.

Edler may be overrated... or he may not be. He's a 1st pairing D-man on pretty much any team in the league, though not a "franchise defensemen" or "number 1 D". There is barely a player in the whole league I'd take over him considering his salary and what he brings to the table.

In addition, Edler still has room to grow. Most defensemen don't come into their own until 29-31. He still has plenty of time to develop into a real franchise guy. And if he never does, he's still plenty good as is.

I don't agree that Bieksa is a second pairing type d-man. I think he's bottom pairing d-man that is cast in the role he is given his leadership. Bieksa's game is so inept defensively and he is so mistake and gaffe prone that I fear the worst with the guy come playoff time. That bieksallent pass he made to Landeskog tonight was a play you'd be benched for in Atom house.

Edler has time to grow? HOw long will we keep saying this about the guy? I mean, does anyone fear that maybe he won't grow? That maybe this is the real Edler? I think Edler has pluses in his game, but he is also prone to horrible puck decisions and has a propensity to go invisible for long stretches, only to be noticed when he gives the puck away or makes a horrible decision. He's no #1. The thread, "all the tools, no tool box" should have been made about him.

As for the ink not being dry on his extension, there has to be a reason Gillis structured his NTC so that he is not untradeable until the Summer. Perhaps Gillis has the same fears with Edler?