Post-Game Talk: [GM 6] Canucks lose to Sabres | 1 - 5 (Garland)

[MS]

Urban legend has it that Napoleon Bonapart asked this about a prospective general for promotion "Is he lucky"? Not whether he was any good. However, there is no proof Napoleon actually said this

"Give me lucky Generals - This is quote that is often attributed to Napoleon, but there is no evidence to suggest he ever said the words. If he did, then as an avid amateur historian he probably based them on something Cardinal Mazarin, chief minister of France in the 17th century, said.

Mazarin had noted that one must not ask of a general “Est-il habile?” (“Is he skillful?”), but rather “Est-il heureux?” (“Is he lucky?”)"

ok, history lesson over.

Heh, ironically Benning was a 'lucky' general.

Unfortunately his luck didn't come close to mitigating his massive incompetence.

 

[M2Beezy]

God I would kill for a response saying what have we done in the past 8 years.

Had three Calder candidates in a row!

 

[Slapshot_11]

Anyone see the horvat comments about always being in a rebuild and not winning

The guy is not staying, trade him for D help

 

[604]

Sad reality is that we are already there. I don’t expect either Petey, Hughes, or Demko to want to stick around this tire fire after this season. Their agents are probably ready to request a trade to a competitor by this deadline or this off-season.

This core is dead. There simply is not enough depth, nor prospects, nor trade assets left to help them compete. It’s time to tear it down to the studs and start all over.

At least this is the perfect year to tank. Just don't wait too long.

 

[m9]

It's fine to account for EP being better when you look year over year. But you also have to account for a huge regression for Miller from 99pts to his average so you are probably back to even.

 

[MS]

It's fine to account for EP being better when you look year over year. But you also have to account for a huge regression for Miller from 99pts to his average so you are probably back to even.

Miller has averaged 88 points/82 as a Canuck so the 'huge regression' to his average would have been 11 points.

Based on what we've seen from Miller and the rebound we saw from Pettersson down the stretch, I expected us to have two roughtly point-per-game #1Cs and then Bo Horvat - an above-average #2C - as the #3C.

That should be the backbone of a really good offensive team, especially given that there is a pretty solid collection of offensive wingers here.

I don't think any of this was unrealistic thinking or had anything to do with 'Bruce bump'.

 

[m9]

Miller has averaged 88 points/82 as a Canuck so the 'huge regression' to his average would have been 11 points.

An "average 11pt regression" is bad data to me given we had two shortened seasons dramatically lower than his full season. His big season becomes massively over-weighted that way.

But regardless, I think we're just going to disagree on this one.

 

[MS]

An "average 11pt regression" is bad data to me given we had two shortened seasons dramatically lower than his full season. His big season becomes massively over-weighted that way.

But regardless, I think we're just going to disagree on this one.

If you project all 3 seasons to 82 games, he averages 86 points/82 instead of 88. Not a massive difference at all.

And I was even going beyond that to say 'around a point a game' on Miller which be below that.

 

[MS]

If you project all 3 seasons to 82 games, he averages 86 points/82 instead of 88. Not a massive difference at all.

And I was even going beyond that to say 'around a point a game' on Miller which be below that.

Just to add to this in terms of 3-line C strength.

In their last 41 games (including this terrible start), these are the numbers for our top 3 Cs :

JT Miller - 41-18-38-56
Elias Pettersson - 41-24-26-50
Bo Horvat - 41-24-13-37

Like, I obviously don't think those numbers are going to be repeated by all 3 guys over an 82-game season. And part of this is being all on the top unit PP (although most #1 and #2Cs for most teams are on the top units together). But this is incredible 3-line C depth, one of the best 1-2-3 punches in the NHL. It's probably the best C depth at any point in franchise history. It should be the backbone of a top-5 offensive team in the NHL. And it's a very weird place to want to tear down the team from.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Miller has averaged 88 points/82 as a Canuck so the 'huge regression' to his average would have been 11 points.

Based on what we've seen from Miller and the rebound we saw from Pettersson down the stretch, I expected us to have two roughtly point-per-game #1Cs and then Bo Horvat - an above-average #2C - as the #3C.

That should be the backbone of a really good offensive team, especially given that there is a pretty solid collection of offensive wingers here.

I don't think any of this was unrealistic thinking or had anything to do with 'Bruce bump'.

Something to keep in mind in mind is that league scoring was up a lot last year. We were 18th in league scoring. If Miller, Hughes, Pettersson get 65-80 points, and Horvat gets his regular 60ish points in a lower scoring league than we will be fine scoring wise. If they get those results and league scoring is up again than we will probably be around the league average for scoring again. The best teams in the leagues top 4 point producers finished with about 350 points. Even Nashville was around there. Our top 4 players finished with 287 last year. We are going to need more scoring from our core players. Especially if we have weaknesses in other areas.

 

[4Twenty]

No, there are literally 3. Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser. Demko/Pearson/Hughes joined late in the season with the team already miles out of the playoffs and had zero impact on their record that year.

Of course they've been bad for a decade. But what happened in 2015 has literally zilch to do with what's happening with this team now and evaluation of that team. To even suggest that to be the case is ... bizarre.

This team was in an (accidental) tank from 2015-2019.

We started coming out of it in 19-20 and had a solid season as the high picks taken in those poor years matured and hit their strides.

If the team had been properly managed, we should have had $20+ million in cap space for 20-21 to augment that promising team and take it to the next level. Instead, we ended up in comical cap crunch and had to cull multiple quality veterans. The dressing room collapsed, morale collapsed. Further veterans wanted out. Most of the key remaining players (Pettersson, Miller, Myers, Pearson, Hughes) saw their play regress badly.

This period lasted 80 games and 11 months.

This core has basically been together for ~220 games since the summer of 2019. You're taking that 80 game period as the 'real Canucks' and trying to argue a 140-game period for the same core before/after is a fraud. It's ridiculous.

I'm not basing anything on 'Bruce bump'. I based my expectations by looking at this roster on paper, and based on Pettersson's return to form. This team should have one of the best 1-2-3 punches in the NHL at C and everyone expected elite goaltending. Instead, 2 of the team's best 3 players are playing by far the worst hockey of their careers and they've had small-sample terrible luck.

I can’t believe how swept up you got by Bruce there it is. It’s wild.

The idea you’re not basing anything on the Bruce bump is ridiculous. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to hear.

Hell youre posting the 1-2-3 C points over that bump.

The group not showing up because of the reboot is a negative to me. You see it as a fine excuse.


The group who didn’t show up going on a run with nothing on the line is also something I don’t value as highly.

From 19-20 through 21-22 they’re a bottom 11 team. That’s the real Canucks. You get your Bruce bump and your bubble in this sample.

Also if I literally asked a non hockey fan to go look at a list of players who played for the Canucks in 18/19 and this season the list would literally have more than 3 similar names.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Miller has averaged 88 points/82 as a Canuck so the 'huge regression' to his average would have been 11 points.

Based on what we've seen from Miller and the rebound we saw from Pettersson down the stretch, I expected us to have two roughtly point-per-game #1Cs and then Bo Horvat - an above-average #2C - as the #3C.

That should be the backbone of a really good offensive team, especially given that there is a pretty solid collection of offensive wingers here.

I don't think any of this was unrealistic thinking or had anything to do with 'Bruce bump'.

I hope there is a GM in the league who believes that about Miller so we can unload him there.

If you project all 3 seasons to 82 games, he averages 86 points/82 instead of 88. Not a massive difference at all.

And I was even going beyond that to say 'around a point a game' on Miller which be below that.

Now do Brock Boeser!

 

[bossram]

Our 3 best players last year were :

1) JT Miller
2) Thatcher Demko
3) Quinn Hughes

In a tiny sample size, two of those players have had an absolutely shocking and unexpected terrible run of play and the other has clearly been playing hurt and has been missing practices etc. since the preseason.

There are zero teams in the NHL that would look anything other than mediocre when 3 of their 4 best players perform at the level we've seen from these guys so far.

This team may very well be mediocre. But I'm not going to be posting hot takes yet after these 6 very weird games.

No. The team was mediocre to begin with. Like they were last season. And during the pandemic. And even in the run-up to the bubble.

When the above 3 things mentioned go wrong, a mediocre team ends up with the record the Canucks have right now.

They were never good enough to weather any kind of adversity. And we're witnessing it.