News Article: Is this the start of the downward slope for the Sedins?

Status
Not open for further replies.

torlev*

Guest
At age 29 is when Henrik won the Art Ross. Daniel won it the following year at age 30. Henrik was PPG the season after at age 31, Daniel wasn't far behind him. Heck, even when they were 32 years old Henrik was 3 points off from PPG, Daniel was a couple behind that. It wasn't until last years team wide putrid season that these guys really took a nose dive.

It's difficult to take much of your argument seriously when your initial 'evidence' is so far off base. I generally agree with the rest of what you've stated here, although I think the line mate that they're placed with offers a huge variable.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of decline. From age 29 (their peak, when they were WAY OVER a point per game), their numbers decreased. From over a point per game. To a point per game. To under a point per game.

If you plot their numbers from age 28/29 to current, you'll see a downward trend. From the top. Slanting down to the right. A point per game IS a decline from their peak.

decline - verb - (typically of something regarded as good) become smaller, fewer, or less; decrease.

Being at a point per game (80 points) is a decline from 112/104 points. Because it is smaller, fewer, or less. A decrease. It's still awesome, but a decline nonetheless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GPNuck

Registered User
Nov 25, 2013
3,867
49
How are Thornton and Marleau chokers but the Sedins not? What have the Sedins accomplished that they haven't? :facepalm:

Sedins made it the game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals? Sedins made it to the Stanley Cup finals? Sedins won an olympic gold and they were a big part of the reason why they won it.. Whereas Canada would have been better without Thornton (2010) Olympics he won but he wasn't a contributer. I don't mind Marleau and least he has wheels and can penalty kill but Thornton has no urgency is his game and he is not which does not translate well with playoff hockey
 

BeardyCanuck03

@BeardyCanuck03
Jun 19, 2006
10,823
410
twitter.com
That really isn’t necessarily the case, for many reasons.

First, you assume that I’m talking about letting them walk for nothing. You’re taking the worst case scenario. When did we take trading them at last year’s deadline out of the realm of possibility? We’re talking in retrospect right now, obviously, as they were signed in November, so extending them, or letting them walk, are not the only two possibilities.

Second, saying that there are more rebuilds that have failed than rebuilds that have succeeded, isn’t really all that relevant. Looking at the number of declining teams heavily laden with overpriced contracts, trying to re-tool and being successful, and comparing them to full rebuilds is the more apt comparison.

I actually prefer to look at it differently though. Regardless of full rebuild or re-tool, we can look at the players individually. I don’t feel we can be contenders in the next three years, and I don’t think they can be key contributors after that (as they’ll be 37/38, and ready to retire), so I see it as a simple asset management decision. At this point in their career, they’ll never be key contributors to a contending team here, so the smart asset management decision would be to get what you can for them, before that amounts to zero (like has happened to so many teams before).


It’s also rather telling that you refer to one grammatical error as “grammatically horribleâ€. You’re instead of Your, while quickly typing a post while at work, hardly makes an entire post “grammatically horribleâ€.

Not sure you understand the position the Canucks were in... When were the Canucks in a position (before the Sedin's signed the extensions) where trading them made sense? If you are going to look in hindsight, you should at least remember where the team was (a team who had come off multiple division titles and had visions of making a playoff run). The Canucks collapse and fall out of the playoffs happened after the Sedins signed their extensions. This isn't a computer game and nothing is as simple as you make it out to be.
 

torlev*

Guest
Not sure you understand the position the Canucks were in... When were the Canucks in a position (before the Sedin's signed the extensions) where trading them made sense? If you are going to look in hindsight, you should at least remember where the team was (a team who had come off multiple division titles and had visions of making a playoff run). The Canucks collapse and fall out of the playoffs happened after the Sedins signed their extensions. This isn't a computer game and nothing is as simple as you make it out to be.

At the time they signed extensions, if the choice is committing $7M to two declining players age 34 when their new contracts begin, to a team that wasn’t going to contend, and trading them for prime assets (although, granted, we have no idea what assets at this point), it made a lot of sense at that point.
 

John Bender*

Guest
Yes. You focus on that and I will focus on the most successful era of Canucks in all of history. SMH.

When the Sedins rebound and are still contributing at the end of this contract, I can't wait to find this quote.

Hope you are right but simply don't think you are. Henrik played well during stretches last year but he's definitely declining. Daniel has been poor for a while now. The contracts were overpayment.
 

John Bender*

Guest
What was Gillis suppose to do? Let the Sedins walk and put the Canucks organization into a hole that would take a lot longer to get out of then it will take to re-tool now.

The Canucks were committed to the Sedins, letting them walk would've been a franchise killing move.

It's the term that's killer. Hopefully if they blow they'll retire.
 

deckercky

Registered User
Oct 27, 2010
9,380
2,452
I'd even go so far as to bet on both being top 30 scorers, which last year would have been 65 pts.

But as to the article - they've obviously been on the decline since their Art Ross years -I just don't think they're in as much of a decline as some other do.
 

Domecile

Opinion != Fact
Jul 9, 2014
666
4
Delta
Looking at the Canuck roster, it's likely the Sedins will still be #1 and #2 in scoring for next season.
 

skyo

Benning Squad
Sep 22, 2013
3,504
230
CanucksCorner
canuckscorner.com
start of the downward slope for the Sedins?

Were they supposed to be getting better at 33/34? of course they are on the downward slope of their careers, having said that they are still one of the top players in the league (when healthy).

And imo they can only go up from last season's debacle, especially with health and a new coach who won't ride them to the ground.

In a few years for this team hopefully the Sedins can stay longer and be a solid 2nd line, IF hopefully some of our young guns can surprise and become a legit #1 line.

Sedins as a 2nd line would be crazy, every team would be envious of that. aha
 

Yossarian54

Registered User
Oct 12, 2011
1,585
45
Perth, WA
At the time they signed extensions, if the choice is committing $7M to two declining players age 34 when their new contracts begin, to a team that wasn’t going to contend, and trading them for prime assets (although, granted, we have no idea what assets at this point), it made a lot of sense at that point.

Yes, in NHL14 or on HF's trade board.

Name me a team that had 14 million in cap space, the young assets required for two top line forwards recently removed from PPG seasons and was a team that was already in playoff contention (after losing said young assets) that required extra forward help.
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
At the time they signed extensions, if the choice is committing $7M to two declining players age 34 when their new contracts begin, to a team that wasn’t going to contend, and trading them for prime assets (although, granted, we have no idea what assets at this point), it made a lot of sense at that point.

i dont think there was any chance that they were going to be traded
 

Aphid Attraction

Registered User
Jan 17, 2013
5,067
1,703
Were they supposed to be getting better at 33/34? of course they are on the downward slope of their careers, having said that they are still one of the top players in the league (when healthy).

And imo they can only go up from last season's debacle, especially with health and a new coach who won't ride them to the ground.

In a few years for this team hopefully the Sedins can stay longer and be a solid 2nd line, IF hopefully some of our young guns can surprise and become a legit #1 line.

Sedins as a 2nd line would be crazy, every team would be envious of that. aha

Boom... Great post, this is quite clearly the plan at the mo...

And as a fan, I jumped on the Sedin ship, and will go wherever it takes me... Even if it does go down
 

CanucksSayEh

Registered User
Apr 6, 2012
5,819
2,129
I can't stress enough how much I think that they need to stop being regarded as the "Sedins" anymore. They are like the Shenns, or Staals now. They are no longer equals, and shouldn't be regarded as such. Different hockey players, on different levels. They just look alike.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
26,198
11,274
I mean sure, the Sedins are at the point in their careers where they're going to be "in decline". That is to be expected. I don't think anyone is expecting them to suddenly become 110pt+ players and win some more scoring titles again.

But i do really believe that last year was an aberration. An outlier year that doesn't/won't fit the "trend". It sounds like "excuse making", but that nightmarishly ineffective Tortorella system ran so completely counter to what the Sedins do well as players, that the impact can't be understated.

The Sedins are slow, cerebral, puck possession players who thrive on cycling the puck around and controlling the play in the offensive end until the opponent cries uncle. They benefit more than anything else from a system that provides the following:

1)aggressive puck movement from their own end where they can "cheat" a bit to negate their speed disadvantage.

2)the freedom to control the puck, spend a great deal of time with the puck on their sticks without taking a shot, enter the offensive zone with control of the puck.

3)offensive zone starts and prime offensive opportunities.


So what did Tortorella provide them with? A system that emphasized literally the complete opposite of that:

1)almost no puck movement from the back end, no transition, forwards collapsing deep down below the hashmarks in their own zone and having to lug the puck out of the zone themselves (the Sedins are not good at lugging the puck out of their own zone and through the neutral zone with defenders ahead of them because they are not great skaters).

2)shots shots shots, take a shot always (the Sedins entire game is built around an emphasis on holding the puck [sometimes for an inordinate amount of time] until they can generate higher percentage shooting opportunity).

3)top players playing the toughest minutes, a "power on power" approach (the Sedins may break even in "tough minutes" on the advanced stats sheet, but it's pretty clear that they feast on going up against less offensively gifted defensive lines, and doing so with a high degree of offensive zone starts to negate their limited transition savvy).

4)as a combination of #1+2, Tortorella's system emphasizing "shots" and a "dump and chase" approach, along with the fact that forwards were often "breaking out" from deep in their own defensive zone, lugging the puck up ice on an equal plane of advancement with their linemates, and with multiple defenders already set in front of them...it completely changed the way the Sedins play neutral zone hockey in a completely counterproductive way. Tortorella's brand of neutral zone hockey would've very nearly passed muster in the ancient "onside game" era of hockey where forward passes were not permitted. And the result of that system for the Sedins? Anyone else notice that it almost completely eliminated those "tic-tac-toe" neutral zone plays, and even the patented short area give-and-go zone entries from the Sedins' repertoire?

Add in a completely dysfunctional Powerplay where the Sedins have historically thrived, and you've got a recipe for massive regression from the Twins.

So yes, the Sedins are obviously "in decline", but last year was such a complete disaster that it really doesn't fit the "trend" of decline and it would be surprising if under a half-decent coach this coming season, the Sedins don't actually increase their production from last year.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
26,198
11,274
I can't stress enough how much I think that they need to stop being regarded as the "Sedins" anymore. They are like the Shenns, or Staals now. They are no longer equals, and shouldn't be regarded as such. Different hockey players, on different levels. They just look alike.

This oft parroted assessment is so bizarre to me.

We're talking about two guys who (as usual) posted near identical production, even in a season where everything went to **** for them.

And it's not like the chemistry that develops over a couple decades of playing together practically joined at the hip can somehow completely disappear over the course of less than a year.

Yes, Daniel often looked the inferior player last season, but in such a gongshow of a year i think it's a bit premature to be reading so far into that. Both Sedins looked horrible last year. It's not unreasonable to think that in large part, that inequity of "decline" was a product of playing different positions (and roles on the line) in Tortorella's Terrible system.


Some people are acting like Hank is just fine, while Danny lost an arm in the war or something. Like there's this dramatic and completely insurmountable distinction between the two now. :help:
 

Raistlin

Registered User
Aug 25, 2006
4,816
3,705
This oft parroted assessment is so bizarre to me.

We're talking about two guys who (as usual) posted near identical production, even in a season where everything went to **** for them.

And it's not like the chemistry that develops over a couple decades of playing together practically joined at the hip can somehow completely disappear over the course of less than a year.

Yes, Daniel often looked the inferior player last season, but in such a gongshow of a year i think it's a bit premature to be reading so far into that. Both Sedins looked horrible last year. It's not unreasonable to think that in large part, that inequity of "decline" was a product of playing different positions (and roles on the line) in Tortorella's Terrible system.


Some people are acting like Hank is just fine, while Danny lost an arm in the war or something. Like there's this dramatic and completely insurmountable distinction between the two now. :help:

:handclap:
 

JuniorNelson

Registered User
Jan 21, 2010
8,631
320
E.Vancouver
What was Gillis suppose to do? Let the Sedins walk and put the Canucks organization into a hole that would take a lot longer to get out of then it will take to re-tool now.

The Canucks were committed to the Sedins, letting them walk would've been a franchise killing move.

Gillis was supposed to sign them to short term. Gillis was supposed to recognize when they were unable to carry the team. Gillis was supposed to oversee the passing of the torch to Kesler.
 

Derp Kassian

Registered User
Jul 14, 2012
2,739
143
Vancouver
Gillis was supposed to sign them to short term. Gillis was supposed to recognize when they were unable to carry the team. Gillis was supposed to oversee the passing of the torch to Kesler.

lol at Kesler being a torch barrer, he could never carry the team and hasn't done heavy lifting since 2011:laugh:
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
This oft parroted assessment is so bizarre to me.

We're talking about two guys who (as usual) posted near identical production, even in a season where everything went to **** for them.

And it's not like the chemistry that develops over a couple decades of playing together practically joined at the hip can somehow completely disappear over the course of less than a year.

Yes, Daniel often looked the inferior player last season, but in such a gongshow of a year i think it's a bit premature to be reading so far into that. Both Sedins looked horrible last year. It's not unreasonable to think that in large part, that inequity of "decline" was a product of playing different positions (and roles on the line) in Tortorella's Terrible system.


Some people are acting like Hank is just fine, while Danny lost an arm in the war or something. Like there's this dramatic and completely insurmountable distinction between the two now. :help:

there is though. henrik is still unquestionably an elite #1 centre and daniel looks like brad boyes

the two of them controlled 61% of the goals when they were on the ice together and 58% of the shot attempts. their production was down but they were still, without any reservation, an elite line no matter who they played with. the downside in their production came from daniel and burrows being physically unable to shoot harder than 20kph, the former being a shell of who he once was and the latter being uniquely unlucky
 
Last edited:

fancouver

Registered User
Jan 15, 2009
5,964
0
Vancouver
Sky is also blue?
Well of course the Sedins are declining, just like every player entering or in their 30s. Same argument can be made for Thornton or Marleau and even Kesler.

But the Sedins are still good for 60-70+
 

Scurr

Registered User
Jun 25, 2009
12,115
12
Whalley
there is though. henrik is still unquestionably an elite #1 centre and daniel looks like brad boyes

the two of them controlled 61% of the goals when they were on the ice together and 58% of the shot attempts. their production was down but they were still, without any reservation, an elite line no matter who they played with. the downside in their production came from daniel and burrows being physically unable to shoot harder than 20kph, the former being a shell of who he once was and the latter being uniquely unlucky

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Daniel is "a shell" because he's Swedish and Burrows is "unlucky" because he's Canadian?
 
Last edited:

torlev*

Guest
i dont think there was any chance that they were going to be traded

Yeah, it was unlikely. That doesn't mean it wasn't the best route though. Boston traded Thornton, their franchise player. There are other examples. Its not unheard of.

I'm just stating what I think the best thing for the team would have been.
 

torlev*

Guest
I mean sure, the Sedins are at the point in their careers where they're going to be "in decline". That is to be expected. I don't think anyone is expecting them to suddenly become 110pt+ players and win some more scoring titles again.

Yes it is obvious. And normal. Which is what makes the article silly.
 

canucksfan

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
44,078
9,687
British Columbia
Visit site
This oft parroted assessment is so bizarre to me.

We're talking about two guys who (as usual) posted near identical production, even in a season where everything went to **** for them.

And it's not like the chemistry that develops over a couple decades of playing together practically joined at the hip can somehow completely disappear over the course of less than a year.

Yes, Daniel often looked the inferior player last season, but in such a gongshow of a year i think it's a bit premature to be reading so far into that. Both Sedins looked horrible last year. It's not unreasonable to think that in large part, that inequity of "decline" was a product of playing different positions (and roles on the line) in Tortorella's Terrible system.



Some people are acting like Hank is just fine, while Danny lost an arm in the war or something. Like there's this dramatic and completely insurmountable distinction between the two now. :help:

It just wasn't last season. Starting in the 2012 season Daniel seemed to be declining more than Henrik was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad