Player Discussion Micheal Ferland

[4Twenty]

He's quite literally the best possession player on the team. And as a result, his defensive impacts are sterling. He's invaluable to a team like ours at his price point.

He doesn't have the speed, skill, or IQ to be a real offensive force. But his possession game is built for a low-event 3rd line. Or as 3rd wheel to more skilled players.

How can you isolate that Josh Leivo is the possession driver? I have a hard time with that. He had 60% o zone starts and only 54% Corsi here last year....80% o zone starts with his two most common linemates, Pettersson and Boeser. Anything that happened in Toronto needs to be compared relatively, since the whole team is a possession juggernaut.

I also question anyone who thinks he can put up 10-12 goals with Beagle. He was on pace for 15 EV strength goals playing first line minutes last year.

 

[ekimbo]

How can you isolate that Josh Leivo is the possession driver? I have a hard time with that. He had 60% o zone starts and only 54% Corsi here last year....80% o zone starts with his two most common linemates, Pettersson and Boeser. Anything that happened in Toronto needs to be compared relatively, since the whole team is a possession juggernaut.

I also question anyone who thinks he can put up 10-12 goals with Beagle. He was on pace for 15 EV strength goals playing first line minutes last year.

54% on the 2018-2019 Vancouver Canucks is exceptional.

 

[4Twenty]

54% on the 2018-2019 Vancouver Canucks is exceptional.

He started 80% of his shifts with Pettersson and Boeser (accounts for 60% of his icetime) in the offensive zone. I think that's a mirage, can you tell me how that shows Leivo is the one responsible for driving the play? 54% in that heavy offensive usage isn't particularly impressive. That's why you can't just look at the number, context is required.

I'm not disputing that the corsi is in his favour, I'm just trying to understand what makes Leivo the play driving possession monster he's been described as.

 

[F A N]

Well why target him over more skilled wingers available then?

Ferland has been utilized in a top 6/1st line role the past 2 seasons with PP time. He's clearly not seen as someone who is there to protect his teammates. So no the #1 reason for acquiring him isn't to have him protect his teammates. And who are the more skilled wingers available besides Dzingel and the big name forwards nearing retirement?

 

[Hoghandler]

I also question anyone who thinks he can put up 10-12 goals with Beagle. He was on pace for 15 EV strength goals playing first line minutes last year.

Leivo as a bit player in Toronto averaged 14 goals/80 games. He doesn't really need anyone to create for him, a lot like Virtanen that way.

Tyler Motte scored 9 ES goals last year in 74 games playing a lot with Beagle in a 4th line role. Leivo is a superior offensive player to Motte.

Green likes to roll 4 lines and get his depth players into the game. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see Leivo score 10-12 ES goals with 12 minutes a night playing mostly on the 4th line. He has the shot to make things happen out of nothing.

 

[Bankerguy]

Well why target him over more skilled wingers available then?

For a player to be considered "good", there's more to look at rather than just their skill level.

St Louis just won the cup...they're one of the least "purely skilled" teams that made the playoff's. They play a heavy game. This worked for them.

I'd rather get 40 points out of Ferland than 45 points out of a player who's more skilled but brings little else to the game

 

[PuckMunchkin]

For a player to be considered "good", there's more to look at rather than just their skill level.

St Louis just won the cup...they're one of the least "purely skilled" teams that made the playoff's. They play a heavy game. This worked for them.

I'd rather get 40 points out of Ferland than 45 points out of a player who's more skilled but brings little else to the game

So you actually think its a good idea to chase the St Louis model..?

 

[Tables of Stats]

So you actually think its a good idea to chase the St Louis model..?

I don't think adding a couple of larger players is exactly chasing the St. Louis model. I think the idea is to find a solid mix of size and skill that have some chemistry together. If a player like Ferland or Miller can go into the corners and retrieve pucks for Boeser and Pettersson or save Horvat some extra wear and tear I'm all for it. The caveat is that they can't be significantly worse at putting up points than the players they're replacing and to my mind that's 4-8 points that can be made up for by intangibles in the fit is right.

 

[Bankerguy]

So you actually think its a good idea to chase the St Louis model..?

no i dont.

the reason i mentioned st. louis is because by looking at the makeup of that team, it should be easy even for you to see that players can bring value to a team by providing more than just raw skill.

This is so basic... i dont know why im explaining it to you.

Here's another example. Lets compare two players from say the 1998/1999 season

Based on your mindset where skill is all that matters. you would prefer:

Cliff Ronning. 60 pts. lots of skill and little else in terms of intangibles

over a player like

Jere Lehtinen 52 points, Selke winner. Grit and suffocating two-way play. +29.


heres another example
Mike Peca. another Selke winner. 2001/2002 season. 25 goals. 60 pts. punishing open ice hitter with loads of grit, and the ability to get under his opponents skin. Some leadership qualities too.
..but based on your logic, you'd prefer a high skilled guy like Sergei Samsonov. 29 goals. 70 points. and nothing else other than that.

Last example: Naslund 03/04. 84 pts. vs Iginla 73 pts.

Theres more to a hockey player than his ability to put up points. If you dont see that by now then there is no point in conversing with you.

 

[Javaman]

no i dont.

the reason i mentioned st. louis is because by looking at the makeup of that team, it should be easy even for you to see that players can bring value to a team by providing more than just raw skill.

This is so basic... i dont know why im explaining it to you.

Here's another example. Lets compare two players from say the 1998/1999 season

Based on your mindset where skill is all that matters. you would prefer:

Cliff Ronning. 60 pts. lots of skill and little else in terms of intangibles

over a player like

Jere Lehtinen 52 points, Selke winner. Grit and suffocating two-way play. +29.

Theres more to a hockey player than his ability to put up points.

Based on the past 5+ years of his management, do you believe JB is capable of making such a distinction?

 

[Bankerguy]

Based on the past 5+ years of his management, do you believe JB is capable of making such a distinction?

Thats beside the point. my intent of my post was to explain to Puckmunchkin the obvious fact that players bring more to the game than pure skill.

 

[Javaman]

Thats beside the point. my intent of my post was to explain to Puckmunchkin the obvious fact that players bring more to the game than pure skill.

Fair enough.

I guess what I am getting at is that there must be some sort of optimal balancing point between skill and "grit". What's your confidence level in Benning's ability to correctly identify that point and make smart transactions as a result?

My confidence level in Benning to do so is pretty much at zero.

I still maintain that Ferland's positive impact on the Canucks will have more to do with his skill than his toughness or grit or physicality.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I still maintain that Ferland's positive impact on the Canucks will have more to do with his skill than his toughness or grit or physicality.

I think that's the case for any big man power-forward type who can produce in top-6 minutes. There's no place for a pylon that rides shotgun alongside two guys who can score against defensemen that can hardly skate backwards and goalies wearing half their weight in pads on each leg these days. Ferland is hardly the ideal power-forward but at the salary he's making I think I'd have to place him among the top half of free agents who signed between 3 and 4 million AAV this off season.

 

[Javaman]

I think that's the case for any big man power-forward type who can produce in top-6 minutes. There's no place for a pylon that rides shotgun alongside two guys who can score against defensemen that can hardly skate backwards and goalies wearing half their weight in pads on each leg these days. Ferland is hardly the ideal power-forward but at the salary he's making I think I'd have to place him among the top half of free agents who signed between 3 and 4 million AAV this off season.

Yeah, it's why I tend furrow my brow at comments that Ferland will make us a tougher team and/or will protect the younguns'

He should only have been signed because he complements the offensive depth of the Canucks. I can live with his contract if that was the primary motivation to sign him.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Yeah, it's why I tend furrow my brow at comments that Ferland will make us a tougher team and/or will protect the younguns'

He should only have been signed because he complements the offensive depth of the Canucks. I can live with his contract if that was the primary motivation to sign him.

I don't think there's any harm in hoping that his physical play will wear down some of the opposing team's top players. Think of it this way, would you want Ferland hitting Pettersson, Boeser, Tanev, or Hughes a couple of times during the game? It's not his primary purpose, leave that to the 4th line energy guys who you want to dump and recover with their bodies all night long, but it's a value add that makes up for a touch less skill than some of the players we passed on.

 

[Javaman]

I don't think there's any harm in hoping that his physical play will wear down some of the opposing team's top players. Think of it this way, would you want Ferland hitting Pettersson, Boeser, Tanev, or Hughes a couple of times during the game? It's not his primary purpose, leave that to the 4th line energy guys who you want to dump and recover with their bodies all night long, but it's a value add that makes up for a touch less skill than some of the players we passed on.

Yep. I think we are on the same wavelength here.

 

[Bankerguy]

Fair enough.

I guess what I am getting at is that there must be some sort of optimal balancing point between skill and "grit". What's your confidence level in Benning's ability to correctly identify that point and make smart transactions as a result?

My confidence level in Benning to do so is pretty much at zero.

I still maintain that Ferland's positive impact on the Canucks will have more to do with his skill than his toughness or grit or physicality.

i agree.

However, whether or not management got this signing/decision right for the right reasons kind of doesnt matter to me. At the end of the day Ferland brings things to the team that we need and he got him at below what 95% of people on HF thought he was worth. I'll give them credit for this one.... however, i think we're both aligned in thinking that we dont expect them to get another one 'right' for the next while hahaha

 

[lousy]

Is he going to protect people? No. That is not how it works. But he will bring an element of toughness to the team, which was lacking.

Players on the other team will have to be aware of that extra element when he is on the ice. They have to worry a little about being hit, or have their minds on getting roughed up. The canucks can't make life easy for the other teams. That doesn't trump skill of course, but hopefully Ferland can bring both.

 

[Hoglander]

It better not be. Signing anyone for the "protection factor" is beyond foolish.

Deterrence doesn't exist. Lucic didn't stop Savard's career from being ended. Gudbranson on the ice didn't stop anyone roughing up Petey. Lucic still doesn't save McDavid any hassle.

Ferland is a fine enough player and has some skills that'll suit our team. The price point is reasonable (though because of Benning's far more egregious moves, our overall cap situation is quite bad). Those are the reasons you sign him. Not because of some myth that he'll stop other teams from taking runs at Petey.

You're totaly right in the sense that one can't stop what they don't see coming. You don't know/can't control when someone is going to get ran or cheap-shotted, but you can control how you respond to it. It's annoying to watch the lack of response on this team.

A good example of the protection I'm thinking about, was shown by Schenn when paired with Hughes. If someone took a shot a Hughes, Schenn would get in their face and give them a shove. If Schenn didn't totally skate in quicksand, I would have been on board to re-sign him. Or how about Burrows with the Sedin's? How many times did Burr stick up for the twins? They knew Burrows had their backs.

Petey and Brock need a Burrows, and IMO Ferland needs to deliver, otherwise I'll be disappointed. He's still a decent depth player if he doesn't, but then his term and injury history scare me.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

He started 80% of his shifts with Pettersson and Boeser (accounts for 60% of his icetime) in the offensive zone. I think that's a mirage, can you tell me how that shows Leivo is the one responsible for driving the play? 54% in that heavy offensive usage isn't particularly impressive. That's why you can't just look at the number, context is required.

I'm not disputing that the corsi is in his favour, I'm just trying to understand what makes Leivo the play driving possession monster he's been described as.

Anyone who pumps up Leivo as a good player due to corsi ratings last year is making the textbook mistake of quoting a stat without having any idea how it works.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

no i dont.

the reason i mentioned st. louis is because by looking at the makeup of that team, it should be easy even for you to see that players can bring value to a team by providing more than just raw skill.

This is so basic... i dont know why im explaining it to you.

Here's another example. Lets compare two players from say the 1998/1999 season

Based on your mindset where skill is all that matters. you would prefer:

Cliff Ronning. 60 pts. lots of skill and little else in terms of intangibles

over a player like

Jere Lehtinen 52 points, Selke winner. Grit and suffocating two-way play. +29.


heres another example
Mike Peca. another Selke winner. 2001/2002 season. 25 goals. 60 pts. punishing open ice hitter with loads of grit, and the ability to get under his opponents skin. Some leadership qualities too.
..but based on your logic, you'd prefer a high skilled guy like Sergei Samsonov. 29 goals. 70 points. and nothing else other than that.

Last example: Naslund 03/04. 84 pts. vs Iginla 73 pts.

Theres more to a hockey player than his ability to put up points. If you dont see that by now then there is no point in conversing with you.

I just asked if you think chasing their model is the right thing to do...
I dont know where all this passive agressive stuff comes from.
And I dont know why you are trying to teach me about players value that isn't points...?

It seems you list a BUNCH of players that have great 2 way profiles and arguably the best hockey player in the clutch and grab era in Iginla. Ferland is a borderline 2nd liner who does not have a great 2 way profile. Prime Raffi Torres would be a pretty decent comparison.

 

[F A N]

What exactly is St. Louis' model? Make aggressive moves? Strength down the middle? In terms of drafting they did have some draft picks that posters here liked.

At the end of the day, what St. Louis had was what traditional Cup winners had. They had strength down the middle with a #1 C, a #1 D, and great goaltending.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

What exactly is St. Louis' model? Make aggressive moves? Strength down the middle? In terms of drafting they did have some draft picks that posters here liked.

At the end of the day, what St. Louis had was what traditional Cup winners had. They had strength down the middle with a #1 C, a #1 D, and great goaltending.

Fluke your way to the cup with a big team.

 

[F A N]

Fluke your way to the cup with a big team.

The Blues did reach the Western Conference Finals in 2015-2016 season. So if you count the 2017-2018 season as a fluke, the Blues have actually been considered contenders for years.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

The Blues did reach the Western Conference Finals in 2015-2016 season. So if you count the 2017-2018 season as a fluke, the Blues have actually been considered contenders for years.

I consider this years cup run as a fluke.