Post-Game Talk: (MOD WARNING POST #180) Oilers 2, Canucks 0: gg no re

[The Drop]

You're not always right either. The number of times you have credited Granlund with battling hard and being physical when he is consistently not is mind boggling. Off the puck he is often a floater and shys away from contact. His performance on the PK alone this game should have been a huge negative grade.

Again, I'm not trying to say Granlund is a bad player. You have to give him every bit of credit for his increased production. But it's assessments like this that drive me crazy. Does he get into scoring positions? Yes. Can he net drive? Yes, but only when he isn't challenged physically. He uses smarts to get into position but for every time he does that he is bodied off by the defender at a 2:1 ratio. This game he thrived with Horvat and Baertschi who opened up the ice for him - good for him, I praise him for that.

But then you present your assessment that he has top-notch touch with the puck. Well, I would have said he has a good shot but that wasn't the case in this game when all 7 of his shots were in prime scoring positions and he was logo hunting. He made a non-skilled attempt in his one cross-crease in close. Your assessment didn't fit this game, but would be something I said in other games like the one where he was with the Sedins and had 2 goals. And he definitely didn't really distribute or do much to contribute to line possession in this game.

You've got just as much of an agenda as any of the rest of us on here. I respect your commentary but don't try to take some moral/objective high road on us.

I just skip his giant wall posts. They're gibberish

 

[me2]

I don't understand the 'point production' criticism. He's producing as a decent 3rd liner for his ES P/60.

If he can make another minor progression next year and produce like a low-end 2nd liner then he will be an asset. If he can't, then he's probably not.

He's showing some improvement lately IMHO. He was pretty hopeless through to January, when Hansen was driving the play he looked OK, when Hansen went down he looked lost. He had a good February (shooting 30% though) and he's carried it through to March (points, less goals). Calgary flames fans noted he plays to the level of his teammates, I think we have seen some of that here. It can be a good thing when he's playing with quality players than can set him up, or a bad thing when he's required to do hard work to make the line go.

He still reminds me offensively of Hodgson in the way he operates, as we saw with Hodgson when its going well he can get away with it, when it's not he will fall down through the lines and that game gets harder and harder to player as you teammates gets worse and worse. For Granlund to remain successful he's going to need to be played with two guys that can drive the play for him.

 

[arttk]

It's only a win if he continues to progress.

I've already listed out a bunch of reasons why I don't think he has that much room for improvement.

Of course if I am proven wrong, then I'll gladly eat crow. Basically this is Vey 2.0.

 

[arttk]

He's showing some improvement lately IMHO. He was pretty hopeless through to January, when Hansen was driving the play he looked OK, when Hansen went down he looked lost. He had a good February (shooting 30% though) and he's carried it through to March (points, less goals). Calgary flames fans noted he plays to the level of his teammates, I think we have seen some of that here. It can be a good thing when he's playing with quality players than can set him up, or a bad thing when he's required to do hard work to make the line go.

He still reminds me offensively of Hodgson in the way he operates, as we saw with Hodgson when its going well he can get away with it, when it's not he will fall down through the lines and that game gets harder and harder to player as you teammates gets worse and worse. For Granlund to remain successful he's going to need to be played with two guys that can drive the play for him.

I think "playing to the level of his teammate" is just a very nice way to say he is completely dependent on his linemates to create oportunities for him to score on. I think more so than any other Canuck since Carter.

 

[mathonwy]

He's showing some improvement lately IMHO. He was pretty hopeless through to January, when Hansen was driving the play he looked OK, when Hansen went down he looked lost. He had a good February (shooting 30% though) and he's carried it through to March (points, less goals). Calgary flames fans noted he plays to the level of his teammates, I think we have seen some of that here. It can be a good thing when he's playing with quality players than can set him up, or a bad thing when he's required to do hard work to make the line go.

He still reminds me offensively of Hodgson in the way he operates, as we saw with Hodgson when its going well he can get away with it, when it's not he will fall down through the lines and that game gets harder and harder to player as you teammates gets worse and worse. For Granlund to remain successful he's going to need to be played with two guys that can drive the play for him.

Well ****...

Which forwards has uncle Jimbo procured for us that fit this criteria?

Which of Jimbo's acquisitions can you describe as a real needle mover?

<Warning. Incoming rant.>

Every single ****ing forward Jimbo has acquired NEEDS to play with other good forwards to be successful.

Jake

Etem

McMillan

Dorsett
- had a career year in 14-15... because he was playing with Jannik Hansen and Bo Horvat!!!

- put Dorsett with bad players and he will absolutely stink up the joint ala last season

Prust
- WAY past his prime

Vey
- Not an NHL player

Vrbata
- had a career year in 14-15... because he was playing with the Sedins!!!!
- take Vrbata's center away and like Dorsett, he will absolutely stink up the joint.

Sutter, Granlund, Eriksson
- passenger, passenger, passenger

Shore, Skille, Boucher, Megna, Chaput
- dunno but I'm guessing probably not?

Bae
- Nothing I have seen from Bae suggests that he could be successful without Bo.

Goldy, Dahlen, Boeser, Gaudette
- god i hope so pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease...

Bonino!!!!
- was traded for Sutter!!!

Cracknell!!!!
- was so good that he was barely able to draw into the line up and was eventually waived.

----

So if you look closely at the above, you'll notice a couple things.

• Jimbo's players have only been successful when they have been playing with Gilly's players. Bo, Hansen, Sedins... With both Burr and Hansen gone and the Sedins on their last legs, the bottom is going to drop out for this team next season.
• The actual good players, the play drivers, the smart ones, will be (unless drafted) staying the **** away from this god forsaken team as long as Jimbo and Trevor are in charge. Smart players are just like smart fans. They know what kind of clown show the Canucks are.

And this, gentlemen and gentleladies, is the darkest time line.



<endrant>

 

[me2]

I think "playing to the level of his teammate" is just a very nice way to say he is completely dependent on his linemates to create oportunities for him to score on. I think more so than any other Canuck since Carter.

In a cheap player, I don't mind it. He just has to always play well enough to avoid demotion because it can be a death spiral. This goes double if the team starts losing games when the GM wants the playoffs as he's going to want to to make changes and he'll target the softie who is struggling (like Calgary did when they made the call to move on from him).

If he can develop more consistency with his defensive effort and he stays cheap he can find a long term middle six spot with the canucks. Part of that involves staying cheap, Perrault in Anaheim in a good example, .5 PPG player and they just walked away.

 

[m9]

I've already listed out a bunch of reasons why I don't think he has that much room for improvement.

Of course if I am proven wrong, then I'll gladly eat crow. Basically this is Vey 2.0.

You probably could have given a bunch of reasons coming into this season as well, but he's improved this year. He looked terrible last year. I don't think it's too big of a stretch for him to show some more improvement. I agree with the sentiment that if this is the peak version of Granlund, we don't really have anything.

 

[arttk]

You probably could have given a bunch of reasons coming into this season as well, but he's improved this year. He looked terrible last year. I don't think it's too big of a stretch for him to show some more improvement. I agree with the sentiment that if this is the peak version of Granlund, we don't really have anything.

Points production wise I don't think there is an improvement. Somebody else already did his but he is bascially scoring at the exact point pace as last season just that with the added minutes, and a lot of it, he has scored more.
If he has improved his points / min then sure but he has barely moved that needle.

Defense wise, he is still the same. The only difference is now WD don't even attempt to play him at C and would rather play Chaput at C then putting Granlund there. Maybe the defensive impact is lessen by moving to wing but you can still see the fact him being weak and passive makes him a liability a lot of times.

 

[tantalum]

There was a play, I think, in the first. Kassian was out there and the Oiler line had the puck along the boards in the canucks end. Granlund completely bails and fails to engage the big bad scary Oiler on the boards allowing the Oilers to continue haven't uncontested possession. That big bad scary Oiler wasn't Kassian but 180lb soaking wet Nugent-Hopkins.

And that's the Granlund I see an awful lot. That's the Granlund that on any decent team in this league is sitting in the pressbox. And I think that's the Granlund the "detractors" see and they don't see enough on the other side that makes up for that. If he was actually scoring at first/second line rates people likely have little issue and can more easily wrap their heads around incremental defensive improvements. A more well rounded player capable of second line scoring even on a decent team. But it's hard for me to see the necessary improvements in all aspects of his game that would be needed to be that guy.

It's how I remember Anson Carter...suspect defensive play coupled with reasonable offensive ability. Except I think Granlund doesn't have the same offensive upside as Carter did. He's Carter-lite...and I don't really find such a guy to be a useful player moving forward. Maybe I'm wrong. Happy to be but I just don't see his underlying game actually improving. He's not as detrimental on the wing as he is at center in the defensive zone but I'm not convinced he's improving (as arttk also said).

I also tend not to get that excited about numbers in garbage time and it's been garbage time for weeks before management came to the realization it is garbage time.

 

[m9]

Points production wise I don't think there is an improvement. Somebody else already did his but he is bascially scoring at the exact point pace as last season just that with the added minutes, and a lot of it, he has scored more.
If he has improved his points / min then sure but he has barely moved that needle.

Defense wise, he is still the same. The only difference is now WD don't even attempt to play him at C and would rather play Chaput at C then putting Granlund there. Maybe the defensive impact is lessen by moving to wing but you can still see the fact him being weak and passive makes him a liability a lot of times.

I think this is where the eye test helps a bit - Granlund looks much improved this year. I don't care how many points he had, what I saw last year on the Canucks was not an NHL player. I saw a perimeter player who would struggle to be on the team in 2016-17. Maybe a 13th/14th guy due to his position flexibility.

Basically to me he has gone from a guy who was questionable to be an NHL player to now we have a guy who might be a part of the team moving forward. Might.

As for moving from center, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Chaput has been the 4th line center almost all year. Granlund plays higher in the lineup. I'm sure if Chaput had outplayed Granlund he would have moved up instead. This isn't a knock on Granlund that he is playing wing up the lineup over Chaput.

 

[arttk]

I think this is where the eye test helps a bit - Granlund looks much improved this year. I don't care how many points he had, what I saw last year on the Canucks was not an NHL player. I saw a perimeter player who would struggle to be on the team in 2016-17. Maybe a 13th/14th guy due to his position flexibility.

Basically to me he has gone from a guy who was questionable to be an NHL player to now we have a guy who might be a part of the team moving forward. Might.

As for moving from center, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Chaput has been the 4th line center almost all year. Granlund plays higher in the lineup. I'm sure if Chaput had outplayed Granlund he would have moved up instead. This isn't a knock on Granlund that he is playing wing up the lineup over Chaput.

I feel like this is like the Sbisa effect where the bar is set so damn low that anything resembling below average seems like an improvement.

Yeah he doesn't look as bad and that's because he was an utter disaster last season. He has been invisible for a large large % of the games this season but I guess invisible > utter disaster.

 

[m9]

I feel like this is like the Sbisa effect where the bar is set so damn low that anything resembling below average seems like an improvement.

Yeah he doesn't look as bad and that's because he was an utter disaster last season. He has been invisible for a large large % of the games this season but I guess invisible > utter disaster.

I appreciate what you're saying and we both can agree that he needs to progress to be a useful player on a winning team.

 

[Hit the post]

I appreciate what you're saying and we both can agree that he needs to progress to be a useful player on a winning team.

But the Canucks aren't a winning team & won't be for the near future.

In the meantime, you do need to 'fill-out' the roster. Could do alot worse than Granlund (given his salary). Again, didn't like the trade but I've grown to find the player acceptable as a 3rd-4th line winger (and again, given his salary).

 

[m9]

But the Canucks aren't a winning team & won't be for the near future.

In the meantime, you do need to 'fill-out' the roster. Could do alot worse than Granlund (given his salary). Again, didn't like the trade but I've grown to find the player acceptable as a 3rd-4th line winger (and again, given his salary).

Agreed.

 

[arttk]

But the Canucks aren't a winning team & won't be for the near future.

In the meantime, you do need to 'fill-out' the roster. Could do alot worse than Granlund (given his salary). Again, didn't like the trade but I've grown to find the player acceptable as a 3rd-4th line winger (and again, given his salary).

Well we could've filled that hole by plucking a guy like Boucher. No asset burned.
It's not that hard to find a guy to pluck a hole in a ****** roster like ours.

 

[yoss]

I put a portion of the blame for the Sedins lack of production this year on WD giving them 4th line wingers to work with. Other team just stifles those 2 and they can virtually ignore the third guy.

I don't remember the last time I heard Erickson's name in a game this year, quite literally. Has he been injured? I recall Gaunce more than Erickson. I'd like to put some blame on the coach for this too, if I may; he seemed to crush Vrbata's dreams that second year as well by also not playing him with the twins. Granted, this is Erickson's first year, but when was the last time he was given a shot on the top line this season?

 

[yoss]

that last question is honest rather than rhetorical, sort of checked out this year so it could have been recently, ihdk.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Eriksson's been out for a few weeks.

 

[yoss]

Aha that makes more sense, thanks I'm out of the loop although I did notice Tanev back in the lineup last game if I'm not mistaken. Would like to see Eriksson get another look on the top line before the season's over.