Discussion in 'Vancouver Canucks' started by Steve Bennett*, Jan 17, 2013.
Tanev (that's right, I'm going there)
A bunch of rightful #7/8/9 guys
Many are to harsh on our defence.
You can - as I just did - browse through the D of all the teams for this season. I am not really impressed with what I see. Chicago Phoenix & S:t Louis are in my opinion the only teams who as a squad can compete with what we got and even then I think we got a better spread of quality on our 6 D-men than they got. There are individuals to be envious of, sure. Karlsson or Subban for example would be nice to have, but the Senators or Canadians really can't compete when you compare the whole package.
I would say that of the 6 D-men we have seen playing this season they all qualify for top 4 on a comparative level as NHL looks today.
Sure looks a lot better when the top 6 all can stay in the lineup for 10 straight games. At some point we're going to run into injury problems so hopefully Alberts and Barker aren't too horrible.
What would you go to playoffs with as they are (current) and as they were (09/10)? Easy?
I feel much more confident with the mix of this group. Ehrhoff would be nice, but not he wouldn't overturn some of the other additions like Tanev, Ballard and Garrison. 09/10 Salo was great though... Still, I'd go with this group.
You could do the same thing with the forwards and the goalies.
I voted "9", because I don't see a comparable D groups that can do what this corps does offensively. Defensively, they lag behind the true stalwart teams, but that's just not their game. It's a bunch of 2way Dmen that help attack and defend, even the defensive Dmen. Sure, they lack a franchise Dman, but there are about only 6-7 teams that have them. Yet, they might not be as good overall as this corps is.
Great job by Gillis to put it together.
I would do the same. But in the top there is not much difference in quality, it is the depth which is vastly improved.
Well now we are half way through the season, and yikes, what do people think now? Bieksa's absence looks to be a big hole on the back end right now.
Ballard and Tanev continue to be consistent in their third pairing minutes. Tanev continues to develop nicely and should be a lock for years to come. Hopefully he can solidify his offensive game and develop into a top pairing in a year or two, probably at least two.
Hamhuis I think has been our best overall dman. Good offensive numbers, reliable, good hockey skill and awareness.
I'm not convinced on Garrison yet although some other posters said that he has improved over the last few games so maybe I am being too harsh on the guy. I'd like to see him more on the first pp.
The 7th and 8th Alberts and Barker have been disappointing for whats asked of them. Alberts has returned to his 2010 woes while a good shift for Barker is one where he isn't near the puck.
Edler has been overall a letdown. His offensive numbers from the start of the season are even drying up now (pointless in 8). His defensive mind blunders are puzzling and remind me of a young Brent Sopel (but without the mouth guard sticking half out). His passes are off, his shot is slow and delayed, he is not hitting, and he is not flashing that once dominant role he has shown over the past couple years.
Overall there is a huge lack of toughness on the backend. I would point fingers at each player but this team seems to be coached to not be tough and intimidating. They almost never push other teams around anymore which is disappointing. Bieksa is a tough guy, Garrison looks tough, and Edler and Hamhuis are strong guys. Ballard has some feistiness in him, so what gives? Where is that physical edge that made the d so successful for a couple years?
I think the talent and physicality can be tapped but is not at its potential right now. I'd give the d a 6 on the season so far which is pretty low for this Canuck homer. Others' thoughts and criticisms?
Separate names with a comma.