Andersson played to start the year in the AHL last season against decent competition and looked pretty good. Personally I think Tanev has more than bottom pairing potential and his mobility is the best on our blueline. Corrado to me also projects to be more than a bottom pairiing defencemen that should be able to provide some offence at the next level.
Andersson on the other hand looks to have bottom pairing potential. He isn't as good with the puck as Corrado or Tanev, and doesn't skate as well. However he has good positioning and skates well for his size. He isn't flashy but if he can be leaned on to be a shutdown guy in the AHL and gain experience I see him having bottom pairing NHL potential.
Andersson to me just looks extremely fringe-y.
It wouldn't shock me if he hung around the NHL a bit as a #6-7 defender, but even that I think isn't very likely. I don't see what he does well enough in any area to be a decent NHL player.
I don't mean to say that Andersson is a carbon copy of Tanev nor is he as promising as Tanev was/is; just that I see his game as comparable to Tanev's on the most optimistic end of his potential.
Corrado is someone who I feel plays quite a different game than Tanev. They share excellent anticipation and defensive awareness, but their similarities beyond that aren't many, IMO.
I get what you're saying (and I agree that Tanev and Corrado are different - but they get lumped together constantly by fans) but think the gap between Tanev and Andersson is *far* greater than you're making out.
To me, Andersson and Tommernes were disappointing.
Maybe I was expecting too much. However, felt that Andersson showed enough in Chicago last year to have some belief that Andersson could dominate in this tournament. And I feel that you have to dominate here if you have expectations of moving to the next level. Moreover, Andersson has to toughen up around his crease. You can't just let people run or whack away at your goalie.
Still I would not say Andersson was bad. I never saw him get beat one on one (which was a problem in the past) and his spacing and coverage were good. Furthermore, the wingers often screwed up decent outlet passes creating major difficulties for all the defensemen in the tournament. Ultimately Andersson will be a complementary player who should work well with other skilled players. That is probably the best you can expect. I would say that he did not show he was moving it up to the next level in this tournament and confirmed the thought that he is not going to be a "take charge" type of player.
Tommernes got better as the tournament moved along and was apparently good today. But he was not as dynamic as you might have expected. Like Andersson there is skill here but also open questions about his grit in handling people around his net. I think it was pretty obvious these would always be the questions about this player and I don't think that Tommernes play in this tournament did much to dispel those doubts.
Player that I believe is being under-rated here and elsewhere is Eriksson. I thought he was every bit as good as Lack was a couple of years ago (when everyone was raving about Lack). Every game I saw Eriksson in he was good (and seems like he was again excellent today). It was almost like people (especially some of the local commentators) went into the tournament with a negative attitude toward Eriksson and found every excuse to criticize him. In reality, there were often times when he was a one man show facing shots from all over. Indeed, if he hadn't been good, the Canucks could have been blown out in some games. Also, some of the goals he did let in (especially in the Calgary game) were nothing like his fault or were, in some cases, fluky.
Eriksson still has a lot to prove but based on this tournament I think you can have some hope.
Would also say that some seem to think other people are trying to be too conclusive. Like their criticism was tantamount to declaring someone a bust. I believe instead that, in the main, people are only giving what you might call progress reports (and that is basically what this and other such sites are about). If you are saying someone is looking more like a prospect or less like a prospect you are not being definitive. I do believe that there are cases were the player is obviously too fundamentally poor or weak to say you think he has no chance (say with people like Hall and Franson) but with significant prospects, such as Gaunce, you are only giving your impression at this time.
Agreed on Tommernes and Andersson.
On Eriksson ... not really sure what to think. On one hand he seemed to battle hard, cover the bottom of the net very well, and be in decent position for 2nd/3rd chances. On the other hand, he plays super-deep in his net and let in some *ugly* goals as a result, his rebound control was a bit iffy, and his puckhandling was poor. I still need more viewings of him to start forming any sort of defined opinion.
Never said he'd be a NHLer just that there is no point reading much into what he did or didn't do in this tournament. Yes he's 23 and he may indeed suck. He's also a guy that has played at a much higher level of competition quite successfully the past handful of years compared to this tournament. He a guy who knows he's going to be at main camp and knows that is where he needs to impress. This tournament for a guy like him is essentially meaningless beyond getting accustomed to the rink dimensions. Don't be shocked that a guy like Tommernes is the one amongst the various young blueliners that is able to take a major step forward when the real camp begins.
and that goes for any of the players that already have NHL contracts. This tournament is only an extra week to warm up and get into shape before the real work begins.
I don't buy the 'oh, he was just coasting' argument. He's in his first taste of North American hockey, with his first chance to impress his new employers. If he's just coasting waiting for the main camp, that doesn't say a lot for his character.
And that isn't what I saw, in any case. A 23 y/o with years of SEL experience should look *unreal* without even trying if he's up against a bunch of teenagers, if he's any sort of prospect. He looked OK, but he was hardly in a different class. And showed zero NHL-translatable skills.
Guimond, along with Cassels, Subban, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Horvat, Gaunce and Jensen, should all be included in the trek to the Rupe. Believe it or not, I think Mallet and a few others should get the call too, but I don't see he or guys like Friesen making too big an impact this year.
Who else would/should/could join the big Canucks team?
Everyone who is a Canuck draft pick will be going to the main camp, plus a few others. The only guys cut at this point will be the majority of the invites, who were basically just there to make up numbers in the first place.
This.
Particularly in reference to Anderson imo. From everything i've seen, he's beyond just being the 'safe, steady, reliable' defensive defenceman territory...and basically into the territory of, 'doesn't make plays' with the puck. He just simply doesn't do...anything. It was evident in the AHL, but even more so in a tournament like this where the veteran guys have some room to freelance a bit and actually make tape to tape passes, generate offense, make plays. Andersson just...doesn't.
Even those 'safe' defensive defencemen like Tanev who hasn't a hint of offensive swagger at the NHL (or really even AHL) level, looked offensively gifted in a tournament like this, just on his anticipation and the speed the game was played at for him there.
Exactly.
Nobody is saying these guys should be making end-to-end rushes. But against very poor competition, older guys with the level of experience they do should look like they're playing the game from an easy chair when they have the puck in their own zone if they're actually going to be NHL material. As Tanev and Corrado did, at a much younger age.