Line Combos: Vancouver's starting lineup for the season

[Reverend Mayhem]

It's easy to say the league's tough teams are winning because they are tough and not just because they happen to be some of the most skilled teams in the league as well.

 

[The Stig]

It's easy to say the league's tough teams are winning because they are tough and not just because they happen to be some of the most skilled teams in the league as well.

Exactly, theres a bunch of teams that are tough that don't win too. For a perfect example, look at Boston vs Montreal last season. The big bad Bruins vs the Habs. Who won? The team with more skill, not the tougher team. The Habs would have won sooner if Price hadn't been playing hurt.

 

[iFan]

Exactly, theres a bunch of teams that are tough that don't win too. For a perfect example, look at Boston vs Montreal last season. The big bad Bruins vs the Habs. Who won? The team with more skill, not the tougher team. The Habs would have won sooner if Price hadn't been playing hurt.

But you just said the league is getting away from tough teams? There's not one way to build a team but when you pick a way you have to commit to it, Canucks a softer high skilled team like the Hawks that then tried to act like a tough team like the Bruins... Now the Canucks aren't skilled or tough.

 

[Shareefruck]

As much as Burrows should be higher up on the depth chart than Higgins, I think Burrows is a better fit with Hansen than Higgins is, and Higgins is a better fit with Kassian than Burrows is, personally.

Sedin - Sedin - Vrbata
Higgins - Bonino - Kassian
Burrows - Gaunce - Hansen
Matthias - Richardson - Dorsett

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Tanev
Sbisa - Stanton

Miller
Lack

Higgins has some chemistry with Hansen as well, but Burrows and Hansen are dynamite together.

 

[Fat Tony]

The Hawks have more than enough skill to overcome most other teams' toughness. The Canucks are not in that situation.

 

[Shareefruck]

Exactly, theres a bunch of teams that are tough that don't win too. For a perfect example, look at Boston vs Montreal last season. The big bad Bruins vs the Habs. Who won? The team with more skill, not the tougher team. The Habs would have won sooner if Price hadn't been playing hurt.

And yet I would still probably prefer having that Bruins team over that Habs team today. I actually agree with you in principle, but bad example, IMO.

 

[iFan]

And yet I would still probably prefer having that Bruins team over that Habs team today. I actually agree with you in principle, but bad example, IMO.

That Bruins team also has won a cup and were in the SCF the year before too, horrible example.

 

[God]

We tried the whole toughness thing last year without being a tough team... We weren't a tough team last year, if Oilers try and be tough with that personal and it doesn't work well it's pretty clear why... Same thing with us last year. The league is going away from toughness? Yet didn't one of the toughest teams in the league just win the cup!.. Hawks method works too but we don't have anywhere near the talent level they have, Canucks roster to the Hawks is a complete joke.

who's "tough" in the LA top 9? Brown, King, maybe Stoll? lol

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

But you just said the league is getting away from tough teams? There's not one way to build a team but when you pick a way you have to commit to it, Canucks a softer high skilled team like the Hawks that then tried to act like a tough team like the Bruins... Now the Canucks aren't skilled or tough.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, the league is less trendy than most would assume though. Any builder would love to have toughness on the team if they couldn't sacrifice skill but that supply is low so most can't attain that. Yes, you'll get your nuclear arms races with teams you figure you'll have to beat to win but it's not really a copycat thing so much as a match to beat scenario.

Sure there is a lot of ways to build your team...there isn't just the tough route, the fast route, or the skilled route. A good example was our 2010-11 team, sure everyone in the media likes to throw the one label on that team: skilled. But that doesn't mean we didn't have our Torreses, Hansens, Glasses, Oreskovichs, Bieksas as well. Or our Raymonds, Malhotras, Keslers, Ehrhoffs. That's a team that could play and beat you with a fast game, a skilled game, a tough game, east/west, north/south it could be as good as any.

Had we not been injured and the refs called the game how its supposed to be called, we would have been seen in a different light at the end of the series. People saw the Bruins "tough" game, really they didn't do much outside of goon it up spectacularly and they thought that was grinding us down, when in reality we came in already battered and bruised. We ground ourselves down in the first three rounds not closing out our series promptly. The only difference between us and the Bruins was we didn't really have any goon factor. And really, goons should be out of the game...as long as they don't have skill.

The Hawks have more than enough skill to overcome most other teams' toughness. The Canucks are not in that situation.

The thing I don't like about the way this sentence is worded is that toughness takes precedence over skill, which it doesn't. 18 Daniel Brieres beat 18 John Scotts every day of the week. However, 18 Milan Lucics...the conversation is more debatable.

And yet I would still probably prefer having that Bruins team over that Habs team today. I actually agree with you in principle, but bad example, IMO.

Agreed. Better example of a 'tough' bad team would be Toronto.

 

[iFan]

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, the league is less trendy than most would assume though. Any builder would love to have toughness on the team if they couldn't sacrifice skill but that supply is low so most can't attain that. Yes, you'll get your nuclear arms races with teams you figure you'll have to beat to win but it's not really a copycat thing so much as a match to beat scenario.

Sure there is a lot of ways to build your team...there isn't just the tough route, the fast route, or the skilled route. A good example was our 2010-11 team, sure everyone in the media likes to throw the one label on that team: skilled. But that doesn't mean we didn't have our Torreses, Hansens, Glasses, Oreskovichs, Bieksas as well. Or our Raymonds, Malhotras, Keslers, Ehrhoffs. That's a team that could play and beat you with a fast game, a skilled game, a tough game, east/west, north/south it could be as good as any.

Had we not been injured and the refs called the game how its supposed to be called, we would have been seen in a different light at the end of the series. People saw the Bruins "tough" game, really they didn't do much outside of goon it up spectacularly and they thought that was grinding us down, when in reality we came in already battered and bruised. We ground ourselves down in the first three rounds not closing out our series promptly. The only difference between us and the Bruins was we didn't really have any goon factor. And really, goons should be out of the game...as long as they don't have skill.



The thing I don't like about the way this sentence is worded is that toughness takes precedence over skill, which it doesn't. 18 Daniel Brieres beat 18 John Scotts every day of the week. However, 18 Milan Lucics...the conversation is more debatable.



Agreed. Better example of a 'tough' bad team would be Toronto.

2010-2011 wasn't a team that could beat others by playing the tough game... We let teams bully us and made them pay on the PP and this kept teams in check until our PP sucked in the SCF... when were we ever a tough team that year? Canucks were ripped on for being soft... Torres was a tough dude but Hansen isn't a tough dude he's a gritty pest, Oreskovichs barely played for us..

 

[God]

c'mon guys we lost in 2011 because of tim thomas and injuries

the team was built perfectly and would've gone head to head with the bruins if everybody wasn't crippled. sometimes **** happens. sucks but w/e

 

[Balls Mahoney]

I think this team needs to trade Hansen and Burrows. Hansen has been one of my favorite players since his Winterhawk days and he's a decent third liner but he's peaked here. Burrows at this point is an anchor with a horrendous contract and he's chewed bubblegum at this point and nothing more than an adequate bottom six'er.

I think back to the Clutterbuck/Nino trade and can't help but wonder if we can a prospect or two who need a change of scenery for these guys.

 

[Pip]

c'mon guys we lost in 2011 because of tim thomas and injuries

the team was built perfectly and would've gone head to head with the bruins if everybody wasn't crippled. sometimes **** happens. sucks but w/e

Agreed, and it goes to show that there are plenty of ways to build a team. That was a powerhouse team who could have and maybe should have won it all but it was drastically different from the Kings, Bruins, and the Hawks.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think our injuries had a bit to do with playing Boston themselves, though.

Could just be my imagination, but it also feels like teams like LA and Boston do a better job of staying healthy in the playoffs in general. Is there anything to that?

 

[Wilch]

I think our injuries had a bit to do with playing Boston themselves, though.

Henrik, Ehrhoff, Edler, Bieksa and Kesler were all hurt prior to that.

If they were all healthy and 100%, losing Mason Raymond, Rome and icing a hurt Hamhuis isn't an issue.

We'd still take the Bruins in 5/6 games IMO, especially without Horton.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

2010-2011 wasn't a team that could beat others by playing the tough game... We let teams bully us and made them pay on the PP and this kept teams in check until our PP sucked in the SCF... when were we ever a tough team that year? Canucks were ripped on for being soft... Torres was a tough dude but Hansen isn't a tough dude he's a gritty pest, Oreskovichs barely played for us..

It was depending on what you call tough. Game 1 vs Hawks, outhit 47-21. Game 7, outhit 41-17. That's the type of tough I mean. Finishing checks, and making your guys hurt.

We did a pretty good job of this til we got hurt. The only difference between us and Boston was a couple of goons. Canucks got ripped on for being soft? You are probably right, but I look at the product on the ice and what the stat sheet has to say there, not what a few blowhards in our media (do they even watch the game? I ask myself this far too often) say.

c'mon guys we lost in 2011 because of tim thomas and injuries

the team was built perfectly and would've gone head to head with the bruins if everybody wasn't crippled. sometimes **** happens. sucks but w/e

Mostly true. But I have no interest in delving too far into this beaten horse.

 

[biturbo19]

As much as Burrows should be higher up on the depth chart than Higgins, I think Burrows is a better fit with Hansen than Higgins is, and Higgins is a better fit with Kassian than Burrows is, personally.

Sedin - Sedin - Vrbata
Higgins - Bonino - Kassian
Burrows - Gaunce - Hansen
Matthias - Richardson - Dorsett

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Edler - Tanev
Sbisa - Stanton

Miller
Lack

Higgins has some chemistry with Hansen as well, but Burrows and Hansen are dynamite together.

I'm pretty inclined to agree with this, on the Higgins/Burrows thing in particular. As much as Burrows should be the more productive player, higher up the lineup than Higgins...i really do think it could go either way and could just come down to "fit" more than anything.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I think our injuries had a bit to do with playing Boston themselves, though.

Could just be my imagination, but it also feels like teams like LA and Boston do a better job of staying healthy in the playoffs in general. Is there anything to that?

LA just seems to save themselves for the playoffs for whatever reason.

Boston, could be a number of things...low travel...but let's not forget Boston has one Cup. And two early exits via Washington and Montreal. Good team for sure, but I don't think I can mention them in the same breath as LA or Chicago. They need another Cup.

 

[TheWanderer]

I'm pretty inclined to agree with this, on the Higgins/Burrows thing in particular. As much as Burrows should be the more productive player, higher up the lineup than Higgins...i really do think it could go either way and could just come down to "fit" more than anything.

I think it'll be like that all the way up and down the line-up.

 

[iFan]

LA just seems to save themselves for the playoffs for whatever reason.

Boston, could be a number of things...low travel...but let's not forget Boston has one Cup. And two early exits via Washington and Montreal. Good team for sure, but I don't think I can mention them in the same breath as LA or Chicago. They need another Cup.

Boston doesn't need to prove anything anymore... They won a cup recently and made it back to the SCF, Canucks couldn't make it out of the 1st round since the cup run and likely won't for a few more years if they even make the playoffs. Boston is in the top tier of teams in this league IMO, maybe not for long but I think they've done enough over the last few years to deserve that respect.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Boston doesn't need to prove anything anymore... They won a cup recently and made it back to the SCF, Canucks couldn't make it out of the 1st round since the cup run and likely won't for a few more years if they even make the playoffs. Boston is in the top tier of teams in this league IMO, maybe not for long but I think they've done enough over the last few years to deserve that respect.

Are you a Bruins fan or a Canucks fan?

Fair question as you failed to answer my second rebut, and then brought in the Canucks to a completely different topic, re: Bruins success.

 

[biturbo19]

I think it'll be like that all the way up and down the line-up.

It very well could be. It's going to be one of the most exciting camps/preseasons to watch in a good while. A lot of things up in the air and a lot of potential mobility around the lineup...especially if some of the "kids" make a legitimate push for a roster spot.

 

[hockeywoot]

14/15:

Sedin Sedin Vrbata
Higgins Bonino Kassian
Burrows Vey Hansen
Matthias Richardson Dorsett

Hamhuis Bieksa
Edler Tanev
Stanton Sbisa

Miller
Lack


15/16 (getting better)

Sedin Sedin Vrbata/Jensen
Vey Bonino Jensen/Vrbata
Higgins Horvat Kassian
Gaunce Matthias Hansen

Hamhuis Bieksa
Edler Tanev
Stanton Corrado
Sbisa

Miller
Lack


16/17 (good year!)

Sedin Sedin Jensen
Shinkaruk Horvat Kassian
Vey Bonino Virtanen
Gaunce Lain Matthias

Hamhuis Tanev
Edler Corrado
Stanton Sbisa
Hutton

Lack
Miller

 

[wiredmaverick]

I think Vrbata will start the year with the Sedins, but Burrows will finish the season on the 1st line.

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Kassian-Bonino-Vrbata
Hansen-Vey-Higgins
Dorsett-Matthias-Richardson

If that top-line returns to form and Kassian/Bonino/Vey live up to their potential we might have a decent team on our hands.

 

[Fat Tony]

16/17 (good year!)

I don't like the odds of having a good year with a couple of 36 year olds on the top line.