What brand of hockey should this team play?

[King of the ES*]

I hope the attacking, attractive, skill teams can win this year. It's not a given they won't. Detroit is hanging in there, 50% chance. Chicago is through one round albeit vs a weak team. NYR vs Wash is the only other def vs skill matchup left (the rest have been similar vs similar).

"Skill" and "Defensive" are not mutually exclusive. You're not seriously saying that there's a shortage of skill on the Anaheim Ducks, are you? Their skill guys - Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, Souray, etc. - just happen to also be big. But they are very skilled. Getzlaf, IMO, may well be the most naturally gifted player in the whole league.

 

[Royal Canuck]

the Winning brand.

I don't care how we win, just win.

 

[Pip]

No sitting period. We do it with two goal leads and get snubbed too - more often actually.

Every team sits on their leads, it isn't just us

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Every team sits on their leads, it isn't just us

I know. I was being a bit facetious, even if I despise when teams do that. We just have a tendency to do it too frequently, too early and end up losing as a result. I believe we lost near every game we tried sitting on a two goal lead this year.

 

[Hammer79]

There's a different cup winner every year, and they don't all play the same style of hockey. The Canucks just need to pick an identity and excel at it.

We know that a franchise player isn't going to end up with the Canucks through the draft. We aren't drafting a Crosby anytime soon. There isn't a heck of a lot in the UFA market, and what little there is will get overpaid.

What we do have is great goaltending, no matter which started ends up getting traded, and depth in the system at that position. We do have a great defense core, although lacking a true #1 D-man (depending on whether we've seen Edler's top end or not) we've got a good top 4 on D and promising younger D in Tanev, Corrado.

Forward is where we have holes. We don't have any faceoff specialists. Henrik and Kesler can hold their own usually but that's not a strength for either. There are big question marks at 3C, 4C. Is Gaunce ready, can Schroeder handle it and does a small C fit in to the plans? Do you move Schroeder to 2C and Kesler to RW to put Schroeder in a position to succeed? Hansen and Higgins appear to have the vote of confidence, but who else fills the wings on the bottom two lines? Is Higgins really 2LW material? Are they still hoping that Booth has a rebound season at 2LW? Do they want to keep Burrows with the Sedins, or do you swap him with Kesler or even Kassian?

 

[JBIZ14]

Winning isn't a style, you win by chosing the most effective style for your team and executing it better than your opposition.

Winning is most definitly a style....Well rounded teams can adapt and play whatever style is necessary on any given night to WIN.

Creating a one dimensional team that can only succeed when facing certain teams (Bruins,Hawks,Kings)is short sighted.

 

[Pip]

Winning is most definitly a style....Well rounded teams can adapt and play whatever style is necessary on any given night to WIN.

Creating a one dimensional team that can only succeed when facing certain teams (Bruins,Hawks,Kings)is short sighted.

winning is an outcome, not a style

LA is a physical team, Hawks are a fast team. Both are winners, but from different styles. What do you mean by well rounded? Each team plays to its strengths.

 

[Pip]

I know. I was being a bit facetious, even if I despise when teams do that. We just have a tendency to do it too frequently, too early and end up losing as a result. I believe we lost near every game we tried sitting on a two goal lead this year.

We do seem to lose a lot more nowadays which could be attributed to us being pretty bad at faceoffs without Malhotra. Look at the Leafs yesterday, they couldnt get the puck out of their end because they were losing so many draws (as well as some poor breakout attempts). They got lucky to hold on.

Just my .02, but I feel being good in the circle contributes a ton to winning/losing when youre up or down by a goal. Kesler is really all we have in terms of strong faceoff guys.

 

[Pip]

"Skill" and "Defensive" are not mutually exclusive. You're not seriously saying that there's a shortage of skill on the Anaheim Ducks, are you? Their skill guys - Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan, Souray, etc. - just happen to also be big. But they are very skilled. Getzlaf, IMO, may well be the most naturally gifted player in the whole league.

I wouldnt consider Anaheim a defensive team tbh, think LA, Boston, NYR

Of course no team is all skill, or all defence but you can easily see with most teams their style of play

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Run and gun offense.

I like because even if you are heavily outshot and your goalie is standing on your head, all you need is one shot. Corey Schneider has shown he can stand on his head. Don't know why we need a good goalie if we are supposedly a possession team.

 

[Yossarian54]

Gillis is wrong if he thinks he can turn this team into a big corner grinding team. I hope he goes back to fitting the style to the players not trying to force the players into an incompatible style. It might be less playoff compatible but better to get 100% from what you have than 50%.

I agree with this, we simply don't have the 210lb+ forwards with a dash of skill to pull this off. Our 'grinders' are good fore-checkers with skill like Hansen and Higgins, not pure size guys like King, Lewis and Clifford.

Run and gun offense.

I like because even if you are heavily outshot and your goalie is standing on your head, all you need is one shot. Corey Schneider has shown he can stand on his head. Don't know why we need a good goalie if we are supposedly a possession team.

I'm not sure if that's the case - the opposite of run and gun teams like LA and Boston won with Conn Smythe worthy goaltending.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I'm not sure if that's the case - the opposite of run and gun teams like LA and Boston won with Conn Smythe worthy goaltending.

Run and Gun might not be the right word. What I'm meaning is that we should score off the rush more and have more "1 shot scorers" like Jeff Carter or Steven Stamkos. Sure, they don't grow on trees at all but it's something we should move towards. We'd still be playing good defense. We need a good puck-moving defenseman like Ehrhoff was. As it stands, the only d-man I'd put out there for that purpose is Edler. We need another option.

 

[Bure All Day]

Skill with size and speed.. that's what the kings have, that's what SJ has, that's what the Bruins have.

Other teams like Chicago and Pittsburgh rely on insane skill and speed, which they have because of their insanely good years of drafting (Toews, Kane & Malkin, Crosby) along with bringing in other top tier guys like Hossa, Sharp, and Iginla

Canucks haven't had that luxury because we've remained one of the top teams over the past decade.

We need to get a guy like Bobby Ryan, and we need a big 3C, like Hanzal, who is gunna win faceoffs, and not allow his line to be scored on... that has been one of our weak
points over the past few years.

IMO our team needs a shake-up, get rid of Edler and another core dman like Bieksa, who is overpayed in my opinion. Only time he's good is when he's paired with Hamhuis who has to carry that pairing defensively, and he doesn't have enough offensive upside to be worth his defense.

 

[Yammer]

Athleticism and camaraderie.

Athleticism:


Every player has pretty good stick skills, given time and space.

To get that room, logic dictates that you have to have more people who can make or exploit those minute gaps in an opponent, than your opponent.

The Canucks have been exposed. In a playoff battle, they don't attack well or defend well, as evidenced by the shot differential. In the various categories, the Canucks were second.

(And no particular shame. The Sharks have great players. Logan Couture's precociously complete game makes him a potential number one center.)

The Canucks need an infusion of skaters who can blow past or through cunning, shifty defences.

Cameraderie:

The Canucks are like the Sharks, starting to become a bit of a perpetual bridesmaid due to some deficiency, but excellent in the regular season.

Add to that wet weather, long travels, cold moist dawn returns to the condo, a sizeably belligerent and articulate fan and media gauntlet, and it adds up to relatively daunting posting for an NHLer. In all good will, one might plausibly prefer a site with more literal warmth, as opposed to the brimstone raking from the typing classes.

 

[Nucker101]

Skill, puck-possession, attacking, with a good forecheck and transition game. No sitting on 1 goal leads, sitting on a 2+ goal lead in the third period is acceptable. And most importantly, don't have a stale system that is predictable and easy to read and shut down!

 

[Bure All Day]

Run and Gun might not be the right word. What I'm meaning is that we should score off the rush more and have more "1 shot scorers" like Jeff Carter or Steven Stamkos. Sure, they don't grow on trees at all but it's something we should move towards. We'd still be playing good defense. We need a good puck-moving defenseman like Ehrhoff was. As it stands, the only d-man I'd put out there for that purpose is Edler. We need another option.

Losing ehrhoff has been devastating for this team IMO

He was the catalyst to scoring on the rush for us, and also made it easier for us to get into the zone

 

[Duodenum]

We don't have any faceoff specialists. Henrik and Kesler can hold their own usually but that's not a strength for either.

Kesler is very good at faceoffs. He may not be at Malholtra's level, but it is a definite strength.

 

[Yossarian54]

Run and Gun might not be the right word. What I'm meaning is that we should score off the rush more and have more "1 shot scorers" like Jeff Carter or Steven Stamkos. Sure, they don't grow on trees at all but it's something we should move towards. We'd still be playing good defense. We need a good puck-moving defenseman like Ehrhoff was. As it stands, the only d-man I'd put out there for that purpose is Edler. We need another option.

Fair enough, I completely agree that we should look to score off the rush more. Personally, I think coaching is the main factor here, not personnel.

 

[Bure All Day]

Fair enough, I completely agree that we should look to score off the rush more. Personally, I think coaching is the main factor here, not personnel.

It's a bit of both... Having the Sedin's as our best players certainly isn't going to help with scoring on the rush.

 

[JuniorNelson]

Gillis, at the year end presser, talked out his butt so much he should have been wearing skinny jeans and a fedora. Somehow, this guy survived. This is a stunning indictment of local media and sports media in general. He should have been torn to shreds.

Gillis did not understand, demonstrably, that a team needs a balance of attributes to succeed. Believe it or not, a single note team, like the Canucks have been, does not succeed. It doesn't matter if you are more skilled if your group has no grit. It doesn't matter how gutsy a tiny team is, they need a few huge guys.

Gillis is apparently seeking some size. He says he is. In the same sentence he let drop that Roy was all that was availible to the Canucks! This went almost unremarked upon. Perhaps he should have said, one guy accepted Vancouver, out of all the guys that moved. Just like he should say, we'll sign FAs if any want to come here. They didn't come last year.

What Gillis is facing is a league full of GMs that hate him (former agent is like saying former murderer.) in a league full of players that hate this team. The league is run by a guy that seems to have a personal vendetta against Vancouver, as well. Get it, now?

Canucks aren't going to be able to do a grand reinvention of the team. They are going to struggle along with the guys they have and remain a laughing stock until Gillis is gone. It's totally moot what Gillis claims to be doing. Look at the results, in eight months, gillis landed one guy, who wanted to come here, anyway. He lost a key defenseman (Salo), claiming monetary issues, as well. The Aquilinis just couldn't afford Salo, I guess. LOL!

Gillis is accomplishing zero as a GM. His fails are epic in scope. All he is really good at is grim stares and non answers, which is okay because nobody is asking any useful questions.

 

[Bure All Day]

Gillis, at the year end presser, talked out his butt so much he should have been wearing skinny jeans and a fedora. Somehow, this guy survived. This is a stunning indictment of local media and sports media in general. He should have been torn to shreds.

Gillis did not understand, demonstrably, that a team needs a balance of attributes to succeed. Believe it or not, a single note team, like the Canucks have been, does not succeed. It doesn't matter if you are more skilled if your group has no grit. It doesn't matter how gutsy a tiny team is, they need a few huge guys.

Gillis is apparently seeking some size. He says he is. In the same sentence he let drop that Roy was all that was availible to the Canucks! This went almost unremarked upon. Perhaps he should have said, one guy accepted Vancouver, out of all the guys that moved. Just like he should say, we'll sign FAs if any want to come here. They didn't come last year.

What Gillis is facing is a league full of GMs that hate him (former agent is like saying former murderer.) in a league full of players that hate this team. The league is run by a guy that seems to have a personal vendetta against Vancouver, as well. Get it, now?

Canucks aren't going to be able to do a grand reinvention of the team. They are going to struggle along with the guys they have and remain a laughing stock until Gillis is gone. It's totally moot what Gillis claims to be doing. Look at the results, in eight months, gillis landed one guy, who wanted to come here, anyway. He lost a key defenseman (Salo), claiming monetary issues, as well. The Aquilinis just couldn't afford Salo, I guess. LOL!

Gillis is accomplishing zero as a GM. His fails are epic in scope. All he is really good at is grim stares and non answers, which is okay because nobody is asking any useful questions.

He did some good, but recently it looks mostly bad.

First move he makes was getting Sundin, which no question helped Kes become the player he is today.

Next signed Burr to the incredible 4 year 8 mil contract. Probably more to do with Burr's character than his negotiating skills though.

He re-signs Sedins, good move, and Luongo, now looked as a bad move.

Steals Ehrhoff from SJ and brings in Samuelsson, both turned out to be fantastic trades.

Now to the ugly, trades Grabner + for Ballard, who has been garbage. Grabner gets 30g that year.

Signs Hamhuis, good, and Bieksa, (overpriced IMO) but if he didn't Bieksa likely would've gotten 5mil + on open market.

Also slightly overpayed to get Malhotra, to help our 3rd line, which was a fair move.

Fails to re-sign Ehrhoff, very bad move.

So looking at the big picture, he has probably not done as much as we would've liked.

This summer will be his final test. If he can pull off some moves like he did with Ehrhoff again, and signing Samuelsson, then we will be in good shape, and people will be praising him again.

If not, his neck is on the chopping block, and the axeman doesn't look happy

EDIT: Oh, and that's with me forgetting to mention the marvelous Kassian trade

 

[RobertKron]

This is a really funny thread.

 

[Dado]

Somehow, this guy [Gillis] survived.

I don't think that's a done deal yet. IMO Aquaman is measuring him up for a pair of cement boots.

When they'll be used is an open question.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I don't think that's a done deal yet. IMO Aquaman is measuring him up for a pair of cement boots.

When they'll be used is an open question.

I think Gillis gets a bad wrap around here ever since making the Finals. Trading Hodgson I think was the real nail in the coffin of Gillis' golden boy image in Vancouver. The problem there I think was Gillis' complete almost cult-like support of his head coach who I think didn't like Hodgson much from since his first training camp.

Coupled with the fact that our guy, Kassian has not been offered a role on this team. First he's a 4th line guy (real productive playing 5 minutes a night). He then gets a real good look at the 2nd line, has a great game vs his former team. He is shortly stapled back onto the 4th line. New season, he plays 1st line minutes for awhile and is very productive. He has a string of underwhelming games and is once more demoted to 4th line duty. He then bounces around the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lines the second time Kesler returns in a real desperate move on AV's part much like Crow did with Burrows, Bertuzzi, and Cooke in his last moments.

He needs to either come in next year with a concrete role or play in the AHL (if he's still eligible, I have no idea). Anyways, I digress. Before the Finals, MG owned up to his mistakes and realized them. Ryan Johnson, Darcy Hordichuk, Shane O'Brien, Pavol Demitra (I think this was mutual). These smaller mistakes were fixed accordingly. However, bigger boo-boos like Ballard, Booth, Luongo, to a lesser extent Bieksa (he played great last year, where is that guy?) over Ehrhoff are big mistakes. Unfortunately, the latter decision is set in stone. The other are essential to MG's career. The biggest and most difficult decision he will make is on Booth.

I don't mind Booth, he's a good player. When he plays and is on. However, we haven't seen that guy in over a year. Unfortunately I think he'll need to go. It's more and more imminent as days go by we need a passer for line 2. Booth is not that guy. How do you think Booth and Kesler will feel on this though? Booth no doubt will be extremely frustrated. Kesler I think would be lividly bitter. A good friend who he endorsed and wanted to have on the team. Does this move create animosity between Kesler and the Canucks? I think it would at least cause some waves if management doesn't take this seriously enough.

Needless to say, the landscape of this team will be much different than it was last year. I think the team will be more Garrison/Schneider-centric than Sedin-centric.

 

[y2kcanucks]

The thing that pissed me off, probably the most, about Gillis's press conference is his stance that this team needs to react to the trends. I fully disagree with that. The trends are what they are because some teams took this approach and they won with it. Now other teams are taking a similar approach, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are successful. St. Louis was bounced in round 1 this year, and was swept in round 2 last year, and they're probably the epitome of a defensive but gritty team.

IMO the most successful teams dictate their own style and don't just react to what other teams are doing.