What say you on the 2013/14 Vancouver Canucks' team "IDENTITY?"

[Betamax*]

Heard the question floated around several times on the local sports talk shows. They had a tough time (as have I) in attempting to define what the Canucks' "IDENTITY" currently is we just past halfway into the 2013/14 season under Coach Torts'.

I remember Coach Torts talked before the season ago, about re-imagining this team that brought qualities such as "Bite", "Stiffness" and increased compete level -- how far do you think he's come in establishing these attributes to the current team?

Click to read more...

 

[No Face No Case]

Torts is doing a good job with what Gillis has left him with.

The lack of scoring has plagued Vancouver for years now (before Torts and why AV is gone) and Gillis sits back and says its part of the process repeatedly.

Team still lacks consistency and a sense of urgency far too often.

The core needs serious changes.

Stale like a dirty diaper.

 

[MrShift4]

We are all multiple personalities

 

[Rex Banner]

It's a transition year. I think this core is done. It's past it's prime and it's time to move on. I'm in favor of doing nothing this season as far as moves go, then unload as many vets as possible in the off season. With the cap going up this summer, it'll allow for teams to easily take on any salary.

Sell vets for picks/prospects and tank like hell next year. We might get lucky and land McDavid.

I'm terrified that we're going to keep our core players in the hopes that they get better. All while they get less and less valuable. Then we won't be able to get anything decent for them.

 

[skyo]

Lack of scorers, MG trying to make this team become bigger/younger, defense in disarray.

The core looks tired, they need help, but MG's hands are tied due to all the NTC's he gave out to the core players.

This summer is his last shot at fixing all these problems he has created.

The identity it seems is to be a young, big, mobile, two way, hard working team, that's fine but it won't win a championship unless we get some elite scorers to add to that.

 

[Wolfhard]

Heard the question floated around several times on the local sports talk shows. They had a tough time (as have I) in attempting to define what the Canucks' "IDENTITY" currently is we just past halfway into the 2013/14 season under Coach Torts'.

I remember Coach Torts talked before the season ago, about re-imagining this team that brought qualities such as "Bite", "Stiffness" and increased compete level -- how far do you think he's come in establishing these attributes to the current team?

Provided the question is about their identity, and not their play, or level of success, I'd say Torts has done a fantastic job of establishing an identity.

When other players and other teams identify the Canucks as a "tough" team, it says a lot. When you consider that most people's perceptions over the past 5 years or so is that they were skilled, soft and weak.

 

[Canucker]

Provided the question is about their identity, and not their play, or level of success, I'd say Torts has done a fantastic job of establishing an identity.

When other players and other teams identify the Canucks as a "tough" team, it says a lot. When you consider that most people's perceptions over the past 5 years or so is that they were skilled, soft and weak.

Great identity, too bad we're still terrible.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

"No lead we get is safe, and neither are any of your players."

-Canucks

 

[Hammer79]

Provided the question is about their identity, and not their play, or level of success, I'd say Torts has done a fantastic job of establishing an identity.

When other players and other teams identify the Canucks as a "tough" team, it says a lot. When you consider that most people's perceptions over the past 5 years or so is that they were skilled, soft and weak.

I agree, this is a team that sticks up for each other. Sometimes they border on undisciplined, but the message has been sent. This is not a team that is going to get pushed around. All this 'we need elite scorers, blow the core up' talk is off base. Elite scorers often don't translate regular season success to playoff scoring anyway. We may not be a lights-out regular season team, but then again neither were the 2012 Kings. As long as we are tough to play against, and good in our own end and on the PK, the rest will take care of itself.

 

[Betamax*]

Provided the question is about their identity, and not their play, or level of success, I'd say Torts has done a fantastic job of establishing an identity.

When other players and other teams identify the Canucks as a "tough" team, it says a lot. When you consider that most people's perceptions over the past 5 years or so is that they were skilled, soft and weak.

I'm not sure if the Canucks have really established themselves as a "tough" team.

Everybody says (this is hyperbole) they showed their toughness against the Kings ... but look at what happened with the follow-up games. It's like they blew their wad trying to prove to the Kings and the rest of the NHL that they weren't going to be bullied. It seemed like a one-off to me.

A caller on the Sekeres and Price used this analogy describing the Canucks something like a Math (or Stats) Geek that was constantly getting beat up at the bus stop or somethin'. So, he tries to address this issue by taking classes in MMA in order to defend himself. Well, the time and energy invested in developing these attributes took away from the time from him to further his abilities in mathematics i.e. and therefore his grades dropped.

Just a couple of seasons ago, IIRC, the Canucks (being back to back Presidents' Trophy Champions) established themselves as being a cocky and elite and entertaining team to watch with a lot of buzz and interest from their fan base, with a penchant to being divers and whiners (that irritated the Hell of opposing fan bases), IIRC.

 

[RewBicks]

Have a look at the teams that have been successful in the playoffs in recent years. They have been good skating, deep, defensively responsible teams with lots of grit throughout the lineup. 2 of the last 3 cup winners have had offensive talent at the top that is committed to defense, and have sacrificed offensive output for the sake of playing a system.

A healthy Canucks team is not far off of that model, particularly if they can pick up a solid rental who's hard on the forecheck and can get some dirty goals in front of the net.

If Schneider continues to play well, the Canucks will be more than fine once they get their first and second-line centers back and as Burrows continues to round into form. He looked very good last night, IMO, like the old Burrows we all love. And yes, I think Santorelli is a bona fide second liner - in fact, I think his absence has been the single biggest contributor to the Canucks recent slide. Along with Kesler he is the engine of this team.

It's no sure thing, but when I look at the Canucks line-up, with the rise of Kassian, return of Burrows, continuing strong play of Kesler, and return of the top-two centers, I see no reason to be particularly pessimistic. They could be a solid playoff team with these pieces. They are going through a rough stretch, and given the personnel problems they've faced, it's completely understandable. They'll be alright.

 

[Win One Before I Die]

Our identity is being the most hated team in hockey. We got away from that after 2011.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

This year I think our identity can be aptly described as "chokers"

 

[skyo]

Our identity is being the most hated team in hockey. We got away from that after 2011.

A lot of that hate stemmed from our success, the hate started to subside after this team started to slip like the last two playoffs.

At least Torts is slowly making this team play a lot more aggressive, and we finally got some big bodies to make that more so with Kassian and Sestito.

 

[PhilMick]

A gritty bunch of hard nosed, take no prisoner, lunchpail type guys who bring 110% every night and don't know the meaning of the word "quit".

 

[kurt]

A lot of that hate stemmed from our success, the hate started to subside after this team started to slip like the last two playoffs.

At least Torts is slowly making this team play a lot more aggressive, and we finally got some big bodies to make that more so with Kassian and Sestito.

I think it had more to do with unlikeable character/personality than success. Especially given the lack of meaningful success. Other teams with some level of success, playoffs or otherwise, didn't seem to be categorized negatively quite as universally as the Canucks.

 

[skyo]

I think it had more to do with unlikeable character/personality than success. Especially given the lack of meaningful success. Other teams with some level of success, playoffs or otherwise, didn't seem to be categorized negatively quite as universally as the Canucks.

Well we are already in a big war of words 24/7/365 with the Leafs/Flames/Oilers, and they got a helluva a lot of online posters especially toronto, so the hate is amplified by them more than neccessary when we were winning a lot.

And thanks the playoffs with Chicago/Boston/SJ/and now LA those fans are now added to the canadian rival teams that 'hate' us.

Burrows created that referee fiasco, so the "referee crew alliance" put a mark on this team, which is where we get some of those character/personality flaws.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

It's a transition year. I think this core is done. It's past it's prime and it's time to move on. I'm in favor of doing nothing this season as far as moves go, then unload as many vets as possible in the off season. With the cap going up this summer, it'll allow for teams to easily take on any salary.

Sell vets for picks/prospects and tank like hell next year. We might get lucky and land McDavid.

I'm terrified that we're going to keep our core players in the hopes that they get better. All while they get less and less valuable. Then we won't be able to get anything decent for them.

Better brace yourself, because no team in the history of sports has ever done what you are advocating. This same core will be here again next year, save maybe one or two players. So get use to it.

 

[Rex Banner]

Better brace yourself, because no team in the history of sports has ever done what you are advocating. This same core will be here again next year, save maybe one or two players. So get use to it.

So what are our options? Be like Calgary where we miss the playoffs for a bunch of years before admitting we need to rebuild? Or should we trade away our picks and what little prospects we have for older players in the hopes that it puts us in a better position?

I don't want to go back to being the bottom feeders of the league for many years. I don't expect us to be cup contenders every year. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't being serious about tanking next year.

I think we are in no man's land right now. Do we stay the course and battle for the last wildcard spot every year while getting poopy draft picks. Do we hold on to our aging vets while they continually lose trade value? Do we trade away our young players for nothing more than hope?

I would much rather work on building a new young core than watch the current core fall into irrelevance.

 

[Hammer79]

It's a transition year. I think this core is done. It's past it's prime and it's time to move on. I'm in favor of doing nothing this season as far as moves go, then unload as many vets as possible in the off season. With the cap going up this summer, it'll allow for teams to easily take on any salary.

Sell vets for picks/prospects and tank like hell next year. We might get lucky and land McDavid.

I'm terrified that we're going to keep our core players in the hopes that they get better. All while they get less and less valuable. Then we won't be able to get anything decent for them.

The problem with the tank strategy is that it makes the Canucks an unattractive destination for UFA's. Trading a bunch of vets that took discounts to secure their NTC's would make it more unattractive. Look at the problems Edmonton has had just signing a reliable D-man or goaltender. It's just too big a risk to take to maybe get McDavid. This is a cap team, and they are going to do their best to retain their vets. Tanking is for failing markets.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

So what are our options? Be like Calgary where we miss the playoffs for a bunch of years before admitting we need to rebuild? Or should we trade away our picks and what little prospects we have for older players in the hopes that it puts us in a better position?

I don't want to go back to being the bottom feeders of the league for many years. I don't expect us to be cup contenders every year. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't being serious about tanking next year.

I think we are in no man's land right now. Do we stay the course and battle for the last wildcard spot every year while getting poopy draft picks. Do we hold on to our aging vets while they continually lose trade value? Do we trade away our young players for nothing more than hope?

I would much rather work on building a new young core than watch the current core fall into irrelevance.

Fair enough. The tank comments are so prevalent of late, it's difficult to decipher the sarcasm from the serious.

As for what to do going forward. Honestly, for now, we wait. This may very well simply be a slumping season for us that will remedy itself with a smart acquisition or two, whether it come from free agency or a trade somewhere between now and the of-season. Look at San Jose a few years ago, who nearly missed the playoffs before rebounding the subsequent year. We have a significant number of injuries to key personnel - who knows how long Henrik was actually hurt and playing regardless. Not to mention, this was always going to be a transition year.

Frustrating as it may be, we must be patient. Good, perennial playoff teams all go through adversity. Detroit has, the aforementioned San Jose, hell even Chicago suffered a near playoff miss in 2011 (Dallas saved their ass) and were completely outmatched by Phoenix in a first round exit a year later.

Sure, we have older players, but I again cite Joe Thornton and even St. Louis as examples of players who had a season or two were their productivity notably dipped, only to resurge again. If we are struggling next year, barely qualifying, or on the outside looking in. Then you have cause to worry. Right now, it's premature.

 

[Wolfhard]

I'm not sure if the Canucks have really established themselves as a "tough" team.

Everybody says (this is hyperbole) they showed their toughness against the Kings ... but look at what happened with the follow-up games. It's like they blew their wad trying to prove to the Kings and the rest of the NHL that they weren't going to be bullied. It seemed like a one-off to me.

A caller on the Sekeres and Price used this analogy describing the Canucks something like a Math (or Stats) Geek that was constantly getting beat up at the bus stop or somethin'. So, he tries to address this issue by taking classes in MMA in order to defend himself. Well, the time and energy invested in developing these attributes took away from the time from him to further his abilities in mathematics i.e. and therefore his grades dropped.

Just a couple of seasons ago, IIRC, the Canucks (being back to back Presidents' Trophy Champions) established themselves as being a cocky and elite and entertaining team to watch with a lot of buzz and interest from their fan base, with a penchant to being divers and whiners (that irritated the Hell of opposing fan bases), IIRC.

I didn't state that as my opinion. I based it on players and coaches on other teams that called the Canucks a tough team. You asked if they had a identity. The answer is clearly yes, despite your feelings on the subject, or your desire to argue about it.

Has it parlayed into success on the scoresheet, or in the standings? No. But that wasn't your question.

 

[rypper]

One or two straight up goalscorers would have a generous effect of this team. Instead of putting players like higgins or hansen in a 2nd line role they could play where they succeed the most as third liners.

Imagine if Kassian blooms into somethign great and through free agency or miraculously one of our draft picks pan out for next season.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
UFA/Shinkaruk/? - Kesler - Kassian
Higgins - Horvat - Hansen
Sestito - Richardson - Archibald

Or even if they could get a top line winger to play with the twins and move Burrows around. 2 goal scorers could change a lot with this team.

 

[Dissonance]

Have a look at the teams that have been successful in the playoffs in recent years. They have been good skating, deep, defensively responsible teams with lots of grit throughout the lineup. 2 of the last 3 cup winners have had offensive talent at the top that is committed to defense, and have sacrificed offensive output for the sake of playing a system.

A healthy Canucks team is not far off of that model, particularly if they can pick up a solid rental who's hard on the forecheck and can get some dirty goals in front of the net.

If Schneider continues to play well, the Canucks will be more than fine once they get their first and second-line centers back and as Burrows continues to round into form. He looked very good last night, IMO, like the old Burrows we all love. And yes, I think Santorelli is a bona fide second liner - in fact, I think his absence has been the single biggest contributor to the Canucks recent slide. Along with Kesler he is the engine of this team.

It's no sure thing, but when I look at the Canucks line-up, with the rise of Kassian, return of Burrows, continuing strong play of Kesler, and return of the top-two centers, I see no reason to be particularly pessimistic. They could be a solid playoff team with these pieces. They are going through a rough stretch, and given the personnel problems they've faced, it's completely understandable. They'll be alright.

Yep, agreed with everything here (even the Freudian slip about Schneider).

This squad obviously isn't going to win the President's Trophy. This season was always going to be a marginal one with the cap crunch. But this is still an above-average, hard-working team that's perfectly capable of making the playoffs. Then we'll see. Hopefully we can grab some scoring help at the deadline, stay healthy, and catch fire at just the right moment. If not, then we retool in the off-season and try again next year. Just like any other above-average team does.

The playoffs are almost always a gamble. A few teams get lucky, the vast majority don't. About the best we can do is keep nabbing a playoff spot every year and hope for some of that luck to wash our way.

It sounds fatalistic when put like that and I can totally understand why people want to believe that there must be a better, more exciting way -- that we can somehow guarantee a Cup if only we tank for McDavid or whatever. I just doubt it.

 

[Labamba]

Cursed