Competitive and/or Contending

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 8827
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by SKYO » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:43 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Skyo , Tryamkin will not play for this team as long as Linden and Benning are here.
And Skyo! You can take that to the bank!
They browbeat the kid trying to make him become the next Pronger. Kind of ironic considering the way Elmer and Trevor played the game.
Well he easily led this team in hits with mediocre minutes.

None of know how much his family or wife had some power in his decision. ... Just like Prongers wife power had re: Edmonton forced trade.
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

User avatar
micky107
CC Legend
Posts: 3574
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by micky107 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:22 pm

There are a few pics of Nik's wifey on this link.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=nikita+t ... ta7QnOFwbM:
I'd give her a solid 6 to 6.5 meh.
Don't know if that would be enough for me to alter my career. ;)
Maybe she's Never mind me. I'm just being a dork.
There is NOT much going on right now, like even less than the normal summer lull.
"evolution"

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 12449
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by Hockey Widow » Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:36 pm

micky107 wrote:There are a few pics of Nik's wifey on this link.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=nikita+t ... ta7QnOFwbM:
I'd give her a solid 6 to 6.5 meh.
Don't know if that would be enough for me to alter my career. ;)
Maybe she's Never mind me. I'm just being a dork.
There is NOT much going on right now, like even less than the normal summer lull.
What did I miss? He altered his career for her? Has he now gone into figure skating so she can coach him?
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 8827
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by SKYO » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:22 pm

^ That same image search - Tryamkin wife -

Image
#97
:lol:
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

User avatar
UWSaint
CC Veteran
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by UWSaint » Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:56 am

UWSaint wrote:
Aaronp18 wrote:If we can simply get our PP back into respectability we'll score more than 200 goals.
The problem is that 220 is more of the magic number for the playoffs. A respectable team is one that has a good enough chance to make the playoffs at the deadline where the need to rebuild gives way to the chance of making the playoffs (which doesn't mean being a buyer but does mean not being a seller).

Last year in NHL only one team that failed to score 220 goals made the playoffs. Only 3 of the 14 teams missing the show scored more than 220 goals. Put differently, 83% of teams scoring more than 220 goals made the playoffs and only 8% of the teams not scoring more than 220 goals made the playoffs.

Not surprisingly (since hockey is about scoring more than your opponents), the 220 threshold plays into goals against. Only 1 NHL team missed the playoffs and allowed 220 goals or fewer. And only 4 teams made the playoffs and gave up more than 220 goals. Percentage of teams who gave up more than 220 goals and made the playoffs: 24%. Percentage of teams who gave up 220 or fewer goals and made the playoffs: 92%.

The magic # (220) will float over time, but IIRC that was also the magic # for 2015-16.

The Canucks should be able to improve their goal scoring total from last season. It would be hard not to. 200 is reasonable; 210 is within the realm of possibility, and 220 would be a dream and requires a couple of absolute breakout seasons. But unless Travis Green possesses magic (figuratively, of course) AND the injury bug goes mostly dormant, I don't see any way that the Canucks will give up fewer than 220 goals. The forward corps is far worse defensively that the group that started last year (when healthy), the goaltending is a bigger question mark, key penalty killers are gone, and the defense group would have to have significant internal developmental improvements (as defensemen) from each of Hutton, Stetcher, and Gudbrandson (who now healthy effectively replaces Sbisa and but we will see if more effectively -- which is saying something about Gudbrandson's poor play last year....). 250 GA is far far more likely than 220.
Update. After an impressive October keeping pucks out of nets, a mediocre November, and a miserable Tanev-less December, the Canucks are on pace to allow 269 goals this season. They are on pace to score 221; to do it, the Canucks are getting that dream breakout season from Boeser and I believe added Vanek after I wrote the above post. (Also,goals are up this season around the league, so the magic number is probably higher than 220, but you get the point.)

But the defense and goaltending? They were as much of a problem as scoring the past couple years, but we are taking the opposite of the 2006-07 goalie-out approach to this rebuild. Which has made for more fun -- and that's important -- but isn't doing much for points....
Hono_rary Canadian

ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1544
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by ESQ » Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:47 am

UWSaint wrote:... 220 is more of the magic number for the playoffs.
They are on pace to score 221...
So you're saying there's a chance!

User avatar
UWSaint
CC Veteran
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by UWSaint » Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:56 pm

ESQ wrote:
UWSaint wrote:... 220 is more of the magic number for the playoffs.
They are on pace to score 221...
So you're saying there's a chance!
I wish. The point of the quoted post was that changes might, if lucky, get the Canucks to 220 goals for, but that's only half the equation and the Canucks had no chance of improving their defense enough. To get in the playoffs, most teams score more than 220 and give up less. (Again, that # will be different this year because for whatever reason goal scoring is higher).

The Canucks rebuild is all about improving the anemic offense. And we are seeing payoff with the plan. But defense/goaltending was as bad as the scoring and has received far less attention. We are seeing the results of that, too. There's hope (Juolevi, Demko), but there is a lot of uncertainty with both and not enough quantity for a miss.
Hono_rary Canadian

User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Legend
Posts: 4273
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by Uncle dans leg » Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:10 pm

Ill take shitty team defense but goals goals goals over the conservative oatmeal-like endurance test rebuild we've been suffering through for the past 5 years thank you very much.

I can enjoy a losing season if i can see the light
nobody forks...with the jesus

ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1544
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by ESQ » Fri Dec 22, 2017 1:43 pm

I'm with ya, UDL.

And UW, I take your point, just trying to cherry-pick the bright side!

I don't know if you can blame the wheels coming off in December on Tanev's absence. His last 4 games were all losses where the Canucks gave up 4-7 goals.

Prior to the game in NJ where Sutter was hurt, the Canucks were 11-8-3.

Since Sutter went down, they are 4-8-2.

Without Bo, they've gone 1-6-1.

The issue, to my mind, is less the defensive depth as the center depth being totally depleted. The Canucks have had a beaten-up blue line all season, but it was the rash of injuries to the forwards that led to the slump.

User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2853
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by Aaronp18 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:10 pm

ESQ wrote: The issue, to my mind, is less the defensive depth as the center depth being totally depleted. The Canucks have had a beaten-up blue line all season, but it was the rash of injuries to the forwards that led to the slump.
Well these really go hand in hand though! The most defensively responsible forward has to be the centre, from faceoffs to backchecking to taking care of the centre of the ice. So a depleted defense and centre will naturally lead to far worse team defense and more goals against.

The centre is so key to providing puck support in our own end, and when that isn't there is just makes the defenseman's job that much tougher.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16189
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by Strangelove » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:28 pm

ESQ wrote:just trying to cherry-pick the bright side!
8-) :thumbs: 8-)
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16189
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by Strangelove » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:31 pm

Aaronp18 wrote:
ESQ wrote: The issue, to my mind, is less the defensive depth as the center depth being totally depleted. The Canucks have had a beaten-up blue line all season, but it was the rash of injuries to the forwards that led to the slump.
Well these really go hand in hand though! The most defensively responsible forward has to be the centre, from faceoffs to backchecking to taking care of the centre of the ice. So a depleted defense and centre will naturally lead to far worse team defense and more goals against.

The centre is so key to providing puck support in our own end, and when that isn't there is just makes the defenseman's job that much tougher.
True, but it can't be understated how valuable Horvat + Sutter have been to team defense.

Those two are GIANTS defensively.

And the drop-off after those two as far as defensive centres on your Vancouver Canucks is massive...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 9737
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:58 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 6:56 pm
Ronning's Ghost wrote:
Strangelove wrote:But I already "quantified" plenty. :eh:

(time-frame, how good the team will be, how big of a role young players will play)

I can't help but suspect you're being purposely obtuse...
The question of projecting has been raised, but no, I will just admit that my hockey knowledge pales before yours and I need extra guidance.
Hmmm... purposely obtuse, passively aggressive, and a patently insincere praiser!

This is quite a case!!! :)
Ronning's Ghost wrote:
Strangelove wrote:As for "what round of the playoffs"... that is not relevant.

What is relevant is where I said:

"My Canucks will look good enough (in said playoffs) to give us all plenty of hope for the future".

("We will all be talking about how far they will go the next playoffs and how long the window will be open")

You dogs are not going to get a more quantified prediction than this on a fucking Canucks message board.
Playoff performance is not relevant ? Well, that certainly gets full points for a bold assertion.
Well I most certainly did indicate 'playoff performance is relevant'. :eh:

What round they make it to in their first taste of playoff action... is what I called irrelevant.

Purposely obtuse Cliffy?
Ronning's Ghost wrote:
Strangelove wrote:But I already "quantified" plenty. :eh:

(time-frame, how good the team will be, how big of a role young players will play)
1) Time frame: 2018-2019 -- check
2) How good the team will be:
a) good enough to make the playoffs -- well, that establishes a minimum
b) "look good" -- not so quantifiable
3) how big a role young players will play -- sorry, I seem to have missed that one. Would the Master of the Archives care to provide a link ?
2a) :roll:

2b) How about "look good enough to get everyone on this board excited about the future"? :hmmm:

3) I've said it many times and I'm not on trial... try re-reading my last dozen posts in this thread. :scowl:

(also it should be obvious that young players would play a huge role in any success in that timeframe)
Ronning's Ghost wrote:
Strangelove wrote:They may accuse you of making your prediction only because you want to brag about being right one day.
Now please be fair. I acknowledged that your motives were pure (and, more importantly, relevant); that is, you mean to address the question of how we will assess the success of Jim Benning's rebuild. As do I.
True, but you also seemed to (twice) lend credence some of 5thhorseman's accusations.

Ronning's Ghost wrote:
Strangelove wrote:In that case Cliffy, would you kindly stop nipping at my heels like some deranged chihuahua? :D
If my questions annoy you, you needn't respond...
Tried that.

You persisted.

And you continued to complain to others that I hadn't answered your questions to your satisfaction.

*swats Cliffy with rolled-up newspaper* :D
You swatted Ronnings gunt with a newspaper, while he went to town on your dome with a pipe
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16189
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Competitive and/or Contending

Post by Strangelove » Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:40 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:58 pm
You swatted Ronnings gunt with a newspaper, while he went to town on your dome with a pipe
Riiiiiiiiiight... and Bobby Farnham is 145 lbs! :santa:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

Post Reply