ESQ wrote:mathonwy wrote:The only thing that really needs to be figured out this summer is, is it going to be Luo or is it going to be Schneid. Other than that, I am ok with the group going forward.
You know, I thought this too, and I saw Boston Canuck post something similar in another thread. That's particularly interesting from BC, because we have almost the identical goalie make-up to the Bruins, even down to the cap hits, and it worked out alright.
Under the rising cap, Schneider at $2 million as back-up/tandem is actually quite manageable. With less workload you might see less pressure on Luongo as well if he does say.
Not saying its a sure thing, but if there isn't a good return on the trade market I wouldn't be surprised to see both stay.
by Fred on Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:55 am
In a Cap era there has to be value placed on all players like it or not. IMO the 'Nucks have to many players of the same skill set. Maybe Keslers days as a centre have come to an end, ( and if so the question has to be asked why did they trade Hodgson ) assuming there's a skilled centre out there they can get hold of. Richards went to the NYR, TO on the other hand had to settle on Connolly. Right now the team has no 2nd line threat, teams/coaches are at last coming to terms with the Sedins style. You can list players that you want to get rid of but that's mostly because they're average and have duplicate skills. Some players are playing roles that they're not suited for or we're trying to get some thing out of them they don't have. Of all the forwards we have ONE play maker and then a list of average wingers. It's just a case of pickum and this is where the value part comes in.
Most of all the Pro scouts have to be changed up. Eric Crawford ( he of the Kassian is great brigade ) and Lorne Henning. Either they're getting the wrong instructions as to what we need or they're unable to spot a hockey puck at fifty paces.
IMO every line would preferably consist of a play maker, a shooter, and a corner man. Our current 2nd line has an entire line of shooters, individuals.
There has to be a re think of what we need going forward, identify the best of that bunch and do what ever is required to find/obtain one, and to me it's a play making centre. The team became, apparently by choice, a one line team again
The next questions is will Schroeder be that player or is the shelf life of the Sedins so short that we need to find a ready made play maker, can we afford to let Schroeder a year to settle in.
The Canucks had some thing special but it's slipping away. Yes they won the Presidents trophy but IMO from the Boston game forward it was a lot of smoke and mirrors, good fortune rather than good play.
If Mike Gillis is to be "the man" it's going to interesting to see what his reaction is this summer. I doubt if we're going to hear much more than the party line, but it's his action that will do the talking.
The defence has some skill but frankly opposing players have little fear to the Canucks crease. The skill set is average to above average. There 4 keepers IMO Edler, Bieska, Tanev and Hamhuis....the rest you can find similar skills any where. To much and to many journeymen D rather than bring replacements ar required up from the minors in case of injury.
Goal tending which ever way you go you win as long as it includes Schneider
No one wants to use injuries as an excuse, and it's true the best teams are able to overcome them, but it's hard to ignore the absence of top goal scorer Daniel Sedin, especially after watching his impact immediately upon returning.
CrzyCanuck wrote:all these talks about that Hodgson could have been the saviour, the missing scoring source here is cracking me up so hard.
dbr wrote:There are also philosophical questions about the make-up of the team. To me the most important one is, do you want to build this team to lean heavily on three or four forwards to generate offense or do you want to build it to spread scoring around the lineup? If it's the former do the Sedins and Ryan Kesler need another top level scorer, and if it's the latter are two checking lines really going to help these efforts?
Hockey Widow wrote:If we can find or if we have a 2nd line offensive centre then the team does not need to do too much after that. Kesler can and probably should drop back to the third line role, a line that can shut down but also contribute offensively. Schroeder is the guy I am thinking about. If he can come to camp and anchor a second line this allows us to move Kesler down to the third line. The Canucks tried it with Cody but only for a handful of games. I am thinking we need to let the kid run with it. I mean hell all we need to do is win our division next year right?
the Dogsalmon wrote:Schroeder is a peanut who will get killed playing with the men in the NHL...
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Raile and 3 guests