As Good As It Gets

[Megaterio Llamas]

Topper does make a strong point about it not being on Lank. We're usually being outshot 21-4 or something like that and we're bitching about the three Lank let in.

I don't think anyone is (or should be) arguing that there aren't significant areas for improvement in the Canucks defensive play, and those areas are (sadly) in skill, effort, and technique. Add to that losing key defensive zone faceoffs and extended shifts (that are often the result of over chasing when the other team has the puck leaving no options when that puck is turned over), and its a bit of a train wreck. The losses will come with this kind of play no matter the goalie.

But the fact is that Kevin Lankinen has been the worst player on the team, and has been the worst goaltender in the league. And while that can help expose some bad play (because the bad plays end up in the back of the net), there are other plays where defender are doing the right thing and shots that should be swallowed result in burped rebounds in the slot, or if not the slot, just extend time on ice. Lankinen has become DeSmithian in his consistent overpushing losing his net, and Cloutierian in his penchant to "guess" as opposed to react, and leave himself so far out of the play that it *looks* like he never had a chance. Lankinen has earned his sub .800 save rate.

I think Lankinen is playing down to the team standard. In that sense, he's just what we're looking for.

Of course you'd like to have two or three years on his contract removed, in a perfect world...

[Madcombinepilot]

They'll go as far as Arshdeep Bains can take them.

Topper does make a strong point about it not being on Lank. We're usually being outshot 21-4 or something like that and we're bitching about the three Lank let in.

LAst game shots were 26-20. score was 6-2. Yeah, the team deflates after Lanks lets them in like water through a sieve.

[Megaterio Llamas]

They'll go as far as Arshdeep Bains can take them.

Topper does make a strong point about it not being on Lank. We're usually being outshot 21-4 or something like that and we're bitching about the three Lank let in.

LAst game shots were 26-20. score was 6-2. Yeah, the team deflates after Lanks lets them in like water through a sieve.

Man bites dog.

[Megaterio Llamas]

@MCP you're right, they were better last night, and Lankinen was really bad.

I'm not gonna die on this hill.

[UWSaint]

They can't start periods.

They get punched in the nose after nearly every goal they score.

They have no answer for the bumper or how to play it.

Lankinen has been beyond terrible.

Clean those four things up, and lose by 1 more often. Which is the right delta based on modest talent.

UWS

See?

[donlever]

No...but I'll trust your instincts.

By all accounts the other goalie was pretty good tonight...

[Madcombinepilot]

@MCP you're right, they were better last night, and Lankinen was really bad.

I'm not gonna die on this hill.

. Sorry if I came across harsh.. Wasn’t trying to murder anyone over this, just saying there is a difference between losing and losing badly when it comes to confidence.

I still love ya, man!

[Tciso]

@MCP you're right, they were better last night, and Lankinen was really bad.

I'm not gonna die on this hill.

. Sorry if I came across harsh.. Wasn’t trying to murder anyone over this, just saying there is a difference between losing and losing badly when it comes to confidence.

We do both. So what does that mean?? Is our goal this year to keep losing, but stop losing badly? Like, if we go from being a terrible team to being just bad, that's a home run?

[Madcombinepilot]

@MCP you're right, they were better last night, and Lankinen was really bad.

I'm not gonna die on this hill.

. Sorry if I came across harsh.. Wasn’t trying to murder anyone over this, just saying there is a difference between losing and losing badly when it comes to confidence.

We do both. So what does that mean?? Is our goal this year to keep losing, but stop losing badly? Like, if we go from being a terrible team to being just bad, that's a home run?

Honestly, I am torn to answer… on one hand “simply losing”.. I buy into “be in 32nd place to draft 3 OA”.. before the lottery, when “tanking” was a thing, I would have been ok with the strategy. Now, with the lottery (where we lose the max number of spots and have NEVER moved up), it’s about knowing who is the sleeper pick (like Hughes) and drafting in top 10, rather than losing on purpose for 1st overall. Fuck, I would rather have 2 picks between 4-10 than 1st overall. The media pressure is enormous, and if all we had was 2 top 5 picks, that simple means is we lose 4 spots instead of 2. People need to plan for the worst instead of hope for the best. A wise man once said: “Hope is not a plan”

… but if we pick “not losing badly”, well now (imo), we are talking about drafting and developing. If you’re gonna develop, you can’t have BOTH the AHL and NHL teams finish at or near the bottom (like last year)… you have to be competitive <somewhere> in the organization to develop the Culture and a winning attitude. This is that fine line I have been commenting on in other threads. It’s ok to lose, but you can’t lose badly - or continuously- or because of one person (perceived or not -ahem- Lanks). If a team is gonna fight for each other (which is losing, not losing badly), there can be no conceived weak link that causes blame or excuses to be put on a single person. You look at the oilers team of the past (and current) and Buffalo, etc, they all had teams that didn’t ’fight for each other’ even after multiple 1st overall picks. All those 1OA guys were ‘the key to the future’ and none have wine a cup with the team that drafted them.

Not a drafting problem, a culture problem.

Those teams didn’t compete.

If you want a short rebuild, you CAN NOT INVITE the culture problem (we are tankink) into the room. These guys have to hate to lose. PERIOD.

[Megaterio Llamas]

It's very early, and we won't really know for years, but right now the pundits are starting to describe the draft as a one player affair at the top, with a Cale Makaresque RHD, and then a bunch of Malhotra caliber 2Cs. I like Dima Zhilkin the best of all of these at the moment, myself.

If this is true, the lottery curse will never bite us harder than this.

[UWSaint]

It's very early, and we won't really know for years, but right now the pundits are starting to describe the draft as a one player affair at the top, with a Cale Makaresque RHD, and then a bunch of Malhotra caliber 2Cs. I like Dima Zhilkin the best of all of these at the moment, myself.

If this is true, the lottery curse will never bite us harder than this.

There is a common pattern a year out or so from the draft that there's a player that stands above the rest and is going to be amazing. Then, by the WJC, there will be talk about maybe another players having a claim. That talk will increase whether or not its true -- some years it is (lots of presumptive #1s don't make notable improvements in their U18 season while their competition does), some years it isn't. But its a good story heading into the draft. Last year, for example, there was some cause for the pre-WJC reevaluation of McKenna to think there could be a race, but by the end of season, I think the story of uncertainty at #1 (before the Laffs won the lottery) was just a story. In the Slavkovsky pre-draft season, it was similar narrative with one big difference -- it was true. Wright's play in that U18 season wasn't as convincing as McKenna' body of work (and importantly, season trajectory) @ Penn State.

[Lancer]

Sometimes, it's just the luck associated with when a club tanks as well. You could go like Edmonton and just suck hard for an extended period of time until you stumble on McJesus and the Kraut. You could go like Toronto, get lucky with a couple of high picks during the couple of years rebuild.

Just our luck our team decided to go through a rebuild at a time when there are no generational talents to be seen in the next couple of years beyond the 1 OA. But hey, we'll have a bevvy of high-character 2nd- and 3rd-liners to look forward to seeing put the team back into the mushy middle.

[Megaterio Llamas]

It's very early, and we won't really know for years, but right now the pundits are starting to describe the draft as a one player affair at the top, with a Cale Makaresque RHD, and then a bunch of Malhotra caliber 2Cs. I like Dima Zhilkin the best of all of these at the moment, myself.

If this is true, the lottery curse will never bite us harder than this.

There is a common pattern a year out or so from the draft that there's a player that stands above the rest and is going to be amazing. Then, by the WJC, there will be talk about maybe another players having a claim. That talk will increase whether or not its true -- some years it is (lots of presumptive #1s don't make notable improvements in their U18 season while their competition does), some years it isn't. But its a good story heading into the draft. Last year, for example, there was some cause for the pre-WJC reevaluation of McKenna to think there could be a race, but by the end of season, I think the story of uncertainty at #1 (before the Laffs won the lottery) was just a story. In the Slavkovsky pre-draft season, it was similar narrative with one big difference -- it was true. Wright's play in that U18 season wasn't as convincing as McKenna' body of work (and importantly, season trajectory) @ Penn State.

In this instance going into the season the consensus opinion generally seemed to have DuPont at the top and a group of centers right behind him ready to challenge for the top spot. What seems to be unfolding now (it's so early) is the pack falling back as DuPont takes care of business as a 17 year old at Michigan.

[Ronning's Ghost]

But hey, we'll have a bevvy of high-character 2nd- and 3rd-liners to look forward to seeing put the team back into the mushy middle.

At first, I thought this was the worst possible (and therefore, for the Canucks, the most likely) outcome.

But on further consideration, I think part of it depends on the size of the bevvy and the height of the character. If the Canucks had 9 forwards who would be second liners on a good team, and 6 D who would be top 4 on a good team, and they were all committed to staying together to win here, to the extent of taking a home-town discount so that there was no problem keeping them under the cap (and maybe even working in a high-priced free agent), then knowing what a grind the playoffs usually are, I could imagine winning with depth. It seems that's a reasonable description of what Carolina did this year.

Of course, realising even this vision of a re-built requires a lot of darts, and that management hit on an above-average portion of them.

[donlever]

Like Carolina.