Canucks News N Notes 26-27

[Carl Yagro]

I refresh the app... then come here to vent

[donlever]

I follow on apps socialz and here.

What I am not getting is what MCP and RG are saying about not handling a rebuild.

Unless I missed something.

[Cousin Strawberry]

I agree. I didn't think anyone was getting all bent outta shape about the losses either.

It would obviously be better if they were at least hanging in the games but when you look over that roster sheet this is pretty well all you would expect to see from this group unfortunately. Zero top end talent, very little character pieces who can actually play, shit goaltending...

[Ronning's Ghost]

What I am not getting is what MCP and RG are saying about not handling a rebuild.

I may have mistaken expressions of pain for complaint.

[Megaterio Llamas]

I've really been enjoying the tank, personally. It's been everything I expected.

And less...

[theman]

I've really been enjoying the tank, personally. It's been everything I expected.

And less...

It is necessary to embrace the tank.

[rikster]

A Canadian franchise on the West Coast as the NHL looks to grow its fan base in Asia is about as fool proof as it gets and in todays world almost impossible to devalue ...

lol....good one

[UWSaint]

I've really been enjoying the tank, personally. It's been everything I expected.

And less...

It is necessary to embrace the tank.

The team can play well and finish at or near the bottom of the league. That's because they lack talent and have a goaltender who would have looked terrible even in 1983.

Or they can play terribly and finish at or near the bottom of the league (only not at the bottom because there are another couple of team with low talent and that they don't play up too.... And in that process, learn very little about how to be an NHL player.

Perhaps none of that matters because most of the "rebuilding team" aren't individuals who will be part of what's rebuilt -- though what's lost is a potential increase in asset value for a trade.

But Ohgren, Sushi, DEP, Buium, and Willander might very well be part of the group that will be in Vancouver when things get better. And how they develop depends in part on the players who are around them playing like it matters (even though it doesn't....).

And the early returns on EP25 and Sushi are positive. They've shown some improvement in their games, and its paid off a bit because they've gotten some rewards on the score sheet. Ohgren's probably nothing more than a bottom 6 wing, but this would be the year to show more (and he isn't). Willander is a step forward and a step back -- hard to evaluate when Oleksiak doesn't exactly provide as solid a base partner as I was hoping. And Zeev I am concerned that maybe the NHL isn't the place for him to be developing. He's not special if he's on his back foot, and that's where he is for some reason -- better for his NHL future to double down on his skills than lose them in the process of trying to learn to be less of a liability. I'd rather he do that in the NHL, but Manny has to (1) agree and (2) get Zeev to agree. I have no idea where Manny is on that.

[5thhorseman]

And Zeev I am concerned that maybe the NHL isn't the place for him to be developing. He's not special if he's on his back foot, and that's where he is for some reason -- better for his NHL future to double down on his skills than lose them in the process of trying to learn to be less of a liability. I'd rather he do that in the NHL, but Manny has to (1) agree and (2) get Zeev to agree. I have no idea where Manny is on that.

Reminds me of what you said about Goldobin, though arguably Manny has a tougher job (than Travisty) of freeing up his offensive instincts in the face of constant losing.

[UWSaint]

He's not special if he's on his back foot, and that's where he is for some reason -- better for his NHL future to double down on his skills than lose them in the process of trying to learn to be less of a liability.

Reminds me of what you said about Goldobin, though arguably Manny has a tougher job (than Travisty) of freeing up his offensive instincts in the face of constant losing.

Good memory.

When Goldobin was Canuck, there was constant losing, too. That was a low tide time.

But if buying into the rebuild means anything, it means developing player is more important that winning games. There are plays you make to reduce risk, and there are plays you try to make to create chances. For a player to develop, he has to try to create chances -- he'll get better at succeeding and he'll learn from results when risks are good ones.

When you have a good team with leads and a strong top 6 and a dangerous PP, reducing risk is often the mentality drilled into bottom 6 players and is a tool for all players, because you are playing with leads. There is no prospect on the horizon of regularly having leads, or outskilling the opponent so you can bide time until your top line gets another shift. And there's no point in practicing "safe" play when you haven't developed what it takes to be in a position where safe play matters. Sure, pull that stuff out with a 2 goal lead....how many times will that happen this year? Developing what the near-sighted call "good habits" is a recipe to turn every forward into a third liner at best. Counterintuitively, only good teams (or a team getting great goaltending) can win playing "don't lose" hockey.

My observation is that ex-player coaches who did "little things right" are the least tolerant of ill-calculated (or well calculated) gambles that go wrong. They think -- this is the way I made a career, this is how they will make a career. But you know what? Stanley Cup's are not won by teams filled with Manny Malhotras or Travis Greenes. Those kind of players can absolutely make a good team better (especially if they bring a special skill -- pk acumen, faceoffs), but they can't make a bad team okay. Not every ex player coach is limited by their personal experience, but coaches must be self-aware that they will have a tendency to universalize personal experience. Is Manny self-aware? Don't know yet.

The biggest manifestation of "little things right" is turnovers at the blue line. One of the things that's stood out since the start of the road trip (didn't see the last game, so don't know how they played), is that in the first few games, there were a lot of turnovers at the blue line, either entering or exiting the zone. The counter intuitive part of this observation is *that's not bad, that's the process.* Oh, sure, there are BAD turnovers at the blueline -- attempt to skate through 3 when you could dish and drive, not getting the puck deep when your linemates are changing, making an extra move before exiting the zone when you could have make that move after getting the puck out. But give me a turnover at the blue line every so often so the opposition isn't gathering every dump in because there's no threat its coming in with speed, give me a turnover at the blueline instead of icing after icing or lobbing it into the neutral zone so you don't make a mistake (and thus have no possession time night after night). Heck, this last one is super easy since I don't know that I've seen a team worse than the Canucks at failing when trying to make the simple just-clear-the-zone play.

Its a long season either way. Develop the players, allow them to fail by encouraging them to try and succeed.

[Ronning's Ghost]

My observation is that ex-player coaches who did "little things right" are the least tolerant of ill-calculated (or well calculated) gambles that go wrong. They think -- this is the way I made a career, this is how they will make a career.

Glad to read someone else has the same impression.

It also explains to me why low-potential, high-effort players will often seem to get ice time in favour high-potential players who might be trying to be more calculating about when to go all out.

[donlever]

Then TNFG'S picked the wrong coach.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Then TNFG'S picked the wrong coach.

From my perspective, it's starting to feel that way.

This team does not have the assets for another Podkolzin situation, which may have put the re-build back an entire season.

I have read suggestions elsewhere on this board that Malhotra was hired because he'll work cheap. And I didn't mind, because I thought that the AHL success indicated that he was a good coach for developing players. But the Canucks can afford to part with Malhotra much more easily than they can any high-ceiling young player. I'm still hoping Malhotra will recognize his situation and and adapt accordingly.

Failing that, I'm hoping TNFGs do.

[2Fingers]

The biggest manifestation of "little things right" is turnovers at the blue line. One of the things that's stood out since the start of the road trip (didn't see the last game, so don't know how they played), is that in the first few games, there were a lot of turnovers at the blue line, either entering or exiting the zone. The counter intuitive part of this observation is *that's not bad, that's the process.* Oh, sure, there are BAD turnovers at the blueline -- attempt to skate through 3 when you could dish and drive, not getting the puck deep when your linemates are changing, making an extra move before exiting the zone when you could have make that move after getting the puck out. But give me a turnover at the blue line every so often so the opposition isn't gathering every dump in because there's no threat its coming in with speed, give me a turnover at the blueline instead of icing after icing or lobbing it into the neutral zone so you don't make a mistake (and thus have no possession time night after night). Heck, this last one is super easy since I don't know that I've seen a team worse than the Canucks at failing when trying to make the simple just-clear-the-zone play.

Its a long season either way. Develop the players, allow them to fail by encouraging them to try and succeed.

Last night on multiple opportunities the easy pass out pass the blue line was not done. They started off skating strong and then folded like a cheap tent once Minny started to play.

I chatted with my son and said if players on the team won't make the safe play then those that can be sent down should and bring up some from the farm. Either they make the players accountable for their mistakes or they will repeat them again and again.

Also maybe some target practice, drop 100 pucks and everyone just has to shot the puck, miss the net and they have to do 10 sit-ups or something., make it old school. Losing is one thing but the mistakes they are making are junior level and I am not seeing coaching stepping up.