The Petey Predicament

[JelloPuddingPop]

Getting a bit dark here.

EP40 isn't the problem. Ownership and Management are.

Any one of you would take 11.5 million to do your jobs. Even if you aren't willing, able or capable of living up to it.

This is getting a bit out of hand.

[Meds]

While the sentiments regarding a wished for outcome are a bit strong in the dark side of the force.....I think Matheson's hit is the quintessential example of why some of us have never been a fan of this guy. I have NEVER seen a player get rag doll tossed like that before. He was borderline KO'd without a hit to the head.

That was during his ELC. Then they bridged him, he didn't get stronger, and so they decided to ink him to the big deal anyhow.

I recall everyone going on about how much bigger Matheson was than Petey and how it was so dirty.

Matheson was/is listed as 6'2".

Pettersson was/is listed as 6'2".

It was definitely beer league, but it should have been a giant wake-up call for the Canucks organization.

[Hockey Widow]

Fake news trade alert:

"The proposal floating around had Toronto sending Matthew Knies, the 2026 first overall pick, and a second rounder to Vancouver for Pettersson and a fifth."

The alert got Brad Marchand to bite and sound off on what a terrible trade that would be for the leaves. Apparently stirred up a controversy until it was exposed as a site that posts Montreal memes. HAHA

Bet it would go over well here! Hell I'd be all in for that one.

[UWSaint]

While the sentiments regarding a wished for outcome are a bit strong in the dark side of the force.....I think Matheson's hit is the quintessential example of why some of us have never been a fan of this guy. I have NEVER seen a player get rag doll tossed like that before. He was borderline KO'd without a hit to the head.

That was during his ELC. Then they bridged him, he didn't get stronger, and so they decided to ink him to the big deal anyhow.

Did you see Maker get similarly rag dolled in game 1 of the Wild series and miss the rest of the first period? That guy will never amount to anything.

But to EP40, I disagree. He got considerably stronger. And yet there's been a correlation between his increased strength and declining performance.

I won't tire of writing this: players must improve their strengths as much as their weaknesses. What a player does well when he's drafted is the thing that may give him a comparative advantage over other NHL players. Teams don't win without special players, players aren't special unless they possess skills well above the median NHLer. The more that skill is comparatively better than the median, the more effective that skill is. In Petey's case, his considerably above average playmaking, shot, and hands have each atrophied to "good" and they are also now less effective because of decreased mobility (so less occasion, fewer lanes created, less disruption in defensive positioning). Whether this decreased mobility is a byproduct of improved upper body strength (while seemingly static lower body strength), injury, or mental (or all three) I don't know. But what I do know is that everyone hammered him for lack of strength -- the media, the fans, the coaches -- and that seems to be where he's put his efforts (however modest) the past three offseasons. And what I know is that without a skill that's significantly better than the marginal player in effective game action (working in conjunction with all skills), a stronger EP40 is not a special player. Valuable complementary player? Absolutely in the right situation. Core? Nope.

This is a shortcoming of coaches like Tocchet and Greene (particularly Greene) -- the hyperfocus on doing better what one does not so well without any consideration as to the tradeoff. And its not just a shortcoming of individual player development, but of team construction. We are fast but not strong -- let's get stronger, result no marginal advantage in either speed nor strength. (That's just an example, not a description of the Canucks).

Hopefully the next Canucks GM and coach will help the next group of players maximize what they do well; the team's identity can be based on its personnel, and complements can be acquired to enhance their capabilities and cover basic shortcomings.

[griz]

While the sentiments regarding a wished for outcome are a bit strong in the dark side of the force.....I think Matheson's hit is the quintessential example of why some of us have never been a fan of this guy. I have NEVER seen a player get rag doll tossed like that before. He was borderline KO'd without a hit to the head.

That was during his ELC. Then they bridged him, he didn't get stronger, and so they decided to ink him to the big deal anyhow.

Did you see Maker get similarly rag dolled in game 1 of the Wild series and miss the rest of the first period? That guy will never amount to anything.

But to EP40, I disagree. He got considerably stronger. And yet there's been a correlation between his increased strength and declining performance.

I won't tire of writing this: players must improve their strengths as much as their weaknesses. What a player does well when he's drafted is the thing that may give him a comparative advantage over other NHL players. Teams don't win without special players, players aren't special unless they possess skills well above the median NHLer. The more that skill is comparatively better than the median, the more effective that skill is. In Petey's case, his considerably above average playmaking, shot, and hands have each atrophied to "good" and they are also now less effective because of decreased mobility (so less occasion, fewer lanes created, less disruption in defensive positioning). Whether this decreased mobility is a byproduct of improved upper body strength (while seemingly static lower body strength), injury, or mental (or all three) I don't know. But what I do know is that everyone hammered him for lack of strength -- the media, the fans, the coaches -- and that seems to be where he's put his efforts (however modest) the past three offseasons. And what I know is that without a skill that's significantly better than the marginal player in effective game action (working in conjunction with all skills), a stronger EP40 is not a special player. Valuable complementary player? Absolutely in the right situation. Core? Nope.

This is a shortcoming of coaches like Tocchet and Greene (particularly Greene) -- the hyperfocus on doing better what one does not so well without any consideration as to the tradeoff. And its not just a shortcoming of individual player development, but of team construction. We are fast but not strong -- let's get stronger, result no marginal advantage in either speed nor strength. (That's just an example, not a description of the Canucks).

Hopefully the next Canucks GM and coach will help the next group of players maximize what they do well; the team's identity can be based on its personnel, and complements can be acquired to enhance their capabilities and cover basic shortcomings.

Very astut.

It's like a management disregard for a player's individuality. Players are told they must be better in other areas but at what cost? Add to this the fact that there is something in Swedish culture that is willing to sacrifice glory to prove their commitment in other areas. Petterson wanted to be all he could be and lost his core success in the process. How remarkable was it for him to win the hardest shot? And then become a defensive virtuoso and shot blocking machine? Swedes don't hot dog when they score because that isn't their culture. I like that about them because it contrasts with what we see from so many Americans. And the Americans aren't wrong for doing their thing either. Just different.

I wonder why celebrities so often want to disassociate with what made them successful in the first place?

[Topper]

Weaknesses need to be addressed as much, likely more, than strengths. Both need progression.

[Lancer]

This is a shortcoming of coaches like Tocchet and Greene (particularly Greene) -- the hyperfocus on doing better what one does not so well without any consideration as to the tradeoff. And its not just a shortcoming of individual player development, but of team construction. We are fast but not strong -- let's get stronger, result no marginal advantage in either speed nor strength. (That's just an example, not a description of the Canucks).

Hopefully the next Canucks GM and coach will help the next group of players maximize what they do well; the team's identity can be based on its personnel, and complements can be acquired to enhance their capabilities and cover basic shortcomings.

There is a possibility (remote but still enough to consider) that Petey's performative competitiveness may be borne out of his reaction to being shoehorned into a 2-way/defense-first mold by Tocchet. If the coach wants to see him concentrate on defending, being in the right place defensively and blocking shots all day - if that's the incentivized behavior - then perhaps this is Petey saying, "Fuck it. If that's what he wants, that's what he gets and offense be damned." If he gets more criticism for his lack of defending than his lack of offense, it would be natural to lean to one to the exclusion of the other.

There's also a possibility that Tocchet had the whole "You know how Yzerman changed his game after he couldn't drive offense like he used to?" conversation with Petey - maybe he's never got over his injuries the way Boeser's shot was never the same after injuries earlier in his career. Maybe this is the best we can get with a fragile Petey glued together again.

Then again, all that may be BS and he's just pouting still. That said, it may add context to the pout - not that it really mitigates anything.

[Topper]

Excuses are always looking for someone else to blame

[griz]

Weaknesses need to be addressed as much, likely more, than strengths. Both need progression.

I see what you mean, but that can be over generalizing.

To play devil's advocate, maybe Petey wants to block shots so he gets injured and has time to be with his girlfriend?

[donlever]

Guy Lafleur came into the league in the early 70's as a sickly talented Jr. player, 130 goals 209 points as a last year Jr., as good a F prospect as the world had ever seen (sic).

He spent his first 3 years under Scotty Bowman learning how to play the game which meant defense and 200 feet with his offense.

Lafleur went 20's and 50's/60's goals and points those 3 years.

He then bought in and had 6 successive 50 goal 120ish plus point seasons and a few Cups.

Pierre Larouche was drafted by Pittsburgh as a 251 point final Jr year player....the next coming or at least a semblance of a Lafleur.

He achieved success early...50G in his 2nd or 3rd year but could not figure out the overall game and was traded to Montreal.

He was a soft player & never quite figured out the two way game although he did score another 50 and win a couple of Cups at the end of the '70's with the Dynasty Habs of that era.

He scored 300 some goals and 800 some points but will forever be a could have been.

SD40 is Pierre Larouche.

Could have should have beens....

[Topper]

Ron Duguay did what he did best and never did what he didn't do best

[donlever]

And bagging Kim Alexis he did best.

[Carl Yagro]

And bagging Kim Alexis he did best.

She had the Ron Bon Jovi backstage pass.

[UWSaint]

Weaknesses need to be addressed as much, likely more, than strengths. Both need progression.

Should Paul Coffey have developed a physical defensive style? Or even Nik Lidstrom? Point is not every player can or should spend time getting better at things they never had an advantage in, and that the measure is overall effectiveness.

With EP40, the point is only that he clearly devoted attention to developing strength. I don’t know if that came at the expense of improving what he was good at or negatively affected those attributes. Strength and weight can adversely affect flexibility, touch, etc,, but it doesn’t have to.

I also am not saying you avoid weaknesses, I just think you don’t hyperfocus on them and I think you always keep in mind how important it is to keep up the high level skill that, in his case, made a small and narrow framed mediocre skater a 100 point player.

[donlever]

C'mon UW...love your point counterpoint and respect the fuck out of you but you're a hockey guy, the kid was a waif, elfin like...

...he had to bulk up and gain some strength.

He might have broken in two had he not.

Small and narrow framed indeed.

Screenshot_20260511-182707_Chrome.jpg (54.71 KiB) Viewed 43 times