See this is where I disagree, though it might just be definitions. If they can't and won't make the simple play that advances the play, then I see what you are saying. But I see a "safe" play as the one that's least likely to create a turnover in transition. Examples of safe play: (1) getting the puck out of the zone by any means necessary (flipping it out, banking it off the boards, icing the puck) or (2) dumping it in absent a line change or truly no other option. My possibly idiosyncratic read is that I don't want them to default to this kind of safety. I would rather have them risk turnovers than continually give up possession with the only benefit being the chance to recombobulate.
A huge problem with how the team has been playing is that they aren't making the simple but effective plays (different than safe plays). This means firm tape to tape passes to players in stride; I think this is apart of what the Sedins consider "connected" play. More damning to the team than the lack of speed on the wing is that they can't play to the lack of speed that they have because they don't hit players in stride with the puck or play in waves when forechecking. There is playing fast and there is skating fast -- these are different things that may have a correlation but are independent attributes -- and the Canucks do neither, by and large. Indeed, it seems that the Canucks are preferencing being organized (D to D passes, forward to D, group reorg) to causing chaos -- and this slows the game down further, and I don't think the Canucks are benefitted from both sides being organized vs. a little disorganization in both groups (which happens with quicker play).
