Diversification
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 3,514
- 4,657
I've held off on responding because it seems like wishcasting. Under the prior 2 coaches, we have suffered defensively in different ways:
1) Green's teams were constantly hemmed in their own zone and the players would collapse towards the net to block shots and hopefully chip it forwards for an odd man rush going the other way. There was little to no puck support and defensive zone exits were primarily plays off the glass and into the NZ. What little success we had was due to outstanding goaltending and some game breaking skill upfront.
2) Bourdreau deployed a puck pressure system that caused turn overs but also led to constant defensive breakdowns as players would be out of position and flat footed for chances going the other way.
So, in 2 different ways, the Canucks managed to be terrible defensively. In retrospect, it was not sustainable over the course of a season.
With Tocchet, we see a more conservative approach than Boudreau's but also an emphasis on short passes to facilitate possession out of our own zone. That, coupled with sufficient run support, have been the main drivers of the strong play recently.
The key question is whether this version of the Canucks is sustainable?
I'm leaning towards yes because it's not something that relies on high variance events like odd man scoring chances and superhuman goaltending.
If forwards and D fastidiously provide high percentage passing options in their own end, most of the time that means we can defuse high danger chances against and sustained pressure from the opposing team. You can run that night in and night out provided the players buy in and hold each other accountable. You supplement that with sufficient goal scoring (which I think we have), that's the recipe for consistently good hockey. Not contender-level, but perhaps comfortably in a playoff position.
TLDR: Yes, they're looking like they could actually be for real provided your definition of 'for real' excludes viably contending for the Cup.
1) Green's teams were constantly hemmed in their own zone and the players would collapse towards the net to block shots and hopefully chip it forwards for an odd man rush going the other way. There was little to no puck support and defensive zone exits were primarily plays off the glass and into the NZ. What little success we had was due to outstanding goaltending and some game breaking skill upfront.
2) Bourdreau deployed a puck pressure system that caused turn overs but also led to constant defensive breakdowns as players would be out of position and flat footed for chances going the other way.
So, in 2 different ways, the Canucks managed to be terrible defensively. In retrospect, it was not sustainable over the course of a season.
With Tocchet, we see a more conservative approach than Boudreau's but also an emphasis on short passes to facilitate possession out of our own zone. That, coupled with sufficient run support, have been the main drivers of the strong play recently.
The key question is whether this version of the Canucks is sustainable?
I'm leaning towards yes because it's not something that relies on high variance events like odd man scoring chances and superhuman goaltending.
If forwards and D fastidiously provide high percentage passing options in their own end, most of the time that means we can defuse high danger chances against and sustained pressure from the opposing team. You can run that night in and night out provided the players buy in and hold each other accountable. You supplement that with sufficient goal scoring (which I think we have), that's the recipe for consistently good hockey. Not contender-level, but perhaps comfortably in a playoff position.
TLDR: Yes, they're looking like they could actually be for real provided your definition of 'for real' excludes viably contending for the Cup.
