Ainec
Panetta was not racist
- Jun 20, 2009
- 21,782
- 6,432
Bravo Benning. The D is pretty much rebuilt.
- Thread starter No Face No Case
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
Our defence really rides or dies on Woo panning out and the potential for Tryamkin to come back. Assuming one of these comes true, we might have a future core of:
Hughes - Tanev
Hutton - Stecher
Tryamkin/Juolevi - Woo
Rathbone/Brisebois/Sautner/Brassard
Which is respectable assuming Hughes is a top pairing/top 4 dman.
We really need a top ~7 pick to draft Byram, or to make a deal for Fabbro. That would be huge for this core going forward.
Hughes - Tanev
Hutton - Stecher
Tryamkin/Juolevi - Woo
Rathbone/Brisebois/Sautner/Brassard
Which is respectable assuming Hughes is a top pairing/top 4 dman.
We really need a top ~7 pick to draft Byram, or to make a deal for Fabbro. That would be huge for this core going forward.
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,532
- 16,483
When Hughes gets here, he should push a player or two off of the depth chart..I still think they need to try and acquire a top 4 D on the right side via UFA (it won't be cheap)
No it doesn't. Our D rides or dies on us being able to draft more defenseman. Perferably of the top pairing kind.
I'm also skeptical about Hughes being able to handle the top pairing role. I think the only guy similar in stature to him that has shown to have success doing it is Spurgeon. It's extraordinarily rare but I wouldn't be surprised if Hughes is able to and wouldn't be surprised if he fails to.
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,532
- 16,483
Agreed,..expecting Hughes to walk in and immediately be a top pairing D off of the bat is unrealistic...I think he will definitely be a huge upgrade on the PP though.
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
I agree, my comment was more in the context of our defensive core + prospects today. Of course I expect Benning and Brackett to draft high-end dmen in the upcoming drafts, depending on where we pick.
The Hughes-Tanev pairing could be our second pairing, with Edler - Stecher or something for the top pair.
y2kcanucks
Better than you
Some fun posts to look at:
Oh so wrong. You're still very pro-Benning despite being wrong in defending him time and time again. Tkachuk was not the next Dal Colle or Hodgson, meanwhile Juolevi has not developed well since being drafted. And no, he was not a much better prospect than Hamhuis. In fact, I was wrong in giving Juolevi too much credit calling him another Hamhuis.
Maybe all the people who keep shitting all over every single thing Benning and Linden do are right? I mean...the results are there. But hey, I'm glad you loved the Canucks picking a worse prospect.
I think there very much was doubt, and those doubters were proven correct.
Well it's 3 years later...if that's our top 4, ouch.
Okay, I quoted you. You were wrong.
Nicely played? That list is terrible.
Well...Gudbranson certainly isn't on the 2nd pairing, but Juolevi isn't even on the team (Gudbranson shouldn't be either).
Yeah, no. But at least you admitted you were wrong so that's nice
^^^This guy gets it.
No, it wasn't. And it didn't happen.
No, he didn't assmble a solid, young, mobile back end. He assembled junk. I was right 3 years ago, and have been proven right since.
Hutton-Gudbranson together was trash, because Gudbranson is trash.
This post will be remembered as someone actually wanting the Canucks to sign Loui Eriksson.
Yeah no. That's a recipe for an awful defense.
Don't need to exclude Gudbranson and Sutter. They weren't good pieces for the team. But I'm glad you admit Jim's retool looks really bad.
Adam Larsson isn't very good, but he certainly is much better than Erik Gudbranson. Telling someone else to take a hike when you're wrong with your assessment.....
This is just an example that people shouldn't openly ridicule others for their opinions unless they know for certain they're correct. If you're not using anything factual to support your own opinion, then don't ridicule others. Use facts. Educate yourself on analytics, and then you can tell someone to take a hike.
Oh so wrong. You're still very pro-Benning despite being wrong in defending him time and time again. Tkachuk was not the next Dal Colle or Hodgson, meanwhile Juolevi has not developed well since being drafted. And no, he was not a much better prospect than Hamhuis. In fact, I was wrong in giving Juolevi too much credit calling him another Hamhuis.
Maybe all the people who keep shitting all over every single thing Benning and Linden do are right? I mean...the results are there. But hey, I'm glad you loved the Canucks picking a worse prospect.
I think there very much was doubt, and those doubters were proven correct.
Well it's 3 years later...if that's our top 4, ouch.
Okay, I quoted you. You were wrong.
Gotta say im feeling a lil suprised and good about are d now. And everyone keeps saying Gubranson IS a top 4 guy so.... maybe not so bad. Imagine in 3 years
Juol
Tanman
Edler
Hutty
Goober
Sbisa Man
Trammer
Briesbois
Those are all good dmen. Even if not all around or made it by then thats kinda impressive
Nicely played Benning
Nicely played? That list is terrible.
Well...Gudbranson certainly isn't on the 2nd pairing, but Juolevi isn't even on the team (Gudbranson shouldn't be either).
Yeah, no. But at least you admitted you were wrong so that's nice
^^^This guy gets it.
No, it wasn't. And it didn't happen.
No, he didn't assmble a solid, young, mobile back end. He assembled junk. I was right 3 years ago, and have been proven right since.
Hutton-Gudbranson together was trash, because Gudbranson is trash.
This post will be remembered as someone actually wanting the Canucks to sign Loui Eriksson.
Yeah no. That's a recipe for an awful defense.
Don't need to exclude Gudbranson and Sutter. They weren't good pieces for the team. But I'm glad you admit Jim's retool looks really bad.
what a joke. take a hike buddy. "Much better" lol
Adam Larsson isn't very good, but he certainly is much better than Erik Gudbranson. Telling someone else to take a hike when you're wrong with your assessment.....
This is just an example that people shouldn't openly ridicule others for their opinions unless they know for certain they're correct. If you're not using anything factual to support your own opinion, then don't ridicule others. Use facts. Educate yourself on analytics, and then you can tell someone to take a hike.
Last edited:
I was being sarcastic. These are pretty much all the quotes I've said in the thread. If you read 2 pages ahead of where you quoted that last one.
timbermen
Registered User
- Nov 14, 2017
- 1,332
- 690
y2kcanucks
Better than you
My mistake, and removed from the list. To be fair, when reading some of those posts it's hard to tell what's sarcasm and what's serious.
Well I was dead wrong on Gudbranson. At best he's a bottom pairing guy and that's only if his partner is a top 4 guy....
Pretty close on Hutton (even predicted the down year) but he isn't a PP QB. At best he should be occasionally filling in on the 2nd unit. Stecher has developed. Tryamkin would have. Brisebois still might - I was only asking for two.
Edler being looked at for another contract is a little bit of a surprise but this year had been one of his best despite the injuries.
And then there's Juolevi...ugh...I said at the beginning of the year that this was an important year for him and he needed to play singificant minutes in the NHL or the bust conversation would be a reasonable one to have. I'm not sure how I feel now because he was doing ok in Utica but the long term injury really was a blow to his development at this stage.
But, the most interesting thing about this is that you find it entertaining to spend time digging up posts just to tell people they're wrong...
Juolevi was a dumb pick and I'm pretty sure I raged when we picked him but he's not a write off yet..
y2kcanucks
Better than you
Well I was dead wrong on Gudbranson. At best he's a bottom pairing guy and that's only if his partner is a top 4 guy....
Pretty close on Hutton (even predicted the down year) but he isn't a PP QB. At best he should be occasionally filling in on the 2nd unit. Stecher has developed. Tryamkin would have. Brisebois still might - I was only asking for two.
Edler being looked at for another contract is a little bit of a surprise but this year had been one of his best despite the injuries.
And then there's Juolevi...ugh...I said at the beginning of the year that this was an important year for him and he needed to play singificant minutes in the NHL or the bust conversation would be a reasonable one to have. I'm not sure how I feel now because he was doing ok in Utica but the long term injury really was a blow to his development at this stage.
But, the most interesting thing about this is that you find it entertaining to spend time digging up posts just to tell people they're wrong...
With all the crap I, and others, put up with from the rah rah pro-Benning side, I get a lot of enjoyment out of this.
You made me think I was drunk or got hacked.My mistake, and removed from the list. To be fair, when reading some of those posts it's hard to tell what's sarcasm and what's serious.
I think what happened was I gave up debating with other posters since it was going nowhere and just decided to "agree" with em. Edler tanev and hamhuis were our top three and that was also the year of the deadline debacle. Rebuilding the d core was discussed but our best guys weren't even Benning acquired.
I will say I was a believer in Juolevi. He's not tracking to be the number two d I hoped he was. I'm hoping for a number four d at this point. We need all the defense prospects to hit.
TruKnyte
Give me the meds now
I just want to see one injury free year from him to know if he's a total bust or not.
Shareefruck
Registered User
For the record, I was reasonably high on Juolevi (less than the average poster, but still thinking he would be a #3/4 type, which may be awful for 5th overall, but it's not nothing), Hutton (who I still like), and Tryamkin at the time (I still contend that Tryamkin would be a fantastic piece if handled properly), and thought Gudbranson would be serviceable as a half-way decent but frustrating #5 guy-- like Marek Malik level or something (although I still found him grossly overrated and misevaluated in terms of play-style, being compared to Willie Mitchell for some stupid reason).
I was saying that I thought that it was a solid starting point of five guys considering that we were working with nothing before that on both forward and defense. I was not in any way shape or form implying that that was a stacked group that we were set with. I also said "build from" and not "build around", which is a very important distinction.
By no means was I singing Benning's praises at that point. It was also more of a comment on how the forward group was in far greater shambles at the time, and how we were in far greater need of adding younger forwards instead (which we eventually did).
Context and expectations at the time are key here.
What I'll eat crow about is that I thought Juolevi would be better. I didn't think he'd be a stud, but I thought he'd at least be a sure-fire two-way NHLer who could be effective at this level.
Last edited:
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 17,533
- 17,021
Jesus @y2kcanucks if i was to pull out half the crap you spew around here we could go around in circles for days.
Ripping me for liking Juolevi post draft and at least thinking that he had the talent and look of a Hamhuis or Suter comp i used Initially is beyond laughable.
To think that you have some jedi mind powers to see the future of 17/18 yr old kids beyond pro scouts is embarrassing for you. I was a Tkachuk guy at the time but unlike yourself rather than mire in a world of anger and disdain i moved on and tried to digest and disect the reasoning and positives than back into a corner of right or wrong.
How is Vilardi vs Pettersson working out for ya
Ripping me for liking Juolevi post draft and at least thinking that he had the talent and look of a Hamhuis or Suter comp i used Initially is beyond laughable.
To think that you have some jedi mind powers to see the future of 17/18 yr old kids beyond pro scouts is embarrassing for you. I was a Tkachuk guy at the time but unlike yourself rather than mire in a world of anger and disdain i moved on and tried to digest and disect the reasoning and positives than back into a corner of right or wrong.
How is Vilardi vs Pettersson working out for ya
All good. Thing is I'm not pro-or anti-Benning. I'm more objective truth driven
Glad you're having fun.
Not the best example here, you must be thinking of a 20 game NHL callup in Connor's D+2 year. Otherwise:
Kyle Connor
D1 - UM - 38-35-36-71
D2 - AHL - 52-25-19-44
D3 - NHL - 76-31-26-57
Juolevi is in his D3 year, not horrible but still learning at the AHL level in the 19 games he got in before his season was shut down with injuries. At this point if he was going to be an elite he would have shown something by now, as it is it's extremely unlikely. The best you can hope for is something like Virtanen's projection.
Shareefruck
Registered User
These things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If objective truth shows that he's either doing well or poorly, it would make sense to either be pro or anti-Benning.All good. Thing is I'm not pro-or anti-Benning. I'm more objective truth driven
Glad you're having fun.
Standing in the middle does not make one's opinion or approach more credible/sensible. That's one fallacy that typically annoys me.
Im not sure if he will be able to handle the top pairing role when he's at his prime. I'm thinking he's a shattenkirk defenseman.
To be honest, I hope it's not. Tanev and Edler always get injured and we need to move them for their value. I feel they are depreciating assets. The sooner the better. Neither of those two will be big time players when our team is playing for contention.
Hutton and stecher as a top pairing with Hughes and a vet like stralman. With out current projection of defense for next year, we are still going to be a nonplayoff team.
I don't think he's a total bust at the moment but he is trending in that direction.
Injuries are part of the evaluation. I think you'll be having a biased assessment if you remove injuires out of it.
Ah but now you're putting words in my mouth or, at very least, telling me what my position is. Extract Benning out of the mix because the discussion becomes very polarized. Then ask the question, was the move good or bad, or the collection moves, good or bad. You can then make an assessment of whether the management is doing a good or a bad job. The problem arises when this assessment is done in the opposite direction....I am anti-Benning therefore every move he makes is either bad or he got kucky. Or, I'm pro-Benning and every move he makes is good to decent or there must have been extraneous circumstances out of his control...
Seeking objective truth doesn't mean one can't form an opinion good or bad. It just means the opinion isn't based in preconceived biases.
See the difference...
Frankie Blueberries
Dream Team
- Jan 27, 2016
- 9,414
- 10,992
Agreed, it's the textbook definition of 'weasel words', i.e. believing you are more reasonable/objective because you don't take a hard position on something.
Shareefruck
Registered User
My point is that being pro or anti-Benning does not require that one make judgments about every move based on their preconceived biases about him. It is merely a position that describes whether or not you've assessed that he's done a good or bad job as GM.
I'm not necessarily accusing you of standing in the middle, per say, but I do think that choosing to correct the idea of being pro or anti-Benning by stating that you're pro-objective truth instead implies that you think they aren't compatible. The only way they wouldn't be is if you stood in the middle, which I do not think is any more or less credible/sensible/in line with objective truth.
That's my point. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just objecting to the implications of the way that you phrased that, whether intended or not.
Last edited:
- Status
