GDT: GM28 | Vancouver Canucks vs Florida Panthers | Thur. Dec 12th | 7:00pm PST | SNP | JT MILLER *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*

[Shareefruck]

The owners owe us a good product because without us, they have no money to pay their players.

The players owe the owners a good team.

That's about it.

I would argue even this is too extreme.

The players owe the owners nothing besides whatever services are written in their contract-- They are simply being invested in and may suffer consequences for gambling wrong if those services aren't good enough.

The owners owe the fans nothing besides games being played-- Fans are simply willingly investing their time/money in them and may suffer consequences for gambling wrong if the product/team isn't good enough.

Obnoxious over-invested fan entitlement and fist-shaking over stuff like that is the worst. If the product is awful and they always lose (or even if the top players don't show up), you have not been wronged or betrayed for willingly spending your hard-earned money or your years of dedication/support on it-- there was never a guarantee in the first place. That transaction is fully paid either way and you were never owed a better outcome. You can be reasonably disappointed by the outcome, express that disappointment, and lose interest in supporting it moving forward, but that's about it-- anything more is uncalled for and just comes across as behaving like a petulant child. People like that need to get over themselves.

(not directed at you, just a general pet peeve that always annoys me)

 

[CanucksMJL]

@Vector bro the title is missing 2 claps what you doin

*CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*​

 

[Vector]

@Vector bro the title is missing 2 claps what you doin

Would have made the title too long. It bothers me too.

 

[supercanuck]

I'm curious to see how EP plays with JT back.

Does he keep it up or revert back to how he was playing before took some time away.

Best case scenario, EP stays with DeBrusk and Sherwood and they continue to produce.

JT comes back with Suter and Boeser and rekindle the previous chemistry.

Fingers crossed.

To be honest, I think it depends a lot on how much time he loses playing with QH. Or more precisely ,how much more time he needs to play with Forbort/Desharnais/etc. Prime Gretzky himself would have a hard to getting out of his own zone with our bottom 4.

 

[kanucks25]

Would have made the title too long. It bothers me too.

Just reduce the team names to their standard abbreviations:

FLO @ VCR

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Just reduce the team names to their standard abbreviations:

FLO @ VCR

Or as Friedman would say, IDA @ OUV.

 

[kanucks25]

Brannstrom has been on a run of poor play and this notion that he was our '3rd best defender' was also always rubbish. As soon as his leverage was amped up his play went downhill.

To be fair Soucy and Myers were ass to start the season and Brannstrom looked good although the minutes were sheltered. Relative to role I think it was fair to say he was performing as our 3rd best D but I guess that's semantics.

 

[Shareefruck]

To be fair Soucy and Myers were ass to start the season and Brannstrom looked good although the minutes were sheltered. Relative to role I think it was fair to say he was performing as our 3rd best D but I guess that's semantics.

It doesn't really make sense to base your D rankings on how players are relative-to-the-role. You would never say "Alex Biega is performing as our best defenseman" simply because he was playing above his role more than anyone.

 

[thecupismine]

Literally every organization/coach in the NHL that has ever existed would be giving Forbort a run of games after he was a significant summer signing. It would actually be worse if they relegated him to a healthy scratch after seeing him play 4 games while his dad was dying.

Friedman over Brannstrom is less defensible but Brannstrom has been on a run of poor play and this notion that he was our '3rd best defender' was also always rubbish. As soon as his leverage was amped up his play went downhill.

I understand the frustration with not dressing Brannstrom, but it’s pure insanity to suggest firing Tocchet with his decisions on what to do with dmen 5-8.

The man has coached almost the entire lineup to career best years, gotten the rotten culture that plagued multiple head coaches from 2015 onwards out of the room, and has instilled a strong system of accountability and structure.

But yes, the defense can’t pass and we get out shot as a result, clearly Tocchet’s fault for not coaching more offense out of the team.

 

[Rotang]

I don't love seeing Brannstrom out again, and don't know how Tocchet came away from the Blues game thinking that adjustments don't need to be made. Brannstrom hasn't been at his best lately but you could say the same for everyone else on defense outside of Hughes. Our inability to generate shots or possession when Hughes is on the bench is a theme at this point and Brannstrom has been one of the only consistent antidotes to that trend. Hell, it took us 12 minutes into the 3rd while trailing against the Blues to generate our first shot of the period.

This isn't the first time Tocchet has shown stubbornness or a straight up unwillingness to make adjustments. We got a taste of that in the playoffs when we were generating some of the lowest shot totals in NHL history.

In general Tocchet has been excellent for the franchise, he raised the floor for this team and rescued a floundering culture. Don't want to make too much out of bottom-half roster decisions in December... but it's frustrating to watch the team have more icings than scoring chances and then continue to sit their only other adequate puck mover.

 

[kanucks25]

It doesn't really make sense to base your D rankings on how players are relative-to-the-role. You would never say "Alex Biega is performing as our best defenseman" simply because he was playing above his role more than anyone.

Well I mean that's a disingenuous comparison.

Like none of our bottom pairing guys could ever realistically play their role so good that you think they are playing better than Hughes in his #1 role.

I do get what you're saying, though

 

[Leif Rohlin]

Panthers have a strong forecheck but the thing I've noticed is how quickly and effectively they generate chances off of it. The way they're able to create a turnover and just attack the net right away is deadly.

 

[Canucker]

It's not unreasonable to say that Brannstrom was one of the better defensemen we had on the ice for some time...we had a dumpster fire in Myers/Soucy, Desharnais has not been good at all and Juulsen has been pretty erratic...thats not a high bar to surpass, and he has levelled off a bit...but I'd rather have Brannstrom out there than some of the current options.

 

[Rowlet]

Just win please

 

[wonton15]

I just bought lower bowl tickets for $100… catch me in my Podkolzin black skate jersey eating a long hotdog tonight

 

[Flik]

Would have made the title too long. It bothers me too.

No choice but to delete the thread and start over then.

 

[Shareefruck]

Well I mean that's a disingenuous comparison.

Like none of our bottom pairing guys could ever realistically play their role so good that you think they are playing better than Hughes in his #1 role.

I do get what you're saying, though

Using a deliberately extreme case that's more obvious/undeniable in order to more clearly illustrate the principle/logic of what's being said should not be characterized as "disingenuous".

This is a misconception that always annoys me when people respond to analogies. "They're not the same thing!" Yes, of course they're not-- the point of drawing the parallel is not to give a directly equivalent comparison with the exact same degree of severity/likelihood of being believed-- that would typically be a lot more pointless, in my opinion, because they could be denied/disagreed upon just as easily and the principle is often lost without establishing the baseline.

It's more "realistically" easy to mistake Brannstrom as the #3 D, yes, but that doesn't logically add truth to the mistake in any way.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

 

[kanucks25]

Using a deliberately extreme case that's more obvious/undeniable in order to more clearly illustrate the principle/logic of what's being said should not be characterized as "disingenuous".

This is a misconception that always annoys me when people respond to analogies. "They're not the same thing!" Yes, of course they're not-- the point of drawing the parallel is not to give a directly equivalent comparison with the exact same degree of severity/likelihood of being believed-- that would typically be a lot more pointless, in my opinion, because they could be denied/disagreed upon just as easily and the principle is often lost without establishing the baseline.

It's more "realistically" easy to mistake Brannstrom as the #3 D, yes, but that doesn't logically add truth to the mistake in any way.

Agree to disagree (clap clap clap)

 

[VanJack]

I don't love seeing Brannstrom out again, and don't know how Tocchet came away from the Blues game thinking that adjustments don't need to be made. Brannstrom hasn't been at his best lately but you could say the same for everyone else on defense outside of Hughes. Our inability to generate shots or possession when Hughes is on the bench is a theme at this point and Brannstrom has been one of the only consistent antidotes to that trend. Hell, it took us 12 minutes into the 3rd while trailing against the Blues to generate our first shot of the period.

This isn't the first time Tocchet has shown stubbornness or a straight up unwillingness to make adjustments. We got a taste of that in the playoffs when we were generating some of the lowest shot totals in NHL history.

In general Tocchet has been excellent for the franchise, he raised the floor for this team and rescued a floundering culture. Don't want to make too much out of bottom-half roster decisions in December... but it's frustrating to watch the team have more icings than scoring chances and then continue to sit their only other adequate puck mover.

I don't thinking scratching Brannstrom for a game or two, is what is baffling and aggravating to Canuck fans......it's 'who' he chose to replace him with.

There's a reason why Friedman has spent a majority of the season in the minors. It really says something--and not in a positive way--that a callup from the AHL is somehow a better option than a guy who's played most of the last four seasons as an NHL d-man.

 

[Bleach Clean]

It's not unreasonable to say that Brannstrom was one of the better defensemen we had on the ice for some time...we had a dumpster fire in Myers/Soucy, Desharnais has not been good at all and Juulsen has been pretty erratic...thats not a high bar to surpass, and he has levelled off a bit...but I'd rather have Brannstrom out there than some of the current options.

Same. I think it's debatable that he was the 3rd best defender over that stretch (not rubbish at all). To think that position absurd is in itself absurd. His underlying profile attests to it (in a Rel sense).

Now in saying that, he did struggle in the top4, just like Myers and Soucy have done. When in that role, it's a pick 'em for me, but he's the best of the bottom4 at moving the puck so...?

 

[Jerry the great]

To be fair Soucy and Myers were ass to start the season and Brannstrom looked good although the minutes were sheltered. Relative to role I think it was fair to say he was performing as our 3rd best D but I guess that's semantics.

They have way harder matchups to deal with. VD and EB (so close to perfect comedy wise haha) are getting shelter from the storm to the extent it's possible. Soucy and Myers are being thrown to the wolves.

 

[Canuckle1970]

So...only one major injury (Hronek) to overcome now. JT will probably be a little rusty, but hope his mates help him out.
Will be good to see Sherwood back on the Petey/Debrusk line. GOALS GOALS GOALS.

Panthers can score 5 goals, as long as we can score 6.

 

[MS]

Same. I think it's debatable that he was the 3rd best defender over that stretch (not rubbish at all). To think that position absurd is in itself absurd. His underlying profile attests to it (in a Rel sense).

Now in saying that, he did struggle in the top4, just like Myers and Soucy have done. When in that role, it's a pick 'em for me, but he's the best of the bottom4 at moving the puck so...?

Fans continually underestimate the effect of usage on results.

If you gave Tyler Myers the butter-soft minutes Brannstrom was playing well in, he’d look like a superstar.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Fans continually underestimate the effect of usage on results.

If you gave Tyler Myers the butter-soft minutes Brannstrom was playing well in, he’d look like a superstar.

That is a misconception. Myers in the same role likely does better than he has, sure, but as good as Brannstrom? I'm doubtful.

Brannstrom was getting very high end results with Desharnais, and when controlled for rel stats, better than Soucy-Myers results (despite the difference in QualComp).