The Vancouver Media Thread | Part VIII

[Brookbank]

Willander was our best defender last night.

Played 22 minutes, only player on the team with a 50% or better SCF%, high-danger chances were 6-4 in our favour with him on the ice. Skated miles, defended well, actually threw a couple big hits, and the winning goal was a blown check from Kane when Willander was in position in front of goal.

This whole saga might be the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen from a reporter.

For those who don't know , that JD Burke guy thinks Willander sucks too

 

[Nucky]

For those who don't know , that JD Burke guy thinks Willander sucks too

I like analytics, but some of these dudes struggle with context. Age, experience, role, strength of team all matter. Some of the veteran defensemen they simp today would've been criticized by these same "analysts".

And to this day you still see "analytics" people overrate the soft usage players(especially on good teams) and underrate the guys who play difficult minutes(especially on bad teams). It's 2026 and this still happening is insane to me.

The "zone adjusted" and "score adjusted" stuff is arbitrary too and heavily flawed if used as the only context for difficulty of role.

It's always funny seeing a player's jfresh card when they go from playing tough minutes on a bad team to playing slightly easier minutes on a good team. Somehow that same exact player is way better now!

 

[HairyKneel]

For those who don't know , that JD Burke guy thinks Willander sucks too

The ANALytics crew. Most of whom can't skate, kick s soccer ball 100 feet, break an egg with a 57 mph heater, hit a golf ball 150 yards or hit 3/10 shots from the foulline.

The media in this town need to hit a f***ing gym. Pack of slobs. Jeff Paterson and Matt Sekeres look like a heart attack ready to happen. Drance would get plastered arrogantly cackling like he does in a pub, and JD Burke wears a string tie.

Again.... there's a place for Analytics but it can't be the be all end all in any sport let alone a sport so anxious and frenetic as hockey.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I don't condone this behaviour but, hell, Sekeres is out here looking like what I imagine a vampire looks like the moment before it combusts after sunlight exposure.

 

[F A N]

I don't condone this behaviour but, hell, Sekeres is out here looking like what I imagine a vampire looks like the moment before it combusts after sunlight exposure.

You getting Reverend II made?

 

[supercanuck]

Longtime Canucks broadcaster John Garrett has passed away suddenly | Daily Hive | Sports

It's too bad he didn't get to continue calling Canucks games. One of the best. RIP.

 

[hockeywiz542]

 

[IslandBeast]

Man I miss the 1040 days when it was actually Vancouver oriented all day. 650 is trash. Morning show for Canucks then boring ass baseball talk followed by Toronto Maple Leafs bootlicking.

 

[Champion]

Man I miss the 1040 days when it was actually Vancouver oriented all day. 650 is trash. Morning show for Canucks then boring ass baseball talk followed by Toronto Maple Leafs bootlicking.

There is five hours of daily Canucks programming you aren't including here, including two hours directly before the bootlicking.

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

I would love a full rebuild of the canucks media in this city. Constrantly stating how "weird" and "perplexing "so Canucks" this gm search has been but really theyve just been doing an extensive search and obviously didnt know who they were going to hire...that's why they're doing the search??? Like its this echochamber of morons who are just speculating. So sick of all of them except Brough, Halford, Shorty and Murph. That's it.

 

[iceburg]

Drance's recent narrative that NHL teams are clueless because they focus so much on size that they constantly miss on high end small players like Hutson and Benson, got some solid push back from Jannick Hansen on Canucks talk yesterday. I thought Hansen did a nice job of making the argument that size matters.

I always felt that Drance's argument here was weak at best. Given the number of small players that have high end impact, these are outliers rather than the rule (IMO). Drance seems to think there's this vast pool of small players that never got a chance because of their size and could be having elite impact. While, sure, there are lots of players that were dismissed because of their size, if they had elite skill particularly combined with a high level motor, they always rise to the top.

Bottom line is that size is one factor in assessing player value at the draft. The difference between it and other factors is that it's directly measurable. Improved evaluation techniques can be used to assess other factors but they are, to a certain extent, still subjective and translation to NHL success more difficult.

I guess, unlike Drance, I think the examples of Benson and Hutson are exceptions rather than the rule. It could just be that their names end with son...

 

[Champion]

Drance's recent narrative that NHL teams are clueless because they focus so much on size that they constantly miss on high end small players like Hutson and Benson, got some solid push back from Jannick Hansen on Canucks talk yesterday. I thought Hansen did a nice job of making the argument that size matters.

I always felt that Drance's argument here was weak at best. Given the number of small players that have high end impact, these are outliers rather than the rule (IMO). Drance seems to think there's this vast pool of small players that never got a chance because of their size and could be having elite impact. While, sure, there are lots of players that were dismissed because of their size, if they had elite skill particularly combined with a high level motor, they always rise to the top.

Bottom line is that size is one factor in assessing player value at the draft. The difference between it and other factors is that it's directly measurable. Improved evaluation techniques can be used to assess other factors but they are, to a certain extent, still subjective and translation to NHL success more difficult.

I guess, unlike Drance, I think the examples of Benson and Hutson are exceptions rather than the rule. It could just be that their names end with son...

What I take from his talk there is all things being equal outside of size, the bigger guy is better flat out. He's saying stop using height to call better hockey players worse than larger but shittier ones. I certainly don't see him saying try to get small guys cause that's who mo betta.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Drance's recent narrative that NHL teams are clueless because they focus so much on size that they constantly miss on high end small players like Hutson and Benson, got some solid push back from Jannick Hansen on Canucks talk yesterday. I thought Hansen did a nice job of making the argument that size matters.

I always felt that Drance's argument here was weak at best. Given the number of small players that have high end impact, these are outliers rather than the rule (IMO). Drance seems to think there's this vast pool of small players that never got a chance because of their size and could be having elite impact. While, sure, there are lots of players that were dismissed because of their size, if they had elite skill particularly combined with a high level motor, they always rise to the top.

Bottom line is that size is one factor in assessing player value at the draft. The difference between it and other factors is that it's directly measurable. Improved evaluation techniques can be used to assess other factors but they are, to a certain extent, still subjective and translation to NHL success more difficult.

I guess, unlike Drance, I think the examples of Benson and Hutson are exceptions rather than the rule. It could just be that their names end with son...

This was his thing yesterday, then today he went back to his other thing about how Buium is doomed to be a Sam Girard or Matt Grzelyck unless Hronek is traded asap & he plays PP1.

 

[rypper]

Drance also said that he immediately had doubts on Willander because of how loud it was when he accepted passes.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Drance also said that he immediately had doubts on Willander because of how loud it was when he accepted passes.

LOL that sounds like something a scout told him once and he clung to it.

It's not nothing that softer hands are better at cradling passes silently.

But it sounds like a dumb rationalization for a point he was already at.

 

[David71]

good interview. what he said about the dressing room with hughes still on the team before he got traded was tellling its not hard to decipher the words. garland and him probably bullied the younger guys. culture room needs a reset with johnson/sedins in charge. gotta need some savvy veterans to mentor these kids next season.

 

[F A N]

Drance's recent narrative that NHL teams are clueless because they focus so much on size that they constantly miss on high end small players like Hutson and Benson, got some solid push back from Jannick Hansen on Canucks talk yesterday. I thought Hansen did a nice job of making the argument that size matters.

I always felt that Drance's argument here was weak at best. Given the number of small players that have high end impact, these are outliers rather than the rule (IMO). Drance seems to think there's this vast pool of small players that never got a chance because of their size and could be having elite impact. While, sure, there are lots of players that were dismissed because of their size, if they had elite skill particularly combined with a high level motor, they always rise to the top.

Bottom line is that size is one factor in assessing player value at the draft. The difference between it and other factors is that it's directly measurable. Improved evaluation techniques can be used to assess other factors but they are, to a certain extent, still subjective and translation to NHL success more difficult.

I guess, unlike Drance, I think the examples of Benson and Hutson are exceptions rather than the rule. It could just be that their names end with son...

I do think that there are a lot of players that have been overlooked due to their size and that includes bottom pairing defenseman. But ya I do think Hansen is spot on.

If you look at the Cup winners over the last decade or more, the smaller and more skilled team didn't win. I think that aside from the Avs, the team that was able to dump the puck in and get it back won. Basically if you manage to force the other team to dump the puck in and you win the puck battle on your end and you manage to dump the puck in and win the puck battle in their end (or manage to force turnovers) you probably won the game and series.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Drance also said that he immediately had doubts on Willander because of how loud it was when he accepted passes.

Besides being dumb rationale, I've never seen a media member go to such lengths to bury a young player who is just starting out.

Even Brough was easier on Virtanen in like his D+5 (and it wouldve been more justified not to be)

 

[MS]

LOL that sounds like something a scout told him once and he clung to it.

It's not nothing that softer hands are better at cradling passes silently.

But it sounds like a dumb rationalization for a point he was already at.

It's mostly dumb because his hands and passing are extremely crisp, unlike a guy like EP2 who actually does have issues on that front.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

It's mostly dumb because his hands and passing are extremely crisp, unlike a guy like EP2 who actually does have issues on that front.

It's dumb for many reasons including this.

A phenomenon I've noticed but never really seen people mention is 'First Rounder Hands'.

I notice that just about anyone picked in the top half of the 1st has ridiculous hands for passing, puck reception, and hand-eye for knocking pucks down.

Even the busts.

And it always looks so smooth.

I think of like Luke Schenn. Not much mobility, but put a puck near him and he will receive it in stride.

Gudbranson would be an exception to the rule.

But then a number of the lower round picks who explode often don't have those micro skills that stand out in such a pronounced way (this is obviously something scouts code for).

 

[Peen]

This was his thing yesterday, then today he went back to his other thing about how Buium is doomed to be a Sam Girard or Matt Grzelyck unless Hronek is traded asap & he plays PP1.

I don't agree with his willander stuff but this doesn't seem to be a criticism of Buium who he is high on as a core piece going forward. He's not saying Sam Girard is a bad player.. it's that you have to pay to dump a guy like Girard at 5 million.

Like that secondary lefty puck mover isn't a player who retains significant value. I think we need Buium to make a significant jump. Maybe I'm biased because I'd already been thinking that about Buium and was extremely skeptical (honestly against) signing him long term this summer.

 

[MS]

PP points for D are largely meaningless window dressing.

Whether Hronek or Buium or Willander or someone else picks up the 20 free PP points/year for being the PP1 guy is largely irrelevant to how these players actually develop as defenders and how and if the pairings actually roll effectively at ES and on the PK.

 

[Peen]

PP points for D are largely meaningless window dressing.

Whether Hronek or Buium or Willander or someone else picks up the 20 free PP points/year for being the PP1 guy is largely irrelevant to how these players actually develop as defenders and how and if the pairings actually roll effectively at ES and on the PK.

I don’t disagree with the second part of that.

But how can you just say free PP points when clearly some guys are much better at it than others?

5v5 scoring is the focus for being consistent at controlling play but you need to build a legitimate top 10 5-man PP unit to be a really good team.

If Buium is a 2nd pairing evens guy but can’t play PP1, then you need one of your first pairing guys to basically be an all-rounder elite PK1/Matchup/PP guy. If he plays PP1, then you can get away with a Marcus Pettersson/Alex Edler type on a matchup pairing.

It’s just totally different in how it impacts value and team building.

 

[Nucky]

I don't agree with his willander stuff but this doesn't seem to be a criticism of Buium who he is high on as a core piece going forward. He's not saying Sam Girard is a bad player.. it's that you have to pay to dump a guy like Girard at 5 million.

Like that secondary lefty puck mover isn't a player who retains significant value. I think we need Buium to make a significant jump. Maybe I'm biased because I'd already been thinking that about Buium and was extremely skeptical (honestly against) signing him long term this summer.

Agreed, especially considering the numbers people are throwing around are in the $8M AAV ballpark, at that point the risk/reward of going long vs bridging isn't even super appealing, especially since we're now entering an era where cap space is abundant anyway. I'd rather wait and if he breaks out then okay I'll pay him his $10M AAV instead in a couple of years.

 

[MS]

I don’t disagree with the second part of that.

But how can you just say free PP points when clearly some guys are much better at it than others?

5v5 scoring is the focus for being consistent at controlling play but you need to build a legitimate top 10 5-man PP unit to be a really good team.

If Buium is a 2nd pairing evens guy but can’t play PP1, then you need one of your first pairing guys to basically be an all-rounder elite PK1/Matchup/PP guy. If he plays PP1, then you can get away with a Marcus Pettersson/Alex Edler type on a matchup pairing.

It’s just totally different in how it impacts value and team building.

Honestly, outside of a small group of 5 or so guys the other 25 PP1D guys in the NHL are pretty interchangeable.

Buium will surely be playing those minutes eventually but I'm not in a rush and the priority should be his two-way game at ES. And holding off on handing him the free points probably lowers his contract ask as well.