Post-Game Talk: Vancouver Canucks Young Stars Classic Penticton BC Sept 5-9

[me2]

Fun times over. Now on to the big boys show where we can get a genuine feel for how NHL ready they are.

 

[ohnoeszz]

I completely disagree with what people are saying about Tommernes. IMO he was our best defensemen aside from Corrado. He settled the play really well, moved the puck up ice and was overall much more calm and composed than everyone but Corrado.

Defensively he was good positionally and didn't shy from contact (though he definitely doesn't play a physical style). What stood out most about him was his ability along the offensive blueline where I thought he was the best even including Corrado. He has a lot of little things to his game that gives him passing angles to extend puck possession. Look at the play Shinkaruk scored on today... his ability to move along the blueline is the best of our prospects. His shot is effective as well - no idea where that criticism came from.

He may be older than most but he was making an impact all over the ice. He was a huge boon to puck possession in every zone.

 

[me2]

shots were 32 to 14? wow. Eriksson FTW

seems like they got badly outplayed based on shots, you'd have to call this one a win for the Jets rookies based on form if that is true. We need more reports.

Edit: Shots from the Winnipeg report
1st 16 - 6
2nd 9 -7
3rd ??

Video says 32 saves for Eriksson.

Canucks game report have it as 23 saves for Eriksson for the game. (23 typo of 32?)

 

[arsmaster*]

Shots were 32-23. Don't know where 14 came from.

 

[Bieksa#3]

So who were the best players for the Canucks in the tourny?

Is there a clear top 5?

Jensen, Cassels and Corrado seem to shine all tourny

 

[Shareefruck]

I prefer Tommernes to Guimond by quite a but.

 

[orcatown]

To me, Andersson and Tommernes were disappointing.

Maybe I was expecting too much. However, felt that Andersson showed enough in Chicago last year to have some belief that Andersson could dominate in this tournament. And I feel that you have to dominate here if you have expectations of moving to the next level. Moreover, Andersson has to toughen up around his crease. You can't just let people run or whack away at your goalie.

Still I would not say Andersson was bad. I never saw him get beat one on one (which was a problem in the past) and his spacing and coverage were good. Furthermore, the wingers often screwed up decent outlet passes creating major difficulties for all the defensemen in the tournament. Ultimately Andersson will be a complementary player who should work well with other skilled players. That is probably the best you can expect. I would say that he did not show he was moving it up to the next level in this tournament and confirmed the thought that he is not going to be a "take charge" type of player.

Tommernes got better as the tournament moved along and was apparently good today. But he was not as dynamic as you might have expected. Like Andersson there is skill here but also open questions about his grit in handling people around his net. I think it was pretty obvious these would always be the questions about this player and I don't think that Tommernes play in this tournament did much to dispel those doubts.

Player that I believe is being under-rated here and elsewhere is Eriksson. I thought he was every bit as good as Lack was a couple of years ago (when everyone was raving about Lack). Every game I saw Eriksson in he was good (and seems like he was again excellent today). It was almost like people (especially some of the local commentators) went into the tournament with a negative attitude toward Eriksson and found every excuse to criticize him. In reality, there were often times when he was a one man show facing shots from all over. Indeed, if he hadn't been good, the Canucks could have been blown out in some games. Also, some of the goals he did let in (especially in the Calgary game) were nothing like his fault or were, in some cases, fluky.

Eriksson still has a lot to prove but based on this tournament I think you can have some hope.

Would also say that some seem to think other people are trying to be too conclusive. Like their criticism was tantamount to declaring someone a bust. I believe instead that, in the main, people are only giving what you might call progress reports (and that is basically what this and other such sites are about). If you are saying someone is looking more like a prospect or less like a prospect you are not being definitive. I do believe that there are cases were the player is obviously too fundamentally poor or weak to say you think he has no chance (say with people like Hall and Franson) but with significant prospects, such as Gaunce, you are only giving your impression at this time.

 

[The Iron Goalie]

I prefer Tommernes to Guimond by quite a but.

Agreed one Can play D...one can't, and both can play the offensive have very well...so Tommernes>>Guimond based on D alone

 

[tantalum]

Tommernes was the oldest guy on the ice in a tournament designed mainly for teenagers and didn't stand out. That's not a good thing.

And it isn't that he played 'badly'. It's just that it's quite obvious that he doesn't have a pro skillset. He's a tiny, non-physical defender who isn't great offensively, is a decent-but-not-great skater, and has a shot that would have trouble tearing through a wet paper bag.

Same player as Sebastien Erixon, another 'pretty decent' SEL defender who came over here and couldn't stick in the AHL. You don't need a ton of viewings to see that he's plainly not NHL material, and at 23 he's close to a finished product.

Never said he'd be a NHLer just that there is no point reading much into what he did or didn't do in this tournament. Yes he's 23 and he may indeed suck. He's also a guy that has played at a much higher level of competition quite successfully the past handful of years compared to this tournament. He a guy who knows he's going to be at main camp and knows that is where he needs to impress. This tournament for a guy like him is essentially meaningless beyond getting accustomed to the rink dimensions. Don't be shocked that a guy like Tommernes is the one amongst the various young blueliners that is able to take a major step forward when the real camp begins.

and that goes for any of the players that already have NHL contracts. This tournament is only an extra week to warm up and get into shape before the real work begins.

 

[JA]

I think Shinkaruk is the prospect I'm most excited about seeing these next few weeks. Even if he isn't ready, his potential is something to look forward to.

 

[The Iron Goalie]

I think Shinkaruk is the prospect I'm most excited about seeing these next few weeks. Even if he isn't ready, his potential is something to look forward to.

Agreed...however I'd say I was most impressed by Cassels every game I watched in Penticton his game just grew and grew on me...but I loved watching Hunter as well

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I think Shinkaruk is the prospect I'm most excited about seeing these next few weeks. Even if he isn't ready, his potential is something to look forward to.

Not often that we've drafted a pure-skill player in recent years with a top pick. I'd say Michael Grabner was our last one. Hodgson had some incredible skill, but was still touted as more of a safe, two-way player (I guess the defensive game is still a work in progress, there).

But yeah, Shinkaruk's skill level is drool worthy. Horvat's strength on the puck and smarts are equally so.

 

[vanuck]

Replay of the Canucks-Jets game up on http://youngstars.insinc.com/.

 

[Bieksa#3]

Replay of the Canucks-Jets game up on http://youngstars.insinc.com/.

that was from two years ago lol

 

[tc 23]

Highlights of the Jets game on the Canucks YouTube channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC8b0KuDCuQ

 

[vanuck]

^ Thanks for the link.

that was from two years ago lol

Oh dang, my bad! I saw the link from one of the previous Young Stars threads and had it saved without even really checking it out.

 

[Shareefruck]

I was actually pretty down on the way Shinkaruk played, but he somehow has 4 points in 3 games.... weird.

Also, Cole Cassels actually plays alot more like Andrew Cassels than I expected. Understated, well-rounded, really smart passer.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

To me, Andersson and Tommernes were disappointing.

Maybe I was expecting too much. However, felt that Andersson showed enough in Chicago last year to have some belief that Andersson could dominate in this tournament. And I feel that you have to dominate here if you have expectations of moving to the next level. Moreover, Andersson has to toughen up around his crease. You can't just let people run or whack away at your goalie.

Still I would not say Andersson was bad. I never saw him get beat one on one (which was a problem in the past) and his spacing and coverage were good. Furthermore, the wingers often screwed up decent outlet passes creating major difficulties for all the defensemen in the tournament. Ultimately Andersson will be a complementary player who should work well with other skilled players. That is probably the best you can expect. I would say that he did not show he was moving it up to the next level in this tournament and confirmed the thought that he is not going to be a "take charge" type of player.

Tommernes got better as the tournament moved along and was apparently good today. But he was not as dynamic as you might have expected. Like Andersson there is skill here but also open questions about his grit in handling people around his net. I think it was pretty obvious these would always be the questions about this player and I don't think that Tommernes play in this tournament did much to dispel those doubts.

Player that I believe is being under-rated here and elsewhere is Eriksson. I thought he was every bit as good as Lack was a couple of years ago (when everyone was raving about Lack). Every game I saw Eriksson in he was good (and seems like he was again excellent today). It was almost like people (especially some of the local commentators) went into the tournament with a negative attitude toward Eriksson and found every excuse to criticize him. In reality, there were often times when he was a one man show facing shots from all over. Indeed, if he hadn't been good, the Canucks could have been blown out in some games. Also, some of the goals he did let in (especially in the Calgary game) were nothing like his fault or were, in some cases, fluky.

Eriksson still has a lot to prove but based on this tournament I think you can have some hope.

Would also say that some seem to think other people are trying to be too conclusive. Like their criticism was tantamount to declaring someone a bust. I believe instead that, in the main, people are only giving what you might call progress reports (and that is basically what this and other such sites are about). If you are saying someone is looking more like a prospect or less like a prospect you are not being definitive. I do believe that there are cases were the player is obviously too fundamentally poor or weak to say you think he has no chance (say with people like Hall and Franson) but with significant prospects, such as Gaunce, you are only giving your impression at this time.

I have to disagree.

I'm not going to take too much from three games of shinny, but I was not impressed by Eriksson.

His positioning was poor (maybe a style thing?), and his rebound control was pretty bad. Again, I'm not going to judge him on this tournament, but in the two games he played he didn't stand out in a good way.

Definitely not as impressed with him as I was with Lack's showing his first year.

 

[Cogburn]

Guimond, along with Cassels, Subban, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Horvat, Gaunce and Jensen, should all be included in the trek to the Rupe. Believe it or not, I think Mallet and a few others should get the call too, but I don't see he or guys like Friesen making too big an impact this year.

Who else would/should/could join the big Canucks team?

 

[David71]

Guimond, along with Cassels, Subban, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Horvat, Gaunce and Jensen, should all be included in the trek to the Rupe. Believe it or not, I think Mallet and a few others should get the call too, but I don't see he or guys like Friesen making too big an impact this year.

Who else would/should/could join the big Canucks team?

guess wel'll find out soon tmr? who makes the cut to main camp

 

[ohnoeszz]

Guimond, along with Cassels, Subban, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Horvat, Gaunce and Jensen, should all be included in the trek to the Rupe. Believe it or not, I think Mallet and a few others should get the call too, but I don't see he or guys like Friesen making too big an impact this year.

Who else would/should/could join the big Canucks team?

I don't know what Rupe is, but Guimond doesn't belong in the same sentence as those other guys.

Friesen actually really impressed me this camp. He is far from refined offensively but he's effective in that capacity despite a relatively low skill level of seeing the ice. Defensively he's extremely active and he makes really good reads on the forecheck and in the neutral zone. He's smaller but plays more physical than most players on the ice. I think he has a future as a 4th liner, even as the kind of 4th liner that everyone loves.

Mallet could contribute this year IMO as I think he has a game that really fits the wing and he plays a smart north-south style with grit. I doubt he'll get the opportunity but if we were a team like the Isles or Stars, I think he'd get it and do just fine - potentially even surprise.

As for Eriksson, I liked his performance but I think he needs to refine his game. He's really effective in playing big but he moves a lot in the crease.

 

[biturbo19]

I think a lot of people are falling into a trap of calling every defender who plays a similar style to Tanev 'another Tanev'.

Tanev and Corrado both stood out above their competition pretty much from the first shift of their first training camps. They did this despite not being offensive players or actively joining the rush, because of their obviously superior anticipation, footwork, and mobility, and ability to react to pressure situations and always look completely in control and make the right play.

As NHL players, yeah, they might blend into the woodwork as 'solid defensive defenders who are usually doing the little things right'. But at lower levels, they look like absolute studs. And I think it's a trap to think that every 'conservative' player is comparable, because they look similar against ECHL competition to how Tanev/Corrado look against NHLers.

This.

Particularly in reference to Anderson imo. From everything i've seen, he's beyond just being the 'safe, steady, reliable' defensive defenceman territory...and basically into the territory of, 'doesn't make plays' with the puck. He just simply doesn't do...anything. It was evident in the AHL, but even more so in a tournament like this where the veteran guys have some room to freelance a bit and actually make tape to tape passes, generate offense, make plays. Andersson just...doesn't.

Even those 'safe' defensive defencemen like Tanev who hasn't a hint of offensive swagger at the NHL (or really even AHL) level, looked offensively gifted in a tournament like this, just on his anticipation and the speed the game was played at for him there.

 

[Angry Little Elf]

Vancouver, B.C. – Vancouver Canucks President and General Manager Michael D. Gillis announced today that the Canucks have reduced their prospects training camp roster by four players.
The following players have been released:
Adam De Champlain Left Wing
Cain Franson Left Wing
Daniel Johnston Defence
Philippe Maillet Centre
Don't know if that was posted, but those are the cuts.

 

[Pip]

No real surprises on that list

 

[tc 23]

Yeah, nothing surprising. I thought Franson looked the best of the group though. I always remember the big hit he had that that one game that led to the great chance for Cassels.