Who will be the RNH or Chris Kreider of this season?

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Man is RNH the worst offensive 100 point player ever lol.

The offense has opened up so much in this league that I think you see alot of veteran guys put up career highs in the next few years.

Aho potting 50 wouldn't shock me.

Matheson having a 2022 Montour lite year wouldn't shock me either.

Probably just luck, but Matheson did just have back-to-back top offensive seasons. This year he beat last year's total by 3 points in 26 less games playing on the f***ing habs with Alex "I played on the PP with the Sedins, so I know what I'm doing" Burrows as the pp coach.

 

[FlappyGiraffe]

I could see Nik Ehlers hitting 90+ points despite his career highs being in the 60s.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

My guess - Meier . Going to go off for 104 points .
Not going to happen but I’m trying to will it to happen

I don't think he has the vision for that.

I think an incredibly successful successful season for him is like 80 points, closer to 40-40 (not a big assist guy) but where he's contributing massively as a big forechecker, net front presence, puck retriever, etc.

In short, I don't think he has 100 point upside, but he could have a year where he provides considerably more than a 100 point RNH for example.

Probably just luck, but Matheson did just have back-to-back top offensive seasons. This year he beat last year's total by 3 points in 26 less games playing on the f***ing habs with Alex "I played on the PP with the Sedins, so I know what I'm doing" Burrows as the pp coach.

Burrows never played on the powerplay. He was an even strength beast, but he was never on the PP (by which I mean never substantially. He probably got some secondary minutes occasionally but it wasn't a big part of his game).

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

View attachment 736081
He's one of the Canucks best even-strength producers since coming onboard. This rate isn't an outlier either, since his career rate is 2.13, which is just fantastic.
Last year he even played a large chunk with Dries, on L3. So he started the year playing behind Boeser, even though he thoroughly outplayed him in 2021-22. That's on the coach, not him. Some significant lost points there.

For Garland's point totals to go up he needs to consistently be in the top 6 (where he belongs), get EN situations/OT for stat padding and most of all be on PP1. That's what's really missing. You're not gonna squeeze out much more at even-strength.
So he either needs to prove to Tocchet he can do the PP well and they put him on the main unit, or he's f***ed from reaching plateaus like 60-70 points. Injuries to others can enable him too I guess.

View attachment 736082
This is what he did with optimal usage at even-strength in 2021-22.
Boeser was a 1.17 that year. So Garland doubled him, but lost his spot when Kuzmenko arrived? Figure that one out.

Boeser, for all of his flaws (particularly the last couple of years) is far better at playing off of other stars.

Garland's like a one-man band. He plays his best when he's with lesser skilled linemates who defer to him while playing weak competition.

I haven't seen him make good players better at any point. He can't sustain a cycle, isn't great at one touch give-and-gos, and seems to reduce Miller or Petey's effectiveness when played with them.

Now, it's possible that we just have the wrong archetypes for him (maybe playing with a low playmaking center sniper like prime Eric Staal eg would have been better), but he's a worse option on the top 2 lines than Boeser even when Boeser struggles.

I'm not a big fan of Garland and would deal him far before Boeser. I do realize that makes me an outlier on hfcanucks.

 

[Based Anime Fan]

I predict Miles Wood will learn how to turn while skating, and as such not be an offensive-zone liability.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Boeser, for all of his flaws (particularly the last couple of years) is far better at playing off of other stars.

Garland's like a one-man band. He plays his best when he's with lesser skilled linemates who defer to him while playing weak competition.

I haven't seen him make good players better at any point. He can't sustain a cycle, isn't great at one touch give-and-gos, and seems to reduce Miller or Petey's effectiveness when played with them.

Now, it's possible that we just have the wrong archetypes for him (maybe playing with a low playmaking center sniper like prime Eric Staal eg would have been better), but he's a worse option on the top 2 lines than Boeser even when Boeser struggles.

I'm not a big fan of Garland and would deal him far before Boeser. I do realize that makes me an outlier on hfcanucks.

I don't watch the team often. I'm not really qualified to talk about how the success and failure is specifically occurring on the ice on a regular basis.
But I can post the actual cumulative results of the lines.

2021-22:

Garland: +11 with Miller, +1 with Pettersson
Boeser: +2 with Miller, -4 with Pettersson

=============================

2022-23:

Garland: -10 with Miller, +3 with Pettersson
Boeser: - 9 with Miller, +1 with Pettersson

...

So after 2 years we're at:
Garland: +1 with Miller and +4 with Pettersson
Boeser: -7 with Miller and -3 with Pettersson

I did this carefully and fairly, double-checking results. I got no dog in this fight. Just wanted to see what's actually happening over there.

Now, Boeser dramatically improved his production in year 2. Full credit there. His production rate doubled. However, his lines conceded so much to the point that it got largely negated. We also can't ignore that in 2021-22, his 5v5 production was so garbage that he didn't belong on any top 6 in the league, let alone a potent one like Vancouver's. Whereas, Garland was #1 on the team at that.
So it's a tale of two halves with Boeser, and who knows what we'll get with him in year 3?
We also need to remember he costs 1.7M more than CG.

Garland definitely gets the nod for being the more consistent of the 2 over the last few years. He got so little time with Pettersson in year 2 that we don't really know how that combo would work together moving forward. Very successful in the short time together last year though.
3 goals for, 0 allowed in 35 minutes. Reason for optimism.

So to sum it all up, I don't see the results here to justify Boeser being a top 6 lock. His lines are net negatives for the team.
That's sort of to be expected on teams that miss the playoffs, like Vancouver.
However, Garland has managed to have his lines be net positives cumulatively over the 2 years despite this.
The common thread is Miller struggled with both in year 2, tremendously. Pettersson's lines were much more helpful.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Probably Zacha. He’s going to be the Bruins #1C. I could see Geekie emerging too

Zacha
Geekie
Coyle
Boqvist
Brown

Not the sexiest on paper but it could surprise us.

 

[PettersonHughes]

If Ross Colton sees the top-6 and gels with the stars I wouldn't be surprised if he can get 50-55 points.

 

[Sensators]

Ehlers. If he stays healthy, gets PP1 and topline minutes.

I'm pretty sure he's allergic

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I don't watch the team often. I'm not really qualified to talk about how the success and failure is specifically occurring on the ice on a regular basis.
But I can post the actual cumulative results of the lines.

2021-22:

Garland: +11 with Miller, +1 with Pettersson
Boeser: +2 with Miller, -4 with Pettersson

=============================

2022-23:

Garland: -10 with Miller, +3 with Pettersson
Boeser: - 9 with Miller, +1 with Pettersson

...

So after 2 years we're at:
Garland: +1 with Miller and +4 with Pettersson
Boeser: -7 with Miller and -3 with Pettersson

I did this carefully and fairly, double-checking results. I got no dog in this fight. Just wanted to see what's actually happening over there.

Now, Boeser dramatically improved his production in year 2. Full credit there. His production rate doubled. However, his lines conceded so much to the point that it got largely negated. We also can't ignore that in 2021-22, his 5v5 production was so garbage that he didn't belong on any top 6 in the league, let alone a potent one like Vancouver's. Whereas, Garland was #1 on the team at that.
So it's a tale of two halves with Boeser, and who knows what we'll get with him in year 3?
We also need to remember he costs 1.7M more than CG.

Garland definitely gets the nod for being the more consistent of the 2 over the last few years. He got so little time with Pettersson in year 2 that we don't really know how that combo would work together moving forward. Very successful in the short time together last year though.
3 goals for, 0 allowed in 35 minutes. Reason for optimism.

So to sum it all up, I don't see the results here to justify Boeser being a top 6 lock. His lines are net negatives for the team.
That's sort of to be expected on teams that miss the playoffs, like Vancouver.
However, Garland has managed to have his lines be net positives cumulatively over the 2 years despite this.
The common thread is Miller struggled with both in year 2, tremendously. Pettersson's lines were much more helpful.

I should be clear that I'm not saying Boeser absolutely has to be a lock in the top 6. I'm sort of combining an ongoing debate amongst Canucks fans on whom to keep and I'm firmly on the keep Boeser side.

I know what the stats say, and I'm not saying Boeser hasn't had long stretches of not being top 6 worthy. But there's a lot of mitigating circumstances and I've seen him play really well off of top line line mates in the past. I think that if he gets his mind right and gets his fitness level back after a really hard couple of years personally, that he should be bare minimum as good as Toffoli because I've seen him be better in stretches and I like Toffoli.

Garland thus far has sort of stunted his lines when he's not the puck carrier. He also isn't good enough to be the quarterback of an NHL powerplay and I don't think he's good enough to be anything else other than a 2nd pp guy on a decent offensive NHL team.

Garland's not a bad player, I think Boeser's upside is higher and see a far higher likelihood of us kicking our own asses if we trade him.

So the stats are the stats and they're not lying per se. But there's a lot of nuance that isn't covered by them and I've watched basically every Canucks game for decades. That said, there are lots of Canucks fans who disagree with me and my opinion isn't unassailable. I'm just explaining my rationale.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

I should be clear that I'm not saying Boeser absolutely has to be a lock in the top 6. I'm sort of combining an ongoing debate amongst Canucks fans on whom to keep and I'm firmly on the keep Boeser side.

I know what the stats say, and I'm not saying Boeser hasn't had long stretches of not being top 6 worthy. But there's a lot of mitigating circumstances and I've seen him play really well off of top line line mates in the past. I think that if he gets his mind right and gets his fitness level back after a really hard couple of years personally, that he should be bare minimum as good as Toffoli because I've seen him be better in stretches and I like Toffoli.

Garland thus far has sort of stunted his lines when he's not the puck carrier. He also isn't good enough to be the quarterback of an NHL powerplay and I don't think he's good enough to be anything else other than a 2nd pp guy on a decent offensive NHL team.

Garland's not a bad player, I think Boeser's upside is higher and see a far higher likelihood of us kicking our own asses if we trade him.

Boeser's edge is the PP1 spot being his. His career PP numbers are average at best, but the team lacks the options for a suitable replacement.
So that will continue to save him. It's not like Beauvilier can step in. And yes, Garland's not the guy for that. I'm not sure what is holding him back, but it seems like that's just not something he can do well, in Vancouver or Arizona.

I'd say Boeser certainly has a much higher goal scoring potential, but playmaking? No chance. He lacks the footspeed for creating space to make plays, which really helps. My issue with the "potential" argument is that it entails a short period of time where someone peaks. I'm much more interested in career averages. They're far more reliable when projecting.
And this is what they say:

Boeser isn't even scoring goals better at even-strength in his career, and that's what he's supposed to be known for around the league. His point rate is still good, don't me wrong. 1.90 is definitely top 6 caliber. But Garland is a 5v5 beast. He has a better scoring rate than all my team's wingers outside of Guentzel. CG is not some guy you bury on the 3rd line with defensive usage and a crappy Center, unless you're purposely doing that for a balanced approach in the lineup. He's not like a Kapanen level skilled 3rd liner guy or whatever. He's far above it, and just doesn't get the respect he deserves. There's no results that suggest he's holding lines back at all, outside of maybe the failure with Miller last season. Boeser's line got torched with JT too though, so maybe the problem was Miller himself? I mean, Pettersson fared much better with both of them.
I'd also make the argument that Kuzmenko shouldn't be a default top 6 without a fight either. The man shot 27% lol. It was a great season for him, but it's over. Let's see what he brings in year 2. He's not established like these guys yet.

You bring up Toffoli as the benchmark to aspire to, but he's no better at production. He's heated up over the last 4 years (1.98) and last year he was finally given a PP1 role, so he had his career year. Boeser should be aspiring to produce like Garland already does. He needs to repeat how he produced last year (2.11). That was excellent. However, if it's coming at a cost of being a -20 player like last year, that's a problem. His defensive metrics have fallen hard over the last few years.

So the stats are the stats and they're not lying per se. But there's a lot of nuance that isn't covered by them and I've watched basically every Canucks game for decades. That said, there are lots of Canucks fans who disagree with me and my opinion isn't unassailable. I'm just explaining my rationale.

There's also a risk of bias towards Boeser here though. As someone who lives in Vancouver, I know he's someone Canucks fans pull hard for. He's a sympathetic figure because of his mental struggles in his past, and he's got a very likeable personality. Plus he's a goal scorer, and that's what attracts fans most.
It doesn't matter which of us is right. That shouldn't be the focus of this convo. This is just pure hockey talk. It should just be about analyzing what the truth here is.
You have the decided edge in experience in watching the players. I respect that. I can only provide the numbers and patterns. I watch maybe 15 Nucks games a year these days.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Boeser's edge is the PP1 spot being his. His career PP numbers are average at best, but the team lacks the options for a suitable replacement.
So that will continue to save him. It's not like Beauvilier can step in. And yes, Garland's not the guy for that. I'm not sure what is holding him back, but it seems like that's just not something he can do well, in Vancouver or Arizona.

I'd say Boeser certainly has a much higher goal scoring potential, but playmaking? No chance. He lacks the footspeed for creating space to make plays, which really helps. My issue with the "potential" argument is that it entails a short period of time where someone peaks. I'm much more interested in career averages. They're far more reliable when projecting.
And this is what they say:
View attachment 736426
View attachment 736427
Boeser isn't even scoring goals better at even-strength in his career, and that's what he's supposed to be known for around the league. His point rate is still good, don't me wrong. 1.90 is definitely top 6 caliber. But Garland is a 5v5 beast. He has a better scoring rate than all my team's wingers outside of Guentzel. CG is not some guy you bury on the 3rd line with defensive usage and a crappy Center, unless you're purposely doing that for a balanced approach in the lineup. He's not like a Kapanen level skilled 3rd liner guy or whatever. He's far above it, and just doesn't get the respect he deserves. There's no results that suggest he's holding lines back at all, outside of maybe the failure with Miller last season. Boeser's line got torched with JT too though, so maybe the problem was Miller himself? I mean, Pettersson fared much better with both of them.
I'd also make the argument that Kuzmenko shouldn't be a default top 6 without a fight either. The man shot 27% lol. It was a great season for him, but it's over. Let's see what he brings in year 2. He's not established like these guys yet.

View attachment 736428
You bring up Toffoli as the benchmark to aspire to, but he's no better at production. He's heated up over the last 4 years (1.98) and last year he was finally given a PP1 role, so he had his career year. Boeser should be aspiring to produce like Garland already does. He needs to repeat how he produced last year (2.11). That was excellent. However, if it's coming at a cost of being a -20 player like last year, that's a problem. His defensive metrics have fallen hard over the last few years.


There's also a risk of bias towards Boeser here though. As someone who lives in Vancouver, I know he's someone Canucks fans pull hard for. He's a sympathetic figure because of his mental struggles in his past, and he's got a very likeable personality. Plus he's a goal scorer, and that's what attracts fans most.
It doesn't matter which of us is right. That shouldn't be the focus of this convo. This is just pure hockey talk. It should just be about analyzing what the truth of the matter is.
You have the decided edge in experience in watching the players. I respect that. I can only provide the numbers and patterns. I watch maybe 15 Nucks games a year these days.

I genuinely hope we find a way to trade Garland to the Pens. I'm not saying he would be terrible for you guys either.

There are myriad factors that stats like this don't include such as most common opponents on the ice etc.

I'm just telling you that thus far, Garland has been the sort of player who marches to his own beat in terms of how he's playing. He doesn't really bring anyone with him. This year I got so tired of how poor he was at playing any part in sustaining offensive zone pressure. He took soooo many poor angle shots which are only useful when they're unexpected. But it was what he did like every 3rd possession and it ended in giveaways and zone exits all too many times.

He's not a fit on this team. Like I said, if I had Eric Staal in his prime I might prefer Garland to Boeser who's another shooter.

Garland hasn't looked good with Miller for any prolonged period where as Boeser has looked fantastic with him (though it was 3 and 4 years ago).

Garland doesn't seem to play well off of Petey and provides an inferior version of some of what Petey does and really does nothing to compliment him much.

On the topic of Kuzmenko, again you're using stats to guide your opinions and, to be fair, I can tell you're an intelligent observer.

But Kuzmenko and Petey had a real chemistry that comes from insanely high hockey sense on both of their parts.

Kuz did have an insanely high shooting percentage, but he also literally only takes high percentage shots and he's one of the best we've had in 2 decades at getting open at the right moment for a tap-in.

With that said, I predict his shooting percentage goes down and casual fans think he played a bunch worse. His assists will probably go up and he'll continue to learn the league.

There's a reasonable chance that 39 goals i the most he ever gets in a season and yet that doesn't preclude him from being a good top line winger.

 

[WayneGretzky]

Carter Verhaeghe

 

[AuroraBorealis]

I genuinely hope we find a way to trade Garland to the Pens. I'm not saying he would be terrible for you guys either.

I wanted him bad. Him or Reilly Smith to replace Zucker. Dubas, being the badass he is, got Smith. So I'm very happy.
I definitely wish we could give the Rust money to Garland though. Rust has had shockingly bad even-strength seasons with Crosby and Guentzel last year and in 2020-21. His ceiling is high but you just don't know what you're gonna get. His interest level wavers. He gets timid.
Garland on the other hand? Dude's a soldier.

I'm just telling you that thus far, Garland has been the sort of player who marches to his own beat in terms of how he's playing. He doesn't really bring anyone with him. This year I got so tired of how poor he was at playing any part in sustaining offensive zone pressure. He took soooo many poor angle shots which are only useful when they're unexpected. But it was what he did like every 3rd possession and it ended in giveaways and zone exits all too many times.

I understand that, but isn't all of this justified if the end results for the lines are better than with other wingers? It seems like the pluses are heavily outweighing the drawbacks throughout his career. Being a line driver is a very valued ability, because you're not dependant on the form of your teammates every night. Very useful on nights where the team is flat, in back to backs or 3 in 4's. It's particularly helpful on 3rd lines, where you get easier matchups and fewer O-zone starts. So you need to drag it up ice and create something from nothing.

The giveaways concern is valid. He had 37 to Boeser's 21.
But there's a flipside. He had 46 takeaways to Boeser's 23. So he's compensating.

Garland had virtually identical shooting % to Boeser, and it's Boeser getting the easier looks, because he's on PP1. So even if Garland is being wasteful with bad angle shots, he's balancing it out somewhere else.
Besides, bad angle shots can often allow for much needed freezes, where you need to get tired guys off the ice so you're not left vulnerable in transition. Depends on the situation. And often when you miss them, the puck caresses the boards and reaches your point men, so you maintain possession as well. There's also the passes off the pads option for goals, which is a proven tactic when you got nothing cooking.

Garland hasn't looked good with Miller for any prolonged period where as Boeser has looked fantastic with him (though it was 3 and 4 years ago).

Like I said, the Garland-Miller combo tore it up in 2021-22. It was a +11 line. That's better than any line on my team did last year.
We can't say he's never had success with him before, or that he can't again. He's also been a net positive with Pettersson. So whatever your feelings are about their chemistry, it's often not actually resulting in much damage. That's all that matters in the end. Doesn't matter how you get there as long as you get there.

On the topic of Kuzmenko, again you're using stats to guide your opinions and, to be fair, I can tell you're an intelligent observer.

But Kuzmenko and Petey had a real chemistry that comes from insanely high hockey sense on both of their parts.

Kuz did have an insanely high shooting percentage, but he also literally only takes high percentage shots and he's one of the best we've had in 2 decades at getting open at the right moment for a tap-in.

With that said, I predict his shooting percentage goes down and casual fans think he played a bunch worse. His assists will probably go up and he'll continue to learn the league.

There's a reasonable chance that 39 goals i the most he ever gets in a season and yet that doesn't preclude him from being a good top line winger.

I expect him to stay in the top-six for sure, but I still think he should be made to earn it. That goal and point rate was insane, and keeping that up would mean he's a genuine superstar. The best shooter in this league is probably Draisaitl, and he stabilized at 18.1%. It's probably safe to assume that Kuzmenko won't stay above him long term.
Kuzmenko's 5v5 P/P60 was 10th in the league as well. I'd be very surprised to see an encore. I haven't watched him enough to assess his ability though, in fairness.

 

[FinnishCoyote]

Barrett Hayton if he is still centering Keller and Schmaltz

 

[Buck Naked]

So people are basically just mentioning players who got signed or traded to very favourable situations or young players bound to break out? Doesn't seem similar to RNH or Kreider at all. They both really came from nowhere since they were in the exact same situations as the years before. Bertuzzi getting signed to play with Matthews or Connor Brown to play with McD are no brainers to score more points.

 

[McVespa99]

RNH is a vanilla player, soft as marshmallows.

He is pretty vanilla. Not soft though.

 

[Stive Morgan]

On the habs, I could see Matheson scoring 60+ pts

Yeah I could see it too based on how much our offense/puck movement relies on him and how much ice time he gets.

 

[HugeInTheShire]

For the Devils. I'll say Erik Haula now that a team committed multiple years to him. He clearly has some chemistry with Hughes and if he can stay there could best his previous career high of 55 points.

For the rest of the league I'll say Anthony Mantha finally gives a shit and goes off.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Another vote for Zacha.

 

[Gruyeriev]

So people are basically just mentioning players who got signed or traded to very favourable situations or young players bound to break out? Doesn't seem similar to RNH or Kreider at all. They both really came from nowhere since they were in the exact same situations as the years before. Bertuzzi getting signed to play with Matthews or Connor Brown to play with McD are no brainers to score more points.

Exactly what I was thinking. Kreider and RNH were players who had an extremely good year that broke from the norm that they consistently were for several years. They had outlier seasons. Sort of like Kadri’s last year with the Avs or what I hope could happen with RyJo this year. Guys like Bunting and Garland have a much smaller sample size.

 

[ScottyMascotty]

Evan Rodrigues if he plays entire season with Barkov and improves his finishing

 

[Zilo44]

Michael Matheson seems like a late bloomer. Let’s see if it lasts

 

[Thechozen1]

Ehlers. If he stays healthy, gets PP1 and topline minutes.

Would be HUGE for the Jets if he could put up 30 goals and 80 points.

 

[RickyLafleur]

From the Pens:

Pettersson has a career high of 24 points but should be paired with Karlsson and end up with a ton of minutes and secondary assists as a result, could see 60 points

If the Karlsson experiment works right could also see one of Smith/Rakell/Rust surpassing their career highs of 60-70 points and hitting 80-100 (in theory one of them is taking Guentzel's spot on PP1 to start the season)

Lol none of this will happen at all.