Around the league (signings, RFAs injuries)

[SKYO]

Don't feel like getting into that injury debate, I'm all about moving forward with this team.

Anyways to help overcome those injury bugs, I think it's a good plan to target a top 6 forward who can play both center and wing.

It's also why I'm glad to see Granlund being moved up to a top 9 winger spot so he can be that backup center just in case, which is thanks to Gaunce proving he can make leap to the pro's finally as the new 4th line checking center, for which he's much more suited for compared to Grans.

Gaunce had some good chemistry with Zale, Carcone and Labate, with strong forechecking and creating some scoring chances, so hopefully Gauncy can continue that with Dorsett and probably Burrows.

[Strangelove]

Rocky Dennis pull your head out of your sigmoid colon re catastrophic injuries. Lots of teams are inured way worse and manage to make a go of it due to organizational depth .Come up for some air brother

Sometimes I wonder if you can even read Blob.
Depth, or lack thereof, is what I was referring to. I thought that was pretty obvious. So you are absolutely correct, the best teams can make it through injuries and you just made my case for me when I said injuries are the only conceivable factor that would cause the Canucks to finish with a lowly 65 points. Allow me to spell it out for you if you still don't get it: Canucks' lack of organizational depth+a rash of injuries=a piss poor points total. Why? Because this team will not be able to overcome it.
You might try taking off your dark-cloud tinted glasses once in a while man, it can make for some tiresome reading. Just because someone doesn't regurgitate your constant negativity doesn't mean they think the Nucks will win the cup this year...or even make the playoffs. It's very likely the Canucks will be competetive this season, perhaps even flirt with the 8th seed if things go their way. That all these hack "journalists" are picking them to finish bottom three just gives me more confidence because it's becoming pretty clear these days that a total lack of credibility and an eastern bias is all that is required to be a hockey writer. If you, or anyone, honestly think a reasonably healthy Canucks team finishes with 65 points this year, you are as out to lunch as Tuna.

What's the difference between blob and tuna?

answer: You can tune a blob, but you can't blob a tuna!

errrr... wait... okay, yeah there's no difference.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Yeah no Rockstar you pissed and cried about injuries like a lot of other folks. You NEVER mentioned depth once in your post. Again, remove your head from your own anus or Docs it doesn't matter to me but get some fucking air when you want to sit at the big kids table.

[Rocky Dennis]

Yeah no Rockstar you pissed and cried about injuries like a lot of other folks. You NEVER mentioned depth once in your post. Again, remove your head from your own anus or Docs it doesn't matter to me but get some fucking air when you want to sit at the big kids table.

Are you trying on purpose to be a stunned cunny? I Don't remember crying about injuries at all. You tend to get used to them as a Canucks fan - or at least you should. And no, I never once mentioned depth in my original post - as i stated in my reply to you (again with the reading disability?), I thought it was pretty obvious. But if you're as dense as you are coming across right now, maybe it's possible you missed it.
If I say only that only cataclysmic injury parade will lead the Canucks to finish with 65 points, the natural conclusion should be that it is because the replacements will not be good enough to do any better. I can't believe I had to attempt to explain that again. Jeebus, this is the forum-posting equivalent to bashing your head against a brick wall. Or am I missing something? What, pray tell, in god's good name would the alternative reason be that an injury riddled canucks team would finish as low as 65pts?
So Big Kid, if you really think the Nucks finish with 65 points, I'd be happy to place money on that one as well.
ps. way to change up your material.
pps. you can go ahead and re-run another one of your "you've got your head up your ass come up for air" flame posts but I won't waste any more space or people's reading time running in circles on this. If you don't get it by now, you won't ever get it.

[Rocky Dennis]

What's the difference between blob and tuna?

answer: You can tune a blob, but you can't blob a tuna!

errrr... wait... okay, yeah there's no difference.

Well, now that the deal is sealed, all we need now is for the Nucks to finish higher in the standings and we can TUNE OUT the Tuna.

[Island Nucklehead]

We're better than 65 points, probably in that Senators/Avalanche/Oilers 70's range (ie, where we finished last year).

Even if we improve the goal differential by +20, we're still a lottery team.

[Aaronp18]

Lots of teams are inured way worse and manage to make a go of it due to organizational depth .Come up for some air brother

I'd actually like you to point out the "lots" of teams who were injured way worse and still made a go of it.

The following is a thread from HF in early April 2016 looking at man games lost:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showt ... ?t=2059145




So any team with more than 300 man games lost missed the playoffs. Not to mention Vancouver has one of the biggest circles in the bottom image which means they had one of the highest cumulative quality of players man games lost as well. Oh and doesn't TO's numbers have some perma-LTIR players that would skew the numbers even moreso?

Looking at this it's really no surprise the Canucks wound up where they did. And someone saying that if the Canucks can stay healthier this season they should make a good run at a playoff spot can actually be backed by some verifiable statistics.

The only team in the top 10 of man games lost that made the playoffs was Pittsburgh, it may help that they have the best player in the league on their team but I'm just spit-balling here!

What this also shows is how shitty Calgary really is, not a lot of man games and key injuries but they still finished near the bottom. Add in a few injuries (or contract holdouts) and they could easily finish near the basement!

[Blob Mckenzie]

Yes Aaron I get that they had a lot of man games lost to injury. That said I didn't see a ton a quality players being injured other than Edler or Hamhuis and Tanev for a short stint.I guess Sutters injuries hurt a bit due to the fact Horvat had to do too much defensive lifting , but that's where a lack of depth comes in. Losing a guy like Sbisa is almost a blessing in the fact that he's so useless so the team can have a look at other younger guys who may actually improve and be part of the team moving forward.

[Ronning's Ghost]

I'd actually like you to point out the "lots" of teams who were injured way worse and still made a go of it.

The following is a thread from HF in early April 2016 looking at man games lost:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showt ... ?t=2059145

...

So any team with more than 300 man games lost missed the playoffs. Not to mention Vancouver has one of the biggest circles in the bottom image which means they had one of the highest cumulative quality of players man games lost as well. Oh and doesn't TO's numbers have some perma-LTIR players that would skew the numbers even moreso?

Looking at this it's really no surprise the Canucks wound up where they did. And someone saying that if the Canucks can stay healthier this season they should make a good run at a playoff spot can actually be backed by some verifiable statistics.

The only team in the top 10 of man games lost that made the playoffs was Pittsburgh, it may help that they have the best player in the league on their team but I'm just spit-balling here!

What this also shows is how shitty Calgary really is, not a lot of man games and key injuries but they still finished near the bottom. Add in a few injuries (or contract holdouts) and they could easily finish near the basement!

I really appreciate posts like this one.

[Aaronp18]

Yes Aaron I get that they had a lot of man games lost to injury. That said I didn't see a ton a quality players being injured other than Edler or Hamhuis and Tanev for a short stint.I guess Sutters injuries hurt a bit due to the fact Horvat had to do too much defensive lifting , but that's where a lack of depth comes in. Losing a guy like Sbisa is almost a blessing in the fact that he's so useless so the team can have a look at other younger guys who may actually improve and be part of the team moving forward.

Blob, there were stints where Henrik, Sutter and Prust were out. So we had Horvat to play centre! It was the equivalent to assembling a team for a 11pm Sunday beer league game - "fuck, what spares can we find???"

No team in the league has that depth.

Take the top 2 d-men out of any lineup for extended stretches and most teams will falter.

Depth is necessary for sure but it only gets you so far.

We can only have so many contracts, and even harder to have decent waiver ineligible players. Sure saying we need more depth is easy but it's not as easy to attain. Even if we had a shit ton of draft picks eventually those players will all want NHL contracts and become waiver eligible.

Really, the only solution is to do whatever it takes to stay healthy and more importantly keep your core players healthy! Sometimes its just impossible.

[Topper]

Yes Aaron I get that they had a lot of man games lost to injury. That said I didn't see a ton a quality players being injured other than Edler or Hamhuis and Tanev for a short stint.I guess Sutters injuries hurt a bit due to the fact Horvat had to do too much defensive lifting , but that's where a lack of depth comes in. Losing a guy like Sbisa is almost a blessing in the fact that he's so useless so the team can have a look at other younger guys who may actually improve and be part of the team moving forward.

Henrik
Hanson
Verbata
STALLWART
Markstrom
Miller

Prust
Higgins

[Mickey107]

Injuries were undoubtedly part of the reason why the Canucks were bad last year. But, last year, like this year, they simply lack the requisite amount of goal scorers.

Best case scenario they get what...169 goals from their forwards and 34 from their D for a total of 203 (+/- 10) goals . A few more than last year, but still not enough.

Daniel 25
Eriksson 25
Hansen 18
Horvat 18
Bartchee 15
Sutter 12
Henrik 10
Rodin 10
Virtanen 10
Gaunce 5
Granlund 5
Burrows 5
Dorsett 5
Etem 4

Edler 10
Tanev 5
Hutton 6
Gudbranson 4
Larsson 5
Sbisa 5
Tryamkim 3
Pedan 1

Stecher 18

[Rocky Dennis]

Really, the only solution is to do whatever it takes to stay healthy and more importantly keep your core players healthy! Sometimes its just impossible.

I concur with ronning's ghost - nice informative couple of posts there.
I wonder if the team had any regrets or 2nd thoughts with the overhaul of the training/medical staff. From an outsider looking in, it seemed that injuries/health took a step backwards last year. Could just be coincidence.

[Rocky Dennis]

Injuries were undoubtedly part of the reason why the Canucks were bad last year. But, last year, like this year, they simply lack the requisite amount of goal scorers.

Best case scenario they get what...169 goals from their forwards and 34 from their D for a total of 203 (+/- 10) goals . A few more than last year, but still not enough.

Daniel 25
Eriksson 25
Hansen 18 (lower: 12-15. Don't think he'll be with the Twins nearly as much this year)
Horvat 18
Bartchee 15 (higher: 18-20)
Sutter 12 (higher: 20)
Henrik 10
Rodin 10 (higher:15)
Virtanen 10
Gaunce 5
Granlund 5
Burrows 5
Dorsett 5
Etem 4

Edler 10
Tanev 5
Hutton 6 (higher:10)
Gudbranson 4
Larsson 5
Sbisa 5
Tryamkim 3
Pedan 1

I think those numbers are pretty fair but there are a few that I see a bit differently. Obviously these do not take injury into consideration but in the end I can see them improved enough in both GF and GA compared to last year; enough to get them to that competitive +/-10 differential. It's nowhere near cup quality but quite possibly hovering around the playoff cutoff.

[Hockey Widow]

When Benning did his post mortem he said the number of injuries to key people exposed the lack of depth in the franchise and those two combined he felt were the critical factor in us not making the playoffs. The lack of depth part he took the blame saying that's on him for not ensuring we had the depth to be able to overcome the injuries.

That I think is the key in the overcoming of injuries part on any team. Good teams not only have good players they have sufficient depth to fill in when the inevitable injury bug hits. We did not have the depth last year.

We have more depth this year but we'll still be tested if we lose two of our top four or three of our four centres for stretches. But we may be better suited to sustain it this season. Injuries do matter. Depth separates the good teams from the pretenders. Even at full strength we were a pretender last year, a pretender who could have made the playoffs but I doubt went much further, although once in.......