In their prime, who are you choosing?

[theman]

Both players in their prime, who would you choose to build a new Canucks team around?

I was tempted to add Mogilny or even Linden to this, but decided not to. Hughes and Bure are a cut above everyone else IMO.

[Cornuck]

To build a team around - I have to go with Hughes, since he drives the play every time he's on the ice.

As for "who would you draft?" or "you can keep one" - that's a little tougher.

Bure was magical, long-suffering Canuck fans (and the league) hadn't seen anything like him before.

Both players make you take notice when they have the puck, since they can make anything happen.

Not sure who I would pick in an either/or situation.

[theman]

To build a team around - I have to go with Hughes, since he drives the play every time he's on the ice.

As for "who would you draft?" or "you can keep one" - that's a little tougher.

Bure was magical, long-suffering Canuck fans (and the league) hadn't seen anything like him before.

Both players make you take notice when they have the puck, since they can make anything happen.

Not sure who I would pick in an either/or situation.

It is a tough one. I am a bit more inclined to go with Hughes as I think he is a 'rarer find.' Bure might be a bit more electric and overall better but I think Hughes plays a position which is a bit harder to find a truly special/unique play driver.

[Meds]

To build a team around - I have to go with Hughes, since he drives the play every time he's on the ice.

As for "who would you draft?" or "you can keep one" - that's a little tougher.

Bure was magical, long-suffering Canuck fans (and the league) hadn't seen anything like him before.

Both players make you take notice when they have the puck, since they can make anything happen.

Not sure who I would pick in an either/or situation.

It’s not even close.

Bure didn’t have a 200’ game.

Bure was faster, but not by much. He exploded up the ice and hand hands to match his foot speed, but the “little things” in the game were not something he possessed. Bure also didn’t always make is linemates better, they could either keep up or not.

Quinn is among the fastest skaters in the league. He’s probably top 5 when it comes to footwork and the ability to change direction to lose a defender. He is probably the best dman at walking the blueline with the puck under pressure. While not a bruising force defensively he is incredibly smart positionally and with his stick. He elevates the other 4 skaters on the ice every time he touches the puck.



Imagine Bure on the team WITH Hughes on the back end.

[Carl Yagro]

Both are Canuck GOATs, but for long-term team success, I'd take the play driver, the playmaker over the poacher. I'd take the Captain to lead over a mercenary.

[UWSaint]

Hughes. And I'm not sure we've seen his prime since he's improving each year.

I think that 26 minutes a night from a defenseman who scores points like a first line forward and plays very good defense is superior to build a team around to a 20 minute a night flashy winger who occasionally leads the league in goals -- aided by a fly the zone style that doesn't tend to fly in the playoffs. The thing about a true #1 D is that those A+ minutes take away from a third pairing, making them far less important to team construction, and its really hard to find and retain 6 quality D. Not only do the Canucks finally have a #1D -- since I've followed them, I wouldn't consider any player they've had a true #1 -- but Hughes is currently the #1 among #1's.

Bure is why I follow the Canucks. After the North Stars moved to Dallas (when I became a hockey fan as a boy, I lived in Minnesota), I needed a new team, and chose the Canucks because there was no player I liked watching and following more than Bure. So choosing Hughes isn't to downplay how special I think Bure was. Its most about how good Hughes has become and projecting him to be able to maintain it for many years more, hopefully as a Canuck.

[theman]

Hughes. And I'm not sure we've seen his prime since he's improving each year.

I think that 26 minutes a night from a defenseman who scores points like a first line forward and plays very good defense is superior to build a team around to a 20 minute a night flashy winger who occasionally leads the league in goals -- aided by a fly the zone style that doesn't tend to fly in the playoffs. The thing about a true #1 D is that those A+ minutes take away from a third pairing, making them far less important to team construction, and its really hard to find and retain 6 quality D. Not only do the Canucks finally have a #1D -- since I've followed them, I wouldn't consider any player they've had a true #1 -- but Hughes is currently the #1 among #1's.

Bure is why I follow the Canucks. After the North Stars moved to Dallas (when I became a hockey fan as a boy, I lived in Minnesota), I needed a new team, and chose the Canucks because there was no player I liked watching and following more than Bure. So choosing Hughes isn't to downplay how special I think Bure was. Its most about how good Hughes has become and projecting him to be able to maintain it for many years more, hopefully as a Canuck.

I do think Hughes is a true #1 D man, probably the only true #1 D man they have ever had.

What would be your 'All time' Canucks top 6 D core?

[Meds]

Hughes. And I'm not sure we've seen his prime since he's improving each year.

I think that 26 minutes a night from a defenseman who scores points like a first line forward and plays very good defense is superior to build a team around to a 20 minute a night flashy winger who occasionally leads the league in goals -- aided by a fly the zone style that doesn't tend to fly in the playoffs. The thing about a true #1 D is that those A+ minutes take away from a third pairing, making them far less important to team construction, and its really hard to find and retain 6 quality D. Not only do the Canucks finally have a #1D -- since I've followed them, I wouldn't consider any player they've had a true #1 -- but Hughes is currently the #1 among #1's.

Bure is why I follow the Canucks. After the North Stars moved to Dallas (when I became a hockey fan as a boy, I lived in Minnesota), I needed a new team, and chose the Canucks because there was no player I liked watching and following more than Bure. So choosing Hughes isn't to downplay how special I think Bure was. Its most about how good Hughes has become and projecting him to be able to maintain it for many years more, hopefully as a Canuck.

I do think Hughes is a true #1 D man, probably the only true #1 D man they have ever had.

What would be your 'All time' Canucks top 6 D core?

The top 2 or 3 are pretty easy, after that it's tricky. After Salo it's no particular order.

Hughes
Ohlund (pre eye injury)
Salo
Edler
Hamhuis
Lumme

Honorable mention

Bieksa
Tanev
Jovo

[Chef Boi RD]

Thank you, Jim

[UWSaint]

I do think Hughes is a true #1 D man, probably the only true #1 D man they have ever had.

What would be your 'All time' Canucks top 6 D core?

I'm limiting this to Canucks who played at least 2 full seasons after 92-93:

Hughes
Ohlund
Hamhuis
Ehrhoff
Tanev
Edler

Hon Mention

Salo
Jovo
Lumme

Nearly Honorable -- Bieksa, Mitchell.

Will be honorable -- Hronek.

What separates the top 6 from the honorable mentions is the consistency of play.

I think the top 3 should be an everyone's list. Hughes as #1 speaks for itself. Ohlund might have been a more dynamic player before the injury, but settled into being the only rock among a group prone to beating itself in the WCE years. (Salo was steady -- when he played). Similarly, Hamhuis was steady, could play against any line, played very intelligently (excepting one ill-advised hip check ....), and could move his feet.

As for the next three, Ehrhoff is a bit of a cheat, since he was impressive exactly two seasons in his career -- and he played for the Canucks both of those seasons. But under the criteria "as a Canuck," what other Canucks was a top ten Norris vote getter each year he was in Vancouver? Those two seasons he earned top pairing minutes, scored 94 points (28 goals), was a +56. Tanev was remarkably good on some very bad teams, injuries his only bug, and Edler gets credit for time in service. Edler's downside is that he was relied to do so much and he wasn't great at everything. I sometimes wonder if his job duties were as straightforward as Tanev's whether he could have been a higher quality defensive defenseman than the jack of all trades master of none that he became.

One not on the honorable mentions -- I think Mitchell had a subpar last season, and messed up against the Blackhawks in the playoffs doing the things that he was so normally reliable at. But I really think he added a key snarly piece to the team that transitioned from the WCE (with its core D) to the Sedin/Vigneault era.

Other note -- the guys in the 90s really weren't that good, were they? Those teams weren't well balanced.
Those who showed flashes would peter out or would get moved along; the remainers were largely long tooth tole players that weren't all-time-great types. The coaching changes didn't help, I suspect.

[Meds]

I do think Hughes is a true #1 D man, probably the only true #1 D man they have ever had.

What would be your 'All time' Canucks top 6 D core?

I'm limiting this to Canucks who played at least 2 full seasons after 92-93:

Hughes
Ohlund
Hamhuis
Ehrhoff
Tanev
Edler

Hon Mention

Salo
Jovo
Lumme

Nearly Honorable -- Bieksa, Mitchell.

Will be honorable -- Hronek.

What separates the top 6 from the honorable mentions is the consistency of play.

I think the top 3 should be an everyone's list. Hughes as #1 speaks for itself. Ohlund might have been a more dynamic player before the injury, but settled into being the only rock among a group prone to beating itself in the WCE years. (Salo was steady -- when he played). Similarly, Hamhuis was steady, could play against any line, played very intelligently (excepting one ill-advised hip check ....), and could move his feet.

Interestingly enough your reason for Tanev or Salo is the same as my reason for Salo over Tanev.

I think that Salo possessed similar defensive IQ to Tanev, however he wasn't as prolific at blocking shots and using his body.....possibly because of injury history. Salo was a smarter offensive player and made the PP far more of a threat because of his shot, which was under utilized imho (both by himself and the coaches). Tanev gets the edge in mobility.

When looking at reliability in terms of health, Tanev played more than 65 games only 3 times his entire career in Vancouver. Salo played 65 or more 5 times.

[Chef Boi RD]

My choices for best Canucks D-men of all time are:

Bobby Manno
Dana Murzyn
Dennis Kearns
Claire Alexander
Hilliard Graves
Jack McIlhargy
Bob Dailey
Jiri Slegr
Jiri Bubla
Harold Snepsts

[Meds]

My choices for best Canucks D-men of all time are:

Bobby Manno
Dana Murzyn
Dennis Kearns
Claire Alexander
Hilliard Graves
Jack McIlhargy
Bob Dailey
Jiri Slegr
Jiri Bubla
Harold Snepsts

I love that Kearns had as many points as he did but was a minus-155.

[Carl Yagro]

One guy that gets completely overlooked IMO is Dave Babych. He had 6 solid years with the Pat Quinn teams and even though he became more of a defensive defenceman here while partnered up with Lumme, he was a very good offensive dman for his first 10 seasons in Winnipeg and Hartford. 723pts in 1195GP is a very good career.

Just ignore the -62 during his rookie season

He was solidly built like a shit brickhouse but was mobile and smart. That Stanley Cup run with Babych/Lumme, Brown/Hedican, Diduck/Glynn not only was big, strong and tough (enough) and deep, but could play both ends of the ice. '94 is still my favourite postseason team of all time.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Tryamkin
Bartkowski
Sbisa
Clendenning
Larssen
Gudbranson
Juolevi


Studs a carpinder would be proud of.

For the Dude.... 'Thanks Jim'

Karl, Diduck and Babs were a pairing. Brownie and Hedican were a pairing. Lumme and Murzyn were a deal until game 7 of round 1 and the butcher broke his ankle, then Bryan Glynn stepped in. I don't think Slegr and Plavsic got much more than a sniff.