They have had a year to sign him . Pen paper sign here, not difficult .
- VANTEL

Maybe after using the blank cheque method on Miller, Sbisa and Dorsett he has changed his strategy

Not at all . Hutton should be bottom pairing. I don't mind Edler Tanev top 4 and replace with two new guys not named Russell or Hamhuis
- VANTEL

Rookie season for Hutton. Made team Canada at the worlds. Van's highest scoring defensemen.

Vans need for biggest improvement next season. Face-offs. LAST PLACE.
- manvanfan

Wow

Vans need for biggest improvement next season. Face-offs. LAST PLACE.
- manvanfan

A healthy Sutter and continued growth from JM and Bo should help rectify that.

Rookie season for Hutton. Made team Canada at the worlds. Van's highest scoring defensemen.
- manvanfan

This team Canada thing is really overblown. So he is the best of the worst. Most top players and Dmen are playing in this thing called The Playoffs.

A healthy Sutter and continued growth from JM and Bo should help rectify that.
- golfingsince

JM was brutal on face-offs last season.

JM was brutal on face-offs last season.
- manvanfan

Yes he was, so much room for improvement.

This team Canada thing is really overblown. So he is the best of the worst. Most top players and Dmen are playing in this thing called The Playoffs.
- VANTEL

Like Doughty, Keith, Seabrook, Weber? Their teams all got eliminated.

Maybe after using the blank cheque method on Miller, Sbisa and Dorsett he has changed his strategy
- belcherbd

You may want to invest in padded floors . You will faint when he offers STamkos 12 schmil

Yes he was, so much room for improvement.
- golfingsince

Utica sounds like a good place to do that if they see him as a Center long term.

Like Doughty, Keith, Seabrook, Weber? Their teams all got eliminated.
- manvanfan

Exactly they know it's a C rated tournament so instead of attending they went on vacation.

Exactly the know it's a C rated tournament so instead of attending they went on vacation.
- VANTEL

This team Canada thing is really overblown. So he is the best of the worst. Most top players and Dmen are playing in this thing called The Playoffs.
- VANTEL

But they beat 18 year old Patrik Laine.

But they beat 18 year old Patrik Laine.
- A_SteamingLombardi

Maybe we can convince WPG to give us Laine for Tanev . Do you have nude picks of Cheveldayoff and Byf in the showers?

Exactly they know it's a C rated tournament so instead of attending they went on vacation.
- VANTEL

The only reason Perry went was to get into the Triple Gold Club.

Maybe we can convince WPG to give us Laine for Tanev . Do you have nude picks of Cheveldayoff and Byf in the showers?
- VANTEL

I did but I threw up on them.

The only reason Perry went was to get into the Triple Gold Club.
- A_SteamingLombardi

I thought it was he wanted to make sure he scored at least one post season goal this year.

Vans need for biggest improvement next season. Face-offs. LAST PLACE.
- manvanfan

I dont want to be "that guy", but the importance of faceoffs is not as big as youd think. Just a quick google search of "effect of faceoffs in hockey" and there are numerous pieces that say they have minimal impact on the outcome of games.

The strongest support I could find for the importance of faceoffs was a study from some university kids which looked at the 2010-2011 season and said a few interesting things, "This means that a player must win about 76 more faceoffs than they lose in order to obtain a goal differential for his team. A team that moves from winning 50% of their faceoffs to winning 60% of them gains just over 12 goals per season which is equivalent to two additional wins"
"For a player that wins 60% of their 1200 faceoffs, taking 20% more faceoffs outside the neutral zone can add an additional 3 goals or one win per season. "

Just looking at the difference between last and first, the result might end up with one extra win at the end of the year between Vancouver and Arizona (who finished 1st in league faceoffs last year)

I dont want to be "that guy", but the importance of faceoffs is not as big as youd think. Just a quick google search of "effect of faceoffs in hockey" and there are numerous pieces that say they have minimal impact on the outcome of games.

The strongest support I could find for the importance of faceoffs was a study from some university kids which looked at the 2010-2011 season and said a few interesting things, "This means that a player must win about 76 more faceoffs than they lose in order to obtain a goal differential for his team. A team that moves from winning 50% of their faceoffs to winning 60% of them gains just over 12 goals per season which is equivalent to two additional wins"
"For a player that wins 60% of their 1200 faceoffs, taking 20% more faceoffs outside the neutral zone can add an additional 3 goals or one win per season. "

Just looking at the difference between last and first, the result might end up with one extra win at the end of the year between Vancouver and Arizona (who finished 1st in league faceoffs last year)
- WhiteLie

We need to improve faceoffs before scoring. Malholtra > Stamkos

So what are the consequences to DET if Datsyuk signs in Russia and does not return.

Utica sounds like a good place to do that if they see him as a Center long term.
- manvanfan

If that's where he belongs, so be it. I do think he'll be stronger overall after an offseason working out.

Tanev: Canucks best D-man.

McCann: Canucks most valuable prospect.

yet they both continually end up in trade proposals for the likes of Yakupov and Drouin
-Whiskey-Tango

Tanev for Yakupov straight up
McCann, plus Hansen for Drouin

I dont want to be "that guy", but the importance of faceoffs is not as big as youd think. Just a quick google search of "effect of faceoffs in hockey" and there are numerous pieces that say they have minimal impact on the outcome of games.

The strongest support I could find for the importance of faceoffs was a study from some university kids which looked at the 2010-2011 season and said a few interesting things, "This means that a player must win about 76 more faceoffs than they lose in order to obtain a goal differential for his team. A team that moves from winning 50% of their faceoffs to winning 60% of them gains just over 12 goals per season which is equivalent to two additional wins"
"For a player that wins 60% of their 1200 faceoffs, taking 20% more faceoffs outside the neutral zone can add an additional 3 goals or one win per season. "

Just looking at the difference between last and first, the result might end up with one extra win at the end of the year between Vancouver and Arizona (who finished 1st in league faceoffs last year)
- WhiteLie

They're huge for special teams, just based on the eye test.

Oh yes I'm the troll.

Just like McCann and a 3rd rounder get you the 4th overall pick...

This place needs a little bit more outside influence if you guys have gone off the rails so far to believe that is in any sense an intelligent remark.

It's like you guys just shut down outside thoughts in this thread so much because you'd prefer to dwell in a delusional state of extreme bias and homerism that makes everyone comfortable with the outlook of the Nucks. Like a little safe space to shield you all from reality and critical thinking.

That's why I brought up JJ's thread, because it is a cesspool of this same poop.
- RonPielep

Are you (frank)ing new here?

Is this the first time you've ventured into these chaps?

I'm inside influence?

Reading comprehension isn't your thing hey?
- RonPielep