Canucks Army Monday Mailbag: October 31st

You know all that good will the Canucks bought with their 4-0-0 start? Yeah, that’s just about gone. The Canucks have dropped five straight, pushing their record to 4-4-1.

At the very least, this season isn’t lacking in intrigue. Were the Canucks anywhere near as good as their hot start indicated? Oh, god no. Are they a team that scores less than two goals a game for 82 games? Oh, god no. It leaves you grasping at straws to figure out just what exactly this team is. We’ll get our answer eventually, I’m sure. Fairly certain we won’t like it either.

C’est la vie. Now, about those questions you were kind enough to ask. I’ve got answers. Let’s do this.

For as long as Chris Tanev’s been plying his trade in the NHL, the league has criminally underrated his game. That extends to the Vancouver Canucks too. I doubt that will be the case much longer. From where I’m sitting, the list of defensive defenceman who outperform Tanev in this regard includes Hampus Lindholm and Mattias Ekholm. That’s it.

In a world where Erik Gudbranson can fetch Jared McCann, Adam Mascherin and Jonathan Ang, one has to think Tanev could return a package far superior to that. Especially in light of the Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson deal. The market is in a weird place. And it’s in a weird place that vastly favours the defensive sellers.

If the Canucks can find a return similar to what the Devils landed for Larsson, one has to think they take it and run.

That’s a great question. Ideally, a coach is always going to put his players in a position to succeed. Taking a careful, measured approach throughout your lineup will likely bear out in the results over time. The question isn’t whether deployment and usage matters. It’s more about how much it matters.

In general, I think people vastly overstate the impact of usage and deployment. Alain Vigneault is probably a top five or top ten coach in the league. He’s singlehandedly kept Tanner Glass employed for basically two seasons. Try making sense of that.

There’s a bit of a cognitive failing when it comes to evaluating coaches among fans. That’s because it can be incredibly difficult to really piece together what the team is doing structurally and the impact it has on their ability to win games.

Anyone can see the five players a coach has tapped on the shoulder for any given shift. They can see who they’re paired with and wonder whether that’s to either player’s benefit. What they often can’t piece together are the countless intricacies to the way their favourite team plays the game. So they disproportionately weigh the impact of deployment, because it’s what they can visualize and understand.

The Canucks could drastically alter their deployment, and it might add up to one or two extra wins over the course of the season. If that. Especially in light of everything we know about zone starts and competition metrics; that they don’t matter anywhere near as much as we used to think they did.

I guess it depends on what level of change you want. If you want the Canucks to change coaches, you’re likely going to get your wish by about December. I’d have to think Jim Benning and Trevor Linden are safe for this season, at least.

Alexander Edler – Troy Stecher

Ben Hutton – Erik Gudbranson

Nikita Tryamkin – Chris Tanev

I have a hard time seeing Jake Virtanen as a top six player. He just lacks the creativity and vision to work with the league’s best offensively. You take the puck off Virtanen’s stick, and he’s completely lost in the offensive and defensive zones alike. At some point, people are going to have to come to terms with the fact that what you see if what you get with Virtanen. He’s going to be a fine, complimentary middle-six piece. And that’s all anyone should’ve ever expected of him.

As for Loui Eriksson, I think people are vastly overstating how poorly he’s played this season. He’s on pace for about 45 points, which would put him in the top 30 among right wingers based on last season — if memory serves, anyways.

Regarding defensive play, there are three Canucks who’ve had a better impact on their teammates ability to suppress shot attempts, and none of them has played as many games as Eriksson. By raw Corsi For%, Eriksson is one of three Canucks regulars in the black.

I’ve had such a hard time with Bo Horvat. Then again, I don’t think I’m alone there. We’ve likely all understated his ability to produce offensively. Horvat’s produced at a rate you’d expect from a second line centre. Can’t say I saw that coming.

Perhaps even more surprising is how awful he’s been defensively, in terms of net defensive value. Horvat likely has a genuinely positive impact in the defensive zone. Coaches usually have a good eye for this kind of thing, and every coach he’s played for has played him in that role. The problem is the sum of his work results in a net loss defensively.

This likely has a lot to do with his ability to pin opponents in the offensive zone. Horvat doesn’t use his linemates anywhere near as much as he should, and it can make him a very easy player to gameplan. He’s going to cross the line and try the inside-out move almost every time. Once in a while, it works. It works, and it’s beautiful. Most of the time he loses possession and the pucks out of the zone no quicker than it got there.

Frankly, 43rd is far too low for Virtanen. That’s kind of absurd, to be honest. And this is coming from a guy who has all the respect in the world for Craig Button — whether I agree with him or not. I had him closer to about 15-20. When you’re wondering why the Canucks took Virtanen, think geography.

Nothing has really stuck out to me lately. They’re getting really unlucky and making mental mistakes at an alarming rate. That and they’re not getting a .970 Sv% at even strength. 

Yeah, it’s a little concerning. I wouldn’t lose sleep over it, though. Ideally, you’d hope he could dominate in the junior ranks, and that would reveal itself in the way of strong counting stats. Who knows, maybe it’s a percentage thing, and he’ll get there later in the season.

Not that I can see, no. Far as I can tell, they’re just not getting bounces right now.

I’m emphatic for Patrick?

I think you could make a case for either move. Does that mean I’m one of those knee jerk reaction type fans? Welp.

Samuel Girard would’ve been a fine selection at 33rd overall. That said, I would’ve picked one of Adam Mascherin or Will Bitten in that spot. Probably Mascherin.

Pretty damn soon if today’s lines in practice are any indication.

They can’t. This is a terrible roster that needs to get worse before it gets better. It’s just that simple. Eventually they’ll be forced to come to terms with that reality.