No, Drance isn't taking an accurate outsiders view of the team, he's being deliberately pessimistic just to create tension in the fanbase. Most outsiders overlook the bounce back potential with this team and read too deeply into the team's slow start over the first 25 games. If you just extrapolate the points % under Boudreau, you'd see that the team is playoff caliber

I think a lot of things improved under budreau, but I still don’t think this team hasn’t been dangerous enough off the rush and in getting chances in close. They feel like a precision scalpel rather than a full force offense. I think, given the talen up front, if the Canucks can improve their transition game and create an offensive system that prioritized possession and high danger chance creation, they can be a top 5 team. I think the roster pieces missing for this are 1 top 6 forward, 1 3C, and 2 top 4 Dman. Managements focus should be on aquiring those types of players while shedding elsewhere in the line up (Myers, Poolman, Dickinson, Pearson, etc) in order to create a 5 year window of competition, possibly starting 2023-2024

I think with 1 more top six forward, a 3C, and one more top 4 RD, this team is a contender

The team's transition game is fine, they're dangerous enough off of the rush. They don't need to add much more in terms of scoring, it's the least of their worries. There are modest improvements to be made, but they aren't completely depleted in any area. Just need to shed some salary cap in order to be able to improve on a few roster spots

Canucks were 19th in the league in 5v5 goals scored AFTER boudreau took over. However, they were 8th in powerplay goals scored. While there are good teams that are very reliant on their powerplay for offense, (st Louis, NYR, Edmonton) none of these teams are contenders. The Canucks should aim to be better than all of them. Their 5v5 defense is basically league average, but with an allstar goalie that’s okay. Their PK got A LOT better once Brad Shaw took over in February.

Imo, if they can become a top 10 scoring team 5v5, and top 5 power play, a top 10 pk, and league average 5v5 defense, then the thatcher Demko factor will be enough to push them k to contender status

ok, thanks for the input, I was under the impression it whatever was higher

I dissagree, he just isnt going at this optimistically and he is telling everyone that this team isnt what it was under green, and it isnt what it was under boudreau. If Jr and Allvin both agree with drance, I think that he has some merit to his argument. This team is a fringe calibre team, it isnt a contender. Be good, Be bad, dont be mediocre

well how do you know that, you think and want them to take steps in their game, they made it close because they had elite level goaltending. Then you look down and there was 30 points between 1st and 2nd in scoring, pettersson didnt show up and how do we know that miller will be here or if he will take steps backwards in his game. there are a ton of things to take into consideration here. This was not a playoff team and it showed, how do you know that the nucks would have gotten any sort of bruce bump if he was at all 82? there are many many layers to this that need to be considered here

Bruces record isn't entirely based on a coaching bump, the team fundamentally improved when he came in. The team would have had a stronger record overall if he was around for all 82 games

The team didn't make the playoffs this season because they got off to a horrible start to the season, and later on in the season, they began struggling to prepare for games. So yes, the team missed the playoffs not because of lack of talent, but for other reasons. Both things can be true at the same time

Don't look any individual stats, none of them work as a valid argument for how good the team is as a whole

There is nothing to suggest why Pettersson will have a slow first half of the season and then show up only for the second half next season, that's a bunch of unfounded paranoia

We can assume the team is mediocre as is, but we don't know how good or bad they will be next season. If Drance says the team needs to make some hard decisions, I'm curious to know if he thinks the team is better of trying to take a step back or step forward next season. That part I'm not sure of, all we know is the team can't remain the way it is if it's mediocre as is

I don't think I'm looking at things optimistically, I'm not expecting the team to be a cup contender next year no matter how good or bad they are. Also, Drance shouldn't be calling the roster poorly constructed considering the results the team got under Boudreau

you can have a poorly constructed roster play above their level, they played a very simple game and it worked against the weaker teams and failed against the better ones, to call this team well constructed would be a terrible overstatement. The intent was there but the was only 2 puckmoving D at the start of the year, there was a good top 9 but 3c was terrible for what he was brought in to do. He could pass as a 3LW but not a full time centre. This team relied on demko and you could see for the last month of the season he would put his stick on his right pad and then his glove over his blocker showing that there is probably a knee injury that he is dealing with. thats what happens when you play a goalie 64 games in a year. That isnt sustainable, we need to have a deeper team that can go far, not a team that can just get to the playoffs

Of course the team needs to get deeper, of course the team needs to be less reliant on it's goalie, but having a top 9 with 8 good pieces and 2 good puck moving defenseman doesn't make for a poorly constructed roster, that's a significant enough of a foundation to build around and improve, and the Canucks did beat some better teams than they were, so it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Sure, it's fair to say the team overachieved at certain points during Boudreau's run, but the weren't overachieving the entire time. The reality of the team isn't as bad as they were under Green

I agree with you on your second point about how they were under and overachieving, but I think the fact that this team didnt have enough depth speaks volumes about the roster construction. Boudreau has shown time and time again that he can outpreform the team that he is given, but that doesnt mean the team is good, look at his playoff record, that shows the real quality of the team and it takes really good managment to see through the overperforming and capitalizing on their value. that was drance's point, this team played above their value, that doesnt make this a good roster, we need to have 4 puck movers on the blueline at minimum, we need to have grit, we need to have a solid right handed 3c, and if we trade miller we could fill some of those needs and then maybe do more like upgrade our 4th line.

The team needs more depth too, no denying that

The question is whether or not Boudreau is a good playoff coach, or were the teams he had just not capable of winning a round because they didn't have the depth to do so. Hmm?

You can fairly claim this roster is less than good, but that doesn't mean it's a bottom 10 team. There is significant improvement needed for sure, but the team isn't trying to get itself out of the basement, they're right on the fringes of the playoff picture as is

agreed,

I much appreciated debating with you and rocket,

thanks for staying civil and making good points, I feel like I have a better understanding of your side and hope you feel the same

Dude, words can't describe how much it warms my heart to hear you say that. This site is sorely in need of more civilized debates around here than it already has. I wish I could give you more than just 1 like