Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/21/2018 in all areas

  1. 15 points
    I don't know what everyone here is whining about and I usually don't post but had to chime in. I was actually at the game last night and watched Juolevi closely. So he made about 25 to 30 plays total the entire game. I count a play this way: 1. Puck retrieval. Getting back to the puck and making a decision on where it goes. 2. Pass 3. Breaking up plays, interceptions, takeaways 4. Battle along the boards 5. Pressure contain on odd man rushes. The way you scout a player is this. 2 simple questions: 1. Did he make the best available decision given all information available to him. 2. Is he able to physically execute the play given the decision he made. So out of 25 to 30 plays, he probably made the absolute best choice about 80% of the time. And that is by far the best out of all of our d man last night. It wasn't even close. I watched the other d man and juolevi made the right reads far better than any defenceman. This included edler. Because sometimes when I was watching the other d man play I would ask what in the world were they thinking? Except Juolevi. Now, he did make a couple of blunders but nothing significant. The other 5 guys I can't say the same. And the blunders were more associated with 2. physical ability than 1. So where does he need to improve on? He needs to be stronger and faster is the issue. His reads are impeccable but sometimes he isn't able to execute it. For example, there was a play whereby his physical positioning of stick and body was perfect to separate guy from puck but he couldn't do it because he wasn't strong enough. But I think that part will come. Now, here are things that you miss when you are not watching live. He was one of the few defenceman who understood sometimes the best play was to let a puck go by you to the other guy. He used small touch passes to diffuse hard situations. His stick positioning was great. On odd man rushes he was able to defend two guys at once and diffuse the situation whereas our other guys would just leave guys wide open (see just about every dman other than him). Also notice the number of odd man rushes that came against the canucks, very few came while he was on the ice. Lastly, on two passes to gudbranson he made the same pass but at two different speeds. That is impressive. One he zipped because he correctly calculated the interception distance and on another he feathered because he knew it would help gudbranson with his shot. All in all a very good game. Btw, if you didn't think he had a good game, look at the stats. How many goals was he on the ice against? He somehow made gudbranson look good which was actually really impressive cause every time gudbranson handled the puck the entire stadium could see that it was like he was handling a live grenade.
  2. 8 points
    I blocked a slap shot from Greg Polis, after he retired from the NHL and came back to Prince George. He broke my damned foot. A bunch of our team (not Polis) went to a coffee shop after the game, my foot was throbbing so bad that I made a big mistake - I took off my boot. By the time we finished our coffees my foot had swollen so much I couldn't get my boot back on. It was cold as hell outside, and I had to limp out to my car - my sock kept sticking to the ice in the parking lot. Of course it was my left foot, and my car had a clutch. I about died operating the clutch. Couldn't play for six weeks. When I came back, my teammates were great, apparently they played well when I was away. A few of them hadn't seen me block Polis's shot, so they asked if I'd do it again next time we played his team. Cruel SOBs, all of them.
  3. 7 points
    Canucks reduce pre-season roster by 8 players: https://www.nhl.com/canucks/news/vancouver-canucks-reduce-pre-season-roster/c-300301170
  4. 6 points
    Can Pettersson keep up his pace of 2 gifs per game?
  5. 6 points
    Not sure how you figured that. On one sequence alone, he flubbed passes to both Boeser and Pettersson. They were open and set for one-timers but the pucks weren't delivered anywhere near their tape, and it's not like he was under pressure. He didn't set up any scoring chances or initiate any plays, just acted as a relay. Maybe it can still develop, but he's just not an effective pointman.
  6. 5 points
    I was going in to this game with the expectation that the Canucks should win it handily. The Kings fielded maybe 4 or 5 NHL players and the rest were AHLers who hadn't made the transition yet. The Canucks fielded a team that was the opposite - mostly veterans with 4 or 5 guys on the bubble. It should be easy, right? Nope. After a nice start and creating chances in the first period, the Canucks ended the first with a poor conversion percentage on the PP despite plenty of opportunity. The kings played a disciplined defensive game and often outmuscled the Canucks for 50/50 pucks. Especially in the second period, the Kings out hustled the Canucks, won most of the puck battles and hemmed the Canucks in their end, resulting in a 3-1 lead. The Canucks comeback was partly due to better play in 'da turd', but was just as much a result of penalty calls that probably wouldn't be made in the regular season (although one can only hope..). In any case, I would classify this overall as a pretty weak performance by a Canucks squad that should have been able to dominate the AHL Kings with skill and speed. There are some caveats, however. Many of the Canucks were in poor form and will likely be better as the season goes on. In particular, Boeser looked like he needed more ice time to get up to game speed. Pettersson has been exactly what I've hoped he would be this early - skilled, able to pull plays out of a magic hat while juggling and unicycling, but easy to knock down. Short term he's good, long term he could be one of the best we've seen in the uniform. Passing in general was brutal. While the Kings passes were crisp and on the tape, the Canucks passes were clumsy, in the skates and generally not NHL caliber. That will probably improve as players shake off the rust. Some positives: - Gudbranson played a solid defensive game and was physical when needed. - Archibald was 'bringing it' - Beagle was good on the PK (but pretty much invisible the rest of the game) - Markstrom didn't let in 4 goals, although he wasn't a game breaker. - Goldobin continued to play well. - Bo!!!!!!! - Hutton played a nice game and looked like he has worked off the sophomore jinx and was in good form. - MDZ showed he is the most underrated D man on the Canucks roster. - Schaller was able to play the same game against the Kings that they were playing against us. This is why he was signed. - Motte played with determination and speed. Great play to set up Bo. Some bads not yet mentioned: - Biega was not at his best. - PP wasn't as good as it could be. Passing was not very crisp except for the Baertschi goal. - Compete level wasn't really 'there' for much of the game. In the end, I came away mostly disappointed but with a few positives that give me hope that coach Green can patch things up before opening night. There's some decent skill, but the polish is definitely not there right now. A lot of rust needs to be shaken off before the season starts.
  7. 5 points
  8. 5 points
  9. 5 points
    I was also hoping to see a bit more from him. And I know that he’s capable of showing more. I think it’s possible that Jašek has been too focused on providing team support and has allowed himself to suppress some of his individual offensive efforts. He’s a very conscious player with a high hockey IQ. And he sometimes has a tendency to shift into a supportive role that helps out his teammates but doesn’t do much to distinguish himself individually. I’ve seen some shifts from him where he’s looked like he’s more responding to his teammates efforts than driving the play himself. Sometimes playing a strong positional game ends up making a player look invisible, and I saw this happen a few times. Jašek would be in good spots to support the risk taking of his linemates, but the effect was that he allowed other players to look good, while not really grabbing the bull by the horns himself. He also got slotted into a central role in the formation during his PP shifts, where he’s more familiar working toward the corner as a RH shot from the left side. This wasn’t always a good look for him, and while he seems to always be in the right spots for what was being asked of him, the play didn’t necessarily work through him that much and he ended up looking a bit ineffectual. Where I think he has distinguished himself is at 5v5 with some strong board play in the offensive zone, holding the puck for long sequences, and just hounding it along the boards, often while double teamed, and just refusing to give it up. He’s had some really nice shifts where he’s extended offensive zone possession by playing keep-away along the wall. Sometimes maintaining possession while linemates changed, and other times creating some open ice by drawing defenders to him, and then feeding the puck to teammates with space to make plays. He’s also been good through the neutral zone and advancing the puck on exits and entries. But on a whole, he hasn’t quite made the impression I’d hoped. I’m not worried about it. Jašek was an extreme longshot to crack the Canucks at this point in time. Even if he’d put his best foot forward, he still was almost certainly bound for Utica. And it will be with Utica that he makes his case for his role within this organization. Hopefully, he’ll pick up where he left off with the Comets. If he can, then he may find himself a callup option sometime down the road.
  10. 5 points
    My highlights (and not-so-high lights) are as follows: The Good: 1. Horvat was obviously the star of the game, with two goals, an assist, and a crucial SO goal. (And solid defence, including on the PK.) 2. Despite pt. 1, at the end of the second period, I had Pettersson as the top Canuck. In the end he has to take second place. Obviously he made a couple of very nice plays on Canuck goals, but I was also impressed with his defensive play. He is the real deal, 3. Tanev played an outstanding game. We sometimes take it for granted when he makes a nice tape to tape pass for a clean zone exit. But we shouldn't. Just try watching most other Canucks D-men. 4. Hutton was also very good. I like his PP game, he was good on the PK and he was just generally good. He was top minute man not just on the PP, but also on the PK. I was watching closely and I did not see anything I would call a mistake. And, although not as good on zone exits as Tanev, he was still very good. Right now he is miles ahead of Pouliot on the depth chart at LD, and I also have him ahead of MDZ. Of course, playing with Tanev helps anyone, but that pairing is pretty good and should probably the second pairing to start the season. 5. Honorable mentions: Baertschi was good. Guddy is trying hard, Virtanen had a good "4th line" type game -- speed, energy, physical play, decent defence, Archie was good on the PK and played hard. Motte and Granlund had ups and downs but are still in the conversation for the opening day line-up. Marky was not bad for his first game. The Not-So-Good. 5. MDZ started strong with some big hits in the first couple of shifts and was working hard to get into the play. His entire first period was pretty good. But things went downhill after than. The first LA goal arose in part because he was trapped in the O-zone. As that play was getting going I was saying to myself- why is MDZ chasing the puck in the corner in the LA zone? Also, on the second goal his gap coverage was poor. 6. Biega shares the blame on the two goals given up by the MDZ and Biega. On the first goal he got to the puck in his own zone and looked like he might be able to bail out MDZ, but he gave the puck away instead. On the second goal he also has poor gap control. Of course, LA made a nice play and covering them was not easy, but the MDZ-Beiga pairing gave up way too much tonight. 7. Boeser was not sharp tonight, but I guess that is not a surprise and, as Mikey D says, is not a concern. I expect him to be good next time out. 8. Dahlen was not good. He was largely invisible except for receiving two stretch passes (leaving the D zone early?), and in both cases he was unable to pull away from the defender. In third period he was replaced on the Horvat line by Baertschi, after which that line was a lot better. 9. Minor disappointments: I was hoping for more from Brisebois and Schaller. And Beagle was good on the PK but not very visible apart from that. Goldy was invisible for long stretches although was also good in spots. Overall I was hoping for more against the the LA "B" squad, but take way the second period and it was good night for the team. Certainly something to build on.
  11. 4 points
    I think he ultimately gets sent down but I'm not remotely surprised he's still here given his play. IMO he's earned being in the same conversation as Gaudette/Dahlen/Motte as bubble F's who have earned longer looks and will receive consideration as call ups.
  12. 4 points
  13. 4 points
    I'd love to see Gagner traded and one of Gaunce/Archibald as the spare F. Gaunce certainly has youth and upside in his favour there but I think Archibald could have the similar fit as Biega as spare D. Both guys struggle to play with intensity when used for longer stretches/82 games but playing fill-in for 20-30'ish games, in spurts, they come out like caged bulls. They're also consummate pros off the ice, grateful to be here, practice/train like their lives depend on it etc, etc. It's certainly not a slam dunk but it's definitely reason to think about Archie there as 13th/14th F over the other options. Even if I think Gaunce might be better/have more upside. That's not necessarily what you're looking for in a spare guy. Exactly. You don't just 'find' a Hedman etc. I'm not sure how people don't get this...? Norris caliber, #1D aren't just hanging around waiting for some team to take a shot on them if only we'd sign them at league minimum or something. Hughes is coming, likely next year, and will almost surely grab that PP role and will likely be much better at passing to his left than Edler, Hutton etc. Until then, Edler is by far the best option we have there whether people like it or not.
  14. 4 points
  15. 4 points
    Well in all fairness if you're going to come down on Hutton for making a few what I see as rusty plays you'd have to also say Pettersson made several soft passes that Kings picked off or deflected and Boeser who was very rusty didn't make many good plays all night botched quite a few. Hutton did a lot of little things well tonight also is in a completely new spot and is a bit rusty like everyone else so I think he did just fine and would like to see more of him. It's not like we have many mobile dmen like him that have his capabilities other than Stecher. Pouliot tries but he's a defensive nightmare and has some very slow feet far too often. I'm looking forward to seeing Hutton get more opportunities and cheering for him because I believe his ceiling is higher than a lot of negative people on here seem to think and I also think he's a great teammate and he's put in a very strong effort and hard work to get better plus because we're pretty desperate.
  16. 4 points
  17. 4 points
    Schaller Guddy and Archie looked good in the melee against a big LA team Jake played bigger too. Those big guys sure settle things down and make a safer work environment.
  18. 4 points
  19. 3 points
    Its not like Nashville has guys on entry contracts either. Worst defense in the league being paid more than the best defense in the league. Jim's a giver
  20. 3 points
    The logo should be the saddledome turned into a toilet bowl with the team leaving town on the shoulder patches.
  21. 3 points
    Yes, he did have surgery. That's why I feel he should start in Utica since he missed so much training. But, he still looks good. I can't stand the idiots acting like he is a bust. He was only drafted two years ago, yet people are whining and crying because he isn't destroying the league. I'm pretty sure it was always expected that he'd take a few years before making the NHL. He wasn't drafted for instant gratification.
  22. 3 points
    I’ve been wondering if perhaps Nilsson and Ian Clark are in the midst of correcting some technical issues and some of the weaknesses we saw were growing pains from that process. I’ll have to watch Nilsson closer the next time he starts, but it’s possible he’s trying to make some adjustments right now. Last season, it seemed like Nilsson often showed postural issues that resulted in him looking a lot smaller in the net than he should. I’m not trying to make excuses for his poor five hole coverage, but I just wonder if that vulnerability last game was a consequence of him making other adjustments toward improving his overall net coverage. And possibly once he’s fully implemented whatever plan Clark might potentially have for him, he’ll tighten up in all areas, and be better for it. It’s just a theory right now, and I don’t have any evidence, but it’s something I’m going to watch with Nilsson in the games to come. It’s also possible he just sucks. But I have a tonne of faith in Clark and I imagine he’s putting in a lot of work right now in improving our netminders. Sometimes those processes involve some challenges. You can’t rebuild technique without breaking it down first. And I’m hoping we’re watching a work in progress with Nilsson and the rewards of that process have yet to fully reveal themselves.
  23. 3 points
    I dont think we need to rebuild our defence, rather let it develop. I personally believe Hutton, at 24, is as good as he gets. and same goes for Pouliot. Most D-men only get marginally better after 24, save Giordano. The Canucks have some pretty good d-men coming up the pipes with Juolevi and Hughes in the works. Despite what some people say, we have a pretty solid player in Juolevi, would he go 5th OA in a redraft? No, but he's still definitely going to be a minute muncher in the NHL. Juolevi, in my opinion has already eclipsed Pouliot in terms of depth. Sadly Pouliot just didn't look a cut above the people fighting for a spot, and at his age he shouldn't be fighting for a spot on a bottom feeder team, like the Canucks. The brightside is we have guys like Brisboise, who will probably have a career in the NHL, which is nice, you don't need to trade or overpay a free agent to get him. Sautner, as far as I could see, was honestly one of the best d-men in the first and second game. He was a lot of fun to watch, I think his positioning needs work, but that's teachable. AHL for him, but if he keeps this pace he could find himself a few games in the NHL this season, knowing our luck. I guess my stoned late night rant is, just let it chill. Edlers good insulation on D for the young guys. Like the Sedins, let the young players earn their time over Edler, like Horvat did with Henrik. It's foolish to be like Edmonton, and just hand players top 6 roles just because they were a high pick or scored a few goals. If the Canucks suck because of the defence, then we just get better draft picks to draft better d-men, and then we'll end up even better for even longer. P.S. Tryamkin WILL return to the Canucks, and make an huge impact. He's going to be a star in this league. (I just really like Tryamkin, please come back )
  24. 3 points
  25. 3 points
    That remains to be seen but Gaunce is a great shutdown player and Archibald has some grit, my concern is how often I see Archie play great his first game after a call up and then not bring it and look forgettable after that. I think Gaunce still has a large edge on Archie as far as depth goes.
This leaderboard is set to Vancouver/GMT-08:00