J-P
-
Posts
1,088 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by J-P
-
-
I would take Klingberg over Myers any day (don't buy the "hard minutes" Myers plays, in my eyes it's more OEL carrying Myers). Agree though with many previous posters that Klingberg seems like an odd fit, but the idea is definitely intriguing. Any better top 3 puck movers on the league vs QH/OEL/JK? And all three are underrated defensively.
-
Foot speed is an issue but also lots to like as for the composition of our new 4th line. As the contract is buryable I don't have any issues.
-
My 5 cents is this is exactly what Alvie said - they didn't expect the deal to be in this neighborhood and when it was it was too good an opportunity to pass on both long term and short term. FA's are always risky but if he keeps being a play driver with consistent effort while putting up at least 2nd line numbers I don't know how that's not a win.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Boudrias said:
What do you think of his play? I thought he was the best d-man on the Carolina team during playoffs. He doesn't have Nurse's size but I would take him over Nurse.
He was very good in the playoffs. I don't think the return is worth the trade but guess they couldn't sign him. I personally still have major issues with him as a person, and pretty much like Evander Kane I don't see a happy ending. Besides that we have QH who will be much better at the same things + more vs DeAngelo in a year or two.
-
It's a win no matter how you slice it. Think Allvin maybe had more to do with this than most realize.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Thought 1: What?!
Thought 2 after seeing the gap hit: wow, that's a good deal.
Thought 3: if we signed that contract would it make us better?
Thought 4: short term yes, long term no. Too old to be part of a contending team and not a role model worth the years in between.Again, just my thoughts. Nobody can argue it's a bit of a shocker short term.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, stawns said:
I'd actually like to see OEL and Hughes on the same pp, with OEL as the QB and Hughes as a rover, of sorts. Let Hughes move all over the zone and OEL distribute the puck from the top
I've been saying that all year as well. QH would be leathal as a rover and make the whole PP so much more dynamic. Having someone who can shoot the puck and distribute one timers from the top better than QH would also do wonders.
-
4 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:
I only include Pettersson because he has great potential to become a point machine but he will never be more than tha,t as I don't see that "Fire in belly" grit that will separate him as a prominent leader. My only concern with him (if he gets better) in the next two years, is that if he actually gets back on the point machine "gravy train" ,that we might not afford him when his contract ends.
You did watch the bubble playoffs? EP competed and handled the physical stuff just fine. The same way he elevated his game in the playoffs in the SHL before that.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, VancouverHabitant said:
5. Petey showed that he could overcome a very tough and prolonged slump. Myers told him to remember this well and that he can always draw on it later in his career if he ever hits a tough patch.
6. Hughes showed that last season was a one-of in terms of his really sketchy defensive play. Hughes just might be trending towards 97% of Scott Niedermeyer on the high end.
Those are 7 really strong points that will all be with the team for at least the next 4 years as well as Demko.
I realize that we have a few inefficient contracts, but I'm not too worried about it.
Never thought I'd write this but another big win from the season is the play of Chiasson. In the last 15 games he played as a legitimate top 6 player. If we're going with 3 expensive centers going forward, having cheap top 9 wingers will be key. Pearson/Boeser/Chiasson are all too slow to be great fits though, but if Boeser is traded or not qualified and replaced by a faster and cheaper player I can see a place for the other two.
-
1
-
-
Bruins is obviously still a very good team, but I don't see them matching up to the Canes and actually went with Canes in 4 straight.
-
A very good matchup for the Lames unfortunately.
-
There's always at least one upset in round 1. This could be it. COL should be much deeper but I'm going with Preds in 7.
-
1 minute ago, rekker said:
Are you sure about the NTC for Myers? I seem to remember there wasn't one.
Full NTC this season, 10 team no trade list next season iirc
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, DeNiro said:
Pretty much a guaranteed series win for Calgary if Saros is out.
Would be hilarious if Rittich the former flame beat Markstrom though!
I actually think NAS is a pretty bad fit for CAL. They should win anyway, regardless of Saros, but I think Forsberg and especially Josi will be dominant. CAL has no players on that level. Still think CAL will win unfortunately but it won't be easy.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Phil_314 said:
In the same amount of games, Miller has 30 more points than Petey (has basically as many assists as Petey has points). No way he should bump Miller down, when they have chemistry playing together (them on the same line would be pretty lethal). Also, of the 3 C's you listed, Horvat drops down the lineup, not either of the other two.
EP the first half of the season is not the same player as EP the second half. Which version of him we see next season remains to be seen of course (I'm hoping he takes the next step both in PPG and defensively).
If you have 3 centers good enough to be 1C and the cap overall still works, then that's not a problem and it doesn't matter which one you label 1C, 2C, 3C.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:
I appreciate your understanding my point I was making. As far as this game goes it feels like we watched 2 different games. I’ve got the game recorded so I can easily rewind, go back and watch plays, so maybe I have an added benefit then others do because of it. What I saw in the 2nd half was no different then the first. Vancouver never changed how they played in this game. I’m not arguing Canucks should have had more power plays. The Kraken deserved to have more power plays then we did, by a large margin too, 100%, no argument from me on that. They still made those trips, hooks and interference plays, but stopped being called for it and that’s where my criticism comes in.I can meet you halfway now that you explained it in more detail. I agree that during the second half of the game, yes we probably should have gotten a few more penalties vs Kraken. Still a huge difference vs the first half when there were a number of must make calls (trippings etc).
Refs usually keep it even and more loose in the later parts of the game though (game went from 3-0 to 3-2), so still not buying the conspiracy theory.
-
2 minutes ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:
Yes I did. The tripping calls were 100% deserved and either more calls should have been made against the Canucks after the Miller penalty making it 4 on 4 (they had many more after that that went uncalled) or the soft calls shouldn’t have ever been made. It’s about consistency I’m talking about, not the outcome or number of penalties.Yeah, ok, fair enough, I can see your point regarding consistency and also there's definitely a tendency to manage the games by evening the penalties out in most games.
In this game however, I just don't buy that we got more penalties before we were eliminated vs after. We deserved to get way more penalties vs Kraken the first 30 mins and the last 30 mins we did not, simple as that.
-
9 hours ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:
I’m not the conspiratorial type, at all, but man oh man did the refs sure change their calls after Vancouver was eliminated from playoff contention. I recorded the game to watch after work and rewound to the point the new guy announcer said so during the game.
Up until 8:28 pm (approx time of Vegas/Dallas going into OT) or approx 12:30 into the 2nd period these were the number of penalties called:
VAN: 7
SEA: 2
After Canucks were officially eliminated these were the number of penalties called:
VAN: 1 last penalty called at 15:12 into the 2nd period against Schenn for tripping
SEA: 1
Dont get me wrong, I’m glad we won the game, but it sure seems the refs threw everything at the Canucks to keep Seattle in the game, which had they won also would have resulted in Vancouver’s elimination.
It’s far more concerning to me that the whistle went away exactly after that point then had the refs continued making soft calls on the Canucks, at least then you can say they had an off or biased game. With how it went in the timing of the drastic change it makes me even more suspicious.
You did watch the game right? Sure there were soft calls, but in no way more biased against us. It was just one of those games where we had a few extra accidental tripping calls etc. Even BB said so after the game (i.e. that all Canucks penalites were warranted).
-
14 hours ago, HKSR said:
What the heck? Did you watch the games? Even the media was gushing over how complete of a game Miller played against Dallas as how instrumental he was in that win. Is that what his role will be moving forward? No... because his offensive ability is too good for that.
I really don't think you know what you're talking about:
- 4th highest scoring centre in the entire NHL (behind McDavid, Draisatl, and Matthews)
- 53% on faceoffs for the entire year
- 6 GWG (the most on the entire team -- which tells me he scores when we need it most)
- the most assists by any Canuck since Henrik Sedin
- 22 even strength goals -- 1st on the team
- 54 even strength points -- 1st on the team
- +11 rating (4th best on the team, 2nd best of all forwards)
Yes, do tell me how he's not vital to the success of this team. Oh? Because you say so? Got it.
I've watched all games but 2 this season, thank you.
I'm not arguing Miller hasn't been our best forward over the entire season, of course he has. What I am saying is that he has cooled down for the last few games where we really needed him to step up and that he is not a matchup center but rather a very good offensive player which kinda balances his defensive shortcomings.
In my eyes, the difference makers on the team are Demko, QH and EP. That has been true for the last few games and will be even more so going forward.
Over the entire season Miller has been the most important player along with Demko (maybe OEL and Myers are underrated somewhat for their contributions), and you can agree with this or not, but I guess that's where all the debate regarding trading Miller or not comes from. It's not just his contract - which in itself will be a big issue - but also whether you believe he's a player who can lead to victory in the games where it matters the most.
-
2 hours ago, HKSR said:
You mean since Bo Horvat went down with an injury and Miller had to take over the role as defensive match-up centre taking over 50% of the draws for the team?
The Dallas game, he had no points, but arguably was his most complete game of the year. Defensively responsible and helped to generate offence for his linemates.
He had a goal and an assist against OTT (so in on 2 out of the 3 goals Vancouver scored).
So we are basing the conclusion that he's not a difference maker because of last night? But not the 9 games before that?
Sorry, he's never been a matchuo center and never will be no matter how many faceoffs he takes and he hasn't scored when we needed it the most.
He's not a bad player but I think the latest stretch shows that there are at least 3-4 players on the team that are more vital both short term and long term.
-
11 minutes ago, HKSR said:
Wait... what?? How has he proven he's not a difference maker? 13pts in his last 10 games during one of the most important stretches of hockey the Canucks have played this season.
How many points on the last few games though?
-
2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:
If San Jose loses the grievance then most of their cap space gets wiped out next year. Let's hope that happens.
That would be sweet, but as the league seems to have given the ok in advance and they don't want the embarrassement, guess the likely outcome is that they settle and buy Kane off? Not sure how on board NHLPA will be with that though.
-
I would assume since BB was hired before JR with JR:s blessing that there was a plan in place all along for next year. Having Walker take over after next season does make some sense, but it worries me that most succesful NHL coaches go straight from lower levels to head coach.
In recent years, there are a few coaches who have won with limited experience. Bylsma, Crawford, Laviolette, Berube, maybe missing someone... I would argue though that only Laviolette and Berube had a major impact, the other teams were just that good. Most coaches winning the cup has been at it for quite some time though, so while I get the sentiment about recycling coaches, I also believe that experience makes a big difference in the big games. Especially since our assistants don't have that much playoff experience.
So I don't really like an internal promotion, and I'm not convinced BB can't be the guy for a few more years and take us all the way. Hopefully our window lasts for 7-8 years from now though, and obviously BB is not the solution for that entire period.
-
Like many fans I've warmed to Chiasson during the season not only because of scoring but because he's a heavy reliable player that has eliminated his mistakes. I would assume a 2 year one way deal at 1.1 mil would work for both sides. Gives him some security and while it's unlikely he won't be a good choice as a 13th forward during these two years if he doesn't make the roster that contract can be completely buried in the minors.
-
1
-
[Signing] Maple Leafs sign Calle Jarnkrok
in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Posted
This is a good time to remind everyone that this is the coolest name in hockey. Järnkrok is Swedish for iron hook