JamesB

Members
  • Content count

    3,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

JamesB last won the day on May 2 2015

JamesB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,333 Gaming the system

About JamesB

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Saw the game late on PVR and would like build on some of the other comments. 1. Obviously a well-played game by the Canucks. I was glad to see the empty-net goal as that made the score closer to a reflection of the play. Not sure if the Canucks are that good or Buffalo is that bad (and let's not sign Kane as a UFA) but the Canuck skaters really dominated. If not for below average goaltending by Marky and above average goaltending at the other end the score would have been more one-sided. 2. Congrats to the first line for an excellent game. By the first line I mean the Sutter line. I guess that is an exaggeration, but in terms of minutes played, the Sutter line had the most ice time tonight. Sutter led the forwards at 19:16, Dorsett was third at 18:20 and Granny was 5th at 16:41. That is more combined time than the Horvat line and a lot more than the other two lines. For the season overall, it is very close between the Horvat line and the Sutter line (both as constituted tonight) for the most minutes. And great to see Granny finally get on the scoreboard tonight. 3. Speaking of time on ice, I was surprised to see how much Hutton played. His play on the second Buffalo goal was obviously bad but Green must have thought he was generally playing well. I notice that Green does like to give guys a chance to come back from mistakes. He left Dorsett on the ice after his poor play on the first Sabre goal and he did not miss a shift, which turned out to be a big plus. Same story with Hutton. As @ThaShady1 says, there are a lot things to like about Green. His post-game press briefings are so much better than Willie's. 4. Looking forward, the goaltending situation is definitely up for grabs. Both guys have had some problems and the overall team save percentage is not great. While I assume Demko will spend the season in Utica, it would not surprise me to see him make the team next year and maybe challenge for the #1 spot. 5. Nice to see Jake on the board as well and to see the Sedins score. The Sedins still look slow out there but I agree Jake might the right fit for them. I still think consistency is an issue for Jake. It seems like he has to really focus to consistently make the right play. It does not come instinctively for him like it seems to for Boeser or Horvat. (Although no doubt that "instinct" is due partly to thousands of hours of practice and playing experience in their careers so far.) Jake's speed and physical play seem like a natural complement to the Sedins and, with all three playing best with limited minutes at this stage of their respective careers, it should work -- at least on paper.
  2. Very happy to see Wiercioch called up. He did well in preseason (as @Hairy Kneel says) and he was very enthusiastic about being on the Canucks (his hometown team). He did not "deserve" to be sent down. I understand why he was sent down once the Canucks acquired Pouliot, but I think Weircioch deserves a shot on the big team. And his size and reach are very valuable, especially on the PK. He also has some offensive upside. Hutton has struggled at times this season and I think it would not hurt if he sat for a game or two. It is not obvious that Hutton is better than Wiercioch right now. Similarly, Pouliot has been okay but, once again, it is not like he is obviously ahead of Wiercioch. He also has a good shot from the point, which the Canucks could use right now. The "book" on Wiercioch is that he is "inconsistent", but his underlying analytics are generally good. (See https://milehighsticking.com/2016/07/23/colorado-avalanche-patrick-wiercioch-might-be-a-steal/). So I am enthusiastic to see him get a shot. And, with TG as coach, I think he will. Not like when the Canucks would call up Pedan and WD would never give him a chance to play.
  3. Might as well add my post-mortem although I don't have a lot of original comments. 1. Obviously the play of the game was Gudbranson's 5 minute major in the first period. The Bruins poured in 3 PP goals and that pretty much sealed it. The Canucks made a good effort toward the end of the second and in parts of the third, but it is hard to come back from 4-1 down, especially on the road, and especially for a team that does not score a lot. And losing Guddy for the game did not help. 2. I agree with @Chris12345. That was an obvious boarding major. Yes, the Boston player turned slightly toward the boards shortly before the hit but, even if he had not turned Guddy was going to hit him somewhere the between shoulder and the numbers and knock him into the boards. Also. after the player turned, Guddy could have veered or held up to some extent. The hit was not that hard and I do not expect a suspension. In fact, I think the game misconduct was overdoing it. But I think it was a pretty obvious major penalty. 3. Unlike what some people said at the time. Guddy is not the best Canuck D. He is big and strong but Tanev is a much better D overall. However, Guddy probably is the best PK D on the team, with his size, reach, and positioning. Not having him on the PK really hurt. MDZ and Hutton struggled on the PK in my view. As for the forwards, Burmi was the weakest on the PK. 4. Goaltending. Oh well, it could not last. Nilsson was great in Ottawa but below average today. None of goals Nilsson gave up were "soft" goals, but an average NHL goalie on a average day probably stops two of those four goals. Not good enough rebound control and not good enough reads. 5. Sedins. Their play is not bad but, in general, I agree with @mooby. They are not playing like even second liners. Right now they are a good third line. They don't give away much but they can't play shutdown and obviously they don't contribute to the speed game or the physical game. Still, they have been a bit unlucky not to get on the scoreboard in the last couple of games. I expect them to be close to 0.5 PPG this season but it is hard to see them fitting in after this year. 6. On the plus side, Horvat looked good, and Boeser continues to impress. He just generates a lot of good opportunities. I guess I would go back to Horvat between Boeser and Baertschi. And Dorsett is certainly highly visible out there. Overall, this game was not as bad as the score indicated. Take away Guddy's 5-minute major and the game could go either way. Or with above average goaltending this game would have been close. Still looking forward to the next game.
  4. First, thanks to the @taskicon for creating a GDT. Not a lot to time left before the game starts at 4 pm Pacific time and it is always nice to the pre-game comments on CDC. Also, like @AlwaysACanuckFan says, it will be interesting to see 3B line again. They were excellent last game but now we face the question of whether that combo was a one game wonder or the beginning of a long term high productivity line. It would be quite a story to see a rookie, a low cost UFA reclamation project, and a guy picked up in trade for a second round pick emerge as a legitimate first line. I am not expecting it but, as a fan, I am going to allow myself to hope for it. I don't think there is goalie "controversy". As Travis Green said in the interview posted on CDC, the Canucks said before the season started that they want both guys to push each other and that both would be fighting for the #1 spot or, more generally, for more ice time. If a guys plays well, he will play more. As Green said, neither guy has established himself as a bona fide #1 NHL goalie yet and both guys are at a similar career stage. Both guys have a shot and there is internal competition. I don't see that as controversial. Maybe they end up with a 50-50 split or maybe one guy emerges as a clear #1. Either way, as Green says, it is good to have two promising goalies on the team. I will also be interested to see how Horvat does. Not sure is still being bothered by a nagging shoulder injury, but I like him with Vanek and Gagner and those guys are due to get on the scoreboard tonight.
  5. I agree with @samurai that the importance of the AHL as a developmental league is relevant. And there is no doubt that the AHL is by far the most important developmental league for the NHL. And development is not just about scoring -- it is also about play away from the puck. When it comes to just scoring, being a point a game player in the SHL or KHL is a better predictor of NHL scoring performance than being a point a game player in the AHL. (That is just a fact in the data, not an opinion.) But, in terms of play away from the puck, physical play, etc. it is possible that the AHL is closer to the NHL level. So I would expect that guys who are top scorers in the KHL and SHL when still young (i.e. still prospects) are quite likely to become top 6 NHL forwards, whereas when it comes to bottom 6 forwards, NHL teams would lean more toward guys coming up from the AHL. However, I would also point out the being the main feeder league does not mean being the second best league. For example, the main feeder league into the NFL is the NCAA, but CFL teams would likely beat even the best college teams pretty easily (under either U.S. or CFL rules). See, for example, https://www.quora.com/Who-would-win-if-the-CFL-champion-team-played-the-NCAA-FCS-champion. Or, back to hockey, I think that more players go from major Junior (the CHL) directly to the NHL than go from the KHL to NHL or from the SHL to the NHL, but no one would argue that the CHL is even in the same league (so to speak) as the KHL or SHL in quality. I certainly agree with @SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME and Samurai that Tryamkin has apparently improved a lot and that playing on the Canucks probably helped him quite a bit (although he probably would have improved to some extent even if he had stayed in the KHL). I would also love to see him on the Canucks again. I wonder how opposing forwards would like going up against a combination of Tryamkin and Gubranson for example.
  6. Have to disagree with Samurai here. It is certainly not the AHL "hands down" over the KHL. Here are three things to consider. 1. I would not take Don Cherry as an objective source on North American vs. European or Russian hockey. He has been known to make some, uuh, unusual comments on the subject. 2. There are a number of people who are objective and try hard to assess different leagues. For example, Rob Vollman's league translation factors are widely respected. They do not measure league quality exactly. They measure scoring translation numbers, but they are closely correlated with league quality. The NHL is, by definition, 1.0 The KHL is next at 0.74, the SHL is third at 0.58, and the AHL is 4th at 0.47. That is, someone who scores 1 PPG in the KHL would be expected to score 0.74 PPG in the NHL. Someone who scored 1 PPG in the AHL would be expected to score 0.47 PPG in the NHL. See 3. Scoring is not the only thing that matters. The AHL is, admittedly, a more physical league than the KHL or the SHL and is more similar to the NHL in style of play. However the Hockey Writers do a direct comparison. See https://thehockeywriters.com/ranking-the-top-ten-hockey-leagues/. The Hockey Writers also have the KHL second (after the NHL), the SHL third, and AHL fourth. 4. Another thing to consider is that almost no-one in AHL is good enough to be a regular in the NHL. The AHL has lots of replacement level players (guys on the margin of the NHL who can replace injured NHL on a short term basis) but anyone in the AHL who has the chance to be an NHL regular would jump at it. However, there are quite a few KHL players who could be NHL regulars, but choose to play in the KHL. Tryamkin is in that category. For other names see http://www.thesportster.com/hockey/15-khl-players-and-the-nhl-team-that-might-want-them/. Many of these top KHL players have done very well against NHL players in international competitions. Bottom line: Using either data or the "eye-test", there is not much legitimate debate among objective observers over whether the KHL or AHL is a better league. (And it is nice to see that Pettersson's strong performance in the SHL so far is a very good positive indicator. Also, Boeser played in the NCHC, the best of the NCAA leagues, so it should not be a big surprise if he scores at a top 6 level (about 0.5 PPG or better) this year on the Canucks.)
  7. My takeaways. 1. Nilsson did something in his first game that Markstrom has not yet achieved with the Canucks: record an NHL shutout. I think the contest for #1 is wide open. 2. Boeser and Burmi looked good, as did Baertschi. That line looked better with Burmi in the middle than it did with Bo. 3. It is not a question of "vets vs. kids". It is a question of playing the best players. And that means giving Boeser lots of ice time. Boeser leads the team in scoring (despite not playing 2 of the 5 games), led the team in scoring in the pre-season and was excellent in the last 9 games last year. He is a point a game player in the 17 games he has played (17 pts in those 17 games). No one else is close. Still a fairly small sample, but not that small. 4. Almost everyone likes the way Guddy looks out there. It nice to have a guy who is big, strong, cannot be pushed around or intimidated by anyone and makes tough guys on the other teams think twice about taking liberties. He is also very good on the PK and good on defensive positioning. He does not handle the puck well and is never going to provide any offence to speak of. But it is good to have a guy like that on what would otherwise be a very soft team. 5. Tanev was quietly good (again) and MDZ was good also. Hutton was better as well. The D gave up "only" 32 shots tonight despite leading on the scoreboard all night (making the other team shoot more)..
  8. 1. As @skategal, @Rocksterh8, and @TheGuardian_ all point out, the issue is not panic. The issue is that fans will simply tune out and shift their attention elsewhere. Attendance is down, and I would guess that Canuck TV viewership is quite a bit lower than a few years ago and that even CDC activity is reduced. (I would welcome actual data on that even if I turn out to be wrong.) 2. Like all fan-based media, CDC has a strong home bias but I would like to join the minority playing the role of Devil's Advocate regarding current management. 3. As Alf indicates, we are in a rebuild but there is no guarantee that the peak of the process will be a Cup contender or even very good. Being bad for a few years does not guarantee being good down the road. In the major sports some teams alternate from very bad to very good, but some alternate between being very bad and being mediocre or maybe just "pretty good". My fear is that Benning is on the very bad to mediocre track, although I agree is too early to say for sure. 4. All GMs make some good moves and some bad moves. But, as Alf indicates, the most important thing by far to acquire the two or three elite players you can build a Cup contender around. Every Cup finalist in memory was built around two or three elite players. Those guys are hard to get. Most of them are high draft picks also some come from lower picks that we can think of as lottery tickets. It is almost impossible to get those guys in trades or as UFAs. To get those guys you have to make the most of high picks when you get them and you need to acquire lots of lower picks as well to maximize your chances. Benning has not done that. In my view there is only one player acquired by Benning who looks like he has a good chance of becoming an elite player, and that is Pettersson. It is not impossible that someone else could, but no-one else has shown that kind of trajectory so far. And trading away picks in trades for guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Dorsett, Vey, Pedan (who turned into Pouliot), etc. is not going to increase the chances of getting those elite players, even if they are pretty good players, as some of those guys are. 5. I would have preferred an all out rebuild from Day 1 of the Benning regime. Instead, the team sacrificed the opportunity to maximize the rebuild by trading away picks for older prospects (that other teams were prepared to let go) or for vets. I am sure Aquillini is not happy about spending to the Cap every year and still getting a very low-scoring team that finishes near the bottom of the standings. The Canucks did not need to pay for UFAs like Miller, Vrbata, and Eriksson (and re-signing Sutter for big money). They could have acquired much cheaper vets and still have finished near the bottom of the league in the past two years. I agree that Miller was good, and that Sutter is pretty good, as are MDZ, Vanek, and Gagner. But bringing them in just delays the rebuild in my view. 6. I think that if the Canucks had started a rebuild when Benning took over, and made the "obvious" picks with their high draft picks (Nylander or Ehlers, and Tkachuk) they would be on a legitimate upward trajectory by now. 7. All that said, I don't think the Canucks are as bad as they have looked in the past two games. I originally picked them to finish about 21st or so and score quite a bit more than they did last year. I still think that is right. And we do have some good prospects (finally), but I think we could and should be much further ahead at this stage.
  9. 1. Thanks to @Beary Sweet for a nice GDT. As others have mentioned, the picture of Karlsson is impressive. He reminds me of a young Aragorn from LTOR. Both Karlsson and Aragorn seem like good guys, so I am not going to be jealous. The girl he is with looks pretty good too. Actually, maybe she is Arwen. 2. Seeing Chaput with the team is like deja vu all over again. If he just sits in the press box, ok, but if we need a guy to actually play how about Goldy? Anyway, with Sutter in, I assume (and hope) that Chaput is out. There is no way that he should replace Burmi. 3. Hope Nilsson plays. Have been hearing comments on the radio to the effect that, when Marky plays well he should continue to start because he is hot and, if he does not play well he should start to give him a chance to bounce back and show he is a real #1. That does not make sense to me. Nilsson deserves a chance to compete for the #1 spot. Let's see what he can do. Marky will get more chances.
  10. I am impressed by the level of honesty displayed by @JamesBlondage in his marriage (apparently more than that displayed by Alf). When I am sitting at my computer obsessing over hockey stats, my usual story is that I am "working" (which is sort of true in the sense that I am working on hockey stats) or that I "was checking out restaurants to take you on your birthday" (which I might do for 2 or 3 minutes before diving into the stats) or something like that. Speaking of obsessions, thanks to Sid for explaining this signing: I found this hard to understand so I checked out the Collective Agreement and, sure enough, Sid has it right (as far as I can understand). Being obsessive about it here are the details just in case anyone besides me is interested. I hope I have this right. Please correct me if I am wrong. Here are quotes from the Agreement with comments from me. 9.2 Age of Players. As used in this Article, "age," including "First SPC Signing Age," means a Player's age on September 15 of the calendar year in which he signs an SPC, regardless of his actual age on the date he signs such SPC. Okay, so far so good. Although Gads just turned 19 (October 11) he "counts" as an 18-year-old because he was still 18 on Sept. 15 (as would also apply to Pettersson or Lind if they were to sign before 2017 ends). 9.1 d i) In the event that an 18 year old or 19 year old Player signs an SPC with a Club but does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the first season under that SPC, the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for a period of one (1) year, [Yes, that that applies to Gads. This year slides so this year - 2017-18 does does not "count" in the three years of his contract] except that this automatic extension will not apply to a Player who is 19 according to Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between September 16 and December 31 in the year in which he first signs an SPC. [This does not apply to Gads as is "officially 18". It would have applied if he had waited until January 2018 to sign. And if Pettersson or Lind sign in 2018 this exception would apply to them.] ... Now let's move on to the second season (2018-19 in this case). ii) In the event that a Player signs his first SPC at age 18 and has had his SPC extended pursuant to Subsection (i), [Yes, that is the situation Gads will be in next season ] and such Player does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the second season under that SPC, then the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for one (1) additional year. [Yes, this is the second slide year. If Gads does not play in the NHL in 2018-19, his contract could slide for an additional year, meaning the entry level deal not start until 2019-20. There is no mention of a slide for players who sign as 19-year-olds. Therefore, as far as I can tell, if Pettersson or Lind sign in 2018 they would start their 3-year entry level contracts in 2018-19 for sure, instead of maybe sliding to 2019-20]. So, as Sid indicates, signing now helps the Canucks. So why would Gads sign now instead of waiting to January 2018 and avoiding a second slide year? One possibility is that the Canucks gave him more than they otherwise would have in return for signing now. And it guarantees that he actually gets a contract. And, if he is good enough to make the team out of camp next year (for 2018-19), great. The second slide year does not take effect in that case. Of course, the Canucks have shown an inclination to "burn off" entry years of high end prospects. Possibly Pettersson or Lind could sign contracts and play on the Canucks at the end of 2017-18 if their teams finish early and advance their three-year contracts to start this season.
  11. In an effort to try to sleep better I feel the need to write something down. Here are my main impressions. 1. The game did not do justice to the GDT. Sorry to see the great artwork by @debluvsburrows wasted. (Well, not exactly wasted, because CDC enjoyed it but you get the idea.) 2. The Sedins looked bad. I don't thinking splitting them up is the answer, Together or apart they are slow and lack intensity -- losing puck battles and reacting slowly to the game around them. They have had great careers but at this stage they just are not helping the team much. They will have good days and bad days, but the good days won't be that good and the bad days (like today) will be really bad. 3. I agree that Hutton is really struggling. Sooner or later Holm will be worth a look. 4. On the plus side, it seems pretty obvious that Boeser is the real deal. Even before scoring a really nice goal in the 3rd he looked very good tonight. Burmistrov was good and Pouliot was pretty good. 5. For next game, Virtanen will obviously be in, which is good. And time for Nilsson to play, and time to drastically cut the Sedins PP time. 6. The other plus is that the prospects are looking great. Pettersson, Lind, Gaudette, Demko, DiPietro, Palmu, and Gadjovich are all looking very good. Holm and Goldy are also looking good. And Dahlen and Juolevi are about to get going. Assuming Eriksson is hurt is will be interesting to see whether Goldy get called up or Archie gets signed and called up.
  12. Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. I think the results are quite interesting. As noted by @Crabcakes, there is not much clarity about the depth chart after Edler and Tanev. All four other guys have some votes at #3, although Del Zotto gets the nod so far. The #6 spot is a bit more clear, with a pretty strong consensus that Hutton is in that spot. But all three of the other guys got at least a few votes for #6 too. I think the unfortunate fact is that the Canucks do not really have a solid 2nd pairing, even if Edler is healthy, and certainly not with Edler injured. I like the way MDZ has played and agree that he is the one guy in the bottom 4 who has a fairly complete game and can "play in all situations". He was a good pickup (if the objective is to win now -- or at least to lose less often now). But he would not be sitting at #3 on many teams in the league. It certainly gives Pouliot a clear shot. If he can get his confidence back and cut down on mental mistakes he could certainly move up the depth chart. On other points raised, I agree with @VanGnome that both Stecher and Hutton have not progressed much. I am not sure it is a slump. It might just be they had to make a big effort and a lot of progress just to reach the NHL and do not have a lot of upside left. After all, Stecher is 23 and Hutton is 24. At those ages we normally expect a modest amount of additional progress, but some guys level off about that age in terms of development -- even Ds. But I also agree with @Zhukini that trading Hutton now would not be "selling high". I think Benning would not get much for him if he went in the market now. Among other things, his cap hit of $2.8 million is fairly high for a guy just hanging on to the #6 spot on a below average team. Finally, I like the idea of playing Pouliot with Tanev, as suggested by @oldnews. I would give Pouliot a green light and say "show what you can do". He still needs to be defensively responsible, of course, but that pairing could generate quick zone exits and minimize time spent in the D-zone -- which is one way to achieve effective defense. I also agree that MDZ and Guddy would then get the shutdown job (i.e. against the other team's top line). I am not sure they can handle it but, in a way, it takes advantage of Guddy's strengths. If he is going to make big hits, it is good to have those hits against the other team's top forwards. And it is good if those forward think twice about driving the net. And it is not like he would do a lot puck handling (his weakness) anyway. And the team would not be going for quick breakouts in those shutdown situations. (And MDZ would carry the puck when opportunities arose.) And thanks a lot to @mll for the zone exit data. As expected, Guddy is low man on his stat and Tanev is very good. But Edler also looks very good (although playing with Tanev helps). Overall the D looks a bit thin but there are some interesting possibilities and it will be interesting to see how Green handles things.
  13. Not much doubt that Tanev and Edler were at the top of the depth chart and it will hurt the team if Edler is out for long. But we should get a chance to see Pouliot play unless Edler makes a quick recovery. There are lots of different opinions out there about the Canucks' bottom 4 and I would be very interested in the general CDC opinion, so I made up a poll. Travis Green probably won't vote in the poll, but we can see his preferences based on ice time. Here is the average time on ice (ATOI) for each guy. Edler 24:17 (first two games only) Del Zotto: 23:20 Tanev: 21:31 Hutton: 19:15 Gubranson: 18:24 Stecher: 13:38 Maybe the most interesting case is Gudbranson Here is a comment from @oldnews about Guddy's performance in game 3. Speaking of "evidence" - tonight is a perfect example of how completely misleading 'advanced stats' can be. Not sure if you had the chance to watch this game - but if you did, and then you read the underlying numbers on Gudbranson, they couldn't paint a more false impression. Gudbranson's corsi was -9 / 30.43%. He was also a minus 2. Inb4 some CanucksArmy 'analytics' guy makes something of that. However, if you watched this game - and watched Gudbranson, you'd realize how completely meaningless and misleading those isolated stats are. He was outstanding - made countless excellent defensive plays - rocked guys like Myers as if he were a middleweight, blocked shots, dominated on the boards, routinely won puck battles, and had Jets pulling up to avoid being hit on more than one occasion. Played huge, hard minutes in a game where a lethal/dangerous group like Winnipeg's managed a mere 20 shots. Here is a quote from Pass it to Bulis (Daniel Wagner), who I think qualifies as an "analytics guy". Erik Gudbranson was a completely different story. When he was on the ice at 5-on-5, the Canucks were out-shot 11-to-1. That is worrisome. He saw a steady diet of the Jets' second line of Bryan Little, Patrik Laine, and Mathieu Perreault and got crushed like chips in a heavily-handled bag of Lays. I have been watching Guddy closely and I am pulled both ways. I like his physical play. He stands up to the tough guys on the other team and can't be intimidated. He makes a lot of hits and "near-hits" -- physical plays that do not get recorded as official hits. And he is very good on the PK. He leads the Canuck D in both hits and blocked shots. However, his puck handling is not good. I was unable to find any zone exit data for this year but I have noticed that the team does not make a lot of clean zone exits when he handles the puck. He is not an accurate passer, he does not receive passes well and, most importantly, he does not seem able to see or anticipate where and when to make the best possible outlet pass (the opposite of Tanev, who is extremely good at that). On the PK that does not matter -- when you get the puck you shoot it down the ice. I think it is good to have a guy like Guddy on the team, but he needs to be paired with a guy who can handle the puck well. Hutton is also an interesting case. The general consensus is that he has struggled so far this year. But he has size, handles the puck well, and skates well. He should be making more progress than he is. The ice-time numbers are striking for Del Zotto and Stecher. Based on ice-time numbers, it looks like Green loves Del Zotto's game and does not have a lot of confidence in Stecher. Green said that MDZ played a lot in the Jet game because he is a left D and Edler went down. But he played a lot in the first two games as well. Special teams will also be used as an explanation but if Green doesn't use Stecher on either the PP or the PK, even when down to 5 D's, that says something. Personally I am impressed with Del Zotto and have him at #3. I am very unsure about the other 3. Pouliot should get a shot and I will be very interested to see how he does.
  14. I refuse to let evidence spoil a good theory.
  15. Good read by @SuperReverb2. Yes the Canuck puck handling does not look good. Both other teams also do not look great. One issue is that the ice is not that good. The Canucks keep the arena pretty warm to keep the fans comfortable. Personally, when I go to games I would not mind cooler temperatures if the ice surface was better. And as for watching on TV I am all in favour of a cold arena. If Edler is out for a while it will hurt the Canucks. For all the flack Edler takes, he is still no worse than #2 on the Canuck depth chart (after Tanev). We could see tonight that Hutton, Stecher, Guddy, and MDZ all have their flaws. That said, however, I will be happy to Pouliot. The Canucks could certainly use some offensive creativity from the back end. In the GDT I had a post arguing that the Messier contract was a lot worse than the Eriksson contract. And I think it was, but Eriksson is not helping his cause or my argument. His contract may not be as bad as Messier's, but it is still bad. Still don't know what Benning was thinking. Just a glaring error on his part. Anyway, it seems like Green could see the same thing as GDT -- that Eriksson does not deserve a lot of ice time. It certainly would not make a lot of sense to have Boeser or Virtanen in the press box while Eriksson plays. All that said, the Canucks deserved a better fate tonight. The probably outplayed the Jets overall but just could not capitalize on their chances -- missing the net on a lot of good opportunities and just not finishing on various others.