khay

Members
  • Content count

    2,528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,542 Revered

About khay

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

4,314 profile views
  1. That's life. If there is up, there's going to be down. We got to watch something special every night. Now, it's time for us to put up with the down part of their play. I am still thankful for getting the chance to watch them play. They changed the way hockey is played to some degree.
  2. I thought Boeser was deferring the puck to Sedins during PP quite a lot or to Bo during 5-on-5. When he started playing with Baertschi and I think Burmistrov, somehow he started to play with more confidence and seemed like he wanted the puck more. And eventually scored the goal. I think once Boeser plays with confidence and desire to want the puck on his stick, he will take off.
  3. I think at this point, Green probably realizes that he doesn't have many horses to compete against the rest of the NHL. The sad thing is that he doesn't even have enough defensive players to play a shutdown game. So, if I were Green, I would focus my efforts this season to establishing chemistry and lines that I can use into the next seasons. First, play the youth. There are 4 players on this team that are under 25 and are top 6 caliber: Horvat, Granlund, Baertschi, Boeser. And Virtanen is on the borderline. He is not a top 6 yet, but he could be and that's the decision that Green has to make, whether or not to groom Virtanen into a top 6 player or as a bottom 6 player. I would personally try to groom Virtanen as a top 6 player and if that is the decision that is made, then the next decision is either to play him like a top 6 here or in the AHL. Among the older players (not counting the Sedins), only Eriksson is being paid as a top 6 player and he is here for the next 5 years. So if I were Green, I would do my best to form lines out of these 5 + Virtanen (depending on what he decided to do with Virtanen). It goes without saying that the two centre pieces on this team are Horvat and Boeser. I think we need to build two lines around them. Before, I thought Horvat-Boeser would be a good idea but it became clear to me that they wouldn't work so well. The reason is because Boeser is good at finding a shooting position, and yet, Horvat will drive the net 9/10 times he has the puck on his stick. Horvat needs a player who can finish around the net, the "garbage collector", or a player that can drive the net with him so that Horvat can finish the garbage around the net. On the contrary, Boeser needs players that can make plays and get the puck to him when he is in a shooting position for a snipe. Horvat: Horvat is an offensively minded player but he is a north-south player without good ability to play the cycle game or the half court offence. The best way to make use of him is to surround him with another north-south player and a player that knows how to finish around the net. Now, Virtanen is yet another north-south player and Eriksson is a player who has shown in the past that he knows how to finish around the net. 2A: Virtanen-Horvat-Eriksson. Boeser: Among the young players, only Baertschi and Gralund can be qualified as playmakers. I would pair them together, and put Boeser, player that knows how to snipe in the slot, a player who can benefit from playmaking of Baertschi and Granlund on their wing. 2B: Baertschi-Granlund-Boeser. Of course, we don't have a first line so I labelled these two lines as 2A and 2B. Neither of these lines measure up well against the other team's best lines so they will get scored on quite a lot, but that's not the point. The point is to allow them to grow into their roles by playing them in the roles that you want them to be in. The rest: The remaining players are Daniel, Henrik, Vanek, Gagner, Burmistrov, Sutter, and Dorsett. The best way to make use of these players is as providing some sort of shelter or buffer for the 2A and 2B lines. It is clear that Sedins can still hold their own. It is also clear that Sutter and Dorsett can be useful for match up purposes. That leaves Vanek, Gagner, Burmistrov. Personally, I think Burmistrov is an intelligent player and can be useful in a checking role alongside Sutter and Dorsett. And that means I would play only one of Vanek or Gagner at a time. 3A: Sedin-Sedin-Vanek/Gagner 3B: Burmistrov-Sutter-Dorsett Now, if the decision is to groom Virtanen in a top 6 role in the AHL, then Gagner would slot in beside Horvat-Eriksson. The focus has to be on the future. This team does not have what it takes on defence for one, to compete for the playoffs, let alone up front. I was very wrong in my initial assessment based on preseason play.
  4. Valid point but who else can go up there? I want to separate Baertschi off of Horvat. Virtanen-Horvat-Boeser now that would be fun.
  5. Barely any offence generated by the "first" line. Time to tinker the lines: Eriksson-Horvat-Boeser Baertschi-Granlund-Gagner Sedin-Sedin-Vanek Burmistrov/Virtanen-Sutter-Dorsett After 10 games, if Virtanen is only averaging 10 minutes of ice time or less, I'd rather have him go to the AHL. Bring up Archibald.
  6. Hutton is a top 6D at the moment on a team that is not exactly stacked on defence. So, I'd say the value is not that high, except that he is a bit young and that he does have some upside. Even in a package with Baertschi + pick (unless the pick is top 10 pick), I doubt he gets us something good like Kane or Duchene.
  7. Bert first. Then Burr.
  8. I only watched the bits of second period and all of third period but it got me thinking, why does Dallas play such a boring style of hockey? Just as I was thinking that, camera turned to the Stars' bench and there he was, their head coach: Ken Hitchcock. Once a great strategist, now just a flag bearer of boring and old style of hockey. Baseball is more exciting than Hitchcock hockey. I don't know, maybe first two periods were exciting. I only caught the third and little bit of the second.
  9. That's what I thought.... but looking back, Chicago was just way too good with all that talent in the backend and up front and a coach who knew how to counteract whatever you did. Basically, no adjustment worked is my assessment in hindsight.
  10. I watched the first and the third period (tuned out to watch baseball during the second period) but Calgary didn't lost because of goaltending, they lost because they failed to generate any kind of offence 5-on-5. Monahan and Gaudreau didn't generate much of scoring chances, perhaps because they faced McDavid quite a lot? And Ferland showed that he is unfit as their winger, not enough skill to keep the play going. If Calgary or any team is going to have any success against the Oilers, they need a designated line that can match up against McDavid's line so that a scoring line can be freed up to capitalize on their weaker 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lines.
  11. So that Vancouver Canucks ice the goaltending tandem of Nilsson and Bachman? Lol. We have our own goaltending problem, it's not 2012 where we had two all star goalies.
  12. My guess is he will work his way in sooner or later because I don't see the PP#1 working well. They will be forced to come up with a new configurations.
  13. The same thing happened to me but for Manny Malholtra. He was picking up ice cream cake from DQ
  14. I see. You meant that too much depth is a problem for the players, not for the team. Yeah, I guess players would like the security of a roster spot and if there is no depth in your team and you are good enough, then you will get the job.