Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Kevin Bieksa you are really...

Zigmund.Palffy

By Zigmund.Palffy
in Canucks Talk

Recommended Posts

لني Canucks Prospect

لني

Posted
Posted

Why?

Better yet why don't we get back to the issue at hand which was the play where hamhuis coughed up the puck.

I solemnly apologise for making the grave mistake of using the word strip. What I should have used was the term "forced hamhuis to cough up the puck".

Suitable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duodenum Canucks Third-Line

Duodenum

Posted
Posted

Better yet why don't we get back to the issue at hand which was the play where hamhuis coughed up the puck.

I solemnly apologise for making the grave mistake of using the word strip. What I should have used was the term "forced hamhuis to cough up the puck".

Suitable?

Technically Hamhuis never coughed up the puck ;)

The puck went from Hamhuis -> Bieksa -> Blues player.

Also, grave mistake?

The conundrum is, what would have happened had Bieksa not been there? Because we don't know that, it's hard to make any solid claim one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duodenum Canucks Third-Line

Duodenum

Posted
Posted

Seeming by your definition of a strip or give away bieksas gva stat is inflated.

A strip and a giveaway are two completely different things.

Making a bad pass which results in a turnover would be a giveaway yet no stripping of the puck occurred :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duodenum Canucks Third-Line

Duodenum

Posted
Posted

I was under the impression that a player stripped of the puck was credited with a gva. If that's wring then totally my bad.

That's correct, but I don't understand your previous notion that Bieksa's giveaways should be revisited. Strip = giveaway but giveaway =/= strip?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmployeeoftheMonth Canucks Second-Line

EmployeeoftheMonth

Posted
Posted

That's correct, but I don't understand your previous notion that Bieksa's giveaways should be revisited. Strip = giveaway but giveaway =/= strip?

I think my confusion was in the interpretation of your post. If Hamhuis wasn't stripped of the puck (which I was for some reason relating to you saying it wasn't a giveaway) then several of Bieksas gva would also not count.

As I said though the error was in the interpretation and the assumption of what you were saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wallstreetamigo Canucks All-Star

wallstreetamigo

Posted
Posted

I agree. A good game by Bieksa tonight.

To be honest, I still don't like the look of the Hamhuis-Bieksa pairing though. For some reason, Being paired with Bieksa seems to drag Hamhuis down a bit. Not that I blame Bieksa, I think it is more a lack of chemistry and communication. Hamhuis definitely looks much better at both ends of the ice playing with Edler, Ehrhoff, or Ballard. he and Bieksa just don't seem to communicate all that well. Half the time they seem confused about who is supposed to be where, especially in the defensive zone. I don't know why that is, but it causes havoc at times. The criss cross thing needs to go away too as it is leading to unnecessary defensive mistakes.

More than anything though, think it is time for AV to get Rome the hell out of there......Alberts at least hits guys and looks way better on the PK.

Next game should be:

Ehrhoff-Edler

Hamhuis-Ballard

Alberts-Bieksa

I think these pairings would make the D a lot better overall. All 3 pairings have shown good chemistry this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duodenum Canucks Third-Line

Duodenum

Posted
Posted

I agree. A good game by Bieksa tonight.

To be honest, I still don't like the look of the Hamhuis-Bieksa pairing though. For some reason, Being paired with Bieksa seems to drag Hamhuis down a bit. Not that I blame Bieksa, I think it is more a lack of chemistry and communication. Hamhuis definitely looks much better at both ends of the ice playing with Edler, Ehrhoff, or Ballard. he and Bieksa just don't seem to communicate all that well. Half the time they seem confused about who is supposed to be where, especially in the defensive zone. I don't know why that is, but it causes havoc at times. The criss cross thing needs to go away too as it is leading to unnecessary defensive mistakes.

More than anything though, think it is time for AV to get Rome the hell out of there......Alberts at least hits guys and looks way better on the PK.

Next game should be:

Ehrhoff-Edler

Hamhuis-Ballard

Alberts-Bieksa

I think these pairings would make the D a lot better overall. All 3 pairings have shown good chemistry this season.

A lot of Hamhuis' errors are coming from his own bonehead mistakes. He did look better with Ballard out there in the very short time they've been together but I think it's Hamhuis himself that needs to improve more than anything. 4.5 million not worth it imo (yet anyways).

--

Bieksa had a good game tonight, loved the fight...took on a pretty tough guy and made him eat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marinated.pea Canucks Prospect

marinated.pea

Posted
Posted

It's all about paradigms but personally I love the Hamhuis-Bieksa pairing. I'm aware it's all about the way you watch the game, so I'm not really here trying to convince anyone of anything. But the way I see it, Hamhuis and Bieksa work really well together because Hamhuis has a good calming sense to Bieksa - his steadiness seems to transfer to Juice's play. As well, having a steady guy like Hamhuis allowed Bieksa to jump up and even if he is caught, Hamhuis is assured to make a great play to back him up 80% of the time. I honestly think they have great chemistry - I remembered in the first period when they were killing an early penalty, Juice made some great short passes and that resulted in clears. It's funny :lol: How I see this great chemistry but some do not. I don't think anyone's wrong - it's just the way we view the game.

Also, I think it's easy to point fingers at them with regards to that goal - but that was a bit of the brainfart by part of Hamhuis, and I actually appreciated how aware Juice was of the play to move to Hammer's side to cover (unfortunately, of course, they still scored). I mean, throughout the course of the season, Hammer's made (by my count) 2 biggo mistakes. One was the gaffe in Buffalo (playing with Rome), and the other was from tonight. That's it. Tonight's play actually was not unlike the Ehrhoff ridiculously-stupid-change which left Edler alone 3 on 1 (coincidentally, against Anaheim too lol). Funny how people are so eager to let that particular play go but not this one.

That being said, I think Ballard and Hamhuis looked good together out there on the second unit. I hope AV keeps 'em out there together for the time being, although our 2nd unit still isn't all that great. Not unlike Bieksa, Ballard loves to jump into plays and almost netted one there mid-3rd period. And really, if their chemistry is THAT great, I'm almost willing to bet money that AV will try them out there sooner or later. I remember us mixing up some pairings nearing the 3rd period. Juice was out there with Edler sometimes and Hamhuis played some odd shifts with Ballard and Rome. Of course, IMO that isn't necessary, but at least it goes to show that the coaches are willing to mix up the pairings if need be, or if anything, just to test the waters.

Yeah I really do hope Alberts feels better soon. I didn't think Rome was all that awful out there tonight (I've seen worst) but our blueline is just that much better with Alberts in and Rome out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scoobydooby Abbotsford Regular

Scoobydooby

Posted
Posted

Its hard to argue with how he played tonight.. I haven't seen Juice throw himself into a game like that in a while.. I mean when he's present at all times. He was ALL OVER the place tonight, throwing hits, quick on his feet, sharp passes, looking confident with the puck.. if only he could reproduce that night after night.

Its so frustrating sometimes seeing him play a game like that because it does make you think what could be preventing him from doing it all the time?? its clear he is capable.. is it mentality, conditioning? what? Because some games this season he played the complete opposite of how he did tonight.. out of sync, tired, too cute with the puck, slow, and caused lots of turnovers.

I just hope he can get back to form.. he's looking real good right now though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...