Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Kevin Bieksa you are really...


Zigmund.Palffy

Recommended Posts

I'm hardly a troll, I'm just not an extreme Bieksa lover.

If you consider my 'trade Bieksa' posts trolling, then so are the blind Bieksa love posts exhibited by yourself and a few others. They are opposite positions that provoke a response. The definition of trolling. Mr Love troll. lol.

The only reason you're not considered the biggest troll on the board is because there are clowns like Tatoes, hank&dan, Kes101 and Tomn8r for you to overcome.

Keep trying though, you're catching up.

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this suggestion on the VAN/NYI trade rumour thread...

A wild out-of-the box suggestion.

When Salo gets off the LTIR. VAN trades Bieksa to NYI for a 3rd. At trade deadline...NYI trades Bieksa back to VAN for a 2nd. Not sure how the cap works cuz we've all seen how a 4M player at the start of the season becomes a 2M player at trade deadline.

So basically VAN trades a 2nd for a 3rd for NYI help with the cap.

Again...not sure if this can work (need the resident CDC capologist to take a look at it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this suggestion on the VAN/NYI trade rumour thread...

A wild out-of-the box suggestion.

When Salo gets off the LTIR. VAN trades Bieksa to NYI for a 3rd. At trade deadline...NYI trades Bieksa back to VAN for a 2nd. Not sure how the cap works cuz we've all seen how a 4M player at the start of the season becomes a 2M player at trade deadline.

So basically VAN trades a 2nd for a 3rd for NYI help with the cap.

Again...not sure if this can work (need the resident CDC capologist to take a look at it).

The main reason it wouldn't work is because the Nuck's would still have that overpriced, lightweight, mistake prone, turnover machine Bieksa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality though dictates that there are people who are more at fault, somtimes it obvious and sometimes you have to look at an entire play to see it.

^ This is why I think Edler is so brutal. I'll admit right now he has offensive upside, But defensively he's a fu(king nightmare. If you watch the whole play he has piss-poor decision makeing and often will put his other d-man out of position. Then Bieksa, Ballard, Erhoff or whomever it may be is forced try to do something desperate. They look totally out of position and you question what they were doing out there, not realizing bobbles put them in that position. I wish more people would look at the whole play before placeing blame. IMO Bieksa is one of the best at creating angles and consistantly makes sure the puck gets out.

I wish Darren(Canucklion) would just learn to get a peice of pu$$ and move out of home so that he didn't have to spend 12 hours a day with his wingman(WSA) bashing Beiksa, its really getting pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then in this world can't we just say everyone on the ice is responsible. If 10 plays prior player E doesn't pass the puck to player D instead of player C Event A doesn't happen. Everyone on the ice is to blame for this reason and I agree it is a pretty simple concept. That's why saying that if player A gets it right event A doesn't occur is pretty meaningless in this wishy washy equation of "it's not his 100% his fault but he did it."

Reality though dictates that there are people who are more at fault, somtimes it obvious and sometimes you have to look at an entire play to see it.

Jesus, obviously you guys know what I mean by saying that, it's a simple way of showing how someone can be at fault without it being 100 percent his fault. This is just reaching for something to argue against, completely pointless. Every implication does not need to be typed out, I would assume you guys know what somebody did 5 minutes ago doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wouldn't the Canuck that coughed up the puck or lost the faceoff be more responsible than Bieksa? Because if that did't happen it never gets to our zone in the first place. So who shoulders the prime responsibility? Should it be whoever gave Tampa puck possession because if that didn't happen then Bieksa never would have tried to hit Stampkos and missed. How far back in the play can we go with stupidity to lay blame? Or does that path just automatically end at Bieksa by default regardless of any other errors.

It pretty much starts with Bieksa and ends with Hansen/Hamhuis because they made the most recent and relevant plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, obviously you guys know what I mean by saying that, it's a simple way of showing how someone can be at fault without it being 100 percent his fault. This is just reaching for something to argue against, completely pointless. Every implication does not need to be typed out, I would assume you guys know what somebody did 5 minutes ago doesn't matter.

I think the problem here is that perhaps your choice of words off the hop weren't better. Perhaps a 'contribitory factor' to the goal would have been better? Saying "fault", especially when you're trying to argue that a particular event led up to a goal, as justification for saying "fault", is careless. And it also invites the responses of pointing out other instances/events that also led up to the goal. (The goaltending, the lazy backcheck, the lost faceoff, the poor coverage, etc) And they didn't happen 5 minutes before the goal, but perhaps less than a minute, beforehand.

Anyways...Bieksa in my mind, played a factor in contributing towards a goal by not connecting with that hit on Stamkos. However I don't believe he had many great options at the time. He could have let Stamkos get the puck and gone to the net, but that would have left the #2 goal scorer all by himself with the puck, feet from our net. He could have tried to play the puck and not the man, which most dmen are taught not to do....but because Stamkos got there before Bieksa, he could have gotten the pass off anyways. Bieksa couldn't have gotten to the puck first, as Stamkos is much faster than Juice.

So all in all, Bieksa may not have been able to make a better play, maybe he could of....whatever. The haters would cry over spilled milk, whatever the play he made, which may have resulted in a a goal as well. Haters gonna hate.....no matter what. At best, they'll shut up....which is all we can hope they do. Bieksa did not have a good night against Tampa....however his play was much better against the Oilers. Still not as good as it can be...but pretty good. 11 shots in 3 periods? I say the d-core had a pretty good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been looking at these stats from the start of the year. There are 2 games that the data has not been recorded from and this really skews these stats. Nhl.com stats have Edler and Ehrhoff on for 17 ESGA and they were scored against at 4 vs 4 once that I recall. That’s a 33.3% discrepancy in this stat from nhl.com to behindthenet.ca because of 2 games not recorded. Furthermore Bieksa had been on for 21 ESGF from nhl.com one of which was 4 vs 4 that I recall and behindthenet.ca has him on for 18 5vs5 goals for. This is an 11.1% discrepancy of this stat.

Since discussing stats with you when you last came on here with the behindthenet.ca numbers I have been tracking these stats myself. I don’t separate 4vs4 play from 5vs5 and combine ES, SH, and PP numbers to come up with my own +/- stat. First I calculate the players GF and GA stats in terms of minutes played. Then calculate the average ES, PP, and SH time in a 60 minute Canuck game. Using all theses numbers I calculate a +/- stat that incorporates all in game situations for each D-man.

ESGF ESGA PPGF PPGA SHGF SHGA GF GA Rating

Bieksa 2.16 2.26 0.78 0.52 0.09 0 2.93 2.78 0.15

Ehrhoff 2.37 1.75 1.19 0.39 0.13 0.06 3.56 2.14 1.41

Edler 2.24 1.59 0.99 0.67 0.10 0.05 3.23 2.26 0.97

Hamhuis 2.45 2.45 0.46 0.30 0 0 2.91 2.75 0.16

Ballard 2.59 1.95 0.79 0.93 0 0 3.39 2.88 0.51

Alberts 1.50 1.91 0.18 0.53 0.13 0 1.68 2.44 -0.76

Rome 1.37 1.71 0.89 0.80 0 0 2.26 2.51 -0.25

Parent 0.00 2.63 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 2.63 -2.63

Since Alberts has no PP to make an accurate judgement of his effectiveness on the PP his PPGF stat is calculated by using his ESGF/ESTOI information.

Reread what Gabriel DesJardins, "author" of www.behindthenet.ca, himself told me:

As for any discrepancies, here's what Gabriel Desjarden told me:

Edit: Kudos for compiling your stats bbllpp but you need to account for quality of competition in order for better accuracy. Bieksa & Hamhuis are playing "hard minutes" versus top line players this year. Last year we used Salo & Mitchell in that role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem here is that perhaps your choice of words off the hop weren't better. Perhaps a 'contribitory factor' to the goal would have been better? Saying "fault", especially when you're trying to argue that a particular event led up to a goal, as justification for saying "fault", is careless. And it also invites the responses of pointing out other instances/events that also led up to the goal. (The goaltending, the lazy backcheck, the lost faceoff, the poor coverage, etc) And they didn't happen 5 minutes before the goal, but perhaps less than a minute, beforehand.

Anyways...Bieksa in my mind, played a factor in contributing towards a goal by not connecting with that hit on Stamkos. However I don't believe he had many great options at the time. He could have let Stamkos get the puck and gone to the net, but that would have left the #2 goal scorer all by himself with the puck, feet from our net. He could have tried to play the puck and not the man, which most dmen are taught not to do....but because Stamkos got there before Bieksa, he could have gotten the pass off anyways. Bieksa couldn't have gotten to the puck first, as Stamkos is much faster than Juice.

So all in all, Bieksa may not have been able to make a better play, maybe he could of....whatever. The haters would cry over spilled milk, whatever the play he made, which may have resulted in a a goal as well. Haters gonna hate.....no matter what. At best, they'll shut up....which is all we can hope they do. Bieksa did not have a good night against Tampa....however his play was much better against the Oilers. Still not as good as it can be...but pretty good. 11 shots in 3 periods? I say the d-core had a pretty good night.

I have always been quite bad at that thing called "english" :P

That's the way I post though, I'll leave large chunks out because I assume people will understand what I mean regardless. Obviously It's easier to understand your own posts than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, obviously you guys know what I mean by saying that, it's a simple way of showing how someone can be at fault without it being 100 percent his fault. This is just reaching for something to argue against, completely pointless. Every implication does not need to be typed out, I would assume you guys know what somebody did 5 minutes ago doesn't matter.

Jesus, Obviously it's pretty common sense that no single person is responsible for a series of events. This is the problem is that people want to point to one player rather than see the whole picture or the series of events so to speak.

The other problem is using your example as a shield to say "hey guys I'm not saying it's all his fault but his huge mistake cost the canucks a goal."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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