Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 So a player who was situationally sheltered all season long would have been a good idea depth wise? Hodgson likely wouldn't have gotten 14 minutes a game, or seen any time PK'ing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AY89 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Luongo only played 2 games, and most of those goals were not his fault. Don't try to defend AV by throwing Luongo under the bus. AV still could have used Pahlsson against LA's top lines more, but he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Perhaps, but Luongo has shown he can't play well under pressure. Sure, most of those goals weren't his fault, but he still wasn't good enough. The stats don't lie. 3.59GAA and 0.891 S% He couldn't make timely saves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 To replace Hodgson. We lost our 3rd line center and need depth down the middle. Lapierre is our other option, but if we didn't get Pahlsson we would be 1 injury away at center from being in a catastrophe. Pahlsson was great for us, but he shouldn't be considered a checking center. In this day and age no team has a defined checking line - you win by going head-to-head and beating the opponent that way. What we should do is have the following: Sedins - offensive line, always gets the best offensive opportunities (offensive zone faceoffs, icings etc.) and go for matchups against weak 3rd defensive pairings Kesler line - checking line and offence, they play against the other team's best lines and also contribute offensively Malhotra line (with Lapierre and Hansen) - forechecking line that keeps the pressure on the opponent consistently Pahlsson line (with Kassian and Bitz- hitting energy line that is sound defensively, but wears down opponents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-ROD Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Perhaps, but Luongo has shown he can't play well under pressure. Sure, most of those goals weren't his fault, but he still wasn't good enough. The stats don't lie. 3.59GAA and 0.891 S% He couldn't make timely saves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyHobo73 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Pahlsson was brought in largely to help keep leads. He did that well, unfortunately we didn't have the lead too often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane42 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 "The point" was the same as every other transaction a GM makes: improve the club. Not a bad idea at the time but I would prefer not have this guy back. Need more offensive production from that position and I'm guessing that at 35 he ain't the one to bring it. Step 1: Let's see what Lou's return looks like. Step 2: Make another trade, or bring in a better 3rd line center from free agency. Step 3: if there's nothing appealing to be had, do what you can from within. Here's how it may look until Kess gets back. Sedin-Sedin-Burrows Booth-Higins-Kassian Jansen-Lapierre-Hansen Bad ass-Malhotra-Bad ass Not the veteran lineup that AV is used to. Maybe time for him to earn his stripes and prove he's worth an extension. Who cares if we finish with only 100 points. Changes will be made as needed throughout the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_9 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 No one, other than us, has been able to beat LA this playoffs and it doesn't look like anyone will. I don't think Cody on the Third Line would have put the Canucks in the Western Conference Finals, The Kings are just playing the best hockey of anyone. I hope we can figure a way to keep Pahlsson I really like him, he played really well for us...Alas If only the Kings could have won one more game in the regular season and be the 3 seed, then we could have played the sharks and gotten our playoff legs under us before we played the Kings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 We kept on playing from behind because Luongo cannot keep pucks out, he has to throw our our offensive guys more. He had no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 i see the logic in bringing in Pahlsson. But what I want to now is If trading Hodgson/acquiring Pahlsson, why not try Reinprecht before the deadline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Does it really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Industrious1 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Gillis picked Pahlsson up because he is center depth which is hugely important going into a protracted playoff run...unfortunately the team missed the memo on getting out of the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I take it you never watched the games then...............once more our defence hung Lu out to dry and in my opinion we will continue to do that until we get a big D in front of the net who is not inclined to get distracted and wander out of position puck watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorrcoq Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 just a little clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostViking Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 To be fair Pahlsson's line was paired against the top LA line in game 1. It did not go well, so they switched to a more head-to-head strategy for games 2 and 5. Games 3 and 4 the match-ups were largely out of our hands, being the road team. Pahlsson was brought in as a checking center, he was not able to contain Kopitar's line and thus he failed. It is important to remember that he only had one game to prove himself (and not the whole game either, if I remember correctly), and also that no other line on the team was able to contain Kopitar's line, nor were any of our defense pairings. So Pahlsson was supposed to be a shutdown guy, he failed, but he wasn't any worse defensively than anyone else on the team, he also played reasonably well before the season ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 pahlsson's fine, luongo's fine, AV's fine and so is LA's playoff's so far....getting behind against quick has been fatal for everyone.....we got into penalty problems in the first 2 games..an got behind....we lost game 3 by one goal...1...0....we won game 4 and then had no answer for them in game 5.....we lost, live with it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowtownCanuck Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Depth and some experience, as well as, he's played with the twins in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I watched the games, he was ok I the first game but not good in the second. That is just not the goaltending we need in the playoffs, that's why he never saw another game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Gillis wanted a shut down third line which is kind of odd considering our problem during the kings and boston series was that we couldn't score goals. It doesn't make sense to go from 3 scoring lines to 2 scoring lines when scoring is lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 This just in: LA is clearly winning the battle against other teams as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.