It is great we won, I am happy, (1)but yet again the Sedins carried us, and Cory made big saves when we need him too, (2)LA began to takeover the game, (3)and could have come back, but (4)Quick failed and the Sedins pounced.
The issues though don't magically go away after 1 win, cause (5)we could lose tonight and suddenly they are back in the fore-front.
(6)The line combinations were terrible, Lappierre brought next to nothing to the 2nd line, as did Schroeder the 4th.
(7)The PP continues to struggle, our PK wasn't great, and (8)our systems are still getting picked apart. And AV still isn't changing and adapting.
(9)Meaning in the playoffs, I expect the same thing to happen last year. when we saw LA just exploit our age old systems, and come out way more motivated & focused than us.
But if you want to take this win, and act like everything is suddenly fixed. That's fine. A team this good is going to win, and going to play atleast 500 hockey, but this team is capable of so much more. That's why I am not sure why everyone is so content with leeching off the division, and then (10)scraping by agianst playoff teams like we have been so far this year.
(1) That's what they're paid to do, and they delivered big time. Rather than moping around after that entertaining game like you, I was rejoicing. Extremely fun and exciting start to finish, and against a team that's usual successful game plan is to smother the opposition and play boring Sutter-style hockey. Glad I don't have to watch that paint-dry "system" every game.
If the Sedins DIDN'T deliver, we'd be hearing it big time from all you constant whiners, too. So we can't win no matter what the Sedins do.
(2) yeah, for about 5 minutes early in the 2nd period. Other than that, they had no sustained pressure. Did you even watch the game, or is your anti_AV, anti-Canucks bias so prevalent you just make things up in the hopes no one will notice your BS?
(3) yes, but they didn't lose, did they? In fact, they won. You could make that argument about every game. "We coulda lost!!" Brilliant.
(4) We made
him fail. Daniel's goal was a perfect mini-slapper to the far corner, Raymond's wrister was quick and out-quicked Quick, Hansen's wrister he maybe should have had but then that'll happen often once a game, and on the Hamhuis' goal he had no chance because of the beautiful cross-ice pass, as usual, from Henrik.
(5) see (3). You're desperate, and repeating your non-arguments.
(6) The same line combos that controlled LA's more established lines? Or are you going to cry now about the 4th line as if it had any difference on the game?
(7) 0-2, meaningless sample size. Our PP is slowly getting better, in case you hadn't noticed. It's crept up the charts over the season, and I expect it will continue to do so, especially since Garrison is getting used to the PP system and his new personnel with their unique preferences.
(8) What does this mean, specifically? Seems as though it was Sutter who couldn't adjust to anything the Canucks were throwing at them.
(9) Ah ha. We play well, so it's fall back to the "just wait till the playoffs" mantra. I can just imagine you guys cheering for Phx or whoever in the first round vs the Canucks, hoping we go out in 4 straight in order to get your desired coaching change.
Maybe we'll get bounced early, maybe we'll win the Cup. But let's wait a few months before all that useless and premature speculation.
(10) Scraping by? Hilarious. You're like most other whiners. A convincing win isn't good enough. It has to be a 7-0 ice-tilting romp, and it has to be every game. The other teams the Canucks play have some pretty decent players, too. Sometimes they even compete and make a game of it! Imagine that.