Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

[PGT] Coyotes vs Canucks


  • Please log in to reply
218 replies to this topic

#181 ajhockey

ajhockey

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,010 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:08 AM

Ah. My bad. You're right.

Sure seems like he has though.


He's been on fire as of late, yes.
  • 0
We are all Canucks

Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for the awesome sig!
"I'll play on one leg, I don't care" - Ryan Kesler
Rest In Peace, Rypien, Demitra, and Bourdon

#182 BananaMash

BananaMash

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,313 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:10 AM

Hopefully getting sent back to the AHL was the kick in the butt that Schroeder needed to get his mojo back... And you know, not playing with Weise and Sestito and letting his skill set go to waste.
  • 0

Posted Image


#183 250Integra

250Integra

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,934 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:15 AM

Why is Gordon #44?
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Thanks for the Memories Canada!!!
Thanks for everything Naslund!
Original creator of the WWE and the Rate my sig / Showoff thread

#184 Monteeun

Monteeun

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,747 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 03

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:16 AM

not really, you are paid six million dollars, you are the captain of the team, hart and art ross winner shooting at an empty net, and you get to redeem yourself on the faceoff after the icing if you miss. Phoenix guy tipped it, should have been a goal or icing should have been waved off


That's a tricky situation to put yourself in.
  • 0

#185 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:16 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpiNFQQTHlk

just a selfish player :rolleyes: Also you see where Rome shot it?


Right, because that is exactly what I said. Reading comprehension of "special" CDCers strikes again.
  • 0
Posted Image

#186 Monteeun

Monteeun

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,747 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 03

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:17 AM

In Hank's defence he just got to the puck after three botched attempts to get it out. Possibly was the safest option to him after the mess that came before the shot.


That's a good point.
  • 0

#187 Monteeun

Monteeun

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,747 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 03

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:18 AM

Right, because that is exactly what I said. Reading comprehension of "special" CDCers strikes again.


:bigblush:
  • 0

#188 Tangelos

Tangelos

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,293 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:21 AM

Maybe read that faint sig at the bottom of my posts, the one about "following the Canucks before Don Cherry played here". Then go and work out an approximate age. :P

I don't see there being anyting wrong with pointing out that Sedin made a poor choice on that play. Had Phoenix scored on the following play would we all be talking about how Henrik made the right choice in taking a shot at the net, or would we be asking why didn't he make the safe play and do a dump into the Coyotes zone?

regards,
G.


I've always been a stats guy, and I'm not sure where I would find this sort of information, but how many failed empty netters leading to icings have actually led to a goal for the trailing team? I'm going to take a wild guess and say maybe (and this is being generous) 1 out of 10 times. so 10% of missed empty nets have led to goals for the trailing team. I like the odds personally, and the possibility of getting the dagger goal is well worth the 10% risk. Fact is, risky hockey plays are made numerous times, and there are FAR more stupid risky plays made in a game. Funny how you dwell on the Sedin icing, but the countless defensive turnovers we see by our defense on a nightly basis which probably lead to a 30% chance of a goal against don't bother you at all.
  • 0
Posted Image

Previously:
6OH!4, Doug The Thug Glatt

#189 AllEyezOnMe

AllEyezOnMe

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,950 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 13

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:21 AM

This was a better game than what John and John was saying.. in fact it was more fun to watch than a lot of games this year:

-Sedins have been working hard but just looked a bit off tonight. Burrows hasn't been great lately either but this line isn't really a problem

-Second line great as usual -- Schroeder has been great and had the goal tonight but it seems like he's missed the net on quite a few good looks throughout the year. Great vision and just knows how to play though and things should get better for him. Hansen was hansen.. Raymond had the one bad giveaway but it didn't lead to a goal and he has been generally responsible throughout the year so I'd let this one slide.

-Ebbett/Gordon look pretty good, responsible call-ups which is what we need now

-Lappy has been solid but hope he can find more of an edge as we go down the stretch

-Just not a fan of weise.. sloppy plays with the puck.. more versatile but still wish we kept volpatti.

-At least Sestito has the size

-If AV doesn't like Ballard on D then keep him on the third line for now at least.. he's got the speed, hands, is willing to mix it up a bit and can play D in case of injuries in the game. I'd prefer him over weise. Also slightly hurts less than having his cap hit sitting in the press box?

-D played well as a group but everyone had some sloppy moments. Alberts and Barker look like pretty solid depth guys and we still have Tanev, Ballard, and Vandermeer to support our top 4.

-Schneider looked great.. hopefully he can run with the ball for a while


Overall a pretty good game and looked similar to how we won games last year. With that said, we still have more talent on this roster than Phoenix despite all these injuries.. kinda worried about Saturday's afternoon against LA.


Weise has been playing great these last few games he had the goal last game and
had a really nice scoring chance this game. I've seen him use his speed well on the forecheck and doesn't have any problem bringing it across the neutral zone without losing it. Not the best fighter but a much better improvement from volpatti.
  • 0

#190 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:26 AM

Weise has been playing great these last few games he had the goal last game and
had a really nice scoring chance this game. I've seen him use his speed well on the forecheck and doesn't have any problem bringing it across the neutral zone without losing it. Not the best fighter but a much better improvement from volpatti.


I am a big fan of Patti's game and was bummed when we lost him but the way Weise has been playing has helped me move on. Guy has been dynamite, hope he keeps it up.
  • 0
Posted Image

#191 MayRayDown

MayRayDown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 970 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:26 AM

Right, because that is exactly what I said. Reading comprehension of "special" CDCers strikes again.


"teammates don't appreciate it. You want a shot at the empty goal? You make it to the red-line, then take your shot."

Wouldn't Henrik of took the goal or not protect it since Rome shot it behind the goalline? And why would everyone celebrate with Rome if they didn't appreciate it? Guess another "mind reader and false statementer" CDCer strikes again
  • 0

#192 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,749 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:43 AM

"teammates don't appreciate it. You want a shot at the empty goal? You make it to the red-line, then take your shot."

Wouldn't Henrik of took the goal or not protect it since Rome shot it behind the goalline? And why would everyone celebrate with Rome if they didn't appreciate it? Guess another "mind reader and false statementer" CDCer strikes again


"Obviously, you're not a golfer" - The Dude

"Donnie, you're out of your element!!!" - Walter Sobchak

I just don't know which Big Lebowski quote is more applicable to this situation.
  • 0
Posted Image

#193 Nuxfanabroad

Nuxfanabroad

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,925 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:44 AM

VERY proud of the boys to win with this decimated lineup. These are the character-builders that get them rollin', over the past few seasons.

I knew Scheiderman was about to get playing to his standard. In general, the D had a great night. Saw nice plays by all of'em, at 1 time or another.

Wheezy, Badg Hansen, Mase, Schreds, Ballsy all these dudes contributing with a great effort-excellent team win!
  • 1

#194 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,914 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:52 AM

I am curious if AV said anything after the game about Ballard's play at forward..... B)
  • 1

#195 GoCanucksGo#1

GoCanucksGo#1

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 07

Posted 22 March 2013 - 01:09 AM

Actually, no discounted tickets for this one (sold out) and beers still 8.00....I was there for this game...it was better live than on tv...lots of shots Schneider was great(other than his puck handling, makes a guy nervous) Canucks blocked more shots...Ballard was a force on the wing with a few good scoring opportunities....Ebbett won his fair share of faceoffs...great to see...Schroeder worked his butt off...Edler? Well not a great outing...again

Edler --> plus one, assist on game winner 3 hits, and tied with barker with the most blocked shots on the night of 3...you're blind
  • 1

#196 Hairy Kneel

Hairy Kneel

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 927 posts
  • Joined: 01-November 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 02:10 AM

I like Ballard (or any alternate defenseman) at the wing position, defense first thinking.. clear the puck, forecheck hard, and go and stay in the crease tough...hard nose physical play with no delusions of granduer. (add one post!) if a defenseman goes down there's an alternate handy.
  • 1

#197 CHIPS

CHIPS

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,784 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 07

Posted 22 March 2013 - 02:39 AM

Our defence is still too loose for my liking. Quite a few odd man rushes. But its good to win.

And I hope the past 2 games put the Weise haters to rest. This kid is good.

Edited by CHIPS, 22 March 2013 - 02:40 AM.

  • 0
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#198 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:03 AM

I am curious if AV said anything after the game about Ballard's play at forward..... B)



"He played a good solid game.......I had him in my top 9 didn't I?"

Or words to that effect.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#199 wendythirteenthrashers

wendythirteenthrashers

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 563 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:29 AM

Can't believe he didn't bury the rebound on weises Chance :(


He was still trying to selke that everything +*^%..... I thought Ballard was killer!!
  • 0

#200 John.Tallhouse

John.Tallhouse

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:51 AM

Mah boy Ballard does his thang on the wang!

yessir!
  • 0
Posted Image

#201 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,632 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:59 AM

So, if you are willing to cut Henrik some slack on this point, are you willing to do the same for the rest of the team? If it was Hansen would it be okay? If it was Edler would it still be okay? How about Sestito? He's not a beer league player.

Yes, it is a minor point, and the team did win. It could have ended a lot worse. And I believe Henrik of a couple of years ago wouldn't have made that play.

regards,
G.

IMO it isn't a minor point. 2 - 1 game with a minute left and one of your most experienced players makes a very poor play. Van's FO % is less than 50% and their d-zone coverage was brutal all night. Unbelievable actually. At the 3:00 minute mark I believe it was Raymond on the left side who made a inside move inside the blueline on a breakout and the Yote d-man stripped the puck. Like in Hank's case a chip out on the boards was the safe play.

I keep sayin this team does not have a 'shutdown' game and last night was a glaring example. Wide open down the middle for a great Scneider save, Hamhuis & Bieksa, where? They won the game but the last half of the third was one mistake after another. When your vets don't seem to understand what it takes, all I can suggest is coaching is not stressing the importance enough. Pretty fundamental actually.

Edited by Boudrias, 22 March 2013 - 08:04 AM.

  • 1

#202 higgyfan

higgyfan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,064 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:47 AM

No natural second or third line and they win. 'nuff said.
  • 0

#203 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,508 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

In Hank's defence he just got to the puck after three botched attempts to get it out. Possibly was the safest option to him after the mess that came before the shot.


Well, just to continue gnawing on this point, if your team is so pressured/dis-organized that they had already failed on three previous attempts to get the puck out, why would you want to risk giving the other team a chance at a face-off in your own zone, with the same group of tired, dis-organized players? Wouldn't giving your team a chance to get some fresh legs on the ice be a good option (depending on how far down the ice he could get the puck)?

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#204 cbdoubleu

cbdoubleu

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 982 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 13

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:21 AM

Like Shorty said when they put 2 seconds on the clock for a pointless face-off "what this game needs is more time."

It wasn't pretty at times, eventhough I thought the Canucks won more puck battles along the boards and were first to pucks more times than I've seen in a while now. For the lineup I thought we played a good road game (eventhough Jobbing is like Rogers Arena 'B'), and survived a couple gaffes at the end.

I was happier about the game than Dan Hammuis looked at the end. Did anyone else see that? He looked like he wasn't sure if he left the stove on at home.

Edited by cbdoubleu, 22 March 2013 - 09:22 AM.

  • 0

A snake bite emergency kit is a body bag - Mitch Hedberg


#205 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,508 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:41 AM

I've always been a stats guy, and I'm not sure where I would find this sort of information, but how many failed empty netters leading to icings have actually led to a goal for the trailing team? I'm going to take a wild guess and say maybe (and this is being generous) 1 out of 10 times. so 10% of missed empty nets have led to goals for the trailing team. I like the odds personally, and the possibility of getting the dagger goal is well worth the 10% risk. Fact is, risky hockey plays are made numerous times, and there are FAR more stupid risky plays made in a game. Funny how you dwell on the Sedin icing, but the countless defensive turnovers we see by our defense on a nightly basis which probably lead to a 30% chance of a goal against don't bother you at all.


Not sure how you have determined that these defensive turnovers don't bother me at all.

I brought up the Sedin play merely because it is one of the more glaring examples of mistakes being made on what should be fundamental types of plays. If it makes you happy, Raymond made a poor choice on that play where he tried to carry the puck out rather than dumping it out. This led to a very good scoring chance by Phoenix, and an even better save by Schneider.

Raymond's choice on this play surprised me, as he is often one of the better defensive players on the team.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#206 honey badger36

honey badger36

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,488 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:57 AM

worst pgt bunch o babies ever. way to ruin a good thing by being a bunch of premadonna's. 7 pages later its time to let it go.

Edited by honey badger36, 22 March 2013 - 09:58 AM.

  • 0

#207 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,508 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:58 AM

"teammates don't appreciate it. You want a shot at the empty goal? You make it to the red-line, then take your shot."

Wouldn't Henrik of took the goal or not protect it since Rome shot it behind the goalline? And why would everyone celebrate with Rome if they didn't appreciate it? Guess another "mind reader and false statementer" CDCer strikes again


Well, what would you expect his teammates to do, kick him?

In Rome's defense, looking at the power behind that shot, it barely had the legs to make it down the ice. I believe his intent was not to try for goal but rather to shoot the puck out just hard enough to get it out of the zone which would allow his team to re-organize and/or maybe get some fresh legs on the ice. Henrik was looking to score and shot the puck hard enough for that purpose.

The out-come of the play is not an issue, it is the choice of what play to make that is the problem.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#208 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,508 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:17 AM

IMO it isn't a minor point. 2 - 1 game with a minute left and one of your most experienced players makes a very poor play. Van's FO % is less than 50% and their d-zone coverage was brutal all night. Unbelievable actually. At the 3:00 minute mark I believe it was Raymond on the left side who made a inside move inside the blueline on a breakout and the Yote d-man stripped the puck. Like in Hank's case a chip out on the boards was the safe play.

I keep sayin this team does not have a 'shutdown' game and last night was a glaring example. Wide open down the middle for a great Scneider save, Hamhuis & Bieksa, where? They won the game but the last half of the third was one mistake after another. When your vets don't seem to understand what it takes, all I can suggest is coaching is not stressing the importance enough. Pretty fundamental actually.


I agree with you. I was looking to defuse the situation as there was a lot of people on here arguing with their hearts and not their heads.

Unless there is no chance of there being a faceoff in your zone, with any amount of time on the clock, then shooting for the net is not a good choice.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#209 Legend Killer

Legend Killer

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:18 AM

I've always been a stats guy, and I'm not sure where I would find this sort of information, but how many failed empty netters leading to icings have actually led to a goal for the trailing team? I'm going to take a wild guess and say maybe (and this is being generous) 1 out of 10 times. so 10% of missed empty nets have led to goals for the trailing team. I like the odds personally, and the possibility of getting the dagger goal is well worth the 10% risk. Fact is, risky hockey plays are made numerous times, and there are FAR more stupid risky plays made in a game. Funny how you dwell on the Sedin icing, but the countless defensive turnovers we see by our defense on a nightly basis which probably lead to a 30% chance of a goal against don't bother you at all.

lol looks like i'm not the only one doing a gm mode with florida.
  • 0
Posted Image
For the first time in a long time.. the future looks bright..

#210 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,632 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 22 March 2013 - 12:42 PM

I agree with you. I was looking to defuse the situation as there was a lot of people on here arguing with their hearts and not their heads.

Unless there is no chance of there being a faceoff in your zone, with any amount of time on the clock, then shooting for the net is not a good choice.

regards,
G.

Fans are saying no big deal, take the win. My problem is they will have about 12 to 14 games down to the playoffs after April 4th. With possible roster changes this team doesn't have a good enough defensive structure to absorb new players effectively. This team should be in playoff mode now. I am not expecting much success come playoffs.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.