Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

[Official PGT] CANUCKS VS KINGS [LOSS] CBC :(


  • Please log in to reply
210 replies to this topic

#181 87Crosby

87Crosby

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Joined: 01-December 11

Posted 10 November 2013 - 10:35 AM

Luongo got lit up by a bunch of AHL players.


Lou got lit up by who?
Mike Richards and Justin williams are two of LA's best players, and Tyler Toffoli has a point in every game so far, he is their best prospect. LA as no AHL players in their lineup like the Canucks. Dalpe, Welsh, Archibald should be in Utica developing.
  • 0

#182 Brambojoe

Brambojoe

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 07

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:19 AM

First time in a long time that I watched a whole game (no PVR skipping) when it was fairly obvious the Canucks would not be able to win. Entertaining hockey they are playing these days. Thanks Torts, thanks team.
  • 0

#183 xereau

xereau

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 06

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:27 AM

'Big' team strategy -- commit so many infractions that it confuses the refs, and/or completely resets the bar. Run all over guys, hook, hold, interfere, and then beak at the refs when and if you are actually called for something. Watch for it.

The Canucks were terrible last night. But, so were the refs. It was disgusting.
  • 0


"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man:
brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the

timid join him; for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

Mark Twain


#184 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,206 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:44 AM

Lou got lit up by who?
Mike Richards and Justin williams are two of LA's best players, and Tyler Toffoli has a point in every game so far, he is their best prospect. LA as no AHL players in their lineup like the Canucks. Dalpe, Welsh, Archibald should be in Utica developing.


while I don't fault Luongo for the loss, one of the differences in the game was that Quick made the spectacular saves he had to make, and Luongo didn't. They were tough saves, to be sure, but a timely save could have made a difference in the outcome.
  • 0

#185 Blue & Green

Blue & Green

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:11 PM

while I don't fault Luongo for the loss, one of the differences in the game was that Quick made the spectacular saves he had to make, and Luongo didn't. They were tough saves, to be sure, but a timely save could have made a difference in the outcome.


Definitely, Lu wasn't bad but he wasn't great either. We had a couple of mistakes that LA capitalized on but if Luongo makes a couple of game saving saves which he often does, it's a different game. Quick had a great game with a couple of very timely saves early on. Quick was better than Luongo in this one.
  • 0

#186 Seven pounds soft

Seven pounds soft

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 13

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:39 PM

Why don't Sedins get pissed off when someone is punching them in the back of the head?

Self control. You should try it sometime.

The real question....
Why don't the refs give penalties to players that punch the sedins in the head?
  • 1

#187 westcoast

westcoast

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 03

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:39 PM

Starting to think That adding a couple of stout players that can bang at an elite level is the only way outta the west playoffs.
  • 3

#188 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:50 PM

I'm simply amazed at how short some people's memories are. During the game surely they saw Luo making great saves, including one through traffic that I'm still not sure how he saw it. Even the CBC commentators were commenting on how great his saves were and how he had zero chance on the goals, but then after he gets pulled some people forget that reality and start talking about how he should have just been better. Make no mistake, a whole bunch of someones should have been better, but Luo wasn't one of them.

I'm just so sick of hearing how Luo should somehow make impossible saves to cover the team's bad play by the same people who ignore the amazing saves he does make and instead choose to focus on the few he wasn't able to make. I don't get this delusional thinking that a goalie can face high quality, often point blank chance after chance, including odd man rushes where he's got potential shooters on either side of the net and the team doesn't take one of them out of the equation, and should somehow manage to not give up a single goal. It might happen once in a blue moon, but not more often than that so it's not a good game plan, especially when that kind of bad team play happens far more often than once every blue moon. So, even on those rare nights when it might be possible, the goalie "stealing" a game is merely a bandaid. We need to prevent the bleeding to begin with and you can't do that by blaming the bandaid for not being absorbent enough.

Edited by poetica, 10 November 2013 - 12:58 PM.

  • 2
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#189 wendythirteenthrashers

wendythirteenthrashers

    Comets Star

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

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:51 PM

Well we had a fourth line last night at the expense of our third line.... Weird move saddling Richie and Kass with sestito the penalty machine....

LUO looked like he got his bell rung on the 3-1 goal

I hate that LA constantly run our goalies.... If we did that to quick we'd be in the box for goalie interference... EVERY TIME...

Like that torts took the out of control game in the third and made it into bottom six practice .... They held their own with lack and didn't allow any more goals.... That was a positive ....

I too like angry bieksa...

STAY OUTTA THE SUN IN CALIFORNIA BOYS.... ICE NOT SAND!
  • 1

#190 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,244 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:54 PM

while I don't fault Luongo for the loss, one of the differences in the game was that Quick made the spectacular saves he had to make, and Luongo didn't. They were tough saves, to be sure, but a timely save could have made a difference in the outcome.


Come one - Quick was lucky - Loungo wasn't. Canucks blew their chances, that goal that Toffoli got off of his skate was Daniel Sedin's fault - tried to intercept the pass instead of making sure Toffoli didn't get to shoot.

As for the "Luongo got lit up" comments:

Posted Image
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#191 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,351 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:59 PM

I don't think it was fear, more it was fear that they'd end up in the box and were trying to play within those confines. But they appear to have abandoned it at the end, which I think they have to do. Once they did start going back at the Kings, the hits were evening out.

We got the only penalties in the third and, despite the fact that the Kings got away with charging and boarding us all game, we were being called for it. So I think it was more they were focusing on not taking penalties in situations where they really couldn't afford to be shorthanded.

Kings penalties were lazy ones - hooking/holding - nothing assessed against them based on physicality. Our similar plays were called, so I think they were trying to walk the fine line in that.


The hits started evening out once Torts played the 3rd and 4th lines in the third. This illustrates the difference between LA and the Nucks. LA has large-bodied physical players in its top 6 that hit and play offense all game. The Nucks have those players in bottom 6 roles. The result is our top 6 being man-handled when the game is close as the bottom 6 don't' see the ice. The Nucks need some bigger, talented bodies in the top 6 to compete in the west. A 7 game series would be brutal on our top 6 physically.
  • 0

#192 Tsui Pen

Tsui Pen

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 13

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:59 PM

I think I fell asleep toward the end of second period. Still woke up gutted.

Just gotta stay positive. Plus, the season just started.

Now to beat ANACRIME!
  • 0

#193 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,622 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:03 PM

I'm simply amazed at how short some people's memories are......


Apparently it's less than 48 hours considering VAN "chased" Cup winner/Vezina nominee Niemi out of the net the game before.
  • 0
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#194 yes we can nucks

yes we can nucks

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,073 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 09

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:04 PM

I'm simply amazed at how short some people's memories are. During the game surely they saw Luo making great saves, including one through traffic that I'm still not sure how he saw it. Even the CBC commentators were commenting on how great his saves were and how he had zero chance on the goals, but then after he gets pulled some people forget that reality and start talking about how he should have just been better. Make no mistake, a whole bunch of someones should have been better, but Luo wasn't one of them.

I'm just so sick of hearing how Luo should somehow make impossible saves to cover the team's bad play by the same people who ignore the amazing saves he does make and instead choose to focus on the few he wasn't able to make. I don't get this delusional thinking that a goalie can face high quality, often point blank chance after chance, including odd man rushes where he's got potential shooters on either side of the net and the team doesn't take one of them out of the equation, and should somehow manage to not give up a single goal. It might happen once in a blue moon, but not more often than that so it's not a good game plan, especially when that kind of bad team play happens far more often than once every blue moon. So, even on those rare nights when it might be possible, the goalie "stealing" a game is merely a bandaid. We need to prevent the bleeding to begin with and you can't do that by blaming the bandaid for not being absorbent enough.

My sentiments exactly. But you know what? It's useless to try arguing with these guys who have such a simple knowledge of the game. They simply point to the goals 'allowed' by Luongo regardless of how they happened and automatically blame him. Never mind that it was impossible to make those saves. And they only show up when Lu (or in this case, the TEAM) has a bad game.
  • 0

#195 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,206 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:07 PM

I'm simply amazed at how short some people's memories are. During the game surely they saw Luo making great saves, including one through traffic that I'm still not sure how he saw it. Even the CBC commentators were commenting on how great his saves were and how he had zero chance on the goals, but then after he gets pulled some people forget that reality and start talking about how he should have just been better. Make no mistake, a whole bunch of someones should have been better, but Luo wasn't one of them.

I'm just so sick of hearing how Luo should somehow make impossible saves to cover the team's bad play by the same people who ignore the amazing saves he does make and instead choose to focus on the few he wasn't able to make. I don't get this delusional thinking that a goalie can face high quality, often point blank chance after chance, including odd man rushes where he's got potential shooters on either side of the net and the team doesn't take one of them out of the equation, and should somehow manage to not give up a single goal. It might happen once in a blue moon, but not more often than that so it's not a good game plan, especially when that kind of bad team play happens far more often than once every blue moon. So, even on those rare nights when it might be possible, the goalie "stealing" a game is merely a bandaid. We need to prevent the bleeding to begin with and you can't do that by blaming the bandaid for not being absorbent enough.


No one is saying he didn't make those saves, nor is anyone saying he played poorly. Just that Quick made the saves that Luongo didn't. The goals from the front were tough ones, but those were the difference.........Quick made those saves, Luongo didn't. He's been doing it all season, so far, so you can't admit that he didn't in this game?
  • 0

#196 Blue & Green

Blue & Green

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:30 PM

I'm simply amazed at how short some people's memories are. During the game surely they saw Luo making great saves, including one through traffic that I'm still not sure how he saw it. Even the CBC commentators were commenting on how great his saves were and how he had zero chance on the goals, but then after he gets pulled some people forget that reality and start talking about how he should have just been better. Make no mistake, a whole bunch of someones should have been better, but Luo wasn't one of them.

I'm just so sick of hearing how Luo should somehow make impossible saves to cover the team's bad play by the same people who ignore the amazing saves he does make and instead choose to focus on the few he wasn't able to make. I don't get this delusional thinking that a goalie can face high quality, often point blank chance after chance, including odd man rushes where he's got potential shooters on either side of the net and the team doesn't take one of them out of the equation, and should somehow manage to not give up a single goal. It might happen once in a blue moon, but not more often than that so it's not a good game plan, especially when that kind of bad team play happens far more often than once every blue moon. So, even on those rare nights when it might be possible, the goalie "stealing" a game is merely a bandaid. We need to prevent the bleeding to begin with and you can't do that by blaming the bandaid for not being absorbent enough.


If the CBC commentators did say that, both Lui and Torts would be in disagreement according to their post game comments.

You are being too black and white with your response. Lui made some great saves last night, there were many defensive mistakes that led to great scoring chances, and LA play really strong on the fore-check causing turn-overs that led to great scoring chances. There were more good scoring chances on Lui than on Quick in the first half of the game, LA was outplaying Vancouver for the most part.

Lui has had some exceptional games so far this season keeping his team in the game even when they have been outplayed for long stretches. Last night he did not have an exception game but Quick did. Last night was the exception for Lui, most nights he has outdueled the opposing goalie. Can't win 'em all.
  • 0

#197 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,622 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:50 PM

Do you know what Goals Against Average is? Save percentage?

If you do, then it shouldn't be asking too much to look at the bigger picture instead of :frantic: every time a goal gets scored.

Quick - 15GP, 10W/5L, 2.38GAA, .906SV%
Luongo - 16GP, 9W/5L, 2.41GAA, .911SV%
  • 1
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#198 In the Slot

In the Slot

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 13

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:57 PM

I'm simply amazed at how short some people's memories are. During the game surely they saw Luo making great saves, including one through traffic that I'm still not sure how he saw it. Even the CBC commentators were commenting on how great his saves were and how he had zero chance on the goals, but then after he gets pulled some people forget that reality and start talking about how he should have just been better. Make no mistake, a whole bunch of someones should have been better, but Luo wasn't one of them.

I'm just so sick of hearing how Luo should somehow make impossible saves to cover the team's bad play by the same people who ignore the amazing saves he does make and instead choose to focus on the few he wasn't able to make. I don't get this delusional thinking that a goalie can face high quality, often point blank chance after chance, including odd man rushes where he's got potential shooters on either side of the net and the team doesn't take one of them out of the equation, and should somehow manage to not give up a single goal. It might happen once in a blue moon, but not more often than that so it's not a good game plan, especially when that kind of bad team play happens far more often than once every blue moon. So, even on those rare nights when it might be possible, the goalie "stealing" a game is merely a bandaid. We need to prevent the bleeding to begin with and you can't do that by blaming the bandaid for not being absorbent enough.


I didn't see any of the goals post 2-1 but regardless, Lou has played very well this season, he is not our issue, he has never been our issue, and that fact was proven last year in the playoffs when having schnieder in made no difference....

this is coming from a guy who wanted to keep schnieds, there is a point where people need to learn a bit about hockey and watch objectively.

lou has actually closed some of the holes in his game this year, rebound control, bad goals at the wrong time etc...still ends up on his face a bit but no goalie is perfect..

he's playing great and if he plays this way the whole season and playoffs we have zero to worry about in net...
  • 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you can't win an argument, correct the grammar instead"
- Internet Troll Handbook Chapter 1 pg 23


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Especially if the Kassian's are 6'3'' mountain men with missing teeth and cool tattoos and the Hodgson's are short legged weirdos with politician parents" - Hansen36

#199 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,306 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 03:05 PM

I would forget about last nights loss, it didn't mean much. The kings were well rested and waiting for the Canucks. We'll get them back on the 25th.

A win tonight and we would be 2-1-1 on the road trip. Considering how tough this one is, I'll take that any day.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#200 Blue & Green

Blue & Green

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 03:10 PM

Do you know what Goals Against Average is? Save percentage?

If you do, then it shouldn't be asking too much to look at the bigger picture instead of :frantic: every time a goal gets scored.

Quick - 15GP, 10W/5L, 2.38GAA, .906SV%
Luongo - 16GP, 9W/5L, 2.41GAA, .911SV%


Yes, no doubt in my mind that both of them are good goalies. Quick was a little more on his game last night than Luongo, however the reverse could be true next time.
  • 0

#201 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 November 2013 - 03:49 PM

No one is saying he didn't make those saves, nor is anyone saying he played poorly. Just that Quick made the saves that Luongo didn't. The goals from the front were tough ones, but those were the difference.........Quick made those saves, Luongo didn't. He's been doing it all season, so far, so you can't admit that he didn't in this game?


I agree that Quick made some very nice saves, but so did Luo. If, however, you think Quick was facing the same quality of shots Luo was we must have been watching different games because I didn't see odd man rushes on Quick and I certainly didn't see our guys practically setting up tents mere inches in front of Quick. I did, however, see our guys failing time and again to take their man in front of Luo, leaving him exposed when he did his job by taking the original puck possessor but no one took the guy on the other side of the net, which directly led to several goals last night.

Though he's been generally very strong this season, Luo has had his off games and weak goals just as the team has had spectacular games. Last night, however, it wasn't Luo that caused those goals.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#202 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 November 2013 - 04:07 PM

If the CBC commentators did say that, both Lui and Torts would be in disagreement according to their post game comments.
...


EDIT: Deleted my original reply because I finally found a links with some quotes from after the game:
http://mayorsmanor.c...-loss-to-kings/
http://mayorsmanor.c...s-loss-to-kings

So, Torts did say he didn't think Luo was "sharp" last night. Watching the reply of the goals, I still disagree.

Also, Luo did say he had to do a better job (which he almost always says we don't win), but really only mentioned that he should have been more patient on the second goal. (The third one he said was just a good shot and the 4th one he couldn't see through traffic.) He didn't take full blame for the loss though by any stretch, saying, "We just played a stinker. We put it behind us and the good thing is we get to play again tomorrow."

Edited by poetica, 10 November 2013 - 04:21 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#203 Steen

Steen

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 13

Posted 10 November 2013 - 04:21 PM

Definitely a couple reputation calls on Tom last night, felt a little sorry for him.
  • 0
Posted Image
Formerly *vInTaGe*
Sig by Lemons

#204 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,351 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 10 November 2013 - 04:26 PM

EDIT: Deleted my original reply because I finally found a links with some quotes from after the game:
http://mayorsmanor.c...-loss-to-kings/
http://mayorsmanor.c...s-loss-to-kings

So, Torts did say he didn't think Luo was "sharp" last night. Watching the reply of the goals, I still disagree.

Also, Luo did say he had to do a better job (which he almost always says we don't win), but really only mentioned that he should have been more patient on the second goal. (The third one he said was just a good shot and the 4th one he couldn't see through traffic.) He didn't take full blame for the loss though by any stretch, saying, "We just played a stinker. We put it behind us and the good thing is we get to play again tomorrow."

SO...if Torts and Lu both say he wasn't sharp and you disagree, who is the one struggling with reality? Lu wasn't the cause of the loss but he wasn't overly sharp either. Quick was better, it happens.
  • 0

#205 Sedins23

Sedins23

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,546 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 12

Posted 10 November 2013 - 04:30 PM

Do you know what Goals Against Average is? Save percentage?

If you do, then it shouldn't be asking too much to look at the bigger picture instead of :frantic: every time a goal gets scored.

Quick - 15GP, 10W/5L, 2.38GAA, .906SV%
Luongo - 16GP, 9W/5L, 2.41GAA, .911SV%

^ and thats with four blowout games and defense worse then LA's(we are learning torts system it will take time).
  • 0

  Sig too big (but congrats on the job) - SN

 

Thanks. Thats so cool didn't know you can edit our sigs on the spot. 


#206 Kesheniel

Kesheniel

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,315 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 10 November 2013 - 04:37 PM

Right, because the big bodies did so well. How did Kassian fair last night? He did play didn't he?


Our third and fourth lines were probably our best last night, so I'd say overall our big bodies did very well compared to past games. Just cause Kassian had a bad game doesn't mean all our big guys weren't playing exceptionally well.
  • 0

#207 Blue & Green

Blue & Green

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 04:44 PM

EDIT: Deleted my original reply because I finally found a links with some quotes from after the game:
http://mayorsmanor.c...-loss-to-kings/
http://mayorsmanor.c...s-loss-to-kings

So, Torts did say he didn't think Luo was "sharp" last night. Watching the reply of the goals, I still disagree.

Also, Luo did say he had to do a better job (which he almost always says we don't win), but really only mentioned that he should have been more patient on the second goal. (The third one he said was just a good shot and the 4th one he couldn't see through traffic.) He didn't take full blame for the loss though by any stretch, saying, "We just played a stinker. We put it behind us and the good thing is we get to play again tomorrow."


Yeah, whole team could have been better, imo. Good advice from Lui, let's put it behind us.
  • 0

#208 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 November 2013 - 05:09 PM

SO...if Torts and Lu both say he wasn't sharp and you disagree, who is the one struggling with reality? Lu wasn't the cause of the loss but he wasn't overly sharp either. Quick was better, it happens.


If you agree with what I'm saying, that the loss wasn't Luo's fault, how exactly am I struggling with reality?

Torts said Luo wasn't "sharp" but I couldn't find any quote referencing anything specific other than defensive breakdowns which were obviously not Luo's fault. So, I don't know exactly what he meant and having watched the replays again I still don't see it.

The first goal was a neutral zone breakdown that led to an odd man rush in which Luo may have been interfered with and was certainly snow showered by the LA player. And Tanev's attempt to block the shot likely screened it.

The second goal (which is the one Luo said he should have been more patient on) was a pass and quick tip in (from what appears to be literally inside the blue paint) after Danny skated towards Edler, snow showering Luo in the process, and both tried (and failed) to break up the pass but no one bothered to take the open guy in front of Luo.

The third goal was a pass from behind the net for a quick tip in from another unchecked guy in front of Luo. The shot comes mere inches outside the blue paint.

The fourth goal was similar. Pass from behind the net for a quick shot from a guy half way between the face off circle and the crease. Our players trying to get him ended up just screening Luo but little else.

So, yes, I do disagree if Torts thinks those goals were because Luo wasn't sharp enough when they were clearly the result of defensive breakdowns. Luckily, he also mentioned the defensive breakdowns so hopefully he will be addressing those with the team (who obviously can make amazing defensive plays, as we've seen in previous games.)
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#209 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 10 November 2013 - 05:09 PM

Yeah, whole team could have been better, imo. Good advice from Lui, let's put it behind us.


Agreed!

Less than an hour to game time. Go, Canucks, GO!!!
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#210 Ugli Fruit

Ugli Fruit

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,872 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 09

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:08 PM

These games are bound to happen. I'm willing to bet the Canucks rebound tomorrow and win in Anaheim.


And I also think Hamhuis is gonna have one of his best games so far this season. Guy played pretty well in LA imho
  • 0

Formerly known as LordofBrussels

There we have it folks, we have literally blamed everyone for everything at this point


Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image





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.