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

EdgarM

Members
  • Posts

    4,544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

2,855 profile views

EdgarM's Achievements

Canucks Second-Line

Canucks Second-Line (11/16)

3.7k

Reputation

  1. This is what irritates me about Green. Why is our main sniper(Boeser) on the 2nd PP as well as our more creative leading point getter(Garland)? I don't even mind Chiasson as a net front presence but are you putting him ahead of the likes of Garland and Boeser? We all know that the #1 PP unit gets pretty much all of the PP time so how does this set up make any sense at all? Anyone?
  2. So true, Petey and Hughes get crazy amount of minutes whether they are playing good or bad. On the other hand, it looks like Garland's minutes have diminished since his "run in" in Detroit. All the while hard workers like Podkolzin and Hoglander ride the pine. Frustrating.
  3. When your team plays like a "drop in" , "non-contact" hockey league, or a ringette league, there's an issue.
  4. Many have mentioned what the issues are and its funny its been like this for years. I just shake my head when our player shoots and then doesn't even follow up on the play. Its like the play is over because their shot didn't go in! We are constantly looking for that perfect shot, look no further then our PP for an example of that. No garbage goals and no one willing to pay the price in front of the net. Chiasson was something like we needed but still not a perfect fit. It did give our PP a different dimension though. The 2011 finals was a good example as well. We were too busy looking for penalties and not enough "fighting like our life depended on it" in front of the net. I don't think Vigneault was a fan of this type of play either. He was looking for the perfect plays too. We will continue to be like this unless we get more players who think outside the box like a Garland or a Motte. Too many "drive by's" and not enough players willing to go to the net and cause havoc.
  5. This was my concern as well when the whole "who is going to be the next Captain after Hank retires" debate. The Culture is no different since the Sedins, and Nazzy before that, and we have never identified the true identity of the team. Is this team Bo's or just a continuation of Hank and Nazzy before him? The team really needs some kind of "shake up" and the only logical step is the Coach but as we seen when Torts was brought in, that never worked, the team just stopped playing for him. Maybe this is what we are seeing with Green as well. I think the players really need to take responsibility and show this through action. This is what Linden did and I have not seen that accountability since.
  6. Good point, which is maybe why his intensity and tenacity has lessened drastically since then. Sad.
  7. I agree with you to a point, yes the days of the "goon" are gone, but there are advantages to having guys on the team who will not hesitate to get in the scrum when things get ugly, or keep guys like McDavid thinking he is untouchable and thinking he can do what ever he wants on the ice. He is so cocky now that he is taking liberties with our smaller less aggressive players. This cannot happen. A McDavid who is keeping an eye scanning for an open ice hit is far better then when he can only worry about how many points he is going to score that night. We have two good examples of good and bad "pesky" play. The Good? Garland without a doubt, no cheap shots just intensive play which the opposition doesn't like. It also helps that he is a lot smaller then them for added effect. The Bad? Roussel. The Good? Meyers. The bad? Macewen, too little too late. Its too bad Ferland didn't pan out as he would solved a lot of issues in this regard. The other thing that seems evident is that Green does not have an agenda for aggressive play which I am thinking causes a lot of frustration for players such as Miller. Another frustrating component of this is that is makes for very, very boring hockey.
  8. This has been going on for so long I would imagine its part of the "Culture" of the team now.
  9. I agree, look how long it took for a "Response" to Duncan Keith's shenanigans. Is Checking/Hitting still a thing? I seen lots of aggressive play by the opposition and NO RESPONSE so far this year. It is embarrassing. It's also becoming very boring to watch. Garlands play against Detroit was "Classic" and I miss that type of hockey, it has a little passion and feeling which brings about far more interesting competition between teams.
  10. I just don't understand why it took so long. I don't think he was even bumped all the years we played him. I guess that's why every other team believes they can take liberties with our smaller talented forwards whenever they want. Hopefully this changes their mind somewhat.
  11. I like him as well, he is the second coming of Cliff Ronning. There was a reason he was given the handle "crafty" and Garland displays those skills as well.
  12. So how long did it take for this guy to get what he deserves? Myers is my hero no matter how he plays here on out.
  13. Exactly this. IMO, he is an improvement over Beagle, Sutter and Roussel. None of which could play the role of net front presence. Others are thinking he is taking a prospects spot which I believe is false. This type of player is NEEDED on a team and is a COMPLIMENT to our younger more talented players. The fact that Edmonton just let him go should tell you how important this kind of player is to a team. All kidding aside, I believe others will see his value as the season progresses, as does Miller does already.
  14. That is what I noticed too, he complements our skilled players. He does things JV/Roussel should have been doing. He does have skill as well so I would like to see him in the line up somewhere. Maybe not in the top line but he does have a skill set that this team requires. IMO.
×
×
  • Create New...