VanCan2013 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Bieksa Played Quite Ok Offensively... Maybe He Slipped On Defence A Little Bit But He Played Well... After All Defence Played An Important Role In The Shutout. LU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksBen Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 He played great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willhouse Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Bieksa only plays good in contract years. Honestly if he didn't have a great playoffs last year we probably would've kept Erhoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Bxa had an awful game, couldn't get the puck out of his end, couldn't make a pass, checked the boards a few times, got bailed out on his gaffes by Hammer, absolutely Brutal,. Yet he picked up 2 flukey pts, His flubbed shot deflects to a teammate and he gets a 2nd asst and picks up another assist on Higgies goal. Despite the points, I'm real uncomfortable with him tasked with the role he has on the team, as the post season approaches. He is simply too terrible to depend on for defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Bxa had an awful game, couldn't get the puck out of his end, couldn't make a pass, checked the boards a few times, got bailed out on his gaffes by Hammer, absolutely Brutal,. Yet he picked up 2 flukey pts, His flubbed shot deflects to a teammate and he gets a 2nd asst and picks up another assist on Higgies goal. Despite the points, I'm real uncomfortable with him tasked with the role he has on the team, as the post season approaches. He is simply too terrible to depend on for defense. Not sure what game you watched. Your posts are troll-worthy at best. You bring nothing of substance to any discussions on this forum from what I've seen. Beyond comical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Bxa had an awful game, couldn't get the puck out of his end, couldn't make a pass, checked the boards a few times, got bailed out on his gaffes by Hammer, absolutely Brutal,. Yet he picked up 2 flukey pts, His flubbed shot deflects to a teammate and he gets a 2nd asst and picks up another assist on Higgies goal. Despite the points, I'm real uncomfortable with him tasked with the role he has on the team, as the post season approaches. He is simply too terrible to depend on for defense. You do realize every post you make has nothing new to offer, right? You complain about his game, then you say something about how lucky he got offensively(which I am sure the chances of putting up 35 points by fluke as a d-men are REAL high), then you talk about how Hammer bailed him out. Do me a favor.... for the next few games you watch, focus hard on Hammer, like you focus hard on Bieksa. I am sure you will discover for almost every time Hammer bails out Bieksa, Bieksa returns the favor. I saw 3-4 occasions of this happening last night. That is what makes the pairing so effective, they always have each others back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I've said it before, but perhaps it bears repeating: For those who have paid close attention, you'll notice that Juice has been taking more chances offensively this season than he did last year. Both his and Hammer's plus/minus reflect this. I'm not privy to the behind the scenes goings on of the Canucks, but I'd have to guess that this was a calculated move made by the coaching staff in an effort to replace some of the points lost with the departure of Ehrhoff. When Bieksa was in his first few seasons, a similar tactic was used in an effort to generate some offense from the back line for a team that was seriously lacking in that department at the time. Now the Canucks have the luxury of an excellent defensive defenseman in Hamhuis, who has shown that he can handle covering for Bieksa on his more frequent pinches and forays into the offensive zone. I don't know about anyone else, but I see a team that's capable of winning a shootout or a defensive snooze fest like last night's game, so I'd have to say that Bones and AV have a pretty good idea what they're doing. YMMV.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Bxa had an awful game, couldn't get the puck out of his end, couldn't make a pass, checked the boards a few times, got bailed out on his gaffes by Hammer, absolutely Brutal,. Yet he picked up 2 flukey pts, His flubbed shot deflects to a teammate and he gets a 2nd asst and picks up another assist on Higgies goal. Despite the points, I'm real uncomfortable with him tasked with the role he has on the team, as the post season approaches. He is simply too terrible to depend on for defense. You're uncomfortable because your head is lodged firmly up your arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Bieksa only plays good in contract years. Honestly if he didn't have a great playoffs last year we probably would've kept Erhoff. Last year 6 goals and 22 points in 66 games. This year 7 goals and 35 points in 65 games. (so far) Is his contract up again so soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I've said it before, but perhaps it bears repeating: For those who have paid close attention, you'll notice that Juice has been taking more chances offensively this season than he did last year. Both his and Hammer's plus/minus reflect this. I'm not privy to the behind the scenes goings on of the Canucks, but I'd have to guess that this was a calculated move made by the coaching staff in an effort to replace some of the points lost with the departure of Ehrhoff. When Bieksa was in his first few seasons, a similar tactic was used in an effort to generate some offense from the back line for a team that was seriously lacking in that department at the time. Now the Canucks have the luxury of an excellent defensive defenseman in Hamhuis, who has shown that he can handle covering for Bieksa on his more frequent pinches and forays into the offensive zone. I don't know about anyone else, but I see a team that's capable of winning a shootout or a defensive snooze fest like last night's game, so I'd have to say that Bones and AV have a pretty good idea what they're doing. YMMV.... Hamhuis has gambled a lot more this year as well. Which has also led to odd man rushed Bieksa has had to cover for. But it's also led to more points for Hamhuis as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Not sure what game you watched. Your posts are troll-worthy at best. You bring nothing of substance to any discussions on this forum from what I've seen. Beyond comical. I still think he was Kudas in a previous incarnation here...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Not sure what game you watched. Your posts are troll-worthy at best. You bring nothing of substance to any discussions on this forum from what I've seen. Beyond comical. I still think he was Kudas in a previous incarnation here...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Hamhuis has gambled a lot more this year as well. Which has also led to odd man rushed Bieksa has had to cover for. But it's also led to more points for Hamhuis as well. lol, an odd man rush Bxa can't cover is a one on two. The guy is horrible defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 You do realize every post you make has nothing new to offer, right? You complain about his game, then you say something about how lucky he got offensively(which I am sure the chances of putting up 35 points by fluke as a d-men are REAL high), then you talk about how Hammer bailed him out. Do me a favor.... for the next few games you watch, focus hard on Hammer, like you focus hard on Bieksa. I am sure you will discover for almost every time Hammer bails out Bieksa, Bieksa returns the favor. I saw 3-4 occasions of this happening last night. That is what makes the pairing so effective, they always have each others back. Ha, Ha, check out this recent poll just to confirm you are in the minority and definitely wearing Bxa love goggles... http://forum.canucks.com/topic/324657-hamhuis-vs-bieksa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaeneir Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ha, Ha, check out this recent poll just to confirm you are in the minority and definitely wearing Bxa love goggles... http://forum.canucks.com/topic/324657-hamhuis-vs-bieksa/ You are inconceivably immature in the manner with which you approach debate. You refuse to address valid points raised by those who oppose your point of view and consistently tear off on tangents unrelated to issues that people present. Now I'm calling you out on your crap. I asked you this question 3 months ago: Would you rather contend for the President's Trophy each year, or the Stanley Cup? Answer it. If you want the Cup to come to Vancouver, then Bieksa is one of the guys who can make it happen, and *anybody* can present evidence to support the fact that Bieksa raises his game in the playoffs and makes a difference. Don't just sit there and say "what did he do haha in game 7? Lol." Answer the question. No hahas, no lols, no dodging the topic. President's Trophy, or Cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ha, Ha, check out this recent poll just to confirm you are in the minority and definitely wearing Bxa love goggles... http://forum.canucks...huis-vs-bieksa/ LOL...just for you bud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ha, Ha, check out this recent poll just to confirm you are in the minority and definitely wearing Bxa love goggles... http://forum.canucks.com/topic/324657-hamhuis-vs-bieksa/ Are you REALLY presenting a POLL as evidence to support a point? Of CANUCK fans? I don't even know what to say to this. Speechless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I am convinced that Canucklelion is really Kevin Bieksa trolling hard so he gets compliments shoved into his face. Who else could be so shameless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Ha, Ha, check out this recent poll just to confirm you are in the minority and definitely wearing Bxa love goggles... http://forum.canucks...huis-vs-bieksa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.