nuck nit Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The real problem is an unproductive second line. Hansen and Higgins really belong on the third to be effective. Question is whether Burrows can move down to help. IMO I would like to see Booth play LW with the Sedins (Daniel playing the right side) , Burrows LW and Kassian RW on the second line, and have Hansen & Higgins drop to the third where they have proven to be very effective as a third line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Back to Luongo of old? Which game were you watching tonight? Let me break it down for you. None of those goals were Luongo's fault. NONE. 1st goal: Brent Burns took a very good shot. So no it was just a good shot 2nd goal: It's not Luongo's fault he can't see the puck. He was just doing a routine positional save hoping the puck hit him considering the fact that he had Couture and Tanev in front of him. Every goalie does this, sometimes it hits them, sometimes it doesn't. It's not his fault Tanev couldn't move Couture or get in front of the shot to block it. So no, that is not his fault. 3rd goal: Higgins with a brainfart just dangling his own teammates going back to his zone towards Luongo ending up losing it. Which in turn puts himself out of position leaving our D in no mans land and Marleau with the easy snipe in the slot. Not Luongo's fault. Could he have saved it? Sure. But 9/10 times, if you leave a guy like Marleau wide open in the slot after you turn the puck over, that puck is going in regardless. 4th goal: D pinched up with no backup basically a 2 on 0. It would've been a penalty shot had Wingels not be there but our backchecking was hilariously slow. Wingels was in the right spot at the right time to tap the puck in. Otherwise, he would've gave up on the play and Bieksa woulda cleared the puck and it would've been a penalty shot. Add on to the fact that Hamhuis crashed into Luongo so Lu couldn't make the save. Seriously, how could you fault Luongo on any of these goals? Moronic, idiotic 12 year olds with no brains like yourself is the reason why Canucks Talk is the stupidest section of this forum. Will I get a warning point from this? Absolutely. But I'm just infuriated that dumbasses like you go out of the way and blame the offence for the loss, and then throw on the "Luongo was the reason we lost" cherry on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_Follower Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 In my opinion for the Canucks to succeed this year they'll need to take a page from the LA Kings. They'll have to grind teams night in and night out and essentially be perfect on D/goaltending every night. So in my opinion, not much of a shot. @Nuck_Nit the reason Kassian is quickly becoming the "saviour" for some is that IF he can gel with the Sedins it will make our team deeper. Burrows could go to line 2, Higgins or Hansen could drop back down to 3 and then a Richardson or whoever could drop to 4. Just makes the overall team a little harder to play against/give the Canucks a shot at having a top 6/bottom 6 vs. top 3/bottom 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 haha. e-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 We played well for most of the game I thought but the Higgins giveaway was the dagger. It was the first game under torts and I liked the way we played. We had lots of chances but niemi was pretty damn good. It was giveaways that cost us but those mistakes will work their way out.. I'd be more concerned if I saw lazy play but I didn't. They played hard and the guys were all playing a torts style game but came up short. There's still a lot of fine tuning to do under the new coach and they will get better, it's only the first game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik Kesler Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The Canucks looked decent last night. There was far more compete and bite than at any point last year. One issue that made the shots look so lopsided was the fact that point shots and shots on the rush missed the freaking net. Burr and Higgins both flat out missed the net on glorious chances so instead of possibly scoring or creating a rebound, the puck rolled around the boards and was quickly back into the Canucks end. Need to start hitting the net more to create so rebounds and offensive zone havoc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The reason we didn't score wasn't just because of poor offence, but mainly poor defence. We struggled to get the puck out of our own zone cleanly, leading to the Sharks hemming us in. You can't score if you're defending without the puck. IMO this team needs to clean up its defence first, work on getting the puck up the ice and THEN worry about generating offence. Everything starts in our own zone. We're lucky to be getting good goaltending, now the defence have to be able to clear the zone successfully, and that includes forwards coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franksedin Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The reason we didn't score wasn't just because of poor offence, but mainly poor defence. We struggled to get the puck out of our own zone cleanly, leading to the Sharks hemming us in. You can't score if you're defending without the puck. IMO this team needs to clean up its defence first, work on getting the puck up the ice and THEN worry about generating offence. Everything starts in our own zone. We're lucky to be getting good goaltending, now the defence have to be able to clear the zone successfully, and that includes forwards coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Juice Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 actually I meant luongo of old 2006 07. Not the current apparent definition of old luongo lol...wow.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xur Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 It looks to me as though if you don't agree with someone's view on CDC then they must be a moron or a troll or an idiot. Why don't you take a chill pill and if you don't agree with someone give a reason they are wrong. The only people who seem to be panicing are the ones crying about people discussing the loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanKeslord17 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I really don't think Torts is focusing on a defence first approach at all. He stresses working hard in BOTH ends of the ice, hence to keep up the pressure and intensity while in the offensive zone, and shot block and play D while in the defensive zone. Obviously, for this style of play to work, it is EXTREMELY difficult because you have to play a full 60 minutes...either that or your goaltender has to play even better than Luongo did last night, and he played fantastic. As it's been said many times before, it will take a while for the boys to get to game speed and execute the game plan most nights. I'd give it at least a month before I start criticizing the system already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackberries Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I like the system.. we just need some players that can actually finish instead of a bunch of 3rd liners masquerading as second liners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanIsleNuckFan Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Back to Luongo of old? Which game were you watching tonight? Let me break it down for you. None of those goals were Luongo's fault. NONE. 1st goal: Brent Burns took a very good shot. So no it was just a good shot 2nd goal: It's not Luongo's fault he can't see the puck. He was just doing a routine positional save hoping the puck hit him considering the fact that he had Couture and Tanev in front of him. Every goalie does this, sometimes it hits them, sometimes it doesn't. It's not his fault Tanev couldn't move Couture or get in front of the shot to block it. So no, that is not his fault. 3rd goal: Higgins with a brainfart just dangling his own teammates going back to his zone towards Luongo ending up losing it. Which in turn puts himself out of position leaving our D in no mans land and Marleau with the easy snipe in the slot. Not Luongo's fault. Could he have saved it? Sure. But 9/10 times, if you leave a guy like Marleau wide open in the slot after you turn the puck over, that puck is going in regardless. 4th goal: D pinched up with no backup basically a 2 on 0. It would've been a penalty shot had Wingels not be there but our backchecking was hilariously slow. Wingels was in the right spot at the right time to tap the puck in. Otherwise, he would've gave up on the play and Bieksa woulda cleared the puck and it would've been a penalty shot. Add on to the fact that Hamhuis crashed into Luongo so Lu couldn't make the save. Seriously, how could you fault Luongo on any of these goals? Moronic, idiotic 12 year olds with no brains like yourself is the reason why Canucks Talk is the stupidest section of this forum. Will I get a warning point from this? Absolutely. But I'm just infuriated that dumbasses like you go out of the way and blame the offence for the loss, and then throw on the "Luongo was the reason we lost" cherry on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFleetwoodMack Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Bring back the Tampa Bay Torts. "SAFE IS DEATH". I want that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whcanuck Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The Canucks just have to keep it simple. Scoring goals is about getting pucks to the net and going after rebounds. The Sedins, I love those guys completely, but this over-fancifying every play won't cut it with Torts. Get pucks to the net and bang in greasy garbage goals. They all count. That's how you win. Were Chicago's 2nd and 3rd goals in Game 6 highlight reel markers? No, they were good hockey plays. And that got em the championship. Get bodies to the net, Sedins included, and get a stick on it, pucks will start to go in. Just overload the front of the net. It seems like such a simple concept but so many NHL players want to get every goal on Rock em Sock em the next year. I used to try and pull that crap when I played too, and I found I scored more when I kept it simple. Get pucks deep, forecheck the mother out of them, then get the puck to the net! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.