Toews Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 2 hours ago, OptionalPants said: I just want to point out, that previous record was set in a very different era, with a lot more goals. This really shouldn't be too surprising, we're a bad team in a low scoring era and we haven't been bad since the games were a lot higher scoring. Actually this is not true. The late 90s were notoriously low scoring as it was well into the dead puck era. The goals/game average for that season is lower than it is today So this might indeed be the worst scoring team in Canucks history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 4 hours ago, OptionalPants said: I just want to point out, that previous record was set in a very different era, with a lot more goals. This really shouldn't be too surprising, we're a bad team in a low scoring era and we haven't been bad since the games were a lot higher scoring. I beg to differ. Offense right around the turn of the century was extremely low, much like today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleboy Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Out of our last 12 games we have 9 against stiff competition. The last 3 are against Calgary and Edmonton. We could slide to 3rd or 4th. A top 3 pick is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonaldBrashear Posted March 19, 2016 Author Share Posted March 19, 2016 4 hours ago, McHortanen said: Technically 2.35>2.34 so were not on "pace"... But I see what your saying. Not true. We've scored less goals in the second half of the season than the first half of the season. So arguably, we are on pace... since our goals are probably somewhere around 2.2 per game for the last 20-30 games or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 31 minutes ago, DonaldBrashear said: Not true. We've scored less goals in the second half of the season than the first half of the season. So arguably, we are on pace... since our goals are probably somewhere around 2.2 per game for the last 20-30 games or so the "pace" is determined by the average of all of the games played to this point, not an arbitrary number of them that help make your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 6 hours ago, DonaldBrashear said: With 70 games played, and only 167 goals scored (2.35 goals per game), and a downward trend, the canucks are likely to break the franchise record for lowest goals per game scored in a season. The previous record is held by (YOU GUESSED IT), the 1998-99 Messier team. In that year, the Canucks scored 192 goals in 82 games (2.34 goals per game). To beat the record, we need to score 24 goals, or less, in the next 12 games. I have said for 2 years now that it is a high level goal scorer we need from the draft. Boeser may be the first piece but if we luck into a top 3 pick, it had better be a goal scorer imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 7 hours ago, OptionalPants said: I just want to point out, that previous record was set in a very different era, with a lot more goals. This really shouldn't be too surprising, we're a bad team in a low scoring era and we haven't been bad since the games were a lot higher scoring. It makes the Messier team so much worse -- and I don't recall that team suffering from injuries or an aged core of the same kind at the time. Just major league bad morale, and poor treatment of Linden. And suckage. And leadership lol. And Keenan. It probably predates the era of league-wide awareness of Tanking too. The team was just everything bad. Our Torts year was more like the Keenan year I think. This one is just the rebuild taking hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckpuckluck1 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 5 hours ago, JamesB said: This is a good point and implies that this year's team is not nearly as bad as the 98-99 Messier team. But it is still a poor team. It is good that there are now some good prospects in the pipeline and some good young guys on the team. But, considering that Benning was trying to put as a good as possible on the ice this year and acquired a lot of veteran players over the past two years, this year's performance is not a good endorsement of Benning's skills. The vets he has brought in over the past two years -- Miller, Vrby, Prust, Dorsett, Sutter, Bartkowski, and I will include Sbisa have all, in my view, under-performed relative to their cap hit. Benning is a good judge of prospects, but in judging prospects you don't have to worry about their cap hit and you don't have to worry about using advanced stats, as good stats do not exist for most non-NHL players. So Benning's superior eye gives him an advantage. But, with vets, the willingness of other GMs to use advanced stats gives them an advantage and Benning does not really seem to "get" the cap (which led to conflicts with Gillman and Gillman eventually being fired). Let's hope he has learned from his mistakes. And let's hope the silver lining of a bad season is a good draft pick. But it is a shame (and a mistake) that no other assets were obtained this year. It is striking that of all the players on expiring contracts this year, not one generated a reasonable offer at the deadline. I think this is a really bad call. i am not a huge pro Benning fan, but I respect he was unbelievably handcuffed when he arrived. I personally will give him until the end of next season to show me what he end result will look like and then I will make judgement. But prior to that its just not fair to call him on it. Yes some trades are a bit odd, but you have to let the man build his team before you crucify him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combover Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 The majority of Benning moves bring in less and less skill scoring isn't going to be a strong part of this team moving forward. Dump and chase will be so we better get use to being on the bottom of goals for list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 1 hour ago, alfstonker said: I have said for 2 years now that it is a high level goal scorer we need from the draft. Boeser may be the first piece but if we luck into a top 3 pick, it had better be a goal scorer imo. I think offensive players are what we really need going forward, I agree. The Sedins could retire next summer. And clearly we don't have their replacements in place now. (McCann and Horvat are improving, but it doesn't look they will be 1st liners for a while, if ever.) You also need playmakers and most of all a team identity that works in the 2015-2020 era. Ovechkin without WA's pp and without his linemates -- or without a 2nd 1st Line -- is not the scorer he is. Although even with lesser mates he did score, so your point is well taken. WA hasn't won the cup yet, but they've done a lot this year -- more than enough to suggest some things. From WA and maybe Chicago we can see the future:Two scoring lines and key players who buy into what the coach is asking for, and a pp that can kill when it needs to. From LA: a key D (Doughty), a good team identity, and again, 2 lines that can score -- although less prolifically. All 3 also have goaltending. In about 20 months we won't have one line that can score reliably. Unless we get a succession of at least 2 high draft picks that can help us. (Boeser, Puljujarvi, XXXXXX, to go along with McCann, Horvat, Baertschi, Hutton) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 people wanted more young guys playing...they said they could live with it...they got what they wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 3 hours ago, tas said: the "pace" is determined by the average of all of the games played to this point, not an arbitrary number of them that help make your case. Nope...our current "pace" will have us finishing lower. You're looking at a snapshot in time without looking at the overall effect. Simple algebraic equation [41 games at X pace + 41 games at Y pace] / 2. Our pace in the last 21 games is much lower so it drags down the "average pace" overall. Like in most sports the old adage is true "it ain't how you start but how you finish that counts". Think marathon runner who explodes out of the gate and leads the race for 13 miles...then runs out of gas and finishes last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lui's Knob Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Team filled with a bunch of plugs. Sedins are aging. No scoring from the D. its predictable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptionalPants Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 5 hours ago, ajhockey said: I beg to differ. Offense right around the turn of the century was extremely low, much like today. Wow, thanks for pointing that out. We are a bad team this year. Yikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 I think it was near the beginning of the season that I analyzed our team and noted that we only had 2 legitimate 1st liners, 1 legit 2nd liner (Vrbata, who has since tailed off to a legit 3rd liner), and the rest 3rd and 4th liners. We can live without the 3rd Sedin...but a lack of a legit 2nd line has buried us this year. Most folks wanted a stronger D corps, but it was lack of scoring that caused me to question the need for D when we didn't have a legit #2 C (one that could hopefully be a future #1 C). And today I'm sticking to my guns. In the modern NHL you MUST build from the middle out (solid goaltending coupled with at least 2 big 2-way centremen who are capable of putting the puck on net then rushing back 200ft to defend...think WSH with Backstrom / Kuznetsov and Johansson...LA with Kopitar / Carter...NYR with Stepan / Brassard...CHI with Toews / Anisimov). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekey Pete Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 3 hours ago, tas said: the "pace" is determined by the average of all of the games played to this point, not an arbitrary number of them that help make your case. No, pace is pretty much what he said. If our goals per game average is getting worse every game, that's on pace. The average of all games played is our record at this point in time. Pace is like acceleration (negative or positive) add it to our current record to get the final result. It's simple physics Stan, I don't understand it at all, but god I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1canuck67 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 9 hours ago, Honky Cat said: As bad as it sounds ,this season is nowhere near as dreary as some of the Canuck seasons of the 80's... ....or the 70s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Spector Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 10 hours ago, vladimirpuck said: "I'M COMING VANCOUVER! PEDAN...GIVE ME MY #29 JERSEY!" I think he'll wear #92 for us. Much cooler number... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 5 hours ago, ajhockey said: I beg to differ. Offense right around the turn of the century was extremely low, much like today. The difference between then and now is that goals were still scored with sticks instead of skates and asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Spector Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 9 hours ago, Honky Cat said: As bad as it sounds ,this season is nowhere near as dreary as some of the Canuck seasons of the 80's... No kidding. I used to have to watch some of those crappy games while working and trying to sell Canuck souvenirs at the same time they were shi$$ng the bed every night!! The cool part was we only had to work during the intermissions so we could grab an empty seat and watch the game. Ha, some games I could just about sit anywhere including centre ice!! Must of been only 7,500 people max at some of those games. Thank God for the Maple Laughs, Canadiens, Bruins and Oilers. At least we made money during those games!! During the 1980's we finished with 59 points THREE times. Thank God for Pat Quinn. He couldn't have arrived soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.