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

Not a time to panic. (Discussion)


J.I.A.H.N

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Hi Hutt

 

I hope you know I was only kidding..........

Markstrom has played some great games and does not deserved having said in public and it should take sometime before that would be a question

Nilsson had a very consistent 1st game, if he were to continually out play opposing goalies and show that he could handle the #1 responsibilities

Then he might cause that controversy 

 

This is something all CDC should hope and pray for.......but we aren't there yet!

 

But it would be a good thing!

Short of injuries, bak to backs etc or other issues complicating matters, I'd love to see Markstrom get 3 games, Nilsson 2 games. Rinse and repeat.

 

Keep them both fresh with practice time to keep their games tweaked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Only in Vancouver can will any time a backup goalie plays one good game make it a "controversy".  Sekeres, Pratt, and the other bottom-feeders are literally salivating at all the lemmings they're going to rile up with the latest induced drama.

Pratt and Sekeres can lick the ice after a full morning skate full of snot rockets as far as I'm concerned, but Markstrom has done his part this season so far to invite questions, and this is compounded by his never having been an NHL starter in his career (ever) and having cleared waivers in somewhat recent memory.  Canucks fans aren't idiots or reactionary for wondering if the other guy might be the better goalie.  Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

But now we have a goalie controversy ......boy, oh boy, oh boy!

nah, those guys are buddies that support each other. The only goalie controversy is with the lazy-ass media trotting out the same old tired story lines regardless of the facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

I'd love to see Markstrom get 3 games, Nilsson 2 games. Rinse and repeat.

It could very well go the other way too, and thats fine. Nilsson looks pretty darn calm back there. The only time he was sub .900 was with that horrible Islanders team. There will be some interesting days ahead for these two. I like Marky but it wouldn't surprise me at all if by the end of the year Nilsson edges him out in starts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

It could very well go the other way too, and thats fine. Nilsson looks pretty darn calm back there. The only time he was sub .900 was with that horrible Islanders team. There will be some interesting days ahead for these two. I like Marky but it wouldn't surprise me at all if by the end of the year Nilsson edges him out in starts. 

Nilsson's knock has always been stringing more than 1-2 good games together. He'll give you 1 or 2 good games like last night and fall back to earth after that. If he can't string 3, 4+ good games together, he's unlikely to be the lead starter. That said, who knows, maybe he gets over that hump?

 

This does remind me of the article @SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME posted somewhere yesterday about goalies performance falling off at or around the 4th game as a general trend. Markstrom played well (softies withstanding) for the first 3 games and faltered on the 4th.

 

A 3 game/2 game split would seem to fit that well and fit both goalies wheel houses on where they can perform at their peak while getting adequate rest and practice time to tweak any weaknesses creeping in, given neither is likely to grab a 60+ game, obvious 'starter' role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

Pratt and Sekeres can lick the ice after a full morning skate full of snot rockets as far as I'm concerned, but Markstrom has done his part this season so far to invite questions, and this is compounded by his never having been an NHL starter in his career (ever) and having cleared waivers in somewhat recent memory.  Canucks fans aren't idiots or reactionary for wondering if the other guy might be the better goalie.  Who knows?

Sure, there'll be debate when there are two relative equals but that doesn't mean there's any sort of controversy, not like if there's a clear-cut ordained #1 who's being far outplayed by the backup, and CONSISTENTLY, not just a couple of games, and certainly not just one.  Seems the only way there wouldn't be a "goalie controversy" would be if we had only one goaltender in the entire organization.  But then there would probably be the "who should be the backup, Sutter cuz he's tall and useless anyway?  Or Gudbranson cuz he's big?  They're probably both better than that bum Markstrom who let in a soft goal last game..."

 

There's no "controversy"; whoever plays better gets the lion's share of games, exactly the way it should be.  It would be like Green trying to decide who was the king of stupid questions, Paterson or Botchford.  Oh controversy -- Botch has been the best, but Paterson really outdid him tonight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people have different views on the team so just look at it this way we get to see how others see this team

 

I really do not know why a thread would be needed so close to the start of the season when we are playing a point a game

 

see thats my thought as others see it different which I am ok with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

....I would like to panic now....but I don't think the time is right yet ....so it will have to wait....I'll keep you posted....

What would you like to panic about?  That we don't appear to be tanking? That we are playing .500 hockey?  That most of the team seems more exciting to watch? That we don't have a vezina type goalie?  That we won't make the playoffs? That we won't win the cup this year? That we won't win the lottery even if we finish last? Did I miss anything?

 

:o 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CeeBee51 said:

What would you like to panic about?  That we don't appear to be tanking? That we are playing .500 hockey?  That most of the team seems more exciting to watch? That we don't have a vezina type goalie?  That we won't make the playoffs? That we won't win the cup this year? That we won't win the lottery even if we finish last? Did I miss anything?

 

:o 

yup...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...