[PGT] Calgary Flames at Vancouver Canucks | Feb. 08, 2020

[rekker]

20 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Jim Bennings biggest mistake will not turn out to be MT versus OJ. It will be cap management. 

Teams have such a small window for winning the cup. They need to be able to add at just the right time. The Canucks are going to have real problems adding better and more depth players over the next couple of years. Unless they can clear space or some of our young prospects arrive next year or two. 

Bring on Bailey.  

 

I don't agree. Edler, Sutter, Roussel, Schaller, Bear, Benn all off the books at the end of next year. That's just off the top of my head. LE can be bought out end of next year with a manageable hit as well.

Edited February 10, 2020 by rekker

[DeNiro]

16 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Jim Bennings biggest mistake will not turn out to be MT versus OJ. It will be cap management. 

Teams have such a small window for winning the cup. They need to be able to add at just the right time. The Canucks are going to have real problems adding better and more depth players over the next couple of years. Unless they can clear space or some of our young prospects arrive next year or two. 

Bring on Bailey.  

 

Drafting can solve that issue and by all accounts we’re drafting quite well.

[6string]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

The herd has arrived! 
look at all of these posts...
 

Welcome, those wanting more pushback from this team. 
Better late than never. 
 

Because Fraudman between periods brings it up - then it must be true!

Edited February 10, 2020 by 6string

[canuck2288]

1 hour ago, knucklehead91 said:

Canucks were not expected to make the playoffs. We were projected to be a bottom 6 team by all the “experts”.

The goal was to be competitive and have meaningful games down the stretch. We have surpassed our goal of being competitive and have become a team capable of making the playoffs and potentially winning our division.

No one saw such a drastic turn around from bottom 6 to top 10 in the league.

We are going through a dry spell and struggling a bit right now, but we can right the ship and stay on course

You can not be serious 

 

where do you get your facts from? You think JB gave up a first to bring in Miller just to be bottom 10?

 

you would have been happy finishing that low, which under Green we probably will. The only reason people like you accept low expectations is because we do t have playoff calibre coaching 

 

we do have the roster, not the roster Green plays though 

[EdgarM]

2 hours ago, knucklehead91 said:

No one on the team had the energy to fight. We f***ing struggled in every game to play hockey. 1 goal wins at home and absolute sh!t kickings on the road. We were completely depleted. When you struggle to to muster up the energy to outwork a team, where the hell are you going to find the power to fight.

Kesler had a blown hipflexor from the 2nd round. Daniel was out for half a season with a concussion, Henrik got folded in half from Ben Eager in the WCF. Hamhuis blew his hip out in game 1 with a hipcheck on Lucic. Edler had a separated shoulder, Erhoff a broken finger, Bieksa had a pulled muscle, Salo got injured by that PoS Marchand when he submarined him in game 1 or 2. Raymonds back was injured, Malhotra came back from a nasty eye injury. This just off the top of my head, the injuries we had.

Boston.... Had Horton hurt...

Toughness isnt just fighting, its playing through injury and abuse and drawing calls. The Sedins were nowhere near soft. Those two took relentless punishment and cheapshots AND NEVER ONCE COMPLAINED OR CRIED. 

They never once complained or cried but they were definitely taken off their game by the rough stuff. The PP dried up and went something like 2-35 in the final. Very bad by Sedin standards.

The 94 Canucks were also decimated by injury but they never let that deter them. Remember Linden scoring 2 goals in the final with broken ribs and other injuries? Ronning had broken parts etc. etc. 

After watching both those series I will never believe that injuries could be used as an excuse for losing. The 2011 team almost lost their playoffs long before the final and played less then stellar throughout that whole playoff year. Typically they played dominating hockey in the regular season and not so much once the playoffs came around. Tighter checking became a big issue.

[RU SERIOUS]

.......................while we're on the subject of "Pussies", anyone know if LE will be sidelined for next game after that Epic "Floating" performance against the flames?

[stanleysteamersmyl]

1 hour ago, knucklehead91 said:

Canucks were not expected to make the playoffs. We were projected to be a bottom 6 team by all the “experts”.

The goal was to be competitive and have meaningful games down the stretch. We have surpassed our goal of being competitive and have become a team capable of making the playoffs and potentially winning our division.

No one saw such a drastic turn around from bottom 6 to top 10 in the league.

We are going through a dry spell and struggling a bit right now, but we can right the ship and stay on course

 

2018-2019  82 games  35W 36L 11t  81 Pts  Finished 12th West

2019-2020  56 games  30W 21L 5T  65 Pts   Currently 4th West, 1st Pacific

 

Colorado finished 8th last year with 90 Pts.  Canucks have a good chance to make the playoffs. 

[189lb enforcers?]

52 minutes ago, 6string said:

Because Fraudman between periods brings it up - then it must be true!

Can’t stand that guy!
He’s been pandering to the Vancouver market after reading their begging for a rep on HNIC. He’s like a talking head prositute. 

Great moniker. 
I’m going to use that one. 

[6string]

5 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Can’t stand that guy!
He’s been pandering to the Vancouver market after reading their begging for a rep on HNIC. He’s like a talking head prositute. 

Great moniker. 
I’m going to use that one. 

He's a former Raptors play by play and Blue Jays beat reporter, like Bettman handed a position to learn on the fly but "a nice guy". lol

[knucklehead91]

56 minutes ago, stanleysteamersmyl said:

 

2018-2019  82 games  35W 36L 11t  81 Pts  Finished 12th West

2019-2020  56 games  30W 21L 5T  65 Pts   Currently 4th West, 1st Pacific

 

Colorado finished 8th last year with 90 Pts.  Canucks have a good chance to make the playoffs. 

I made a post at the beginning of the year saying I believed that we have a chance at winning our division. The power rankings for the NHL had Vancouver at like 25th I think?

Ive had faith in this team from the start of the season

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said:

Which is why Im not too upset about some of our losses because we are a very young team, a lot of new faces and still building chemistry. Like you said, a little more experience under their belts is needed. The timing of the recapture penalty, spooner, Eriksson and Schaller coming off the books in the coming years and Sutter too, will help us sort out our upcoming contracts.

Plus the Boeser and Horvat contracts are great for both sides

Agreed on everything except for the Boeser contract.  

He's playing like a 5 mil player, but he will become a 7.5 mil player by the time we have to qualify him.  I think that Virtanen, Pearson and Leivo would have very similar numbers if they were given a chance to play 99% of their season on a line with Petey and JT, and be on PP1.  

I also think that Tanev's played himself into another contract with us next year.  Don't see how we can separate him and our best d-man, Quinn. 

Tough decisions ahead  

[spur1]

Holy crap.... sounds like Calgary Puck in here. 

[Sweathog]

4 hours ago, knucklehead91 said:

I dont think you understand what toughness actually is. Theres a story of Gretzky back in the 80s. They lost to the Islanders in the finals, Gretzky went and peaked into the Islander dressing room and they were slapping on icepacks, wrapping up cuts and bruises and they were kinda quiet after winning the cup.

Gretzky went back to his locker room and guys are laughing and joking and not in any pain. The following year, the Oilers won the cup and paid the price, sacrificed the body, took hits to make the plays, blocked shots and played tough in that way. Thats the toughness you need to win a cup. Yes we do need to stick up for one another, which was the intention behind signing Ferland and Roussel and why we have been linked to going after Simmonds. But we dont need a goon to do this. We just need some skill with grit in the top 6. Not a goon on the 4th line to warm a bench until its his time to shine, its a waste of a roster spot.

 

Edit: The Canucks had that toughness. They fought through injury and put everything on the line. They just ran out of steam after such a long journey and the injury toll adding up game after game.

We didnt get to game 7 being soft.

https://www.nhl.com/islanders/news/gretzky-recalls-great-rivalry/c-466223

Do you know what toughness is? It's about intimidation, whether it's about throwing the other team off their game, or preventing the other team from doing the same to you.

 

Which is exactly what happened to the 2011 Canucks. That team didn't have any toughness, and once the Bruins ramped up the physicality in game 3, the series was essentially over. The Canucks ended up being taken off their game, they stopped skating, were afraid to touch the puck, and made bad decisions with the puck in the hopes they wouldn't get hit. They were scared, and it showed up in their game. Not only that the Bruins were firing the puck at Luongo in the warm-ups for games 6 and 7, along with skating over the redline during warm-ups, taunting the Canucks for their lack of pushback, rubbing their noses in it.

 

I also have to mention that the Oilers team you were referring to had plenty of toughness. Semenko, Messier, Dave Lumley, Kevin McClelland for starters. You even breathed on Gretzky or Kurri and that team would take your head off.

 

So no, toughness isn't about playing through the abuse without complaining, ( which the Sedins didn't do well in the finals, as their production dried right up) it's about that physical presence, that intimidation that will allow your skilled players to play their game down the stretch, and in the playoffs.

[spur1]

The Flames were a very very desperate team as their playoff lives were on the line. Even with the win they are still hanging on to a playoff spot by a thread. 
The Canucks even with the loss are still in control of their own destiny. 

[knucklehead91]

7 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Agreed on everything except for the Boeser contract.  

He's playing like a 5 mil player, but he will become a 7.5 mil player by the time we have to qualify him.  I think that Virtanen, Pearson and Leivo would have very similar numbers if they were given a chance to play 99% of their season on a line with Petey and JT, and be on PP1.  

I also think that Tanev's played himself into another contract with us next year.  Don't see how we can separate him and our best d-man, Quinn. 

Tough decisions ahead  

Yea Boeser is obviously struggling in terms of scoring. However he’s still at 45 points, just under a point a game.

However Boeser’s 5v5 points are almost the same as Pettersson’s.

Pettersson 23g 32a 20ppp 7ppg

Which means 16g 35pts 5v5

Boeser 16g 29a 45pts 14ppp 5ppg

5v5 is 11g 31pts 5v5 only 4 point difference 5v5. The powerplay runs through Miller Hughes and Pettersson. They dont use Boeser as the 1 timer. Some times hes down on the goal line at the side of the net as pass option. Then goes back up to Hughes for a shot, or over to Pettersson for the 1 timer and Miller is the net presence. So Boeser isnt really utilized on the PP and if Hughes isnt shooting, Boeser is likely to not receive a point because its over to Pettersson for a shot and Miller is there for the tip/rebound

And even though I agree Boeser isnt quite himself which Im sure he is mentally not 100% with his dads health... hes still producing near the same rate 5v5 as our top player

[Angry Goose]

decided to go back and watch the goals against.  really wish I had the ability to record the games and make gifs but im too technology inept.  

 

 

Benn decides to play up at the red line, puck gets chipped past him.  With Benn behind the play, Stetcher rotates over (LD), and Gaudette rotates to cover for (RD), and Virtanen moves down to cover Gaudette's area as the (C).  

 

 

Rotation, with Benn trying to get back into position

 

 

With Benn getting back into position, Virtanen is stuck in no mans land as a winger down low.  Roussell doesnt get back into the zone quickly either, and as a result the (RD) is open. and shoots past a screened Marky.  Again, I dont know the systems exactly.  Jake would actually be the weak side winger in this case, but because he got back before Roussell is he responsible for the (LD)?  I dont know, but the d man was left wide open.

 

 

This is leading up to the Tkachuck goal where Edler loses his stick.  But what kind of irked me is that the player in the middle there is Miller.

 

 

And instead of back checking as the third man back he changes off for Pearson (thats him with his leg over the boards). So Edler with no stick, and Tkachuck waltzes in and scores.  For Reference, EP was battling for the puck down low, so Im assuming Miller needs to cover for the (C) coming back.

 

 

On this goal against, the Canucks if I recall had already spent a fair amount of time in the D zone.  They dont get it out here at the blue line, and it goes back towards the weak side corner.

 

 

Getting back into position

 

 

At first glance when watching this I thought Schaller took to long to get back to cover his area but he shifted towards the middle to cover Brodie, as you see below

 

 

So, on this goal against, probably a combination of fatigue and another screen shot past Marky.  Coverage wise it was fine, but if Myers gets his stick on that shot and deflects it out its just another play we dont care about too much.  It doesn't happen at all if they just got the puck out though.  Game of inches really.

 

 

I thought this play was interesting.  Puck in corner and Benn racing back to get into position. 

 

 

Virtanen is on (RW) there and notices there is no (LD) in position, so he drops down to cover.  Roussell is sagging towards the middle as well.

 

 

 

 

So the puck goes back to Andersson the (RD), but with Virtanen down low, Roussell darts out to cover, and easily gets beat.  No goal against but it was a good scoring chance right in the middle of the ice.  Although there was a coverage issue going on here, sometimes people want to see more pressure on the puck carrier, and this is a case where if you get too aggressive, it can lead to a chance against.

 

 

So as good as EP and Hughes are, even the young guys get their signals crossed.  Here, Hughes is pointing to the weak side winger for EP to cover.

 

 

Unfortunately though, the weakside winger gets left all alone and the flames score again

 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by SILLY GOOSE

[knucklehead91]

1 minute ago, Sweathog said:

Do you know what toughness is? It's about intimidation, whether it's about throwing the other team off their game, or preventing the other team from doing the same to you.

 

Which is exactly what happened to the 2011 Canucks. That team didn't have any toughness, and once the Bruins ramped up the physicality in game 3, the series was essentially over. The Canucks ended up being taken off their game, they stopped skating, were afraid to touch the puck, and made bad decisions with the puck in the hopes they wouldn't get hit. They were scared, and it showed up in their game. Not only that the Bruins were firing the puck at Luongo in the warm-ups for games 6 and 7, along with skating over the redline during warm-ups, taunting the Canucks for their lack of pushback, rubbing their noses in it.

 

I also have to mention that the Oilers team you were referring to had plenty of toughness. Semenko, Messier, Dave Lumley, Kevin McClelland for starters. You even breathed on Gretzky or Kurri and that team would take your head off.

 

So no, toughness isn't about playing through the abuse without complaining, ( which the Sedins didn't do well in the finals, as their production dried right up) it's about that physical presence, that intimidation that will allow your skilled players to play their game down the stretch, and in the playoffs.

You do realize how beaten up the Canucks were right? Like the list of injuries prior to the finals compared to bostons one and only injury is staggering. We lost because we ran of steam and suffered too many injuries too early in the playoffs. We made to the finals and went as far as game 7, on a crippled team.

toughness isnt about throwing the hit, thats the easiest damn choice to make. Hmm throw the hit or get hit? What are you going to do? You are going to throw the hit because you are too much of chicken sh!t to take a big hit to make the play.

simple hockey 101 that. Take the hit to make the play. Avoid the hit and lose the puck.

Henrik was folded in half from behind by Ben Eager in the WCF.

Kesler blew his hipflexor in the 2nd round

Our defence was decimated before the finals and then we lost Hamhuis game 1. Salo got submarined, the list of injuries goes on and on and on. We ran out of steam simply due to injury. We pushed it all the way to game 7. I could feel the canucks struggle in each game because they were completely burnt out from travel and injury. In and out of their time zone every single round. Flying every couple days. Boston didnt leave their time zone until the finals. Canucks travelled 10x more than Boston, which wears on you on its own.

Bostons only injury was Horton

[knucklehead91]

18 minutes ago, Sweathog said:

Do you know what toughness is? It's about intimidation, whether it's about throwing the other team off their game, or preventing the other team from doing the same to you.

 

Which is exactly what happened to the 2011 Canucks. That team didn't have any toughness, and once the Bruins ramped up the physicality in game 3, the series was essentially over. The Canucks ended up being taken off their game, they stopped skating, were afraid to touch the puck, and made bad decisions with the puck in the hopes they wouldn't get hit. They were scared, and it showed up in their game. Not only that the Bruins were firing the puck at Luongo in the warm-ups for games 6 and 7, along with skating over the redline during warm-ups, taunting the Canucks for their lack of pushback, rubbing their noses in it.

 

I also have to mention that the Oilers team you were referring to had plenty of toughness. Semenko, Messier, Dave Lumley, Kevin McClelland for starters. You even breathed on Gretzky or Kurri and that team would take your head off.

 

So no, toughness isn't about playing through the abuse without complaining, ( which the Sedins didn't do well in the finals, as their production dried right up) it's about that physical presence, that intimidation that will allow your skilled players to play their game down the stretch, and in the playoffs.

Also, we outshot and out attempted Boston im most games. In game 7 we oushot them 37-21. We definitey had the puck on our stick a lot more and had far more zone time. So.. no we werent scared of them hitting us.

[Sweathog]

40 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said:

You do realize how beaten up the Canucks were right? Like the list of injuries prior to the finals compared to bostons one and only injury is staggering. We lost because we ran of steam and suffered too many injuries too early in the playoffs. We made to the finals and went as far as game 7, on a crippled team.

toughness isnt about throwing the hit, thats the easiest damn choice to make. Hmm throw the hit or get hit? What are you going to do? You are going to throw the hit because you are too much of chicken sh!t to take a big hit to make the play.

simple hockey 101 that. Take the hit to make the play. Avoid the hit and lose the puck.

Henrik was folded in half from behind by Ben Eager in the WCF.

Kesler blew his hipflexor in the 2nd round

Our defence was decimated before the finals and then we lost Hamhuis game 1. Salo got submarined, the list of injuries goes on and on and on. We ran out of steam simply due to injury. We pushed it all the way to game 7. I could feel the canucks struggle in each game because they were completely burnt out from travel and injury. In and out of their time zone every single round. Flying every couple days. Boston didnt leave their time zone until the finals. Canucks travelled 10x more than Boston, which wears on you on its own.

Bostons only injury was Horton

I don't buy the injuries excuse, I'm sure Boston had their share of injuries to deal with as well. Injuries doesn't explain the fact that in the first two games the Bruins were quite passive, and the Canucks were mainly allowed to play their game. Once Boston ramped up the physical play however, everything changed, winning 4 of the last 5 games quite handily.

 

Toughness is not about throwing hits? Not sure what you're getting at here. Kind of explains my point though. Canucks were getting rid of the puck earlier than usual because they wanted to avoid getting hit, because they were intimidated. 

 

Henrik DID get flattened by Eager, which explains my point even further. Eager knew they were a soft team, that there would be no consequences for the hit. Their best player, their captain is on the receiving end of a dirty play and absolutely no response from his teammates. Nope, can't give up that powerplay.

 

I can understand your point about travel being a factor, if it wasn't for the fact that the Kings (also a tough team) won two cups despite being a West coast team.

 

Yeah the Canucks did outshoot the Bruins in game 7, but from what I saw a lot of those chances were perimeter shots, routine shots that didn't give Thomas too much trouble.

 

I understand your points, but imo toughness was the determining factor why the Canucks lost that series.

[Dumb Nuck]

12 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

No they're not and this has been proven to you more than once before...

Well, in 50 years Canucks have 0 cups, that’s 0%, in the last 10 years 4 teams that fired their coach mid season won the cup, any way you want to do the math it’ll come up greater than 0%.