[PGT] St. Louis Blues at Vancouver Canucks | Aug. 21, 2020 | Canucks win series 4-2

[-DLC-]

6 hours ago, FijianCanuck said:

 You can't tell me that Binnington played like a total sieve this series?

Yes I can.

 

And I will:   Binnington played like a total sieve this series.

 

 

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, hobart16 said:

I was wondering what people think about the effect of the bubble. No travel, no families, no fans. Does that favor one team over another?  I wonder. 

 

Older teams with older legs might benefit from no travel. But older teams where players are married with kids might be more negatively affected mentally. The young teams with more single guys are hanging with their buddies and having more fun maybe do better in this environment. It seems like the older teams got bounced. The Caps, Blues, etc and the younger teams like Isles, Ava and Canucks advance. I’ll have to look at average age stats and see if this holds any water.
 

Does a defensive team with a conservative style benefit from no fans generating extra energy? Are the Canucks with their high tempo game at a disadvantage without the energy of an audience?  
 

Hard to say what the conditions mean but as a viewer who would not be able to attend Canucks games in person in any event I think the games and broadcasts are great. 

 

I think it has more to do with the lack of a true home ice advantage.  Older players know how to make the best use of the energy created by their home buildings and know how to make it intimidating for teams coming in, especially young, inexperienced teams.

[whcanuck]

It’s funny, back when the Hawks torched us in 2009 & 2010, or the Bruins beating us in 2011, it was “Luongo was horrendous in these series at critical times, the Hawks and Bruins tore him apart and made him look really bad.” In this series it’s “Binnington is a sieve, anyone could have scored on him.” It’s absurd, the Canucks never win because of great play, it’s “the other team was terrible” or it was “gift-wrapped.” Believe me, living in the USA, the American media is giving full credit to the Canucks for exposing the Blues. 

[Maniwaki Canuck]

I know people here don't like it when we "go into a shell" trying to protect a lead.  Neither do I, and I thought the team did a pretty good job of continuing to play in their end after we went up 4-0.  But we also got pretty comfortable playing in our own end and boxing them out, which is something you have to be able to do.  That's a new skill this team has acquired and it suits Marky's elite play to a t.  Call it "rope-a-dope" or whatever, but it demoralized the Blues to have that much possession in our zone and get so little out of it.   It's a big part of what broke them, and make no mistake about it, our boys did break them.

[-DLC-]

Now that I've regrouped I have to say:  WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

What makes all the difference with this team is how much they believe in each other.  Maybe away from all the distractions (that is NOT a Milsbury reference) is allowing them to really focus, bond, gel and come together as a group.

 

Sky's the limit.  If they continue to press like they have...to work, even when faced with adversity, they are something soooo special.  And this experience that they're gaining is HUGE.  But I'm with Green....screw that.  They're here TO WIN.

 

I truly believe that their character factors in strongly.  I don't think they point the finger or blame each other when they're down..I think they own it.  They're accountable and don't let ego get in the way.  We have guys like Petey and Quinn who could easily do that...just bask in the spotlight and act like they're special...but they don't.  They're some of the hardest workers on the team, on and off the ice.  

 

Marky's a huge factor and I always chime in with how critical goaltending is in the playoffs...can be a make/break thing.  But it's not everything...as we saw.  A team can also bail out a goalie when they do have an off night and our guys did that.

 

This really demonstrates how teams can have star players but playing as individual and expecting to do it alone doesn't always work.  Sure, individuals can rise up and put a team on their back (as Bo did) and take charge but, all in all, the team needs to be firing on all cylinders.  Everyone, from top to bottom, has to feel like their role is equally important.  Our bottom 6 is showing what that looks like. 

 

The entire team is blocking shots, fearlessly.  They weren't intimidated by the Big Bad Blues and their Resume.  If anything, it just made them rise to a level we hadn't seen on a sustained way like this before.  It's kind of amazing.

 

Edler....as we likely see him winding down, I feel I want to take a moment to really acknowledge and appreciate him.  He's stoic but he's a beast.  He has that same seriousness that instills a sense of calm...like Petey.  Must be something in that Viking blood.  He, like Bieksa when he was here, takes a lot of flack at times.  The fans do what the team doesn't...pins things on him when he does have an off game.  Everyone will be "off" at times in life.  It's called being human.  But he's stood tall for us on that blueline for so long...I so want him to hoist a cup.  Him being "back" last night was so important and he's taken his licks but keeps on ticking.  Love that guy.  Warrior.  (Tanev too)

 

Stech is all heart and those who feel like he isn't "big" enough to play...don't watch him play.  Again...not alwasy "perfect" but clutch when he is.

 

People really get on our D but they're getting it done.

 

I won't single guys out individually like this though...would be an entire essay (already is).  I just have so much appreciation at this point in life for this team giving me hope.  Something.  A lot of anxiety in the world and this is a safe place to unleash it all.  To cheer, to scream, to cowbell, to cry (damn that hype montage).  To "meet" with friends when we're not able to meet with friends.

 

I'm not asking for perfection from this team...but the effort that they put in obviously can take them places.  I just want to see that and then, whatever happens, I am satisfied.  This team's for real....and we're really only just setting out.  Good things to come.  I am so verklempt right now...."our boys" are making us so proud...aren't they?  Gah, get me some damn kleenex.....

[Timbermen]

Nice to see the Canucks emerging as a legit contender. We have some of best players in the league (or will be considered that soon).

Nice to see the most maligned players doing great. Beagle and Rousel only because of the 3 million dollar contracts, some have called them useless players, don't know what sport you're watching. Just because a 4th line centre doesn't score 30 points a year doesn't make him a bad player, thats not their job.

Virtanen has emerged as a very good player that can play up and down the lineup.

Benning looks like a hockey guru right now.

[-DLC-]

12 minutes ago, stawns said:

I think it has more to do with the lack of a true home ice advantage.  Older players know how to make the best use of the energy created by their home buildings and know how to make it intimidating for teams coming in, especially young, inexperienced teams.

Those sound like BS excuses to me.

 

If you have to have the crowd energy to fuel you, then you're not doing it right.  It should come from within/the team.  I think that sets this team apart...they've got that mojo going.  They believe in each other and don't need anyone rah rah rahing them.

 

"Intimidation" is a facade in that respect.  I guess we're seeing that play out.  

[Timbermen]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

Now that I've regrouped I have to say:  WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

What makes all the difference with this team is how much they believe in each other.  Maybe away from all the distractions (that is NOT a Milsbury reference) is allowing them to really focus, bond, gel and come together as a group.

 

Sky's the limit.  If they continue to press like they have...to work, even when faced with adversity, they are something special.

 

I truly believe that their character factors in strongly.  I don't think they point the finger or blame each other when they're down..I think they own it.  They're accountable and don't let ego get in the way.  We have guys like Petey and Quinn who could easily do that...just bask in the spotlight and act like they're special...but they don't.  They're some of the hardest workers on the team, on and off the ice.  

 

Marky's a huge factor and I always chime in with how critical goaltending is in the playoffs...can be a make/break thing.  But it's not everything...as we saw.  A team can also bail out a goalie when they do have an off night and our guys did that.

 

This really demonstrates how teams can have star players but playing as individual and expecting to it alone doesn't always work.  Sure, individuals can rise up (as Bo did) and take charge but, all in all, the team needs to be firing on all cylinders.  Everyone, from top to bottom, has to feel like their role is equally important.  Our bottom 6 is showing what that looks like.  They're blocking shots, fearlessly.  They weren't intimidated by the Big Bad Blues and their Resume.  If anything, it just made them rise to a level we hadn't seen on a sustained way like this before.  It's kind of amazing.

 

Edler....as we likely see him winding down may I take a moment to acknowledge and appreciate him.  He's stoic but he's a beast.  He, like Bieksa when he was here, takes a lot of flack at times.  The fans do what the team doesn't...pins things on him when he does have an off game.  Everyone will at times.  But him being "back" last night was so important and he's taken his licks but keeps on ticking.  Love that guy.

 

Stech is all heart and those who feel like he isn't "big" enough to play...don't watch him play.  Again...not alwasy "perfect" but clutch when he is.

 

I won't single guys out individually like this though...would be an entire essay (already is).  I just have so much appreciation at this point in life for this team giving me hope.  Something.  A lot of anxiety in the world and this is a safe place to unleash it all.  To cheer, to scream, to cowbell, to cry (damn that hype montage).  To "meet" with friends when we're not able to meet with friends.

 

I'm not asking for perfection from this team...but the effort that they put in obviously can take them places.  I just want to see that and then, whatever happens, I am satisfied.  This team's for real....and we're really only just setting out.  Good things to come.

Love your optimism Deb, in game 5 when they were down 3-1 someone told you they'd watched hockey for 70 years and the Canucks weren't coming back that game. Surprise, surprise. 

[stawns]

Just now, debluvscanucks said:

Those sound like BS excuses to me.

 

If you have to have the crowd energy to fuel you, then you're not doing it right.  It should come from within/the team.

 

"Intimidation" is a facade in that respect.  I guess we're seeing that play out.  

I've played in front of hostile crowds/buildings as both the visitor and the home team.........it can be a big boost for the home team

[Timbermen]

Just now, stawns said:

I've played in front of hostile crowds/buildings as both the visitor and the home team.........it can be a big boost for the home team

Video game hockey doesn't count, Stawns.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

First Minnesota, then St. Louis and now Las Vegas:  all pretty similar in how they play the game, if not it talent.  There will be a lot of carry-over in how we prepare for the next series.

Vega's D isn't in the same league as St. Louis' but their forwards are scarier imho.  They will try to hit our D through the boards on the dump and chase.  But we survived the Blues and will survive them too.

[189lb enforcers?]

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

EP would be the first person to call that the reductive nonsense it is.

 

It's a team game.  The team gets nowhere without the contributions of a whole lot of players, period.

 

That's how you win Cups.  Yours is a lottery champion mentality.   Those high pickz - Matthews, McDavid blah blah - watching as our team advances.

 

Markstrom

Tanev Edler Myers Fantenburg Stecher

Horvat Miller EP Hughes Boeser

Beagle Sutter Motte

Pearson Toffoli Ferland

Virtanen Roussel LE

MacEwen Benn Gaudette Juolevi

 

That's why the team is where they are.

 

And that's not even counting Loui Domingue's cookies.

 

'Motter' was +2 in this series  20% ozone starts

Beagle was +3 with 15.4% ozone starts

Pettersson was +4 with a team high 65.8% ozone starts.

 

Beagle and Motte dominated St Louis and won the 5 on 5 battle - doing so playing up a steep grade.

Pettersson's success can't be separated from his team-mates, linemates, etc.  They were a large part of his conditions for success.

And while Motte and Beagle were scoring, Pettersson was blocking shots and diving in passing lanes.

That's how you win.  No double-flamingos in this group.

 

Lindenning and Green deserve a lot more credit than this market has afforded them. 

This isn't about "I told you so's" - it's about being real, recognizing a real team building effort, and giving credit where it's due.

 

Tank nation spent the past five years whining about every win - that might cost us to drop a spot in the draft.

Tank nation wanted lottey picks, period.  "Tank nation wanted top 7 picks" LOL.

Tank nation  had no idea how good Pettersson was until he started running away with the Calder - they were too busy drooling over and envying the Leafs the entire time.  In fact, tank nation was still whining that 'we' had no elite talent comparable to Toronto - after EP had already been drafted.

Tank nation is rewriting their story. 
 

 

 

 

 

Go right ahead and tell yourselves this team is what you wanted - or that Benning arrived here "by accident".  You're only fooling yourself.

 

 

Reductive nonsense?

Get off your stool. 

 

He meant to pick top 7??? Lol really. 
 

I’ll respond once, once and no more. 
 

None of this playoff glory happens without those top picks. Tank Nation wanted and got their top picks. That’s just a fact you and others will have to move on from. 
 

Beagle and Motte never make the playoffs, none of this happens without superstar, high draft picks, those which the Tankards advocated for, period. There is no room for discussion here, except if you want to talk about the strategic vision and execution of JB and the results? Which were definitely not spend high-draft high, so you just keep pretending the kid core was all part of some kind of Plan and leave me to my business if that is you’re MO. The man rebuilt the youth/core through consequence, not by plan. 
 

If you want to believe that JB’s strategy was to intentionally pick EP and QH at 5 and 7 OA with the most expensive rebuild roster in history, you are welcome to your opinion/fantasy. 

 

At no time was JB trying to pick top-7, punch a lotto ticket, possibly win the lottery or simply pick core pieces from the top of the draft, which was the result in the end and my entire point. 
 

EP and QH, among others, came to this roster despite JB’s managerial efforts, not because of them. No amount of fantasy or pointing to Motte or Sutter today can prove otherwise. 
 

if you’re going to use that argument then you’d better also include the obvious fails, like Gagner, Delzaster, Guddy and whatever else of JB’s moves which didn’t work out the way you have suggested the logic for Motte has, since, apparently this playoff success was all part of the same plan that picked at #5 OA and then at 7 to bring in the kids who are mainly responsible for the Canucks having any hope of playoff hockey. 

 

As I’ve clearly articulated in another post, I approved the strategy and deals management made afterwards, beginning with Miller and those that moved the team from rebuild mode to compete mode. I enjoy the roster composition, that’s no secret at all. 
 

I agreed with JB because I recognized the actual cupboard was still bare as far as the next wave concerned, which is a consequence of hitting consecutive homeruns with your draft picks to the point where the cupboard of prospects remains empty, a consequence Toronto has also experienced, but entirely blundered. Makes you wonder why the Canucks didn’t then target more picks, but whatever, I’m reeling in that bait. 

 

Since the pushover that’s was the Canucks at the time couldn’t wait for Gadjo, Lind, OJ, or even JV to arrive and play a serviceable role in order to effectively insulate the young, skinny-skill, I was happy to give up my desire to continue drafting high if it meant installing a rugged, playoff-capable bunch of quality UFAs or trades to insulate the kids with.
 

Nobody on the boards were happier at the time than I was when they brought in all the physicality they did at the time. 
 

Where we’re going to agree to disagree with your fantasy and revisionist theory is that guys like Motte and Sutter were brought in exactly for what we have just witnessed, awesome as it was, they rely on EP and QH, among others sure, for a ticket to the big show. JB did not intend to have those tickets, if anything, he was hoping to pick at the opposite end of the draft and his cap ceiling teams and statements support this. So, his execution was a failure, but silver linings are paying massive dividends, so all is forgiven, just not forgotten. 
 

I’ll give credit to JB all day long for seeing this team into the playoffs because that strategy to mainly build around EP and QH because that was the right direction to take, but you’ll have to excuse my capacity to understand how EP and QH, in particular, were never the strata of the draft that JB was aiming for with his most expensive “rebuild” in NHL history.  
 

I’m pretty sure my posting history speaks for itself as far as what management moves or strategy I’ve supported and which I haven’t.
 

Playing the Blues and now Vegas will be great because heavy playoff hockey is exactly what I’ve been advocating for as far as selecting the players, the style and all that good stuff along the way so that I can enjoy watching the type of hockey I do from the Canucks.
 

[stawns]

Just now, Timbermen said:

Video game hockey doesn't count, Stawns.

I've played in front of crowds of 10000, how about you?

[Patel Bure]

2 hours ago, Green Building said:

That's your 1st mistake: HF Boards is putrid garbage juice

Agreed.   
 

I shouldn’t be so infatuated with that place, but I honestly can’t understand where many of their posters are coming from.

 

They prided themselves on taking an objective impartial stance but the more I read many of their posts, the more I realize that their “objectivity” is just hidden bias against Benning and this management group because

 

A) This Management represents “dinosaur” way of thinking and dares to place a value on intangibles, culture, and leadership.

 

B-) Management rebuilt the Canucks in a very different way than what these “new generation fans” wanted and now that management is succeeding while these fans criticized and mocks them for all these years, they are desperately trying to create ridiculous narratives rather than just admitting fault.

 

That place is completely loco.

[Timbermen]

Just now, stawns said:

I've played in front of crowds of 10000, how about you?

Wow, Did you play profession or in the old Soviet union?

[xereau]

2 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

I feel like i missed something. 

When did this Tony Stecher thing happen? 

When he was a rookie and totally unknown, several of the brass called him Tony over and over (thought that was his name). He hammed it up, and told them his name was Tony Stretcher, and it's stuck since as a meme.

 

Meet our own Mafia Ice-Man, Tony Stretcher.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by xereau

[Jaimito]

QH only one to get A+

 

https://theathletic.com/2015236/2020/08/22/canucks-playoff-report-card-grading-each-players-round-1-performance/?source=user-shared-article

Canucks playoff report card: Grading each player’s Round 1 performance

 

By Harman Dayal and Thomas Drance

 

The Vancouver Canucks have set the stage for a potential Cinderella run.

Entering 2019-20 with relatively low expectations, the club outperformed during the regular season, beat Minnesota in the qualifiers and has now dethroned the defending Stanley Cup champions.

Continuing that party will be a stiff task against the formidable Vegas Golden Knights, but if there’s a reason for hope, it’s that nearly the entire Canucks roster is contributing right now.

The elite talent has shone through, with Elias Pettersson tied with Nathan MacKinnon for the playoff scoring lead, Jacob Markstrom standing on his head and Quinn Hughes similarly dominating, and the bottom end of the lineup has really picked up the slack in a way it hadn’t in the regular season. It’s been a complete team effort, particularly as the club battled through injuries to Tyler Toffoli and Tyler Myers.

After the massive Game 6 win, let’s dive into The Athletic Vancouver’s individual report cards for the first-round series against the Blues.

Note: All grades are relative to expectations.

Forwards

Elias Pettersson: A-
6 games, 3 goals-6 assists-9 points

In many ways, Pettersson’s first-round playoff performance seemed to mirror the start of his regular season.

Pettersson wasn’t the story of the series, he didn’t catch people’s eyes all that often at even strength, but he continued racking up points at will. The 21-year-old didn’t overwhelm St. Louis at five-on-five possession-wise, but Travis Green was able to carve out minutes for him away from Ryan O’Reilly where he controlled play, and it resulted in a crucial 5-2 on-ice goal differential at evens.

But, really, where Pettersson and the rest of Vancouver’s stars made their hay was on an electric power play that rolled over the Blues. Special-teams efficiency was unquestionably the story of the Canucks’ Round 1 victory.

 

At five-on-four, Pettersson notched a couple of terrific goals, including a bat-out-of-midair-and-tally reminiscent of a fadeaway jumper.

 

 

Pettersson isn’t the primary puck-handler on the first unit, but his presence on the ice alone carries gravity. Just like having a knockdown 3-point shooter spaces the floor and creates extra operating room for others in basketball, the threat of Pettersson’s shot from the right circle forces penalty killers to cheat over.

He enters Round 2 tied with Nathan MacKinnon for the NHL playoff scoring lead. It’s pretty damn scary to think about what Pettersson can do if he can ratchet up to his highest gear at five-on-five, too.

J.T. Miller: A-
6, 4-3-7

A lot of what we said about Pettersson’s performance can also be echoed with Miller. He wasn’t at his apex form carrying play at even strength, but he more than made up for it as the primary handler on the sizzling first power-play unit, came clutch with goals in four of the six contests and helped contain Ryan O’Reilly (relatively speaking) in the final two games.

If Pettersson is the gravitational force on the perimeter, then Miller is the point guard who surveys all the available options and runs plays for the power play. He orchestrates many of the entries, helps with faceoffs and is the main playmaker in adapting to what the defence gives him. He’s the key to unlocking the bumper, the tic-tac-toe play that goes from goal line to bumper and runs in tandem with Quinn Hughes. If the power play was a symphony, Miller would be the conductor. He was ultimately rewarded with two goals and four points on the man advantage.

Despite that power-play dominance, it was actually even strength where Miller had his signature moment. With the Canucks down 3-1 and on the ropes in Game 5, he directed one of his team-leading 12 five-on-five scoring chances toward the net to force a greasy goal past Jake Allen, which gave the Canucks juice and sparked their come-from-behind victory.

That Game 5 really personifies Miller’s impact on the Canucks this season as the club’s lifeblood when all else appears bleak.

Brock Boeser: C+
6, 1-4-5

Notching five points in six games looks good on paper, but it’s a rather flattering way of looking at Boeser’s performance. The truth is that he was quiet for most of the first round after flashing far more dynamic ability in the qualifiers against Minnesota.

That disappointment was particularly felt at five-on-five, when Boeser was more or less unnoticeable. Some of that has to do with the fact that he consistently saw minutes against O’Reilly, but two shots and just a single secondary assist aren’t enough five-on-five production for six games.

Boeser was better on the power play and blasted an important one-timer goal from the right circle in Game 6, in which he was moved away from the down-low spot on the first unit. That’s at least a positive sign. The Canucks will need Boeser to be versatile and productive in different spots of the 1-3-1 formation to show Vegas a few different looks in the second round if Toffoli’s status remains unclear.

Tanner Pearson: B-
6, 1-2-3

Pearson is all business.

The Canucks’ second-line left winger has been quietly effective all postseason, and he actually led all Canucks forwards in five-on-five ice time in the Blues series. That tells you just about everything about the level of confidence he enjoys from Vancouver’s coaching staff.

Pearson’s line fared poorly at five-on-five by the underlying data, but the context here is crucial. Pearson started 47 shifts in the defensive zone at five-on-five, and as the series turned, he spent time alternately checking O’Reilly alongside Bo Horvat or offering some additional defensive heft on Pettersson’s or Jay Beagles’ wing.

You’d ideally like Pearson and his linemates to spend more time playing with the puck than they did in this series, but you give him some credit for handling tough matchups — the Schenn line in the first half of the series and the O’Reilly line in the second half — while not being outscored.

Three points are useful, too, if not spectacular.

Bo Horvat: B
6, 4-0-4

It was really a tale of two series for Horvat.

In the first half of the series, when the Canucks were playing the Pettersson line straight up and Horvat was matched up against the Schenn line, Horvat was shooting Hadukens all over the ice. In a traditional second-line role, Horvat’s offensive prowess shines through as it did in the first two games against St. Louis.

He was dominant and scored some of the prettiest goals in the playoffs.

In the second half of the series, Horvat’s role changed. With O’Reilly wrecking Vancouver and driving play like an absolute madman, the Canucks turned to Horvat as the primary O’Reilly matchup in Games 4-6. Horvat started playing more often with Miller and Boeser, before closing games with his more familiar linemates. He was out for seemingly every key defensive zone draw.

He was thrown to the wolves the way he so often has been throughout his NHL career. And unsurprisingly, the point production dried up a bit. Horvat finished the series with four goals, seemingly all of them off of spectacular individual efforts, and the Canucks managed to outscore the Blues at five-on-five with him on the ice, which was crucial, especially considering the way Horvat was counted on to hold O’Reilly in check in the latter half of the series.

Still, while accounting for the difficulty of his deployment and how often he started in the defensive end, Horvat’s 60 defensive zone starts at five-on-five were the most on the team by 17 (!), you’d like to see Horvat play a bit more with the puck than he did against St. Louis, even if the Blues didn’t make their zone time and scoring chances count with Horvat on the ice at even strength.

Loui Eriksson: C+
6, 0-0-0

Eriksson did his job. And his job is really simple: make sure nothing happens when he’s on the ice. Eriksson played nearly 70 minutes at even strength against St. Louis, and in those nearly 70 minutes, the Blues scored just one goal. Considering that Eriksson faced a steady diet of top-six matchups — mostly the Schenn line or the O’Reilly line — that’s mission accomplished.

Would it be great if Eriksson could provide some more offence? Of course. Would we love to see what Horvat could do with the sort of dynamic offensive linemate he’s had for only one season (Boeser, in his rookie campaign)? Most definitely.

Still, while the marginal cost is through the roof, the Canucks have found a way to mine what remains of Eriksson’s value in the NHL effectively. He’s still so strong on his stick and, honestly, borderline elite on the wall, and he’s still an oddly effective defensive stopper.

Adam Gaudette: C+
2, 0-0-0

Gaudette didn’t play too much in this series, just two games and 17:38 overall. He was fine in those minutes, albeit a bit high-event.

In limited ice time, the Canucks outshot the Blues with Gaudette on the ice at five-on-five, and both teams scored a goal. There was a lot going on in those minutes overall, with both teams taking a ton of attempts and the action quickly transitioning from end to end.

As usual, Gaudette brought his work rate and made some nice plays with the puck, but he had just one shot on goal. The Blues probably generated more high-quality looks than the Canucks did in Gaudette’s ice time, but he still added a bit of offensive skill to the bottom six and looked totally fine on a “third line” with Antoine Roussel and Brandon Sutter, which was really used more as a fourth line by coach Travis Green.

Brandon Sutter: B
6, 0-4-4

We should note something that’s both true and incredible and is lost in all the other storylines: In the game in which the Canucks advanced to the second round of the Stanley Cup playoffs for the first time in nine years, Sutter had three points and all were assists.

Deployed as he customarily is when healthy as a third-liner — seven Canucks logged more five-on-five ice time against St. Louis — Sutter spent time in the middle and on the wing while factoring into the power play and the penalty kill. As you’d expect, he spent a ton of time without the puck, although he factored in a major way into Antoine Roussel’s key second-period insurance marker to give the Canucks a 2-0 lead in Game 6.

Sutter’s four five-on-five points actually led all Canucks skaters in the series. A series they won! Pretty hard to believe, actually.

Gaudy, unlikely point production aside, Sutter was serviceable. The underlying data were ugly, but he was noticeable and positionally sound, he had by far the best on-ice results of any Canucks penalty killer, and Vancouver outscored the Blues when he was on the ice at five-on-five. Throw the point production into the mix and you have a very solid series from Sutter, who continued to look relatively rejuvenated in this tournament.

Tyler Motte: A
6, 4-0-4

Another fact that’s true and incredible: Motte’s four goals have him tied with Nathan MacKinnon, Alex Ovechkin, Andrei Svechnikov, Johnny Gaudreau, Mark Stone and Pettersson among the NHL’s playoff scoring lead.

There arguably isn’t a player in the bottom six more deserving of this hot streak than Motte. The 25-year-old brings his lunchpail and never-quit attitude every day, solidifying himself as one of the club’s most reliable penalty killers and as a trustworthy five-on-five option defensively. Nothing reflects that better than his ice time. Motte ranked sixth among Canucks forwards in averaging roughly 16 1/2 minutes per game during the series. His underlying numbers suggest he spent a little more time without the puck than you’d like, but that was to be expected against a deep Blues squad, and the key is that the Canucks didn’t get outscored at five-on-five with Motte deployed.

Meaningful scoring, pivotal short-handed minutes and holding your own at even strength? You’re rarely able to get those types of results from a fourth-liner.

Antoine Roussel: C+
6, 1-1-2

Roussel didn’t play too often, but he was annoying, threw a ton of hits and fared pretty well when he was on the ice. He scored a huge goal in Game 6, he took a massive Troy Brouwer spear in Game 1 to a very sensitive area — and was heckled roundly and savagely by the Blues as he caught his breath — and really was used in fourth-line, energy-type minutes in the series.

In those minutes, it must be said, Roussel fared well. He’s one of only three Canucks forwards, along with Virtanen and Beagle, to come out ahead by expected goals at five-on-five in this series. He was also pretty consistently audible on the bench.

It wasn’t a work of art, maybe. But Roussel was helpful, he stirred it up, and he did his job pretty well.

Zack MacEwen: C
4, 0-0-0

Zack MacEwen offered the Canucks a physical edge against a heavy Blues side, but his play beyond that was a little bit short of what we would have liked to see. The scrappy winger struggled with turnovers and defensive details, and the scoring chances were lopsided to the tune of a 19-8 advantage for St. Louis when he stepped on the ice.

Jay Beagle: B
6, 1-1-2

The Canucks were outshot with Beagle on the ice at five-on-five, but he did an admirable job of protecting the middle and preventing quality chances. That shows up in the underlying metrics, as he didn’t possess the puck a lot and yet held an impressive 52.2 percent of the expected goal share. In Game 6, his line came out of the gate very aggressively on the forecheck and managed to open the scoring.

This is the type of performance the Canucks need from their fourth line more consistently — reliable five-on-five play with the occasional ability to chip in offensively.

Jake Virtanen: B
6, 1-1-2

Just when it seemed like nothing was working for Virtanen, it all turned around.

Moved up the lineup for a few shifts with Pettersson and Miller, Virtanen gave Vancouver’s top six the spark it needed in Game 5 with an assist on Miller’s goal before potting one of his own to drive the club’s second-period comeback. That confidence carried over into Game 6, as the Abbotsford native had a couple of impressive looks off of quick rushes.

The ice was tilted in Vancouver’s favour when Virtanen stepped over the boards. He owned a team-leading 63 percent expected goal share and outscoring opponents 3-0 at five-on-five. Context is necessary for those numbers; his deployment was quite sheltered and favourable. But you’re deservedly seeing Virtanen win a little bit of rope back with Green.

Defencemen

Quinn Hughes: A+

With four points in six games, Hughes might not have produced quite the way he did against the Minnesota Wild in the qualifying round, and yet his performance against St. Louis was better.

For all of Green’s Game 5 subterfuge, the most consequential adjustment the Canucks made after Game 4 was to have Chris Tanev and Hughes as their primary matchup pair against O’Reilly in Games 5 and 6. It was a choice that fundamentally altered the dynamic of the series.

While barely throwing a hit in a wildly physical series, Hughes dominated the puck and permitted the Canucks to outscore the Blues 5-3 with him on the ice at five-on-five, while out-chancing St. Louis by a solid margin. Hughes also quarterbacked the Canucks’ power play and was on the ice for six of Vancouver’s seven power-play goals, all of which were absolutely crucial to their six-game series victory.

Hughes also had his first real signature playoff moment, walking out from behind the net and delivering a casual 50-foot bank stretch pass off of the board to Horvat for the Game 2 overtime winner.

By series end, Hughes led all Canucks skaters in ice time, recorded four points and turned the series when he helped the Canucks contain O’Reilly, relatively speaking, in the final two decisive games. There’s just nothing more you can ask for from a player at this stage of his career.

When you stop and consider what he accomplished against St. Louis and note that he was the best defencemen on the ice in a series that also included Alex Pietrangelo and Colton Parayko, it’s hard not to be in awe. Hughes is clearly wired differently.

To be this ice-cold on this stage at the end of an unusually lengthy rookie season is wildly impressive. It speaks volumes about why Hughes is already one of the NHL’s best defencemen.

Chris Tanev: B+

Tanev continues to lead this team as an absolute stalwart defender. While Hughes is the guy driving play, Tanev’s presence and overall defensive intelligence are the keys to enabling the Canucks to throw their rookie into insanely difficult situations.
As a penalty killer, Tanev was Vancouver’s stingiest defender in terms of limiting quality looks against. The Blues’ power play is potent and scored five goals with Tanev on the ice in this series, but they generated higher-quality looks against most other Canucks defenders than they managed against Tanev. Tanev’s aggressiveness in blocking shots taken by St. Louis’ flankers on the kill was enormously impressive throughout the series, as it always is.

At five-on-five, the Canucks out-chanced the Blues with Tanev on the ice and surrendered scoring chances against at a lower rate than they did with any other Canucks defender (aside from Myers, who played only a game and a half). He was second among all Canucks defenders in ice time and was a key contributor in the O’Reilly hard match in Games 5 and 6, which was really a mammoth factor in swinging the series in Vancouver’s favour.

You just can’t ask for much more from a defensive defencemen than what the Canucks received from Tanev. He was nothing short of tremendous.

Tyler Myers: B+

Myers had a really strong game and a half, but we’re giving him a B+ because, in a lot of ways, his absence crystallized what he brings to the Canucks when he’s in the lineup.

Myers is a second-pair defender by true talent at this stage of his career. He was probably overused in the regular season. The NHL is a savage league, especially for defenders, in that you’re matching up against the most skilled offensive stars in the world. When a second-pair defender plays top-pair minutes, the seams often show. They did for Myers this year.

Myers is solid, his presence in the lineup slots everyone else in a more suitable spot, and the Canucks miss his puck-moving ability from the back end significantly when he’s out of the lineup. It’s telling that it took the Canucks a bit to adjust to losing Myers against the Blues, but once Hughes and Tanev began to see a steady diet of top competition, things normalized.

Alex Edler: C

In some respects, Edler is similar to Tanev as far as being a veteran defensive presence who does a lot of grunt work on the PK while generally going underappreciated.

That said, Edler’s skating is being exposed more and more as he creeps up in age. The 34-year-old wasn’t as defensively sturdy, struggled to break pucks out in Games 3 and 4, both St. Louis wins, and was outshot and out-chanced by fairly significant margins at five-on-five.

The Edler-Troy Stecher pairing honestly looked out of sorts at times.

Troy Stecher: C

It was nice to see Stecher rise with a couple of goals, but it was otherwise a tough series for him. Stecher has operated well in these playoffs when on the third pair, but he had a number of defensive miscues and simply looked overwhelmed in the top four. Those struggles are apparent in the five-on-five results, which show that the Canucks were caved in defensively for long periods when Stecher played.

Oscar Fantenberg: C+

By the eye test, Fantenberg showed incredibly well. He was physical, sturdy defensively, hardworking and perfectly low-event. The underlying data are a bit less bullish on him, but that’s mostly because the Canucks just spent a bit too much time without the puck when the Fantenberg-Jordie Benn pair was on the ice.

The fact is, Vancouver’s third pair was sturdy and did its job.

It wasn’t necessarily sexy, but against the Blues, Fantenberg gave the Canucks key minutes on the back end when they needed them.

Jordie Benn: B+

We’re giving Benn a B+ because he came in cold, having missed Phase 3 training camp to attend to the birth of his first child, and performed really well.

Like Fantenberg, Benn spent a lot of time playing without the puck, but his defensive results were even better than his most frequent defense partner, and he played more when the chips were really down as the Canucks held on to a lead — and played spectacular team defense — in Game 5. Considering the circumstances, that he’d played only seven games since Christmas and that the Canucks surrendered shots against a lower rate with Benn on the ice than they did with any other series regular, this is a well earned B+.

Goaltender

Jacob Markstrom: A

The edge in this series for Vancouver really came down to two departments: special teams and goaltending.

Markstrom is dialled back into MVP form, registering a sparkling .930 save percentage. There’s no way the team would have won Game 5 without a number of the spectacular saves he made to keep St. Louis at bay. Each of his teammates who spoke with the media raved about his performance in the series. That included particularly high praise from Stecher:

 

If it wasn’t obvious before the playoffs, it’s crystal-clear now: The Canucks need to do all they can to bring Markstrom back next year.

Coach

Travis Green: A

Vancouver had a lot of problems in this series with St. Louis’ overall quality, as you’d have expected, but the Canucks triumphed, in part, because they consistently found creative answers.

If there’s one phase of a free-flowing game that coaches really exert additional control over, it’s special teams. The Canucks had an edge there.

When Craig Berube loaded up the O’Reilly line, it took Vancouver a few games to come up with something of an answer. Realistically, the Canucks never came up with a full answer. O’Reilly is a monster, and he played like it.

Still, Green found a way to stem the bleeding. He changed his primary defense matchup from Stecher and Edler to Hughes and Tanev. That worked. He started juggling his lines like crazy, hiding them in the warmup skate.

At times there seemed to be no rhyme or reason, but in Games 5 and 6, the Canucks built early leads and throttled the Blues by the run of play, trying all manner of insane things to counteract St. Louis’ five-on-five advantage. We saw Pettersson play not just with Eriksson and Pearson but also with Motte and Virtanen in Game 6. Green loaded up his two best two-way forwards, Miller and Horvat, against O’Reilly as much as possible while matching them with Hughes and Tanev as much as possible. That five-man unit, most commonly with Boeser at right wing, was essential in keeping the Blues in check, relatively speaking.

Throughout the series, the Canucks were flexible and creative. They solved the problems in front of them ably and unconventionally. Their improved defensive structure paid off. They upset the defending Stanley Cup champions in six games, blowing them out in the final contest.

Honestly, there’s not much else you can ask for from a head coach.

 

[stawns]

1 minute ago, Timbermen said:

Wow, Did you play profession or in the old Soviet union?

[stawns]

1 minute ago, xereau said:

When he was a rookie and totally unknown, several of the brass called him Tony over and over (thought that was his name. He hammed it up, and told them his name was Tony Stretcher, and it's stuck since as a meme.

 

Meet our own Mafia Ice-Man, Tony Stretcher.

 

 

so awesome

[Maniwaki Canuck]

22 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Yes I can.

 

And I will:   Binnington played like a total sieve this series.

 

 

Even Hrudey said something to the effect that the Blues weren't getting NHL-level goaltending from him, so yeah.  But there were 2 teams on the ice and we made him look bad in a way that he never could have achieved on his own.