Canucks End of Season Media Availability @ Noon

[BPA]

JB getting calls from other GMs.

 

Translation: What's the price for Demko?

 

Answer:  Take LE as a packaged deal.

 

Lol.

[billabong]

Nothing earth shattering from

jimbo

 

I think everyone would agree jake was in 2nd gear the whole playoffs Which ain’t gonna cut it

 

and I wouldn’t wanna trade high picks to unload contracts either....but he didn’t say anything about prospects 

[EternalCanuckFan]

15 minutes ago, Stelar said:

Jake was a disappointing for sure but for a guy who is supposed to be an offensive threat, Gaudette really didn't add any of that this playoffs.

Fair enough.  I'm not saying I would like to see Jake traded just that between the two, I think Gaudette fills a positional need more.  Sure we could fill the 3C role with a free agent or some of the other roster players, but not without affecting our line structure significantly.  My guess is if Sutter is our 3C next season, then fans are going to be up in arms.  Don't get me wrong, I like Sutter but he does look like his touch is mostly gone.

 

If I'm not mistaken, then Gaudette's regular season production put him in the top 80 for centers.  His faceoff percentage was pretty terrible during the season but it did improve in the playoffs.  His lack of production in the playoffs is hard to single him out for - yes, he didn't elevate his linemates but if I remember correctly, Gaudette had more chances and regularly looked to have the most jump out of most of the bottom 6.  I think it would be really hard for the Canucks to acquire an equivalent piece through free agency or trade, at least not for a reasonable price.

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

What have I been saying this WHOLE playoffs about Jake? Yes, his toolbox screamed playoff player, but he just couldn't figure it out - and now, I get the feeling that it's too late for him... Too bad.

 

He's a terrific candidate for someone that we can move to recoup a 2nd (maybe from a team like Ottawa), and it will help us down the line when we're going to need the extra cap space for Petey and Hughes.

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Herberts Vasiljevs

[PhillipBlunt]

1 hour ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

 

 

Ouch. 

[Nicklas Bo Hunter]

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Ouch. 

I mean it's very fair. We have been waiting forever on this guy. He has all the tools but he just doesn't give a crap

[Rush17]

 

[MikeyD]

Didn't care much about the way Green answered the last question. A great question about the last 3 games and he dodged it pretty significantly. Enough info in there to pretty much confirm my original thoughts and that was that he was just trying to survive Vegas. 

Not a great mentality, in my opinion. 

[Darth Canuck]

These playoffs showed so much, which players elevated their play, who didn’t, who thrived in certain game styles, who didn’t, and who played injured. This is what Benning has wanted for awhile, something to get a good gauge if this team, and he got it. 
 

And now we, as excited fans, get to watch the next phase of Bennings build, And hope, oh boy oh boy, hope it brings us to a Cup!

 

Go Canucks!!

[Rush17]

“I thought he worked and competed hard in the playoffs. He scored that big goal for us in Game 6. To be perfectly honest with you, though, I was expecting more from Jake in the playoffs,” Benning said on Sportsnet 650 on Tuesday afternoon. “He can skate, he’s strong. He can get to the net. He’s a guy we’re going to have to talk about here going forward. We’ve been patient with him in his development, but he’s a guy I was expecting to produce more for us.”

 

 

Benning then made a comparison with another speedy winger who has size and hands: Vegas’s Alex Tuch — same age as Virtanen, taken 12 spots behind Virtanen in the 2014 NHL Entry Draft at No. 18 overall — who stood out like a lightning bolt nearly every time he was on the ice for the Golden Knights against the Canucks.

 

“As we’ve seen against Vegas, Tuch … had an impact on the series because of his speed and size.”

[-DLC-]

14 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Didn't care much about the way Green answered the last question. A great question about the last 3 games and he dodged it pretty significantly. Enough info in there to pretty much confirm my original thoughts and that was that he was just trying to survive Vegas. 

Not a great mentality, in my opinion. 

And they almost did.

 

Not sure what you expect him to say?  The reality was that:

 

Vegas was a tough team with an easier road behind them in all of this

Canucks had just fought a hard series with St. Louis and were in the middle of a 5 games in 7 nights (including 2 back to backs) schedule

They weren't going to out muscle them or play physical and win

They likely were trying to conserve a little energy to "get through" and I feel it WAS a good strategy considering it all.  That they'd likely face Vegas coming hard at them but would formulate a plan to address that.  Rather than try to avoid it.  And it almost worked...a shot 2 inches higher by Brock might have changed the face of things.

 

I mean, ultimately, yes.  Try to keep the puck in their end and focus more on scoring than not being scored on.  But I think he was wise to consider what might/would likely happen and have the guys prepared. 

 

What would your suggestion have been?  He rallied a team to a comeback to tie a series that most had them down and out in at 3-1.  I'd say they did pretty well.

[Odd.]

.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Odd.

[Squamfan]

Lack stating facts

 

[MikeyD]

9 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

And they almost did.

 

Not sure what you expect him to say?  The reality was that:

 

Vegas was a tough team with an easier road behind them in all of this

Canucks had just fought a hard series with St. Louis and were in the middle of a 5 games in 7 nights (including 2 back to backs) schedule

They weren't going to out muscle them or play physical and win

They likely were trying to conserve a little energy to "get through" and I feel it WAS a good strategy considering it all.  That they'd likely face Vegas coming hard at them but would formulate a plan to address that.  Rather than try to avoid it.  And it almost worked...a shot 2 inches higher by Brock might have changed the face of things.

 

I mean, ultimately, yes.  Try to keep the puck in their end and focus more on scoring than not being scored on.  But I think he was wise to consider what might/would likely happen and have the guys prepared. 

 

What would your suggestion have been?  He rallied a team to a comeback to tie a series that most had them down and out in at 3-1.  I'd say they did pretty well.

My suggestion is if he was worried about gas to infuse fresh legs into the series. By playing a "please don't score on me" style of game, you're surrendering the team to luck. They won't grow figuring how to not lose, they will grow failing to win. A good team will never play the way Travis had them playing, so why even bother teaching them bad habits? 

Throw some fresh legs in there. We had capable guys in Mac, Graovac, Bailey and Rafferty and OJ. He basically surrendered to the hockey gods and prayed for wins. If you're gonna do that, why not at least let some of your young talent gain something out of it and compete the way you should. 

I expected him to say that the team ran out of gas and that partway through games he didn't think they had the energy to forecheck or something reasonable to his coaching ability being extra difficult. He basically set his team up for failure. 

[skategal]

20 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Didn't care much about the way Green answered the last question. A great question about the last 3 games and he dodged it pretty significantly. Enough info in there to pretty much confirm my original thoughts and that was that he was just trying to survive Vegas. 

Not a great mentality, in my opinion. 

I think Green and staff put together a plan that gave the team a strong chance to succeed.  Keep the puck to the outside, eliminate the 2nd and 3rd chances knowing full well that he didn't have the horses to skate end to end with Vegas.  Try to take advantage of mistakes and strike quickly.  SOG only measure that, not the actual scoring chances which were significantly lower.  He knew better than anyone how battered his team was, the experience level and the likelihood that they would be able to control play in the offensive zone for any length of time.  We would have all liked to see more success on the PP, but we also need to recognize that Vegas were extremely good at blocking the lanes to prevent the passing, double and triple teaming the puck carrier along the boards to win the puck battles where our guys were maintaining a defensive structure to prevent an odd man rush.  

[bbllpp]

Talking a player you want to move down in the media is not a good strategy for success.  Seems more of a move to keep Jakes contract down if it goes to arbitration.  
 

Seems like a move to devalue his regular season success and using the media to do it for him.

[PhillipBlunt]

19 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

Lack stating facts

 

Yeah. Someone sounds bitter. Maybe Lack should stick tacos. 

[skategal]

12 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

My suggestion is if he was worried about gas to infuse fresh legs into the series. By playing a "please don't score on me" style of game, you're surrendering the team to luck. They won't grow figuring how to not lose, they will grow failing to win. A good team will never play the way Travis had them playing, so why even bother teaching them bad habits? 

Throw some fresh legs in there. We had capable guys in Mac, Graovac, Bailey and Rafferty and OJ. He basically surrendered to the hockey gods and prayed for wins. If you're gonna do that, why not at least let some of your young talent gain something out of it and compete the way you should. 

I expected him to say that the team ran out of gas and that partway through games he didn't think they had the energy to forecheck or something reasonable to his coaching ability being extra difficult. He basically set his team up for failure. 

I can see both sides of the argument here.  There is something to be gained by infusing some fresh blood into the mix, but at best it might have been one or two players, certainly not 3 - 5 as you identified.  

There is a time honoured tradition that you "dance with the one you brought to the dance" and not swap people out when it's the players in front of you that worked their tails off to get the team to that position.  

It's also reason for concern to throw players in who have no playoff experience against a strong team like Vegas when elimination is on the line.  If the team lost game 7, do those players you infused into the lineup take a disproportionate level of blame.  What if OJ or Rafferty gave up a breakaway that was scored on and the game was lost by one goal?  The media and the fans would crucify them.  None of the players you identified were likely to add scoring punch which was desperately needed.  Other than helping to clear the puck out, not sure any of the players you mentioned would have added anything much.  Remember, we lost by one goal that was scored on the goalie, the other 3 were scored on an empty net.  

[MikeyD]

9 minutes ago, skategal said:

I think Green and staff put together a plan that gave the team a strong chance to succeed.  Keep the puck to the outside, eliminate the 2nd and 3rd chances knowing full well that he didn't have the horses to skate end to end with Vegas.  Try to take advantage of mistakes and strike quickly.  SOG only measure that, not the actual scoring chances which were significantly lower.  He knew better than anyone how battered his team was, the experience level and the likelihood that they would be able to control play in the offensive zone for any length of time.  We would have all liked to see more success on the PP, but we also need to recognize that Vegas were extremely good at blocking the lanes to prevent the passing, double and triple teaming the puck carrier along the boards to win the puck battles where our guys were maintaining a defensive structure to prevent an odd man rush.  

You could have said the same thing about St. Louis though. Had we played the same way we did against St. Louis we would have been out a long time ago. St. Louis was the better end to end team, they had a better forecheck, etc. but at least our team still played proper hockey. Sure, there were games where they outcompeted us and goaltending won us a couple against them. 5 on 5 we were outclassed. We still had chances though. 

I agree, high shot count doesn't mean that they're getting good scoring chances. Now what is often a better measurement of that is shot maps/shot locations. If you bothered to look at those, you'd see just how poorly Las Vegas shot the puck. Their execution was anus. The complete butthole. It's not like we took away all of their chances in the slot, we just lucked out and they missed all of their chances from the slot or put it into Demko's logo. They still had chances galore. In game 7, halfway through the game they had 42 missed shots. 42! 

I just fundamentally to my core believe that surrendering to another team because they're good is what a coach in the NHL should ever do. It's the NHL. It's not NHL vs CHL. It's the NHL. A league that's highly regarded to have the closest groups of teams where a last placed team can beat a first placed on any given night. And we decided because our team wasn't good enough and that because Vegas forechecked so well, that allowing them to play offense on us like it was a practice for 55 minutes 3 games in a row is a strategy that somehow leads to success. 

How anybody defends this blows my mind. Why anybody would want to see their team play that way blows my mind. To have a National Hockey League coach allow his team to play that way, blows my mind. If I were a GM and I constructed a team, trying to win as many games as possible and I saw my coach basically throwing out life vests to his team and say, "Just focus on trying to not let them score on us", I'd fire him on the spot. Does nobody understand how talented this team is? You don't think guys like Petey, Bo, Hughes, Boeser, Miller or Toffoli can pull a rabbit out of a hat and score every once and a while? 

Had Vegas actually been somewhat capable of hitting the net, those games would have been absolute blowouts. And because they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn we have people on this forum praising the coaching as if he did the best he could do. 

Blows my mind. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

5 minutes ago, skategal said:

I can see both sides of the argument here.  There is something to be gained by infusing some fresh blood into the mix, but at best it might have been one or two players, certainly not 3 - 5 as you identified.  

There is a time honoured tradition that you "dance with the one you brought to the dance" and not swap people out when it's the players in front of you that worked their tails off to get the team to that position.  

It's also reason for concern to throw players in who have no playoff experience against a strong team like Vegas when elimination is on the line.  If the team lost game 7, do those players you infused into the lineup take a disproportionate level of blame.  What if OJ or Rafferty gave up a breakaway that was scored on and the game was lost by one goal?  The media and the fans would crucify them.  None of the players you identified were likely to add scoring punch which was desperately needed.  Other than helping to clear the puck out, not sure any of the players you mentioned would have added anything much.  Remember, we lost by one goal that was scored on the goalie, the other 3 were scored on an empty net.  

You're advocating to coach afraid.

 

When the league tells you it's 5-in-7, you'd best get creative & show faith in reinforcements.

 

"Time honoured trads" are tired euphemisms from old-fashioned hockey minds, too nervous to be bold & assertive.