Nate Schmidt | #88 | D

[-AJ-]

1 hour ago, Drewman said:

I really don't understand why people feel they need to exaggerate to make a point. They didn't "play with us", it was a 7 game series for crying out loud. It was a very close serious, and if our young stars take a big enough step forward in development I see no reason the Canucks couldn't take the Knights out this year. 

I somewhat agree.

 

I've seen a lot of fans claiming we were man-handled or something to that effect by Vegas, which clearly isn't true since it went to 7 games. That said, as far as 7-game series go...it was pretty heavily weighted towards Vegas. Somewhat like the series vs Boston in 2011. A 7-game series, but not a particularly close one.

 

That said, to say they played with us like toys isn't a fair assessment either IMO.

[73 Percent]

13 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I somewhat agree.

 

I've seen a lot of fans claiming we were man-handled or something to that effect by Vegas, which clearly isn't true since it went to 7 games. That said, as far as 7-game series go...it was pretty heavily weighted towards Vegas. Somewhat like the series vs Boston in 2011. A 7-game series, but not a particularly close one.

 

That said, to say they played with us like toys isn't a fair assessment either IMO.

Hmm I dont know about that. I felt we were much more evenly matched in the 2011 series than this year. 

 

In 2011 there were games where both goalies were on fire. This year it was clear that marky was carrying us. Then demko of course. 

 

I say we outplayed them 2 games of the 7 lol. That's a man handling imo.

[-AJ-]

Just now, 73 Percent said:

Hmm I dont know about that. I felt we were much more evenly matched in the 2011 series than this year. 

 

In 2011 there were games where both goalies were on fire. This year it was clear that marky was carrying us. Then demko of course. 

 

I say we outplayed them 2 games of the 7 lol. That's a man handling imo.

I did some research a year or two ago and discovered that of all 7-game series in NHL finals history, the 2011 one was the most lopsided in terms of goal differential. The Canucks only won games 1, 2, and 5 by just one goal and got destroyed in the other four games. The goal differential was a whopping +15 for the Bruins.

 

Canuck wins:

1-0

3-2 OT

1-0

 

Bruin wins:

8-1

4-0

5-2

4-0

 

Luongo made that series a 7-game series. Without him, we get swept in four or lose in five.

[Junkyard Dog]

5 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I somewhat agree.

 

I've seen a lot of fans claiming we were man-handled or something to that effect by Vegas, which clearly isn't true since it went to 7 games. That said, as far as 7-game series go...it was pretty heavily weighted towards Vegas. Somewhat like the series vs Boston in 2011. A 7-game series, but not a particularly close one.

 

That said, to say they played with us like toys isn't a fair assessment either IMO.

I disagree just due to the fact of Demko being the sole reason it went to 7 games. We had no business going to 7. They were clearly the better team in the last 3 games and likely would have won in 5 games if not for Demko.

 

Game 5 outshot 43 to 17

 

Game 6 outshot 48 to 23

 

Game 7 outshot 36 to 14

 

Those aren't even close.

 

In fact in game 2 when we won we were outshot 40 to 27. That means we were outshot 131 to 67 in the games we won. That's pretty much a 2 to 1 margin.

 

We maybe were even in 1 maybe 2 games at most and those were games we lost. Game 3 and Game 4. Both of which we had 10 PPs(5 in each game) to their 6 PPs(4 then 2) and were still outshot in both of those games, shutout in one AND they scored better on the PP 2/6 to our 2/10. We were outshot in every game in the series in fact.

 

Any outsider looking in would point to the goaltening in each win being the main reason it went to 7 games and a bit of the top line.

 

[-AJ-]

14 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I disagree just due to the fact of Demko being the sole reason it went to 7 games. We had no business going to 7. They were clearly the better team in the last 3 games and likely would have won in 5 games if not for Demko.

 

Game 5 outshot 43 to 17

 

Game 6 outshot 48 to 23

 

Game 7 outshot 36 to 14

 

Those aren't even close.

 

In fact in game 2 when we won we were outshot 40 to 27. That means we were outshot 131 to 67 in the games we won. That's pretty much a 2 to 1 margin.

 

We maybe were even in 1 maybe 2 games at most and those were games we lost. Game 3 and Game 4. Both of which we had 10 PPs(5 in each game) to their 6 PPs(4 then 2) and were still outshot in both of those games, shutout in one AND they scored better on the PP 2/6 to our 2/10. We were outshot in every game in the series in fact.

 

Any outsider looking in would point to the goaltening in each win being the main reason it went to 7 games and a bit of the top line.

 

It seems a bit odd to me though that because goaltending was the reason we made it to game seven, that it somehow becomes lopsided. If instead of goaltending, we had someone with a MacKinnon-like performance drag us to game seven, would that change the story? Maybe the goaltending role is unique in that a goaltender can play amazingly, but the team horribly, whereas the same might be be possible to be said about a forward or a defenseman? At the end of the day, if the scores were close, the result must have been close. I'm not sure why one dominant player on a team negates the "closeness" of the game.

[Junkyard Dog]

32 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

It seems a bit odd to me though that because goaltending was the reason we made it to game seven, that it somehow becomes lopsided. If instead of goaltending, we had someone with a MacKinnon-like performance drag us to game seven, would that change the story? Maybe the goaltending role is unique in that a goaltender can play amazingly, but the team horribly, whereas the same might be be possible to be said about a forward or a defenseman? At the end of the day, if the scores were close, the result must have been close. I'm not sure why one dominant player on a team negates the "closeness" of the game.

At the end of the day if Demko doesn't perform like he did we'd lose in 5. Look at how the season progressed and how many games Marky stole for us and even Demko at times. It has been a recurring theme so it shouldn't be odd anyone that our goalies were the reason we went to 7. There's a reason why Marky was our team MVP last season.

 

It isn't rocket science to see that overall we need to play better in front of our goalies, especially now that Marky's gone. Schmidt definitely helps in that regard and hopefully OJ can too.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Junkyard Dog

[-AJ-]

12 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

At the end of the day if Demko doesn't perform like he did we'd lose in 5. Look at how the season progressed and how many games Marky stole for us and even Demko at times. It has been a recurring theme so it shouldn't be odd anyone that our goalies were the reason we went to 7. There's a reason why Marky was our team MVP last season.

 

It isn't rocket science to see that overall we need to play better in front of our goalies, especially now that Marky's gone. Schmidt definitely helps in that regard and hopefully OJ can too.

I would tend to agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that Demko did perform like he did, turning a series that should have been a stomp (as you say, a 5-game series) into a surprisingly close one, at 7 games.

[KirkSave]

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

did some research a year or two ago and discovered that of all 7-game series in NHL finals history, the 2011 one was the most lopsided in terms of goal differential. The Canucks only won games 1, 2, and 5 by just one goal

That's due largely to the stellar play of Tim Thomas, who had arguably the greatest playoff performance of all time.

 

940 SV% and a 1.98 GAA to win the Conn Smythe for overall play in the playoffs. In the 2011 finals itself he stopped an incredible 238 of the Canucks' 246 shots for a 967 save percentage.

 

Canucks scoring 8 goals in 7 games was sad...but I think the boys carried the play in many of the games but Thomas stood tall. Overall it was a crazy series. So many highs and lows.

 

 

[TNucks1]

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

I somewhat agree.

 

I've seen a lot of fans claiming we were man-handled or something to that effect by Vegas, which clearly isn't true since it went to 7 games. That said, as far as 7-game series go...it was pretty heavily weighted towards Vegas. Somewhat like the series vs Boston in 2011. A 7-game series, but not a particularly close one.

 

That said, to say they played with us like toys isn't a fair assessment either IMO.

Demko also killed there Mojo

[Junkyard Dog]

16 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I would tend to agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that Demko did perform like he did, turning a series that should have been a stomp (as you say, a 5-game series) into a surprisingly close one, at 7 games.

We were overall outplayed and outmatched in almost every category besides goaltending. Our top line(top players) had a few moments but required the goaltending to lay the foundation in order to create those moments.

 

My point is Vegas deserved that series win based off their play, they were dominating the majority of it. Had we won Demko would have stolen that series.

 

Not exactly a recipe for success for the Canucks but were a whole lot more inexpierenced than Vegas and aren't as deep. *Spoilers* We were like Luke Skywalker vs Vegas's Darth Vader in the Empire Strikes Back with Leia(Demko) saving our ass when we needed saving if you can get that analogy.

 

With more experience and a more depth maybe we can reach that level of contender like Vegas but the playoffs proved that we have promise(like vs STL) and that we're a bit of a ways away from Vegas's level.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Junkyard Dog

[-AJ-]

Just now, Junkyard Dog said:

My point is we were overall outplayed and outmatched in almost every category besides goaltending. Our top line(top players) had a few moments but required the goaltending to lay the foundation in order to create those moments.

 

My point is Vegas deserved that series win based off their play, they were dominating the majority of it. Had we won Demko would have stolen that series.

 

Not exactly a recipe for success for the Canucks but were a whole lot more inexpierenced than Vegas and aren't as deep. *Spoilers* We were like Luke Skywalker vs Vegas's Darth Vader in the Empire Strikes Back with Leia(Demko) saving our ass when we needed saving if you can get that analogy.

 

With more experience and a more depth maybe we can reach that level of contender like Vegas but the playoffs proved that we have promise(like vs STL) and that we're a bit of a ways away from Vegas's level.

I'm not denying Demko stole those games, because he did, but my point is that he was the difference maker. I think with numbers, so let me try to explain it this way. Let's assign number values to forwards, defense, and goaltending for each team over the series. As an example, I'd see it as something like this:

 

Canucks:

Forwards: 4

Defense: 4

Goaltending: 15

Total: 23

 

Golden Knights:

Forwards: 8

Defense: 8

Goaltending: 8

Total: 24

 

I think Demko carried this team, so much even, that he made the series a close one. Just because the team was lopsided in favour of goaltending, it doesn't mean that the series wasn't close. It was in fact Demko alone who made the series close. You could definitely argue that this kind of play isn't sustainable, but that's an entirely different argument about sustainability of play into the future as opposed to the assessment of a series already happened. I think to say the series wasn't close is to discredit what Demko did, and that was take a team's forwards and defensemen that had no business being in a close series, and making it close.

[Junkyard Dog]

3 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I'm not denying Demko stole those games, because he did, but my point is that he was the difference maker. I think with numbers, so let me try to explain it this way. Let's assign number values to forwards, defense, and goaltending for each team over the series. As an example, I'd see it as something like this:

 

Canucks:

Forwards: 4

Defense: 4

Goaltending: 15

Total: 23

 

Golden Knights:

Forwards: 8

Defense: 8

Goaltending: 8

Total: 24

 

I think Demko carried this team, so much even, that he made the series a close one. Just because the team was lopsided in favour of goaltending, it doesn't mean that the series wasn't close. It was in fact Demko alone who made the series close. You could definitely argue that this kind of play isn't sustainable, but that's an entirely different argument about sustainability of play into the future as opposed to the assessment of a series already happened. I think to say the series wasn't close is to discredit what Demko did, and that was take a team's forwards and defensemen that had no business being in a close series, and making it close.

I am not discrediting what Demko did. Stating Demko being the sole reason it went to 7 games after being down 3-1 is far from discrediting him. Like I said had we won Demko would have stolen it. 

 

I am taking everything into account and stating we weren't as a team up to par with Vegas. They dominated in every other category but goaltending. I mentioned how badly we were outshot, even in games were we had more PPs. When it's that bad you have no busniess winning.

 

I don't remember saying it wasn't close from a series standpoint. I have implied that Demko was the sole reason why it was close. I am saying that we weren't up to par to Vegas besides Demko with his freak performance.

 

My point was the last part of my previous post. We're not at the same level as Vegas yet due to understandable reasons, but we have promise. 

 

[theo5789]

Hearing all this Demko talk, I personally think Green deserves a bit of credit here. We were getting outplayed by a better team, there's no doubt. Now some would pin that on the coach instead because it's the easy thing to do. The simple fact is that we were facing a powerhouse that had more rest than us in a very condensed schedule. We just lost our regular starter to injury. Green made the choice to go full defensive and play the counter game which will rely heavily on the freshest player we have going into the last 3 games of the season, which was Demko. Now I'm not discrediting Demko here either, he came through in spades, but our system was to bunker down and while we were allowing shots, we wanted to keep those shots on the outside and when they broke through, Demko needed to stand on his head. It made them push forward to attack us which allowed the counter to be more dangerous. This isn't a system that you would run an entire season doing, but we had to make an adjustment to try and win and it damn nearly worked (potentially a Boeser post away from destroying their morale altogether). It's not pretty but it did almost work (with the requirement that Demko stepped up to the plate in which he did).

 

Now how this relates back to Schmidt is that hopefully with him, we don't have to resort back to that system. Our best and only puck mover that could get the puck out and maintain possession was Hughes. He was targetted in the Vegas series. Now we potentially have another, so who do teams target and how much more of a possession game can we play with this singular move connecting the defense and offense? Add in Juolevi/Rathbone who have that attribute as well and we may not need to resort to a bunker down strategy anymore.

 

I think this was a major shift Benning wanted when he wanted to revamp our defense.

 

[Hogs & Podz]

4 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Hearing all this Demko talk, I personally think Green deserves a bit of credit here. We were getting outplayed by a better team, there's no doubt. Now some would pin that on the coach instead because it's the easy thing to do. The simple fact is that we were facing a powerhouse that had more rest than us in a very condensed schedule. We just lost our regular starter to injury. Green made the choice to go full defensive and play the counter game which will rely heavily on the freshest player we have going into the last 3 games of the season, which was Demko. Now I'm not discrediting Demko here either, he came through in spades, but our system was to bunker down and while we were allowing shots, we wanted to keep those shots on the outside and when they broke through, Demko needed to stand on his head. It made them push forward to attack us which allowed the counter to be more dangerous. This isn't a system that you would run an entire season doing, but we had to make an adjustment to try and win and it damn nearly worked (potentially a Boeser post away from destroying their morale altogether). It's not pretty but it did almost work (with the requirement that Demko stepped up to the plate in which he did).

 

Now how this relates back to Schmidt is that hopefully with him, we don't have to resort back to that system. Our best and only puck mover that could get the puck out and maintain possession was Hughes. He was targetted in the Vegas series. Now we potentially have another, so who do teams target and how much more of a possession game can we play with this singular move connecting the defense and offense? Add in Juolevi/Rathbone who have that attribute as well and we may not need to resort to a bunker down strategy anymore.

 

I think this was a major shift Benning wanted when he wanted to revamp our defense.

 

Three d lines that can move the puck and good first pass.  Aggressive counter attack hockey.  We may not need a defensive defencemen on the team going forward.  More like Nashville?

[theo5789]

13 minutes ago, Hogs & Podz said:

Three d lines that can move the puck and good first pass.  Aggressive counter attack hockey.  We may not need a defensive defencemen on the team going forward.  More like Nashville?

I think our puck movers could use solid defensive partners. Tanev was very good defensively, but he was smart in moving the puck and when to make pinches. So I wouldn't say no to players like Tanev at a more affordable rate (to be fair, I would've given Tanev the contract he got, but we no longer could afford it after adding Schmidt). I think Tryamkin could be a "defensive" dman in a similar mould to Tanev, but obviously a more physical version.

 

I don't know about aggressive counter attack, but I think maintaining more possession will be beneficial to us. I think Hughes was excellent not because he can rush the puck up, but more for his ability to control the play.

[48MPHSlapShot]

5 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I am not discrediting what Demko did. Stating Demko being the sole reason it went to 7 games after being down 3-1 is far from discrediting him. Like I said had we won Demko would have stolen it. 

 

I am taking everything into account and stating we weren't as a team up to par with Vegas. They dominated in every other category but goaltending. I mentioned how badly we were outshot, even in games were we had more PPs. When it's that bad you have no busniess winning.

 

I don't remember saying it wasn't close from a series standpoint. I have implied that Demko was the sole reason why it was close. I am saying that we weren't up to par to Vegas besides Demko with his freak performance.

 

My point was the last part of my previous post. We're not at the same level as Vegas yet due to understandable reasons, but we have promise. 

 

You are not taking everything into account. Ryan Reaves clucking in the very first game.  That's right, clucking!  I, for one, am glad we are not at that level.  Looked rather unprofessional from my armchair.

 

Of course there is the "fact" we had just beaten the Stanley Cup champions in what I think was the best series of the 19/20 playoffs.

 

Too bad we couldn't have played on time throughout this series and not had the last couple squeezed.  Water under the bridge but to call Demko a freak is just nasty!

Outstanding series of saves would have been fine.

 

It isn't possible to take, or claim to take, everything into account. because we don't know all of it.

 

I would have like our chances vs Dallas, by Golly, Gee-whiz!  Couldn't have done worse than stinkin Vegas, eh?

 

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by 48MPHSlapShot

[Junkyard Dog]

1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

You are not taking everything into account. Ryan Reaves clucking in the very first game.  That's right, clucking!  I, for one, am glad we are not at that level.  Looked rather unprofessional from my armchair.

 

Of course there is the "fact" we had just beaten the Stanley Cup champions in what I think was the best series of the 19/20 playoffs.

 

Too bad we couldn't have played on time throughout this series and not had the last couple squeezed.  Water under the bridge but to call Demko a freak is just nasty!

Outstanding series of saves would have been fine.

 

It isn't possible to take, or claim to take, everything into account. because we don't know all of it.

 

I would have like our chances vs Dallas, by Golly, Gee-whiz!  Couldn't have done worse than stinkin Vegas, eh?

 

 

I meant from a talent level, team-wise they played better hockey. They were the better team. Besides at goaltending. Antics are another thing entirely.

 

We showed promise vs the Blues but Vegas would have stomped them. Blues struggle vs speed as shown against us and we struggled vs Vegas's speed and size. Vegas are on a higher level when it comes to playoff hockey. Playoffs proved we have promise but are a bit of a ways to go with our overall depth and defense. Aqcuiring a defeseman like Schmidt definitely helps but we need the youngsters to step up. Round out a solid top 9 to and defense group the next few years that can push to be a contender.

 

I still stand by his freak performance. It was nasty. I am using it postive sense.

 

The series is over, we lost, we saw how we lost, we saw how we made it to 7 games. It is history at this point.

 

Eh we've struggled against Dallas the past couple seasons. Hard to say how'd that series would go.

 

[73 Percent]

16 hours ago, -AJ- said:

I did some research a year or two ago and discovered that of all 7-game series in NHL finals history, the 2011 one was the most lopsided in terms of goal differential. The Canucks only won games 1, 2, and 5 by just one goal and got destroyed in the other four games. The goal differential was a whopping +15 for the Bruins.

 

Canuck wins:

1-0

3-2 OT

1-0

 

Bruin wins:

8-1

4-0

5-2

4-0

 

Luongo made that series a 7-game series. Without him, we get swept in four or lose in five.

Same thing goes for this year though. Didn't demko stop like 99 of 100 or something like that in 2 games.

[Goal:thecup]

20 hours ago, BigTramFan said:

Good post. A couple of other thoughts...

 

The NHL may allow taxi squads due to the virus and the need to keep a pool of quarantined guys at the ready who are not on the active roster. This may allow the Canucks to run a 20 or 21 man active roster and instead rely on the wider taxi squad to bring in injury replacements immediately if required. This could also allow the team to maximise the gap between daily salary hit and daily cap limit, for example guys like Benn may be "waived" but still based with the squad. This would save $1.075m in cap hit on Benn while he doesn't play, but he is available immediately if required because he won't be based in Utica and will have already been quarantined.

 

Regarding the hole that we have on our rightside D. If he can't get Hamonic or Hainsey, I think JB could look at a veteran UFA who could be available at league minimum. Someone like Jan Rutta could be had for $700k on a one year deal. I think he would add a lot in that 3RD slot, size and experience, ability to play PK, etc. Could be a nice fit with Juolevi. Keep Rafferty and Benn on the taxi squad but not on the active roster until required.

 

Potential 20-man roster:

Miller Pettersson Boeser

Pearson Horvat Virtanen

Roussel Gaudette Ferland

Motte Beagle MacEwen

 

Hughes Schmidt

Edler Myers

Juolevi Rutta

 

Holtby, Demko

 

Wider taxi squad (waived but ready if required), saves almost $6m in cap hit:

Sutter, Hawryluk, Eriksson, Baer, Benn, Rafferty

 

Very interesting; if it works out that way, we would be sitting pretty, imo.

 

Very interesting upcoming events as we wait out the Diva penalty (Luongo's God-Given Right to Stick it to Us), the All-Star Rookies' bonuses, LE's anchor, the ED, etc.

 

Also, the Russian Flotilla has built their boats and gathered the cargo (Larionov, Tryamkin, Podkolzin, and others?); just need to load up the boats and get up a good head of steam.

 

Plus, the Swedish Saab (Hogs)* and possibly others s/b coming to camp soon (when?).

 

This is shaping up to be the most interesting training camp and season ever (if we have it).

 

*

Saab JAS 39 Gripen

 

 

[Fred65]

On 11/21/2020 at 3:05 PM, Drewman said:

I really don't understand why people feel they need to exaggerate to make a point. They didn't "play with us", it was a 7 game series for crying out loud. It was a very close serious, and if our young stars take a big enough step forward in development I see no reason the Canucks couldn't take the Knights out this year. 

Demko played like a man possessed, I wonder if he can repeat that but the score didn't show how dominate Vegas was  ... IMHO