wallstreetamigo Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 6 hours ago, BigTramFan said: Can you explain to me exactly what you mean? Which part of his defense has been lacking in recent years compared to earlier years? Thanks If you want a good summary of his defensive game declining, there is an article on TSN that presents the case. I cant link to it for some reason but it was recent so should be easy to find. There have actually been about 4 or 5 articles since the trade from different sources that use various statistical evidence to examine his defensive decline and the risk of him not regaining that. This takes out of the equation the need to instantly pump him up to be something he has clearly not been for some time (a shutdown quality defender) or claim he is a complete $&!# player (he is not). There is a significant amount of risk with his contract if he can no longer handle the #1 role on both sides of the ice. That doesnt mean its not possible for him to rebound. Its just not acertainty like the Benning supporters pretend. People suggesting there is no risk trading 1 year of cap problems for potentially 6 years with a 30 year old guy are not objective. Nor are people who suggest OEL is a terrible player. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddogy Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said: If you want a good summary of his defensive game declining, there is an article on TSN that presents the case. I cant link to it for some reason but it was recent so should be easy to find. There have actually been about 4 or 5 articles since the trade from different sources that use various statistical evidence to examine his defensive decline and the risk of him not regaining that. This takes out of the equation the need to instantly pump him up to be something he has clearly not been for some time (a shutdown quality defender) or claim he is a complete $&!# player (he is not). There is a significant amount of risk with his contract if he can no longer handle the #1 role on both sides of the ice. That doesnt mean its not possible for him to rebound. Its just not acertainty like the Benning supporters pretend. People suggesting there is no risk trading 1 year of cap problems for potentially 6 years with a 30 year old guy are not objective. Nor are people who suggest OEL is a terrible player. Do you work in the financial industry? You are actually trying to be objective 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTramFan Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said: If you want a good summary of his defensive game declining, there is an article on TSN that presents the case. I cant link to it for some reason but it was recent so should be easy to find. There have actually been about 4 or 5 articles since the trade from different sources that use various statistical evidence to examine his defensive decline and the risk of him not regaining that. This takes out of the equation the need to instantly pump him up to be something he has clearly not been for some time (a shutdown quality defender) or claim he is a complete $&!# player (he is not). There is a significant amount of risk with his contract if he can no longer handle the #1 role on both sides of the ice. That doesnt mean its not possible for him to rebound. Its just not acertainty like the Benning supporters pretend. People suggesting there is no risk trading 1 year of cap problems for potentially 6 years with a 30 year old guy are not objective. Nor are people who suggest OEL is a terrible player. I had a look but couldn't find anything recent from TSN on OEL. Thecanuckway published an article entitled: Can Oliver Ekman-Larsson bounce back in Vancouver? It is a heavily skewed article that uses cherry picked stats to "prove" its opening point. The opening line says it all: "Ekman-Larsson has had quite the decline but maybe, just maybe he can redeem himself in Vancouver." However they don't give any stats that illustrate the TREND of said decline. They say: "OEL has not been the same player he was since the 2015-16 season. Since then the closest he has got to 55 points was 44 points in the 2018-19 season." I have looked closely at his stats and I can say that offensively he had a standout season in 2015-16 with 55 pts (at a rate of 1.8 pts/60). Rather than any decline I would say this one season was an outlier. Since 2016 his offense has continued to be fairly consistent with the rest of his career. Last year was his second best in terms of offense at 1.5 pts/60 (see table below). By contrast Q Hughes got 1.9 pts/60 last season, so consistently scoring at a rate of 1.5 pts/60 is pretty darn good. They say: "his 3.2 on-ice goals per 60 in 2020-21 was the second-worst of his career. (3.3 was his worst in 2017-18.)" That sounds bad. And they are not lying (see below) his oiGA/60 were second worst of his career last season. But what they fail to mention is that since 2014 his oiGA/60 has been consistently around the 3.0 mark. In fact his oiGA/60 was 2.9 back in 2015/16 when he was apparently a top Dman! They don't say that in the article because it doesn't fit their narrative. Now hovering around the 3.0 mark is not good. It means you are not an amazing defender. But the important thing is that THERE IS NO DECLINE in these stats. Summary: I don't see any decline in these stats with regards to defense. I don't see any decline in offense either, except that he had one standout season offensively in 2015-16. Edited August 22, 2021 by BigTramFan 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said: If you want a good summary of his defensive game declining, there is an article on TSN that presents the case. I cant link to it for some reason but it was recent so should be easy to find. There have actually been about 4 or 5 articles since the trade from different sources that use various statistical evidence to examine his defensive decline and the risk of him not regaining that. This takes out of the equation the need to instantly pump him up to be something he has clearly not been for some time (a shutdown quality defender) or claim he is a complete $&!# player (he is not). There is a significant amount of risk with his contract if he can no longer handle the #1 role on both sides of the ice. That doesnt mean its not possible for him to rebound. Its just not acertainty like the Benning supporters pretend. People suggesting there is no risk trading 1 year of cap problems for potentially 6 years with a 30 year old guy are not objective. Nor are people who suggest OEL is a terrible player. He who takes no chance risks nothing. Edited August 22, 2021 by Me_ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddogy Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, BigTramFan said: I had a look but couldn't find anything recent from TSN on OEL. Thecanuckway published an article entitled: Can Oliver Ekman-Larsson bounce back in Vancouver? It is a heavily skewed article that uses cherry picked stats to "prove" its opening point. The opening line says it all: "Ekman-Larsson has had quite the decline but maybe, just maybe he can redeem himself in Vancouver." However they don't give any stats that illustrate the TREND of said decline. They say: "OEL has not been the same player he was since the 2015-16 season. Since then the closest he has got to 55 points was 44 points in the 2018-19 season." I have looked closely at his stats and I can say that offensively he had a standout season in 2015-16 with 55 pts (at a rate of 1.8 pts/60). Rather than any decline I woudl say this one season was an outlier. Since 2016 his offense has continued to be fairly consistent with the rest of his career. Last year was his second best in terms of offense at 1.5 pts/60 (see table below). They say: "his 3.2 on-ice goals per 60 in 2020-21 was the second-worst of his career. (3.3 was his worst in 2017-18.)" That sounds bad. And they are not lying (see below) his oiGA/60 were second worst of his career last season. But what they fail to mention is that since 2014 his oiGA/60 has been consistently around the 3.0 mark. In fact his oiGA/60 was 2.9 back in 2015/16 when he was apparently a top Dman! They don't say that in the article because it doesn't fit their narrative. Now hovering around the 3.0 mark is not good. It means you are not an amazing defender. But the important thing is that THERE IS NO DECLINE in these stats. Summary: I don't see any decline in these stats with regards to defense. I don't see any decline in offense either, except that he had one standout season offensively in 2015-16. Recently I watched 3 of the Arizona - Nashville playoff games. I assume that he was very motivated during the playoffs and it was the best hockey left in him. OEL is definitely not an agile skater anymore. His game was fine however he sometimes had trouble clearing the front of the net. He is not very good at tying up the forward's stick. The forward can often sidestep OEL to get positioning in front of the goalie. His D positioning in front of his net was sometimes puzzling. I don't know why he was out of position and puck-watching. Again, do not get your hopes high. What he brought in those 3 playoff games was competent. However, he is a #4 D on a good team. I do think that OEL should play a more physical style akin to Alex Edler. He would be much more effective in the D zone. Edited August 22, 2021 by Maddogy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, Maddogy said: Recently I watched 3 of the Arizona - Nashville playoff games. I assume that he was very motivated during the playoffs and it was the best hockey left in him. OEL is definitely not an agile skater anymore. His game was fine however he sometimes had trouble clearing the front of the net. His D positioning in front of his net was sometimes puzzling. I don't know why he was out of position and puck-watching. Again, do not get your hopes high. What he brought in those 3 playoff games was competent. However, he is a #4 D on a good team. I do think that OEL should play a more physical style akin to Alex Edler. He would be much more effective in the D zone. It’s not arguable. OEL was by far the best Defensemen for the desert dogs in their nine games of bubble hockey. He played the most, and hardest minutes. He also had 30 hits in nine games, which was most on their team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knucklehead91 Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 1 hour ago, aGENT said: Players earn their deployment. Full stop. Coaching staff didn't 'black sheep' him down the lineup, he did that himself. When his offense dried up, they had little choice but to deploy him in a defensive role. It was the only part of his game still worth a damn. 2 hours ago, NHL97OneTimer said: I love that you used stats, but your analysis of the stats could be off. The story could also read: LE started with a >50% OZ but dwindled to ~30% given his lack of production and so he was relegated to a 3rd / 4th line defensive role instead. I think this is more accurate. 3rd and 4th line players who want more ice time and more OZ starts outwork their opponents and teammates. When players are in a rut, they get out of it through hard work....they produce chances even if they don't go in. I don't recall seeing LE do any of this. No Burrows / Motte type of effort at all. Not once do I recall hearing that he had a great offseason and is looking to push for a top 6 spot. If it was due to an injury, he had years to heal up and produce some level of effort as above. So my perspective was that he was a $6 million per year who, despite potentially having an injury here and there, never really had the commitment to play to the level of his contract. For this reason, I cannot point fingers at the coach or his deployment. The only reason I would give LE some slack is if he was dealing with significant mental health issues that we weren't aware of. oooooooooookay so players "earn" their deployment right??? As per https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerteams.php?fromseason=20162017&thruseason=20162017&stype=2&sit=5v5&score=all&stdoi=std&rate=n&team=VAN&pos=S&loc=B&toi=0&gpfilt=none&fd=&td=&tgp=410&lines=single&draftteam=ALL Loui Eriksson 2016-17 65GP 3rd in HDCF with 51 HDCF - 15 more HDCF than Burrows.... So to call out LE for not competing like Burrows for his chances, you might want to question Burrows? or maybe question your bias towards a fan favourite versus a guy who soaked up 6mil and didnt capitalize on his chances and everyone hates. Why would you demote the 3rd highest high danger chances guy to the 3rd line if he is getting opportunities moreso than everyone else on the team? 3rd in Rush attempts with 8 2nd in rebounds created with 12 Tied for 5th with Horvat for penalties drawn with 10 Tied for 2nd with 31 takeaways Keep in mind, Eriksson only played 65 games due to a knee sprain. Where as the rest of the team played pretty much a full season. Why would you relegate someone on the team who is producing the most chances to the bottom 6?? Why in the f*** would you take away chances from the team. To put a player in a defensive role because even though he is generating more chances than almost everyone on the team, but not scoring, we should sacrifice chances? I think you could tell from the way his first game went and the own goal, he was not going to get the bounces his way. It sure as f*** wasn't for a lack of trying. Loui Eriksson 2017-18 50GP 3rd in HDCF with 45 9th in Rush attempts with 5 (3 behind Horvat, 1 behind Boeser) - Virtanen lead the team with 12 rush attempts. 19th in Rebounds created with 4 (Horvat had 6 rebounds created with 14 more GP) 6th in Take aways with 20 (5 more than Horvat who had more games played) The team leader was Virtanen with 48 who doubled the next guy which was Boeser Eriksson had 50 f***ing games played. Don't tell me that he didn't work hard and come into camp out of shape, not put in the effort on or off the ice. I wasn't pleased with his lack of production, but I sure as hell understand why he struggled and I do not blame him for everything. INJURIES, LINEMATES, UTILIZATION, REBUILD were all factors and played their part in not only a struggling Eriksson, but a struggling Vancouver Canucks team. But one thing that wasn't an issue, was his effort level. I was not pleased that we signed a guy for 6mil for 6 years to kill penalties and failed to score. Tell me why the hell any team in any playoff series would EVER take a guy who is generating more chances, out of the top 6? Sure he might be struggling to score, but he is getting chances regardless.... LOOK AT JOSH ANDERSON THE GUY HAD PLENTY OF NET DRIVES / PARTIAL BREAKAWAYS ETC AND COULDNT F***ING FIND THE BACK OF THE NET. Yet Montreal kept him in that top 6 and over the course of time, he scored timely goals. Anderson scored in Game 1 vs Toronto then went on a 12 game goalless streak. Snapped that streak vs Vegas in game 3 with 2 goals. (He didnt score at all in the 2nd round) So now he has scored 3 goals in 2 games. He went back on a 6 game goalless streak, potted 2 goals in game 4 of the SCF and that was all she wrote for Josh Anderson's goal production, he helped close out 2 games in overtime in 2 separate best of 7 series. Had Montreal moved him down to the 3rd/4th line because he wasn't "producing" Montreal would not have made it past Vegas. Anderson scored in 3 games the entire post season.... 3... out of 22 games played..... Yet he stayed in the top 6 and continued to get chances and eventually snap his streaks. You don't punish a guy for getting chances. Through 2016-19 LE was 4th in Rush attempts with 24 2nd in HDCF with 197 6th in Rebounds created with 30 2nd in Takeaways with 91 Hell here's a fun one to look at. The 2019-20 season this is in all situations PP/5v5/EN Loui Eriksson had 606 TOI... Pettersson had 1260TOI.. Oh and I'll toss in the Rooster too... he had 485TOI Eriksson: 34 HDCF Roussel: 33 HDCF Pettersson: 60 HDCF - Both Eriksson and Roussel had significantly less icetime than Pettersson and completely different duties, yet they generated chances as much as Pettersson Rebounds created?? Eriksson: 8 Roussel: 7 Pettersson: 14 with twice as much icetime and a primary offensive deployment Does that mean they are as good as Pettersson, no. But they sure do work for their chances when they are on the ice with as limited of time as they get. So do not ever discredit a player for working hard. Oh and I guess I should say that he was generating chances while in the bottom 6 moreso than guys in the top 6 with less games played. He played PK duties and had more defensive zone time than most players, yet he is generating chances.............................................To the bottom you go Eriksson! 2016-17 he missed a few weeks and only played 65 games Will not play in Sunday's game Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY April 8, 2017 Eriksson (leg) missed Saturday's game against the Oilers, and he will not play in Sunday's second half of the home-and-home, Rick Dhaliwal of News 1130 reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Does not make trip Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY April 3, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) remained back in Vancouver as the team kicked off a two-game road trip starting Tuesday against the Sharks. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Won't suit up Sunday Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY April 2, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) will not return to the lineup for Sunday's showdown against the Sharks. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Out again Friday Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 31, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) won't play Friday versus the Kings. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Questionable to play Friday Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 31, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) still considers himself day-to-day and is unsure if he'll play Friday's game against the Kings. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Eyeing Friday return Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 28, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) could return to the lineup against the Kings on Friday, ruling him out for Tuesday night's contest against the Ducks. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Staying back in Vancouver Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 20, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) will not travel with the team for its upcoming road trip, effectively ruling him out for those four contests. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Upgraded to day-to-day Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 16, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) is now considered day-to-day, which still rules him out for Thursday's matchup with the Stars. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Out at least one week Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 7, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) is "a week to two weeks away from returning," per coach Willie Desjardins. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Departs Sunday with injury Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 5, 2017 Eriksson left Sunday's game in Anaheim with a lower-body injury and will not return. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. 2017-18 4 games into the season Will miss 4-6 weeks Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 17, 2017 Eriksson will be sidelined for 4-to-6 weeks due to a knee sprain. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Placed on IR Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 17, 2017 Eriksson was designated for injured reserve Tuesday, Jeff Paterson of TSN 1040 Vancouver reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Not traveling with team Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 16, 2017 As expected, Eriksson (knee) did not join the team for its five-game road trip, ruling him out until Oct. 26 at the earliest, Dan Murhpy of Sportsnet reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Suffers injury Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 14, 2017 Eriksson sustained a knee injury that forced him out of Saturday's clash with Calgary. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. aaaand then to finish off the 2017-18 season Done for season Vancouver Canucks UPPER BODY March 1, 2018 Eriksson will miss the remainder of the 2017-18 season due to a fractured rib, Jeff Paterson of TSN 1040 Vancouver reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Could miss 7-10 days Vancouver Canucks UPPER BODY February 28, 2018 Eriksson (upper body) is in jeopardy of missing up to 10 days, per Canucks coach Travis Green, Irfaan Gaffar of Sportsnet reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Out for Monday's tilt Vancouver Canucks UPPER BODY February 26, 2018 Eriksson will sit out Monday against Colorado with an upper-body injury, Jeff Paterson of TSN 1040 Vancouver reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. In the 2017-18 Season he started with a knee injury, came back and shortly after sustaining a KNEE injury, let me say it one more time... A KNEE injury.... Knee's aren't easy to rehab and are pretty crucial to your ability to play hockey, or walk for that matter. Then he sustains a season ending rib injury limiting him to a total 50 games played. Don't go telling me that he "earned" 3rd and 4th line duties. The guy had injury issues, missed substantial amount of time and STILL kept up in producing chances with the rest of the younger, healthier players. YES he did not capitalize on all his opportunities, but he also played with some weaker players. I get it, paying 6 mil for Eriksson to not score goals sucked, but that was the coaches call. Not like anyone else was really putting up point either. 2016-17 Goal scoring leader: Horvat 20 goals Points leader: Horvat 52 points 2017-18 Goal scoring leader: Boeser 29 goals Points leader: Boeser/Daniel 55 points - Boeser 62GP Daniel 81GP These are 82 game seasons..... AY-tea-tWo GAME seasons.... 55 F***ING POINTS IS OUR HIGHEST SCORER IN 2 SEASONS??? I think McDavid sh!ts 55 points. Eriksson was brought in during the start of the dark times. The team(s) sucked, he worked hard, didnt score and is now gone. End of story. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 Own goal, loss of confidence, and injuries to start with. Then the following season, Dorsett was forced to retire leaving Loui as our next best option in that role. Other players like Gaunce, Virtanen, and Gaudette also dried up offensively when called upon to focus on the defensive side of their games. It's over; why dwell on it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 19 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said: oooooooooookay so players "earn" their deployment right??? End of story. Kindly summarize your points in the future. That was painful. 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timråfan Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 (edited) 55 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said: oooooooooookay so players "earn" their deployment right??? As per https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerteams.php?fromseason=20162017&thruseason=20162017&stype=2&sit=5v5&score=all&stdoi=std&rate=n&team=VAN&pos=S&loc=B&toi=0&gpfilt=none&fd=&td=&tgp=410&lines=single&draftteam=ALL Loui Eriksson 2016-17 65GP 3rd in HDCF with 51 HDCF - 15 more HDCF than Burrows.... So to call out LE for not competing like Burrows for his chances, you might want to question Burrows? or maybe question your bias towards a fan favourite versus a guy who soaked up 6mil and didnt capitalize on his chances and everyone hates. Why would you demote the 3rd highest high danger chances guy to the 3rd line if he is getting opportunities moreso than everyone else on the team? 3rd in Rush attempts with 8 2nd in rebounds created with 12 Tied for 5th with Horvat for penalties drawn with 10 Tied for 2nd with 31 takeaways Keep in mind, Eriksson only played 65 games due to a knee sprain. Where as the rest of the team played pretty much a full season. Why would you relegate someone on the team who is producing the most chances to the bottom 6?? Why in the f*** would you take away chances from the team. To put a player in a defensive role because even though he is generating more chances than almost everyone on the team, but not scoring, we should sacrifice chances? I think you could tell from the way his first game went and the own goal, he was not going to get the bounces his way. It sure as f*** wasn't for a lack of trying. Loui Eriksson 2017-18 50GP 3rd in HDCF with 45 9th in Rush attempts with 5 (3 behind Horvat, 1 behind Boeser) - Virtanen lead the team with 12 rush attempts. 19th in Rebounds created with 4 (Horvat had 6 rebounds created with 14 more GP) 6th in Take aways with 20 (5 more than Horvat who had more games played) The team leader was Virtanen with 48 who doubled the next guy which was Boeser Eriksson had 50 f***ing games played. Don't tell me that he didn't work hard and come into camp out of shape, not put in the effort on or off the ice. I wasn't pleased with his lack of production, but I sure as hell understand why he struggled and I do not blame him for everything. INJURIES, LINEMATES, UTILIZATION, REBUILD were all factors and played their part in not only a struggling Eriksson, but a struggling Vancouver Canucks team. But one thing that wasn't an issue, was his effort level. I was not pleased that we signed a guy for 6mil for 6 years to kill penalties and failed to score. Tell me why the hell any team in any playoff series would EVER take a guy who is generating more chances, out of the top 6? Sure he might be struggling to score, but he is getting chances regardless.... LOOK AT JOSH ANDERSON THE GUY HAD PLENTY OF NET DRIVES / PARTIAL BREAKAWAYS ETC AND COULDNT F***ING FIND THE BACK OF THE NET. Yet Montreal kept him in that top 6 and over the course of time, he scored timely goals. Anderson scored in Game 1 vs Toronto then went on a 12 game goalless streak. Snapped that streak vs Vegas in game 3 with 2 goals. (He didnt score at all in the 2nd round) So now he has scored 3 goals in 2 games. He went back on a 6 game goalless streak, potted 2 goals in game 4 of the SCF and that was all she wrote for Josh Anderson's goal production, he helped close out 2 games in overtime in 2 separate best of 7 series. Had Montreal moved him down to the 3rd/4th line because he wasn't "producing" Montreal would not have made it past Vegas. Anderson scored in 3 games the entire post season.... 3... out of 22 games played..... Yet he stayed in the top 6 and continued to get chances and eventually snap his streaks. You don't punish a guy for getting chances. Through 2016-19 LE was 4th in Rush attempts with 24 2nd in HDCF with 197 6th in Rebounds created with 30 2nd in Takeaways with 91 Hell here's a fun one to look at. The 2019-20 season this is in all situations PP/5v5/EN Loui Eriksson had 606 TOI... Pettersson had 1260TOI.. Oh and I'll toss in the Rooster too... he had 485TOI Eriksson: 34 HDCF Roussel: 33 HDCF Pettersson: 60 HDCF - Both Eriksson and Roussel had significantly less icetime than Pettersson and completely different duties, yet they generated chances as much as Pettersson Rebounds created?? Eriksson: 8 Roussel: 7 Pettersson: 14 with twice as much icetime and a primary offensive deployment Does that mean they are as good as Pettersson, no. But they sure do work for their chances when they are on the ice with as limited of time as they get. So do not ever discredit a player for working hard. Oh and I guess I should say that he was generating chances while in the bottom 6 moreso than guys in the top 6 with less games played. He played PK duties and had more defensive zone time than most players, yet he is generating chances.............................................To the bottom you go Eriksson! 2016-17 he missed a few weeks and only played 65 games Will not play in Sunday's game Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY April 8, 2017 Eriksson (leg) missed Saturday's game against the Oilers, and he will not play in Sunday's second half of the home-and-home, Rick Dhaliwal of News 1130 reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Does not make trip Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY April 3, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) remained back in Vancouver as the team kicked off a two-game road trip starting Tuesday against the Sharks. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Won't suit up Sunday Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY April 2, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) will not return to the lineup for Sunday's showdown against the Sharks. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Out again Friday Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 31, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) won't play Friday versus the Kings. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Questionable to play Friday Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 31, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) still considers himself day-to-day and is unsure if he'll play Friday's game against the Kings. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Eyeing Friday return Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 28, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) could return to the lineup against the Kings on Friday, ruling him out for Tuesday night's contest against the Ducks. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Staying back in Vancouver Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 20, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) will not travel with the team for its upcoming road trip, effectively ruling him out for those four contests. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Upgraded to day-to-day Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 16, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) is now considered day-to-day, which still rules him out for Thursday's matchup with the Stars. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Out at least one week Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 7, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) is "a week to two weeks away from returning," per coach Willie Desjardins. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Departs Sunday with injury Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 5, 2017 Eriksson left Sunday's game in Anaheim with a lower-body injury and will not return. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. 2017-18 4 games into the season Will miss 4-6 weeks Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 17, 2017 Eriksson will be sidelined for 4-to-6 weeks due to a knee sprain. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Placed on IR Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 17, 2017 Eriksson was designated for injured reserve Tuesday, Jeff Paterson of TSN 1040 Vancouver reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Not traveling with team Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 16, 2017 As expected, Eriksson (knee) did not join the team for its five-game road trip, ruling him out until Oct. 26 at the earliest, Dan Murhpy of Sportsnet reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Suffers injury Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 14, 2017 Eriksson sustained a knee injury that forced him out of Saturday's clash with Calgary. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. aaaand then to finish off the 2017-18 season Done for season Vancouver Canucks UPPER BODY March 1, 2018 Eriksson will miss the remainder of the 2017-18 season due to a fractured rib, Jeff Paterson of TSN 1040 Vancouver reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Could miss 7-10 days Vancouver Canucks UPPER BODY February 28, 2018 Eriksson (upper body) is in jeopardy of missing up to 10 days, per Canucks coach Travis Green, Irfaan Gaffar of Sportsnet reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Out for Monday's tilt Vancouver Canucks UPPER BODY February 26, 2018 Eriksson will sit out Monday against Colorado with an upper-body injury, Jeff Paterson of TSN 1040 Vancouver reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. In the 2017-18 Season he started with a knee injury, came back and shortly after sustaining a KNEE injury, let me say it one more time... A KNEE injury.... Knee's aren't easy to rehab and are pretty crucial to your ability to play hockey, or walk for that matter. Then he sustains a season ending rib injury limiting him to a total 50 games played. Don't go telling me that he "earned" 3rd and 4th line duties. The guy had injury issues, missed substantial amount of time and STILL kept up in producing chances with the rest of the younger, healthier players. YES he did not capitalize on all his opportunities, but he also played with some weaker players. I get it, paying 6 mil for Eriksson to not score goals sucked, but that was the coaches call. Not like anyone else was really putting up point either. 2016-17 Goal scoring leader: Horvat 20 goals Points leader: Horvat 52 points 2017-18 Goal scoring leader: Boeser 29 goals Points leader: Boeser/Daniel 55 points - Boeser 62GP Daniel 81GP These are 82 game seasons..... AY-tea-tWo GAME seasons.... 55 F***ING POINTS IS OUR HIGHEST SCORER IN 2 SEASONS??? I think McDavid sh!ts 55 points. Eriksson was brought in during the start of the dark times. The team(s) sucked, he worked hard, didnt score and is now gone. End of story. If more fans was like you this site would be wonderful. Edited August 22, 2021 by Timråfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knucklehead91 Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, coryberg said: Kindly summarize your points in the future. That was painful. Im sorry it hurts to read, I can only imagine your education must have been hard Edited August 22, 2021 by knucklehead91 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 29 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said: oooooooooookay so players "earn" their deployment right??? As per https://www.naturalstattrick.com/playerteams.php?fromseason=20162017&thruseason=20162017&stype=2&sit=5v5&score=all&stdoi=std&rate=n&team=VAN&pos=S&loc=B&toi=0&gpfilt=none&fd=&td=&tgp=410&lines=single&draftteam=ALL Loui Eriksson 2016-17 65GP 3rd in HDCF with 51 HDCF - 15 more HDCF than Burrows.... So to call out LE for not competing like Burrows for his chances, you might want to question Burrows? or maybe question your bias towards a fan favourite versus a guy who soaked up 6mil and didnt capitalize on his chances and everyone hates. Why would you demote the 3rd highest high danger chances guy to the 3rd line if he is getting opportunities moreso than everyone else on the team? 3rd in Rush attempts with 8 2nd in rebounds created with 12 Tied for 5th with Horvat for penalties drawn with 10 Tied for 2nd with 31 takeaways Keep in mind, Eriksson only played 65 games due to a knee sprain. Where as the rest of the team played pretty much a full season. Why would you relegate someone on the team who is producing the most chances to the bottom 6?? Why in the f*** would you take away chances from the team. To put a player in a defensive role because even though he is generating more chances than almost everyone on the team, but not scoring, we should sacrifice chances? I think you could tell from the way his first game went and the own goal, he was not going to get the bounces his way. It sure as f*** wasn't for a lack of trying. Loui Eriksson 2017-18 50GP 3rd in HDCF with 45 9th in Rush attempts with 5 (3 behind Horvat, 1 behind Boeser) - Virtanen lead the team with 12 rush attempts. 19th in Rebounds created with 4 (Horvat had 6 rebounds created with 14 more GP) 6th in Take aways with 20 (5 more than Horvat who had more games played) The team leader was Virtanen with 48 who doubled the next guy which was Boeser Eriksson had 50 f***ing games played. Don't tell me that he didn't work hard and come into camp out of shape, not put in the effort on or off the ice. I wasn't pleased with his lack of production, but I sure as hell understand why he struggled and I do not blame him for everything. INJURIES, LINEMATES, UTILIZATION, REBUILD were all factors and played their part in not only a struggling Eriksson, but a struggling Vancouver Canucks team. But one thing that wasn't an issue, was his effort level. I was not pleased that we signed a guy for 6mil for 6 years to kill penalties and failed to score. Tell me why the hell any team in any playoff series would EVER take a guy who is generating more chances, out of the top 6? Sure he might be struggling to score, but he is getting chances regardless.... LOOK AT JOSH ANDERSON THE GUY HAD PLENTY OF NET DRIVES / PARTIAL BREAKAWAYS ETC AND COULDNT F***ING FIND THE BACK OF THE NET. Yet Montreal kept him in that top 6 and over the course of time, he scored timely goals. Anderson scored in Game 1 vs Toronto then went on a 12 game goalless streak. Snapped that streak vs Vegas in game 3 with 2 goals. (He didnt score at all in the 2nd round) So now he has scored 3 goals in 2 games. He went back on a 6 game goalless streak, potted 2 goals in game 4 of the SCF and that was all she wrote for Josh Anderson's goal production, he helped close out 2 games in overtime in 2 separate best of 7 series. Had Montreal moved him down to the 3rd/4th line because he wasn't "producing" Montreal would not have made it past Vegas. Anderson scored in 3 games the entire post season.... 3... out of 22 games played..... Yet he stayed in the top 6 and continued to get chances and eventually snap his streaks. You don't punish a guy for getting chances. Through 2016-19 LE was 4th in Rush attempts with 24 2nd in HDCF with 197 6th in Rebounds created with 30 2nd in Takeaways with 91 Hell here's a fun one to look at. The 2019-20 season this is in all situations PP/5v5/EN Loui Eriksson had 606 TOI... Pettersson had 1260TOI.. Oh and I'll toss in the Rooster too... he had 485TOI Eriksson: 34 HDCF Roussel: 33 HDCF Pettersson: 60 HDCF - Both Eriksson and Roussel had significantly less icetime than Pettersson and completely different duties, yet they generated chances as much as Pettersson Rebounds created?? Eriksson: 8 Roussel: 7 Pettersson: 14 with twice as much icetime and a primary offensive deployment Does that mean they are as good as Pettersson, no. But they sure do work for their chances when they are on the ice with as limited of time as they get. So do not ever discredit a player for working hard. Oh and I guess I should say that he was generating chances while in the bottom 6 moreso than guys in the top 6 with less games played. He played PK duties and had more defensive zone time than most players, yet he is generating chances.............................................To the bottom you go Eriksson! 2016-17 he missed a few weeks and only played 65 games Will not play in Sunday's game Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY April 8, 2017 Eriksson (leg) missed Saturday's game against the Oilers, and he will not play in Sunday's second half of the home-and-home, Rick Dhaliwal of News 1130 reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Does not make trip Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY April 3, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) remained back in Vancouver as the team kicked off a two-game road trip starting Tuesday against the Sharks. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Won't suit up Sunday Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY April 2, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) will not return to the lineup for Sunday's showdown against the Sharks. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Out again Friday Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 31, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) won't play Friday versus the Kings. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Questionable to play Friday Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 31, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) still considers himself day-to-day and is unsure if he'll play Friday's game against the Kings. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Eyeing Friday return Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 28, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) could return to the lineup against the Kings on Friday, ruling him out for Tuesday night's contest against the Ducks. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Staying back in Vancouver Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 20, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) will not travel with the team for its upcoming road trip, effectively ruling him out for those four contests. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Upgraded to day-to-day Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 16, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) is now considered day-to-day, which still rules him out for Thursday's matchup with the Stars. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Out at least one week Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 7, 2017 Eriksson (lower body) is "a week to two weeks away from returning," per coach Willie Desjardins. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Departs Sunday with injury Vancouver Canucks LOWER BODY March 5, 2017 Eriksson left Sunday's game in Anaheim with a lower-body injury and will not return. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. 2017-18 4 games into the season Will miss 4-6 weeks Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 17, 2017 Eriksson will be sidelined for 4-to-6 weeks due to a knee sprain. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Placed on IR Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 17, 2017 Eriksson was designated for injured reserve Tuesday, Jeff Paterson of TSN 1040 Vancouver reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Not traveling with team Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 16, 2017 As expected, Eriksson (knee) did not join the team for its five-game road trip, ruling him out until Oct. 26 at the earliest, Dan Murhpy of Sportsnet reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Suffers injury Vancouver Canucks KNEE October 14, 2017 Eriksson sustained a knee injury that forced him out of Saturday's clash with Calgary. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. aaaand then to finish off the 2017-18 season Done for season Vancouver Canucks UPPER BODY March 1, 2018 Eriksson will miss the remainder of the 2017-18 season due to a fractured rib, Jeff Paterson of TSN 1040 Vancouver reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Could miss 7-10 days Vancouver Canucks UPPER BODY February 28, 2018 Eriksson (upper body) is in jeopardy of missing up to 10 days, per Canucks coach Travis Green, Irfaan Gaffar of Sportsnet reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. Out for Monday's tilt Vancouver Canucks UPPER BODY February 26, 2018 Eriksson will sit out Monday against Colorado with an upper-body injury, Jeff Paterson of TSN 1040 Vancouver reports. ANALYSISSubscribe now to instantly reveal our take on this news. In the 2017-18 Season he started with a knee injury, came back and shortly after sustaining a KNEE injury, let me say it one more time... A KNEE injury.... Knee's aren't easy to rehab and are pretty crucial to your ability to play hockey, or walk for that matter. Then he sustains a season ending rib injury limiting him to a total 50 games played. Don't go telling me that he "earned" 3rd and 4th line duties. The guy had injury issues, missed substantial amount of time and STILL kept up in producing chances with the rest of the younger, healthier players. YES he did not capitalize on all his opportunities, but he also played with some weaker players. I get it, paying 6 mil for Eriksson to not score goals sucked, but that was the coaches call. Not like anyone else was really putting up point either. 2016-17 Goal scoring leader: Horvat 20 goals Points leader: Horvat 52 points 2017-18 Goal scoring leader: Boeser 29 goals Points leader: Boeser/Daniel 55 points - Boeser 62GP Daniel 81GP These are 82 game seasons..... AY-tea-tWo GAME seasons.... 55 F***ING POINTS IS OUR HIGHEST SCORER IN 2 SEASONS??? I think McDavid sh!ts 55 points. Eriksson was brought in during the start of the dark times. The team(s) sucked, he worked hard, didnt score and is now gone. End of story. Chances are one thing. Actual points are another. You don't finish, you don't earn top 6 time. It's not a 'try' league. And you'll note, I never said he wasn't trying FYI. Never mind the fact that he did still see a decent amount of time playing with the likes of Horvat, as recent as a couple seasons ago. He just wasn't very good here. Stop trying to make excuses or put Leipsic on a pig. He sucked while here, massively underplayed his contract and he's mercifully gone now. Case closed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 (edited) 31 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said: Im sorry it hurts to read, I can only imagine your education must have been hard It was a waste of space... you can relate Edited August 22, 2021 by coryberg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 1 minute ago, coryberg said: It's was a waste of space... you can relate Don't you think it's a waste of space for you to just shoot down the post without actually contributing towards it? Telling him to summarize something doesn't do an analysis justice. He literally did a deep-dive on Eriksson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 11 minutes ago, Dazzle said: Don't you think it's a waste of space for you to just shoot down the post without actually contributing towards it? Telling him to summarize something doesn't do an analysis justice. He literally did a deep-dive on Eriksson. I didn't have a problem with his post or the effort he put into it. It was the 17 giant images that he attached that could have easily been condensed into the area that one took up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knucklehead91 Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 18 minutes ago, coryberg said: It was a waste of space... you can relate Lol edited a 9 word reply. Guessing you needed help with spelling? Quite a few words under 3 letters.. I guess you struggled when you had a word over 3 or 4 letters? 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted August 22, 2021 Share Posted August 22, 2021 (edited) 51 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said: Lol edited a 9 word reply. Guessing you needed help with spelling? Quite a few words under 3 letters.. I guess you struggled when you had a word over 3 or 4 letters? Here. Let me edit this post just so you can make fun of me too if it makes you feel better about attacking others ratrher than providing something of substance. Double edit: And totally bring the paper bags because this whole thing is that dumb. I agree with that which is my point. I want to read substance, not kids fighting and kicking and screaming. I know I'm guilty of that at times too so I get it, but hopefully you understand. Edited August 22, 2021 by The Lock 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 25 minutes ago, The Lock said: Here. Let me edit this post just so you can make fun of me too if it makes you feel better about attacking others ratrher than providing something of substance. Double edit: And totally bring the paper bags because this whole thing is that dumb. I agree with that which is my point. I want to read substance, not kids fighting and kicking and screaming. I know I'm guilty of that at times too so I get it, but hopefully you understand. I paper bagged you because knucklehaed91's posts have been some of the few with actual substance over the last few pages. I removed it because I get your point and agree. We were never going to be a contender while Loui was here so I don't get the angst. I would suggest that he actually helped us bottom out because of the cap space we didn't have to upgrade his position. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googlie Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knucklehead91 Posted August 23, 2021 Share Posted August 23, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, aGENT said: Chances are one thing. Actual points are another. You don't finish, you don't earn top 6 time. It's not a 'try' league. And you'll note, I never said he wasn't trying FYI. Never mind the fact that he did still see a decent amount of time playing with the likes of Horvat, as recent as a couple seasons ago. He just wasn't very good here. Stop trying to make excuses or put Leipsic on a pig. He sucked while here, massively underplayed his contract and he's mercifully gone now. Case closed. Then by that opening statement, most of Vancouver should have been sent to the minors. No one was scoring. If you think 52 and 55 points are acceptable numbers for top line minutes in an 82 game season, then you might want to look around the league lol. Like I said.. Josh Anderson… or Even Pettersson this year. Chance after chance after chance and not producing. BUT. They were getting chances and EVENTUALLY, they began to capitalize. As for LE’s linemates and his icetime 2016-17 18.68mins per game 48%dZS 2017-18 16.27mins per game 56.2%dZS 2018-19 14.06 mins per game 58.8%dZS 2019-20 12.36 mins per game 65.8%dZS 2020-21 9.58 mins per game 72.7%dZS 2016-17 line combos at even strength 31.7% with the Sedins 18.8% with Granlund and Sutter 10.2% with Chaput and Granlund 6.8% with Megna and Sutter 5% with Baertschi and Horvat the rest is a mix of all sorts of combos. 30% of his time on ice was with 3rd line players 1/3 with the Sedins 1/3. Sure you could argue and say the reason he dropped down the lineup was because he wasnt producing. But why were all other non-producers staying put? Our team sucked period. It had the ugliest depth, hardly any primary scoring, and wee bit of secondary scoring and no scoring beyond that. Eriksson was on the PP with the Sedins 40% of the time in his first season, if he is getting more chances than everyone else on the team, why would you change that? Why would you take a scoring chance away from a team that is already struggling to score. It makes no sense to demote someone because he is 1/23 guys that isnt capitalizing on every play. Our team leading scorer had 52 bloody points man. Eriksson had half of that with 65 games played. Most players on the team missed 15+ games that season. We had 36 players suit up for a game that season. Baertschi missed 14 games Granlund missed 13 games Eriksson missed 17 Dorsett missed 68 games Burrows played 55 games and was dealt Hansen played 28 games and was dealt Skille, Chaput, Megna, Gaunce played 55+ games. Boucher had 27GP… Defence was an absolute nightmare, we had bigger injuries on the back end and couldnt stop the bleeding. Edler out for 14 games Tanev out for 29 games Gudbranson out for 52games Larson out for 56 Stetcher and Hutton missed 11 and incase you were wondering where Vancouver sat in terms of man games lost in 2016-17… The highest in the league by a large margin. 295MGL on forward 139MGL on D and 25MGL in net. 3rd highest salary chips lost The Sedins dzone starts compared to their “linemate” Loui was 33.2dZS% despite Eriksson playing 31% of his ice time 5v5 with the Sedins, he had nearly 50% dZS. Meaning he wasnt being utilized the same way with the Sedins when they hopped over the boards. That was just in his first season. There is a huge discrepancy between him and his primary linemates. 2017-18 line combos at even strength 26.7% with the Sedins 13.1% with Archibald and Sutter 8.1% with Dowd and Granlund LE was on the PP 32.3% with Baertschi, Vanek and Gagner and only 3.4% of the time he was with the twins So LE lost PP time and that can also be attributed to the injuries and amount of time he missed in 2017-18 which was. 32 games he was out with injury. In the 50 games he played he spent 58.8dZS% even though his most frequent linemates were the twins which was only 26.7% of the time, Eriksson was more often utilized in his own zone. So the coach is using him primarily in the dzone but also getting him out with the Sedins as much as possible. The twins do not play in the dzone, we had a lot of unstable characters on the roster and we had plenty of injuries to guys like Sutter who were supposed to be that stabilizing guy in the dzone. Green utilized LE in his own zone because he is a responsible player. He consistently was in the top for takeaways on the team Heres how Horvats icetime with LE is broken down in 2019-20 56.2% of the time Loui was playing with Horvat and Pearson. Eriksson had a 65.8% dZS Horvat had a 49.4% dZS Pearson had a 51% dZS Which just to remind you, Eriksson was getting 12mins a game So even though Eriksson “played a bunch with Horvat” his icetime was largely paired with Horvat in the Dzone rather than the Ozone. Horvat split his time evenly between both ends. Eriksson was used largely in his own zone. So no its not that Eriksson blew his chances when playing with Horvat, its that Eriksson was used with Horvat and Pearson to stop opposition. Its not an excuse, its a valid reason with facts and stats to back it up. Eriksson was used for defensive zone duties over offensive zone opportunity. His corsi was nearly 50% while spending most of his time being used in his own zone during his time in Vancouver. To top that off he had the fewest giveaways each season and was in the top for takeaways. Look at Erikssons numbers in Dallas and Boston and look at how he was utilized. 60%oZS compared to the sub 45%oZS in Vancouver. Its a blindly biased hatred towards Loui in span of some of the darkest days in the last 20 years. We werent contenders with or without him. We were bottom feeders. Case closed, meeting adjourned Edited August 23, 2021 by knucklehead91 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now