[PGT] Vancouver Canucks at Philadelphia Flyers | Oct. 15, 2021

[wallstreetamigo]

2 hours ago, -DLC- said:

So he slashed him in the face?  Because that was the call.

 

If you were pissed then you're not really convincing me of the icing, either.

Well, I don’t really need to convince you as I am right in both cases as hard as that is for you to admit. Go back and watch both again and tell me in real time calling a penalty on OEL there and that icing were some egregious ref bias against the Canucks. 

 

Take off the homer glasses for a minute. If that was any other team doing it to the Canucks you would be the first one screaming that it was a penalty and an icing. 
 

The thing I hate most about CDC is there are always excuses and it’s always someone else’s fault when things don’t go the Canucks way. Usually the refs in your case. They aren’t perfect but suggesting those calls were unfair is just not rational.

[buddhahoodlum]

22 minutes ago, stawns said:

I actually think private, invite/permission only threads for gdt would be a good step

Not a bad idea. I'm just tired of seeing threads derailed/hijacked by the same few people. At least we can choose to ignore those people AND reactions to those posts.

[CanuckleHorse]

6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Well, I don’t really need to convince you as I am right in both cases as hard as that is for you to admit. Go back and watch both again and tell me in real time calling a penalty on OEL there and that icing were some egregious ref bias against the Canucks. 

 

Take off the homer glasses for a minute. If that was any other team doing it to the Canucks you would be the first one screaming that it was a penalty and an icing. 
 

The thing I hate most about CDC is there are always excuses and it’s always someone else’s fault when things don’t go the Canucks way. Usually the refs in your case. They aren’t perfect but suggesting those calls were unfair is just not rational.

I think you should go find something you like instead of suffering yourself having to put up with people you hate.

[RogersTowell]

I think the least we can expect from the hockey we've seen so far is a high tempo and exciting game every night, which is a very nice change from the Willie D years.

[RogersTowell]

10 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Well, I don’t really need to convince you as I am right in both cases as hard as that is for you to admit. Go back and watch both again and tell me in real time calling a penalty on OEL there and that icing were some egregious ref bias against the Canucks. 

 

Take off the homer glasses for a minute. If that was any other team doing it to the Canucks you would be the first one screaming that it was a penalty and an icing. 
 

The thing I hate most about CDC is there are always excuses and it’s always someone else’s fault when things don’t go the Canucks way. Usually the refs in your case. They aren’t perfect but suggesting those calls were unfair is just not rational.

I think it's fair to say that at the late stage in the game that the call was made, the OEL 'slashing' call was unusual.  Had the stick hit the face, maybe.  I'm not saying it was biased reffing, as overall the reffing was fine last night.  What I am saying is that it's not a call that would usually be made at that late stage of the game.  "game management" calls generally all happen before the third period starts.

[UKNuck96]

12 minutes ago, buddhahoodlum said:

Not a bad idea. I'm just tired of seeing threads derailed/hijacked by the same few people. At least we can choose to ignore those people AND reactions to those posts.

I normally am against exclusion or elitist based policies, however the only other option is to be more judicious with the ban hammer, and let those same people stay on HF boards 

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, RogersTowell said:

I think it's fair to say that at the late stage in the game that the call was made, the OEL 'slashing' call was unusual.  Had the stick hit the face, maybe.  I'm not saying it was biased reffing, as overall the reffing was fine last night.  What I am saying is that it's not a call that would usually be made at that late stage of the game.  "game management" calls generally all happen before the third period starts.

Waving your stick head level in a players face for any reason is inviting a call at any time in the game. Even watching the replay  in slow motion it was hard to determine clearly whether the stick hit him. Imagine making that determination in real time.

[Alflives]

19 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Well, I don’t really need to convince you as I am right in both cases as hard as that is for you to admit. Go back and watch both again and tell me in real time calling a penalty on OEL there and that icing were some egregious ref bias against the Canucks. 

 

Take off the homer glasses for a minute. If that was any other team doing it to the Canucks you would be the first one screaming that it was a penalty and an icing. 
 

The thing I hate most about CDC is there are always excuses and it’s always someone else’s fault when things don’t go the Canucks way. Usually the refs in your case. They aren’t perfect but suggesting those calls were unfair is just not rational.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Waving your stick head level in a players face for any reason is inviting a call at any time in the game. Even watching the replay  in slow motion it was hard to determine clearly whether the stick hit him. Imagine making that determination in real time.

Imagine being an actual Canuck’s fan.  

[JM_]

45 minutes ago, stawns said:

I actually think private, invite/permission only threads for gdt would be a good step

problem with that though is it kind of kills the idea of a CDC community. Ignore works pretty well.

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Imagine being an actual Canuck’s fan.  

So being a fan means you have to ignore reality?

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Imagine being an actual Canuck’s fan.  

Some people are too invested n the Benning hate side of things, its in their DNA now. As the team gets better, the complaints are going to get pettier and stranger.

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, tas said:

this is why having rathbone in the lineup is not only the right thing, but essential. all 3 defence pairings have a left side guy who can make an a+ first pass OR easily skate the puck up himself. having that basis for your transition game is a huge advantage offensively, but the pressure relief valve it provides throughout the lineup is huge defensively, as well. it also means that you can roll 4 lines, everybody has the skill and pace to play the same game, you don't have to lock forward lines to d pairings or have guys adjust their playing styles to make things work. 

Only issue is - who is going to kill the left side penalties when OEL is out or in the box?  We need two solid pairings ... PK that is.   Poolman took his side the first game i noticed, Rathbone one shift when OEL was in the box that lasted a short time...

[tas]

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

Only issue is - who is going to kill the left side penalties when OEL is out or in the box?  We need two solid pairings ... PK that is.   Poolman took his side the first game i noticed, Rathbone one shift when OEL was in the box that lasted a short time...

design a pk system around aggressive puck retrieval and clearing the zone rather than passively trying to keep the attack to the outside. 

[Kragar]

32 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Well, I don’t really need to convince you as I am right in both cases as hard as that is for you to admit. Go back and watch both again and tell me in real time calling a penalty on OEL there and that icing were some egregious ref bias against the Canucks. 

 

Take off the homer glasses for a minute. If that was any other team doing it to the Canucks you would be the first one screaming that it was a penalty and an icing. 
 

The thing I hate most about CDC is there are always excuses and it’s always someone else’s fault when things don’t go the Canucks way. Usually the refs in your case. They aren’t perfect but suggesting those calls were unfair is just not rational.

I could tell it wasn't a penalty, real time, and the camera view was much further away than the ref's. The stick clearly hit the puck.

 

The hook on Petey's 2nd breakaway in OT was a no-brainer call, but somehow the refs missed that, too.  The penalty shot he should have gotten away result could have kept it from going to a shootout. But then we would have missed JTs beauty.

[Hairy Kneel]

1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

All very true, and I think we’ll see him used to protect leads this season.

Just not in his 2nd NHL game.

 

I find it easy to understand Green’s decision. 4-2 lead going into the 3rd period, on the road, against a well coached team in their home opener. You know there’s going to be a pushback coming. So Green shortens his bench. Sits Chiasson, which is obvious. And then sits his too worst performing players on differentials. Dowling and Podkolzin were both only 25% CF% at 5v5 on the night. Nearly 20 points worse than the next Canucks forward. Green gets stats reports delivered between periods and you know he uses them to make his decisions. 
 

And also, he’s just protecting Podkolzin. We saw through camp that Pod needed a little help with his confidence, and how he responded from that “talk” with his coach. He’s a young guy and finding his way. Maybe he would’ve gotten a boost from being played protecting the lead in the 3rd, but maybe he ends up on the ice when the Flyers score, and that shakes his confidence. He’d already gotten the goal and had a good individual game. Nothing wrong with saying “good job, kid, we’ll take it from here.” Canucks still pull out the win, and Podkolzin gets to take celebratory pictures post-game with his first goal puck. Great result.

 

And really, if you’re going three lines to protect a lead on the road, the players Green used were his best options, and the choices that made sense, based on overall performance that night.

 

Dowling and Podkolzin were getting cratered on possession. And Chiasson isn’t really the guy you want out there to protect a lead (even though he had a great night statistically).

 

I’d probably have made the same call as Green, if I were coaching that game. 

(And I love Podkolzin and think he’s going to be an amazing two-way NHL player and one of the most trustworthy defensive forwards on the team, eventually.)

I would tend to agree, however we did not actually hold the lead. 

Might be just my eye test but good things seem to happen when Podz is on the ice. 

I'm going to go back and watch his shifts to double check. pvr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2021 by Hairy Kneel

[wallstreetamigo]

7 minutes ago, JM_ said:

Some people are too invested n the Benning hate side of things, its in their DNA now. As the team gets better, the complaints are going to get pettier and stranger.

How does me suggesting the penalty call against OEL and the icing call were not some egregious ref bias relate to hating Benning?

[JM_]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

How does me suggesting the penalty call against OEL and the icing call were not some egregious ref bias relate to hating Benning?

you're almost always looking for the negative angle, to the point where its clear you do have an agenda and its hard to know if you're being impartial or just bashing.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, Kragar said:

I could tell it wasn't a penalty, real time, and the camera view was much further away than the ref's. The stick clearly hit the puck.

 

The hook on Petey's 2nd breakaway in OT was a no-brainer call, but somehow the refs missed that, too.  The penalty shot he should have gotten away result could have kept it from going to a shootout. But then we would have missed JTs beauty.

The camera view in real time was from an angle you could not possibly have made that determination in real time. 
 

The stick hitting the puck doesn’t mean it also didn’t hit his face though. 
 

If Philly had been the one to do that and everything else about the play was exactly the same but the refs didn’t call a penalty, you guys would be screaming how unfair it is.

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, JM_ said:

you're almost always looking for the negative angle, to the point where its clear you do have an agenda and its hard to know if you're being impartial or just bashing.

That’s an interesting extrapolation from what I said. It doesn’t answer my question though. What possible anti-Benning agenda is there in saying a ref made a reasonable call in the circumstances? 

 

I would say people who are whining about those two calls are actually the ones with the agenda.