[PGT] Vancouver Canucks at Chicago Blackhawks | Oct. 21, 2021

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

yeah its not going to be an easy game vs the Plumbers Krack. If we ended up 2-2-2 I'd be OK with it given the ridiculous number of home openers.

Me too.   To me that's something to build on.    Would be nice to be 3-2-1 but it's not the season either way.   That said ... want to see what our mostly full roster can do against these bums, and hoping some Canuck fans from the lower mainland make the trip when allowed to really make this Kraken thing a big deal for us.   Rival cities already.   They have a "Space Needle", and Greys Anatomy ... which is absolutely 100% NOT what Seattle people look like, they are overweight and as a citizenship, on the ugly side.   Need Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks and a bunch of actors to make it seem different ... it's not.   Also terrible roads, all beat up etc...Vancouver is 10 times better including the pot smoke haze which can be seen at the ferry terminal lol.   Kraken used their best troops in the pre-season which was understandable, they needed time to play together.    Hope our first game against them is totally epic.   In a good way...with some angst and belligerence. Need a rival and the script is pretty good for us.   I'm even ok with a the Orca eating squids ... that live near Greece don't they lol... die Kraken die. 

[Ur a Towel]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Literally no one has said this. Greens systems and coaching are certainly a big contributing factor to the team losing games though.

Not a huge fan of Greens system either but if it contributes to us losing, it also contributes to us winning. It goes both ways. 

[EddieVedder]

14 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Pettersson is still trying to find his timing and his game, as he missed camp and most of preseason

 

Boeser missed most of the preseason and the first few games due to an injury and is also finding his stride after returning

 

Once these two guys get up to speed and get going, the top line and PP will score in bunches

These excuses get used every year by our fans. 

 

[EddieVedder]

25 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

All those dmen were pretty solid in their own end

[yes we can nucks]

1 hour ago, RakuRaku said:

Absolutely nothing wrong.... but spare the details pls.... we would like to keep this thread Canucks-only content!

Hey, just quoting my favourite episode of Seinfeld. You're obviously not a fan. And CDC often veers off on non Canucks content... about favourite foods, drinks, tv shows, songs...whatever. We don't have to be serious all of the time.

[I.Am.Ironman]

17 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

So there isn't a Dman playing in the NHL today that has made it to 100 points in fewer games than Quinn. How impressive is that.

Fewest games to reach 100 points this century.

Until Makar reaches the milestone in the next few games. But yes, impressive for both Makar and Hughes.

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, vancan2233 said:

You basically say it with almost every post you post when trying to bring Green down. 

No I don’t. I have never said anything remotely close to any of that. I point out that Green’s systems are garbage and ill suited for the roster of players he has to work with and that his inability to recognize that or make adjustments is a drag on team performance. All of that is clearly true. 
 

Show me one post where I have blamed Green solely for any loss.

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, Ur a Towel said:

Not a huge fan of Greens system either but if it contributes to us losing, it also contributes to us winning. It goes both ways. 

When have I said he contributes nothing positive though? I clearly haven’t. I give him credit for things he does well. It’s just gotten to the point he doesn’t do much well.

[Nuxfanabroad]

30 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

That's some company. Watched all those guys ..mighty fine players, Potvin & Ray Bourque top that list, would say.

 

Consider you don't see Lidstrom's handle in that list. QH's is off to quite the start.

[wallstreetamigo]

10 hours ago, khay said:

lol, no, let's not end conversation, this is fun

 

No, my comments would not change. I'm not going to say Makar dominates like Hughes and Hughes dominates like Makar just because they switch teams.

 

The fact is, Hughes dominates in a totally different way from Makar and IMO, dominating the game like Hughes as a defenceman is far more valuable to a team like the Canucks who doesn't have a Nate MacKinnon. And if Hughes goes to the Avs, Hughes will get more points just because he plays with MacKinnon. That's a fact. Anyone denying this is lying to just to make their points. Them switching teams don't have anything to do with my comment that Makar does get points easier compared to Hughes.

 

If they are traded, I would love Makar even if he doesn't dominate the game like Hughes and not love Hughes as much as I love him now. That's all there is to it.

 

The way they play doesn't change. How silly of you.

 

 

It’s a good place to end the conversation because you very clearly have zero understanding of how Makar actually impacts his team. You are simply making up a narrative to attempt to build Hughes up, not truly and fairly compare them.

 

No GM in the NHL would trade Makar straight up for Hughes. There are reasons for that you clearly ignore.

 

The main difference to this point between Makar and Hughes has been that Makar can generate elite level offensive production WITHOUT it negatively impacting his defensive game. Hughes has generated his offense by completely ignoring a commitment to defense and being terrible defensively to this point.

 

That’s why Makar is the better player.

 

[mll]

10 hours ago, khay said:

lol, no, let's not end conversation, this is fun

 

No, my comments would not change. I'm not going to say Makar dominates like Hughes and Hughes dominates like Makar just because they switch teams.

 

The fact is, Hughes dominates in a totally different way from Makar and IMO, dominating the game like Hughes as a defenceman is far more valuable to a team like the Canucks who doesn't have a Nate MacKinnon. And if Hughes goes to the Avs, Hughes will get more points just because he plays with MacKinnon. That's a fact. Anyone denying this is lying to just to make their points. Them switching teams don't have anything to do with my comment that Makar does get points easier compared to Hughes.

 

If they are traded, I would love Makar even if he doesn't dominate the game like Hughes and not love Hughes as much as I love him now. That's all there is to it.

 

The way they play doesn't change. How silly of you.

 

 

 

There were only 6 goals where both MacKinnon and Makar got a point at 5v5 last season - each had an assist on a goal for the other and they combined to assist on 4 other goals.

 

Natural Stat Trick has a feature that allows to see how players contribute to each others' scoring.  (Can be found through their 'Player Index').

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by mll

[grandmaster]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Naslund for Stoyanov sure turned out great, that’s for sure.  Trevor was a great player, so the return was expected to be very good.  OEL we got for three cap dumps (and the Coyotes retained too) so that could become even better than the Naslund deal.  

I hope so Alflives, I hope so!

[Putgolzin]

1 hour ago, CanucksJay said:

LOL whos making the assumption?

The question was IF...

Before the Detroit game folks were talking about padding stats...the Canucks are as guilty as anyone of looking past teams that should be beatable.

 

[MeanSeanBean]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

disagree, points are generally obtained by good play, getting "unearned" points is not a sound strategy.

Same for home games incidentally.

Which points were unearned though? I don't really feel like we got dominated in any of the games we won and didn't deserve the points. We earned that point against the Oilers for sure. We were winning against Philly, lost it at the end for a couple minutes, but pulled out a win. We should have won in Detroit. Buffalo we got whooped. Last night we won and played well. 

 

Yes there was obviously some flaws in our game, both offensively and defensively. But to me we didn't really steal any points that we didn't deserve at all.

[Silky mitts]

Off topic but got row three tickets for the Canucks vs oilers game on the 30 th super stoked! . Anyone know what the mask policy is do you have to wear them at your seats as well ? 

[theo5789]

10 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Don’t look now but Garland leads the team in points and goals!

But but empty net points don't count! (see Pearson)

[theo5789]

9 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Without a doubt. He’s looked really good so far.
 

And the stats more than back this up. OEL is leading the defence in a host of statistical categories.

 

Just a few worth mentioning (all from 5v5):

 

CF% 55.56 (1st on team)

CA/60 46.01 (1st on D)

FF% 56.44 (1st on D)

SF% 56.41 (1st on D)

GF% 66.67 (2nd on D)

xGF% 47.06 (2nd on D)

xGA/60 2.11 (2nd on D)

SCF% 51.57 (1st on team)

OZS% 39.29 (most defensive usage on D)

OZFo% 46.00 (most defensive usage on D)

Hits 10 (tied 2nd on team)

But but OEL is on a massive decline much like JT Miller when we acquired him!

[Sean Monahan]

4 minutes ago, Silky mitts said:

Off topic but got row three tickets for the Canucks vs oilers game on the 30 th super stoked! . Anyone know what the mask policy is do you have to wear them at your seats as well ? 

How much did those run you? 
 

I believe the mask policy is the same as it was for Rogers Place in Edmonton- masks are to be worn at all times unless you’re eating or drinking. It wasn’t very well enforced in Edmonton though. 

[CanucksJay]

1 hour ago, Pickly said:

I’m skeptical. I still see a ton of sloppy play in both ends of the ice and routinely see the same mistakes as last season.
 

You can say a wins a win which is fine but for some reason the Canucks seem to always come out flat. You can recover as the game goes on against bad to mediocre teams like the ones they have been playing but it’s going to be a tough hill to climb if you get down against good teams early and have to claw your way back into it heavily relying on great goaltending and a few lucky bounces which seems to be a common theme at least from the eye test. I don’t think they play a sustainable way of hockey for long term success over 82 games.

In the game against Edmonton, I don't remember many sloppy plays at all. 

That is weird considering they were the strongest team we faced and had the most fire power. 

What's frustrating watching the Canucks is we see games like that when the guys get up for the game and see them put in a solid performance. 

They then put up a stinker in Buffalo. 

 

Chicago game was mediocre in a sense that they did enough to win but weren't tidy enough. 

 

I honestly don't understand why we look so different on any given day. 

 

Is that reflective of all teams or is that a canucks issue? 

 

[CanucksJay]

16 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

Which points were unearned though? I don't really feel like we got dominated in any of the games we won and didn't deserve the points. We earned that point against the Oilers for sure. We were winning against Philly, lost it at the end for a couple minutes, but pulled out a win. We should have won in Detroit. Buffalo we got whooped. Last night we won and played well. 

 

Yes there was obviously some flaws in our game, both offensively and defensively. But to me we didn't really steal any points that we didn't deserve at all.

Yup. We were fully deserving of every point gained so far. If anything, we deserved better in Det. 

Even in those wins though, we still made errors and could have played better. That doesn't mean we didn't earn those points.