Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[PGT] Vancouver Canucks at New Jersey Devils | Feb. 28, 2022

Rate this topic


-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

our record vs New Jersey in the last 8 years would suggest we are the much worse team lol

Our record this season is the only relevant record.

 

We have 15 more points than them despite a horrendous start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Maybe, but for whatever reason above average goaltenders have been coming to Vancouver and getting lit up. Halak was perfectly serviceable for a good team in the Bruins, Holtby's looked much better playing for Dallas. Holtby was a former #1 despite his steps back, he was actually the most decorated goaltender we've had suit up for the Canucks imo between his Vezina, Jennings, and cup ring. Isn't it odd how backups come here and have a tough time? 

 

Is it the coaching? Is it the style we play? Is some level of complacency? Is it the team simply not being good enough? Is it the D? A lack of forwards who thrive in a defensive role? What is it? 

 

This team could bring in an average or above average backup from another team via trade and probably still find a way to &^@# things up in front of them. 

Demko backed up Marksrrom until recently. He did well. Holtby at least finished games. Spencer performed better than I'd hoped for. Markstrom backed up Miller so I dont fully agree. 

 

Regardless of how the team played they never stood a chance no matter how well they played 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nave said:

Halak was horrible this game. There's no point in defending him.

We had more shots, more hits, and half the giveaways. This game is on Halak not being able to stop a beachball. 

oh halak was definitely not good this game.. but let's not sugar coat it.. we weren't good in this game we have more shots but the high danger scoring chance was 16 to 7 in favor of devils it's not even close

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

Not a fan of over working the starter imo Demko has already played too much at this rate as is. 
 

Team needs to give their balls a tug and play for their back up when he’s in net. You can’t rely on the goalie to bail you out 70+ games a year. 

Halak was terrible too, did you see some of those goals? Ge couldnt even save the one where the puck hit his pads without his pad going into the net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Canuckfanforlife82 said:

if we can only win with Demko in net, I think that pretty much says enough. They aren’t a good team.

Well their D really sucks but Halak is definitely not a good goalie. Canucks need Demko to win games, plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Our record this season is the only relevant record.

 

We have 15 more points than them despite a horrendous start.

It is relevant when we’re abysmal against them and have been for nearly a decade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DefCon1 said:

Halak was terrible too, did you see some of those goals? Ge couldnt even save the one where the puck hit his pads without his pad going into the net.

His first bad goal against was the 4th one and they gave up a half dozen 2 on 1’s this was a bad team game. Period. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

His first bad goal against was the 4th one and they gave up a half dozen 2 on 1’s this was a bad team game. Period. 

The Jack Hughes goal was very saveable, also the one where his pad slid into the net and the one where he got scored on from the corner which was at a bad angle. Canucks could have very well won this game in OT even with their poor effort if Demko was in net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DefCon1 said:

Halak was terrible too, did you see some of those goals? Ge couldnt even save the one where the puck hit his pads without his pad going into the net.

that's bad positioning but also a sign of no trust in the defense to cut the guy off driving to the net when he's playing so deep instead of further out challenging shots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BPA said:

Nah… Canucks just ran into a Vezina calibre goalie.

 

 

Lol.

:P

Nah...  Canucks have an ECHL calibre - over The Hill Goalie.!   Another one of Genious Jim benning's Flops - amongst many.  Too bad Aqua-Lini was afraid to make the hard decisions that should have been made over two years ago and purge him and that Rookie AHL Green guy.  This is what procrastination gets you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DefCon1 said:

The Jack Hughes goal was very saveable, also the one where his pad slid into the net and the one where he got scored on from the corner which was at a bad angle. Canucks could have very well won this game in OT even with their poor effort if Demko  Absolutely anyone was in net but Ha-Lack.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Halak lost us this one fair and square, absolutely piss poor performance by him when we had a real chance to make some ground in the standings. He's got to go and get Spencer in who was much brighter in net. We had a chance to go within a point of the playoffs and 1 crap player blows it.

 

We really suck at back to backs and that's mostly because of using a different goalie. Halak was bad last year, I knew this would be a bad pickup, and he's dreadful this year. 

 

On to the next, win those 2 and we're in good shape. At least LA got belted.

Not disagreeing regarding Halak not playing well in this one. 

 

But maybe, moving forward, we should look into starting the backup (Halak) on the first game of a back-to-back and play Demko on the second game depending on the importance of the games/opponent.

 

For example, if the first game of a back-to-back is a division rival, then just start Demko for the first game. But a back-to-back against Eastern conference teams, we could have the backup playing with team in front of him playing fresh and Demko keeping the tired team in the second game until they get their skating legs back.

 

Edited by khay
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DefCon1 said:

The Jack Hughes goal was very saveable, also the one where his pad slid into the net and the one where he got scored on from the corner which was at a bad angle. Canucks could have very well won this game in OT even with their poor effort if Demko was in net

or it could have been another game like the anaheim where we were blown out after 1 period even with demko in net?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CanucksCountry said:

After tonight, Halak's SV% will become .876, good for the third last place among goalies who have played at least 6 games, I don't know how you can defend him by simply saying the team is bad in front of him

He's a complete WASH-OUT.    It's an automatic loss when Ha-Lack is in net.  2 wins in 13 games played is not even WHL acceptable.  He should have been benched 3 months ago and Martin called up - at least we'd have a chance in those games when Demkos resting.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Quality>Quantity and we got lit up in quality chances given up.

Yep. Our team gave up prime scoring areas very easily today. Devils forwards were shifty and quick and did a good job of exposing a tired team.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RU SERIOUS said:

He's a complete WASH-OUT.    It's an automatic loss when Ha-Lack is in net.  2 wins in 13 games played is not even WHL acceptable.  He should have been benched 3 months ago and Martin called up - at least we'd have a chance in those games when Demkos resting.

We can see where the weak links are now.

 

If JR wants to give the team a chance to go for it he needs to dump Halak for whatever anyone is willing to pay.

 

We have two back to backs coming up in March where we can’t afford to throw them away like this.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...