[PGT] Vancouver Canucks at St. Louis Blues | Mar. 28, 2022

[a4rules]

Bo, Petey, Boes just didn't show any urgency in their games!  Floating around trying to do pretty passes all night and Petey's shot on goal in the 3rd just tried to slide it by the goalie instead of a hard shot, c'mon!

[DownUndaCanuck]

Lack of depth killing us, we were pretty even with the Blues apart from an unlucky bounce on the 1st goal (but I'd argue the defenceman should be boxing out their guy who basically just walked through the crease - it was Lammikko's man in the end) and dreadful 2 on 1 in what looked like a common Green era pinch play by us. We shot ourselves in the foot with far too many unecessarily risky plays at the offensive blueline which was what we did about 5 times a game under Green - bad habit that Bruce will have to shake out of the boys (especially our top guys like Miller).

 

Most importantly, our depth is running real thin. We should have kept Motte - having him for 20 games is more valuable than the 4th rounder. Lammikko's line was dreadful tonight and it shows. Our 4th line was hemmed in so many times. At least Lockwood had some nice moments but also got caught defensively.

 

Sadly towards the end of the year (and playoffs) is when you need your depth to carry you and it failed us tonight. Our stars can't win every game and the Blues' depth really trumped us.

 

On to the next game, yet again must-win territory. We pretty much have to win 10 games of the final bunch to even be in the picture which I'd say is possible but tough.

[JamesB]

2 hours ago, EddieVedder said:

Boeser is easily the most useless player on the team.

 

2 hours ago, Darius said:

The hole dug during the Greenery era is to deep, expecting them to run the table on the road against really good teams is prob unrealistic.

 

 

2 hours ago, c00kies said:

I miss early season Garland.

1. The Canucks were not bad tonight--not exactly good, but not bad considering they were on the 4th game of a tough road trip. A couple of bounces the other way and the Canucks could have won. In terms of expected goals (or high danger chances) the Canucks were actually ahead according to Natural Stat Trick.

 

2. That said, I agree that the Canucks are not good enough. @Darius refers to the Green era as creating a deep hole, which it did. But I think the deeper structural problem that Rutherford and Allvin need to address is the situation Benning left.

 

3. On that theme, Boeser is a problem. I don't see how the Canucks can qualify him at 7.5 million and Allvin has indicated that there has been no progress in discussions so far with his agent regarding a long term deal at a lower cap hit. If the Canucks can get any positive asset for him in the offseason (like a 2nd round pick) they should and probably would take it. Brock is not useless, of course. He has an excellent shot and good offensive instincts but not much else -- no speed, no physical game, not much energy, not particularly good defensively. Signing a contract structured to yield a 7.5 million QO was typical Benning -- hurting the future to make life a bit easier in the short run.

 

4. Garland is no more than fair value for his cap hit and the Canucks gave up a lot to get him. Benning took on OEL's contract and gave up a first round pick to get Garland and to get rid of the final year of 3 poor contracts (all bad free agency signings by Benning). OEL is actually a good player, but he is signed very long term at a cap hit of 7 million and, at his age, that contract is an anchor (and has a NMC attached to it).

 

5, And the pipeline is weak. Lockwood has actually done well with the Canucks and I project him to make the team next year but, at best, he is decent bottom 6 forward. There are some other prospects who might work out, like Rathbone and Karlsson but they are far from being blue chip prospects. 

 

6. It will take a fair amount of work and some good luck for the Canucks to improve in the off-season, but I am optimistic about Allvin and Rutherford. And at least they managed to unload another bad UFA signing (Hamonic) and pick up a good value replacement (Dermott). And I certainly hope they keep Boudreau. He has earned another contract. He is only guaranteed this season with the Canucks and the team has an option for next year. 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Darius said:

To me Garland looks too small to deal with the big defenders of the better teams, gives away the puck too much, and his passes are not the best.  When push comes to shove hes doing very little.  

 

Tonight he had a play where the 6'6 Parayko just smothered him in the corner and took the puck away.  On the next shift, Garland took the puck and turned inside directly on Parayko who was trying to cover him. 

 

I'm not buying this criticism of Garland.  I know I'm saying this in the midst of his worst stretch of the season, but Garland is someone that fights tooth and nail for his space and for pucks.  Boeser floats around and has perfected the art of slipping undetected and getting goals that way. Fair enough, just I'd take Garland over Boeser without even looking at the money.  Once you factor in that Boeser will want more money then Garland, the choice becomes even more clear to me. 

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Most importantly, our depth is running real thin. We should have kept Motte - having him for 20 games is more valuable than the 4th rounder. Lammikko's line was dreadful tonight and it shows. Our 4th line was hemmed in so many times. At least Lockwood had some nice moments but also got caught defensively.

 

Sadly towards the end of the year (and playoffs) is when you need your depth to carry you and it failed us tonight. Our stars can't win every game and the Blues' depth really trumped us.

Bang on 

 

Right now, we would be talking about a Motte - Lammikko - Lockwood line, and there's a very good chance that they would be carrying play.  I couldn't care less about the 120th overall pick right now. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:

Here’s the math. There’s 14 games left. To get to 96 points after winning this game in regulation we needed to get 21/28 points available. Or get .750 percent of points available, a long shot still, but possible. Now after losing, to get to 96 points we need to get 23/28 points available. Or get .821 percent of points available and I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many (if any) NHL teams that can get .821 percent of points available over 14 games.
 

1 game or 2 points actually does make a really big difference with so few games remaining. 
 

My post is not about a gut feeling, it’s just math.

Since the NHL added the three-point game during the 2005-06 season, only two teams have ever reached 95 points and failed to make the postseason: The 2010-11 Dallas Stars, who fell two points short, and the 2006-07 Colorado Avalanche, who missed by just a single point.

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/the-race-to-95-points-what-nhl-teams-need-to-do-to-make-playoffs/

[BigTramFan]

2 hours ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:

Here’s the math. There’s 14 games left. To get to 96 points after winning this game in regulation we needed to get 21/28 points available. Or get .750 percent of points available, a long shot still, but possible. Now after losing, to get to 96 points we need to get 23/28 points available. Or get .821 percent of points available and I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many (if any) NHL teams that can get .821 percent of points available over 14 games.
 

1 game or 2 points actually does make a really big difference with so few games remaining. 
 

My post is not about a gut feeling, it’s just math.

The only problem with your math is assumption that the target is 96 points to reach the playoffs. No one actually knows the required number of points to get in.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, JamesB said:

Signing a contract structured to yield a 7.5 million QO was typical Benning -- hurting the future to make life a bit easier in the short run.

 

Boeser held out of the training camp to get that contract.  Hard to blame that one on Benning unless you were going to blame it on Benning no matter what. 

[Darius]

13 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Tonight he had a play where the 6'6 Parayko just smothered him in the corner and took the puck away.  On the next shift, Garland took the puck and turned inside directly on Parayko who was trying to cover him. 

 

I'm not buying this criticism of Garland.  I know I'm saying this in the midst of his worst stretch of the season, but Garland is someone that fights tooth and nail for his space and for pucks.  Boeser floats around and has perfected the art of slipping undetected and getting goals that way. Fair enough, just I'd take Garland over Boeser without even looking at the money.  Once you factor in that Boeser will want more money then Garland, the choice becomes even more clear to me. 

Hey you are entitled to your opinion.  To me Garland makes a lot of noise buzzing around with little result.  0 goals in March.. 5 goals this calendar year, and rather underwhelming since Bruce took over.  He hasn’t stepped up during the most crucial time/ the  last three month stretch. Maybe a decent winger but I don’t see him a top 6 threat on a cup contending team. Too small, on a team that isn’t tough enough. 

 

regarding money, I have no clue as to what Boeser will demand. I’m judging these guys as if they are top wingers on the team right now.  Both underperforming and I find it perplexing that one guy gets lambasted while the other gets praised. 

 

 

[*Buzzsaw*]

I really don't know what people on this forum are complaining about.

 

This team has improved tremendously under Boudreau and has put up a solid record.

 

But any chance of making the playoffs was always a longshot... anyone who thought otherwise was really dreaming.  The change was made too late in the season to allow a decent chance to make the post season.

 

I am happy with the team's record and its play... no it isn't perfect, this is a team which needs a number of additions to be a real contender, but it has shown good signs.

 

Changes need to be made to the back end, and the 3rd and 4th lines... a better offensive system still needs to be put into place as well as a better defensive structure.

 

But overall, BB has shown the team has the potential to develop.

[NorthWestNuck]

9 minutes ago, *Buzzsaw* said:

I really don't know what people on this forum are complaining about.

 

This team has improved tremendously under Boudreau and has put up a solid record.

 

But any chance of making the playoffs was always a longshot... anyone who thought otherwise was really dreaming.  The change was made too late in the season to allow a decent chance to make the post season.

 

I am happy with the team's record and its play... no it isn't perfect, this is a team which needs a number of additions to be a real contender, but it has shown good signs.

 

Changes need to be made to the back end, and the 3rd and 4th lines... a better offensive system still needs to be put into place as well as a better defensive structure.

 

But overall, BB has shown the team has the potential to develop.

Hundred percent agree. If the Canucks miss the playoffs, it won’t be because of the next 14 games. It will be because of the first what, 20 games? 25? The Canucks dug a hole so deep that as valiant as they’ve tried since BB took over it was too late.

[cuporbust]

4 hours ago, EB43 said:

Our playoff hopes..

 

 

Hahaha. I literally just watched this before coming here. Well played .

[DownUndaCanuck]

9 games at home left, 5 on the road. You could argue that most of the competition is quite similar in level to the Canucks if not lesser since Bruce took over (points %-wise).

 

The big thing is that we've been pretty average at home all season long so really need to bump this. Realistically we'll need 20-22 points and a bit of luck on the out-of-town scoreboard to crack it (and most importantly, win all those 4 point games - as many as we can against Vegas and the Dallas game which shouldn't be a struggle considering how bad they've been on the road). 14 games left, 10 wins is certainly possible...

 

I know you can never predict how games are going to pan out, but I'd assume something like this quite possible:

 

W (STL), W (VGK), L (VGK), W (ARI), W (SJS), W (VGK), W (ARI), W (DAL), W (OTT), L (MIN), L (CGY), W (SEA), W (LAK), L(EDM)

 

There's some "easy" wins in there (against Arizona, Ottawa and Seattle) and some obvious tough games against Calgary and Edmonton at the end of a back to back and some very 50-50 games (against St. Louis, the two home games against Vegas and the LAK game).

 

If we play our best hockey, as in, how we played in Colorado, Minnesota and Dallas, we can easily win 10-11 of these games. If we play like a tired team with no depth the way we did against St. Louis we may win 8 games which just won't cut it.

 

The season is very much in our own hands now. Win 10, including against Vegas, Dallas and Edmonton and that may be enough to sneak in with some more DAL/EDM losses. Win 11-12 and we're easily in but I think winning 10-11 important games is more realistic.

[DownUndaCanuck]

16 minutes ago, *Buzzsaw* said:

I really don't know what people on this forum are complaining about.

 

This team has improved tremendously under Boudreau and has put up a solid record.

 

But any chance of making the playoffs was always a longshot... anyone who thought otherwise was really dreaming.  The change was made too late in the season to allow a decent chance to make the post season.

 

I am happy with the team's record and its play... no it isn't perfect, this is a team which needs a number of additions to be a real contender, but it has shown good signs.

 

Changes need to be made to the back end, and the 3rd and 4th lines... a better offensive system still needs to be put into place as well as a better defensive structure.

 

But overall, BB has shown the team has the potential to develop.

Completely agree, I wanted Green gone in the off-season and Gallant or Bruce in during the off-season to work with the team. Mid-season changes are always tough and Green dug such a deep hole, it's incredible we're even talking about this.

 

Realistically we could make it, we might not, but regardless I'd like to see the team stuck together for the most part and let Bruce have a full off-season with the boys to mould them and get them playing .650 hockey from the get-go. If we play this same level we'll be the best team in the division hands-down. Bruce has been in control for about half the season and we've consistently been around a .650+ team which would be good to challenge Calgary for the Pacific lead.

 

A big problem with JB (and I'm one of his fans) was that he continuously made drastic changes to the lineup and damaged a lot of our chemistry. The off-season Marky, Tanev and Toffoli all left was hard on the players, then Edler leaves as well and we've lost a lot of guys who played a lot of hockey together. I think management now need to see that these guys are battling hard with each other - they're bonding even through these losses, and keep them together to start to battle together at the start of next season. Sure, an extra young top RHD would be nice but I wouldn't want to see too many dramatic changes. 

[AnotherCanucksFan]

It comes down to simple math. You can't get in when you're playing 3-4-3 hockey, when you were already playing catch up for points. 
Some teams like Vegas and LA had points to give so they may both get in because of their cushion, despite not playing well right now.

 

Edmonton and Winnipeg may get in because they are playing winning hockey and they are gaining points.

 

I really think something happened to the Canuck's players when the team and media starting putting playoffs expectations on them. Instead of playing fun, fast, assertive hockey, they started playing like they didn't think they deserved to get in.

 

They are now running out of games / run way. Theoretically if they can beat St Louis on Wednesday they have a chance because then they play VGKx3, Arix2, SJ. How they play on Wednesday will likely determine their mindset for those next 6 games.

[Disgruntler]

They are not running out of games. They’ve already done that. Let’s see what we got for next year.

 

We know we’ve seen the last of Boeser, Pearson and at least one of Miller and Petey. Lots of space with to fill up.

[khay]

Some bad bounces and the game was over in the first with the way Husso was playing.

 

Halak played well and made some key saves to keep us in it until the end.

 

Sometimes bounces go your way, sometimes they don't. Can't win them all. 

 

I like Lockwood's speed. It would've been nice if he buried that chance in the 1st period.

 

[N4ZZY]

59 minutes ago, AnotherCanucksFan said:

It comes down to simple math. You can't get in when you're playing 3-4-3 hockey, when you were already playing catch up for points. 
Some teams like Vegas and LA had points to give so they may both get in because of their cushion, despite not playing well right now.

 

Edmonton and Winnipeg may get in because they are playing winning hockey and they are gaining points.

 

I really think something happened to the Canuck's players when the team and media starting putting playoffs expectations on them. Instead of playing fun, fast, assertive hockey, they started playing like they didn't think they deserved to get in.

 

They are now running out of games / run way. Theoretically if they can beat St Louis on Wednesday they have a chance because then they play VGKx3, Arix2, SJ. How they play on Wednesday will likely determine their mindset for those next 6 games.

What if they lose again against St. Louis? 

 

When would we be mathematically eliminated from the postseason?

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by N4ZZY

[N4ZZY]

37 minutes ago, Disgruntler said:

They are not running out of games. They’ve already done that. Let’s see what we got for next year.

 

We know we’ve seen the last of Boeser, Pearson and at least one of Miller and Petey. Lots of space with to fill up.

Petey? Uhhh…no. 

 

Brock probably gone, unless management can come to terms with his agent on a long term deal at a lower cap hit. It’s obvious to pretty much everyone that he’s not going to be signed at 7.5M cap hit moving forward. Brock just hasn’t earned that kind of deal. 

 

Pearson I can see moved this off-season for a pick. 

 

Petey isn’t going anywhere. 

 

Miller is 50/50 in terms of either moving on (traded), or signing here long term. 

 

Either way, we’re going to see what this management group is made up of. Some think there might not be a lot of player movement this off-season, but I think there’s going to be quite a bit on this team. In fact, I dare say that next year’s version of the Canucks could look vastly different from the team that we’re seeing play on a nightly basis here this season. 

 

[JamesB]

2 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Boeser held out of the training camp to get that contract.  Hard to blame that one on Benning unless you were going to blame it on Benning no matter what. 

Fair enough. I know it is not easy to sign high profile young players to good contracts. But the high QO is a very big hidden cost. I admit that Benning might have needed to pay him a bit more overall resulting in higher cap hit to get the QO down to a reasonable level. That was hard to do given the cap situation. But that is really part of my criticism--the Canucks have been in a cap crunch for several years because of poor UFA signings by Benning.