[Signing] Rangers sign Jaroslav Halak

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Coconuts]

Watch him have a good year

[rekker]

Not a fan. Good luck to the Rags.

[24K PureCool]

Lol at least.one former Canuck is a Ranger. 

[Sharpshooter]

3 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Watch him have a good year

I hope so. Fingers crossed. 

 

(Fantasy hockey)

[Shekky]

6 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Lol at least.one former Canuck is a Ranger. 

Motte

[AlwaysACanuckFan]

Motte, Halak, they are now slowly becoming the Calgary Canucks of the east

[-Vintage Canuck-]

On 7/13/2022 at 9:58 AM, Coconuts said:

Watch him have a good year

 

[Coconuts]

6 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

It's almost as if goaltenders look better on teams who don't play trash defense and that actually give them run support when they're in net 

[grandmaster]

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

It's almost as if goaltenders look better on teams who don't play trash defense and that actually give them run support when they're in net 

Halak was awful. A good goalie can steal a game once in a while. He was too disinterested to do that here 

[Coconuts]

4 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

Halak was awful. A good goalie can steal a game once in a while. He was too disinterested to do that here 

Halak wasn't as bad as people made him out to be an I argued for him the same way I argued for Holtby. Lot of the games Halak played the Canucks simply didn't score much, Demko had better run support. Halak was scapegoated for this team's problems the same way Green was to a degree. 

 

When your starting tender has to give you Vezina caliber goaltending for you to even have a chance at winning that's pretty indicative of the quality of the overall team, Demko had to do just that most games last season. You don't expect that level of play from your backup, Halak was serviceable we just sucked. 

 

It's no coincidence we've been lit up as often as we have this season, it's largely been the same group. Difference is we're scoring more. 

Edited February 12 by Coconuts

[RWJC]

9 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

Halak was awful. A good goalie can steal a game once in a while. He was too disinterested to do that here 

Team culture?

Could be the same thing that plagued most of our acquisitions. Toxic environment and sub par seasons. Schmidt, Holtby, Dickinson, same thing. It seems a little too coincidental. 

[Dazzle]

19 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Halak wasn't as bad as people made him out to be an I argued for him the same way I argued for Holtby. Lot of the games Halak played the Canucks simply didn't score much, Demko had better run support. Halak was scapegoated for this team's problems the same way Green was to a degree. 

 

When your starting tender has to give you Vezina caliber goaltending for you to even have a chance at winning that's pretty indicative of the quality of the overall team, Demko had to do just that most games last season. You don't expect that level of play from your backup, Halak was serviceable we just sucked. 

 

It's no coincidence we've been lit up as often as we have this season, it's largely been the same group. Difference is we're scoring more. 

Not sure why Green still has his defenders. He's been given several different iterations of teams, and not one of them was a winning one.

 

He's not a good coach. There's no ifs and buts about it.

[Dazzle]

12 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Team culture?

Could be the same thing that plagued most of our acquisitions. Toxic environment and sub par seasons. Schmidt, Holtby, Dickinson, same thing. It seems a little too coincidental. 

One thing for sure was that Benning's acquisitions never turned out right, even though all of those players were good players in their own right. Yes, even Eriksson. Eriksson was a fantastic player BEFORE he came into the Canucks. I think most people forgot about that. Beagle was a great player, and so was Roussel (injury).

For all the things that Benning did right, the players he acquired would even things out, or make it negative. It's such a weird situation.

[Coconuts]

10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Not sure why Green still has his defenders. He's been given several different iterations of teams, and not one of them was a winning one.

 

He's not a good coach. There's no ifs and buts about it.

Green was stale, never should have been extended. But he's been vindicated a bit in the sense that we've continued to be an awful team defensively without him. We saw similar subpar defensive play under Boudreau last season too, even during the coaching bump. I recall several games where it'd take the Canucks a period or two to wake up at all. Green was absolutely scapegoated to a degree for last season. 

 

We started winning games without him and suddenly Bruce there it was, Green absolutely deserved some of the blame for what happened but it wasn't all on him. Even this season, it wasn't all on Bruce. Some of the blame falls at the feet of the players and the core up until the Horvat trade was essentially the same, there'd just been tinkering done around the edges. 

 

Last season wasn't a tale of two seasons, it was the same team that hit historic lows under Green that went on to get a coaching bump and win some games. It's largely the same team that's hit more historic lows this season, under that same coach who'd been brought in. We'll see what happens under RT and we'll see what happens as we continue to turn over the roster. 

Edited February 12 by Coconuts

[grandmaster]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

Halak wasn't as bad as people made him out to be an I argued for him the same way I argued for Holtby. Lot of the games Halak played the Canucks simply didn't score much, Demko had better run support. Halak was scapegoated for this team's problems the same way Green was to a degree. 

 

When your starting tender has to give you Vezina caliber goaltending for you to even have a chance at winning that's pretty indicative of the quality of the overall team, Demko had to do just that most games last season. You don't expect that level of play from your backup, Halak was serviceable we just sucked. 

 

It's no coincidence we've been lit up as often as we have this season, it's largely been the same group. Difference is we're scoring more. 

A good goalie steals a game once in a while, regardless of how the team plays in front of him.

[Coconuts]

20 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

A good goalie steals a game once in a while, regardless of how the team plays in front of him.

Doesn't matter how well a goaltender plays if the team in front of him doesn't give him run support. You could play out of your mind and it doesn't matter whether you're on or not if your team is only giving you 1-2 goals. 

 

I can't find the post but I actually went through all the games Halak had played for the Canucks up until a certain point and went over the lack of run support Halak had gotten up until that point. It wasn't flattering for the guys in front of him, particularly when you factor in how lousy we were defensively. 

 

Halak absolutely had games where he played well but didn't get wins, he also had games where he got lit up. I'm not going to go digging through each game last season to put together the data for you but I assure you Halak got scapegoated a fair amount last season for games during which the team in front of him didn't produce much. 

[Dazzle]

Just now, Coconuts said:

Doesn't matter how well a goaltender plays if the team in front of him doesn't give him run support. You could play out of your mind and it doesn't matter whether you're on or not if your team is only giving you 1-2 goals. 

 

I can't find the post but I actually went through all the games Halak had played for the Canucks up until a certain point and went over the lack of run support Halak had gotten up until that point. It wasn't flattering for the guys in front of him, particularly when you factor in how lousy we were defensively. 

 

Halak absolutely had games where he played well but didn't get wins, he also had games where he got lit up. I'm not going to go digging through each game last season to put together the data for you but I assure you Halak got scapegoated a fair amount last season for games during which the team in front of him didn't produce much. 

He did get scapegoated a lot; however, excusing Green's coaching tenure because of one mediocre season under Boudreau is a bit silly. Boudreau did really well with that same team that Green failed spectacularly with. That's not nothing.
 

Green wasn't a great AHL coach either, for what it's worth. He was just promoted, given his time that he spent with this organization. I think it's beating a dead horse though.

[Coconuts]

.

Edited February 12 by Coconuts

[Coconuts]

10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

He did get scapegoated a lot; however, excusing Green's coaching tenure because of one mediocre season under Boudreau is a bit silly. Boudreau did really well with that same team that Green failed spectacularly with. That's not nothing.
 

Green wasn't a great AHL coach either, for what it's worth. He was just promoted, given his time that he spent with this organization. I think it's beating a dead horse though.

I wrote "Green was absolutely scapegoated to a degree for last season.". I'm not defending Green's overall record or tenure, I'm simply pointing out that he was scapegoated in a similar fashion to Halak, who is the focal point of this conversation. I even pointed out that Green was stale and shouldn't have been extended, more than likely we actually agree on Green. 

 

It was time for Green to go but he was vindicated a bit for last season, the defensive woes continued under Boudreau and we've gotten more of the same from what's largely the same core group this season. Lot of folks wanted to scapegoat Green for that first half and give the boys a pass when it was absolutely on the skaters as well. The second half wasn't the real the Canucks, the roster owned both portions of that season under each coach. 

 

The original post you responded to said "Halak was scapegoated for this team's problems the same way Green was to a degree.". Green was scapegoated to a degree, that's not me defending him, it's just a fact that's more visible in retrospect.