HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Can this team get it done in the playoffs?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-04-2010, 03:47 AM
  #51
Meganuck*
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,036
vCash: 500
Can this team get it done? absolutely.

Will they? Stay tuned. I'm hoping they do.

Meganuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 09:56 AM
  #52
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCM View Post
I think that's BS. Who knows who is talking in the locker room? Nobody here, that's for sure. Saying they lack an emotional leader is just one of those blanket statements that gets thrown around in the hockey world.

However that said playoff experience couldn't hurt. This is why I want Owen Nolan for the third line on the cheap. We're a contender, I could see him buying into it. As long as he's cheap he's basically someone who has actually played in the playoffs and brings a lot of experience.

Similar to Demitra but different in the contract numbers.

Plus he's capable of jumping up into the top 6. Like Samuelsson.
Is it though? Obviously neither of us is privy to what goes on in the locker room, but both of us saw the on ice product. Did you see a team with playing like it's back was against the wall in game six vs. the Hawks? Where was the desperation, not just in that game, but the series in general.

What I saw at least, was a team that wasn't exhibiting a sense of urgency in the way they play. Sure the composure was there. So was the skill and the discipline, much as it was during the regular season.

Ultimately our depleted defense and PK did us in. But that didn't make me like the demeanor of our team any more.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that hockey is a game of momentum and a team who can respond positively to emotional swings tend to thrive in a playoff environment. I believe Gillis said as much shortly after the playoffs when he talked about how the Canucks weren't playing with the same fire as some of the other teams still left (too lazy to find the link).

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:25 AM
  #53
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I don't need a lesson in defence being important in the playoffs, I was just curious and thought maybe you knew a site that would make it easy to find. Did you really go through all the game logs to figure out Luongo's save percentage with him in and out of the lineup?

I'm not sure how we even got into a Mitchell argument. I listed the things I thought lead to our last couple playoff failures and he has nothing to do with addressing them because he isn't signed. And even if he was, he was around two seasons ago and was as big a reason as anyone else on the team we lost. Maybe the improvement comes from within, but we sure haven't added any proven playoff performers to our list of career playoff underachiever's.
Luongo's save% stat has been brought up here many times... that's what I made reference to.

And I disagree with your analysis of Mitchell not addressing the things that led to our playoff failures... to suggest that he was there 2 years ago and we didn't win, is like saying that he's a reason why we lost? We lost in 6 games to the Hawks then as well, and the blame should go mostly on Luongo here. The team was much better defensively with Mitchell in the lineup. Their GAA went from 2.80 a year ago to 3.42 last season. The biggest difference was the PK, where Mitchell is undeniably the leader on this team. Our PK with Mitchell in 08/09 was at 82.4% good for 6th in the playoffs. This past playoffs, our PK is what sunk this team more than anything else. Without Mitchell, our PK just kept going down all season, and finished at a miserable 68.5% in the playoffs.

That's the biggest impact that Mitchell's loss led to. And I'd say that Gillis has addressed that whether Mitchell returns or not. He's added 2 dmen that have both played huge minutes on the PK for their respective teams. This is especially true for Hamhuis, who has always been a solid PKer. Nashville's PK was a very respectable 82.6% last year against the Hawks in the playoffs (good for 5th in the playoffs) - with Hamhuis being his team's PK leader (on a team with Suter and Weber, Hamhuis has consistently led them in PK minutes).

Our we a better playoff team now having added at least one proven PK player to a team who's biggest weakness - by a huge margin - was the pathetic PK in the playoffs?

Now add Ballard (#2 in PK minutes in Florida), and if Mitchell returns, who's been a rock on this team's PK over the years, do you not think that this team has improved their weakest area in the playoffs by a significant margin?

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:06 AM
  #54
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCM View Post
I think that's BS. Who knows who is talking in the locker room? Nobody here, that's for sure. Saying they lack an emotional leader is just one of those blanket statements that gets thrown around in the hockey world.
Seriously? Why is it that we have no problems picking out the leaders of other teams successful in the playoffs?

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:15 AM
  #55
Connecticut
Registered User
 
Connecticut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
Seriously? Why is it that we have no problems picking out the leaders of other teams successful in the playoffs?
Hindsight bias.

If Chicago loses to Nashville in the opening round (they were close) then Toews "needs more maturity," but instead Erat makes a blind pass up the middle, Kane scores a shorthanded goal to tie the game, and now Toews is a Conn Smythe winner. Hair breadth's difference.

I think Kesler is a leader. Luongo is a leader. I think the Sedins lead as well, although their style is to keep an even keel through the ups and downs. Samuelsson is a cup winner, I think Burrows is a leader too. I think we have good leadership on the back end too. I guess we'll see...

Connecticut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:24 AM
  #56
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connecticut View Post
Hindsight bias.

If Chicago loses to Nashville in the opening round (they were close) then Toews "needs more maturity," but instead Erat makes a blind pass up the middle, Kane scores a shorthanded goal to tie the game, and now Toews is a Conn Smythe winner. Hair breadth's difference.
I don't think winning in 6 means you've won a by a "Hairs breadth's difference". Chicago were clear and away the best team in the NHL last season.




Quote:
I think Kesler is a leader.
People that call other people cowards months after a playoff incident aren't mature enough to be leaders.


Quote:
Luongo is a leader.
Someone that mopes around giving sarcastic answers to the media after losses that clearly involved him ******** the bed is not the sign of maturity. For as much crap as Naslund takes from some posters around here (myself included) I never heard him be short with the media or cut them off, or give them death stares.


Quote:

I think the Sedins lead as well, although their style is to keep an even keel through the ups and downs.
Thats a funny thought, as I'm watching Daniel melt down against Chicago.


Quote:

Samuelsson is a cup winner,
Playing on the closest thing the NHL has been to a dynasty in generations.

Quote:
I think Burrows is a leader too.
Public enemy #1 amongst officials?


Quote:
I think we have good leadership on the back end too. I guess we'll see...
Ah yes, not one defender that we've brought in has been out of the first round, except those we've developed, and its clear they have little playoff experience.

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:43 AM
  #57
Connecticut
Registered User
 
Connecticut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
I don't think winning in 6 means you've won a by a "Hairs breadth's difference". Chicago were clear and away the best team in the NHL last season.




People that call other people cowards months after a playoff incident aren't mature enough to be leaders.


Someone that mopes around giving sarcastic answers to the media after losses that clearly involved him ******** the bed is not the sign of maturity. For as much crap as Naslund takes from some posters around here (myself included) I never heard him be short with the media or cut them off, or give them death stares.


Thats a funny thought, as I'm watching Daniel melt down against Chicago.


Playing on the closest thing the NHL has been to a dynasty in generations.

Public enemy #1 amongst officials?




Ah yes, not one defender that we've brought in has been out of the first round, except those we've developed, and its clear they have little playoff experience.
1. Nashville would have had a 3-2 series lead, going home to Nashville -- that's no guarantee obviously, but it's a very precarious situation for the Hawks.

The rest of your retorts I find unconvincing. You could have said the same thing about each of the Blackhawks six months ago and yet they went on to win the cup. Leadership is intangible and difficult to nail down -- the Canucks don't have a clear proven leader, that's true, there's no Yzerman on this team who will will his team onward. But if you're going to say that we have no trouble naming the leaders on other teams then who are they and what have they done? I think Toews and Keith had phenomenal years for the Hawks and any team would love to have them. Richards in Philly and Morrow in Dallas come to mind, although they're getting bonus points from me for being fantastic for Team Canada. Who else do you have in mind that is this mythical leader, head and shoulders above anyone on the Canucks?

Connecticut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:47 AM
  #58
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connecticut View Post
1. Nashville would have had a 3-2 series lead, going home to Nashville -- that's no guarantee obviously, but it's a very precarious situation for the Hawks.

The rest of your retorts I find unconvincing. You could have said the same thing about each of the Blackhawks six months ago and yet they went on to win the cup. Leadership is intangible and difficult to nail down -- the Canucks don't have a clear proven leader, that's true, there's no Yzerman on this team who will will his team onward. But if you're going to say that we have no trouble naming the leaders on other teams then who are they and what have they done? I think Toews and Keith had phenomenal years for the Hawks and any team would love to have them. Richards in Philly and Morrow in Dallas come to mind, although they're getting bonus points from me for being fantastic for Team Canada. Who else do you have in mind that is this mythical leader, head and shoulders above anyone on the Canucks?
this is a good point, and gets lost here when we're labeling leaders in hindsight.

Had the Hawks lost however, we'd be talking about a completely different story here... a city that painted a mural with a Cup months before the playoffs even started... a team that had their bags already packed for their next round match-up before the last series was over... a star player who beats up a cab driver over a .20 cent return.

Of course now that they won, none of that gets talked about, it's all about leadership and character because they won.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 12:28 PM
  #59
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
Luongo's save% stat has been brought up here many times... that's what I made reference to.

And I disagree with your analysis of Mitchell not addressing the things that led to our playoff failures... to suggest that he was there 2 years ago and we didn't win, is like saying that he's a reason why we lost? We lost in 6 games to the Hawks then as well, and the blame should go mostly on Luongo here. The team was much better defensively with Mitchell in the lineup. Their GAA went from 2.80 a year ago to 3.42 last season. The biggest difference was the PK, where Mitchell is undeniably the leader on this team. Our PK with Mitchell in 08/09 was at 82.4% good for 6th in the playoffs. This past playoffs, our PK is what sunk this team more than anything else. Without Mitchell, our PK just kept going down all season, and finished at a miserable 68.5% in the playoffs.

That's the biggest impact that Mitchell's loss led to. And I'd say that Gillis has addressed that whether Mitchell returns or not. He's added 2 dmen that have both played huge minutes on the PK for their respective teams. This is especially true for Hamhuis, who has always been a solid PKer. Nashville's PK was a very respectable 82.6% last year against the Hawks in the playoffs (good for 5th in the playoffs) - with Hamhuis being his team's PK leader (on a team with Suter and Weber, Hamhuis has consistently led them in PK minutes).

Our we a better playoff team now having added at least one proven PK player to a team who's biggest weakness - by a huge margin - was the pathetic PK in the playoffs?

Now add Ballard (#2 in PK minutes in Florida), and if Mitchell returns, who's been a rock on this team's PK over the years, do you not think that this team has improved their weakest area in the playoffs by a significant margin?
Yes, the PK should be better, but I don't think it was the biggest reason they lost. They lost their composure and failed to play "playoff" hockey. They didn't get to the other team's net, they didn't protect their own, they couldn't find way's to change momentum and they lacked leadership. Leadership is impossible to quantify, but nobody rose to the occassion. Guy's can talk all they want, eventually we're going to need some guy's on this team to elevate their game at the right time.

I know we're all fans here and we really want this team to be the best but can't we be objective? It might sound like I'm hating but I really like this team and want them to be good as much as anyone. What's wrong with talking about this team's shortcomings? The glass may well be half full, but it's not overflowing.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 12:51 PM
  #60
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Yes, the PK should be better, but I don't think it was the biggest reason they lost. They lost their composure and failed to play "playoff" hockey. They didn't get to the other team's net, they didn't protect their own, they couldn't find way's to change momentum and they lacked leadership. Leadership is impossible to quantify, but nobody rose to the occassion. Guy's can talk all they want, eventually we're going to need some guy's on this team to elevate their game at the right time.

I know we're all fans here and we really want this team to be the best but can't we be objective? It might sound like I'm hating but I really like this team and want them to be good as much as anyone. What's wrong with talking about this team's shortcomings? The glass may well be half full, but it's not overflowing.
nothing wrong with talking about this team's short-comings. But when you see those short-comings being addressed, then it should be a positive sign.

And I disagree, that this team's biggest short-coming was not the PK. It was easily this team's biggest short-coming in the playoffs.

Just look at the stats, and where they would be with an even average PK. Their PK last playoffs was the worst in the playoffs at 68.5%. Move that to average level - the 8th best PK in the playoffs was at 80.8%.

They allowed 17 goals in 54 times short-handed last year... league average would have put them around 10goals allowed in 54 opportunities... that 7 goal differential would have moved their GA/G from 3.42 (13th) to 2.83 (6th). That is a significant difference overall.

Do you think that a team that was 1st in GF/G and was 6th in GA/G would have been a big difference overall, compared to one that was 1st and 13th? And again, we're just talking about the difference in the PK to take them to an average PK, not even a quality one.

If the Canucks could have managed a quality PK - say top-5 in the playoffs, they'd have been a top-5 defensive team in the playoffs... based just on the difference on the PK.

IMO that's a massive difference, and that's why it was the biggest problem with this team last season.

As far as "rising to the occasion" again, we're evaluating things in hindsight. Towes for example apparently rose to the occasion in the playoffs overall, and was the biggest key for them against the Canucks, but where was he in the finals? When he finally had to face a top end shutdown guy in Pronger, instead of facing Edler-Salo, his scoring dried up, with only 3 assists and a -5 in the 6 games he played against Philly. Did he rise to the occasion in the finals, the biggest time for his team? No, he was shutdown without a goal and was a big minus player during those finals... yet, he's still a guy who rose to the occasion because he won the Cup and was awarded the Conn Symthe.

If instead the Canucks PK was average, while they actually had a good shutdown guy against Toews in their series, maybe it's the Canucks moving forward, and we're talking about how the Sedins stepped up to the ocassion by each putting up a 1.16 PPG average in the playoffs?

With that said, I don't think our team is perfect and that Gillis has addressed every hole on this team. I do think that we're much improved, and Gillis did address some of their biggest concerns in the offseason. There are still holes on this team - like there are on every team in the league, and they will have to overcome that to advance, but from where I stand, this is a better team today than the one that finished the playoffs last year. Meanwhile, I also think that our top competition - namely Chicago, but also San Jose - are weaker teams today than the ones that finished the year.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 12:53 PM
  #61
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post

If the Canucks could have managed a quality PK - say top-5 in the playoffs, they'd have been a top-5 defensive team in the playoffs... based just on the difference on the PK..
No offence, but I've never seen you post with so many "ifs" and "buts" before.


"If" situations aren't good arguments.

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 12:59 PM
  #62
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
No offence, but I've never seen you post with so many "ifs" and "buts" before.


"If" situations aren't good arguments.
huh?? I'm talking about the difference in our PK here... what the hell does the "ifs" have anything to do with that.

maybe you just took a comment from my post without following the entire discussion... the discussion is how much impact did our pathetic PK have on our overall results, and whether the additions of Hamhuis, Ballard and Malhotra have improved that at all.

and the "ifs" are there to show that our PK was the biggest reason for our failures in the playoffs. Instead of reading a small section and ignoring the discussion, maybe you should read the debate entirely?

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 01:01 PM
  #63
CloutierForVezina
Registered User
 
CloutierForVezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I don't need a lesson in defence being important in the playoffs, I was just curious and thought maybe you knew a site that would make it easy to find. Did you really go through all the game logs to figure out Luongo's save percentage with him in and out of the lineup?

I'm not sure how we even got into a Mitchell argument. I listed the things I thought lead to our last couple playoff failures and he has nothing to do with addressing them because he isn't signed. And even if he was, he was around two seasons ago and was as big a reason as anyone else on the team we lost. Maybe the improvement comes from within, but we sure haven't added any proven playoff performers to our list of career playoff underachiever's.
To answer your question, yes. I went through every single game Luongo played with and without Mitchell in the lineup over the 2009-2010 season and added up all the necessary stats and calculated his sv% with and without Mitchell.

Luongo's sv% with Mitchell in the lineup: .919

Luongo's sv% without Mitchell: .903

I'd just like to note right now that I did this math properly - I didn't just average the sv% he had in those games, I added up the total number of saves he made and divided by the total number of shots he faced.

CloutierForVezina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 01:05 PM
  #64
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
huh?? I'm talking about the difference in our PK here... what the hell does the "ifs" have anything to do with that.

maybe you just took a comment from my post without following the entire discussion... the discussion is how much impact did our pathetic PK have on our overall results, and whether the additions of Hamhuis, Ballard and Malhotra have improved that at all.

and the "ifs" are there to show that our PK was the biggest reason for our failures in the playoffs. Instead of reading a small section and ignoring the discussion, maybe you should read the debate entirely?
"Had the Hawks lost"

"If the Canucks could have managed a quality PK"

"If instead the Canucks PK was average, while they actually had a good shutdown guy against Toews in their series, maybe it's the Canucks moving forward"


"With Mitchell, our shutdown line would have been *significantly* better, which would have handled the Hawks top line better."


Not to pick on you, but I usually groove on your posts. This latest batch however...

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 01:08 PM
  #65
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
"Had the Hawks lost"

"If the Canucks could have managed a quality PK"

"If instead the Canucks PK was average, while they actually had a good shutdown guy against Toews in their series, maybe it's the Canucks moving forward"


"With Mitchell, our shutdown line would have been *significantly* better, which would have handled the Hawks top line better."


Not to pick on you, but I usually groove on your posts. This latest batch however...


whatever dude... all I'm arguing is that this team would have been a lot better with an average PK last year, than having the league's worst PK. If that's too difficult for you to follow, there's no sense in explaining it further.

Again, the entire point of that post is to show that the PK was the single biggest downfall for this team in the playoffs. And in order to show that, I felt it was appropriate to discuss what the numbers would have looked like IF they had even an average PK.

I know... difficult concept to grasp

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 01:08 PM
  #66
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
As far as "rising to the occasion" again, we're evaluating things in hindsight. Towes for example apparently rose to the occasion in the playoffs overall, and was the biggest key for them against the Canucks, but where was he in the finals? When he finally had to face a top end shutdown guy in Pronger, instead of facing Edler-Salo, his scoring dried up, with only 3 assists and a -5 in the 6 games he played against Philly. Did he rise to the occasion in the finals, the biggest time for his team? No, he was shutdown without a goal and was a big minus player during those finals... yet, he's still a guy who rose to the occasion because he won the Cup and was awarded the Conn Symthe.
Agree to disagree on the PK. I'm not big on stats.

As far as rising to the occasion goes, I'm not talking about one player. Toews won the conn smythe, but they had many guy's rise to the occasion at different times as any cup winning team does. Unfortunately, the Canucks have way more guys that have fallen short in the playoff's then they have guys who have been able to elevate their game. It's only going to take one good run to change that, but it's too big a sample size to ignore. I only brought it up because the guy's we've added fall into the same category as the player's we already have, unproven come playoff time. You could have said he same thing about the 'Hawks a couple season's ago, but they were a much younger team then this version of the 'Nucks.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 01:13 PM
  #67
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Agree to disagree on the PK. I'm not big on stats.
fine by me... I'm bigger on stats than I am on assumptions... stats actually provide a bigger picture for me than just making assumptions without the stats to back them up.

from where I stand, stats seem to indicate that Luongo is much better with Mitchell in front of him... showed that an average PK vs. a terrible one would have a significant difference in overall GA/G putting a team that is in the bottom-5 to the top-5 in that category.

but that's just me... I prefer to gauge the stats to base my arguments on... feel it's the best way to support our own assumptions or counter others.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 01:57 PM
  #68
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,915
vCash: 500
With Boat Anchor still coaching, and our key acquisitions having even less playoff experience than the current group?

Not a chance in hell.

PecaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 02:18 PM
  #69
Radiolad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoolChamp View Post
I like thier chances a whole lot better now that they have a competent defense and 3rd line center. If they can't go on a deep playoff run this year the core just isn't good enough.
+1

Radiolad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 03:28 PM
  #70
Meganuck*
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan View Post
With Boat Anchor still coaching, and our key acquisitions having even less playoff experience than the current group?

Not a chance in hell.
With the way the staff has been set up, he looks like the next fall guy.

Meganuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 05:54 PM
  #71
denkiteki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCM View Post
Yes, and that's just the bare minimum facts of the matter.

Taking the optimists P.O.V Luongo will have a lessened schedule (I'm hearing Schneider is getting a guaranteed 20 games).

Not to mention there's no Olympics OR 14 game road trip this season.

All that adds up to a more rested Luongo for the playoffs.

Plus this year he wasn't even that bad. If he rebounds it's all the better.


On top of that we have a real defense in front of him for one of the first times in a while. If we actually had Mitchell, Salo, Edler (played with injured ankle) in the line up we might've gotten past the Hawks.

But forget that now, we've dumped Mitchell (face it, he's not coming back...) added Hamhuis and Ballard.

Ballard was THIRD in the league in blocked shots. There's a lot of people in the league. That means less shots even make their way to Luongo.

Hamhuis is no slouch in that department either.


this is just all defensively speaking. If you've seen Ballard play he has an AMAZING pass. I can't wait to see him with the Sedins. He's fed Frolik amazing passes just imagine what he can do if he can be a fourth wheel in the cycle? Not only even strength but especially on the Power Play.


A lot of people forget that one of the major problems for us in the playoffs (my opinion) was special teams.

Our Power Play wasn't scoring and our Penalty Kill wasn't shutting them down.


I think we've made leaps and bounds of improvement in both.


Plus regarding injuries, in the last 5 years COMBINED Ballard and Hamhuis have only missed 13 games. So we've made improvements in durability as well.

Gillis also specifically targeted Oreskovich in the trade with Florida. I'm not saying Oreskovich is the last piece of the puzzle or anything like that. What I am saying is that he can certainly play and will most likely actually be dressed in the playoffs. Hordichuk was not for a reason. He will probably be waived.

Everyone including Gillis has seen the Chicago cup model and it's one based off depth. Not everyone has the cap space to do the whole ELC contract syncing thing to upgrade the bottom 6 but at the very least we can upgrade from what we have.

Malhotra is where I'm going with this. He's another shutdown center. That means the other team's top line is getting Kesler and their second line is getting Malhotra in the face. If the match ups play our way that is. That means their third line is up against the Sedins. Obviously this won't always be the case, Vineauglt has to fight for the match up but he surely will. There's a reason the Sedins tend to score off of faceoffs caused by icings from the other team.

We couldn't rely on Wellwood to shut down anything last season. Switching the third line to a defensive one changes things dramatically. Especially for home games (last change).

Not to mention Malhotra had the best faceoff percentage in the entire league last year. More faceoffs = more possession = less time in our zone = more time to cycle.


It's undeniable that we are better than last year and most of the competitors in the West from last year have lost huge pieces.

Questions for other teams:

Are the hawks finally mortal now that they've lost their depth?

How far is the drop from Nabokov to Niittymaki? How will Antero perform in the playoffs if they even make it there?

One more year on a lot of players on the Red Wings. Now they've added Modano. A lot of people say that they won't be suffering from the same injuries. I'm not so sure, injuries and age correlate. Are their players getting more brittle?

Those are three of the Western Powerhouses and they've all developed some type of negative question. The Canucks have only gotten better. They didn't lose any big pieces and on top of that they upgraded the small ones.

I'm sure we'll capture the NW Division title and I think we might not be the 3rd seed this time. 1st or 2nd is a great possibility. That'll help us match up against one of the lower seeded teams. There's more of a gap between 2nd and 8th than there is between 3rd and 6th, obviously.





So in summation, yeah, looking at it with a little bit of optimism things are looking really good in Canucks land.
I agree that there should be a lot of optimism moving into next year but disagree with a few of your points.

#1 - Malhotra was not the top faceoff man in the league because he only took 664 faceoffs (not enough draws to be considered). Scott Nichol actually has that title (and SJ was an amazing FO team last year). But i agree that adding a 60% FO man helps the team a lot.

#2 - Its NOT a fact that Willie won't return. MG said on team 1040 that he is talking with Willie's camp and wants to do testing with him. Willie is supposely doing more intense workout right now. If he's ready to play, MG might actually sign him (all signs actually seem in that direction).

#3 - The Wings are getting older but you forget that quite a few key pieces in their team = still in their prime and getting to their prime. Besides Raf and Lid, most of their core is in their late 20s/early 30s... not really old but rather @ their prime. Howard is questionable but if he continues to get better, the Wings could win the conf and should be favorites to win their division (given what happened in Chicago). Filppula was their key injury last year and he's only 26. They really made a push after he returned.

#4 - Debatable rather or not the Sharks got worst. They probably got worst in net but do you really expect Seto to only score 20 goals/36 points? He had an off year and will likely bounce back to 30+ goal form. The playoffs really showed that the Sharks have a much better #2 line than what was displayed in the regular season. I got a feeling their offense will be better than last year... to a point where it probably offsets the difference in goalies.

#5 - Our PP was clicking @ 22% in the playoffs... higher than our regular season % (which was good enough for 6th in the league). Never hurts to get it higher but realistically, that wasn't really a huge issue. The PK was an issue... i don't see how a team can live with a 68.5% PK% (and much much worse vs the Kings). That's actually 6% worst than the Leafs PK in the regualr season....

#6 - Honestly you're thinking too much if you think #6 vs #8 is a huge difference in the West... or even in the NHL for that matter. Remember Philly was the #7 seed and it was #7 vs 8 in the east finals. Last year in the west... 7 out of the 8 teams were 100 point teams and pretty much all first round series in the west were close series. There really isn't going to be a big competition difference between 6-8th. The difference likely comes in the 2nd/3rd round where you can be guaranteed home ice advantage (although in the 2nd round, it seemed like a home ice disadvantage...).

So don't really lock into the 'nucks winning the conf nor is it really a big issue between 3rd and 1st (altho given the choice, anyone would take 1st over 3rd unless the 8th place team happens to be the Wings).

denkiteki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 06:35 PM
  #72
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by denkiteki View Post

#4 - Debatable rather or not the Sharks got worst. They probably got worst in net but do you really expect Seto to only score 20 goals/36 points? He had an off year and will likely bounce back to 30+ goal form. The playoffs really showed that the Sharks have a much better #2 line than what was displayed in the regular season. I got a feeling their offense will be better than last year... to a point where it probably offsets the difference in goalies.
I think you made a very good point regarding San Jose. A lot of people around here expect Hodgson and Schroeder to make an impact this year, from reading San Jose's boards, they are expecting a couple of break outs from what they consider NHL ready prospects, themselves.

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 06:40 PM
  #73
CloutierForVezina
Registered User
 
CloutierForVezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
I think you made a very good point regarding San Jose. A lot of people around here expect Hodgson and Schroeder to make an impact this year, from reading San Jose's boards, they are expecting a couple of break outs from what they consider NHL ready prospects, themselves.
Any gains are more than canceled out by losing a very, very good goalie.

Nabokov played 71 games and had a .922 sv% last year, Nitty + Greiss aren't going to come close to that.

CloutierForVezina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 06:46 PM
  #74
Wall of Wonder
Registered User
 
Wall of Wonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Burnaby, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Wall of Wonder
San Jose's defense looks like it is a lot thinner to.
Boyle-Vlassic
Murrey-
Wallin-

Wall of Wonder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 06:56 PM
  #75
CloutierForVezina
Registered User
 
CloutierForVezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wall of Wonder View Post
San Jose's defense looks like it is a lot thinner to.
Boyle-Vlassic
Murrey-
Wallin-
They sure could use someone like Ehrhoff right about now.

CloutierForVezina is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.