Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
DonCherry4PM wrote:
That said, I'm happy to sit in the warmth that two wins at the beginning of the season brings.
Biggest difference is we came back down 3-0, which was unheard of last season, you were getting the uhh it's over feeling of disaster, till the young guys started scoring, exactly what Benning was saying in the intermission.
We got to get the young guys chipping in and finishing chances.
On top of what Sutter is paid to help out behind the Sedins and Sutter is earning his cheques for sure, doing everything like the Swiss Army Knife I said he was before, PK/PP/OT, important faceoffs.
Glad to see Horvat step up! after getting ONE game at 4th line.
and Granlund looking more confident STILL from his preseason play.
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
TDA Rum wrote:Blake Price @BlakePriceTSN 2h2 hours ago
Expect all lines to return to "normal" tonight.. Horvat with Baertschi and Virtanen. Sutter with Granlund and Hansen. Gaunce centers 4th
Like Hansen with Sutter/Granlund... they all 3 had a good game last game.. Hopefully Horvat can improve on faceoffs ..
Time for secondary scoring is NOW
Yessssssssss we got it ... Now Horvat has to improve his f/o ,, Maybe Manny can get him winning more than 1 our of 3 .., ?
" If you cant beat them in the alley - you can't beat them on the ice
It wasn't just Horvat who looked better with Baertschi and Virtanen, it was that Gaunce looked better with Dorsett and Burrows. Those two lines looked good tonight.
The triplets look good, in spurts. They have had a couple of dominating shifts in both games. But then the rest of the game not so much. But if they can build on that, and not get scored upon when they are being "normal, AND if we get secondary scoring, we'll be ok. A lot of ifs.
Also agree that Sutter, Hansen, Granlund look strong, good on the forechecking, good defensively and they have finish.
What do we do with Rodin when he's back? Least disruptive would be to send Jake to Utica but he's playing ok. Good problem to have.
Defence has been good. A couple of fire drills when they got caugh on long shifts, especially in the 2nd with the long change. I like Larsen with Edler! Tanev and Sbisa looked ok too.
League reviewing Virtanen's head slam into the boards. Honestly when I saw him do it I was first, shocked and second surprised there was no penalty. However, he has been cheap shotted twice this season and no call. Having said that I can see a fine or a 1-2 game suspension, to send him a message early in his career.
League also reviewing whether Miller should be credited with a shut out game one since the goal did/does not count towards him statistically. They have never had to deal with this situation.
Hockey Widow wrote:League reviewing Virtanen's head slam into the boards. Honestly when I saw him do it I was first, shocked and second surprised there was no penalty. However, he has been cheap shotted twice this season and no call. Having said that I can see a fine or a 1-2 game suspension, to send him a message early in his career.
League also reviewing whether Miller should be credited with a shut out game one since the goal did/does not count towards him statistically. They have never had to deal with this situation.
Unfortunately this will be twice looked into by the league for Jake. That's almost a reputation. That sucks.
We will need him to be aggressive.
Well now I don't mind saying, I was embarrassed on Saturday to ask if Miller gets a shutout. Figured it was something I should know.
LOL, can't believe it's never happened? It must have?
Watching Grandlund play pre-season and the first two games, despite small sample size, it confirms to me that Benning can spot talent. Too soon of course but he is looking good.
Tanev-Edler was a bit of an after you Alphonse train wreck. Larsen-Edler-Ericksen-Sedin-Sedin. Tanev's second funky game.
As I noted after the Flames game, strong forecheck deep on the defenders is forcing them to make quick and often poor decisions leading to turnovers.
Markstrom wasn't sharp..
No harm, no foul on Jake's bitch slap.
In Sutter news.....Apparently Blob has been soaking in a bathtub of tomato juice trying to get the tuna troll stench off him (IN on the business end of the sponge). He's requested two Texas mickeys of Smirnoff and three bunches of celery......mumbling something about not wanting to waste the bath water.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
Hunter "AHL" ShrunkCarrot vs Granlund? Win - Benning!
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
The Canucks were very good until the first Canes goal. Then they were very bad. And then the Canes were terrible from 7 seconds before Horvat's goal to the end of the game, which is why the Canucks got a point. They won because of a perfectly played rush with a perfect finish aided by a nice no-call trip by Daniel Sedin on Jeff Skinner (whose wide-eyed 1 against 3 play deserved nothing less). 3 on 3 needs good individual play, and they got that from Sutter's rush and Hutton's hustle to make it a 2 on 1.
The two turnovers that led to the first two goals were absolutely brutal and were more of a function of a Canes meltdown than the Super-Canucks. One (the Granlund goal) was a total unforced error (but capitalized well), the other (Horvat's) was under pressure that an NHLer should be able to handle (and frankly, Lack should have stopped). Still, it was good to see the team take advantage of another teams errors.
Don't mistake my credit to the Canes as losing this more than the Canucks winning it as disregarding the effort the Canucks gave for about 40 minutes last night. There were times they were playing well, and the forecheck seems improved. I don't think that this team is talented enough to win with a 40 minute effort unless they are playing a team with as many warts as the Canucks, and the Canes are that (and then some). But for this team to make the playoffs, they have to win games they shouldn't win (the Canucks didn't do this too much last year after the first month) and they have to win games where the other team is not playing well. Sometimes teams play poorly; sometimes the opposing team makes them play poorly. Last season, the Canucks neither capitalized on errors nor created many. In these first two games, game one they created errors with solid play and then couldn't capitalize and in game two they capitalized on the Canes self-inflicted errors.
The other things the Canucks have to do is get cheap points from the shoot out and overtime. 2 for 2 in that category so far, and 4 points in two games feels a lot different than 2 points in 2 games. It is a really small sample size, but don't discount the psychological effect winning can have on a young club.
The good. Granlund, Hansen, and Sutter. If players with speed who can counter attack are doing well in today's NHL, this is the only Canuck group that can do this consistently. They were dangerous last night and Granlund looks far more confident.
Also good was that when the team got down, Hutton, Edler, and Larsen all took turns pushing the play. For a team that used to get a respectable amount of offense from the blue line, it was good to see all of them have some success in the transition and pinching game when the team needed to take more risks.
The steady. Gudbrandson is as advertised and brings a pretty good stick (remember Sami Salo) to the defensive zone. While he might have been the most valuable player in game 1, in many respects, this was a quieter game and one that if he can play game in and game out, will mean the Canucks blue line is a step up on last year's (admittedly injury riddled) corps.
The bad Markstrom might have qualified given that he was neither good positionally nor was he picking up the puck (leading to fat rebounds), but I give him credit for stopping the bleeding. For the bad, I am going to pick on Gaunce. He was more noticeable than against the Flames, but only because he failed so obviously instead of never playing well enough to be in the game. He was weak on the puck, wasn't able to control the puck and maintain his speed, and blew some tires. He doesn't have a lot of NHL games under his belt, so there is a lot that could develop with experience and age. But he has to find some way to contribute or he is going to spend his career as a tweener.
Though he's yet to factor onto the score sheet, I like the way Sven is playing down low, protecting the puck and checking with his whole body when he doesn't have it.
There is a difference between a skilled player who is asked to play a more physical game, and a skilled player who knows how to use his body to his advantage. Sven is a smart player, and his board work and desire to take it to the net is a welcomed sight.
UWSaint wrote:The Canucks were very good until the first Canes goal. Then they were very bad. And then the Canes were terrible from 7 seconds before Horvat's goal to the end of the game, which is why the Canucks got a point. They won because of a perfectly played rush with a perfect finish aided by a nice no-call trip by Daniel Sedin on Jeff Skinner (whose wide-eyed 1 against 3 play deserved nothing less). 3 on 3 needs good individual play, and they got that from Sutter's rush and Hutton's hustle to make it a 2 on 1.
The two turnovers that led to the first two goals were absolutely brutal and were more of a function of a Canes meltdown than the Super-Canucks. One (the Granlund goal) was a total unforced error (but capitalized well), the other (Horvat's) was under pressure that an NHLer should be able to handle (and frankly, Lack should have stopped). Still, it was good to see the team take advantage of another teams errors.
Don't mistake my credit to the Canes as losing this more than the Canucks winning it as disregarding the effort the Canucks gave for about 40 minutes last night. There were times they were playing well, and the forecheck seems improved. I don't think that this team is talented enough to win with a 40 minute effort unless they are playing a team with as many warts as the Canucks, and the Canes are that (and then some). But for this team to make the playoffs, they have to win games they shouldn't win (the Canucks didn't do this too much last year after the first month) and they have to win games where the other team is not playing well. Sometimes teams play poorly; sometimes the opposing team makes them play poorly. Last season, the Canucks neither capitalized on errors nor created many. In these first two games, game one they created errors with solid play and then couldn't capitalize and in game two they capitalized on the Canes self-inflicted errors.
The other things the Canucks have to do is get cheap points from the shoot out and overtime. 2 for 2 in that category so far, and 4 points in two games feels a lot different than 2 points in 2 games. It is a really small sample size, but don't discount the psychological effect winning can have on a young club.
The good. Granlund, Hansen, and Sutter. If players with speed who can counter attack are doing well in today's NHL, this is the only Canuck group that can do this consistently. They were dangerous last night and Granlund looks far more confident.
Also good was that when the team got down, Hutton, Edler, and Larsen all took turns pushing the play. For a team that used to get a respectable amount of offense from the blue line, it was good to see all of them have some success in the transition and pinching game when the team needed to take more risks.
The steady. Gudbrandson is as advertised and brings a pretty good stick (remember Sami Salo) to the defensive zone. While he might have been the most valuable player in game 1, in many respects, this was a quieter game and one that if he can play game in and game out, will mean the Canucks blue line is a step up on last year's (admittedly injury riddled) corps.
The bad Markstrom might have qualified given that he was neither good positionally nor was he picking up the puck (leading to fat rebounds), but I give him credit for stopping the bleeding. For the bad, I am going to pick on Gaunce. He was more noticeable than against the Flames, but only because he failed so obviously instead of never playing well enough to be in the game. He was weak on the puck, wasn't able to control the puck and maintain his speed, and blew some tires. He doesn't have a lot of NHL games under his belt, so there is a lot that could develop with experience and age. But he has to find some way to contribute or he is going to spend his career as a tweener.
Hell of a post, good job..
The next 2 games will be an indication as to whether we have progressed on all fronts.
The Blues and Sabers are big heavy, crunching teams.
If we get through that as well, I would be optimistic that a better year than last is at hand...
