| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
 Posted - 04/22/2011 : 02:24:19
|
Yup, admittedly, i'm worried! Even though i picked the Canucks in 5 in our little contest here, i've not been too comfortable about our matchup since it was confirmed! Not sure what it is, but they just don't seem to be the team they were for the majority of the reg season? I have a ton of friends jumping on the "start Schneider" bangwagon, but that 's the least of my worries! I have no problem with Luongo at this point as most of the goals i don't find to be "weak". I just don't see the "want" in these guys! I've noticed since game 1 that the Sedin's, more than ever, seem to stay clear of ANY physical play (when they can?). They really seem to lack the desire to pay the price. I don't care if a guy doesn't wanna throw a hit, but you'd better be able to take one to make a play!!!
Hard to figure. I mean, with their respective records,there's NO way in the world the Canucks could/should lose more than a game, maybe two, but now i'm worried!!!
Def not giving up on them, but the pressure is mounting huge on them as they roll into Chi-town for game 6!
Nuxfan, hope you didnt' spend too much on the tix for tonights game???
Gotta keep cheering, gotta keep smilin'..........
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 04:03:47
|
I too am worried. There was nothing good about tonights game, at all. Luongo looked weak (he should have had goals 1 and 2), the defense were letting CHI get into the zone at will, the forwards were staying to the perimeter all night. No push, no physical play, they could not connect a pass to save their lives. The Canucks looked tentative from the first puck drop and didn't get any better. It was a complete team effort at losing.
This has been a Jekyll and Hyde series to say the least. The Canucks that were playing game 1/2/3 are not there right now. The team effort is not there, the physical play is not there, the goaltending is not there, the drive is not there. They'd better find it all again, and fast, if they want to win this series. |
 |
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 04:03:50
|
it's not so much that the Hawks have won 2 straight it is more how they have won 2 straight,,, i mean they have been dominant in their last two outings and they weren't allt hat bad in 2 of the 3 they lost either...
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 04:06:29
|
| Pasty - the Hawks didn't actually play particularly well last night, their game was pretty ordinary. The Canucks just sucked that badly. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 04/22/2011 04:07:09 |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 04:51:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
Pasty - the Hawks didn't actually play particularly well last night, their game was pretty ordinary. The Canucks just sucked that badly.
i actually didn't catch last nights game drowning my sorrows about the one that got away from my beloved habs,,,,,, but i assumed 5 nothing..
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
The Duke
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1239 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 08:36:41
|
| Van. fans should be really worried if they lose game 6. Once it goes to a game 7, usually the team who gets those 2 or 3 lucky bounces wins that game. Surely up for grabs for either team, flip a quarter in game 7. |
|
|
|
Guest3154
( )
|
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 09:05:41
|
Hey at least they didn't just drop two straight at home, right pasty? 
Vancouver is definitely in trouble. After game two, I just assumed they would go one for two in chi-town and get it done at home. With the way they got destroyed the last two games, I don't know if I like their chances in game six in chicago. Which leaves game seven, which is always a crap shoot. If Vancouver was going to be the cup contender they were supposed to be, this should have been a "get the monkey of their back" kind of series. Are they going to be haunted by the ghost of Christmas past? |
|
|
|
Guest4988
( )
|
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 09:51:20
|
To Nuxfan & Alex116:
You know, it's not a bad thing to admit, that Chicago outplayed and beat Vancouver as opposed to stating that Vancouver just lost. To say that the Hawks were "'ordinary"" and there's '"NO way based on theïr respective records" that Chicago should have won twice is insulting to the reigning Stanley Cup champs. Chicago had 97 points this year, which was a pretty good record. I admit that Vancouver had a good year at 117 points, but until they win the Stanley Cup, they haven't done anything. I don't know what's going to happen in the rest of the series, but I wish the media and others would start giving the Hawks some credit & respect. Secondly, I wish fans & the media would stop anointing the Canucks as this great championship team, because they haven't won anything yet. Sorry, Chicago could have easily won at one of the first three games ( remember the scores were 2-0, 4-3 & 3-2, hardly domination) and be leading the series. The Hawks are proving that they have more depth than people said and perhaps Vancouver is not as deep or as good as they were made out to be.
Go Hawks Go !! |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 09:57:18
|
There's no question the Hawks appear to have taken over this series, but I would be absolutely stunned (no deference to Hawks fans) if the Canucks lost this series.
To lose two more games in a row seems very unlikely. The Canucks did not win the President's Trophy as a fluke. I think Vancouver will rebound and win this series.
Does anyone know if the Canucks lost three games in a row all season? I kinda doubt it! |
|
|
|
doublechamp7
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
278 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 09:57:38
|
I did hear a possible reason for this and I agree that if your core of Stars doesn't have many Canadians...? And on a side note, Corey Crawford has gotten more points in the last 2 games than Daniel and Henrik combined
Bring back the Jets! |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 10:42:38
|
Duke....Couldn't agree more. Game 7's are a crapshoot at best and an early goal is huge! Vancouver has played well in the past in Chicago so the best i can do is hope they show up to play on Sunday.
4988....i know your post was to both me and nuxfan, but for the record, my comment "I mean, with their respective records,there's NO way in the world the Canucks could/should lose more than a game, maybe two....." is more an opinion on the way the regular season went and not in any way an attempt to disrespect the Blackhawks. Having said "maybe 2", isn't that where we're at? IF, the Canucks win in Chi on Sunday, is there anything wrong with my statement?
All i was trying to say was that Vancouver is the top seed after having proven over 82 games that they were the top team. I'm not going to bother listing all the stats, i'm sure you know them, it's just simply that they looked to be the far deeper team and far more well rounded. Playoffs are obviously a different beast and after finishing 1st, playing an arch rival who's eliminated you in back to back seasons and being the favorite by the majority of unbiased hockey fans/media, etc, the pressure is proving to be mounting in a huge way on this team.
I get that guys like Beans, (and others) picked the Blackhawks to win this series. I totally understand them doing so and i don't believe it's simply a "hate-on" for the Canucks. Anyone who predicted the Blackhawks to win, and they can correct me if i'm wrong cuz surely some did just in spite of the Canucks, was likely figuring that this pressure i just spoke of, especially the fact it's the Blackhawks again, would be too much for the Canucks. They may just be right yet! I have a funny feeling though that if it were LA vs Van, not many would have picked LA. Therefore it's difficult to go on about how Chi had 97 points, as imo, that's not all that great anymore in the era of OTL's and SO's. Bottom line is, they finished 8th and only backed into the playoffs after losing their last game of the season which would have clinched them a spot. They had to rely on help!
Here's what i see. I see the Canucks to be a much deeper team. Anyone telling me the Hawks are deeper is going to say "yeah, well, look at the last two games". Sorry, not going to buy that theory. The Canucks are simply not playing well enough and not nearly up to their capabilities. After game 3 i figured the Hawks would have to be getting tired as they continued to ride Kane/Toews/Hossa/Sharp up front and Keith/Seabrook (until he was hurt) on the back but the worst thing for Vancouver is the fact that in these two blowouts they've been able to let the other lesser knowns eat up some ice time. After watching game 1, if you'd told me it'd go 6 or 7, i'd have been okay with it as i'd have said Kane, Toews, etc would be out of gas by then. The Canucks have now made it much more difficult on themselves as these guys have been able to rest a little more.
See ya Sunday |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 10:42:58
|
Wow – just checked to see if the Canucks ever lost 3 games in a row this past season. They actually lost four in a row in January, albeit, three of those losses took place in overtime.
After the 4-game losing spell, the Canucks rebounded with a 7-1 win over Dallas, and recorded six wins in a row, outscoring their opponents 27-8. Probably doesn't mean much now, but I maintain the Canucks will rebound and win this series. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 13:58:11
|
From Yahoo sports article: "NOTES: The Canucks out-hit the Hawks for the fourth game in the series and were credited with a 40-14 edge in bodychecks … Chicago had a 20-9 edge in blocked shots."
Really? I certainly didn't notice that big of an edge in physical play? |
|
|
|
Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
268 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 15:12:44
|
To me it's like this.... After the Seabrook hit which, IMO was not a penalty, the Blackhawks rallied round this and are using it to motivate after feeling they didn't belong in the playoffs!! They have been the better team by far in the last two games and played well in game three too! It looks as though the players on the Canucks are confused that anyone would be able to stick it to them so easily dominating them. Vancouver needs to forget the regular season and practice what they preach "take it one game at a time" the break should help them more than it will the Hawks.
ps
I picked the Hawks to win based on the history between these two rivals. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 15:47:57
|
I have to admit, my throat has been horse for the past 3 days from the number times I have cheered when the Hawks have scored. But I did not pick the Hawks to win the series because of my dislike of the Canucks. 5 on 5, the Canucks are the best team in the NHL. The reason I picked the Hawks to win is because I have zero faith in AV's ability to control his team and I have zero faith in the Canucks ability to stay out of the penalty box.
Consider that in the past 2 games the Canucks have had 84 minutes in penalties in the past 2 games while Chicago has close to 1/2 of that with 48. 5 of Chicago's 11 goals in the past 2 games are on the PP.
I am not saying that Chicago owns this series. If the Canucks of the first 3 games come out in the next one it should be over. However, if Chicago is rockin and the Blackhawks score 2 or more goals in the 1st period in game 6, I don't think they will be stopped.
Just for giggles, take a look at this post I made after last seasons playoffs. Sound familiar??? Guys, it's the coach. This was posted May 5/10
I stated it very early in the playoffs, if anything will hurt the Canucks it will not be the team on the other side of the ice. They can literally beat anyone at any time. However, what does hurt them is their lack of discipline and playing style. It's not a controlled agression, it is often completely out of control. That starts with their coach.
Chicago is just illuminating this for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 17:08:50
|
Beans, respectfully, i disagree with your opinion. And stronglyt! AV has not cost the Canucks a game thus far. Sure, you could come up with a bit of an argument for last night's game that penalties cost the Canucks, but throwing those numbers out there (which aren't exactly accurate btw) in an attempt to convince anyone that it's AV's fault just shows your dislike for him which we're all aware of. No one i've witnessed yet, has gone to the "coaching card" as much as you, and that's fine, it's your perogative. BUT, look at game 4. Did penalties cost the Canucks? NOPE. They gave up 2 PP goals. FYI, they were in the third period and they were goals 6 and 7. The game was over by then. In fact, the Hawks took the only two minors in the first period, on which had the Canucks scored twice, it would likely have been a much different game. Oh, and the Keith minor in that period could have been a double minor and maybe even 6. You wanna talk discipline? If the Canucks had made them pay there and eliminated them, the only talk in Chicago would have been how selfish Keith had been and how he hurt his team. Lucky for him, the Hawks killed off the 2 mins he was given.
Did you actually watch the game or look at the boxscore? Because, if you did either, you'd notice that the bulk of the penalties came when the game was more or less out of reach. Personally, as a Canucks fan, i had no problem with them taking penalties at that point as it was more or less to send a message for the rest of the series. To simply look at the number of penalty mins is so misleading it's borderline silly. It'd be like seeing a guy get a bunch of misconducts at the end of the game and saying wow, look at how many penalties they took??? Count the power plays and it's only 11-8 in favour of Chicago in the past 2 games. Now, count the power plays that really mattered, you know, the ones that weren't taken when the game was more or less already decided.
What i see is you using the numbers to strengthen your argument that AV isn't doing his job. I've watched nearly every minute of this series and it's def not AV who's cost the Canucks. Sure, the blame will inevitably fall back on him and cost him his job if they don't win this series, but that's professional sports. How many times have we seen the coach be the "fall guy"?
What i've seen so far is NOTHING like the undisciplined team i witnessed last year. I see a team which hasn't come close to performing it's best, and that includes the first 3 games. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 23:06:19
|
quote:
What i've seen so far is NOTHING like the undisciplined team i witnessed last year. I see a team which hasn't come close to performing it's best, and that includes the first 3 games.
Yep. They are taking penalties this series for sure, but as Alex says, the bulk of them are coming when the game is out of reach. Look at a game-by-game breakdown:
game 1: 3 penalties to VAN, 2 to CHI (not including offsetting)
game 2: 2 penalties each
game 3: 7 to VAN, 2 to CHI (the first major difference), but VAN wins the game
game 4: up to the end of period 2, 2 penalties each. However, once the score is 6-1 to start the 3rd, penalties abound on both sides
game 5: up to 5 minute mark of 2nd period, 3 penalties each. At 5 minute mark of 2nd, Hawks up 5-0, after that penalties abound.
The Canucks penalties have, for the most part, not really hurt them and have been taken in bulk well after the game has been decided. I don't have a real problem with that either - last year's Canucks were taking penalties at critical times of the game in the LA series and getting burned when they could not afford it. When you're down 5 goals with a period to go, you've already lost, and its just frustration after that.
Guest4988 - my reference to the "ordinary" Hawks was to game 5. And I stand by it - they were quite ordinary in that game. They didn't do anything special, and they didn't have to either - they just outworked a team that was not working hard at all. They scored all their goals on odd-man rushes or perimeter shots (nothing ugly in front of the net or tough goals), they didn't play an overly physical game and wear the Canucks down, their goalie was not challenged all night. In game 5, the Canucks were plain bad - my mother could have outplayed them that night. I have no problem admitting that the Canucks were outplayed in game 5 - I just don't think the Hawks had to do much to outplay them.
I don't think anyone underestimated the Hawks in general, we all know they're Stanley Cup champs and a talented team. This series was always going to be a war, but I think most hockey fans have been surprised by the way this series has gone - did you think it would go this way? |
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 23:40:59
|
Vancouver has Chicago exactly where they want them!
Kidding of course, but IMO, Chicago has gone as far as they will go. They're done, and the Canucks will win game six (in Chicago) 5-2! |
|
|
|
FutureKesler
Rookie
Canada
122 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2011 : 01:33:20
|
I'm worried as well. Alex. The canucks just dont seem to want it enough. Henrik and Daniel aren't trying. while Toews and Sharp are working their asses off. Higgins seems to have dissapeared as well.
Flames Suck! |
|
|
|
Guest4988
( )
|
Posted - 04/23/2011 : 11:33:38
|
To Nuxfan: I'm not surprised that Chicago won two games, but I'll admit that I didn't think they would win by scores that big. However, I thought before the series that Chicago would win it in six games, so I thought they'd be up 3-2 at this point. Sorry, I think Vancouver is over-rated; I think they are a very good team, but not the powerhouse club that the media and others made them out to be.
To Alex116: I disagree with your "'97 points is not that great'" statement. If that's the case, then Montreal, Buffalo & NY Rangers all had horrible seasons too as they all had less than 97 points. Not to mention LA with 98 and Anaheim, Nashville & Phoenix with 99 each. I mean come on, Vancouver had 117 points, but they certainly benefitted from playing 24 divisional games against non-playoff teams; specifically Edmonton, Colorado, Minnesota & Calgary.
Again, I don't know if Chicago or Vancouver wins the series, it should be a great finish. However, I think the teams are much closer than the so-called experts have lead folks to believe. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2011 : 13:46:10
|
4988.....fair enough. But i didn't say 97 was a "horrible year" as you imply to Montreal, Buffalo and the NYR. I just said it's not that great. Maybe it's better than i give credit for, but for me, the bottom line is the fact that Chicago looks to be a shadow of last years team. Yes, they've got their studs in Kane/Toews/Sharp/Seabrook/Keith, but overall, there was a big drop off in their play. Keith didn't live up to his Norris trophy, Kane took a slight step back, etc, and the Hawks finished 15 points back of their pace last year. Clearly, be it the cup hangover or something else, they just weren't/aren't as good nor deep of a team as they were last year!
Yup, the Canucks played a bunch of games vs non playoff teams. Does that benefit them? Sure, it can't hurt. But keep in mind the little things like the fact they played Calgary 3 times down the stretch when the Flames were playing excellent hockey. Or, how bout the fact they played Colorado 3 times early in the season when Colorado was looking like and playing like a playoff team before completely imploding??? THAT, is why those arguments don't always hold as much strength in my mind. It'd be like saying someone beat up on Toronto for a bunch of wins? Yeah, but was it in Feb/Mar/Apri when they played really good hockey???
Anyway, maybe i undervalued their 97 pt season. Fact is, they backed into the playoffs on the final day after shatting the bed in their opportunity to clinch. And, if you really think they're the overall better team, so be it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Remember, the better team doesn't always win, especially come playoffs. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2011 : 14:40:32
|
Alex and Nux, justify it any way you want. Up until this a certain point they didn't take penalties or the game was out of reach already. What ever makes you sleep at night. Bottom line, the Canucks have played as good or better than the Hawks at even strength, even in the loses. Chicago is pressuring the Canucks into penalties or goading them into penalties. Any way you cut it, I can see that one team is taking more penalties per game than ANY other team in the playoffs and taking nearly double the penalty minutes of their competition. 5 of 11 goals on the PP is the facts. Is it not far less demoralizing to lose 3-1 and 4-0 than 6-1 and 5-0???
Secondly, the game 4 slaughter should have been enough for the Canucks to get their heads out of their butts. They came out the next game flat. Completely flat. AV even tried to close up the flood gates with the time out when it was 2-0 in the 1st period of game. The team does not respond to his methods. They are a brilliant team in regards to skill and depth and no one should have a hope in hell of beating that team in a 7 game series.
Thirdly, where are the Sedin's?? Where is Kesler??? Cory Crawford has more points in the past 2 games than those 3 guys!!! That's because they are sitting on the bench during all the penalty kills. When your best players are not your best players, you need your goalie to step up. Although Luongo has not been bad, he has been far from great. Proving himself again in that he does not step up in the biggest games. He hasn't closed the deal often enough to say the least.
Obviously, if Vancouver wins the next game it's over. However, if Chicago wins game 6 I don't see any way that Vancouver can come back in game 7. Even though the series will be tied, they won't win.
The first 5 minutes of game 6 wins the series.
Finally, Alex I think you should have a clue by now that I don't just make a post for the sake of seeing my words. I did watch all but the 3rd period of the last game. I have watched the Canucks lose their cool and I have watched AV do nothing about it. So take your "did you even watch the games' comments and place them exactly where they belong. To your point, AV maybe hasn't lost a game for them. But how many has he won?? What has he done to try to either close out the series or stop the bleeding??? Change of the lines?? Tweak the system?? Anything??? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2011 : 18:06:20
|
quote:
To Nuxfan: I'm not surprised that Chicago won two games, but I'll admit that I didn't think they would win by scores that big. However, I thought before the series that Chicago would win it in six games, so I thought they'd be up 3-2 at this point. Sorry, I think Vancouver is over-rated; I think they are a very good team, but not the powerhouse club that the media and others made them out to be.
Guest, fair enough. I called the Canucks in 6 myself - I don't think anyone thought this series would be easy, and certainly no one predicted a sweep or a big beatdown by the Canucks - CHI is a very good team with a psychological advantage as well having beaten them the last 2 years. This series is exactly where it should be right now, 3-2 VAN. VAN massively outplayed CHI in the first 3 games and got 3 wins, and CHI has massively outplayed VAN in the last 2 and gotten 2 more.
A lot of this series has been a surprise to me. I didn't expect VAN to be up 3-0, and I didn't expect blowout losses to cut the lead to 3-2. But here we are, the Canucks have to pull their heads together and get back to what worked in the first 3 games to finish CHI off, or they're not going to do it. But given whats happened so far, I'm ready for anything to happen Sunday and possibly Tuesday. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 04/23/2011 18:10:15 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2011 : 20:28:36
|
You guys should be worried. Heck, I am worried because I have Vancouver going third round at least in my pools.
What a strange and crazy turn of events for the Hawks to absolutely sandblast the Canucks the last two games. Crawford should also get a lot of credit, especially that last game, the Canucks could have easily gone up 1 or 2 nothing and it's a completely different game.
I think game 6 is must win for the Canucks. I don't think they have been undisciplined like Beans does, I think they've been alright, and adding on a bunch of roughing minutes after the game is a blowout is meaningless. But they have got to get over this mental barrier . . .and most importantly, Luongo has to play like a Vezina candidate.
I have no predictions, this game could go anywhere! But, I will be watching . . .
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest4199
( )
|
Posted - 04/23/2011 : 20:53:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Beans, respectfully, i disagree with your opinion. And stronglyt! AV has not cost the Canucks a game thus far. Sure, you could come up with a bit of an argument for last night's game that penalties cost the Canucks, but throwing those numbers out there (which aren't exactly accurate btw) in an attempt to convince anyone that it's AV's fault just shows your dislike for him which we're all aware of. No one i've witnessed yet, has gone to the "coaching card" as much as you, and that's fine, it's your perogative. BUT, look at game 4. Did penalties cost the Canucks? NOPE. They gave up 2 PP goals. FYI, they were in the third period and they were goals 6 and 7. The game was over by then. In fact, the Hawks took the only two minors in the first period, on which had the Canucks scored twice, it would likely have been a much different game. Oh, and the Keith minor in that period could have been a double minor and maybe even 6. You wanna talk discipline? If the Canucks had made them pay there and eliminated them, the only talk in Chicago would have been how selfish Keith had been and how he hurt his team. Lucky for him, the Hawks killed off the 2 mins he was given.
Did you actually watch the game or look at the boxscore? Because, if you did either, you'd notice that the bulk of the penalties came when the game was more or less out of reach. Personally, as a Canucks fan, i had no problem with them taking penalties at that point as it was more or less to send a message for the rest of the series. To simply look at the number of penalty mins is so misleading it's borderline silly. It'd be like seeing a guy get a bunch of misconducts at the end of the game and saying wow, look at how many penalties they took??? Count the power plays and it's only 11-8 in favour of Chicago in the past 2 games. Now, count the power plays that really mattered, you know, the ones that weren't taken when the game was more or less already decided.
What i see is you using the numbers to strengthen your argument that AV isn't doing his job. I've watched nearly every minute of this series and it's def not AV who's cost the Canucks. Sure, the blame will inevitably fall back on him and cost him his job if they don't win this series, but that's professional sports. How many times have we seen the coach be the "fall guy"?
What i've seen so far is NOTHING like the undisciplined team i witnessed last year. I see a team which hasn't come close to performing it's best, and that includes the first 3 games.
|
|
|
|
sealz19
Top Prospect
Canada
3 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2011 : 21:51:32
|
bottom line...sedin's play like they're 3 steps ahead , and not like the're about to get stabbed in the back...canucks win....i've never seen them play so rushed..so timid..and it's been the whole series...it's like they watched the 1st period in game 1,and thought wholly crap we're gonna get killed...canucks havn't been the best 5 on 5 team this year..they've been one of the best puck control teams with the best power play...if the other team can't get the puck...they end up putting you on the power play...that won't happen if hank and daniel are afraid to hesitate and create space.....which gives the rest of the team the chance to contrast that with speed and pressure...
|
|
|
|
Game7ticket
Top Prospect
1 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2011 : 23:30:29
|
I kind of blame the players' reaction to its killer fans and media in Vancouver. They can frazzle you. Now the momentum may shift, I think. The Canucks are a good road team;however the stats don't mean much if the nerves are frazzled. Now the Ugly hit issue is behind them, and the Hawks are in a position to win it all (essentially finish this comeback) they get the pressure now. Once they start to feel the nerves it may be different. Certainly it should help Canucks.
Based on what I have seen at the last two games, I can't suggest anything new in game 6, until I see it. It is my hope that Leadership takes over and starts to calm them down. I think Canucks win in Chicago and they do it with Luongo.
Not using Lu would be a bad business decision, even if they do win.
I look forward to a great dinner and game on HD tomorrow. Enjoy everyone and let's hope we see some effort from those who are due.
Ps. If they lose, I have my game 7 ticket. : D
|
|
|
|
Guest4241
( )
|
Posted - 04/24/2011 : 20:17:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Game7ticket
I kind of blame the players' reaction to its killer fans and media in Vancouver. They can frazzle you. Now the momentum may shift, I think. The Canucks are a good road team;however the stats don't mean much if the nerves are frazzled. Now the Ugly hit issue is behind them, and the Hawks are in a position to win it all (essentially finish this comeback) they get the pressure now. Once they start to feel the nerves it may be different. Certainly it should help Canucks.
Based on what I have seen at the last two games, I can't suggest anything new in game 6, until I see it. It is my hope that Leadership takes over and starts to calm them down. I think Canucks win in Chicago and they do it with Luongo.
Not using Lu would be a bad business decision, even if they do win.
I look forward to a great dinner and game on HD tomorrow. Enjoy everyone and let's hope we see some effort from those who are due.
Ps. If they lose, I have my game 7 ticket. : D
Enjoy game 7. This is of course, a major over simplication, but it`s gotta be Luongo who wins it for them in game 7. They threw the kitchen sink at CHI tonight, but ultimately Crawford played better down the stretch, not that Roberto could really be blamed. But, I think that`s been the problem for a few years; Roberto plays well enough not to take the blame, but ultimately every championship team needs a goalie to step up in a series and grab a game when it matters. We have yet to see Roberto do that (in recent memory.) I think it`s time for Bobby Lu to either prove he`s the man or get off the pot. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2011 : 20:36:45
|
I completely agree that Vancouver threw everything they had at the Hawks. I have seen Vancouver play better but they gave them everything they had tonight and controlled the play for most of the game. The Sedins were better but not productive, Kesler finally appeared for the first time since the 2nd period of the 2nd game. That line of Raymond, Kesler, and Burrow(blech) was the best line of either team tonight. Bieksa was Norris worthy. Even AV threw some stuff at them such as that dump and beat the icing play which was executed very well and exposed the Hawks defense a bit.
However, they still lost and Vancouver goaltending still looked pedestrian. With the exception of the 5-3, Schnieder was just ok. This team looks like they need a goalie better than just ok to win.
That being said, Vancouver came with more than I thought they would. It's game 7 and anything can happen. I gotta say that the fickle Vancouver crowd might be the difference, to the negative that is. If Chicago comes out quick and gets any kind of lead after the 1st period, the fans will be all over the Canucks.
Tuesday should be awesome. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2011 : 20:37:28
|
Luongo played very well considering he came into the game cold, thats a tough way to get into the game. Kudo's to him, no fault on the OT winner. Schneider also played a very good game tonight for his first playoff game ever - the 2 goals were both results of his bad passes, but otherwise he played very strongly in net.
Canucks played a great game tonight, they looked stronger than games 4 and 5, and could have won that game. I feel a lot better about going into game 7 than I would have otherwise - although its still gonna be a crapshoot. I also don't usually like talking about the reffing, but I felt they had an impact in that 3rd period and OT, and not favourably towards the Canucks. I'm not sure how Bolland got away without a single penalty despite a high stick to Daniel's face, slashing him across both hands, and breaking Hank's stick in the crease with a slash. I'm also not sure how the elbow to Bieksa's head behind the net didn't result in a 2 minute penalty early in OT, similar to Torre's hit on Seabrook a few games earlier. Despite the non-calls, the Canucks didn't lose it and take retaliations which is good.
If we win game 7, perhaps we'll be able to look back on this series as the adversity you need to overcome to have success later. If we lose, its gonna be a very long summer in Vancouver. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 04/24/2011 20:38:58 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2011 : 21:04:26
|
ORCA colored glasses alert??? Firstly, the hit to Bieksa was no elbow. Not even close. Shoulder maybe, but I see that hit as borderline at best. I watched that play and clearly watched Bieksa look towards the side of the ice that Bolland(I believe it was Bolland) was coming from and Bieksa then looked back down. Secondly, one could argue the head was the initial contact but one could also argue the Bolland's shoulder hit Bieksa head and shoulder at the same time.
Unless we are talking about a different hit all together. That call is not going to be made in OT against either team.
Secondly, I watched the Canucks hack and slash at the Blackhawks all night and not get a call. How about Edlber's slough-foot in the 2nd right in front of the ref??
There were good and bad calls for both sides but no more for one than the other. I thought the reffing was neither good nor bad and also didn't favour either team more than the other. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 04/24/2011 21:30:57 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2011 : 21:33:56
|
quote:
Firstly, the hit to Bieksa was no elbow. Not even close. Shoulder maybe, but I see that hit as borderline at best. I watched that play and clearly watched Bieksa look towards the side of the ice the Bolland(I believe it was Bolland) was coming from and Bieksa then looked back down. Secondly, one could argue the head was the initial contact but one could also argue the Bolland's shoulder hit Bieksa head and shoulder at the same time.
The hit is at the 3:25 mark.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/04/24/canucks_blackhawks_game6/
I also see Bieksa looking back - right at Bolland, the guy that didn't come out of the blindside and hit him.
It is a clear elbow/shoulder to the head, you even see Bieksa's head snap back. Or wait - perhaps thats the result of the shoulder hitting the earlobe and Bieksa's shoulder at the same time, then deflecting into the upper lip and hairline, causing the helmet to fly back.
Please explain to me how that is not a 2 minute minor - or more - in any NHL game.
quote:
Secondly, I watched the Canucks hack and slash at the Blackhawks all night and not get a call. How about Edlber's slough-foot in the 2nd right in front of the ref??
Minor hacking and slashing are part of the game - both sides went at it all night, and I don't have a problem with that. However, some actions are just clear penalties. A high stick to the head is a penalty, no matter what period of what game you're in. A slash across the hands that causes gloves to both come off is a penalty. A slash that breaks a stick is an easy penalty to call, and gets called every time I see it. Yet those all mysteriously went missed tonight, in the 3rd period of a very tight game.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 05:26:40
|
To pipe in on the penalties for and against Vancouver in game 6 - it was total homer reffing, I thought. Poorly reffed game that should have had a couple of Vancouver power plays in the third, I agree with Alex here.
Hopefully the same thing happens in V-town. I am cheering for Cancouver strictly from a poolie point of view, to clarify! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 07:31:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Firstly, the hit to Bieksa was no elbow. Not even close. Shoulder maybe, but I see that hit as borderline at best. I watched that play and clearly watched Bieksa look towards the side of the ice the Bolland(I believe it was Bolland) was coming from and Bieksa then looked back down. Secondly, one could argue the head was the initial contact but one could also argue the Bolland's shoulder hit Bieksa head and shoulder at the same time.
The hit is at the 3:25 mark.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2011/04/24/canucks_blackhawks_game6/
I also see Bieksa looking back - right at Bolland, the guy that didn't come out of the blindside and hit him.
It is a clear elbow/shoulder to the head, you even see Bieksa's head snap back. Or wait - perhaps thats the result of the shoulder hitting the earlobe and Bieksa's shoulder at the same time, then deflecting into the upper lip and hairline, causing the helmet to fly back.
Please explain to me how that is not a 2 minute minor - or more - in any NHL game.
quote:
Secondly, I watched the Canucks hack and slash at the Blackhawks all night and not get a call. How about Edlber's slough-foot in the 2nd right in front of the ref??
Minor hacking and slashing are part of the game - both sides went at it all night, and I don't have a problem with that. However, some actions are just clear penalties. A high stick to the head is a penalty, no matter what period of what game you're in. A slash across the hands that causes gloves to both come off is a penalty. A slash that breaks a stick is an easy penalty to call, and gets called every time I see it. Yet those all mysteriously went missed tonight, in the 3rd period of a very tight game.
Oh, so a slash and a hack are ok??? A penalty is a penalty is it not??? Again, you want to call the Bieska hit a shoulder to head hit, I would have a hard time arguing. But an elbow?? C'mon man. I get it, you are fan of the Canucks. You have to back them, but let's look at things as they really are. The frustrating part about that is I see that hit very close to the Torres hit. Difference being is that Bieksa had the puck, Seabrook did not. So, as so many Canuck fans defended that rule, you live by the sword and you die by the sword. Torres got an interference penalty as Seabrook did not have the puck but the hit was deemed as 'legal.' I don't agree it is a good hit and I think the NHL should change the rule, however that is the rule today. You can't have Torres' hit defended and throw Bolland to the wolves.
So that's it?? You bring up one call, maybe 2 if you consider a slash that broken Sedin's stick in the slot I believe at the end of the 2nd period. But you said nothing about the clear slough-foot that Edler gave to Bolland??? What about the slash to the stick Bieksa gave to Toews in the corner than knocked the stick out of Toews hands?? The only difference between that slash and the one on Sedin is that Toews stick didn't break.
I can't disagree with Slozo that the reffing was questionable. But I can very easily argue the calls were equally bad for both teams. Neither team had advantage from the refs. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 04/25/2011 10:10:52 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 07:46:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I agree with Alex here.
C'mon guys! Do you really think that nuxfan and i are one person with two accounts or something? Wasn't that Brentrock's gig? 
For Alex's real take, keep reeding!
The elbow/shoulder to Bieksa's head was as close to the Torres hit on Seabrook as you'll likely see. Was it a headshot? Yup. Is a headshot legal on that point of the ice, yup! The league clarified that with the Torres hit, therefore how can anyone think there'd be a suspension or other discipline (heard people talking about a suspension on the radio)? Now, should there have been a 2 min minor? Probably, but not for the headshot itself. The ref, who had as good a view as you could possibly get, could have easily called a charge. Don't believe me? Think i'm wearing Orca glasses (whatever they are?)? Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTAqvq_LE4&feature=related
Even with the poor quality of video, you can clearly see Bickell leaves his feet. Easiest call in the world! However, for a charge, not a headshot. Remember, Bieksa was lingering around in Area 51! 
In defense of Bickell, the elbow was not raised in the slightest. Even after contact, it barely comes away from his body. Yeah, the shoulder gets Bikesa, but as i've argued before, with a dman leaning/looking down at the puck, it leaves little opportunity for a the hitter, unless he were to take out a couple of knees by going low?
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
There were good and bad calls for both sides but no more for one than the other. I thought the reffing was neither good nor bad and also didn't favour either team more than the other.
Funny how a Canucks fan has "Orca coloured glasses" on but someone cheering for the Hawks simply sees things clearly?
I thought the reffing was below avg, but the slash that broke Sedin's stick was certainly worthy of a call at ANY point in ANY game. That's one of those no brainers like flipping the puck over the glass. When a guy is standing there with a busted stick, it's pretty obvious the slash was powerful enough to deserve 2mins. Did the reffing cost the Canucks the game? Tough to say. If they'd won, i don't think anyone would be sitting here saying the won in spite of the refs so while an extra pp here and there wouldn't have hurt, i'm not gonna say the refs cost them the game. That goal post that Higgins dented might have though? 
|
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 08:54:08
|
I agree with Alex (and a few others) that the officiating was in Chicago's favour in Game 6. And this coming from someone who cheered for the Hawks in last year's playoffs.
I watched the game with two buddies, and they felt the same way about the officiating, and one of these guys picked Chicago players in his playoff pool. (And no, it isn't Beans.)
Bickel's hit on Bieksa is a penalty no matter whether it's regulation time or overtime. (And I do see it being close to the same to the Torres hit on Seabrook.)
If Bieksa was knocked out by the hit, the referees may have called things differently, but Bieksa got up fairly quickly after being knocked down. (And good for him.)
I'm not wearing any kind of coloured glasses either. I'm watching this series as a hockey fan, without any clear preference to either team winning. The only thing I have on the line is a very insignificant prediction I made in this thread that the Canucks would bounce back and win this series.
I'm no conspiracy theory nut, but I wonder if referees (probably subconsciously) call games in slight favour to the team facing elimination? And the comment about refs calling games in favour of home teams: there was a very good investigative research article on this very theme, and it showed some evidence that this does take place. |
|
|
|
Guest4988
( )
|
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 09:04:23
|
| Bryan Bickell's hit was almost as bad as Raffi Torres'on Brent Seabrook and it probably deserved a two minute penalty, but certainly not a suspension. However, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. It looked good on Bieksa anyway for attacking Viktor Stalberg in Game 4. He went after him when Stalberg knocked him over with a clean check because I guess his feelings were hurt. Bieksa is the same guy who stated that John Scott only fights little guys-- which is ridiculous BTW-- yet Bieksa fights Stalberg. I will admit that in Game 6, the officiating was inconsistent, but for both sides. It should be a great game 7. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 09:38:26
|
quote:
Oh, so a slash and a hack are ok??? A penalty is a penalty is it not??? Again, you want to call the Bieska hit a shoulder to head hit, I would have a hard time arguing. But an elbow?? C'mon man. I get it, you are fan of the Canucks. You have to back them, but let's look at things as they really are. The frustrating part about that is I see that hit very close to the Torres hit. Difference being is that Bieksa had the but, Seabrook did not. So, as so many Canuck fans defended that rule, you live by the sword and you die by the sword. Torres got an interference penalty as Seabrook did not have the puck but the hit was deemed as 'legal.' I don't agree it is a good hit and I think the NHL should change the rule, however that is the rule today. You can't have Torres' hit defended and throw Bolland to the wolves.
a) It was Bickell, not Bolland, that hit Bieksa
b) I did not defend Torres's hit at any time, it was indefensible and IMO suspendable. However it was not, and based on the same rule, I do not believe that Bickell should be suspended. There is a difference between a 2 minute penalty and a suspension.
c) a hit to the head is a penalty in today's game. It does not matter what body part you hit it with (Alex's video shows it better, and perhaps it is more shoulder than elbow - whatever). You can rest assured that had it been Bieksa throwing a body part and catching Duncan Keith's head behind the net in OT last night, we would have seen a penalty.
And yeah Beans, there are slashes and then there are Slashes. The incidental slashing and hacking that goes on between players is part of the game - that little tap you give a guy on the shins to let him know you're there, the small hook as he goes by to slow him down, it happens a lot and thats fine. But when a stick gets into the face, there is really no excuse for not calling that play. When a slash to the hands knocks the stick out of a players hand in the offensive zone, or breaks a stick in two, that has to be called - its been called all year, its like clockwork now. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 10:24:41
|
Ok, a number of things:
1 - Alex, I never said you were wearing any kind of glasses at all. My point was clearly and specifically to Nuxfan who still has not acknowledged the slough-foot or the slash on Toews. That is where the glasses come in. Some can see there were missed calls for both sides, not just the Canucks. I have cited two very clear and specific examples of calls that also could have or should have been called against the Canucks and not a single person has acknowledged those plays. No one. That is baised, is it not??
2 -Firstly, sorry for getting the player wrong but we are still talking about the same hit. Charging?? Maybe. I don't see the Chicago player leaving his feet but ok. If it's anything, that MIGHT be it.
3 - There are slashes and there are SLASHES. So why are you complaining about the Sedin slash but not the Toews slash? Same things right?? By your words:
When a slash to the hands knocks the stick out of a players hand in the offensive zone, or breaks a stick in two, that has to be called - its been called all year, its like clockwork now.
Neither were called. But only the missed call that would benefit Vancouver is discussed. Biased???????? Who's Biased??????
I give credit to a fan like Alex(who can say something reasonable like the refs can't be blamed for the loss. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 11:15:26
|
I agree with Beans and Alex that you can't blame a loss on the referees. It doesn't mean that officials don't get in wrong sometimes, or that they call games in one team's favour (not purposely of course) from time to time. Most of the time, bad calls even out over the course of a game, but sometimes bad calls (like bad bounces, hitting the post, etc.) work out in one team's favour.
Officiating is just one part of the game. When a team loses, they have to look at what they didn't do right, or when they missed scoring chances, or did not defend properly. For every missed call, there are numerous missed scoring opportunities.
This doesn't mean that fans will overlook missed calls, or where they view inferior officiating. (Nor should they.) But at the same time, fans need to recognize the more significant reason a team loses, and it's not because of officiating.
My opinion remains the same though. The Canucks got the short end of the stick with calls in Game 6. (And I have no hesitation in making this point.)
Is this why they lost? Nope. The reason they lost was due to missed opportunities, and that their opponent is no slouch. I think the Canucks edged out the Hawks in overall play in Game 6, but in a close game, the decision can go either way.
And I agree with everyone that Game 7 will be a beauty! The defending champs vs. the President's Trophy winners in a game 7 matchup. I hope it goes to overtime!
|
|
|
|
Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
268 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 11:16:11
|
I thought the officiating was bad both ways as proven by the comments here. This is playoffs and this kind of adversity happens in 7 game series. That's what makes winning the cup so challenging!! Game 7 SB sweet.
Let's talk about finishing teams off and playing full 60 minute games every game. Games 4 & 5 were mail ins by the Canucks after getting down early IMO. They played a strong game in 6 to bounce back but lost.
Look at Detroit they didn't mess around and surprisingly neither did Washington. You have to finish the deal this series should have ended by now instead Chicago has the momentum?
On a lighter note I told one of my Canuck fan buddies after game 5 that NBC saw the last two games and wanted to add the Canucks to the spring lineup in a new series called Two and a half periods. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Worried Nux fan! 
