Page 1 of 6

Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:30 pm
by Southern_Canuck
78 points in 63 games to reach 97 points (39-24-0)... can the Canucks do it? (Chicago finished 8th in the Western Conference with 97 points last season, and Colorado had 95 points for 8th in 2009-10)

Almost a quarter of the way into the season, and the Canucks are 9-9-1. They are painting themselves in a bit of a corner, and if they continue to "win one - lose one", they will have to have a stellar second half just to make the playoffs.

I believe they will do it.

S_C

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:51 pm
by Doyle Hargraves
What happens if they miss ? Does AV walk the plank ?

I can't imagine the Italians will be enamored with MG unless the 8.5 million dollars worth of hockey players he pulled out of Florida start producing. That's a lot of salary to get rid of if those two characters continue their mediocre ways.

I'm willing to cut Booth some slack because he's ten games in and he has wheels to burn. That said he came advertised as a power forward which he certainly is not. That term gets tossed around an awful lot these days .

Ballard through no fault of his own cannot seem to play the right side at all. I thought the dude had a lot more offensive skill and while he has been fine defensively he needs to hit 30 points to justify his salary . I guess that's a bit difficult with NO PP time and playing 14 minutes a night. Not all Ballards fault here but the pro scouting in Vancouver leaves a LOT to be desired. Sure they picked up a nice player in Rome, but wtf is up with Weise, Ryan Johnson, Sulzer, Matt Schneider, among many others. SOMEONE should have clued into the fact that Ballard is completley fucking useless on the right side.

I don't buy that they didn't know that Dan Hamhuis would sign here, therefore Ballard was a pre-emptive strike. There were other options including Willie Mitchell.

i think KB4 takes a shitload of heat for a lot of things he can't control. I used to think he was a pretty damned good player when he played for the Coyotes.

MG better hope that Booth cranks it up a bit and at least hits 20 goals. If he is a dud MG's track record is going to look a little sketchy. His drafting is already looking fairly weak.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:59 pm
by Potatoe1
Anyone who thinks the will miss is a fairly major bed wetter.

Forget the playoff cut off look at this division. I will be shocked if the Canucks don't finish 3rd. Who is going to beat them in this division?

The wild are first right now but their roster sucks donkey balls.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:08 pm
by dhabums
Southern_Canuck wrote:78 points in 63 games to reach 97 points (39-24-0)... can the Canucks do it? (Chicago finished 8th in the Western Conference with 97 points last season, and Colorado had 95 points for 8th in 2009-10)

Almost a quarter of the way into the season, and the Canucks are 9-9-1. They are painting themselves in a bit of a corner, and if they continue to "win one - lose one", they will have to have a stellar second half just to make the playoffs.

I believe they will do it.

S_C
Wow, am I surprised you didn't mention 91 pts made it the 2 seasons previous to 09/10. That would really undercut the point.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:22 pm
by The Brown Wizard
I there's a team in this league that can win at a .650 pace, it's Vancouver. If they get something out of Booth and Kesler then there's no reason why they can't return to last years form.
Sure hoping it's Alberts who gets the nod for Ballard. Sulzer is a fill in at best IMO.

I reckon they turn it around, just hope its soon and not in a month.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:35 pm
by Rumsfeld
They'll win the division again, but the fact that we're hoping we can go on a run to overtake the effing wild is what really sucks donkey balls.

I predicted we'd finish second in the West. That seems ambitious at this point, but it's a long season and we tend to go on tears in the second half. Our goaltending and even-strength play has been atrocious, but you have to think at least the latter will improve dramatically.

If it doesn't, and soon, AV should be shitcanned. This team is too talented to struggle 5-on-5 for extended periods, and if the lethargy continues you have to conclude they've tuned him out.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:36 pm
by CorranHorn
That's just it Dan, this team is wholly under-performing. I feel like everyone on this team has shat that bed on at least one occasion this year, so far.

That being said, I have full faith that we'll turn it around here in a few. The likes of Kes, Booth and Bur are going to start settling in.

On a side note, anyone else notice how poorly silent G has played on HOME ice this year. It's like he's trying to do too much out there, trying to impress the home crowd. I hope the coaching staff has realized this and are trying to get him to settle down his game.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:45 pm
by Doyle Hargraves
Potatoe1 wrote:Anyone who thinks the will miss is a fairly major bed wetter.
Haven't heard anyone say that yet. They are in a garbage division, making the playoffs should be fairly easy for them .

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:49 pm
by The Brown Wizard
CorranHorn wrote:That's just it Dan, this team is wholly under-performing. I feel like everyone on this team has shat that bed on at least one occasion this year, so far.

That being said, I have full faith that we'll turn it around here in a few. The likes of Kes, Booth and Bur are going to start settling in.
Last year, didn't Vancouver get smoked hard like 7-1 by the Hawks right around this time of year then go on to have the best year in franchise history? They weren't playing well then either right? I was in Australia so I didn't have a good feel for the team but from afar it seemed much like this year.
What I'm thinking is they needed to get their asses handed to them (like last night) by a hated rival (like last night) before they look in the mirror and sort their shit out. Yesterday was a shit smear of a game and it has to mark a low point for the season. It has to. If it doesn't then these guys are toast.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:53 pm
by Fred
I've sold most of my tickets so far this season. I went to the St L game a couple of games ago and the lethargy of the players was frankly pathetic. You don't always see it on TV. But no zip or excitment in their game. They have tied up approx $9 mill between Ballard and Booth and are right up to the limit on Cap space. Hell the Wolves are sucking too. There's not a lot that can be done. They look like the Hawks last season

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:55 pm
by Rumsfeld
I don't remember our record after 20 last year but I'm sure it was a lot better than our record right now. And it's asking a lot of a team to expect the same kind of ridiculous winning streaks we had last season.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:01 pm
by LotusBlossom
And it starts... :roll: :lol:

They are playing .500 hockey. I guess they either pull up their socks now, or Fred will never attend another game this year at Rogers Arena. :P

Sold one set of my tickets, kept the other. Only reason I haven't been going to many game this season is my schedule of life outside of the Canucks takes priority, and I will be the first to say I haven't seen much of them this year as I would have liked to, but all I want is a game where they play 60 minutes. Much like the one they played in LA and vs the Islanders.

I haven't hit the panic button yet, but if they lose to the Sens on Sunday, I might start to inch my finger closer to it or sell my tickets like Fred :look:

Oh yeah, this scheduling sucks,what kind of bullshit is that? Nice long layoffs after with stupid back to backs? Oh, but in March, the Canucks are playing almost every other night and only have four road games. :evil:

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:03 pm
by Rumsfeld
LotusBlossom wrote:Oh yeah, this scheduling sucks,what kind of bullshit is that? Nice long layoffs after with stupid back to backs? Oh, but in March, the Canucks are playing almost every other night and only have four road games. :evil:
Agreed LB, our schedule looks even more fucked up than usual. We do get a lot of mediocre teams for the next while at least.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:09 pm
by The Brown Wizard
Canucks record month by month

October- 4-3-2
November- 8-4-1
December- 11-1-2
January- 8-2-4
February- 8-5-0
March- 13-2-0
April- 2-2-0

They had a better November for sure but they really took off in December. Considering the injuries and the hangover issues its actually not that far off last years record. Cranking it up in December set the stage for the rest of the year.

I think it can happen. The personnel is pretty close to the same and its obvious they aren't really into it yet. All it will take is to find their mojo and we could be back on top within a month, no problem.

Re: Hmmm... it's early, but 39-24...?

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:12 pm
by Rumsfeld
That was one hell of a March we had last year, no pun intended.

IIRC our two losses in April came at the hands of the mighty Oilers. That was gay.