Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

BladesofSteel wrote: But it seems there are two key issues he's worked on this season that have cursed him in past:
1) the shoot out and
2) his propensity for the short side softies.

Speaking of these two points, did anyone notice in the shootout (the camera angle on the Hudler shot really showed it well) that as the shooters were coming in Lu made a point of dropping his blocker really low to take away the short side gap on that side?

Smart move by Lu to take away that option, knowing that he has been exposed there before.

Mëds wrote:I was going to mention both Raymond and Luongo, but didn't. I forgot about Louie, who was absolutely Howard's equal tonight, and Raymond, while skating hard and bringing speed, is not bringing anything else. He is back to poor shot selection and playing soft, the only reason he is noticed at all is because he races up the ice and passes 4 other players chasing the puck. I don't feel like elaborating on his play or picking him apart, I harped enough on Rome. Gotta give the other guys a break.

I often get equally frustrated with Raymond, but one of the smartest, progressive and successful mangement teams in the league continue to employ him on the second line. And their results speak for themselves. So I have to defer to success and try and figure out why...

I think what the team sees is Raymond brings is an extremely strong defensive/backchecking game that is hard for us average fans to notice. What we average fans notice is who scored and/or who made a mistake on a goal against. The constant and subtle defensive play that results in a scoring chance at the other end 20 seconds later is not memorable, so it's not noticed.

I assume management accept his lack of production because he makes up for it in defense and puck possession. After all, the object is to not just score, but to score more than your opponent.

Larry Goodenough wrote:

Mëds wrote:I was going to mention both Raymond and Luongo, but didn't. I forgot about Louie, who was absolutely Howard's equal tonight, and Raymond, while skating hard and bringing speed, is not bringing anything else. He is back to poor shot selection and playing soft, the only reason he is noticed at all is because he races up the ice and passes 4 other players chasing the puck. I don't feel like elaborating on his play or picking him apart, I harped enough on Rome. Gotta give the other guys a break.

I often get equally frustrated with Raymond, but one of the smartest, progressive and successful mangement teams in the league continue to employ him on the second line. And their results speak for themselves. So I have to defer to success and try and figure out why...

I think what the team sees is Raymond brings is an extremely strong defensive/backchecking game that is hard for us average fans to notice. What we average fans notice is who scored and/or who made a mistake on a goal against. The constant and subtle defensive play that results in a scoring chance at the other end 20 seconds later is not memorable, so it's not noticed.

I assume management accept his lack of production because he makes up for it in defense and puck possession. After all, the object is to not just score, but to score more than your opponent.

It could also be the fact that the Canucks are showcasing Raymond as well.

Scoring chances were 28-27 last night for Detroit. And awesome number considering they were 21-17 vs nash, 18-12 vs Edm and 19-19 vs Tor.

The top line numbers were remarkable as Hank was plus 7 (12-5) and Dan was plus 4 (9-5) and Burrows plus 6 (8-2). And these were all at even strength and largely against Lidstrom and Zetterberg.

With that being said, the PP was bad again, with only one scoring chance came from 3 powerplays.

Kesler and Hansen struggled with minus 5 (5-10) and minus 8! (4-12) respectively. I though Hansen totally blew his assignment on the Quincey goal, sliding to block a shot that was never taken, then standing by himself at the blueline while Quincey walked in unchecked.

On D - again, despite the usual criticism, Rome was even (8-8) and Tanev was plus 1 (9-8) Hamhuis was plus one (9-8) while Bieksa was minus 4 (9-13). Edler was minus 2 (6-8 and Salo plus 2 (8-6).

Jovocop wrote:

Larry Goodenough wrote:

Mëds wrote:I was going to mention both Raymond and Luongo, but didn't. I forgot about Louie, who was absolutely Howard's equal tonight, and Raymond, while skating hard and bringing speed, is not bringing anything else. He is back to poor shot selection and playing soft, the only reason he is noticed at all is because he races up the ice and passes 4 other players chasing the puck. I don't feel like elaborating on his play or picking him apart, I harped enough on Rome. Gotta give the other guys a break.

I often get equally frustrated with Raymond, but one of the smartest, progressive and successful mangement teams in the league continue to employ him on the second line. And their results speak for themselves. So I have to defer to success and try and figure out why...

I think what the team sees is Raymond brings is an extremely strong defensive/backchecking game that is hard for us average fans to notice. What we average fans notice is who scored and/or who made a mistake on a goal against. The constant and subtle defensive play that results in a scoring chance at the other end 20 seconds later is not memorable, so it's not noticed.

I assume management accept his lack of production because he makes up for it in defense and puck possession. After all, the object is to not just score, but to score more than your opponent.

It could also be the fact that the Canucks are showcasing Raymond as well.

Maybe, but would they showcase him at the expense of winning in the second biggest game of the regular season?

A close close game.. Burrows starring with another game winner in circus time.. 1 small thought ( quibble? ) - Detroit was playing without their star Datsuyk.. Maybe the difference?

Tiger wrote:A close close game.. Burrows starring with another game winner in circus time.. 1 small thought ( quibble? ) - Detroit was playing without their star Datsuyk.. Maybe the difference?

Is was according to the Detroit announcers. They were awful last night... just awful.

Tiger wrote:A close close game.. Burrows starring with another game winner in circus time.. 1 small thought ( quibble? ) - Detroit was playing without their star Datsuyk.. Maybe the difference?

Vancouver was playing their 4th game in 6 nights with travel between each game and had travelled across 3 time zones for the 7th time this year. It was the ninth time for the all star game players.

Evens out the absence of Datsyuk a bit in my book.

Larry Goodenough wrote:

Tiger wrote:A close close game.. Burrows starring with another game winner in circus time.. 1 small thought ( quibble? ) - Detroit was playing without their star Datsuyk.. Maybe the difference?

Vancouver was playing their 4th game in 6 nights with travel between each game and had travelled across 3 time zones for the 7th time this year. It was the ninth time for the all star game players.

Evens out the absence of Datsyuk a bit in my book.

I always hear people say "injury is part of the game and should not use it as an excuse". I am sure guys like Higgins and Salo are not 100% neither.

Jovocop wrote:

Larry Goodenough wrote:

Tiger wrote:A close close game.. Burrows starring with another game winner in circus time.. 1 small thought ( quibble? ) - Detroit was playing without their star Datsuyk.. Maybe the difference?

Vancouver was playing their 4th game in 6 nights with travel between each game and had travelled across 3 time zones for the 7th time this year. It was the ninth time for the all star game players.

Evens out the absence of Datsyuk a bit in my book.

I always hear people say "injury is part of the game and should not use it as an excuse". I am sure guys like Higgins and Salo are not 100% neither.

I don't understand that line of thinking. It's largely fans regurgitating cliches when frustrated.

Injury is part of the game. It's not an excuse, but it is a reason. It's a scientific reason that does not allow you to perform as well as if you were healthy.

If we were to apply this line of thinking, we should be blaming pilots for all plane crashes. " Mr Pilot, I know one of the wings fell off your plane, but that's just an excuse for flying it into that mountain. Flying without wings is part of the game, you should have sucked it up and landed that mother on the hiway instead. Mr. pilot, you're soft."

Larry Goodenough wrote:On D - again, despite the usual criticism, Rome was even (8-8) and Tanev was plus 1 (9-8) Hamhuis was plus one (9-8) while Bieksa was minus 4 (9-13). Edler was minus 2 (6-8 and Salo plus 2 (8-6).

And from that even 8-8, 2 ended up in the back of our net, while only 1 ended up in theirs.....

And Hansen only blew his assignment if the Canucks are playing a man-to-man setup. Once Quincey went to the slot from the boards, Hansen is counting on one of the dmen picking him up as he enters the dangerous area in front. Tanev was already tied up with a man in front. It was Rome who followed a guy up towards the half boards instead of staying home once the man he was chasing dished the puck. Kesler could also be blamed somewhat as the centerman is sometimes responsible for taking away the slot.....either way, if Rome was in position, Quincey doesn't get that clear look at the net and probably hits Rome with the puck if he tries that shot.

Larry Goodenough wrote: If we were to apply this line of thinking, we should be blaming pilots for all plane crashes. " Mr Pilot, I know one of the wings fell off your plane, but that's just an excuse for flying it into that mountain. Flying without wings is part of the game, you should have sucked it up and landed that mother on the hiway instead. Mr. pilot, you're soft."

Clearly this airline you speak of is SAS Scandanavian.

I know this was just a regular season shootout win, but...wooohooooooooo!

Walking into Detroit and breaking their 23 game home winning streak was sweet. It easily could have been 2-1 or even 3-1 Canucks after the first period. The boys played great. One of the more complete games of the season.

Rome still sucks though.

Mëds wrote:

Larry Goodenough wrote:On D - again, despite the usual criticism, Rome was even (8-8) and Tanev was plus 1 (9-8) Hamhuis was plus one (9-8) while Bieksa was minus 4 (9-13). Edler was minus 2 (6-8 and Salo plus 2 (8-6).

And from that even 8-8, 2 ended up in the back of our net, while only 1 ended up in theirs.....

And Hansen only blew his assignment if the Canucks are playing a man-to-man setup. Once Quincey went to the slot from the boards, Hansen is counting on one of the dmen picking him up as he enters the dangerous area in front. Tanev was already tied up with a man in front. It was Rome who followed a guy up towards the half boards instead of staying home once the man he was chasing dished the puck. Kesler could also be blamed somewhat as the centerman is sometimes responsible for taking away the slot.....either way, if Rome was in position, Quincey doesn't get that clear look at the net and probably hits Rome with the puck if he tries that shot.

Hansen did indeed "blow his assignment". His check was Quincey and he is supposed to stay with him. Rome was covering or trying to cover the backside. Exactly the same situation as Rome's goal in tonight's game where Bernier allowed him to move down unchecked.