Post-Game Talk: GM 07 | Canucks def. Penguins | 4-3 (Pettersson, Sherwood, Miller, Bains)

[vancityluongo]

ppl have been very excited about sherwood, lankinen, garland, and miller so far, and for good reason. and hughes is hughes of course. but tbh blueger has been my favourite canuck this season

agreed.

sherwood has been great, but blueger is on the kind of run as a third line center that wins playoff series'. he is almost certainly the best third line center in the league right now.

was at a pub last night while the game was on and it was cool to see a bunch of brown dudes who were all generally not watching the game notice and cheer when bains scored. in edmonton!

 

[pitseleh]

Microstats show a pretty one-sided game:

https://x.com/i/web/status/1850623574375010799

 

[MS]

Microstats show a pretty one-sided game:

https://x.com/i/web/status/1850623574375010799

This matches my eye test and I’m confused about some of the reactions here.

We had a bit of a slow start for the first 8 minutes through the 1-0 goal and then outshot them 31-5 for the next 40ish minutes. That was an absolute battering.

 

[strattonius]

This matches my eye test and I’m confused about some of the reactions here.

We had a bit of a slow start for the first 8 minutes through the 1-0 goal and then outshot them 31-5 for the next 40ish minutes. That was an absolute battering.

Some fans expect domination like we saw in the 2nd period for a full 60, 82 games a year. Otherwise the team just isn't buying in to Tocchet.

 

[MS]

Some fans expect domination like we saw in the 2nd period for a full 60, 82 games a year. Otherwise the team just isn't buying in to Tocchet.

This is one of my pet peeves dating back to the WCE era when ‘the team didnt play a full 60 minutes’ was used to excuse Dan Cloutier for absolutely sucking ass in a game we completely deserved to win.

A ‘full 60 minutes’ in the eyes of most fans seems to mean you win 5-0, outshoot the opposition 35-15, and are in total control of the game and momentum from start to finish. And that simply never happens.

There is a ton of parity in this league and every team in nearly every game will have stretches/periods where they outplay the opposition. Crosby/Malkin simply were never not going to have a couple points last night where they strung some shifts together and carried the play.

 

[TruGr1t]

This matches my eye test and I’m confused about some of the reactions here.

We had a bit of a slow start for the first 8 minutes through the 1-0 goal and then outshot them 31-5 for the next 40ish minutes. That was an absolute battering.

It's not hard to explain. Nedeljkovic was actually quite good for large portions of the game, the Canucks had some brutal defensive breakdowns in the first and early second (and on the Malkin goal in the third) that could have resulted in a 3-0 or 4-0 scorecard, and then the Canucks completely sat back in the third. They owned the second and portions of the first pretty cleanly. The Pens basically scored every goal but one on gross Canucks defensive breakdowns largely attributable to Soucy, Myers and Desharnais.

Had they lost, I'm sure we'd hear the usual statistically argument about how they drove a lot of the play, but a few brutal shifts and some counter-flow by the Pens cost them the game. Oh, and people would have said they got "goalied". I'm not sure how that game looks if they don't score that many goals in quick succession, or if Lankinen didn't effectively bail out a couple of additional terrible defensive plays in the late first, early second.

 

[VanJack]

You knew that the Pens would come in as a motivated team, after their 'face-plant' the previous night in Edmonton. They're a proud group with future HOF'ers in their lineup.

And the Canucks were back on the ice after a surprisingly long layoff this early in the season. Still, if the Canucks could ever get their powerplay going, they'd have buried the Pens in the second period.

A much tougher test coming on Monday with the 'Canes, who are fast and deep.

 

[VanillaCoke]

It's not hard to explain. Nedeljkovic was actually quite good for large portions of the game, the Canucks had some brutal defensive breakdowns in the first and early second (and on the Malkin goal in the third) that could have resulted in a 3-0 or 4-0 scorecard, and then the Canucks completely sat back in the third. They owned the second and portions of the first pretty cleanly. The Pens basically scored every goal but one on gross Canucks defensive breakdowns largely attributable to Soucy, Myers and Desharnais.

No need to spread more misinformation, Crosby takes out both defensemen on the malkin goal, blaming Desharnais is just bias.
If anything the error is on Hronek, but really Sid should've got a penalty.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

No need to spread more misinformation, Crosby takes out both defensemen on the malkin goal, blaming Desharnais is just bias.
If anything the error is on Hronek, but really Sid should've got a penalty.

Yeah, Desharnais stumbling is the loud mistake, but Hroneks coverage was horrible on that goal. IMO you play it passively and collapse to goal instead of making a stand like he did. But, these are decisions you make in fractions of a second.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

This is one of my pet peeves dating back to the WCE era when ‘the team didnt play a full 60 minutes’ was used to excuse Dan Cloutier for absolutely sucking ass in a game we completely deserved to win.

A ‘full 60 minutes’ in the eyes of most fans seems to mean you win 5-0, outshoot the opposition 35-15, and are in total control of the game and momentum from start to finish. And that simply never happens.

There is a ton of parity in this league and every team in nearly every game will have stretches/periods where they outplay the opposition. Crosby/Malkin simply were never not going to have a couple points last night where they strung some shifts together and carried the play.

Hockey also is the sport where luck plays the biggest factor, as much as we might not like to admit it.

The cleanest game I ever saw was a 2-1 win vs Edmonton in January of 2011, even then shots were like 32-12 and we still were a shot away from going to OT.

 

[MS]

It's not hard to explain. Nedeljkovic was actually quite good for large portions of the game, the Canucks had some brutal defensive breakdowns in the first and early second (and on the Malkin goal in the third) that could have resulted in a 3-0 or 4-0 scorecard, and then the Canucks completely sat back in the third. They owned the second and portions of the first pretty cleanly. The Pens basically scored every goal but one on gross Canucks defensive breakdowns largely attributable to Soucy, Myers and Desharnais.

Had they lost, I'm sure we'd hear the usual statistically argument about how they drove a lot of the play, but a few brutal shifts and some counter-flow by the Pens cost them the game. Oh, and people would have said they got "goalied". I'm not sure how that game looks if they don't score that many goals in quick succession, or if Lankinen didn't effectively bail out a couple of additional terrible defensive plays in the late first, early second.

We had a sluggish first 8 minutes after a bunch of days off, then absolutely destroyed them for close to 40 minutes, then sat back a bit much late when we were protecting the lead.

Shots were 33-12 at one point well into the 3rd period.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Yeah, Desharnais stumbling is the loud mistake, but Hroneks coverage was horrible on that goal. IMO you play it passively and collapse to goal instead of making a stand like he did. But, these are decisions you make in fractions of a second.

Agree but again there was no stumble or mistake on Desharnais, he's backing up like he should be as he sees hronek (~wrongly) stepping up in the neutral zone, and Crosby kicks his feet out, then immediately takes hroneks feet out afterwards. Easy breakaway for the big Russian.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Agree but again there was no stumble or mistake on Desharnais, he's backing up like he should be as he sees hronek (~wrongly) stepping up in the neutral zone, and Crosby kicks his feet out, then immediately takes hroneks feet out afterwards. Easy breakaway for the big Russian.

Call it whatever you like point stands.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

We had a sluggish first 8 minutes after a bunch of days off, then absolutely destroyed them for close to 40 minutes, then sat back a bit much late when we were protecting the lead.

Shots were 33-12 at one point well into the 3rd period.

Like, outside of the first 7-8 and last 15 mins, it was Canuck domination. You take that every single day.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Call it whatever you like point stands.

Call it what's accurate >

 

[TruGr1t]

We had a sluggish first 8 minutes after a bunch of days off, then absolutely destroyed them for close to 40 minutes, then sat back a bit much late when we were protecting the lead.

Shots were 33-12 at one point well into the 3rd period.

Completely disregarding the score throughout the game, sure. You can completely ignore the brutal defensive issues that nearly made us lose the game if you want.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Call it what's accurate >

K

 

[strattonius]

It's not hard to explain. Nedeljkovic was actually quite good for large portions of the game, the Canucks had some brutal defensive breakdowns in the first and early second (and on the Malkin goal in the third) that could have resulted in a 3-0 or 4-0 scorecard, and then the Canucks completely sat back in the third. They owned the second and portions of the first pretty cleanly. The Pens basically scored every goal but one on gross Canucks defensive breakdowns largely attributable to Soucy, Myers and Desharnais.

Had they lost, I'm sure we'd hear the usual statistically argument about how they drove a lot of the play, but a few brutal shifts and some counter-flow by the Pens cost them the game. Oh, and people would have said they got "goalied". I'm not sure how that game looks if they don't score that many goals in quick succession, or if Lankinen didn't effectively bail out a couple of additional terrible defensive plays in the late first, early second.

Must be exhausting explaining hypotheticals of us losing that never happened.

 

[MS]

Completely disregarding the score throughout the game, sure. You can completely ignore the brutal defensive issues that nearly made us lose the game if you want.

The game should never have been close at the end. We destroyed them.

Again, shots were 33-12 well into the 3rd period. The fact that we had a couple defensive breakdowns doesn’t mean that the play wasn’t incredibly lopsided most of the night until we sat on the lead.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

This is one of my pet peeves dating back to the WCE era when ‘the team didnt play a full 60 minutes’ was used to excuse Dan Cloutier for absolutely sucking ass in a game we completely deserved to win.

A ‘full 60 minutes’ in the eyes of most fans seems to mean you win 5-0, outshoot the opposition 35-15, and are in total control of the game and momentum from start to finish. And that simply never happens.

There is a ton of parity in this league and every team in nearly every game will have stretches/periods where they outplay the opposition. Crosby/Malkin simply were never not going to have a couple points last night where they strung some shifts together and carried the play.

In the eyes of most fans.

Sure.

 

[HairyKneel]

Some fans expect domination like we saw in the 2nd period for a full 60, 82 games a year. Otherwise the team just isn't buying in to Tocchet.

Most of these people need the helper to do a lap around the ice.

In the eyes of most fans.

Sure.

Most fans that have actually played and understand the game.