Post-Game Talk: GM 10 | Canucks def. Sharks | 3-2 (Suter x2, DeBrusk)

[Three On Zero]

I’m glad!

Cheers

That entire interaction made me giggle. It’s unfortunate that some people can’t have genuine hockey talk.

 

[LemonSauceD]

Sure but when you call someones takes trash and post that you might want to temper your criticisms

The poster I quoted routinely quotes others with half witted insults and becomes confrontational over the slightest bit of criticism so I did what he normally does.

And yes the Daigle comment was hyperbolic and I can definitely be seen saying things like that, two fold on the mains. But I rarely “attack” anyone for their opinions unless it’s clearly obvious rage bait/completely false/unsubstantiated.

 

[HairyKneel]

The poster I quoted routinely quotes others with half witted insults and becomes confrontational over the slightest bit of criticism so I did what he normally does.

And yes the Daigle comment was hyperbolic and I can definitely be seen saying things like that, two fold on the mains. But I rarely “attack” anyone for their opinions unless it’s clearly obvious rage bait/completely false/unsubstantiated.

I think it is you that is confrontational. I have never referred to others as having "trash takes"

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Put Suter on the top line again with Miller-Boeser. Put DeBrusk with Pettersson-Garland. More balanced, more efficient.

 

[VanJack]

Everyone agrees that even in the victories, they're winning ugly. I guess the positive thing is that while at times the team has flunked the 'eye test', they're still only a couple of points off last year's pace.

And they've scored 30 goals through 10 games, even with a PP missing in action. So plenty of optimism that this team could poised for an offensive breakthrough. Certainly they're a better offensive lineup than they've shown so far.

 

[sting101]

The poster I quoted routinely quotes others with half witted insults and becomes confrontational over the slightest bit of criticism so I did what he normally does.

And yes the Daigle comment was hyperbolic and I can definitely be seen saying things like that, two fold on the mains. But I rarely “attack” anyone for their opinions unless it’s clearly obvious rage bait/completely false/unsubstantiated.

No worries LSD. Not trying to be divisive or want to take runs at ya just dont think we should be insulting each other.

We all have bad takes and days around here. I know i do lots and i welcome being attacked for my opinions just not being attacked as a person. Hairy and others deserve that courtesy but so do you and i'm unaware of any back story.

Build a bridge

 

[mossey3535]

Because his shot wouldn't break an egg. He's a good little player and PP 2 should get a bit more love and he should be the key to that unit but the bumper guy needs a quick and hard shot. Garland has a muffin.

Ok so why is he out there then? I disagree with you because from the bumper it's typically a bang-bang play with a built in change of angle for the goalie. So you don't need to be pumping it past the goalie, you just need placement. I think Garland can do that, and his tenacity to stay in that spot is one of the things that could make him very successful there. Except we NEVER TRY IT.

I would love to see him be the playmaker for PP1 then, at least try it. Miller has not been good and has had every opportunity.

 

[quat]

How can Garland be the best forward on the team and they can't give him a bumper shot on the PP every so often, especially when the PP is f***ing terrible right now.

f***ing hate Gazdic, he doesn't talk about playing the game like Juice does, it's all fluff.

You might say that Gazdic is a fluffer.

 

[Regal]

Ok so why is he out there then? I disagree with you because from the bumper it's typically a bang-bang play with a built in change of angle for the goalie. So you don't need to be pumping it past the goalie, you just need placement. I think Garland can do that, and his tenacity to stay in that spot is one of the things that could make him very successful there. Except we NEVER TRY IT.

I would love to see him be the playmaker for PP1 then, at least try it. Miller has not been good and has had every opportunity.

Garland on the left wall and Miller in the bumper would be interesting tbh.

 

[mossey3535]

Garland on the left wall and Miller in the bumper would be interesting tbh.

Absolutely, honestly JT hasn't been that great but his playstyle makes it looks like he's "trying". But he is making a lot of bad decisions and poor plays. That messed up play with Quinn on the PP comes to mind. If not for 3 points against the Hawks he has 6 points in 10 games which isn't that great by his standards.

Every PP goes through him and it's been putrid. It doesn't even look dangerous, it looks static and passive except when they manage to get one to Boeser since that's Brock's biggest strength. Or when Quinn makes something from nothing. But you've got a PP, why the hell is the baseline nothing that Quinn has to make something out of?

Garland is their best and most consistent forward, reward him! Someone else mentioned Garland feeding the bumper, which sounds great to me but they never pass it below the hashes so how are they going to have that kind of low-high action?

Like jesus just reward the guy already.

 

[kanucks25]

Garland on the left wall and Miller in the bumper would be interesting tbh.

I think it has to be Garland in the left corner with Boeser on the left boards as Boeser is a shooting threat from there which Garland isn't.

That means Miller or Petey in the bumper and the other on the right wall.

Also means the PP runs through the left side with Miller and Petey being the shooting threats and not the main facilitators.

Which might be what's actually required given they haven't been good on the PP so far and Garland looks to be our best playmaker on forward.

 

[Vancouver_2010]

Did someone ask Gemini regarding this game, it saids JT miller scores the winning goal.

 

[alternate]

Got the 2 points, which will be important in the spring.

Also thought it was the closest thing we've seen to a 60 minute effort. So that's a positive.

Still need to improve our transition defense and our own zone coverage. Had some struggles in those areas. So that's a negative.

As the saying goes, sometimes when you're off the rails, you just.gotta keep rollin. Boys did a bit of rolling last night, now time to work towards rockin.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Everyone agrees that even in the victories, they're winning ugly. I guess the positive thing is that while at times the team has flunked the 'eye test', they're still only a couple of points off last year's pace.

And they've scored 30 goals through 10 games, even with a PP missing in action. So plenty of optimism that this team could poised for an offensive breakthrough. Certainly they're a better offensive lineup than they've shown so far.

The way I see it. They have bought them selves a lot of time to fix things, by winning ugly early.