Bieksallent
Registered User
- May 3, 2010
- 1,755
- 0
Wouldn't be surprised if it's Kassian who sits for a game or two. Wouldn't be the worst thing for him either if it's down to fatigue of one variety or another.
Pre-Game Talk: GM 15: Vancouver Canucks @ Chicago Blackhawks - Feb 19 - 5:30PM PST - SPAC
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
- Status
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,470
- 7,166
The time to get at CHI physically has passed IMO. Now, the focus should be to get the win, and in that regard Weise serves better than Volpatti.
Plus, I don't see any reason to stack up the toughness vs CHI. They don't play that way. In fact, the Canucks have taken it to them physically more often than not. Worse comes worst, Kassian is still there to keep others in check.
Snatcher Demko
High-End Intangibles
- Oct 8, 2006
- 6,041
- 1,495
Agreed. But I really hope he doesn't get scratched by AV, though.
He needs to have his role reduced, yet be allowed to play his way back onto the top lines.
We all expected this inconsistency - a player like him may take a few years to find his groove. But he still needs to play and be given support and confidence from the coaching staff.
^ This.
Weise will fight if he absolutely needs to, and Kassian will drop the mitts if the game gets intense
I'd much rather keep Weise in the lineup right now as he's a better overall player and he's used on the PK.
deadinthewater
Registered User
- Jan 14, 2012
- 10,069
- 520
I think the D pairings should stay the same. Can't keep doing a switcharoo every 2-3 games, otherwise the guys will never adjust or build chemistry.
Snatcher Demko
High-End Intangibles
- Oct 8, 2006
- 6,041
- 1,495
Yeah, it's strange. Volpatti is a better skater, that's probably why.
Weise has underwhelmed me thusfar this season. I expected him to be more consistent physically at least.
I'd scratch Weise tonight to send a message.
Pip
Registered User
I hope a guy like Lappierre can take him under his wing and ensure, that at the very least, Kassian Brits his physicality and the ability to agitate/intimidate every game. It's too bad we don't have a PWF to mentor him.
Just for the sake of not making another post- on the Weise and Volpatti thing, I don't care too much who plays over who I have just liked Volpatti's hitting recently and his choice to fight last night was a a very good moment imo.
Pip
Registered User
I think his time overseas has made him too focused on trying to score that he's not as effective of a fourth liner ATM. Weise is the better skater though imo, Volpatti can definently throw his body around better though.
Mr. Canucklehead
Kitimat Canuck
I don't think Weise has been bad; I've actually been pleasantly surprised by his defensive game, which has improved (he's even seen spot duty on the PK).
That said, I don't think the disparity between who he and Volpatti are as players right this second is that large. And given that Volpatti is a more consistent hitter (and a better fighter), I'd like to have him in the lineup not to instigate anything, but just to be there in case the Hawks decide to start stirring the pot. Ditto for Kassian, who can start flying as the Sedins' wing man if things get ugly.
I'm not expecting that, but it is Chicago, you never know...
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,909
- 16,347
Mr. Canucklehead
Kitimat Canuck
Well, really - what are we going to say? "You beat us, so...no?"
Of course we wanna win!
Of course we wanna win!
Last edited:
Pip
Registered User
DL44
Status quo
I would like to see Booth broken in on the 4th line and play a max of 13-14mins with spot duty on the 2nd when the shuffle is on...
Groins need a lot of time... and he's coming off a serious one... It's not like Kesler's upper body injuries... he needs to be broken in and play up to his minutes.
22-33-14
21-45-36
20-17-9
7-40-32
I would like to see 17 actually start between 20 and 9 again for the balance it brings the team... and then switch 45 and 17 if the O pressure is insufficient.
Give Kassian an opportunity to display whether he's shown up, and if he hasn't, make the move of 9 to the 4th and 7 to the 17's wing.
Lot's of versatility and options for AV... you can rationalize 6 different line combos for the bottom 9.
Such a great luxury to have Kesler back.
Groins need a lot of time... and he's coming off a serious one... It's not like Kesler's upper body injuries... he needs to be broken in and play up to his minutes.
22-33-14
21-45-36
20-17-9
7-40-32
I would like to see 17 actually start between 20 and 9 again for the balance it brings the team... and then switch 45 and 17 if the O pressure is insufficient.
Give Kassian an opportunity to display whether he's shown up, and if he hasn't, make the move of 9 to the 4th and 7 to the 17's wing.
Lot's of versatility and options for AV... you can rationalize 6 different line combos for the bottom 9.
Such a great luxury to have Kesler back.
Samzilla
Prust & Dorsett are
- Apr 2, 2011
- 15,297
- 2,151
Haha. Seriously though, does it not ring a little hollow and disingenuous?
Pip
Registered User
^ (DL44)
I would rather Booth play with Kesler and on the second PP but I agree that we should limit his ice time, peharps put Raymond up for a couple shifts, or Kassian if he's playing well.
I would rather Booth play with Kesler and on the second PP but I agree that we should limit his ice time, peharps put Raymond up for a couple shifts, or Kassian if he's playing well.
Oh_so_saad
Registered User
Pip
Registered User
Samzilla
Prust & Dorsett are
- Apr 2, 2011
- 15,297
- 2,151
That's why it's hollow and disingenuous. They're cheering for us because they hate Chicago, not because they care one bit about the Canucks. As a matter of fact, less than 24 hours ago they were cheering for us to lose.
I'd prefer it if they simply went to the Chicago board and said "I hope you lose to the Canucks".
Doing something like that might be seen as trolling the other fanbase. This way they aren't attacking a fanbase directly. They are expressing their view in a more positive way. I don't mind a team doing this. If they really hated our team, they wouldn't come and write that on our board.
Pip
Registered User
meh, I'm against going onto other team's boards to post anything negative, even if you are respectful while doing so. I really don't mind support from other fans, no matter what their reasons for it are.
deadinthewater
Registered User
- Jan 14, 2012
- 10,069
- 520
We've scored 3 goals in the last two games. If anything "sucks" right now it's probably our defensive effort and not playing a full game.
I thought so much of the reaction to last night's game was so over the top and irrational, and this is frankly an alarming trend where anything less than perfection is just panned by many members of this fanbase. So I'm going to re-post this here, now that the PGT in question is closed:
There are three reactions in [that] thread that I find positively hilarious.
1. That the Canucks "lost this game because"... The Canucks played 65 minutes of tie-game hockey then lost the shootout, which they just as easily could have won without having played any differently. So how could any factors in their play whatsoever be responsible for "losing" the game? Shootout results are ties when evaluating the team's play, no matter what happens.
2. That miscues in the second period (or any point really) are because of the failure to put forth a 60-minute effort. Why is it the Canucks have human agency, but other teams don't? Is the rationale seriously that if only they tried for 60 straight minutes every game they would win all of them? Does the other team's attempts to play hockey on the same ice surface not come into the equation at all? Is our team really that much better than every opponent? (hint: no). When a player makes a mistake, is it seriously because he isn't "trying hard enough"?
3. That the Canucks "blew a lead". Apart from the absurdity of pinning this term to a one-goal difference earned late in the first period (when "leads" such as this are blown repeatedly every night of the season by almost every team, because, you know, sometimes the game gets knotted at 1 or 2 as part of the fact that both teams are trying to score), are you seriously blaming the Canucks for blowing a lead when it was St. Louis who took three successive penalties late in the game to hand Vancouver a dying-moments tie? How does this escape the analysis? If any team blew a lead tonight, it wasn't Vancouver.
There are three reactions in [that] thread that I find positively hilarious.
1. That the Canucks "lost this game because"... The Canucks played 65 minutes of tie-game hockey then lost the shootout, which they just as easily could have won without having played any differently. So how could any factors in their play whatsoever be responsible for "losing" the game? Shootout results are ties when evaluating the team's play, no matter what happens.
2. That miscues in the second period (or any point really) are because of the failure to put forth a 60-minute effort. Why is it the Canucks have human agency, but other teams don't? Is the rationale seriously that if only they tried for 60 straight minutes every game they would win all of them? Does the other team's attempts to play hockey on the same ice surface not come into the equation at all? Is our team really that much better than every opponent? (hint: no). When a player makes a mistake, is it seriously because he isn't "trying hard enough"?
3. That the Canucks "blew a lead". Apart from the absurdity of pinning this term to a one-goal difference earned late in the first period (when "leads" such as this are blown repeatedly every night of the season by almost every team, because, you know, sometimes the game gets knotted at 1 or 2 as part of the fact that both teams are trying to score), are you seriously blaming the Canucks for blowing a lead when it was St. Louis who took three successive penalties late in the game to hand Vancouver a dying-moments tie? How does this escape the analysis? If any team blew a lead tonight, it wasn't Vancouver.
Mr. Canucklehead
Kitimat Canuck
Eh, not really; it's like us rooting for the Habs when they play Boston (and vice versa). Every team we play is the enemy, but sometimes, the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
Completely agree with all three points. I would also add that the Canucks were the better team the last two games and lost. That's hockey. At some point things were going to even out after they won a few games at the beginning of the season they had no business winning. (Of course people weren't nearly as critical after those games as they were after the last two).
- Status
