Post-Game Talk: [GM 67] Canucks lose to Hockey Clubbers | 1-3 | Hughes | Just No Juice
- Thread starter Vector
- Start date
theguardianII
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2020
- 3,069
- 1,595
Do you honestly think that Tocchets finger prints are not all over this group?
He didn't like Kuzmenko, he didn't like OEL, he didn't like Mikheyev, he didn't like Podkolzin, he did like Joshua, Garland, Miller up to a points, most of the players he got jettisoned were part of last year's success. He had Lindholm playing like he was 23 instead of 32 and he didn't want to be that physical as he never had been before, it was even mentioned in a game that he had never played like that before. No matter that any of those players haven't lit up the league after leaving here, they had chemistry in the room and on the ice. But not Tocchet's type of chemistry.
Tocchet has stated he likes/wants "boards guys" and all players should play the same so they can be inserted anywhere in the line up. The only way that happens is to lower the skill levels so everyone plays the same. It makes his job much easier. He has also stated the NHL is not a teaching league so he doesn't want rookies on the team.
Most of the starting bottom nine were older players with little or sporadic NHL experience, guys who are always playing for their next contract and career, they will do anything for another year or two or contract and that makes is easier for the coach to be demanding, he holds their careers in his hands. But once a player reaches a certain level he can't deal with them except to challenge their pride.
As is now being more often chatted about is the confrontation between Tocchet and Miller, only now the media is trying to blame Miller only for losing the room. This is quite possible but as was stated many, many times in all formats, you don't need to like the guy you work with. But a coach losing the room or players, now that is different and common.
Unfortunately, the Utah game was just another demonstration of the fact that they aren’t better, at least materially, than any of Utah, Flames or Blues. If we were, we wouldn’t be in this dog fight.
Reminds me of that Nonis year when we kept on getting help on the out of town scoreboard but just couldn’t win with any consistency culminating with us needing to win the last game of the playoffs to make it in…and of course we didn’t. Same vibe here, and the piss poor 4 minute power play last night was a microcosm of that.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,686
- 14,439
Its not Tocchet's fault
The only reason we are even in a playoff race is because of Tocchet and Foote
What team endures the losses of it's #1goalie #1C and has Pettersson play the way he has all year and expects better results when they were thin to begin with?
The only reason we are even in a playoff race is because of Tocchet and Foote
What team endures the losses of it's #1goalie #1C and has Pettersson play the way he has all year and expects better results when they were thin to begin with?
Utah and St. Louis yeah, but I still rate the Canucks higher than Calgary. I was never worried about Calgary being the team to knock them out. The Flames are even more putrid offensively, somehow. Truly their team is just Dustin Wolf.
Utah just has waaaaay more dynamic juice than VAN, and STL has been pretty solid since Montgomery took over. One of those two will get in.
Agreed. Canucks have had some opportunities to put themselves in the driver's seat to make the playoffs and just didn't take them.
What are you smoking?
I agree with not wanting them in the playoffs..who wants to watch the Jets slaughter us in 4.This team is not going anywhere.This is a bottom 5 team under Tocchet..reminds me so much of this Coyotes tenure.
Every team has injuries, every team has lockerroom issues to some extent, every team is weak at one position or another. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a challenge.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 22,907
- 6,526
Or are they built from the net out? I can never keep track. When we had a bad defense I feel like people were saying otherwise.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,686
- 14,439
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 22,907
- 6,526
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,686
- 14,439
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 22,907
- 6,526
That there is no hard and fast rule on building a winning team. We were complaining about the defense, now we're complaining about the centre position. Biggest change was actually probably losing elite goaltending, however, unless Demko makes some miraculous recovery. Also, it's obviously going to be very hard for the organization to fill all these holes given their approach, so I'd suspect the Canucks roster will always have a hole to complain about.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,686
- 14,439
There are some parameters. Having a weak C ice is certainly not one of them
Do agree teams will always be trying to fill holes.
Vancouver_2010
Canucks and Oilers fan
- Jun 21, 2006
- 6,144
- 1,158
How can we lose to Utah, basically an expansion team with a rookie coach? Seriously, I am expecting us to win by a landslide, losing isn't even a consideration for my expectation yesterday.
Ernie
Registered User
- Aug 3, 2004
- 12,779
- 2,180
Secondary scoring is also pathetic: you can subtract about 30 goals from Joshua / Hoglander this season compared to last season as well. They are on pace for about 13 goals, last season they had 42 between them.
Sherwood is the lone bright spot. DeBrusk has performed to about expectations.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,686
- 14,439
Team is on the exact same pace as last year when we were top5ish in goals if 6 40 9 and now Chytil were scoring at the same rates.
Ernie
Registered User
- Aug 3, 2004
- 12,779
- 2,180
That's only if you include DeBrusk. There was a significant opportunity cost in signing him, notable resulting in the Canucks playing most of the season with very weak defensive depth.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,686
- 14,439
i mean we can beat this up in semantics and i agree the Debrusk contact came with concessions but Hronek and Pettersson's raises kicking in were as responsible as well as the OEL increase and with Mikhayev busting out as secondary scoring some tough decisions had to be made.
Hoglander and Joshua sure are down a lot but by and large our bottom 2 lines have been pretty good for the most part and provided enough to stay as a top10 scoring team if our top players weren't a colossal failure.
Sherwood and Suter have 32 goals in 67games that was only 14 all of last year for this team. Both have had excellent support campaigns.
Certainly the whole team is struggling to add anything and it would be nice to see more from anywhere now that every game is seemingly a playoff style one with the exceptions of a few crap teams
kanucks25
Chris Tanev #1 Fan
I'd argue biggest change is last season we had 3 first liners and this season we have zero.
Not really a great look for the "Tocc is an excellent coach" crowd, that when the coach has more control at home, they look worse.
Those 3 forwards are simply not factors at all in the NHL in different situations, so I'd say it's a more it on them than Tocchet kind of thing and also are problems aren't really on the wings so much more the lack of center depth and elgit top 6 centers in the system of which there are zero drafted since EP40..
I liked Lindholm in Calgary but he isn't showing anyone in Boston that the Canucks mad a mistake not resigning him right?
Sure but like I have harped on here, were are the high skilled guys to do otherwise they simply aren't there.
Miller is a very good hockey player but not so much so as a leader, that's quite well known right?
Looking back at last night's result with some resignation, you could say it was almost a 'guaranteed loss night'. Second half of a back-to-back against a rested team--and the fourth game in six nights.
Sometimes the spirit is willing, but the legs just aren't there. Just too bad they couldn't have played 'rope-a-dope' in the third period and at least salvaged a point out of this one.
But it's a huge red flag on this season how badly the Canucks have been outscored in third periods. Easily a record that's one of the worst in the league. They just seem to run out of gas, chasing around after faster teams.
Sometimes the spirit is willing, but the legs just aren't there. Just too bad they couldn't have played 'rope-a-dope' in the third period and at least salvaged a point out of this one.
But it's a huge red flag on this season how badly the Canucks have been outscored in third periods. Easily a record that's one of the worst in the league. They just seem to run out of gas, chasing around after faster teams.
