- Oct 10, 2007
- 25,230
- 13,327
Looking on my phone, can't see it well enough.
Looking on my phone, can't see it well enough.
You only look at shots to determine who is playing better? Pretty dumb way to analyze a game. Canucks had 8 shots but 8 golden chances to score. Hawks shots were mostly from blueline or dump ins. If anything, Canucks could be up by 4 goals.And this 3-1 1st period lead where they're getting outshot against the lottery hawks proves they're back and better than ever?
just not following the logic
He pulled it back into the zone, but didn't touch it inside the zone again until after he touched up on the blueline. Looks good to me.
Ya who would want a 100 point 35+ goal scoring two way C.and are glad they didnt
On second look, he never touched up.He pulled it back into the zone, but didn't touch it inside the zone again until after he touched up on the blueline. Looks good to me.
Yeah you’re right I see it now.He pulled it back into the zone, but didn't touch it inside the zone again until after he touched up on the blueline. Looks good to me.
Remember when people thought the Lightning got killed in that trade?BAGEL HATTY!!!
Florida had luck the wild didn‘t make the cup finals…
Last season, the Nucks started doing just that.You only look at shots to determine who is playing better? Pretty dumb way to analyze a game. Canucks had 8 shots but 8 golden chances to score. Hawks shots were mostly from blueline or dump ins. If anything, Canucks could be up by 4 goals.
I confuse it with that grinder they got from Nashville. Always thought Hegel was good in Chicago.Remember when people thought the Lightning got killed in that trade?
He's waiting for you to say his name, thanksWhy is that bum Allen still in the game????
So it seems their strategy works?? Making plays and shooting when its a high percentage play versus shooting from the center or dumping the puck on the goalie to get the shot count up. I think offensive zone time is a much better indicator than shots.Last season, the Nucks started doing just that.
I have a theory, but I don't want to ruin a game day thread.Seth Jones looks miles better than Nurse, not sure why people compare the two
Nobody said scoring on chances doesn't work.So it seems their strategy works?? Making plays and shooting when its a high percentage play versus shooting from the center or dumping the puck on the goalie to get the shot count up. I think offensive zone time is a much better indicator than shots.
Now its 7-4Devils are trying to make a comeback. 6-4 now.
Yeah. That bit of hope only lasted like a minute. Impeccable timing.Now its 7-4
Isn’t that 3rd string goalie essentially the 1st string goalie now though?Without demko, having a third string goalie, and our highest and best point producer in the playoffs in boeser*
You missed the fine print
I can play right d if it helps Jack deal.Jack Michaels can’t believe Nurse is playing RD. Simply apoplectic.
I mean that teams that might shoot a lot dont necessarily mean they had a great game. Expected goals and offensive zone time shows which team tilted the ice more than shots as some teams usually dont elect to shoot the puck unless they have a good chance for a goal. Canucks have less shots than Hawks but they have a much higher expected goals for. Could have easily been 6-2I have a theory, but I don't want to ruin a game day thread.
Nobody said scoring on chances doesn't work.
"apoplectic"Jack Michaels can’t believe Nurse is playing RD. Simply apoplectic.