Love
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 15,190
- 12,666
If we win this game we’ll win the series
Of course we shouldn't be trading rushes. But if we break out cleanly it creates chances on the rush. You still need to mix this in or it doesn't keep the defence honest. Variety adds to unpredictability which helps generate offence.Oh no no no no. We absolutely do not want rush chances. The Canucks are not a rush team (they were near dead last in creating chances off the rush in the regular season). That just plays into exactly how Nashville wants to play: high-pace back-and-forth, with lots of rush chances. I literally thought to myself when I saw the Ian Cole rush chance, "oh no", because I knew a missed opportunity there means a rush chance the other way. And it was, and it ended up behind Silovs.
The biggest issue in G4 was, for me, the first time they allowed Nashville to dictate the style of play. They fed into the rush. They cannot do that. It has to be grindy, lots of dump-outs/ins, and creating on the forecheck.
I agree, in the OZ, the Canucks should look to get the puck behind goal line more, to pull the Preds in and hopefully pull them out of blocking position. But again, that means they need to hold the puck in the OZ and not trade rush chances.
If we win this game we’ll win the series
If we win this game we’ll win the series
In general I'd agree, but against a team that primarily needs the rush to be productive, I don't think it's advantageous to push for rush chances.Of course we shouldn't be trading rushes. But if we break out cleanly it creates chances on the rush. You still need to mix this in or it doesn't keep the defence honest. Variety adds to unpredictability which helps generate offence.
I could easily see him getting in a game or two for Abbotsford and then coming into the big club's lineupI understand Pod going down if he wont play but I honestly think we’re missing out on seeing him hit a playoff gear
I always thought Kenins got a bit of a raw deal here. I think he had more to give and could have slotted in longer term in the Jannik Hansen type of mold.Been a while since I closely followed Canucks. To be precise since Ronalds Kenins. BTW he's came second in Swiss NL
Just realized, Nik Ehlers has 4 goals in 40 playoff games.
Good regular season player, terrible playoff performer.
Definitely, they were feasting on counterattacks the whole game.In general I'd agree, but against a team that primarily needs the rush to be productive, I don't think it's advantageous to push for rush chances.
On the few rush chances the Canucks had last game, the Preds immediately go down the other way and either score or get an even higher quality rush chance. It's how it goes on the rush. Miss at one end, leads to a fast counter going the other way.
I always thought Kenins got a bit of a raw deal here. I think he had more to give and could have slotted in longer term in the Jannik Hansen type of mold.
Been a while since I closely followed Canucks. To be precise since Ronalds Kenins. BTW he's came second in Swiss NL
Ehlers has a year left and will be 29 as a UFA in 2025. In 9 years, he's been healthy for 4 of them. Even the shortened Covid year he missed 9 games. Double digit missed games for the other 4. When he plays a full season, he's a 60 odd point player. Good, but not great to the point you'd drop $8 mill plus on a max term deal IMO. Might be time to move off him in the off-season.Makes you wonder if he'll join Marner on the trade market. Seems like this off season could be quite interesting for big name players getting moved.
To be honest, people seem a little too optimistic about the canucks right now. They were one empty-net-post away from being tied 2-2 in this series, after being outplayed for 50 minutes in game 4.
Of course, they could play a really good bounce-back game and win in 5.
I want more Game 4.To be honest, people seem a little too optimistic about the canucks right now. They were one empty-net-post away from being tied 2-2 in this series, after being outplayed for 50 minutes in game 4.
Of course, they could play a really good bounce-back game and win in 5.
He 100% was a long term NHLer if developed properly. It's really too bad.He played great to close out 14-15 and then was injured in camp and had a terrible preseason playing hurt. Then he predictably started the season poorly, the team gave up on him, and never gave him another look even though he was Utica's best forward in the back half of the season once he took some time off to actually heal his injury.
From what I remember, he was largely successful because he played with an extremely high motor, physical, and didn’t change his game while seeing success. Then he decided he was a finesse scorer (injuries?) and completely diverted from what made him successful. It was rather bizarre.He played great to close out 14-15 and then was injured in camp and had a terrible preseason playing hurt. Then he predictably started the season poorly, the team gave up on him, and never gave him another look even though he was Utica's best forward in the back half of the season once he took some time off to actually heal his injury.