Post-Game Talk: GAME #20 - Canucks 5 vs. Kings 2 - March 2, 2013

[The Bob Cole]

So I missed it, but are we giving credit to AV for this one? One of the posters before was calling for his head if we lost, so does he get a plus for this one? Gold star?

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

So I missed it, but are we giving credit to AV for this one? One of the posters before was calling for his head if we lost, so does he get a plus for this one? Gold star?

 

[YouCantYandleThis*]

I'm gonna go to bed now, and dream about Holmgren firing Laviolette in a drunk-induced rage, so we can get rid of this stubborn french-canadian (not that there's anything wrong with that) **** and get a real coach.

Goodnight.

 

[Orca Smash]

I thought it was our best game of the season far and away.

I thought it was to given everything (coaching line decisions, strange defense pairings, scratching of ballard to keep alberts in, numerous experiments such as raymond at center, kesler re-injured, unsure where cory was at) the team exceeded my expectations tonight, but not everyone seems to feel that way as i quickly found out.

 

[tantalum]

For about 50 minutes of the game the cauncks were far and away the better team and the score reflects that.

Somehow that's AVs...fault????

they clearly worked on their game ove rthe days off and executed the game plan they were given very nicely. And that execution resulted in the, at times, dominance of a hot team that was also rested. There is very very little to complain about.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

For about 50 minutes of the game the cauncks were far and away the better team and the score reflects that.

Somehow that's AVs...fault????

they clearly worked on their game ove rthe days off and executed the game plan they were given very nicely. And that execution resulted in the, at times, dominance of a hot team that was also rested. There is very very little to complain about.

I watched a very different game. I saw a canucks team score some grat goals (burrows to hamhuis) but really take advantage of an off night by Jonathan Quick. They deserved to win but LA did not bring their A game. LA actually looked like it wasn't a big deal losing to the canucks unlike 80% of the teams vancouvers played where playing and beating the canucks is like solving world problems.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

So I missed it, but are we giving credit to AV for this one? One of the posters before was calling for his head if we lost, so does he get a plus for this one? Gold star?

No I'd still can his ass! But that's for another thread.

 

[tantalum]

I watched a very different game. I saw a canucks team score some grat goals (burrows to hamhuis) but really take advantage of an off night by Jonathan Quick. They deserved to win but LA did not bring their A game. LA actually looked like it wasn't a big deal losing to the canucks unlike 80% of the teams vancouvers played where playing and beating the canucks is like solving world problems.

So they were the better team but that is all due to the Kings not bringing an "A" game. I see it completely different. the Kings weren't allowed to bring their A game thanks to a nicely executed game plan by the canucks. The canucks kept the Kings physical game at bay through quick puck movement through all three zones.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

So they were the better team but that is all due to the Kings not bringing an "A" game. I see it completely different. the Kings weren't allowed to bring their A game thanks to a nicely executed game plan by the canucks. The canucks kept the Kings physical game at bay through quick puck movement through all three zones.

I used to see it thus way. Remember game 1 in 2010 vs Chicago? 5-1 canucks. Queville said it wasn't what the canucks did but what the hawks did not do.

Last nights game was exactly this. It was more what the kings did not do than what the canucks did. If quick has a good game we are talking about a SO lose. Seriously.

 

[Tiranis]

So they were the better team but that is all due to the Kings not bringing an "A" game. I see it completely different. the Kings weren't allowed to bring their A game thanks to a nicely executed game plan by the canucks. The canucks kept the Kings physical game at bay through quick puck movement through all three zones.

I don't see it. The scoring chances were 11-9 in our favour at ES. Canucks played boring hockey and capitalized on bad goaltending.

We're not a team that plays the kind of hockey that makes other teams look bad (Phoenix does). At our best in 10-11 we simply looked better than good teams playing at their best. The Kings yesterday, quite clearly, didn't bring their best and it had little to do with the Canucks.

This is a Kings team that's not even in playoff position right now. We really shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back after outplaying them by a small margin with huge help from horrible performance by Quick.

This is the equivalent of people getting excited after we won against Dallas and Anaheim but were out chanced by a 3-to-1 margin in both games. There's a lot of work left to do and with hockey like this the team will be a quick 5 and out in the playoffs.

 

[crazyforhockey]

I used to see it thus way. Remember game 1 in 2010 vs Chicago? 5-1 canucks. Queville said it wasn't what the canucks did but what the hawks did not do.

Last nights game was exactly this. It was more what the kings did not do than what the canucks did. If quick has a good game we are talking about a SO lose. Seriously.

and if cory didnt miss two goals before being stellar...its a shutout for van


to me the biggest thing is being healthy(ie the guys in the lineup)...incl over teh flu too


but they played well against a team thats very big from top to bottom.....they battled well....used quick passes to beat their big forecheck...

got Quick moving from side to side and beat kings to rebounds.

and if the kings had gotten a few more obstruction penalties....then it might have been more of a blowout....

you can see they are hurting with out two of their top dmen out.. with martinez thats three dmen......and which might be trouble in another month for LA is playing their top dmen too many minutes

Canucks still need more work.....but its correctable errors ie postioning and handling the cyle better and who gets who....as opposed to be overmatched or lacking talent

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I saw the game differently than a lot of people on here. I thought we were pretty dominant in the first period and were pretty unfortunate to be only up by a goal. We played the exact type of game that you need to play against the Kings who were on a real hot streak. LA needs to grind out wins by controlling the play and we did a great job of counter punching using our speed to score some goals off the rush. We shot high on Quick which is clearly the only way to score on him and got him moving to open up some room. Raymond, Hansen and D. Sedin all exposed his weakness.
In the absence of a pretty bad play by Schneider behind the net and some questionable calls I think we win this one fairly easily. One of our best games of the year, IMO. The Sedins were dominant.
Also, for all of the flack Bieksa takes, we are a much better team with him in the lineup. Especially when he playes ornery like he did last night. Sestito did his job as well.
Now we need to string a few of these type of games in a row.
One last thing, I've really noticed Henrik playing with some aggressiveness this year. He's been pushing back more when challenged. I think that's a good sign of leaderrship and sends a message to the rest of the team.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

I don't see it. The scoring chances were 11-9 in our favour at ES. Canucks played boring hockey and capitalized on bad goaltending.

We're not a team that plays the kind of hockey that makes other teams look bad (Phoenix does). At our best in 10-11 we simply looked better than good teams playing at their best. The Kings yesterday, quite clearly, didn't bring their best and it had little to do with the Canucks.

This is a Kings team that's not even in playoff position right now. We really shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back after outplaying them by a small margin with huge help from horrible performance by Quick.

This is the equivalent of people getting excited after we won against Dallas and Anaheim but were out chanced by a 3-to-1 margin in both games. There's a lot of work left to do and with hockey like this the team will be a quick 5 and out in the playoffs.

Thank you bringing some sanity and reality to the discussion. The canucks did not dominate the kings. They capitalized on the kings shoddy goaltending and the kings lack of execution.

 

[Tiranis]

Thank you bringing some sanity and reality to the discussion. The canucks did not dominate the kings. They capitalized on the kings shoddy goaltending and the kings lack of execution.

Well, Sedins did dominate them, but I just don't think there's much to read into outside of that. You're looking at a team missing 3 (I believe?) regular D and playing fairly average hockey this season. Combine that with a shoddy performance from Quick and there's just not a lot to get excited about.

Sometimes I wish there would be more balance. People got too down after losses (Detroit) and then they get way too high after mediocre wins.

---

I would rather see the Canucks tie 3-3 in regulation and win in the SO like the Hawks did against us playing the type of dominant hockey they did in that game, because then I would know there's another gear. We haven't come anywhere near that level this season. In our Cup run season we reached that level regularly.

I feel like the 5 months we played crappy hockey (while getting rescued by our goaltending) last season has clouded people's memory of how good this team can be playing at its best.

 

[The Big Foot]

Not to defend the coach or anything but there must be something going on that we the fans do not know. He's a professional coach and has been one for many years. He's coached teams pretty well too. I cannot for the life of me understand why Ballard was scratched for Alberts - size shmize. But I have to think there is something else going on there - maybe a slight injury, a trade, a baby, something... Ballard has been playing his best hockey as a Canuck this year, obviously the coach knows this if we know this...

Totally agree with this. There is no way they were realistically going to put Cam Barker in over a guy who has played the entire season to this point. He just wouldn't fall off the depth chart out of the blue like that. He's probably banged up or under the weather.

 

[luongo321]

Totally agree with this. There is no way they were realistically going to put Cam Barker in over a guy who has played the entire season to this point. He just wouldn't fall off the depth chart out of the blue like that. He's probably banged up or under the weather.

If that is the case then why does AV have to act like a complete jackass about it? Is it now some inside joke with Ballard? Given how he has treated Ballard in the past, I somehow doubt it.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

I don't see it. The scoring chances were 11-9 in our favour at ES. Canucks played boring hockey and capitalized on bad goaltending.

We're not a team that plays the kind of hockey that makes other teams look bad (Phoenix does). At our best in 10-11 we simply looked better than good teams playing at their best. The Kings yesterday, quite clearly, didn't bring their best and it had little to do with the Canucks.

This is the equivalent of people getting excited after we won against Dallas and Anaheim but were out chanced by a 3-to-1 margin in both games.

Really disagree with this post. The Canucks speed was giving the Kings problems all night. Vancouver was usually first to loose pucks and had more puck possession time because of it.

Quick wasn't shoddy either. The Canucks took some fantastic shots in high percentage shooting areas.

This is absolutely not equivalent to being outplayed and winning games. The Canucks went up against one of the most dominant teams in the NHL right now, outplayed them and deserved to win the game. This was one of the most encouraging wins we've seen in a long long time.

I just can't for the life of me see what others do in David Booth. This guy will not be in Vancouver longterm.

 

[Shareefruck]

Kesler got lit up, that may have something to do with it.

Taylor Hall has the IQ of a sack of hammers, he seems to do just fine out there. Booth has been a strong scorer despite looking like he doesn't belong. Only now, in this system, he's not getting anything done. Neither is Schroeder. Nor Kassian. And we have sub-optimal performances from Hansen and Higgins. Also Raymond could be doing better than he is. A lot of people not doing well. Wonder what the common thread here is?

I agree with the jist of your argument, and I think the complaints are ridiculous, but what makes you say we're getting sub-optimal performances out of Hansen/Higgins/Raymond?

I don't think that's a common thread at all.

All, Booth doesn't have half the skill Hall does to make up for it. He's alot more limited in terms of what he can do, IMO.

 

[Seatoo]

I'm on my iPhone so I can't access the CBC after hours from last night (no flash) is someone able to upload it or post a link?

 

[Bieksa#3]

didn't watch the game but why did Schroeder play so few minutes? If this continues will he be sent back down to minors?

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

didn't watch the game but why did Schroeder play so few minutes?

He was relegated to the fourth line in this game; I don't feel the demotion was warranted, but he still played solid defensive hockey with Sestito and Weise.

Lapierre's play of late certainly hadn't merited a promotion, but he actually did very well with his increased minutes last night.

 

[Shareefruck]

I used to see it thus way. Remember game 1 in 2010 vs Chicago? 5-1 canucks. Queville said it wasn't what the canucks did but what the hawks did not do.

Last nights game was exactly this. It was more what the kings did not do than what the canucks did. If quick has a good game we are talking about a SO lose. Seriously.

It's ridiculous to say "seriously" about a random guess like that.

I don't see it. The scoring chances were 11-9 in our favour at ES. Canucks played boring hockey and capitalized on bad goaltending.

I don't see THAT. Sometimes I really don't understand the level enjoyment you guys get out of games. I thought that was one of the most exciting games of the season (at least from our end), and I thought some of the other high-chance games people praise as exciting were boring. I love when games are tight, there's a high attention to detail, everyone fights their *** off for every inch, the play is organized/playing the system to perfection, and there's a great display of skill and intensity.

 

[Shareefruck]

I saw the game differently than a lot of people on here. I thought we were pretty dominant in the first period and were pretty unfortunate to be only up by a goal. We played the exact type of game that you need to play against the Kings who were on a real hot streak. LA needs to grind out wins by controlling the play and we did a great job of counter punching using our speed to score some goals off the rush. We shot high on Quick which is clearly the only way to score on him and got him moving to open up some room. Raymond, Hansen and D. Sedin all exposed his weakness.
In the absence of a pretty bad play by Schneider behind the net and some questionable calls I think we win this one fairly easily. One of our best games of the year, IMO. The Sedins were dominant.
Also, for all of the flack Bieksa takes, we are a much better team with him in the lineup. Especially when he playes ornery like he did last night. Sestito did his job as well.
Now we need to string a few of these type of games in a row.
One last thing, I've really noticed Henrik playing with some aggressiveness this year. He's been pushing back more when challenged. I think that's a good sign of leaderrship and sends a message to the rest of the team.

I agree. They really look involved emotionally and are playing great defensively and all over the ice, as well.

They kind of look like the Sedins after their year with Carter when they were among our best PKers, only they have higher IQ/skill now too.

He was relegated to the fourth line in this game; I don't feel the demotion was warranted, but he still played solid defensive hockey with Sestito and Weise.

Lapierre's play of late certainly hadn't merited a promotion, but he actually did very well with his increased minutes last night.

With the Alberts/Lapierre over Schroeder/Ballard movies, it seems like AV was really concerned with being outmatched physically against LA.

 

[Wheatley]

There's a lot of work left to do and with hockey like this the team will be a quick 5 and out in the playoffs.

Lol. Dude it's March 3rd. A lot can change.

And 'hockey like this" means what, beating teams 5-2?

Some people are never happy.....

 

[LiquidSnake]

Can't wait to see David Booth gone. Waste of a roster spot.