Post-Game Talk: Canucks lose to Blue Jackets | 3-4 in OT (Horvat, Pettersson, Horvat)

[4Twenty]

playing miller at wing is necessary to get full value from miller but playing any three of miller, kuzmenko, boeser, mikheyev, podkolzin, garland, pearson and hoglander with lazar and aman as their centers is a ridiculous waste of talent

not signing a w/c so they could flex miller/pettersson to the wing when necessary was an unacceptable miss by management

Mikheyev is a off the rush shooter. Podkolzin a two way guy with defensive responsibility. Sure it’s not Horvat but Miller is rubbish right now.

Is Lazar that far off that Kampf dude Mik played with last season.


They need two dangerous lines. Spreading it over 3 isn’t working.

 

[tantalum]

Disagree Center was solid. They’re shoehorning a winger into the position. Miller at C is a injury replacement short term kind of move not a long team solution imo.

They already had depth at wing.

Tampa acquired a cost controlled role player for more than one season. That was their intent all along. They made it to the finals.

Edit* Hagel played 22 minutes last night. I think they value him more than you have


Exactly my thinking with regards to Horvat. I do however think Miller’s deal as a winger is fine, especially if he plays with Pettersson who has looked like the only one going so far.

I don't disagree with Miller. I think he's a winger as well. However, the organization clearly sees him as a center so that is the viewpoint they moved forward with. And he's not a bad center he's just much better on the wing where his brain farts are less costly and his assets are better used.

I understand Hagel is cost controlled and yes they made the finals. My original thinking was it was a good trade as well. But seeing his play has changed my mind. He played 22 minutes. I'm sure they do value him but canuck fans more than anyone else should know how icetime may not actually equal effectiveness. I'm not sure TB makes that deal again knowing what they know thus far.

And don't get me wrong I think my strategy would have been different. If anything I would concentrated more on finding a third line center so you could move Miller to the wing. That said, the signings they made were fine. Kuzmenko was a free lottery ticket. Why not take it. Mikheyev checked boxes on several issues...speed on the wing, PK ability, play driver. We can argue contract $$$ of course but in terms of what they were looking for he was a very good target.

While I've defended the Boeser contract somewhat (PR definitely played into that one and for good reason I think) in the end he is a 30 pace goal scorer and was going to get money. It's not looking to be a great contract so certainly a potential black mark. That's where a different tactic could have maybe been used. However, I don't think they could leave him unqualified after the year he went through...that is the PR disaster. The only route was trade his rights and well we saw that market. I'm not sure what more could have been done...maybe simply take the horrendous qualifier Benning left them with and bite the bullet on a using some picks to move out other salary for this year? That may have been the route I'd take but it to comes with consequences given the lack of anything in the system.

Make no mistake...they were served a shit sandwich with a supersized order of shit fries by Benning. Everywhere in the organization. I think they made some missteps but in the end a lot of this was going to have to be about patience to get out from under a couple contracts or hope play levels increased enough to get some sort of return. If only Benning hadn't completely screwed up the farm in his tenure and they actually had young assets to move to get out from under things. But as I said he ruined every aspect of the organization. That regime was phenomenally incompetent. This regime hasn't had nearly enough time to know one way or the other.

 

[Scorvat]

The "plan" is probably to send him to Abbotsford. I know people are desperate to see this player because there are no prospects in the organization but he wouldn't even have made the team if everyone was healthy so it shouldn't be a surprise he isn't playing.

Ill take your word for it that Rathbone is not better then stillman, but if this player can't break through in his age 23 season with this d core and after 3-4 brutal loses, then Rathbone probably won't amount to anything with the Canucks.

FO should have traded him in the offseason

 

[kanucks25]

I know people are calling for Miller but there is zero chance a coach with half a brain benches a 99pt player that needs to get going, Boeser needs ice time to get going, Kuzmenko and Hoglander have outplayed Garland, Perason too even though it wouldn't surprise me if he is next after some of those 3rd period turnovers. Pod and Petey have been excellent. Horvat well that aint happening unless you want to start a MASSIVE issue.

This is nonsense, just picking and choosing. Can't scratch this guy because he puts up X points, can't scratch this guy because he needs more ice-time... lol what

"We need to send a message but not that much of a message!"

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Ill take your word for it that Rathbone is not better then stillman, but if this player can't break through in his age 23 season with this d core and after 3-4 brutal loses, then Rathbone probably won't amount to anything with the Canucks.

FO should have traded him in the offseason

Apples and oranges...I dont see Stillman as being 'better' than Rathbone...Its just a case of the coach wanting a physical presence on the 3rd pairing, as opposed to relatively non physical PMD (who still has a few question marks defensively).

I agree with you that if they're not going to give him a chance..they should do the player a solid, and trade him.

 

[tantalum]

This is nonsense, just picking and choosing. Can't scratch this guy because he puts up X points, can't scratch this guy because he needs more ice-time... lol what

"We need to send a message but not that much of a message!"

Honestly I think it came down to one thing in Bruce's mind. He wasn't going to touch the 4th line guys for whatever reason <--- this is where I think we all disagree with the coaching staff. I'd much rather see Hoglander, Garland or Pearson instead of Joshua.

So at that point he looks at the wings:

Podz has played well and was not going to be scratched.

Boeser is being given the missed camp grace

Kuzmenko has been good and driving play. I can sort of understand moving him to maybe get another line going but I think we all should know by now that MIller will go when he wants to go. No coach or player is going to make him go. It's precisely why he wore out welcomes on other teams

Pearson must have pictures of the coaching staff in a compromising position <--- this is who I scratch. Hell this is who I trade.

So you land on two similar wingers in Garland and Hoglander. And quite frankly, despite lack of finish Hoglander has been the better winger thus far.

Now Bruce isn't going to go through all that explanation so he says "I had to scratch someone".

 

[sting101]

This is nonsense, just picking and choosing. Can't scratch this guy because he puts up X points, can't scratch this guy because he needs more ice-time... lol what

"We need to send a message but not that much of a message!"

YOU DONT BENCH THE BEST PLAYER OF YOUR TEAM FOR 3YRS BECAUSE OF A 4 GAME STRUGGLE unless you want to create a media friendzy and potential disconnect that will cost you your job

Boudreau would have to be insane

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I'm not advocating scratching anyone, really - but I also don't see the merit in scratching Garland, either.

 

[TruGr1t]

I'm shocked people still don't understand the Garland scratch.

You need to send a message, he's basically the only remotely "impact" player you could scratch, and he also doesn't play on special teams. They're not scratching Miller's shiny new deal, or Horvat (who they're in negotiations with), there is really no other option to send a message outside of Garland.

It was low-hanging fruit. Boeser should be scratched, but he's got an immunity idol or something.

 

[4Twenty]

Everything is nonsense.

 

[VanJack]

LOL.....the rest of the league is just waking up to the fact that the Canucks have blown two goal leads, in four consecutive games to start the season. A 105-year old NHL record that may never be broken.

For here on in, whenever a team blows a couple of two goal leads to start a new season, the media guys will be scrambling for the NHL record book to find out which team earns the black mark for most blown two-goal leads.

Take a bow, 2002-23 Canucks.....your record will be safe forever.

 

[kanucks25]

Honestly I think it came down to one thing in Bruce's mind. He wasn't going to touch the 4th line guys for whatever reason <--- this is where I think we all disagree with the coaching staff. I'd much rather see Hoglander, Garland or Pearson instead of Joshua.

So at that point he looks at the wings:

Podz has played well and was not going to be scratched.

Boeser is being given the missed camp grace

Kuzmenko has been good and driving play. I can sort of understand moving him to maybe get another line going but I think we all should know by now that MIller will go when he wants to go. No coach or player is going to make him go. It's precisely why he wore out welcomes on other teams

Pearson must have pictures of the coaching staff in a compromising position <--- this is who I scratch. Hell this is who I trade.

So you land on two similar wingers in Garland and Hoglander. And quite frankly, despite lack of finish Hoglander has been the better winger thus far.

Now Bruce isn't going to go through all that explanation so he says "I had to scratch someone".

I agree with all of this, but as I said, it's complete nonsense lol.

YOU DONT BENCH THE BEST PLAYER OF YOUR TEAM FOR 3YRS BECAUSE OF A 4 GAME STRUGGLE unless you want to create a media friendzy and potential disconnect that will cost you your job

Boudreau would have to be insane

To be clear I'm not advocating healthy scratching Miller. Just that if you're benching someone for "not playing the right way" either do it right or don't do it all because otherwise it looks completely stupid, which it did.

 

[MS]

YOU DONT BENCH THE BEST PLAYER OF YOUR TEAM FOR 3YRS BECAUSE OF A 4 GAME STRUGGLE unless you want to create a media friendzy and potential disconnect that will cost you your job

Boudreau would have to be insane

And again, I want to make it very clear that I'm not saying he should have been scratched. I agree that that would have been idiotic and the media firestorm after the $56 million summer signing gets scratched after 3 games would have been a circus.

But when Pettersson was terrible last year and had like 2 ESG through 40 games or whatever it was, Boudreau basically bumped him down and he was playing as the 4th line C with Hoglander/Podkolzin, getting substantially fewer ES minutes than the Lammikko-Motte line. And his poor play hurt the team less from that role and the team kept winning, and he played himself out of it (big-time) eventually.

I'm shocked people still don't understand the Garland scratch.

You need to send a message, he's basically the only remotely "impact" player you could scratch, and he also doesn't play on special teams. They're not scratching Miller's shiny new deal, or Horvat (who they're in negotiations with), there is really no other option to send a message outside of Garland.

It was low-hanging fruit. Boeser should be scratched, but he's got an immunity idol or something.

I mean, taking the low hanging fruit isn't always the right action.

It was a guy who wasn't playing terribly who wasn't to blame for any of the issues the team was having. It was hoping to get a result by firing a shot into the air rather than looking at the actual issues the team and trying to address them.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

And again, I want to make it very clear that I'm not saying he should have been scratched. I agree that that would have been idiotic and the media firestorm after the $56 million summer signing gets scratched after 3 games would have been a circus.

But when Pettersson was terrible last year and had like 2 ESG through 40 games or whatever it was, Boudreau basically bumped him down and he was playing as the 4th line C with Hoglander/Podkolzin, getting substantially fewer ES minutes than the Lammikko-Motte line. And his poor play hurt the team less from that role and the team kept winning, and he played himself out of it (big-time) eventually.



I mean, taking the low hanging fruit isn't always the right action.

It was a guy who wasn't playing terribly who wasn't to blame for any of the issues the team was having. It was hoping to get a result by firing a shot into the air rather than looking at the actual issues the team and trying to address them.

I think you have to look at the team's collective psychology as well.

The team's problem hasn't really been it's 4th line and dropping one of them sends no message at all.

So you want to scratch a top 9, but a coach only has so many bullets in the gun and it's early to be scratching any player who has put up 50 points or so in this league after 4 frustrating games.

Can't scratch Brock who missed training camp and is playing with an injured hand (unless you framed it as rest for the hand).

If you use the Miller or Horvat (who has been leagues better than Miller but still not as good as needed) bullet, you are absolutely pantsed if it doesn't work. Like you have nothing left and are at risk of being fired within 2 weeks or so, have to save that one.

Podkolzin and Hoglander have been doing what he's asked them to do. He challenged Hoglander to come into camp and be better and he has done so.

Petey has been our best player.

People here don't understand what Pearson is, so he's a whipping boy. A team is only as good as it's trust for each other and Pearson is a guy you can trust to do the right thing at all times. He makes mistakes, but he's basically the mortar between the bricks. Not a good dressing room message to scratch him.

Mikheyev just got back from injury.

Kuzmenko signed here and has been good for the most part (ugly defensive awareness on first goal last night, but that's going to happen for a new player).

So that leaves Garland as a strong bullet that you can use.

---

Agree that I like Burroughs a hell of a lot more than Poolman, I wonder if that one was framed as 'you took a stick to the face and took some hits, have a rest tonight'.

I will say that one thing that concerns me about this management group is that they seem high on Poolman and I just don't see it. I will give the grace of saying he's been hurt quite a bit and sometimes game instincts take time to kick in, especially for big D, but I don't like his hockey sense and understanding of the game.

 

[MS]

I think you have to look at the team's collective psychology as well.

The team's problem hasn't really been it's 4th line and dropping one of them sends no message at all.

So you want to scratch a top 9, but a coach only has so many bullets in the gun and it's early to be scratching any player who has put up 50 points or so in this league after 4 frustrating games.

Can't scratch Brock who missed training camp and is playing with an injured hand (unless you framed it as rest for the hand).

If you use the Miller or Horvat (who has been leagues better than Miller but still not as good as needed) bullet, you are absolutely pantsed if it doesn't work. Like you have nothing left and are at risk of being fired within 2 weeks or so, have to save that one.

Podkolzin and Hoglander have been doing what he's asked them to do. He challenged Hoglander to come into camp and be better and he has done so.

Petey has been our best player.

People here don't understand what Pearson is, so he's a whipping boy. A team is only as good as it's trust for each other and Pearson is a guy you can trust to do the right thing at all times. He makes mistakes, but he's basically the mortar between the bricks. Not a good dressing room message to scratch him.

Mikheyev just got back from injury.

Kuzmenko signed here and has been good for the most part (ugly defensive awareness on first goal last night, but that's going to happen for a new player).

So that leaves Garland as a strong bullet that you can use.

---

Agree that I like Burroughs a hell of a lot more than Poolman, I wonder if that one was framed as 'you took a stick to the face and took some hits, have a rest tonight'.

I will say that one thing that concerns me about this management group is that they seem high on Poolman and I just don't see it. I will give the grace of saying he's been hurt quite a bit and sometimes game instincts take time to kick in, especially for big D, but I don't like his hockey sense and understanding of the game.

I suspect the 'high on Poolman' is largely 'Oh shit, we're stuck paying this guy $7.5 million for the next 3 years so hopefully he can right the ship if we put him in positions to succeed'.

On Garland, if you're going to fire the gun at someone who doesn't make any sense just because he's the easiest target, it's probably better not to fire the gun at all.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I suspect the 'high on Poolman' is largely 'Oh shit, we're stuck paying this guy $7.5 million for the next 3 years so hopefully he can right the ship if we put him in positions to succeed'.

On Garland, if you're going to fire the gun at someone who doesn't make any sense just because he's the easiest target, it's probably better not to fire the gun at all.

Honest question though, who would you have benched?

 

[Vector]

Cam Charron's analysis of the game.

Very much worth reading. Here's some interesting notes:

-Just look at the numbers from the D there: just nothing. Poolman’s lone controlled entry wound up creating two scoring chances (Pettersson’s goal came at the end of the sequence) but the actual shots were taken a considerable amount of time from the actual entry. This has been a very concerning thing recurring all year: the Canucks have gotten just about nothing from their D other than Hughes.

-Not surprisingly, Hughes was the Canucks scoring chance leader among D. Surprisingly, he was the scoring chance leader on the whole team, taking 3. Also, all three of those chances were in the first period, and just one hit the net (two were blocked). The D, mostly, just hung around at the point and failed to activate even for passes.

• Just one shot assist for the entire defensive group in this one. It’s understandable why you might not want your players to pinch during cycles (especially since they gave up the early breakaway in this one thanks to an offensive zone breakdown), but the reality is that this group is just too slow to keep up with the rush, and turn 3-on-3 situations into 4-on-3 situations.

-Hughes also had a big volume night, similar to Washington, and turned the puck over a lot as well. That’s 9 turnovers on 51 touches over the last two games. I don’t think he lacks for ability, but he’s just looking exhausted. A little easier to knock off the puck, a little less power on passes, and would-be good plays can turn into turnovers very quickly.

-Kuzmenko, the strongest Canuck in the NZ here, had 4 controlled entries on 6 attempts (with 3 chances as a result of his controlled entries).

-Poolman allowed 6 controlled entries against on 11 attempts, but those turned into just 2 chances, a pretty good rate. We’ll see whether that rate is sustainable over the long-term. Either way, CBJ didn’t really take advantage of the space Poolman gave them. Poolman also forced 3 failed entries, so a pretty good defensive game from him, all-in-all.

-As skeptical as I was about the Canucks replacing Burroughs with Poolman, he actually had a very good game, with 5 DZ exits on 6 attempts, in addition to his solid defensive work (and don’t forget his one controlled zone entry).

 

[MS]

Honest question though, who would you have benched?

Like I said above, I probably wouldn't have benched anyone.

You have a couple star players who are playing very badly and the rest of the team is playing fine (3-0-1 after 40 minutes) except looking totally mentally fragile in 3rd periods. I don't know if firing benchings at top players is really the thing for a team that is mostly trying hard but mentally fragile.

I'd have looked at what was working (Pettersson-Kuzmenko) and tried to leverage that for more TOI and better results and looked at what wasn't working (JT Miller) and tried to cut that back to limit the damage.

 

[DonnyNucker]

I'm absolutely floored by how little I want to watch this team play. Even the 10 minute DTMTS highlight pack was frustrating and I was waiting for the inevitable collapse.

As far as actually sitting down for 2.5 hours to watch a full game, forget it.

I find this surprising, games have been very entertaining. They are generating lots of even strength chances and great goals both ways. Jus don’t watch the PP

 

[pitseleh]

Cam Charron's analysis of the game.

Very much worth reading. Here's some interesting notes:

-Just look at the numbers from the D there: just nothing. Poolman’s lone controlled entry wound up creating two scoring chances (Pettersson’s goal came at the end of the sequence) but the actual shots were taken a considerable amount of time from the actual entry. This has been a very concerning thing recurring all year: the Canucks have gotten just about nothing from their D other than Hughes.

-Not surprisingly, Hughes was the Canucks scoring chance leader among D. Surprisingly, he was the scoring chance leader on the whole team, taking 3. Also, all three of those chances were in the first period, and just one hit the net (two were blocked). The D, mostly, just hung around at the point and failed to activate even for passes.

• Just one shot assist for the entire defensive group in this one. It’s understandable why you might not want your players to pinch during cycles (especially since they gave up the early breakaway in this one thanks to an offensive zone breakdown), but the reality is that this group is just too slow to keep up with the rush, and turn 3-on-3 situations into 4-on-3 situations.

To me, the team's issues at even strength are likely flowing from the fact the defence is giving the team basically no offensive support.

They're near the bottom of the league in xGF rates despite having what should have been a relatively easy first four games for competition (Philadelphia and Columbus were both bottom five in the league last year, and Edmonton and Washington were middle of the pack).

In the past they could get around that because Hughes would generate a ton on his own, but he's clearly not going this year. It's a tough league to generate in when you've regularly only have three guys on the ice to generate offence with.

 

[Vector]

To me, the team's issues at even strength are likely flowing from the fact the defence is giving the team basically no offensive support.

They're near the bottom of the league in xGF rates despite having what should have been a relatively easy first four games for competition (Philadelphia and Columbus were both bottom five in the league last year, and Edmonton and Washington were middle of the pack).

In the past they could get around that because Hughes would generate a ton on his own, but he's clearly not going this year. It's a tough league to generate in when you've regularly only have three guys on the ice to generate offence with.

This was my big concern last season and remained identical to this season. OEL has transformed himself into a pretty steady #3/4 defensive defencemen with some puck moving abilities. Myers is fine. Both are basically #3/4s. Other than Hughes there's really nothing that dynamic on the blue line. It's very similar to the defence being bad because the forward support is bad; the offense isn't what it should be because the defensive support is bad.

With Hughes not playing like he has in the past, it's completely exposed the team. Burroughs showed something in the Washington game and Rathbone is apparently on the roster. They might actually help but I don't see why trying them would hurt right now.

 

[tantalum]

The blown leads are not surprising in the end. I mean that many in a row are but even in good times I expect this team to have trouble holding leads. Especially if they only receive average or less than average goaltending.

Why? Well quite simply they are not a good team along the boards, down low in the defensive zone or on transition. So when a chasing team starts to apply more pressure the Canucks are going to be susceptible to cratering. That’s why they’ve needed stand on head from the goaltender more often than not. There’s a reason the heat map against them is often a big dark circle right in front of the net…they get dummied down low.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

This was my big concern last season and remained identical to this season. OEL has transformed himself into a pretty steady #3/4 defensive defencemen with some puck moving abilities. Myers is fine. Both are basically #3/4s. Other than Hughes there's really nothing that dynamic on the blue line. It's very similar to the defence being bad because the forward support is bad; the offense isn't what it should be because the defensive support is bad.

With Hughes not playing like he has in the past, it's completely exposed the team. Burroughs showed something in the Washington game and Rathbone is apparently on the roster. They might actually help but I don't see why trying them would hurt right now.

Is Hughes playing that bad…would the fact that almost the entire banged up RHD affected his play..?

 

[pitseleh]

This was my big concern last season and remained identical to this season. OEL has transformed himself into a pretty steady #3/4 defensive defencemen with some puck moving abilities. Myers is fine. Both are basically #3/4s. Other than Hughes there's really nothing that dynamic on the blue line. It's very similar to the defence being bad because the forward support is bad; the offense isn't what it should be because the defensive support is bad.

With Hughes not playing like he has in the past, it's completely exposed the team. Burroughs showed something in the Washington game and Rathbone is apparently on the roster. They might actually help but I don't see why trying them would hurt right now.

Yeah, I think that's right. OEL seems fine in transition and Myers in the offensive zone but together they are a below average second pairing for generating offence. Add zero offence from the third pairing to that and the team revolves around Hughes.

I've mentioned before that when you look at last season, this was a tale of two teams: under Green, the team gave up any pretence of offence to be a good defensive team at even strength, which led them to be a middle of the pack defensive team and a bottom-end offensive team, whereas under Boudreau their defence dropped a bit but their offence shot right up. I'm not going to pretend to be a systems expert, but the results they have gotten so far this year look basically the same as Green's, and the team seems to be playing more in that direction when I watch them.

Rutherford commented several times this offseason about playing with more structure in the defensive zone, and I'm curious if this is the result of the coaching staff trying to do that.

The model seems to be Rutherford's Cup winning Hurricanes team (great goalie, deep forwards, defence by committee) but I'm not sure this team has the horsepower up front in terms of players who can create zone entries/rush offence that team had. Getting Mikheyev back should help.

 

[credulous]

hughes is doing well moving the puck but terrible at in zone defense and defending entries. he's also looked pretty meh on the power play

they need to find him a better partner and find a way to cut his ice time