Post-Game Talk: Dallas 6, Canucks 3. Part II.

[The Stig]

Continue.

Please keep the discussion about the game. Not the other posters.

Click to read more...

 

[Fat Tony]

Curious what Willie Desjardins has to say about that 1st period.

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/...Stars+bright+Canucks+fall/10312524/story.html

“I thought they put lots of pressure on us,†Desjardins said after the game. “They’ve got good speed on their attack. They went to the net hard and the goals, they look fortunate, but they got goals because they worked hard and put pressure on our net.

“They didn’t get lucky goals. They went to the net and they got chances. I thought we played pretty hard in the third. I didn’t think we gave up. That’s the only positive.â€

 

[Pip]

No idea what we are going to do about our defense, please come back soon Stanton!

I remember Linden (I think) mentioning that they weren't necessarily done with adding defenseman. I would feel a lot better about our chances if we add a mid pairing guy or at the very least a bottom pairing guy that can comfortably step up when needed. When healthy, our d core can work, but any injury and we are screwed.

Unlucky night for Miller, but 5 is simply unacceptable. This is a guy we are paying 6 million a year to provide very good goaltending. These games against Wilcard teams are ones we "need" to win and if we are going to be successful we need above average goaltending (at least).

 

[Free Edler]

Not all those five were on Miller. Burrows tipping one past him and Tanev taking him out weren't his fault at all. Other three goals he'd probably like to have back. We're not going to win 60 but this team won't be contending for the McDavid Cup either.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

ooof those are some ugly face off numbers.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Just saw Desjardins interview. He said he didn't feel they were outworked in the 1st and the chances were pretty even in the 1st period.

That's how I saw it too. Never felt like a game the Canucks weren't prepared for or had mailed it in. Just one of those games where nothing goes your way.

 

[me2]

Didn't see hansen's goal but the first two weren't "clean looks".

The Nucks are generating a lot more clean goals, a lot more goals from high percentage situations over the season - especially the Sedin Vrbata line. There is a lot more focus on forwards moving to goal scoring positions rather than to puck possession positions. Attack the net vs Torts "own the corners". All of the goals tonight were off clean shots, all by forwards who went to attacking positions and waited for the puck to come to them. Even the rebounds have been more from pucks taken to the net rather than shots from the point and hoping for 3 random deflections to beat the goalie.

Vrbata's goal tonight came from a result of aggressive play, Vrbata attacking the net, which the Sedins worked into clean open net shot for Vrbata.

Kassian's goal: Kassian is the only guy behind goal line, Richardson is just lurking in prime mid range zone between the hash marks waiting for the back pass from Kassian and takes a clean shot on goal, it doesn't result in a goal but they get the rebounds back and Kassian gets a lovely tip - clean as a whistle. Guys spread out, a shot on goal, player movement, puck movement in close and mid range etc caused the Dallas D to move and chase the play and break positions or lose their man, which opened the space for Kassian to sneak into for that prime scoring shot. In Torts era it would always seemed want the Dman to hit somebody and deflect in, meanwhile 2 or 3rd guys on the wall create no problems for the D positionally always.

Hansen's goal: Where is Hansen - lurking in the mid range zone in front of the net. Where is Dorsett - by the side of the net. Only guy on the wall is Vey. Dorsett gets it puts it to Hansen for a clean goal. Under Torts you'd have Hansen grinding the wall with Vey and Dorsett waiting behind the net. In this situation Hansen is doing absolutely nothing to help gain/maintain possession but he's in a position to score, under Torts he's helping maintain/get the puck but there is nobody to score.

The offense is night and day from Torts era. The forwards are being more direct and they are being allowed to head to prime scoring spots more. The defense has to mark them which in turn opens the game up and creates more space for the guys on the wall. Now I know my memories of Torts are distorted and if you go through highlights etc we'd look much better than I made it sound but whatever the difference in attitudes is noticable - I haven't found myself throwing the remote and the TV yelling "WHY ARE ALL THREE OF YOU IN THE CORNER AGAIN, YOU CAN'T SCORE FROM THERE? WHO IS THREAT IN FRONT OF THE NET?" over and over.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

The offense is night and day from Torts era. The forwards are being more direct and they are being allowed to head to prime scoring spots more.

I agree. Team looks completely different in it's attack. Less chip and chase, much more handling of the puck and looking to make plays through the middle of the ice.

The problem now is can they defend well enough to make the playoffs with an average offense? Not sure yet.

Not to mention they're still 1 pure finisher short.

The 2 biggest needs up front IMO are a goalscoring left winger and a tough minute centremen that can win draws. If nothing else, at least the organizations 2 top prospects possess these attributes. Hopefully they're ready sooner than later.

 

[D0ctorCool]

Our record is 3-2. That's far better than I thought we'd be doing with this roster. Games like these are going to happen. The important part is to keep morale high and draft really really high.

 

[Pip]

Not all those five were on Miller. Burrows tipping one past him and Tanev taking him out weren't his fault at all. Other three goals he'd probably like to have back. We're not going to win 60 but this team won't be contending for the McDavid Cup either.

It's kinds sad that 47% for Bonino is a great night. Vey killed again, ugh.

 

[Addison Rae]

Was it closer because we got a ton of corsi points and shots after we were already slaughtered? Because before I quit on the game I saw one team clearly outclassing another until the game was out of reach.

The Canucks outscored the Stars 3-1 after you stopped watching the game. The tides obviously turned from that point on. Even then I thought the Stars get a few bounces, it really wasn't a 5-0 game and gladly the scoreboard evened out to around what it should have been.

 

[Addison Rae]

St. Louis is another beatable team. I'd give Lack Thursday's game (he's 3-0 against the Blues) and Miller Friday's game.

 

[biturbo19]

The Nucks are generating a lot more clean goals, a lot more goals from high percentage situations over the season - especially the Sedin Vrbata line. There is a lot more focus on forwards moving to goal scoring positions rather than to puck possession positions. Attack the net vs Torts "own the corners". All of the goals tonight were off clean shots, all by forwards who went to attacking positions and waited for the puck to come to them. Even the rebounds have been more from pucks taken to the net rather than shots from the point and hoping for 3 random deflections to beat the goalie.

Vrbata's goal tonight came from a result of aggressive play, Vrbata attacking the net, which the Sedins worked into clean open net shot for Vrbata.

Kassian's goal: Kassian is the only guy behind goal line, Richardson is just lurking in prime mid range zone between the hash marks waiting for the back pass from Kassian and takes a clean shot on goal, it doesn't result in a goal but they get the rounds back and Kassian gets a lovely tip - clean as a whistle. In Torts era it would always seemed want the Dman to hit somebody and deflect in.

Hansen's goal: Where is Hansen - lurking in the mid range zone in front of the net. Where is Dorsett - by the side of the net. Only guy on the wall is Vey. Dorsett gets it puts it to Hansen for a clean goal. Under Torts you'd have Hansen grinding the wall with Vey and Dorsett waiting behind the net. In this situation Hansen is doing absolutely nothing to help gain/maintain possession but he's in a position to score, under Torts he's helping maintain/get the puck but there is nobody to score.

The offense is night and day from Torts era. The forwards are being more direct and they are being allowed to head to prime scoring spots more. The defense has to mark them which in turn opens the game up and creates more space for the guys on the wall. Now I know my memories of Torts are distorted and if you go through highlights etc we'd look much better than I made it sound but whatever the difference in attitudes is noticable - I haven't found myself throwing the remote and the TV yelling "WHY ARE ALL THREE OF YOU IN THE CORNER AGAIN, YOU CAN'T SCORE FROM THERE? WHO IS THREAT IN FRONT OF THE NET?" over and over.

Yeah. It really is night and day from Torts era last year in terms of the approach to generating offense. It's far more organic and there's clearly more of an emphasis on moving the puck around, cycling, passing, moving to scoring positions to generate better opportunities. Stark departure from the Torts philosophy, "shoot from anywhere and hope for a bounce" approach.

Combined with the vastly revamped breakout and neutral zone play, the emphasis on hanging onto the puck rather than throwing it away, and a much more stifling forecheck as opposed to "everybody charge in and hope we don't give up an odd man rush", and the offensive game is looking drastically more promising.

The fact that systems work is still a bit of a work it progress, and more than anything else, it just looks like we just don't have the horses to execute to perfection aside...It at the very least, makes for some more entertaining hockey to watch. And it seems as though despite desperately missing a guy like Kesler who was our 2nd line...this team should at least hopefully be a significant step up on the "worst offense ever" of last season, despite the personnel for this year not really being any kind of upgrade (possibly even a downgrade).

 

[Cogburn]

If I came home from work and saw this score, I'd probably throw a fit.

Watching the game however, I didn't see anything that made me overly worried. Mistakes were made. But we could have had a game on our hands, in spite of the bad puck luck, bad goal tending, and defensive gaffs.

I think we need a defensive Dman, a specialist, not one of these jack of all trades, master of none, kind. Weber is not a guy we want in our top six for any length of time. Sbisa is another one like that, although I think he will continue to improve, but "not at his best game yet" Sbisa and Weber in the same top six is something we can't afford. Our forwards are much more pre-occupied with scoring, and I think much of the trouble in communication is still from the new system and new players.

Two goals were just plain bad luck. That can ruin a goalies confidence. We've seen it with Luongo. That doesn't give Miller a pass, but those two not going in, and maybe a lucky bounce on one of their shots and we've tied it. It happens, and I expect more from Miller, but even St. Schneider had blow outs and bad nights.

Offensively...boy we had chances. I can't say I was edge of my seat for all of the last two periods, and frankly the first had be kind of depressed, but the Sedins and Vrbata were solid, Vey started to look more dangerous, Kassian scored, Hansen scored, our second line had numerous chances, our PP had chances, our PK had chances...poor luck, bad bounces, a called off (rightfully so on the review...) goal...much like with our D, our offense didn't give me anything that I'd be worried about long term. I'm sure a few of our guys are snakebitten, but Lehtonen played out of his mind. If just one more chance had gone in earlier on, we'd have had a totally different game.

While I love the debate around alternative history, we lost. These bad bounces on both sides happened, and we got slaughtered (on the score sheet) in the first 25ish minutes. We kept playing though. Am I the only pleasantly surprised by that? Not only is the bad luck statistically insignificant over a full season, but remember the good years under Gillis. We always had slow starts (which we look to be avoiding this year and last), and we always had a couple of games the hockey gods simply didn't want us to win. Maybe a Stars fan sold their soul, maybe it was one of our guys not recycling a juicebox, maybe it was entirely just bad luck and happenstance, but no one but a pessimist would see attitude or effort as a problem tonight.

Talent...maybe, but I don't think we had a lack of talent tonight. Dallas might have even out talented us, but our lack of talent didn't keep us from winning.

 

[biturbo19]

It's kinds sad that 47% for Bonino is a great night. Vey killed again, ugh.

Weird thing to me...was that Vey was still not only the one taking the draws on the PP (RW starts at least), but he actually seemed to win them. I wasn't really tracking that closely, but i distinctly recall a few that he won well on the PP.

Makes me wonder if part of the way to go in bolstering our FO% numbers might not be in just spending extra time working on more set plays, designed winger-win type things between a guy like Vey/Bonino and his Wingers (if you can keep the wingers consistent). Probably not a gamechanger and i'm sure they've spent some time on this as it is, but if you can squeeze an extra win on the draw per game from each guy by "scheming" it up, that would be huge given where this team's faceoff performance is right now.

St. Louis is another beatable team. I'd give Lack Thursday's game (he's 3-0 against the Blues) and Miller Friday's game.

Blues look...really dangerous to me. Same ol' stifling Hitchcock grind team, but with Stastny added and some young pure skill guys starting to realyl come into their own. Still a very different "style" of team from Dallas tonight. Maybe we match up better against that. Will be another interesting test at least.

 

[Bure All Day]

The Canucks outscored the Stars 3-1 after you stopped watching the game. The tides obviously turned from that point on. Even then I thought the Stars get a few bounces, it really wasn't a 5-0 game and gladly the scoreboard evened out to around what it should have been.

Well once a team has a 5-0 lead, they are bound to let off a bit and I think that is exactly what Dallas did. They got a bit complacent with the lead and we managed to scrape back a few... nothing to get too excited about I don't think.

 

[Pip]

I did also notice the wins on the powerplay and that's probably not a bad idea. Scramble draws are definitely better than a clean loss.

 

[Bure All Day]

If I came home from work and saw this score, I'd probably throw a fit.

Watching the game however, I didn't see anything that made me overly worried. Mistakes were made. But we could have had a game on our hands, in spite of the bad puck luck, bad goal tending, and defensive gaffs.

I think we need a defensive Dman, a specialist, not one of these jack of all trades, master of none, kind. Weber is not a guy we want in our top six for any length of time. Sbisa is another one like that, although I think he will continue to improve, but "not at his best game yet" Sbisa and Weber in the same top six is something we can't afford. Our forwards are much more pre-occupied with scoring, and I think much of the trouble in communication is still from the new system and new players.

Two goals were just plain bad luck. That can ruin a goalies confidence. We've seen it with Luongo. That doesn't give Miller a pass, but those two not going in, and maybe a lucky bounce on one of their shots and we've tied it. It happens, and I expect more from Miller, but even St. Schneider had blow outs and bad nights.

Offensively...boy we had chances. I can't say I was edge of my seat for all of the last two periods, and frankly the first had be kind of depressed, but the Sedins and Vrbata were solid, Vey started to look more dangerous, Kassian scored, Hansen scored, our second line had numerous chances, our PP had chances, our PK had chances...poor luck, bad bounces, a called off (rightfully so on the review...) goal...much like with our D, our offense didn't give me anything that I'd be worried about long term. I'm sure a few of our guys are snakebitten, but Lehtonen played out of his mind. If just one more chance had gone in earlier on, we'd have had a totally different game.

While I love the debate around alternative history, we lost. These bad bounces on both sides happened, and we got slaughtered (on the score sheet) in the first 25ish minutes. We kept playing though. Am I the only pleasantly surprised by that? Not only is the bad luck statistically insignificant over a full season, but remember the good years under Gillis. We always had slow starts (which we look to be avoiding this year and last), and we always had a couple of games the hockey gods simply didn't want us to win. Maybe a Stars fan sold their soul, maybe it was one of our guys not recycling a juicebox, maybe it was entirely just bad luck and happenstance, but no one but a pessimist would see attitude or effort as a problem tonight.

Talent...maybe, but I don't think we had a lack of talent tonight. Dallas might have even out talented us, but our lack of talent didn't keep us from winning.

Then what did? Are you going to blame all this on luck? I'll bring up and age old proverb: You have to be good to be lucky, and you have to be lucky to be good. I think that really fits in with the Canucks over the past couple of years.

Sure, we been unlucky more than we've been lucky, but it comes down to simply not being good enough. Good teams find a way to win. Back during the good years of the Gillis tenure, how many times did we watch the Canucks win in a game that they easily, and maybe even should have lost? It happened fairly often to my recollection, and now that we are over the hump and trending downwards, we are seeing the opposite side of that.

Miller had a bad night, but expecting him to be a savior of this team is completely unrealistic. Expect there to be another goaltending controversy when Lack starts out-playing this guy too. It's only going to be a matter of time as far as I'm concerned.

Sedins and Vrbata have beaten my expectations thus far, and it still seems like there's some being left on the table. One of the only bright spots on this team so far.

 

[alternate]

I'm also in the camp that felt the game wasn't as lopsided as the score. Bonino and Bieksa had tough nights, but thought everyone else played okay. Miller wasn't sharp and his bounces didn't bail him out none.

Sedins/Vrbata dominated. Thought the team started strong and the first goal was against the flow. In fact Shorty had just mentioned something about our territorial edge when Burrows put Big D on the board.

Bieksa was bad, Hamhuis had bad moments, and Tanev started rough, but Sbisa, Weber and Edler played fine, considering the score.

Biggest thing for me from this game is we never quit. Watch some of the scrums in the 3rd period and you'd never guess the score had been 5-0. I didn't see anyone going through the motions. At 3-0 I still thought we had a chance. Even at 5-1. It was refreshing to see a team play hard for 60 minutes, no matter what the scoreboard said. Haven't seen that much the past couple of years unfortunately.

Willie does need to tinker with his lines a bit more. I dunno, I get keeping them together to help build some chemistry etc, but I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of shuffling here and there. Build a second scoring line around Kassian, and build a shut down line around Burrows.

Jury is still out on Desjardin, liking his aggressive fore check, like seeing point men put the puck into the corner and us maintaining possession rather than blasting at shin pads come hell or high water, like seeing our dmen get out of shooting lanes and tying up sticks rather than lunging for shot blocks. But not loving all his line combinations, and not sure what to think of his hesitance to mix them up in-game. I do feel if the effort we gave tonight is a constant calling card, we'll be a play-off team.

Speaking of play-offs, Dallas should score their way in, but they'll be an easy out. They're no where near being a contender at this point.

 

[Bure All Day]

I'm also in the camp that felt the game wasn't as lopsided as the score. Bonino and Bieksa had tough nights, but thought everyone else played okay. Miller wasn't sharp and his bounces didn't bail him out none.

Sedins/Vrbata dominated. Thought the team started strong and the first goal was against the flow. In fact Shorty had just mentioned something about our territorial edge when Burrows put Big D on the board.

Bieksa was bad, Hamhuis had bad moments, and Tanev started rough, but Sbisa, Weber and Edler played fine, considering the score.

Biggest thing for me from this game is we never quit. Watch some of the scrums in the 3rd period and you'd never guess the score had been 5-0. I didn't see anyone going through the motions. At 3-0 I still thought we had a chance. Even at 5-1. It was refreshing to see a team play hard for 60 minutes, no matter what the scoreboard said. Haven't seen that much the past couple of years unfortunately.

Willie does need to tinker with his lines a bit more. I dunno, I get keeping them together to help build some chemistry etc, but I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of shuffling here and there. Build a second scoring line around Kassian, and build a shut down line around Burrows.

Jury is still out on Desjardin, liking his aggressive fore check, like seeing point men put the puck into the corner and us maintaining possession rather than blasting at shin pads come hell or high water, like seeing our dmen get out of shooting lanes and tying up sticks rather than lunging for shot blocks. But not loving all his line combinations, and not sure what to think of his hesitance to mix them up in-game. I do feel if the effort we gave tonight is a constant calling card, we'll be a play-off team.

Speaking of play-offs, Dallas should score their way in, but they'll be an easy out. They're no where near being a contender at this point.

I think you're under-rating them. If Lehtonen can get hot, and they ad a top 4 dman at the deadline, they are going to be a team that can do some damage. Lehtonen has always been a streaky goalie, so if he can get the timing right they're going to be a fun team to watch. Stacked top 6.

 

[Cogburn]

Then what did? Are you going to blame all this on luck? I'll bring up and age old proverb: You have to be good to be lucky, and you have to be lucky to be good. I think that really fits in with the Canucks over the past couple of years.

Sure, we been unlucky more than we've been lucky, but it comes down to simply not being good enough. Good teams find a way to win. Back during the good years of the Gillis tenure, how many times did we watch the Canucks win in a game that they easily, and maybe even should have lost? It happened fairly often to my recollection, and now that we are over the hump and trending downwards, we are seeing the opposite side of that.

Miller had a bad night, but expecting him to be a savior of this team is completely unrealistic. Expect there to be another goaltending controversy when Lack starts out-playing this guy too. It's only going to be a matter of time as far as I'm concerned.

Sedins and Vrbata have beaten my expectations thus far, and it still seems like there's some being left on the table. One of the only bright spots on this team so far.

Sorry, I wasn't responding to you directly, or I'd have quoted you. I had to make sure I didn't and forgot about it, because that has happened before. More just fighting a general negativity from this and the prior thread.

Luck isn't something over multiple seasons however, but one game, or even a handful, can have luck play a major role. At some point it would even get ridiculous. If we lost game seven by a single goal, deflected from one of our guys shots, off the oppositions back glass, and bouncing into our empty net (due to an opposition delayed penalty), you can look at it as either bad luck at the time, or the fact that our team wasn't able to put itself in a better position. Both are equally valid ways of looking at it. If it happens 10 times, the same entirely unlikely string of events culminating in the same over the top kind of play costing us a cup, then you have to ask if its what ever force you believe in simply not wanting us to win. In a smaller sample size, that's what I felt happened to night. It was a "no win" game for fans of Madden or NHL games, just bad bounce, after bad misqueue, after bad bounce.

No one should expect Miller to be a saviour. I merely expect him to be competent. At 6 million, he's not being paid like a superstar, and I do not expect a superstar performance every night. I expect Lack to take over, I'd wager most informed fans of any team would given the circumstances, but that doesn't mean Miller can be a write off either.

Our top line has been looking excellent, and frankly I'm surprised they don't have more points the way they play together. I expected they would do well, what I was told was that unreasonable to expect even a PPG, and they have surpassed even my expectations for 5 games in.

It's the others I am hoping for a little more on the scoresheet though. Each line has nights they look dangerous, and a few nights where one line might even have a point or two per linemate, but not consistently.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

Just wrote an article that's coming out tomorrow. Probably going to be somewhat controversial.

 

[Addison Rae]

Well once a team has a 5-0 lead, they are bound to let off a bit and I think that is exactly what Dallas did. They got a bit complacent with the lead and we managed to scrape back a few... nothing to get too excited about I don't think.

While that's all true, despite Dallas being the better team in the first half I just didn't think they were 5-0 better.

@Biturbo

I do think we match up better with a team like St. Louis, but that's partially because they've annually had problem scoring against us. The addition of Stastny will bolster that, but I still think it's a winnable game.

 

[JuniorNelson]

The first ten games with a new coach are usually full of adjustments. Canucks are not doing bad at all except for the first period in last night's game. One bad period.

Really, the top line is exceeding expectations. This is the best news possible because they are fixtures. Eventually a second line will emerge, perhaps around a different center. The bottom six look good (without Sestito). Overall, the offense is improved. It's early, but I think that's a promising sign.

Defense isn't deep enough. No surprise. Benning seems aware of it.

Miller had one bad period. One. My only observation is that Desjardins seemed pretty comfortable putting Lack in. I might have left Miller in longer but this is a quibble. Vets like to play their way out it, is all.

 

[Cogburn]

I'm also in the camp that felt the game wasn't as lopsided as the score. Bonino and Bieksa had tough nights, but thought everyone else played okay. Miller wasn't sharp and his bounces didn't bail him out none.

Sedins/Vrbata dominated. Thought the team started strong and the first goal was against the flow. In fact Shorty had just mentioned something about our territorial edge when Burrows put Big D on the board.

Bieksa was bad, Hamhuis had bad moments, and Tanev started rough, but Sbisa, Weber and Edler played fine, considering the score.

Biggest thing for me from this game is we never quit. Watch some of the scrums in the 3rd period and you'd never guess the score had been 5-0. I didn't see anyone going through the motions. At 3-0 I still thought we had a chance. Even at 5-1. It was refreshing to see a team play hard for 60 minutes, no matter what the scoreboard said. Haven't seen that much the past couple of years unfortunately.

Willie does need to tinker with his lines a bit more. I dunno, I get keeping them together to help build some chemistry etc, but I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of shuffling here and there. Build a second scoring line around Kassian, and build a shut down line around Burrows.

Jury is still out on Desjardin, liking his aggressive fore check, like seeing point men put the puck into the corner and us maintaining possession rather than blasting at shin pads come hell or high water, like seeing our dmen get out of shooting lanes and tying up sticks rather than lunging for shot blocks. But not loving all his line combinations, and not sure what to think of his hesitance to mix them up in-game. I do feel if the effort we gave tonight is a constant calling card, we'll be a play-off team.

Speaking of play-offs, Dallas should score their way in, but they'll be an easy out. They're no where near being a contender at this point.

I agree with your assessment of the forward lines especially.

Have a shutdown line with Richardson and Burrows, have Bonino, Kassian and Higgins, depending on how everything is put in place, as components of the second line, maybe, possibly, Horvat if the time is right in the future.

I do agree with most of the rest, but typed out a damned thesis concerning most of the points already.