Post-Game Talk: [EX4] Canucks defeat Oilers | 5-2 (Hughes(2), Kuzmenko, Pettersson, & Di Giuseppe)

[Diogenes92]

Boeser sure needs to go. All that offense he helps create is a big problem for the team.

 

[alternate]

Boeser sure needs to go. All that offense he helps create is a big problem for the team.

But does he produce enough "unique" points?

 

[strattonius]

You guys are weird. Boeser handled the puck very smoothly and made quick and effective passes. He had a good night no reason to downplay it.

 

[CherryToke]

This isn't the try league, this is the get it done league.

 

[biturbo19]

Boeser sure needs to go. All that offense he helps create is a big problem for the team.

How much of that offense did he actually "create"?

 

[Vector]

How much of that offense did he actually "create"?

Posted this in the other thread but it's relevant here too.

Hughes from Di Giuseppe & Boeser
Boeser gets the puck along the wall from the defencemen and makes a very good breakout pass under pressure

Hughes from Di Giuseppe & Boeser
Good stick on the defencemen to get control and a quick pass back to the point, was a good little play but the goal was really about Hughes

Pettersson from Boeser & Miller
Passes a loose puck back to the point

Di Giuseppe from Cole & Boeser
Receives a puck near the corner, skates it to the blue line, then passes to the defencemen for a one-timer

All perfectly cromulent plays that got results. The first assist was a legitimately good read and crisp pass under pressure. Everything else is normal but the funny thing is they scored on 3 of these plays.

 

[VanJack]

So the Canucks start the season with a back-to-back, home and away, against the star-studded Oilers. Then it's out on a road-trip. Trial by fire before the season is even two weeks old.

 

[Vector]

So the Canucks start the season with a back-to-back, home and away, against the star-studded Oilers. Then it's out on a road-trip. Trial by fire before the season is even two weeks old.

No they don't. They start the season in Vancouver against the Oilers on Oct. 11th then play in Edmonton on Oct. 14th.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Posted this in the other thread but it's relevant here too.

Hughes from Di Giuseppe & Boeser
Boeser gets the puck along the wall from the defencemen and makes a very good breakout pass under pressure

Hughes from Di Giuseppe & Boeser
Good stick on the defencemen to get control and a quick pass back to the point, was a good little play but the goal was really about Hughes

Pettersson from Boeser & Miller
Passes a loose puck back to the point

Di Giuseppe from Cole & Boeser
Receives a puck near the corner, skates it to the blue line, then passes to the defencemen for a one-timer

All perfectly cromulent plays that got results. The first assist was a legitimately good read and crisp pass under pressure. Everything else is normal but the funny thing is they scored on 3 of these plays.

embiggen those stats boes, no shame

 

[Diogenes92]

How much of that offense did he actually "create"?

Keyword was "help".

 

[biturbo19]

Keyword was "help".

 

[bossram]

Again, who are these 3 revolving door partners though?

If Cole-Hronek is a thing, that takes Cole out of any additional minutes with Hughes. Especially piling on the PK minutes as well. That's all he can handle. Hronek will only have a handful of overflow minutes he can really handle.

Where's the rest of that icetime coming from? Keep in mind, you've potentially gotta cobble together 20 even strength minutes. Which is more than anyone else plays...total.

It's all well and good to rotate partners...but you still have to have the guys to do that. We don't seem to. At least, not that they're really interested in exploring or building any chemistry with.

I literally spelled out who they would be and in what deployment in my post. If you want to ignore that for some bizarre reason, well alright then.

 

[Vector]

I don't think Hughes having a great partner is a requirement but the bare minimum they should have a regular guy that's better than McWard and Juulsen. I'm pretty confident that McWard and Juulsen are even going to be handle short-term solutions. Whether that's Soucy or someone else, I'm not particularly invested. I'm willing to try a waiver claim, trade, etc.

 

[God]

I don't think Hughes having a great partner is a requirement but the bare minimum they should have a regular guy that's better than McWard and Juulsen. I'm pretty confident that McWard and Juulsen are even going to be handle short-term solutions. Whether that's Soucy or someone else, I'm not particularly invested. I'm willing to try a waiver claim, trade, etc.

Yeah a waiver claim actually seems good if someone falls through the cracks. Right now the locks are Hughes, Hronek, Cole, Soucy, Myers.

Of the other 4 defenseman, I only really like having Wolanin up here. McWard clearly needs AHL time, and Juulsen/Brisebois are probably the definition of replacement level.

 

[biturbo19]

I literally spelled out who they would be and in what deployment in my post. If you want to ignore that for some bizarre reason, well alright then.

All you literally spelled out, was "Myers and Soucy" basically. Where you just seem to gloss over how terrible Myers tends to be with Hughes by saying, "they're pretty decent actually". And suggesting Soucy...which is the very thing that most people are wondering why they refuse to even try.

For some bizarre reason, you seem to think that's a fully fleshed out deployment plan.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Hopefully someone will try sneak a Schenn-type D through waivers. But, then again, we probably couldn't afford such a player.

 

[bossram]

I don't think Hughes having a great partner is a requirement but the bare minimum they should have a regular guy that's better than McWard and Juulsen. I'm pretty confident that McWard and Juulsen are even going to be handle short-term solutions. Whether that's Soucy or someone else, I'm not particularly invested. I'm willing to try a waiver claim, trade, etc.

I expect that even if a McWard\Juulsen type is Hughes “partner” on paper, they’ll play extremely limited minutes. Maybe 12 minutes TOI max.

I see them rotating Myers or Soucy next to Hughes quite frequently, depending on the situation.

All you literally spelled out, was "Myers and Soucy" basically. Where you just seem to gloss over how terrible Myers tends to be with Hughes by saying, "they're pretty decent actually". And suggesting Soucy...which is the very thing that most people are wondering why they refuse to even try.

For some bizarre reason, you seem to think that's a fully fleshed out deployment plan.

Again, you just want to argue with me in completely bad faith, when I already addressed all these commenrs.

I said they could use Hughes-Soucy in certain defensive zone draws/situations, and that they have in fact given that pair some run. You just ignore this in bad faith.

I said they could use Hughes-Myers in even-strength play or when they’re trailing. You want to say this is a terrible solution, when the actual on-ice results this pairing have are decent-to-good. That’s why you would use it!

And finally, I said the final McWard/Juulsen/anyone partner would be used sparingly or in mostly OZ start situations.

No, it is you who refused to acknowledge any reasonable counter-arguments and argued in bad faith.

 

[Vector]

I expect that even if a McWard\Juulsen type is Hughes “partner” on paper, they’ll play extremely limited minutes. Maybe 12 minutes TOI max.

I see them rotating Myers or Soucy next to Hughes quite frequently, depending on the situation.

Boudreau was already doing that with Schenn for big chunks of last season. Doesn't mean management can't still upgrade that spot since neither McWard nor Juulsen have shown themselves to be NHL players during this pre-season.

 

[Peen]

Hughes-Myers in even-strength play or when they’re trailing. You want to say this is a terrible solution, when the actual on-ice results this pairing have are decent-to-good. That’s why you would use it!

How much of that is score effects

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

No they don't. They start the season in Vancouver against the Oilers on Oct. 11th then play in Edmonton on Oct. 14th.

Someone call IT, VanJack needs to be reset again

 

[me2]

Yeah that’s weird, I never quite understand why right handed folks shoot left. I shoot right, maybe because I suck and should shoot left instead

I have two theories, hockey kids learn left shooting (unlike most other sports) and that transfers to goalie. Baseball loads the weak hand up with the glove to keep the strong hand free for throwing. Combine these two and worse catching hand gets the glove.

 

[alternate]

Someone call IT, VanJack needs to be reset again

Imo it's fine to say back to back to mean consecutive games even if they aren't on consecutive nights.

Difference between
"Canucks play back to back games this week"
Vs
"Canucks play EDM in back to back games."

But I really don't care and don't know why I bothered typing this out...but might as well share now that I have.

 

[Vector]

Imo it's fine to say back to back to mean consecutive games even if they aren't on consecutive nights.

Difference between
"Canucks play back to back games this week"
Vs
"Canucks play EDM in back to back games."

But I really don't care and don't know why I bothered typing this out...but might as well share now that I have.

The actual term has always been "home and home series".

 

[alternate]

The actual term has always been "home and home series".

Does that mean every time someone says "Boeser has scored in back to back games" the other game was yesterday?

 

[Vector]

Does that mean every time someone says "Boeser has scored in back to back games" the other game was yesterday?

English can be funky at the most normal of times and when we start getting into terms used by niche hobbies, it gets really wild.