Confirmed with Link: Flames def. Canucks - 4-3 (OT - Pearson, Horvat, Boeser)

[I am toxic]

The Canucks offered Luke Schenn a contract and he chose Tampa.

Luke Schenn opens up about choosing Lightning over Canucks

Sorry for the semantics.

Edit: And the nitpicking. Especially the nitpicking.

Bandy, I went through the PGT's last season from the Canucks nine OT and SO wins, and you never mentioned that they were essentially "ties"?

Why is that?

 

[Bad Goalie]

Is it Hughes bleeding goals, or does his poor goal differential have something to do with the teams overall shoddy defensive play and worse goaltending?

It mirrors Erik Karlssons last season in Ottawa..Does this mean that EK wasn't considered a 1D at that point?

Every D-man is at the mercy of the team's shoddy defensive play and goaltending. However, no matter what you think of +/-, large numbers in that category do reveal something especially if you compare them with the rest of the D-men.
Hughes is currently -14.
The next worse is a guy the posters here cried for his head, Chatfield. He's -7.
Edler is -4.
Benn is being crucified and he's only -1 as is Myers.
Schmidt is skating with lines that are not putting up many goals. He is flat even at 0.
The next is one many called to have removed from the lineup and skated and practiced daily until he was in shape. Others simply stated he was huge disappointment and should simply be written off. That D-man is Hamonic and he, like Schmidt is Flat even at 0.
Juolevi despite his flaws is one of only 2 Canucks D on the + side at +2.

So, no matter what you think of +/- , Hughes is so far ahead of the rest of the D, that it definitely reveals he is not playing nearly well enough in his end of the ice especially when you consider how many goals he is on the ice for.

**P.S.
I know PPs don't count towards +/-, but be reminded that PK goals against aren't counted either.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Bandy, I went through the PGT's last season from the Canucks nine OT and SO wins, and you never mentioned that they were essentially "ties"?

Why is that?

Probably because you don't like getting caught making stuff up, wanted to show me up, and this surprisingly was the best way of doing that you could think of.

Oh, you mean why didn't I say that? Can't recall. It would actually surprise me if I hadn't said that after a Canucks win at some point. I've never put much stock in OT results one way or the other.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Is it Hughes bleeding goals, or does his poor goal differential have something to do with the teams overall shoddy defensive play and worse goaltending?

It mirrors Erik Karlssons last season in Ottawa..Does this mean that EK wasn't considered a 1D at that point?

It's the former. Hughes is on the ice when a goal is scored a lot compared to the rest of our top 4. Schmidt has been on the ice for 15 goals at even strength. Myers and Edler have been on for 17 goals. Hughes has been on for 25, while not playing as much of a defensive role. Hughes had the worst GA/60 compared to the team among Canucks defencemen last year as well.

Thomas Chabot plays for a team with worse defence and goaltending, and has good defensive numbers compared to the rest of the team.

I truly believe Hughes will win a Norris one day, but his defensive game needs work. I do think he has the drive to improve if we give him time. In the meantime, he needs a real partner.

 

[I am toxic]

Probably because you don't like getting caught making stuff up, wanted to show me up, and this surprisingly was the best way of doing that you could think of.

Oh, you mean why didn't I say that? Can't recall. It would actually surprise me if I hadn't said that after a Canucks win at some point. I've never put much stock in OT results one way or the other.

Seems . . . . unbalanced . . . to ignore nine OT/SO wins last season and the one this season, and then for the first OT loss claim that OT losses are essentially a "tie".

Anyway, no biggie, no one is expected to provide "balance" on the forum, we're all just here to provide our unbiased opinions without agenda.