Post-Game Talk: GAME #25 - Canucks @ Blue Jackets

[Verviticus]

CanucksArmy did a chance breakdown. If you split it up by lines it's hysterical:

The chance data for the Canucks tonight, broken down by line combinations, is hilarious/depressing:

Sedins-Burrows: 3 for, 2 against
Raymond-Ebbett-Hansen: 0 for, 4 against
Booth-Higgins-Kassian: 1 for, 5 against
Sestito-Lapierre-Weise: 0 for, 3 against.

Our bottom 9 is so damn awful. Jebus.

this post looks... familiar

 

[BrandonL]

Yeah, I agree. I always felt that Bieksa never really fit that role (he's carried). When he's aggressive, sure, but his stupidity (lack for a better word) usually takes over. Unfortunately, however, the other pairings would likely suffer (can't have Edler/Bieksa; that is just a disaster waiting to happen). I guess we could put Bieksa on the 3rd pairing.

Garrison deserves to be in the top 4 at this point.

I'm just not sure if AV has the balls to put either Bieksa or Edler on the 3rd pairing for an extended amount of time.

If you were going by their play this season, both Tanev and Garrison would be a lock for the top 4. Unfortunately I don't see that happening, I get the impression there is a clear hierarchy in the dressing room that favors core players. Lots of teams do this, but it seems like the lack of accountability on the Canucks is particularly bad.

 

[Verviticus]

I'm just not sure if AV has the balls to put either Bieksa or Edler on the 3rd pairing for an extended amount of time.

If you were going by their play this season, both Tanev and Garrison would be a lock for the top 4. Unfortunately I don't see that happening, I get the impression there is a clear hierarchy in the dressing room that favors core players. Lots of teams do this, but it seems like the lack of accountability on the Canucks is particularly bad.

you put bieksa on the top 4 and give him lots of ice time because he's proven it and when hes on his game, he absolutely crushes. if you put him on the third and give him third pairing minutes, you don't create as good of an environment for this to happen

like, a working functional on-his-game bieksa is fundamentally important to a good playoff run

 

[Proto]

Given the realities of the stupid Luongo rule, trading Schneider might be the most viable option now.

 

[Pip]

CanucksArmy did a chance breakdown. If you split it up by lines it's hysterical:

The chance data for the Canucks tonight, broken down by line combinations, is hilarious/depressing:

Sedins-Burrows: 3 for, 2 against
Raymond-Ebbett-Hansen: 0 for, 4 against
Booth-Higgins-Kassian: 1 for, 5 against
Sestito-Lapierre-Weise: 0 for, 3 against.

Our bottom 9 is so damn awful. Jebus.

I'm not so sure about this chance breakdown, I really dont think we got outchanced 14-4 this game, depending on what they deem a scoring chance, cause i remember Raymond getting at least one chance tonight

 

[Pip]

I'm just not sure if AV has the balls to put either Bieksa or Edler on the 3rd pairing for an extended amount of time.

If you were going by their play this season, both Tanev and Garrison would be a lock for the top 4. Unfortunately I don't see that happening, I get the impression there is a clear hierarchy in the dressing room that favors core players. Lots of teams do this, but it seems like the lack of accountability on the Canucks is particularly bad.

he doesnt

 

[Verviticus]

I'm not so sure about this chance breakdown, I really dont think we got outchanced 14-4 this game

they define chances pretty strictly and then watch for exactly this definition (its a good one) so i tend to trust them. they might be off by 1 or 2 in any direction because theres discretion involved but its not easily doubtable beyond that

edit: also, hes counting even strength only in that post (the blog post has PP and EV separate) and the canucks got 3 on the PP so

 

[Tiranis]

they define chances pretty strictly and then watch for exactly this definition (its a good one) so i tend to trust them. they might be off by 1 or 2 in any direction because theres discretion involved but its not easily doubtable beyond that

I would have to watch again to be sure, but I get the feeling they're generous on the CBJ chances more so than short-changing the Canucks.

 

[BrandonL]

you put bieksa on the top 4 and give him lots of ice time because he's proven it and when hes on his game, he absolutely crushes. if you put him on the third and give him third pairing minutes, you don't create as good of an environment for this to happen

like, a working functional on-his-game bieksa is fundamentally important to a good playoff run

So who do you bump out of the top four, Tanev?

I just find that hard to stomach because he has been consistently better than both Bieksa and Edler this year.

What kind of message does that send in the dressing room? No matter how well he plays, he will never move ahead of "core players" like Bieksa/Edler.

 

[Pip]

they define chances pretty strictly and then watch for exactly this definition (its a good one) so i tend to trust them. they might be off by 1 or 2 in any direction because theres discretion involved but its not easily doubtable beyond that

edit: also, hes counting even strength only in that post (the blog post has PP and EV separate) and the canucks got 3 on the PP so

I assumed that the PP chances were discounted, i just didnt get the feeling we were that outchanced this game, although I may be wrong

 

[Tiranis]

you put bieksa on the top 4 and give him lots of ice time because he's proven it and when hes on his game, he absolutely crushes. if you put him on the third and give him third pairing minutes, you don't create as good of an environment for this to happen

like, a working functional on-his-game bieksa is fundamentally important to a good playoff run

I'm not convinced that having him on the 3rd pairing is all that bad for him or for the Canucks. Ehrhoff could do plenty well from the 3rd pairing in his first year here.

 

[Pip]

So who do you bump out of the top four, Tanev?

I just find that hard to stomach because he has been consistently better than both Bieksa and Edler this year.

What kind of message does that send in the dressing room? No matter how well he plays, he well never move ahead of "core players" like Bieksa/Edler.

imo that is the message that is being sent right now

 

[BrandonL]

he doesnt

Just one of many reasons why I still believe a coaching change is crucial for this team.

Too many players getting rewarded for what they have done in previous seasons.

 

[Verviticus]

So who do you bump out of the top four, Tanev?

I just find that hard to stomach because he has been consistently better than both Bieksa and Edler this year.

What kind of message does that send in the dressing room? No matter how well he plays, he well never move ahead of "core players" like Bieksa/Edler.

tanev has done really well against lower quality players but whenever he gets more ice time, he struggles. its not awful, he's not bad, and hes cheap so its not a big deal, but i don't think its the optimal choice

bieksas out a bit, the team dynamic has changed a bit, and garrison and hammer both found their game. when he gets back, it's a perfect time to try him with one or both of them and see if we can re-create 2011 bieksa

i mean, if not, yeah, give tanev more cracks at the top 4, but again, don't expect flawless smooth skating non-panic tanev when hes against parise and o'reilly and iginla most of the time

 

[Verviticus]

I'm not convinced that having him on the 3rd pairing is all that bad for him or for the Canucks. Ehrhoff could do plenty well from the 3rd pairing in his first year here.

true, but he A: was a new addition and had to learn the system, B: got ****tons of PP time to make up for it and C: played Sedin Caddy really well

i don't think bieksa is suited to C or B and A isn't an issue. they're in somewhat different situations

i really want to see KB with hammer/garrison first

 

[opendoor]

I would have to watch again to be sure, but I get the feeling they're generous on the CBJ chances more so than short-changing the Canucks.

Yeah, just based on memory and glancing at the highlights, I think Columbus had a lot of unscreened shots from the high slot area. Technically a lot of those would've been within the home plate area but few of them looked very dangerous and Luongo saved them easily.

More worrying is the fact that the Canucks generated very little in the way of great chances.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

I'm not so sure about this chance breakdown, I really dont think we got outchanced 14-4 this game, depending on what they deem a scoring chance, cause i remember Raymond getting at least one chance tonight

That's at even-strength.

 

[Verviticus]

You can only exercise so much judgement before a stat is tainted and not really predicative. I trust their numbers

 

[Pip]

That's at even-strength.

I understand that, I've already said that I know that

 

[WinterEmpire]

Yeah, just based on memory and glancing at the highlights, I think Columbus had a lot of unscreened shots from the high slot area. Technically a lot of those would've been within the home plate area but few of them looked very dangerous and Luongo saved them easily.

More worrying is the fact that the Canucks generated very little in the way of great chances.

Few of them looked dangerous because there were a lot of poorly taken shots, replace the Blue Jackets with a team like Chicago or Anaheim and they pot a couple of more for sure.

I really see little to be optimistic about with this game. Effort was nice and the PP had a couple of nice sequences, but still didn't finish. The 5-5 offensive play was essentially all about just drilling lots of low quality shots at net, not impressive.

The same issues that existed for the majority of this slump remained, and many of the positives still remained. This game means nothing outside of the two points.

 

[Tiranis]

Few of them looked dangerous because there were a lot of poorly taken shots, replace the Blue Jackets with a team like Chicago or Anaheim and they pot a couple of more for sure.

I really see little to be optimistic about with this game. Effort was nice and the PP had a couple of nice sequences, but still didn't finish. The 5-5 offensive play was essentially all about just drilling lots of low quality shots at net, not impressive.

The same issues that existed for the majority of this slump remained, and many of the positives still remained. This game means nothing outside of the two points.

I don't know, it was a step forward in two notable ways: 1) less turnovers on breakouts and overall slightly better transition game, and 2) more offensive zone time than over the past few weeks.

 

[PG Canuck]

Just got home, how did we play?

 

[WinterEmpire]

I don't know, it was a step forward in two notable ways: 1) less turnovers on breakouts and overall slightly better transition game, and 2) more offensive zone time than over the past few weeks.

I'll agree with the first point but i'd just like to point out they were playing the Blue Jackets of all teams. I'd need to see them keep that up consistently against more skilled opponents who would normally pressure them into making turnovers and mistakes.

Second, we've already seen the Canucks have a few games where they spend a lot of time in the offensive zone during this slump(Phoenix, LA, SJ etc..). I'm waiting to see if it can continue this on for a second game in a row, or is it was just another one and done.

 

[leftwinglockdown]

CanucksArmy did a chance breakdown. If you split it up by lines it's hysterical:

The chance data for the Canucks tonight, broken down by line combinations, is hilarious/depressing:

Sedins-Burrows: 3 for, 2 against
Raymond-Ebbett-Hansen: 0 for, 4 against
Booth-Higgins-Kassian: 1 for, 5 against
Sestito-Lapierre-Weise: 0 for, 3 against.

Our bottom 9 is so damn awful. Jebus.

Those numbers are a little misleading. They don't take blocked shots into account. The Canucks definitely had dangerous moments in the offensive zone but the Bluejackets deserve a ton of credit because they were in good position and got their sticks onto a ton of shots.

 

[EpochLink]

Just got home, how did we play?

Awful but we got he win

As I eat my sushi downtown, we better bring the hear next game