Post-Game Talk: GAME #5: Canucks 6, Habs 5 (S/O) (Boeser x2, Horvat x2, Motte)

[bossram]

Schmidt - Myers
Hughes - Chatfield
rathbone - Benn

If we don't have Edler or Hamonic...

Hamonic is terrible anyway, so this might actually be an improvement.

Time to unleash Hughes-Schmidt.

 

[Fatass]

Schmidt - Myers
Hughes - Chatfield
rathbone - Benn

If we don't have Edler or Hamonic...

I’m hoping this is what we see on D, but think Juiolevi will (wrongly because of Benning politics) play ahead of “The Bone”.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I know I will get flack for agreeing with you, but I do.

I missed tonights game, but so far this season until tonight, he's looked at worst average. And compared to most of our D, he's been a lot more even then I'd have expected.

Not to say he's been spectacular, but decent is probably the right word.

i think myers has been a combination of really solid and terrible. it is weird to watch. we badly need him in the lineup, warts and all, so i would say the good outweighs the bad for now.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Could you guys imagine if Schmidt didn’t land in Benning’s lap?

As for Petey, I’m totally not worried. Even McKinnon suffered some down years after his unbelievable rookie season. It takes time for young players.

i think maybe petey worked hard on getting stronger and being a two way guy and let his offence slide a little. it totally hasn't worked and his offence has suffered.

 

[1440]

Really a terrible performance but a 6-1 PP advantage and 3 PP goals bailed us out. Montreal didn’t even play well and Price had his worst game against us since he trashed the visitors dressing room over a decade ago.

- PP was never going to stay as bad as it looked in the first couple games. Boeser, Miller, Horvat all with very good games. Pettersson had some moments although still struggling.

- Motte was excellent and carried his line which did better today.

- everything about the blueline and everything about team defense aside from Nate Schmidt is embarrassing. No system, no personnel, no effort. Huge problems and this team will struggle badly to win games if they don’t figure out some solutions.

- Chatfield lost concentration for one moment and was burned on the 3-3 goal but otherwise held up ok and did better for himself than most of the regulars.

- Hughes bled goals all of last year but people simply didn’t want to hear about it when I tried explaining it. Was a -22 in 49 games where he played over 20 minutes, despite having Tanev as a security blanket and despite teams not preparing for him. This year, there is no Tanev, no sheltering, no rookie glow, higher expectations, and teams keying on him and the results are predictable. He isn’t good enough yet at ES for the role he’s playing.

Did you watch the same game as the rest of us? If that was a terrible performace, I don't want to know what constitutes a good performance? Do you expect the Canucks to beat every team 6-0?

Chances, shots and XG were all ~60-40% in the favour of Montreal at evens, but the Canucks controlled play in the first, got out to a lead, drew a lot of penalties with their speed and capitalized on the PP. That is the same recipe for success as last year.

Yes the goal-tending was not very good, and yes there were a lot of strange pinches leading to goals against, but bar actually scoring on the PP, that was largely the same as the previous game against Calgary - which they should have won with even average luck in special teams.

The Canucks were generating chances on the PP at a top 3 rate in the league before this, so it was only a matter of time before they actually cashed in. Demko had a .900 save % shorthanded last year and Holtby has a career .870 shorthanded save percentage, so even if the Canucks are giving up better chances this year, it is also only a matter of time before their PK improves as well.

 

[MS]

Did you watch the same game as the rest of us? If that was a terrible performace, I don't want to know what constitutes a good performance? Do you expect the Canucks to beat every team 6-0?

Chances, shots and XG were all ~60-40% in the favour of Montreal at evens, but the Canucks controlled play in the first, got out to a lead, drew a lot of penalties with their speed and capitalized on the PP. That is the same recipe for success as last year.

Yes the goal-tending was not very good, and yes there were a lot of strange pinches leading to goals against, but bar actually scoring on the PP, that was largely the same as the previous game against Calgary - which they should have won with even average luck in special teams.

The Canucks were generating chances on the PP at a top 3 rate in the league before this, so it was only a matter of time before they actually cashed in. Demko had a .900 save % shorthanded last year and Holtby has a career .870 shorthanded save percentage, so even if the Canucks are giving up better chances this year, it is also only a matter of time before their PK improves as well.

The PP was very good, as I said. And as I predicted.

Our ES performance was horrid. We were badly outplayed and outchanced on our home rink with massive breakdowns everywhere on the ice.

We were able to get a result out of this game because of a 6-1 PP differential and a hot PP. End of story. Playing like this on a regular basis is a formula for finishing at the bottom of the division.

 

[VanJack]

You really feel for a guy like Tyler Motte....I mean the guy is seriously underrated in the skill department. But there he is, tethered to Beagle and Sutter on the fourth line. It's like having anchors tethered to both feet, while trying to cross the raging river.

Green has moved him up in the lineup a few times, but never seems to last. Surely the guy has earned a longer audition somewhere?

 

[4Twenty]

Did you watch the same game as the rest of us? If that was a terrible performace, I don't want to know what constitutes a good performance? Do you expect the Canucks to beat every team 6-0?

Chances, shots and XG were all ~60-40% in the favour of Montreal at evens, but the Canucks controlled play in the first, got out to a lead, drew a lot of penalties with their speed and capitalized on the PP. That is the same recipe for success as last year.

Yes the goal-tending was not very good, and yes there were a lot of strange pinches leading to goals against, but bar actually scoring on the PP, that was largely the same as the previous game against Calgary - which they should have won with even average luck in special teams.

The Canucks were generating chances on the PP at a top 3 rate in the league before this, so it was only a matter of time before they actually cashed in. Demko had a .900 save % shorthanded last year and Holtby has a career .870 shorthanded save percentage, so even if the Canucks are giving up better chances this year, it is also only a matter of time before their PK improves as well.

The question is did you watch the same game.

The first period was decent last night after the scoring chances 5 on 5 22-10 for Montreal in the final 2 periods. They defended poorly and gave up 4 goals 5 on 5 all from the Center of the ice in the slot. I thought I read the Canucks are allowing the most clean entries into their zone in the league.

I can’t believe you think this is a recipe for success.

 

[Pip]

The PP was very good, as I said. And as I predicted.

Our ES performance was horrid. We were badly outplayed and outchanced on our home rink with massive breakdowns everywhere on the ice.

We were able to get a result out of this game because of a 6-1 PP differential and a hot PP. End of story. Playing like this on a regular basis is a formula for finishing at the bottom of the division.

The important thing to note from the OP was

That is the same recipe for success as last year.

Last year was a “success” due to elite goaltending, timely scoring, and bunch of luck. Poor 5on5 play will eventually catch up to any team and trying to replicate last year is going to fail, even if we had brought Marky back.

 

[Cogburn]

i think myers has been a combination of really solid and terrible. it is weird to watch. we badly need him in the lineup, warts and all, so i would say the good outweighs the bad for now.

I don't think I can swing too far from center, but when I watch Hughes (as an example) he has transcendent moments in the offensive zone, and then he ends a game -3 0r something silly with gaffes he makes. I mean, I wouldn't take Hughes off the team or any thing, but it's a wild swing from amazing to very poor, and as a sophmore offensive D prospect, he gets a lot of leeway, from myself and from others.

Schmidt has also had my opinion swing from "that was brilliant" to "what the hell is he doing?", sometimes on the same shift. It's not as common as, say, Hughes, or what I would have expected from Myers, and Schmidt is still learning our system, so I want to be clear that I am not ragging on Schmidt or Hughes.

I think I just have a lot more moments with Myers where I say "eh, that was alright" versus a wild swing in opinion from great to terrible, like I see with Hughes, Schmidt, and honestly our whole D corps save Edler. Not that Myers is immune from those mistakes, but I'm thinking maybe he's making fewer of those plays then I'm meant to expect? Is that the positive takeaway here?

 

[4Twenty]

Myers reach and ability to block shots are noticeable. I find any time he looks to be creative or join the rush or play above his means you almost know something bad is going to happen and a chance will get given up and he won’t be able to recover.

basically only Schmidt and Hughes have that ability to recover so far.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Myers would be great on a 3x3 deal, maybe even 4x4 since he was a UFA.

He does some things well, but is our highest paid dman since he got here.
He is not our best defenseman, nor a top pair, likely not a 2nd pair, so why is he paid like one.

 

[4Twenty]

Myers would be great on a 3x3 deal, maybe even 4x4 since he was a UFA.

He does some things well, but is our highest paid dman since he got here.
He is not our best defenseman, nor a top pair, likely not a 2nd pair, so why is he paid like one.

Well if 4x4 is your base you add a year for being right handed and add $2m AAV for being over 6’6”.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I don't think I can swing too far from center, but when I watch Hughes (as an example) he has transcendent moments in the offensive zone, and then he ends a game -3 0r something silly with gaffes he makes. I mean, I wouldn't take Hughes off the team or any thing, but it's a wild swing from amazing to very poor, and as a sophmore offensive D prospect, he gets a lot of leeway, from myself and from others.

Schmidt has also had my opinion swing from "that was brilliant" to "what the hell is he doing?", sometimes on the same shift. It's not as common as, say, Hughes, or what I would have expected from Myers, and Schmidt is still learning our system, so I want to be clear that I am not ragging on Schmidt or Hughes.

I think I just have a lot more moments with Myers where I say "eh, that was alright" versus a wild swing in opinion from great to terrible, like I see with Hughes, Schmidt, and honestly our whole D corps save Edler. Not that Myers is immune from those mistakes, but I'm thinking maybe he's making fewer of those plays then I'm meant to expect? Is that the positive takeaway here?

i think the best answer i can give is i was with shorty and garrett when they initially assumed it was myers out of position for the first toffoli goal. because it seemed like something he might do.

 

[Pip]

Well if 4x4 is your base you add a year for being right handed and add $2m AAV for being over 6’6”.

When you factor in the Tyler tax we actually got a bit of a discount

 

[Nazzlind]

i think the best answer i can give is i was with shorty and garrett when they initially assumed it was myers out of position for the first toffoli goal. because it seemed like something he might do.

You're overthinking it. They assumed it was Myers because Garrett misread Hamonic's 27 as Myers' 57

 

[krutovsdonut]

You're overthinking it. They assumed it was Myers because Garrett misread Hamonic's 27 as Myers' 57

i stated why i assumed it. i didn't intend to say why they assumed it, but i see how you read it that way.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

You really feel for a guy like Tyler Motte....I mean the guy is seriously underrated in the skill department. But there he is, tethered to Beagle and Sutter on the fourth line. It's like having anchors tethered to both feet, while trying to cross the raging river.

Green has moved him up in the lineup a few times, but never seems to last. Surely the guy has earned a longer audition somewhere?

Motte reminds me a lot of Bryan Rust. If you played him higher in the lineup with more talented players he would produce and provide a defensive conscience.