Pre-Game Talk: GM 15: Vancouver Canucks @ Chicago Blackhawks - Feb 19 - 5:30PM PST - SPAC

[Samzilla]

Eh, not really; it's like us rooting for the Habs when they play Boston (and vice versa). Every team we play is the enemy, but sometimes, the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

I totally understand that. But I don't go on their board the day after we beat them, hours after cheering for them to lose, and ask them to do us a favor in our own best interest. It's called tact.

Anyways, that's the last i'll say on it.

 

[shortshorts]

I thought so much of the reaction to last night's game was so over the top and irrational, and this is frankly an alarming trend where anything less than perfection is just panned by many members of this fanbase. So I'm going to re-post this here, now that the PGT in question is closed:

There are three reactions in [that] thread that I find positively hilarious.

1. That the Canucks "lost this game because"... The Canucks played 65 minutes of tie-game hockey then lost the shootout, which they just as easily could have won without having played any differently. So how could any factors in their play whatsoever be responsible for "losing" the game? Shootout results are ties when evaluating the team's play, no matter what happens.

2. That miscues in the second period (or any point really) are because of the failure to put forth a 60-minute effort. Why is it the Canucks have human agency, but other teams don't? Is the rationale seriously that if only they tried for 60 straight minutes every game they would win all of them? Does the other team's attempts to play hockey on the same ice surface not come into the equation at all? Is our team really that much better than every opponent? (hint: no). When a player makes a mistake, is it seriously because he isn't "trying hard enough"?

3. That the Canucks "blew a lead". Apart from the absurdity of pinning this term to a one-goal difference earned late in the first period (when "leads" such as this are blown repeatedly every night of the season by almost every team, because, you know, sometimes the game gets knotted at 1 or 2 as part of the fact that both teams are trying to score), are you seriously blaming the Canucks for blowing a lead when it was St. Louis who took three successive penalties late in the game to hand Vancouver a dying-moments tie? How does this escape the analysis? If any team blew a lead tonight, it wasn't Vancouver.

Completely agree with all three points. I would also add that the Canucks were the better team the last two games and lost. That's hockey. At some point things were going to even out after they won a few games at the beginning of the season they had no business winning. (Of course people weren't nearly as critical after those games as they were after the last two).

Agreed! We need to give St.Louis credit. They are a hard team to play against, and is one of the teams I don't want to see in the playoffs.

 

[ItsAllPartOfThePlan]

Missed the game yesterday. How did Luongo play?

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Missed the game yesterday. How did Luongo play?

OK. He blamed himself for the first two goals, and he's probably right - but he didn't cost us the game. It was pretty evenly played between two good teams, IMO.

 

[PhilMick]

OK. He blamed himself for the first two goals, and he's probably right - but he didn't cost us the game. It was pretty evenly played between two good teams, IMO.

Weren't they both off rebounds?

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Weren't they both off rebounds?

Speculating, but I think his line of thinking was that he should have been in better position. The second goal in particular, he over-slid to his left leaving the entire right side exposed for McDonald. That was really my only gripe on what I felt was an otherwise solid - if unspectacular - evening.

 

[Fork]

how can booth be back? has he even been practicing with the team?

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

how can booth be back? has he even been practicing with the team?

Yes, he has. For about a week now, if I'm remembering right.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

AV being coy on who starts tomorrow;

Sportsnet Pacific‏@SNETPacific
Alain Vigneault did not name his starting goalie for game in Chicago. #Canucks
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

...and Booth being coy on whether he starts tomorrow;

Sportsnet Pacific‏@SNETPacific
David Booth - "We'll see what happens tomorrow, I feel good but I want to be careful." #Canucks
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

 

[Treefingers]

I thought so much of the reaction to last night's game was so over the top and irrational, and this is frankly an alarming trend where anything less than perfection is just panned by many members of this fanbase. So I'm going to re-post this here, now that the PGT in question is closed:

There are three reactions in [that] thread that I find positively hilarious.

1. That the Canucks "lost this game because"... The Canucks played 65 minutes of tie-game hockey then lost the shootout, which they just as easily could have won without having played any differently. So how could any factors in their play whatsoever be responsible for "losing" the game? Shootout results are ties when evaluating the team's play, no matter what happens.

2. That miscues in the second period (or any point really) are because of the failure to put forth a 60-minute effort. Why is it the Canucks have human agency, but other teams don't? Is the rationale seriously that if only they tried for 60 straight minutes every game they would win all of them? Does the other team's attempts to play hockey on the same ice surface not come into the equation at all? Is our team really that much better than every opponent? (hint: no). When a player makes a mistake, is it seriously because he isn't "trying hard enough"?

3. That the Canucks "blew a lead". Apart from the absurdity of pinning this term to a one-goal difference earned late in the first period (when "leads" such as this are blown repeatedly every night of the season by almost every team, because, you know, sometimes the game gets knotted at 1 or 2 as part of the fact that both teams are trying to score), are you seriously blaming the Canucks for blowing a lead when it was St. Louis who took three successive penalties late in the game to hand Vancouver a dying-moments tie? How does this escape the analysis? If any team blew a lead tonight, it wasn't Vancouver.

This. The lunacy of this board after the Canucks lose is sickening. So many people on here need to get a ****ing grip.

 

[luongo321]

AV being coy on who starts tomorrow;



...and Booth being coy on whether he starts tomorrow;

I'm guessing AV doesn't want to give the Hawks any sort of advantage. Keep them guessing. Make it a surprise.

 

[luongo321]

I totally understand that. But I don't go on their board the day after we beat them, hours after cheering for them to lose, and ask them to do us a favor in our own best interest. It's called tact.

Anyways, that's the last i'll say on it.

It's always good to display tact, but I think you're being a bit too sensitive and overly critical in this instance. By saying that poster is being disingenuous/hollow, you're also assuming they actually dislike our team. For all we know, that poster could secretly like this team. Either way, I don't care why that poster wants us to win. It's better than posters coming here and mocking us.

 

[hackey]

Doh goes the Luongo
Worst shootout goal allowed?
His head follows the puck going into the net

No fear he will be better

 

[deadinthewater]

^


Too funny.

 

[Treefingers]

lawl. That shootout gif is amazing.

 

[pahlsson]

reminds me of when demitra did that to kiprusoff a few years back, except worse

 

[Samzilla]

Lu: "I stopped Patrick Kane in a shootout. Do your wors--oh."

 

[Scurr]

This. The lunacy of this board after the Canucks lose is sickening. So many people on here need to get a ****ing grip.

It's media driven. I jumped in the car after the game last night and went for a drive. Blake Price is doing his usual Vancouver media doom and gloom session, projecting losses on the upcoming trip and going on and on about our record outside the division and how bad it will be if they go 1-3 on the road trip.

Next thing you know they're playing Hitch getting interviewed and he's glowing about our team. He was comparing our new 3 line attack to Chicago, praising our transition game, talking about how tough we are going to be when we put it together. Someone that knows WTF they're talking about.

Price bumbles something about it being nice to get an outside perspective and then brushes it off as a coach being happy to come out of here with two points. Our media needs to be called out and overhauled. It's pathetic.

 

[Jyrki]

Doh goes the Luongo
Worst shootout goal allowed?
His head follows the puck going into the net

No fear he will be better

I wonder if Varlamov models his game after Luongo?

1:34

 

[Zombotron]

That's Giguere.

 

[VanEric]

That's happened to tons of goalies in the shootouts.

 

[vancityluongo]

As long as he comes with a huge effort and takes responsibility no matter what the concequence, I like these types of comments. Gotta back up this kind of talk

He needs to pull a Thornton and fight Toews.

 

[Orca Smash]

I thought so much of the reaction to last night's game was so over the top and irrational, and this is frankly an alarming trend where anything less than perfection is just panned by many members of this fanbase. So I'm going to re-post this here, now that the PGT in question is closed:

There are three reactions in [that] thread that I find positively hilarious.

1. That the Canucks "lost this game because"... The Canucks played 65 minutes of tie-game hockey then lost the shootout, which they just as easily could have won without having played any differently. So how could any factors in their play whatsoever be responsible for "losing" the game? Shootout results are ties when evaluating the team's play, no matter what happens.

2. That miscues in the second period (or any point really) are because of the failure to put forth a 60-minute effort. Why is it the Canucks have human agency, but other teams don't? Is the rationale seriously that if only they tried for 60 straight minutes every game they would win all of them? Does the other team's attempts to play hockey on the same ice surface not come into the equation at all? Is our team really that much better than every opponent? (hint: no). When a player makes a mistake, is it seriously because he isn't "trying hard enough"?

3. That the Canucks "blew a lead". Apart from the absurdity of pinning this term to a one-goal difference earned late in the first period (when "leads" such as this are blown repeatedly every night of the season by almost every team, because, you know, sometimes the game gets knotted at 1 or 2 as part of the fact that both teams are trying to score), are you seriously blaming the Canucks for blowing a lead when it was St. Louis who took three successive penalties late in the game to hand Vancouver a dying-moments tie? How does this escape the analysis? If any team blew a lead tonight, it wasn't Vancouver.

I agree st. louis is a top team I said before the game this will be a tough game, and many fans simply dont accept them yet as a top team in the west, they are up there with the hawks imo.

With that said my issue is number 2, this is not just a random issue, we have been having weak periods especially the second period for years now, and it was not a few miscues, we gave away an enormous amount of pucks if you check the stats, the faceoff stats were gross in that period, not even close, and so were shots on net, and it cost us. I was also frustrated av simply gave them credit, loosing a period is going to happen all the time, but getting completely dominated in the 2nd when alot of it was bad passing and giveaways and which has been a trend for us in the 2nd should not be acceptable either, and I do feel that period cost us and has been costing us for awhile now. I am not saying win every period, but to often the past few seasons we take a complete break typically in the 2nd and expect our goalies to bail us out, and then we have to work harder play catch up in the 3rd. Not to mention we again blew a lead in that period which has also been a troubling trend, not just a single game.

However I also felt we were the better team for most of the game, and being the better team in a game vs one of the top teams in the west should be more comforting then upsetting even if we did loose a shootout. Especially since we could have played even better at times, and lou typically has much better games as well. We have alot of potential this season imo if it comes together. A blues fan actually messaged me we are probably the best team the blues have seen besides the hawks this season.

 

[Jyrki]

That's Giguere.

I'm so disrespectful. :/

 

[freakydave]

Missed the game yesterday. How did Luongo play?

He was avg he played alright-he didn't steal a point.In the SO it was back to the old Luongo.