Pre-Game Talk: GM 46: Vancouver Canucks vs. Chicago Blackhawks - Apr 22 - 7:00PM PST - SPAC

Status
Not open for further replies.

mrmyheadhurts

Registered Boozer
Mar 22, 2007
16,089
1
Vancouver
Can't be much more of a homer than to argue that we're better than Chicago and should be treated as such..

Yes. Even if you could make an argument for teams being close on paper, the Hawks have been the far better team this year and are the better team. Doesn't mean the Canucks couldn't beat them in a 7 game series, but the Hawks are pretty clearly the superior team.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
29,027
3,779
Vancouver, BC
Yes. Even if you could make an argument for teams being close on paper, the Hawks have been the far better team this year and are the better team. Doesn't mean the Canucks couldn't beat them in a 7 game series, but the Hawks are pretty clearly the superior team.
Absolutely.

Comparing components of the team and having us come out even/on top is the silliest thing ever.

If we DO face and beat them in the playoffs, it will either be because they play below their standards or we play at a level that we haven't seen yet.

I do think we have the personnel to potentially do it when healthy, definitely. Everyone's playing like *** though.
 

Vankiller Whale

Fire Benning
May 12, 2012
28,802
16
Toronto
In the offseason, on paper the Rangers seemed like the consensus best team in the league. They're now barely making the playoffs as 8th seed.

On paper our roster is comparable to Chicago's. And playoffs is a whole different game. It's not like they've done particularly well against us in the season so far, either.
 

Barney Gumble

Registered User
Jan 2, 2007
22,711
1
Can't be much more of a homer than to argue that we're better than Chicago and should be treated as such..

I'd argue *on paper* we should be better but clearly they haven't played to their fullest potential (excluding the goaltending).

I do think we have the personnel to potentially do it when healthy, definitely. Everyone's playing like *** though.
Again...excluding the goaltending.
 

Catamarca Livin

Registered User
Jul 29, 2010
4,908
983
LOL delusional people think we're better than the Hawks. We've been ''better'' than the Hawks one year since we first played them in 2009 and even that is debatable because even with their team ripped apart by the cap we still needed 4 games and overtime to put them away after taking a 3 game lead.
Chicago has better top end players at every position except goal. We don't have a Keith or Seabrook who can play 30 minutes in a game, we have a much worse coach and our special teams are a complete laughing stock.

We might be able to squeak out a lame shootout win but in a 7 gam series... yeah right. They can up their game much more than we can.

There is a big problem with this sentence. First you say we were better one year, but this is debatable because the series was close and the Hawks team was not that good because of cap issues. Which is it? Were they not that good, or were they about the same as the Canucks? You do realize they needed Minny to beat Dallas on the last day of the regular season to make the playoffs that year. Last year they were the 6th seed and lost to Phoenix. So i would say the Canucks were better than them last year as well. So i am not sure what your arguement is? This year the Hawks have been much better however just like the 2011 playoff series it can change in the playoffs. The differences between these teams is not as big as their records indicate. Hopefully for Canuck fans we have a "healthy team" for this years playoffs.



The Canucks were 8-11 over those three playoffs vs. Chicago
 

moneyorder

Registered User
Aug 17, 2012
33
0
so with the minny loss, van needs 1 point total in the remaining games to take the nw TITLE
 

MikeK

Registered User
Nov 10, 2008
10,972
4,866
Earth
so with the minny loss, van needs 1 point total in the remaining games to take the nw TITLE

Tonights Minni loss to CGY all but secured the Divisional crown once again for Vancouver. With the loss, Minni now has to worry about just making the playoffs. Their Divisional dreams are dead. Even if they do get into the playoffs they get the unlucky choice of either CHI or ANA in the first round. Their play the last month has totally shot themselves in the foot.
 

Lindgren

Registered User
Jun 30, 2005
6,040
3,972
Tonights Minni loss to CGY all but secured the Divisional crown once again for Vancouver.

You'd have to think that there will be consequences for AV's line-up and ice-time decisions. I wonder whether we'll see any surprises, with players we didn't know are nursing injuries or battling fatigue given a game or two off while players such as Joslin and Corrado draw in (Raymond? Edler? Jensen?).
 

Drop the Sopel

Registered User
May 4, 2007
18,325
59
calgary
how many blowout losses do we need to learn from anyway

The Canucks have lost 2 games by more than 1 goal in their last 17 games - once in the last 10 games. It's not like this team gets blown out very often...

This fanbase really could use a year with no playoff hockey to get their bearings. Far too many spoiled, entitled fans around these parts.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
29,027
3,779
Vancouver, BC
The Canucks have lost 2 games by more than 1 goal in their last 17 games - once in the last 10 games. It's not like this team gets blown out very often...

This fanbase really could use a year with no playoff hockey to get their bearings. Far too many spoiled, entitled fans around these parts.
What's the point? If we do well again the year after that, they'll get right back to where they are now.
 

Drop the Sopel

Registered User
May 4, 2007
18,325
59
calgary
What's the point? If we do well again the year after that, they'll get right back to where they are now.

I think a dose of no playoffs will do wonders for the Canucks fanbase. You don't take the playoffs for granted when you're not in them every year.

The Canucks clinching a playoff spot should have been an enjoyable moment. Instead, all everyone could talk about was how pathetic it was they did while being outshot.

Bunch of ****ers.
 

StringerBell

Guest
LOL delusional people think we're better than the Hawks. We've been ''better'' than the Hawks one year since we first played them in 2009 and even that is debatable because even with their team ripped apart by the cap we still needed 4 games and overtime to put them away after taking a 3 game lead.

Chicago has better top end players at every position except goal. We don't have a Keith or Seabrook who can play 30 minutes in a game, we have a much worse coach and our special teams are a complete laughing stock.

We might be able to squeak out a lame shootout win but in a 7 gam series... yeah right. They can up their game much more than we can.

Special teams doesn't just refer to powerplay, it also includes penalty kill.

:teach:
 

Grumbler

Registered User
Oct 25, 2012
3,085
851
With pieces of ****s like ebbett cam barker, alberts in the lineup it would be a miracle if this team won. And even if we do win, we'll be outshot more badly than the detroit game and it will be 99.9999% goaltending.

With **** coaching like AV claiming we "battled really hard" and still making the ******** ****ing same excuse for himself "tough circumstances in the lineup" [HOW ABOUT LEARN TO COACH?]. He makes players think "we played our best game in a while" "we played our butts off" in the detroit game where they had 4 shots 5 on 5 in 60 minutes. Yea played well... ****you.

This will be a blowout game by Chicago, unless they decide to take it easy on us.
 

TruGr1t

Proper Villain
Jun 26, 2003
23,605
7,734
We'll end up replacing Ebbett with Schroeder for sure I think ... there is simply not much drop off there, and the chance for a lot of upside. Hopefully one of our farm defensemen (Corrado, Polasek, Andersson, etc.) can outplay Barker until Tanev returns so we don't have to see that horrendous #18 play ever again.

At forward we're pretty set, we just need to start finding some lines that generate chemistry outside the Sedins and Burrows. I have hope for the Higgins-Roy pairing, and Hansen is pretty reliable. I dunno about the Raymond-Kesler-Kassian combo .... it looks good on paper, but they've been inconsistent and haven't been generating a ton of looks around the net. With two big bodies and Raymond's speed it looks good though. Kassian is the real wild card as I'd like to see him assert himself physically in a seven game series. Fourth line is probably fine with some combo of Lapierre, Pinner, Sestito, Ebbett, and Archibald.

Once we get Bieksa back hopefully the defensive pairings sort themselves out.
 

Aphid Attraction

Registered User
Jan 17, 2013
5,067
1,703
We'll end up replacing Ebbett with Schroeder for sure I think ... there is simply not much drop off there, and the chance for a lot of upside. Hopefully one of our farm defensemen (Corrado, Polasek, Andersson, etc.) can outplay Barker until Tanev returns so we don't have to see that horrendous #18 play ever again.

At forward we're pretty set, we just need to start finding some lines that generate chemistry outside the Sedins and Burrows. I have hope for the Higgins-Roy pairing, and Hansen is pretty reliable. I dunno about the Raymond-Kesler-Kassian combo .... it looks good on paper, but they've been inconsistent and haven't been generating a ton of looks around the net. With two big bodies and Raymond's speed it looks good though. Kassian is the real wild card as I'd like to see him assert himself physically in a seven game series. Fourth line is probably fine with some combo of Lapierre, Pinner, Sestito, Ebbett, and Archibald.

Once we get Bieksa back hopefully the defensive pairings sort themselves out.

Yea, but only on the depth chart, Higgins will replace both, and then the team is likely to have Ebbitt higher because he can play wing, sort of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad