Post-Game Talk: Ryan Miller beats the Stanley Cup favorites 2-1

[DL44]

Please ignore ALL context in evaluating the following:

McCann 1g, +2
Kesler 0pts, Even

McCann>Kesler thru 3..
Now accept this as fact, do not question it at all and move on.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Surprised to see Bieksa as having the second most minutes on defence for the Ducks. Just goes to show that even the top teams have some pretty big holes these days.

 

[DL44]

Surprised to see Bieksa as having the second most minutes on defence for the Ducks. Just goes to show that even the top teams have some pretty big holes these days.

The big picture view is difficult with a lot of people...

I had an argument with my cousin on thanksgiving who was complaining about our 4th line and ... wait for it... Sbisa...

I tried to explain how our team stacks up depth wise vs some others and explain why i thought we were still a 100 point team... and he seemed to listen... a little later a conversation came up about Gamecenter and how i have it and how awesome it is... and i offered him my password so he could have access... and he states "no that's alright, i don't really watch non-canucks games".

Which is fine and all... but if that's all you watch... the how the hell are you going to have a realistic big picture view of where the Canucks actually stand relative to other teams?!?!
There was a reason why this was a top 10 team in the league last yr... there are a lot more flawed teams than ours out there.

 

[B-rock]

The big picture view is difficult with a lot of people...

I had an argument with my cousin on thanksgiving who was complaining about our 4th line and ... wait for it... Sbisa...

I tried to explain how our team stacks up depth wise vs some others and explain why i thought we were still a 100 point team... and he seemed to listen... a little later a conversation came up about Gamecenter and how i have it and how awesome it is... and i offered him my password so he could have access... and he states "no that's alright, i don't really watch non-canucks games".

Which is fine and all... but if that's all you watch... the how the hell are you going to have a realistic big picture view of where the Canucks actually stand relative to other teams?!?!
There was a reason why this was a top 10 team in the league last yr... there are a lot more flawed teams than ours out there.

I think that's actually an epidemic around here and for Canucks fans in general.

 

[DL44]

I think that's actually an epidemic around here and for Canucks fans in general.

To be fair to Canuck fan, It's the same for all fan bases.. and all sports.. The majority of sports fans watch primarily their own teams.. it's just practical.



Football is probably the sport where fans can watch the most of other games...
Thrus night, Sun early, Sun late, Sun night, Monday night... That's 5 games where schedules allows you watch 5/16 gms per week every week without overlap.... It's awesome.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

The big picture view is difficult with a lot of people...

I had an argument with my cousin on thanksgiving who was complaining about our 4th line and ... wait for it... Sbisa...

I tried to explain how our team stacks up depth wise vs some others and explain why i thought we were still a 100 point team... and he seemed to listen... a little later a conversation came up about Gamecenter and how i have it and how awesome it is... and i offered him my password so he could have access... and he states "no that's alright, i don't really watch non-canucks games".

Which is fine and all... but if that's all you watch... the how the hell are you going to have a realistic big picture view of where the Canucks actually stand relative to other teams?!?!
There was a reason why this was a top 10 team in the league last yr... there are a lot more flawed teams than ours out there.

Yeah I think there is a tendency to see some of the other teams as more complete than they actually are. If you take out the Hawks the league is actually pretty competitive (in fact 5 of the last 6 cups go to the Hawks and Kings). We managed to have a decent season with pretty much average goaltending. With above average goaltending we probably win a few more games.

Problem is though that we are in that second tier of teams that likely make the playoffs but don't really have a legit chance of winning the Cup. As long as we can continue bringing in young players and getting good picks then we should be fine. There is no way that ownership or management is going to embrace a full rebuild anyways so might as well enjoy it.

 

[Reign Nateo]

Surprised to see Bieksa as having the second most minutes on defence for the Ducks. Just goes to show that even the top teams have some pretty big holes these days.

Doesn't show me that at all. Shows me that fans really have no clue. And that's not a slight against us, it's just impossible for fans to have complete pictures on players and situations, which is why fans are, more often than not, dead wrong in the end.

Even though Bieksa was playing top minutes for us and bled Canuck blue, he was garbage and worthless because of the odd giveaway, his age, and fans having no concept of the value of a good locker room presence. So to Canucks fans he was expendable with some value (most people assumed a 3rd), and to non-Canuck fans he wouldn't be claimed on waivers and was a pure salary dump. This is an effect of following only one team and having no concept of the rest of the league. Low and behold one of the top teams and top asset managers in the sport gave the Canucks a 2nd round pick for him. Which is a lot more than fans were expecting (especially non-Canuck fans), and people flabbergasted by Bieksa receiving an extension.

The Ducks aren't so weak on defense they need our leftovers to survive, Bieksa is a lot more effective than fans understand. Both on and off the ice. Not saying Bieksa is a top defenceman and we should never have traded him, just pointing out the difference between fan perception and reality in the NHL. Plus he's playing with Hampus Lindholm who is basically the Ferrari version of Ben Hutton.

 

[JuniorNelson]

Bieksa played a lot because it was against his old team.

Bieksa's trade is the one I really object to (I object to the Kassian trade on moral grounds) in teambuilding terms. A lot of snarl went out of the Canucks because Bieksa wore the Calgary series in Benning's assessment. One series shouldn't be enough to displace your de facto Captain. Incredible knee jerk mistake by Benning!

In gameplay, the Canucks have been riding a hot goalie. This is great and all but unsustainable. They seem to have all the pieces but haven't juggled them into maximum effectiveness, yet. Part of it is they are playing through a tough part of the schedule. They will regroup after tonight's game and we'll see a different group on Friday.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

You guys are right Bieksa was a star last year based on last night's game. Bieksa trade is Benning's only mistake.

Wait ... what the actual ****.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

You guys are right Bieksa was a star last year based on last night's game. Bieksa trade is Benning's only mistake.

Wait ... what the actual ****.

 

[Huggy]

Vrbata and baertschi are ruining horvat

 

[Reign Nateo]

Bieksa played a lot because it was against his old team.

Then why did he play even more against San Jose their first game?

 

[MS]

Bieksa looked very good last night.

Not surprised - he isn't a guy who can carry a pairing (and probably never was) but he still looked fine last year when he was with Hamhuis or Stanton. The Sbieksa disaster (which was mainly Sbisa) just completely tainted impressions of him.

I don't disagree with the decision to move him, but he was never nearly as bad as he looked with Sbisa. And he'll do very well if they leave him with Lindholm, who is basically Anaheim's Tanev.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Doesn't show me that at all. Shows me that fans really have no clue. And that's not a slight against us, it's just impossible for fans to have complete pictures on players and situations, which is why fans are, more often than not, dead wrong in the end.

Even though Bieksa was playing top minutes for us and bled Canuck blue, he was garbage and worthless because of the odd giveaway, his age, and fans having no concept of the value of a good locker room presence. So to Canucks fans he was expendable with some value (most people assumed a 3rd), and to non-Canuck fans he wouldn't be claimed on waivers and was a pure salary dump. This is an effect of following only one team and having no concept of the rest of the league. Low and behold one of the top teams and top asset managers in the sport gave the Canucks a 2nd round pick for him. Which is a lot more than fans were expecting (especially non-Canuck fans), and people flabbergasted by Bieksa receiving an extension.

The Ducks aren't so weak on defense they need our leftovers to survive, Bieksa is a lot more effective than fans understand. Both on and off the ice. Not saying Bieksa is a top defenceman and we should never have traded him, just pointing out the difference between fan perception and reality in the NHL. Plus he's playing with Hampus Lindholm who is basically the Ferrari version of Ben Hutton.

I think it's a bit of both.
I definitely agree that Bieksa was better than fans here gave him credit for. He was one of my favourite Canucks. But there's also no question that he was starting to decline. I'm interested to see how he performs as the season goes along. He played huge minutes for us for a while last year as well and then seemed to get worse as the season dragged on. Paired with a guy like Lindholm is definitely going to help him. I don't think he should be getting top pairing minutes at this stage of his career though.

 

[PM]

Sbisa made Bieksa look way worse than any sort of natural physical decline did. And it's actually not all on Sbisa, coaching has to take a huge blame for joining two completely incompatible players at the hip for the entire season. Even if Sbisa was slightly better, he's still an awful fit with Bieksa. Bieksa has always been a complimentary dman that works well with a steady presence (Mitchell, Hamhuis, Lindholm, etc.) who actually plays "stay-at-home" defense. Sbisa plays wherever he wants to play, as does Bieksa, which is a very bad fit.

I just don't see where Sbisa fits into this defense, especially with another lefty in the mix in Hutton now. I don't like Sbisa on his natural side and dislike him even more on his off-side. And then there is Bartowski. The master of the neutral zone. I thought Sbisa would be the one to drag Hamhuis into the gutters last season but it looks like that is Bartowski's job now.

And speaking of Hamhuis, I keep noticing a lot of people saying he has been having bad games just cause they see him throw a pizza up in a Sbisa-like fashion. The big difference here is that Hamhuis is making solid plays all night long that you don't really notice when you aren't looking for them. He saved a sure goal last night with a great stick lift in front of the net. When you play great, steady defense for most of the game you get a bit of leeway with the odd pizza and turnover, especially when pairing with yet another tire fire in Bartowski.

Sbisa, Bartowski and to a lesser degree Weber can all go away. I miss Gary

 

[mathonwy]

Sbisa made Bieksa look way worse than any sort of natural physical decline did. And it's actually not all on Sbisa, coaching has to take a huge blame for joining two completely incompatible players at the hip for the entire season. Even if Sbisa was slightly better, he's still an awful fit with Bieksa. Bieksa has always been a complimentary dman that works well with a steady presence (Mitchell, Hamhuis, Lindholm, etc.) who actually plays "stay-at-home" defense. Sbisa plays wherever he wants to play, as does Bieksa, which is a very bad fit.

One of the biggest reasons why the Sbisa-Bieksa pairing was such a god damn nightmare is the fact that Bieksa really didn't want to hold Sbisa's hand and Sbisa needs a LOT of hand holding.

I found it extremely strange that WD with his type of background didn't recognize this and persisted in keeping the two together (and ultimately to the detriment of our post season chances).

 

[vanuck]

Bieksa looked very good last night.

Not surprised - he isn't a guy who can carry a pairing (and probably never was) but he still looked fine last year when he was with Hamhuis or Stanton. The Sbieksa disaster (which was mainly Sbisa) just completely tainted impressions of him.

I don't disagree with the decision to move him, but he was never nearly as bad as he looked with Sbisa. And he'll do very well if they leave him with Lindholm, who is basically Anaheim's Tanev.

Agreed. I was always of the opinion that he wasn't as bad as people thought, only that he was dragging an anchor around. An anchor that they've chained to Hutton so far.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

Agreed. I was always of the opinion that he wasn't as bad as people thought, only that he was dragging an anchor around. An anchor that they've chained to Hutton so far.

Bieksa's lack of footspeed and
Inability to make a first pass makes him an anchor as well. Not surprising that chaining two anchors together sunk the third pairing. These guys need to be paired with quick puck movers who can easily clear the zone and transition pucks.

Looks like Bieksa has that in Anaheim right now.

 

[Samzilla]

Agreed. I was always of the opinion that he wasn't as bad as people thought, only that he was dragging an anchor around. An anchor that they've chained to Hutton so far.

I find it hilarious that Sbisa said (paraphrase), "Hutton makes my life easier." Shouldn't our veteran, 3.6 million d-man be the one to make our rookie, 22 year old d-man's life easier?

 

[DL44]

I find it hilarious that Sbisa said (paraphrase), "Hutton makes my life easier." Shouldn't our veteran, 3.6 million d-man be the one to make our rookie, 22 year old d-man's life easier?

Maybe it was a comparison reference to what a $4.6 million d-man was making his life prior?

 

[vanuck]

Bieksa's lack of footspeed and
Inability to make a first pass makes him an anchor as well. Not surprising that chaining two anchors together sunk the third pairing. These guys need to be paired with quick puck movers who can easily clear the zone and transition pucks.

Looks like Bieksa has that in Anaheim right now.

Though, in relative terms, Bieksa was still the better player and the one who carried that pairing. Basically he was the one making all the passes to exit our zone or skating it out himself.

 

[Reign Nateo]

Well here's hoping the number one reason for ownership wanting to remain competitive on the ice at all costs is to keep the value up and sell the team.

The word is that even if the Canucks were available, the owners want a 20% mark-up on the team's value. Mentioned here:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/1...the-pouts-of-old-17-and-the-cracker-goes-ham/

"It’s already been widely reported the Canucks ownership, among other NHL teams, enlisted a company to assess the value of the franchise.

Some took this as a sign the Aquilinis were looking to sell.

This has been a rumour around town for a couple of years now. The word is that if they are going to sell, they want 20% over market value."

Market value is around $700 million. Do you think an owner is going to buy a team for a 20% mark-up then proceed to tank and bleed money as fan interest dries up? Who is this person that can buy a team for about 3/4 of a billion dollars just to watch it lose money for a decade or so? Unless it is thrust upon them by circumstance and failure, the Canucks are not rebuilding Edmonton/Buffalo style any time soon.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

The word is that even if the Canucks were available, the owners want a 20% mark-up on the team's value. Mentioned here:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/1...the-pouts-of-old-17-and-the-cracker-goes-ham/

"It’s already been widely reported the Canucks ownership, among other NHL teams, enlisted a company to assess the value of the franchise.

Some took this as a sign the Aquilinis were looking to sell.

This has been a rumour around town for a couple of years now. The word is that if they are going to sell, they want 20% over market value."

Market value is around $700 million. Do you think an owner is going to buy a team for a 20% mark-up then proceed to tank and bleed money as fan interest dries up? Who is this person that can buy a team for about 3/4 of a billion dollars just to watch it lose money for a decade or so? Unless it is thrust upon them by circumstance and failure, the Canucks are not rebuilding Edmonton/Buffalo style any time soon.

Lucas Sbisa?