I think a lot depends on how this season plays out. While I think the likelihood of a buyout is pretty slim at this point, if he goes the entire season being outplayed by whatever goaltender is at the other end of the, then I think they may consider it. But again, it's highly likely this marriage drags out without a buyout.
We're at the 1/4 mark...
- Thread starter carolinacanuck
- Start date
I think a lot depends on how this season plays out. While I think the likelihood of a buyout is pretty slim at this point, if he goes the entire season being outplayed by whatever goaltender is at the other end of the, then I think they may consider it. But again, it's highly likely this marriage drags out without a buyout.
It's our shooters that are being outplayed by whatever goaltender.
While Luongo hasn't stolen us any games, he certainly hasn't lost us any games either. He woulda and shoulda had a shutout against San Jose if our guy's coulda mustered any more than one goal on 35 odd shots, but as it turns out, San Jose is allowed to hang in, fights for a tying goal and wins after we take a penalty in OT.
10 out of the last 13 games Luongo has allowed 2 or fewer goals against, the offence does need to step it up and give the guy some goals to work with.
The forwards aren't useless when they're playing exceptional defensively, and as a group, they are. The top 9 could use more skill and finish but they backcheck very hard, block a lot of shots and have been excellent on the PK.
If you want to compete in the Pacific, you need a lot more from your goalie than to not be a 'problem'. Up until now, that's all Luongo has been. He needs to be a difference maker, something he hasn't been able to do nearly enough of this season behind an outstanding defensive club.
I can't say with any confidence that Luongo is a better goalie than Eddie Lack right now. Whether that says more about Lack or Luongo, I'm not sure.
Jack Tripper
Vey Falls Down
team is dominating possession against really good hockey teams, but odd-man rushes are still terrible at both ends...maybe it's more perception than reality but it seems they're giving away way more goals than they're scoring on 2-on-1's
offensively they're just way too cute...just cringed when henrik tried a behind the back pass during a 2-on-1 that ended up in the corner...it's not exactly rocket science, take the shot or make the pass depending on what the defenseman gives you
similarly the d-core could help luongo out by not taking themselves out of the play during 2-on-1's...just let luongo take the shooter and stop bellyflopping in an ill-fated attempt to take away the pass
offensively they're just way too cute...just cringed when henrik tried a behind the back pass during a 2-on-1 that ended up in the corner...it's not exactly rocket science, take the shot or make the pass depending on what the defenseman gives you
similarly the d-core could help luongo out by not taking themselves out of the play during 2-on-1's...just let luongo take the shooter and stop bellyflopping in an ill-fated attempt to take away the pass
Didn't everybody who played pee wee hockey learn this? I can't stand when I see professionals make this kind of mistake.
Perhaps they've learned the belly flop from #1?
The Stanton play wasn't good at all, it was like "what would be the exact wrong thing to do"? It would have been better to just skate to the bench and let Lu know it would be pass.
serge2k
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2006
- 15,116
- 3
Can't score can't win.
You can afford a couple guys who perform below average offensively but are exceptional defensively (i.e. malholtra). Not 10.
No forward aside from Henrik has been consistent enough.
Scratch that.
No skater aside from Henrik has been consistent enough.
vanuck
Now with 100% less Benning!
- Dec 28, 2009
- 16,799
- 4,016
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 25,220
- 11,571
COL / LA win tomorrow were fully 6 points out. With COL still having two games at hand.
Gotta start getting some points.
Gotta start getting some points.
BoHorvatFan
Registered User
Possession is pointless when it's all on the outside and you don't any snipers to finish the plays off. We're basically waiting for luck or a garbage goal unless the Sedins can do one of their magical no look passes for a wide open net.
VeteranNetPresence
Disco Super Fly.
agreed, look at this chart. a crappy team like florida has way more chances in prime areas compared to what the canucks have. lots of prayer shots past the dots for the canucks
serge2k
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2006
- 15,116
- 3
On an offensively starved team they are pretty much useless.
People talk Hodgson being too one dimensional and that's why he had to go, our forwards don't have enough offensive ability outside of the Sedins and Kesler.
bsjezz
Registered User
- Nov 28, 2011
- 895
- 0
agreed, look at this chart. a crappy team like florida has way more chances in prime areas compared to what the canucks have. lots of prayer shots past the dots for the canucks
why bother just looking at one game, one that nobody argues that we stunk in? how about the two recent games against much tougher competitors, that we bothered to show up for?
i've added a heatmap over the espn data here to give an idea of how unlucky we've been. yes, we've had a lot of shots from the outside. no, it hasn't meant there are no good shots or opportunities. that's what possession does: it means you get all sorts of chances, both low-percentage "worth a shot"ers that sometimes pay out, or the really gritty close area bangs that don't go unrewarded for very long.
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
agreed, look at this chart. a crappy team like florida has way more chances in prime areas compared to what the canucks have. lots of prayer shots past the dots for the canucks
In addition to what bsjezz, that chart against Florida shows a lot of shots from the point. Considering we have a talented defense, that's a good thing as well as it's a good way to create opportunities down low. You're not necessarily trying to score, as much as you are looking for a tip, deflection, screen, or rebound. But again like what bsjezz said this is very much a luck thing, and when you're slumping these shots aren't going in.
Also, I'd like to point out that back in the WCE years we had a highly skilled roster that scored slick precision goals, but tended to lose to teams much like what we have now who crashed and banged in front of the net and hoped for bounces.
vanuck
Now with 100% less Benning!
- Dec 28, 2009
- 16,799
- 4,016
Offensively starved only if you think the last 5 games is enough to tell you everything about the team.
vanuck
Now with 100% less Benning!
- Dec 28, 2009
- 16,799
- 4,016
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 25,220
- 11,571
just three of 32 NHL teams at least four points out of a playoff spot on Nov. 1 recovered to make the playoffs from 2005-06 to 2011-12
Reverend Mayhem
Lowly Serf/Reluctant Cuckold
How many of those times was the qualifying point pace at 114 points? Highly doubt the eighth place seed is going to have 114 points this year.
Reverend Mayhem
Lowly Serf/Reluctant Cuckold
This chart is what worries me. Shoot all you want, if it's not in a good place and it's not an excellent shot, it's not going in.
