GDT: YoungStars GM 3: Canucks vs. Flames - 3:30PM PST - Stream - Canucks.Com

[Serac]

I do like whistle
More than Witt even though Witt didn't get much help
Wouldn't mind him in our system

 

[DennisReynolds]

I was skeptical of 3v3 overtime format but man, that was some exciting hockey. I really wonder what the strategies will be for teams.

 

[orcatown]

feebster - Stewart has a huge part in causing that goal. He comes right across the ice leaving his side totally open. Then instead of changing he goes to make a hit, then falls right in the path of teammate, leaving them both out of the play. Neill shouldn't have changed but the change was on until Stewart messes it up. The confusion completely started with Stewart. He was clueless on the play showing he had no idea how to rotate into the change and the importance of getting off if you're going to totally vacate his side (especially on the far side from the bench). Basic hockey and it's clear he doesn't fully understand wing responsibilities even on a simple line change. And my bet is you're going to see a lot of that out of Stewart until hopefully he's coached into a better understanding of a position new to him. Defending Stewart on that play, I don't think makes a lot of sense.

Really disagree with description of Neill in this game. I thought he was hopeless in the first game but there was no comparison b/w this effort that the earlier one. Yes he blew a tire and that led to real good scoring chance against. And certainly he was not perfect. However he moved the puck well most of the time which allowed for some good rushes. Also did a good job of clearing the puck on the pk. Very smart and consistent here Thought his body position around the net (although at times he got pushed back) was decent and better than Brisebois or Olsen. Also, thought Neill was good in transition to offense but still had some problems on the quick transition to defense and this is area that needs improvement. Yet, in general, his gap control was fairly good and he wasn't giving up the space as much as many other defensemen on both teams were.

I've talked to a number of people and you're the only one who has said he was poor in this game. Maybe people are disappointed with the size but that has little to do with how Neill played. Each too their own as far as opinion is concerned but I don't see being over critical about Neill in this game.

 

[thefeebster]

feebster - Stewart has a huge part in causing that goal. He comes right across the ice leaving his side totally open. Then instead of changing he goes to make a hit, then falls right in the path of teammate, leaving them both out of the play. Neill shouldn't have changed but the change was on until Stewart messes it up. The confusion completely started with Stewart. He was clueless on the play showing he had no idea how to rotate into the change and the importance of getting off if you're going to totally vacate his side (especially on the far side from the bench). Basic hockey and it's clear he doesn't fully understand wing responsibilities even on a simple line change. And my bet is you're going to see a lot of that out of Stewart until hopefully he's coached into a better understanding of a position new to him. Defending Stewart on that play, I don't think makes a lot of sense.

I was not defending Stewart on that play entirely. He was a small part of the issue; he impeded Fox from changing in a smooth fashion, but it certainly wasn't this mass confusion you are describing, Fox just calmly skates around Stewart's fallen body. You said he was the direct reason for that 2nd goal then completely neglect to mention the bigger reason - Neill's decision to change when there was no clear Canuck possession or even expected possession of the puck. Stewart impedes Fox, who was going for the change. Fine, he slowed down the winger. Zhuk is in deep. But where was the RS D on that rush? That is the bigger issue and the bigger cause of the 3 on 1 that resulted.

With 3 opposing forwards are advancing, that's still a manageable 3 on 2 if both defenders are present. But they weren't and that's what generates the much better opportunity and the goal against. Yet, you completely absolve Neill and didn't even mention it in your summary (you and others).

Really disagree with description of Neill in this game. I thought he was hopeless in the first game but there was no comparison b/w this effort that the earlier one. Yes he blew a tire and that led to real good scoring chance against. And certainly he was not perfect. However he moved the puck well most of the time which allowed for some good rushes. Also did a good job of clearing the puck on the pk. Very smart and consistent here Thought his body position around the net (although at times he got pushed back) was decent and better than Brisebois or Olsen. Also, thought Neill was good in transition to offense but still had some problems on the quick transition to defense and this is area that needs improvement. Yet, in general, his gap control was fairly good and he wasn't giving up the space as much as many other defensemen on both teams were.

I've talked to a number of people and you're the only one who has said he was poor in this game. Maybe people are disappointed with the size but that has little to do with how Neill played. Each too their own as far as opinion is concerned but I don't see being over critical about Neill in this game.

I really disagree with your description of Neill's game today as well. I am not the only one in this thread that didn't like him today. I saw 3 intercepted attempts to clear the puck on the PK, but he didn't clear it enough and they continued to be hemmed in. I would not characterize that as consistent. There were more than a few incomplete outlet passes. Sloppy feet; fell down a few times during foot races to the puck with an opponent and i'm not talking about the most visible one that led to a scoring chance. Better than his atrocious previous game, okay but only marginally; still a poor showing IMO.

 

[tantalum]

Bad line changes?

These kids will fit in perfectly under Desjardins.

 

[arsmaster*]

I really disagree with your description of Neill's game today as well. I am not the only one in this thread that didn't like him today. I saw 3 intercepted attempts to clear the puck on the PK, but he didn't clear it enough and they continued to be hemmed in. I would not characterize that as consistent. There were more than a few incomplete outlet passes. Sloppy feet; fell down a few times during foot races to the puck with an opponent and i'm not talking about the most visible one that led to a scoring chance. Better than his atrocious previous game, okay but only marginally; still a poor showing IMO.

this was the first game I watched in full and I didn't like Neill at all.

What I don't get for him and guys like Olsen who've played defense their entire lives why they can't skate very well in all directions. I found both he and Olsen were easily walked in basic one on one situations. No fluditity, just rigid and straight back allowing the forward to dictate the entire rush. Found him to have no gap closing ability, not recovery speed and absolutely awful transitions and pivots.

I do like his size (not sure he's 6'3" though, looks a solid 6'0" or 6'1" though and I think he can shoot the puck pretty good, but I'm not sure we've got anything in this guy.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

I've seen this said about Abols, but i am just wondering if we know for sure? McEneny was still draft eligible when we signed him. So i don't think that's a concern. Is it because he played in Europe? I know there is a brief window before the regular season where we can sign these players, but i am not sure about the legality with it.

Yeah, we can't sign him because he played in Europe last season. Only North American players under 22 can be signed without being drafted.

8.9 Eligibility for Play in the League. No Player shall be eligible for play in the League
unless he:
(a) had been claimed in the last Entry Draft, or was ineligible for claim under Section
8.4; or
(b) had been eligible for claim in the last Entry Draft, but was unclaimed, and:

(i) had played hockey in North America the prior season and was age 20 or
older at the time of the last Entry Draft, and signed an SPC which was
signed and registered with the League between the conclusion of the Entry
Draft and commencement of the next NHL Season.
(ii) had played hockey in North America the prior season and was under age
20 at the time of the last Entry Draft, and signed an SPC which was signed
and registered with the League between the conclusion of the Entry Draft
and commencement of the Major Juniors season (except that if such
Player had signed an NHL try-out form, which was signed and registered
with the League during the aforesaid time period, then the deadline for
signing and registering with the League an SPC with such try-out Club
shall be the commencement of the NHL Season).
(iii) had played hockey outside of North America in the prior season and was
age 22 or older at the time of the last Entry Draft and signed an SPC which
was signed and registered with the League between the conclusion of the
Entry Draft and the commencement of the next NHL Season.
(iv) The words "eligible for claim in the last Entry Draft" in subparagraph (b)
above mean "eligible for claim in all rounds of the last Entry Draft." The
words "the prior season" in subparagraph (i), (ii) and (iii) above mean "a
full season prior to the last Entry Draft."

 

[WetcoastOrca]

All in all a lot of positives from the tourney after the first game blowout. While the results aren't the be all and end all, we were expected to finish fourth. Ending up second with a pretty pedestrian defensive group and no drafted goalie is a great result.
So many positive performances that the main camp should be very interesting. Virtanen has certainly set himself up for a run at a spot and I could see Gaunce or Cassels also getting a long look and a call up this year. Vey needs a good camp to hold onto a job, IMO. Hutton and Subban could end up with a few games later on in the season as well.