Jump to content

Rip The Mesh

Members
  • Posts

    12,366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Posts posted by Rip The Mesh

  1. 1 hour ago, RJCF96 said:

     

    Silovs is good, and not the reason we lost, but Demko could be the reason we won. Silovs still had a weakness in puck tracking and he struggles with shots from long range. Just look at how may goals were scored on him by Ekholm and Bouchard this series. Point shot from long range was his biggest weakness.

     

    Game 1, he wasn't really good, but fortunately, Skinner wasn't as well and our offense pulled through. Let in 2 goals from point shots. Goals be Ceci and Ekholm/

     

    Game 2, he was good, but didn't end up stealing it for us. I would say the loss is more on the team than on him, as I the Canucks stopped doing what made them a good team in the third period. However, with Demko in net, I can see the Canucks stealing this game. Most particularly, I don't think Demko would've let in that Ekholm goal early in the second (which is seconds after Boeser scored to put us up 2-1). The Canucks could've in theory enter the third period with a 2 goal lead instead of 1 and it could make a major difference in winning/losing this game as this game ended in OT. He let in 2 goals from point shot, 1 from Ekholm and 1 from Bouchard in OT (though this was more on Ian Cole than him).

     

    Game 3, you can argue he stole this one for us. We were heavily outshot, but expected goals and deserved to win analytics showed that both teams are evenly played. Edmonton didn't dominate the Canucks as much as the shot clock shown. He let in 2 goals from the point, Ekholm and Bouchard (the Bouchard goal went off Ian Cole again).

     

    Game 4, I would argue this is his best game of the series despite the loss. He kept the Canucks in the game for as long as he can. Running out to poke the puck away from Evander Kane late in the third to prevent him a potential breakaway. This allow the Canucks to tie the game late in the third. However, he did let in that last goal with about 30 seconds left, and it wasn't a great goal to give up. That last goal, was also a point shot from the blueline by Bouchard.

     

    Game 5, is the Canucks best game as a team. Outside of the first period, the Canucks absolutely dominated the Oilers in the second and third period. He gave up only 2 goals, but none are from the point. He didn't need to steal this game, the Canucks were the better team and won it 3-2.

     

    Game 6, this was just an all around bad game and I blacked out most of it due to how bad the game was. Silovs wasn't good in this one, but so is the rest of the team. He gave up 5 goals, and 1 of those goals are point shot from the point by... you guessed it.. Bouchard. This one doesn't worth much analysis, as the team just wasn't in sync and it was just not good.

     

    Game 7, he was the reason why the game is scoreless in the first and he kept the Canucks in this one for as long as he can. It ended up as a nail biting 3-2 game. He gave up 1 goal from a point shot by Ceci. The second goal was a tip-in goal by Hyman from a Bouchard point shot (this one is very difficult to stop, as most elite goalies would have trouble with those).

     

    The common theme is, he struggles with point shot from long range. A simple breakdown shows he let in a lot more goals from the point, and this series heavily boosted the numbers of Ekholm and Bouchard. His struggle from long range shot goes back to the regular season games too. The games against Arizona and Vegas at home in particular, He gave up a couple more soft goals from point shots. Fortunately, this is something he can work on and an area he could improve with practice/experience. I have faith he will be a really good goalie in the NHL one day. In this series, if we had Demko in net, he would've made a bigger impact/difference.

    No Brock / No normal winger for JT Miller. Coach couldn't, compensate;  We had it our hands. Every minute I watch this series, I just hate edmondump more.

  2. Liked the first, liked the second / In the first movie a reference was made to Peggy Benjamin / she became very real in the second.

    Not a huge Tom Cruise fan in most of his other movies, but these two are great.

×
×
  • Create New...