Dr. Crossbar Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 EP will be fine. Silovs will be fine. Our primary focus this season isn't how we start but how we finish. That was the big takeaway from last season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 15 minutes ago, Ballisticsports said: At least we didn't pull an Edmonton on season opener scoring zero goals in season opener is bad. lol. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 3 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said: EP will be fine. Silovs will be fine. Our primary focus this season isn't how we start but how we finish. That was the big takeaway from last season. Well, the start is just as important as the finish. If the team doesn't start well, we may not even make the postseason. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertuzzi44fan Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 (edited) 8 minutes ago, N4ZZY said: Well, the start is just as important as the finish. If the team doesn't start well, we may not even make the postseason. Quite right,don't like last minute dashes. Also makes the GM less likely to improve the team near the deadline. Edited October 10 by bertuzzi44fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Crossbar Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 2 minutes ago, N4ZZY said: Well, the start is just as important as the finish. If the team doesn't start well, we may not even make the postseason. I never said it wasn't important. We started well last season and faded. Oilers started terribly and went to the final. It's clear this season in how we approached training camp that our primary focus this season isn't as much on how we start out of the gate but how we sustain over the longer term. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JamesB Posted October 10 Popular Post Share Posted October 10 1 hour ago, Qwags said: Silovs needs to be better. Especially with long point shots. Disappointing game (obviously). I think the key points are as follows. 1. You cannot win in the NHL without high quality goaltending. With Demko injured to start the season, the goalie position is obviously the biggest concern (by far). The Silovs hype has been making me nervous for a while. He can come up some big games and go on hot streaks, but he has not shown enough consistency. Last year he played 4 regular season games and 10 playoff games and his save percentage was below .900. Fairly small sample, but a good team cannot afford a starting goalie or even a backup who posts a save percentage under .900. 2. Tonight the expected goals against for Silovs was 1.91 and the actual goals against was 6 -- more than 4 goals allowed above expected. That is a terrible number. One well known problem is that he has trouble tracking pucks from distance through traffic. That is a hard but important skill and Silovs is worse at it than most. It is some combination of peripheral vision, reading the play, anticipation, and getting quick glimpses of the puck or the shooter. If he does not improve that seems like a fatal flaw. Also, tonight he just seemed kind of lost. Yes some of the goals were on grade-A chances but goalies still stop those chances most of the time. Even short-handed breakaways score less than one-third of the time. Silovs just did not make enough big saves. To play well, players need to believe that the goalie "has their back". Instead the Canuck defenders must have been thinking that every mistake was going to end up in the back of the net. 6 goals on 26 shots is obviously nowhere near good enough. I hope we see Lankinen next game. 3. The Canucks got off to a great start but faded badly in the second and third periods. Maybe it seemed too easy after the first period. 4. Another big question mark was the Forbort-Deharnais pairing. Forbort was good on the PK but at even strength that pairing struggled. The biggest issue is that they have weak puck skills and have a hard time turning the puck the other way. 5. On the plus side, the Canucks actually won the expected goals battle, partly because Hughes and Hronek were very good. Interestingly, the line with the best expected goals differential at even strength was Raty, Garland, and Hoglander. They were good. And of course the PP looked good, especially Boeser. At least we got a point. And maybe the coaches got a good sense of what they need to work on. 7 2 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Gurn Posted October 10 Popular Post Share Posted October 10 The multi goal collapse, thing, needs to be squashed fast. Brings back bad memories, way too quickly. Nice to see the second power play get a goal. 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Crossbar Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 First game, we got a point. That will matter. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Face Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 54 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said: EP will be fine. Silovs will be fine. Our primary focus this season isn't how we start but how we finish. That was the big takeaway from last season. If i got stroke,i wont be fine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Abroad Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, N4ZZY said: scoring zero goals in season opener is bad. lol. Tor - 0 MTL - 1 EDM - 0 - WPG -6 Edited October 10 by Fan Abroad 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan-observer Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 Not the result we wanted but the point helped - given the momentum the Flames had in the third. Silovs was ok - i thought the tying and go ahead goals in the thrid were difficult plays - one went through 3-4 players fronting him (and off the crossbar) and the other goal had two Flames in the crease. Hope to see improved PK this year - seems the successful teams are always near the top in PK % - more structure, less chasing and proper box-outs. If the opponent somehow gets the shot through 4-5 players and scores, then be it - beats chasing players around and leaving the slot wide open. I expect the Flyers to have a similar gritty game on Friday as they did have some positive results against us last year. Hopefully the Canucks can make some minor adjustments from tonight's game and go from there. The point earned tonight was a fair result IMO 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Abroad Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 1 hour ago, iinatcc said: One the plus side it wasn't Kuzmenko that had the GWG If he had not gone to the penalty box for the extra 2 minutes, I don't think I heard his name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonkers Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 It was too easy in the first period. We've seen it many times before. On the positive side, to get a wake up call this early will make our overall season better. There are no easy games. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 2 hours ago, Jaimito said: Watch the first period and last 3 mins of third. OT was so so. Flames had most of the possession im usually interested in team defence the most, so seeing where the breakdowns are (and hopefully how they fix them) will make the whole game somewhat enjoyable 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Pears Posted October 10 Popular Post Share Posted October 10 Not exactly the result I wanted to come home to BUT I'll pose you this 2010-11: - Have training camp in Penticton - Lose home/season opener - Make SCF 2024-25: - Have training camp in Penticton - Lose home/season opener - ? I believe in coincidences. 1 2 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammaInTheTub Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 4 minutes ago, Pears said: Not exactly the result I wanted to come home to BUT I'll pose you this 2010-11: - Have training camp in Penticton - Lose home/season opener - Make SCF 2024-25: - Have training camp in Penticton - Lose home/season opener - ? I believe in coincidences. Pears you sound more drunk than gramma! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 Just now, GrammaInTheTub said: Pears you sound more drunk than gramma! I just like pointing things out when I see them 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Abroad Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 9 minutes ago, Pears said: Not exactly the result I wanted to come home to BUT I'll pose you this 2010-11: - Have training camp in Penticton - Lose home/season opener - Make SCF 2024-25: - Have training camp in Penticton - Lose home/season opener - ? I believe in coincidences. What was game 2 result? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 3 minutes ago, Fan Abroad said: What was game 2 result? A 2-1 regulation win against the Panthers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoH Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 Did Canucks score tons of goals? Check. Did the Canucks make you worry after scoring so many goals? Check. Did the opposition catch up? Check Has this happened before ? Check. Did half of CDC fall off the bandwagon again? Check. is hockey back? Check. Will we pretty much Walt’s into the playoffs with all of the above? Check. WELCOME BACK TO THE FORUMS OF THE VANCOUVER CANUCKS. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kettlevalley Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 My takeaways..... 1. Silovs is supposed to be the back up. Not the season opening goalie. I was hoping he could play 35 games spelling off Demko and making sure Demko didn't play too much. Best laid plans. Lol. 2. Took our foot off the gas. And got passed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 4 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said: The Weegar goal id blame him, the others I wouldn't. This team should defend well enough that we don't need Demko to bail us out. Your up 4-1 the goalie wasn't the reason this was a loss. This loss in on the team... there was a lot of rustiness about and a somewhat feeling that 20min of hockey was enough. Tocchet said it as well. Flames wanted it more... I thought the lack of Chemistry amongst the lines were slightly concerning. And some of the goals were about poor positioning by forwards... Silovs didn't look great, but he'll bounce back like the rest of the team. onwards and upwards. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 2 hours ago, Goose said: im usually interested in team defence the most, so seeing where the breakdowns are (and hopefully how they fix them) will make the whole game somewhat enjoyable Most of them very easily fixed. 1st goal a cross ice pass picked up by a player coming from the penalty box and getting a free run. a few positional problems, and sometimes the puck was handled like a granate in our own zone. Tocchet didn't go wild at the following presser, but it was clear to see, he was pissed off... Mainly the team took the foot off the pedal, when they came back for the 2nd period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 17 minutes ago, kettlevalley said: My takeaways..... 1. Silovs is supposed to be the back up. Not the season opening goalie. I was hoping he could play 35 games spelling off Demko and making sure Demko didn't play too much. Best laid plans. Lol. 2. Took our foot off the gas. And got passed. I think many knew that coming in but wasn't Tocchet's defensive minded system supposed to cover the possible shortcomings in goal? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.