[PGT] Vancouver vs Philly

[Jaimito]

Looking good 

 

 

[Gawdzukes]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Zach MacEwan got two goals today for the Sens. Does that mean we want him back? 
Once Demko is back then Silovs can be in the minors, where he belongs. 

 

MacEwen ... Double 

[Gawdzukes]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

 

They had 9 shots in two periods in Calgary and only 3 in the 2nd period after absolutely dominating the first.......very much like the last half and playoffs last season. 

 

To me, that's concerning.......first game or not

 

Sure, be concerned if you must. I have no control over the team so I'm just going to wait and see myself. Maybe there is a lingering problem or maybe they just didn't focus enough to finish off the Flames when they had them down and out. We'll see, it seems silly to worry at this point imo. We could go on a run like the first half of last year but it's totally possible that was simply unsustainable as well. Looking forward to the team hopefully figuring it out.

[stawns]

59 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

Sure, be concerned if you must. I have no control over the team so I'm just going to wait and see myself. Maybe there is a lingering problem or maybe they just didn't focus enough to finish off the Flames when they had them down and out. We'll see, it seems silly to worry at this point imo. We could go on a run like the first half of last year but it's totally possible that was simply unsustainable as well. Looking forward to the team hopefully figuring it out.

 

Well, when the team is playing poorly, that's what's discussed.  When they start playing well, that will be discussed.

[spook007]

6 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

 

Yeah brother. You can start strong, in-between, or awful. It never defines the season it's up to all teams to adapt and fix the problems as they go. This is what sports are all about. We started out in-between with some question marks. We knew our goaltending was going to be a challenge. It turned out to be a legit concern, although Lankinen was a reason for optimism. Also, our defence was questioned and those fears were founded in reality too. Now it's up to the coaching staff to get them playing the way they envisioned and we'll see if it works out, but they definitely deserve some latitude.

 

To be honest if not for the third period against the Flames it's actually a pretty solid performance on the year. We were up 4-2 after 2. If we shut the door there it's 2 goals against each game and 3 points out of 4. Like previous years our Overtime and shootouts are garbage, but we outplayed Philly. They are a stingily coached team. Hopefully we come out and play our game tomorrow.

 

Exactly... no season has ever been defined by 2 games to start the season... continue not getting points would raise question marks...

This is the norm... We ended up in O/T in both games, so it wasn't as if we weren't in those games... if we had lost both 5-0, I would have been less impressed, but that wasn't the case. 

Onwards and Upwards... there are lots to be optimistic about... 

[Hammertime]

5 hours ago, Jaimito said:

Looking good 

 

 

I am so happy to hear he's d2d. Though I hope they dont rush him. That coud have been a season ender. Chaos giraffe is a bigger piece than people i think realise. 

[AnotherCanucksFan]

16 hours ago, Hammertime said:

Still really think 

 

DeBrusk Miller Boeser

Dak Pete Garland

 

Hoglander Blueger Sherwood

Heinen/Sprong Raty Suter

 

Is likely where we settle 

 

For the time being while Dak is out I would play Suter with Miller, Brock and Debrusk w Pete, Garland  

 

 

 

Have you watched any of Heinen/Sprong Raty Suter? Suter I know the best, the others I don't really know their style. How do you see them contributing on that line?

 

I think Hoglander Blueger Sherwood could actually be a good line. Each of them contributes an unique skillset. Sherwood and Hoglander would be more physical, while Hoglander is good with the puck, and Blueger is skilled as well. 

 

Maybe Dak Pete Garland might work, because Joshua brings both physical play and skill, Garland is a fast motor and good along the boards, and Petey can be either a good passer, scorer, or playmaker. I'd like Petey to focus more on scoring that passing this year, but attention on him could open up the other two players.

 

Hope Joshua gets back soon and can stay healthy.

Edited Tuesday at 08:26 AM by AnotherCanucksFan

[Gawdzukes]

15 hours ago, Hammertime said:

Let me put it like this. 

 

Miller Brock goal% with Suter. 80% 16f 4a 192mins.

 

Miller Brock goal % without Suter

 

Pettersson 61.1% 11f 7a 124mins

Guiseppe 57.9% 11f 8a 219mins

Hoglander 57.1% 4f 3a 118mins

 

and you can keep going with it if you like. 

Joshua Suter Garland played over a full game 75mins 100% 3f 0a

 

https://moneypuck.com/lines.htm

Basically every line you put Suter on statistically improved defensively. It's not really a coincidence.  Suter led our team last year in goals% 66.1 and was 2nd to Garland in Corsi 5v5. While I think we can agree playing against the cream of the league on a regular basis.

 

So while you may be upset he missed this chance or that chance and that was understandably a memorable opinion forming moment for you. We out chanced the opposition substantially with Suter on the ice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no clue what you're trying to say here. Did you follow our conversation? My argument is that while yes Suter is a good player and other players have success with him he is a better winger than a center imo and my 4th/5th choice after Miller, Petey, and Blueger. I'd rather have Blueger as the defensive center if we're trying to shelter (Sprong) any day of the week regardless of fancy stats. I just like how he plays center compared to Suter.

 

When Suter performed so well with Miller and Brock he was on the wing wasn't he, or did he play center and I was just missing that every game?

 

I have no bad will to him for missing any chances and no opinions formed as a result. Not sure where this is coming from. Are you sure you meant to respond to me, I wasn't cutting Suter down?

Edited Tuesday at 04:39 PM by Gawdzukes

[Hammertime]

On 10/15/2024 at 9:21 AM, Gawdzukes said:

 

I have no clue what you're trying to say here. Did you follow our conversation? My argument is that while yes Suter is a good player and other players have success with him he is a better winger than a center imo and my 4th/5th choice after Miller, Petey, and Blueger. I'd rather have Blueger as the defensive center if we're trying to shelter (Sprong) any day of the week regardless of fancy stats. I just like how he plays center compared to Suter.

 

When Suter performed so well with Miller and Brock he was on the wing wasn't he, or did he play center and I was just missing that every game?

 

I have no bad will to him for missing any chances and no opinions formed as a result. Not sure where this is coming from. Are you sure you meant to respond to me, I wasn't cutting Suter down?

My apologies. I may have lumped you in with some other posters who like to slag on Suter all the time. I thought you were trying to depict Suter as a poor defensive player. 

 

To his playing of center. I think he's a guy like Santorelly he can play the position adequately but isn't really best suited to being a 3c and isn't talented enough to be a top 6C. If you have the luxury of C depth you probably get more mileage out of him on the wing.