May 04 2013 01:16PM
Although they are down two games to none in the series at this moment, the Canucks have played pretty solid hockey for the most part (outside of Wednesday’s first and third periods). However, I am not really sure if that is a positive, or not. The fact that they have generated three goals in 120 minutes while playing good hockey is reason for concern.
Antti Niemi has been good when needed, but San Jose’s defense group (on paper, at least) is nothing to write home about. The Larry Robinson factor is definitely playing a part in their success, but the Canucks simply haven’t been able to turn their physicality and hard work into meaningful scoring opportunities.
Read on for some subtle lineup changes that the team should make for Game 3 at the Shark Tank on Sunday evening.
May 04 2013 01:03AM
I am become Raffi, destroyer of windows.
Photocredit: Rich Lam, NHLI/Getty
At the end of the day, the Canucks are a tragic franchise with a sordid history of unspeakably painful losses.
Another chapter in that story was written on Friday night. Down one-to-nothing late in the second, Ryan Kesler began to hit everything in sight. In the third period, he came out and personally brought the Canucks even in the game with a power-play goal. Then he put them up one capitalizing off of a Joe Pavelski turnover. The Canucks shut the Sharks down pretty successfully in the third period, actually, as the Sharks managed only two scoring chances in the frame. One of those came when Desjardins sent a puck off the post. The second was a tap-in goal for Patrick Marleau with fifty-five seconds remaining...
To rub more salt in the wound, the team was ultimately defeated in overtime by former Canucks forward Raffi Torres. Torres and Brent Burns capitalized off of an Alex Edler turnover at the Canucks offensive blueline and went in two-on-one the other way. Kevin Bieksa modestly misplayed the situation, failing to take away both the shot and the pass. Torres finished easily over a sprawling Roberto Luongo, and that was that. The Canucks are now in a massive hole, one they very probably won't be able to dig themselves out of over the next five games...
Read past the jump.
May 03 2013 04:49PM
Just a tremendous image. Via Redditer Etzio192.
Today at CanucksArmy we micro-analyzed Vancouver's faceoff issues, looked at whether or not Friday night's game qualified as a must win (it kind of does), talked at length about the Canucks 2011 draft class which is looking pretty interesting in the wake of Alexandre Grenier and Henrik Tommernes signing entry-level contracts, rounded up the Canucks week in quips, and of course previewed tonight's Canucks game, which is kind of a big one for the Canucks to win lest they end up like the frustrated T-Rex in the image above...
More Canucks links and stuff after the jump.
May 03 2013 02:20PM
For me personally, the best part of a 7-game playoff series is the game of chess that takes place between games. The playoffs are all about adjustments; the ability to make the correct ones and push the right buttons often goes a long way in determining who comes out on top. This is especially true for the team coming off of a loss, as they have to go back to the drawing board in an attempt to figure out ways to avoid tasting defeat again.
That's where the Vancouver Canucks find themselves, after they relinquished home-ice advantage with their Game 1 loss to the San Jose Sharks on Wednesday night. I'd say that the biggest adjustment the Canucks can make heading into Game 2 is the way in which they utilize the Sedins. As Cam Charron astutely pointed out, Alain Vigneault has to find a way to get them out on the ice against Brad Stuart and Scott Hannan, while avoiding Marc-
Edward Eduard Eduoard Edouard Vlasic's suffocating coverage.
The fact of the matter is, that the Canucks likely would've been able to sneak out a win on Wednesday night had they gotten anything from their top line, but they didn't. As a result they now face a Game 2 which they probably have to have if they plan on playing deeper into the postseason. But is it really a "must-win" as the team's captain has proclaimed?
Read on Past the Jump for More.
May 03 2013 12:30PM
Quick observation on faceoffs based on Game 1. This seems to be the target for Vancouver Canucks observers and I don't particularly get why. Any microanalysis on faceoffs I don't like to trust. For one, the NHL is inconsistent in properly rewarding winners and losers of draws. For two, virtually anybody who looks at faceoffs on a macro-level usually finds inconclusive evidence that teams that are good at winning and losing draws help teams win a lot of games.
There's some evidence to indicate that faceoffs have a hand in puck-possession, but it's not the thing. Vancouver, New Jersey and Ottawa all seemed to do well at overall possession, calculated by shot differential statistics, this season without being particularly proficient on faceoffs. Boston, San Jose and Chicago are good at draws.
It's a thing but it's not the thing.