Canucks-Avalanche Game Preview
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 1:00 AM PST
in Game Preview
Email
Print
GAME TIME: 7:00 PST
TV: Sportsnet Pacific
The Enemy: Mile High Hockey
UPDATE: (2:19 PM): The Avalanche will get both John-Michael Liles and TJ Galiardi back into their lineup tonight. Both have missed a fair bit of time. Adam Foote is out with a jaw injury.
UPDATE (12:24 PM): With Daniel Sedin returning to action on Sunday, the Canucks have waived Matt Pettinger. Even so, Pettingzoo will play for the Canucks tonight. Thanks for the fine, hard-nosed work out there, Matt. Appreciated! Good luck to you.
**************************
First the good news: According to the Sun it is official: Daniel Sedin skated for a full practice with his mates on Friday and felt pain-free. That being said, Dank will not play on Friday against Colorado, but is good-to-go for Sunday's game against the pesky Blackhawks. He just needs to get back into game shape. I can't wait. I strongly believe his return will have a positive impact on the whole team as Mike and I alluded to a while ago.
The long layoff has allowed the Flames to play some games and catch up to us as far as games played goes. Now they are only 1 game behind us instead of 3 or 4. They are 1-2 in the 3 bouts played this week while we sat by idly picking the crap from between our teeth.
That's about it for the good news. So let's dig in with the rest!
Alexandre Burrows has been playing with nagging groin and hip flexor issues thanks to a crushing hit from Kings' Drew Doughty on October 29th. Don't remember that hit? Check it out here.
After the Canucks destroyed the Avalanche 8-2 last weekend, Colorado and Craig Anderson responded with a 3-2 win over the Flames 3 days later. Anderson faced 36 shots (typical of the Avalanche) in that one and rebounded masterfully. The next night, Colorado faced the Oilers and put Peter Budaj in net to give Anderson a rest. Budaj faced 33 shots (see a trend there?) and allowed 5 goals against (and the Oilers scored an empty netter) to win that game 6-4. Many pundits are now wondering if it's all downhill for the Avalanche from here. I'm not one of them. I think Anderson is for real.
So now the Canucks get to face a squad that will be thirsty for revenge after the 8-2 slaughter. This after almost a 6 day layoff between games. If Vancouver comes out of the gates slow - which is quite possible - Roberto Luongo is going to have to save them until they get their legs back under them. They will have to get in Anderson's face again like last game. That was so effective.
The pressure continues to mount on Kyle Wellwood who, with Daniel still out, will most likely get another chance as a 2nd line center to break out of his terrible scoring slump.
"Sooner or later he is going to have to produce," Alain Vigneault said Wednesday. "It's a performance-based business and our injuries are coming back . . .Kyle is a bright guy, I know he is very aware of the situation. He knows that not only does he have to play well, there has to be production on his part.
"I'm sure he is aware that he is getting a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth chance because of our personnel situation. He has to get it done."
There is also heat on the Canucks' defencemen (minus Christian Ehrhoff especially) to start putting up points. It's not necessarily scoring goals, as most team blocks shots like a bunch of kamikaze's nowadays, but to put up assists. Sami Salo risked a potential mouth injury by saying:
"Look at Ryan Johnson. Try to get the puck through him. He throws his head at the puck and those guys [shot-blockers] are the best penalty killers. They sacrifice their bodies -- and I'm not saying they didn't 10 years ago, but it's way more now. If you don't have a shooting lane, you have to shoot the puck short side and that's what we've been doing."
Still though, Sami, you have 20 shots and 2 assists in 14 games played. We need more!
Did you know:
-The Canucks have scored 60 goals this season. The D have contributed 8 to that cause. That's 13.3%
- The Canucks have tallied 104 assists so far. The D have a combined 38 assists. That's 36.5%.
-The defence has contributed 27.9% of the Canucks total points scored.
Last season the defence accounted for:
-15.2% of the team's goals scored.
-32.4% of the overall assists.
-26% of Vancouver's overall points.
Wait a minute...unless my math is off, those numbers are not so far off comparatively. Damn it forwards! Get your shit together!
***Just to throw this out there...some of us like to predict the score of the games here. So I was thinking that we should continue that trend. I'll make a little section on the left sidebar with a leaderboard to see who has the best Nostradamus skills as the year goes along. Bragging rights. Are you in? Keep in mind that nobody gets to pick the same score.
168 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Please?
Its my birthday today (20th). Please win, just for me. Thats all I ask.
by Chuckles Canuckles on Nov 20, 2009 1:13 AM PST reply actions
Seriously guys…do it for Chuckles!
(Happy birthday!)
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Nov 20, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
Muchos gracias
Thanks man. GO CANUCKS!
by Chuckles Canuckles on Nov 20, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
May the Canucks score a goal tonite for every one of your years, true fan. Happy Birthday (oh to be 20 again)!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Well, actually
Im turning 21, but on the 20th (hence the brackets). So 21 goals it is!
by Chuckles Canuckles on Nov 20, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
I’ll take 21 goals over the next 5 games. Gotta spread it out a little. Make this homestand count! ;)
Happy B-day and many more to you.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions
4-3 Canucks
Rypien should get an early shift/bout in to get the boys fired up. The Avs will probably come out flying, so we need a bit hit or a fight to knock them off their plan a bit.
Sean,
I like the Nostradamus idea, but I think it’d be fairer if we can pick the same score otherwise the advantage’ll go to whoever hits the blog first.
If you’re worried about too many identical 4-2 predictions (always a statistically safe bet), maybe add points for guessing the goal scorers? Like, we could each pick one player from each team to score a goal and get an extra point if they do.
2 points for getting the score, 1 for each goal scorer you pick. Or am I making this too complicated?
p.s 4-2 Canucks :)
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
How about 5 points for getting the score of each team right? And say a bonus point system for both. So if I say 3-2 Nucks, which I did, and I am right about both I get 10 points plus a bonus 10 for getting it bang on. Where as if you said 5-3 Avs you would still get 5 points for getting the Nucks score right? I like your idea about picking a scorer but maybe you say the score, and who scores the GWG? So guys can pick the same score but if I say 3-2 and it’s already been said I have to pick a different GWG scorer than the other 3-2 predictors did. And then bonus points for getting the GWG scorer correct? Or is that too much to keep track of?
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
gronk brain hurt. gronk have coffee now.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
It took me 4 coffees before I came up with that.
5 points for correct Canucks score
5 points for correct opponent score
5 bonus points for both
5 bonus points for correctly guessing the scorer of the GWG
Maximum of 20 if you get all 4 which would be rare.
I feel like Frank the Tank now that I have written that down. Like in the debate scene. “What just happened? I blacked out.”
By the way now that I am thinking about it…The Dan Band…Fucking Genius. Saw them at the Commodore Ball Room once. Incredible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPKUK0q3pBM
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t want to make it too complicated because I don’t want to invest too much time in it. I’m already in shit from the wife as it is!
OK, so…..people can use the same scores…and whoever picks the correct guy to score the winning goal gets the extra point. But you have to predict the right team and right score to get the original point. Otherwise you get zilch.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
OK, so i stand by my 4-3 Avs win with Hejduk scoring the winner. Enjoy eating my dust boys.! haha
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Score Predicting Wizards. That made me chuckle.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
I’m glad. If you have a better one, let me know!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
There is nothing better. I have always wanted to be a wizard. Not in a racist way.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah…I’m in…and I still stand behind my 4-1 predict for tonight. I guess that means I have to predict the Canucks 2nd goal scorer…ummmm….
Wellwood. Just because.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
I thought about going with Wellwood for the GWG but then I realized there weren’t any bonus points for taking the long shot.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 3:41 PM PST up reply actions
SpeakUp: yes, post it anywhere on this comment thread
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions
Sean…make the GDT the document of record?
;-)
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
cheating already, ya fukker! ;) Good thing the comments have times on them. Anyone posting a score after puckdrop is disqualified!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
Please…calling for a loss and saying its more likely if Luongo is in?
Huh?
Fuck that. No worries on the layoff this time. They learnt from the St Loo game.
Avs could not hold a lead against the Oil for crying out loud.
4-1 Canucks, and Anderson plays a great game to make it that…Canucks could have run it higher.
Avs are finding their real level now….
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Good on you, Dan! Never predict defeat! Never!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Don’t see the point of it here.
But yeah…I tend to be “glass half full” on these kind of things.
We ARE cheering for the Canucks right? MHH can predict Avs wins!
I was just having fun with Sean a little bit, but quite honestly, I think that enough of the guys have bought in, and enough were disgusted with what happened in St. Loo that they want to work to ensure that doesn’t happen again.
Especially on home ice.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Reminiscing a bit … many years ago, when I was but in grade school, I tried my hand at being the school bookie. This worked well for most of the year till my sister told my Mom and I had to shut it down. (my Dad just asked if I’d won or lost and when he found out I’d been winning money all year, he laughed and let it at that).
That’s where I first learned how reliable a 4-2 prediction can be. A steady stream of 4-2 Canuck predictions would probably win the year.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Nah. I don’t mind predicting wins for the opposing teams. Is it treacherous of me? Not really. Just a gut feeling. Who’s it hurting really?
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah but how you gonna feel if you’re right and Hejduk kills the Canucks tonite? Better to be wrong! Boo Hejduk, you’re a bum, Hejduk! Get off your ankles!
See? Doesn’t that feel more natural?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Nov 20, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd
My thoughts exactly. I much prefer to be wrong.
Where’s the joy in being right but the Canucks losing? I mean, if there was some sort of Ryan Kesler jersey riding on this…well then, yes, I could see it, perhaps.
I’ll disagree with you guys, even though I can understand what you’re saying. No Kesler jersey here. Just pride. I put the Prediction thing in the left sidebar on the main page.
There’s no joy in being right about the Canucks losing…just less of a disappointed feeling. That counts for something.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
3-2 Nucks
I am going to go for a close game. I think the Avs have something to prove after the last time there two teams met. I am going to go 3-2 Canucks in a squeaker.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 11:43 AM PST reply actions
3-2 Nucks
I am sticking with it and Bernier to net the game winner.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
4-2 Canucks. Kesler for the GWG.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Kesler for the GWG.
I can get behind that.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Nov 20, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions
Let’s go Woody! clap clap clapclapclap. He’s gotta bag one eventually.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
Poor Welly. I have been paying special attention to him in games as a result of all the talk, and apart from scoring and all, he has been pretty good.
I have actually been really impressed with his ability to take the body as compared to last year.
He is a plus 1!!!!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Plus 1, and he takes the body. Wow. Couldn’t get that from 700 other players at forward. The guy is paid to provide scoring from the 3rd line and he hasn’t done it. Pretty good isn’t going to cut it if we want a Cup run.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Impressive defensive abilities by Woodrow, but yeah, like Section said, he’s paid to score. He got a damned raise for scoring the majority of his goals in the first half and then dried up. But at least Woody is the first to admit he has to score. He knows it. He’s a cool cat.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
You prob nailed it previously, on another thread: the team has made a project of Wellwood …altho AV’s comments indicate they’ll only go so far and they’re getting impatient …. I think WW has the skills to be a decent 3rd liner, but I also think he’s a little overwhelmed at the makeover even as the rest of us wait for the reveal. Surprisingly, he seems to have taken to the stronger defensive role first, which is not at all what any of us would have predicted, is it?
It also seems that the two prominent fw’s still struggling the most this year – Bernier & Wellwood – are the ones lacking that extra gear for speed. They’re not plodders but they’re not zippy, either … tho Wellwood at least can be pretty good at weaving thru traffic sometimes. Guess at his size he had to learn that skill pretty early in life or he wouldn’t be left standing for long.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Surprisingly, he seems to have taken to the stronger defensive role first, which is not at all what any of us would have predicted, is it?
Predicted this year or last year? He’s been a D specialist since some point last year, playing with Pyatt and Bernier.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 5:21 PM PST up reply actions
Has a lot to do
with AV imo, another example of his inability to make use of the talent he has, instead he turns offensive players into pluggers.
How could he not
admit it?
He sticks out in the stats column like casual’s pants when you mention Gillisgan.
Oh, now
you’rebeing a wise-ass! Let the feud die, man. Let it die. It’s Truce Day.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 5:51 PM PST up reply actions
Easy big fella, I was being facetious.
I like Welly, and think he can play in the NHL. The jury is still out for me on whether he can help our team. There are other players that would be much better value for the 1.5 he makes.
Would you feel the same way if he gets hot? He seems to be having the same quality linemates for the 3rd game or so now….its time to show some chemistry tonight with Burr and Sammy for him to stay though…
AV has already called him out with that..“.2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5 and 6th chances” comment.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Yeah, the heat is on for him no doubt.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions
I thought I was taking it easy. Just extremely sarcastic. Not in your direction. More in Woodrow Wilson’s. He could score 15 goals in the next 10 games and I wouldn’t want him. I simply don’t think he can be a consistent scorer. Hope I am wrong though.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions
BTW, the following players are currently on pace for approximately the following number of goals this year:
Henrik Sedin: 46
Mason Raymond: 31
Mikael Samuelsson: 31
Steve Bernier: 25
Ryan Kesler: 20
Alexandre Burrows: 15
Ryan Johnson: 0
Kyle Wellwood: 0
I say “approximately” cuz I didn’t allow for lost games due to injury, just took their goals-per-game numbers for this year and multiplied by 82. And I skipped guys like Hansen and Grabner and Daniel cuz they haven’t played much due to injury.
Not too many surprises here, excepting maybe Burrow’s and Welly’s slumps. Raymond, most of us could see from his early-season play on the ice that he’d start netting them soon, which he’s now doing. And how many goals did Burrows have after 21 games last year? I think he’s still ahead of last year’s pace, for what that’s worth.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Henrik scoring 46 would be the surprise of the decade. And if Raymond AND Sammy both score more than 30 I will eat my hat. Literally.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions
And I will eat a chocolate bunny!
[We each gotta make sacrifices in our own way]
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Let’s tempt fate some more. If Luongo wins the Conn Smythe I will eat my pants.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
And I will let you!
Anything for the team.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
You guys do know that Rick Ball set the precedent when he ate Pratt’s shorts in regards to Casey Printers.
You really do have to eat them!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Eat your pants? I still owe a friend of mine a good shirt-eating.
One thread at a time. One thread at a time.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
There’s also a German company that makes women’s bathing suits that are not edible … but that dissolve in water … they’re not labeled as such, they’re marketed to boyfriends planning th break up who want to get even for something first!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
The Dissolvable Bikini – A Sweet Revenge Gift
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
More seriously, I expect Hank’s numbers to drop as Daniel gets back and they return to their usual roles of Hank the setup guty and Dank the closer.
But I wouldn’t bet necessarily against Samuelsson and Raymond. They’re having good years. And Raymond in particular is still quite young and improving, and his biggest eakness – physical strength – seems to be getting addressed by the player development process. He’s stronger this year and I betcha he adds another 10 lbs before next season, too. H’s a keeper.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I don’t know why but I just don’t see it with Raymond. Must be a blind side if most people feel the opposite. Decent player but I don’t see much more than a lot of speed and suspect hands. But I have been wrong before.
It would be an amazing accomplishment for a guy to score 30 goals in a season and 20 of them went in off his ass. There should be awards for that.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 5:18 PM PST up reply actions
We could call them the “bummers.”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
It’s weird how you just get a feeling about certain guys and you can’t shake it. Like when TG used to talk shit about Kesler I would be pissed. I always thought Kesler would be very good and I am glad I was right. But it’s the oppo with Raymond. Strange.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 5:26 PM PST up reply actions
I agree. Hank’s goal-scoring will drop when Dank comes back. I like Raymond’s chances because it’s a contract year.
I think Samuelsson can score 30-35. Bernier? Fuck’im. 20-25 with those inconsistent stone hands. I’m still waiting for Burrows to light it up. Hopefully Sunday!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions
Raymond’s biggest weakness was that he lacked the physical strength last year to take advantage of his opportunities to turn the corner with his speed, or to hold his own along the boards when cycling.
He seems stronger this year, and I bet he adds even more heft in the next offseason, too. Gillis is apparently big on conditioning, or so I’ve heard.
Raymond also looks composed to me on his chances, even when he misses or makes a bad choice. I think that as he’s been creating more chances, he’s been giving himself more opportunities to learn how to cash them in and it’s starting to pay off. So yeah, I do think he’ll make 30 this year if he stays healthy.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Section knows
Raymond is surprising but he’s had 3-4 fluke goals and nothing in his past at any serious level indicates he is going to be a prolific scorer, possible, but not likley, benefitting from injuries, will probably get knocked down the depth chart and suffer for it.
Oh right. So much time has passed with the injuries that I forgot that Line 3 was Bernier-Wellwood-Raymond. That line was alright.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
Raymond’s best Junior A season:
2004-05 Camrose Kodiaks AJHL G:55 G:41 A:41 P:82
Seems good but a nice comparison is Casey Pierro-Zabotel who played in a tougher league, the BCHL is the best junior A league in Canada, and had this:
2006-07 Merritt Centennials BCHL G:55 G:51 A:65 P:116
Zabotel was also a third round pick not a second. I think this is why I am suspect of Raymond.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
Raymond was way undersized as a kid and got his growth late so he never learned to be a scorer till relatively late in life. I think he’s a late-bloomer.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Zabotel was the same. And two years younger when he had his best season. That’s why I chose him. I think you might be right about Raymond like I said but I am skeptical. Hope I am wrong.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 6:01 PM PST up reply actions
Never know
but like I said the indicators aren’t really there.
Then again Kes is producing better than I ever expected, but even if he wasn’t he brings so much more to the table anyway, still think he might be best as a defensive specialist but not if he keeps scoring, 2 way 2nd liner for sure so far.
JuniorA
ain’t exactly high-level hockey either, I mean that year he was 20 years old and still playing tier II?
I actually think Junior A is pretty good hockey depending on the league anyway. The BCHL doesn’t get enough credit but there are a lot of highly talented players. Some of them as good or better than Major Junior players. Just don’t get the spotlight.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 6:02 PM PST up reply actions
The best guys at that level
are usually young kids (smaller) that go on to college at 18 (Kariya, Hull, etc) Raymond didn’t even get there until then, didn’t make college until 20.
Just because they are young and smaller doesn’t mean it’s bad hockey. In fact it might be better hockey in terms of skill.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 11:03 PM PST up reply actions
It's not though
I’ve watched plenty of both, and when you watch one and then the other it’s clear that the levels are as comparable as NHL vs AHL.
Which makes perfect sense, all but a very few of the best go to major junior or some less number to college, the rest find somewhere else to play. How could the level of play be anywhere equal knowing that?
And I didn’t say they were all younger and smaller, I said the best guys at that level are usually of that type, and they are few and far between.
All you have to do is compare the number of NHLers that have come from each level.
I agree with the NHL vs AHL thing. I just don’t think in terms of quality hockey the levels are that far apart. The only real difference in most cases is not skill level but the ability to do things quicker. Every guy at the AHL level can do what NHL guys do they just do it slower. That doesn’t mean the hockey is bad it is just different. Still high quality though.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
Huh?
It has everything to do with talent.
You’re saying there’s a slower version of Ovechkin in the AHL?
Or Datsyuk? Lidstrom? Crosby?
The best players play at the higher level, at least the vast majority, there’s a few that should probably switch places, and most probably do eventually, but the aggregate differential of ability is vast.
Sure the best 700 hockey players in the world play in the NHL. That doesn’t mean the next best 700 aren’t also good.
And ask anyone who played hockey at a high level and they will tell you they played with guys all through their career at different levels who had the skill to play in the NHL but they couldn’t do it fast enough for that level. And by fast I am not talking just skating but speed of thought, release of shot, getting a pass off in time all of that stuff. I watch a tonne of hockey at all different levels and a lot of it is of a very high quality. You watch a Junior B game and most of the passes are on the tape, lots of them can really dangle, there are some kids playing for Fort St John that can really shoot the puck. 4 cross bars last night for one kid. But they can’t do those same things, the dangling, shooting at the same rate of speed as a Junior A guy. That’s why they don’t play that level. But again that doesn’t mean the hockey they play is bad.
And I am sure there are guys in the AHL, KHL, and other pro leagues all over the world that can shoot the puck as hard or as accurately as Ovechkin. They
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
just can’t get their shot of as fast or in traffic the way Ovy can.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 1:42 PM PST up reply actions
I just don't
see how if 90% of the players (and coaches) are better in one league than in another, that the play wouldn’t be just as disproportionate, and in my experience it is.
The very best BCJHL team might stand a chance in a single game against the very worst WHL team, but probably not in a 7 game series, the very best of each league and the WHL would romp. The best WHL team against any lower level team would be embarrasing, like AHL vs NHL, only worse because at least at AHL level they are all pro calibre and it’s much more competitve. Minor junior is more about entertaining fans in small markets than developing great players, there’s usually lots of fights, pretty disorganized play, especially defensively, which is why the few guys that are talented stand out so much, but it’s tough to watch if you are used to quality hockey.
Honestly I’d rather go watch AAA bantams, that’s where all the talent is before it gets to junior.
Players maybe I don’t know about coaches. Most Junior A coaches are good young up and coming guys who end up coaching major junior.
I cover a Junior B team. Very well organized defense with a solid breakout. Very good top end talent. They only usually have 1 or 2 fights a game and the level of hockey is pretty good. You should see some of these kids with the puck. It’s sick the skill they have. Again I just think they can’t do those things as quickly as players at a higher level. But when they are playing in their own league at their own level of play it is very entertaining and a quality product.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions
Perhaps
you’re a little biased then?
When’s the last time you watched major junior?
Come on, there aren’t any Butlers, Hays Sutters, etc at that level, some good young coaching prospects I’m sure but part of what makes a great coach great is experience, again, they wouldn’t be in their respective positions if the majority of WHL coaches weren’t better than their jA counterparts.
Most fans I meet of junior A teams are just fans of that team, almost a cult thing, often not really being knowledgeable hockey fans at all or fans of the game in general, mostly just fans of the hometown team, therefore not caring a whole lot about the quality of play because they don’t really know the difference. I’m not accusing you of that by any means, you are clearly a knowledgable hockey guy, and I’m not saying some major junior fans aren’t the same or that none of the jA fans are knowledgable, just that I think the product on the ice in the W appeals to a fan that cares about the game not just their team, and that’s why their attendance dips so much if the product on the ice suffers, becomes not worth watching. Maybe that’s just a perception, but I still say you are biased.
I know a number of guys who played Junior A because they wanted to stay close to home or because they wanted to go to college and thought Junior A was a better route. And not every hockey player, believe it or not, wants to go to the NHL or even play hockey as a career. So they play some Junior A and then go to school get a degree and move on. I understand major junior is better I never said it wasn’t. All I am saying is the gap between say, the WHL and the BCHL isn’t as big as you seem to think it is. There is a gap though.
I actually think Junior A is pretty good hockey depending on the league anyway. The BCHL doesn’t get enough credit but there are a lot of highly talented players
That is what I said. Never said they were equal. Never said it was close just said Junior A is a high level of hockey. Not the highest for that age of kid. But still high. And not as far apart as some think.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
I agree some do that
I said that the few guys that really shine in Junior A are the young ones that go on to college after highschool, not at 20 like Raymond did because he couldn’t play junior anymore.
I think it depends somewhat, I mean watching two bad teams in the W is ugly hockey too, but watching two good teams in major junior is far superior to watching two good teams in junior A, and watching two bad teams in junior A is not really enjoyable at all, unless you think of it as comedy. And the disparity of the teams in that level seems to be greater as well, do they have a draft like major junior or do teams just pick up whoever they can? Seems like the stacked teams get more stacked a lot of the time.
To me the only real difference between the BC Junior A league and say the WHL is depth. The best 5 or 6 players on a BCHL team are good enough for the WHL and would be contributors and some would be stars like a Turris or a Zajac. But they don’t have nearly as many good players as a major junior team. But again I don’t see huge difference in terms of stick handling, shooting, passing, all of the skills of hockey. Just the majority of major junior guys can do everything a little quicker. It makes for better hockey but again I don’t think Junior A is bad hockey. It’s like AA or AAA baseball. Still very good high level of baseball just not the highest.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
You're talking about
the very very best jA players in a year or several, sure there are a few, I’ve said that repeatedly, but they are very few and far between, and look as good as they do because their competition is so bad. Not saying those two wouldn’t have been stars in MJ but they would not be near as dominant, why do you think that is?
There’s no way in hell that the top 5-6 players on each team are anywhere near as good as their counterparts in MJ, that makes no sense, the majority would be 4th liners in MJ, just as the majority of the best AHLers would be 4th liners in the NHL, not all certainly, but the majority.
The best 5 or 6 players on a BCHL team are good enough for the WHL and would be contributors and some would be stars
Well obviously they wouldn’t all be top line players. I don’t think I was indicating that. And I think Turris would have been a dominant player in major junior. He was a third overall pick after all. He wouldn’t have put up the same numbers obviously. That’s why I said the top 5 or 6 players. Turris was taking advantage of the players who wouldn’t have been good enough. But my point has always been there is a gap just not as big as some people think. That and it’s good hockey just in a different way.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
Clearly the whole block quote thing isn’t working for me.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
Turris
was taken that high because McWayne and Co had a hard-on for him, no way he puts up those numbers or anything close in MJ, he had 20 points in the NHL last year. And even he is an exceptional exception when it comes to jA talent, again, there are a few, Kariya, Hull, once in a while a quality NHLer comes out of those ranks (usually as an underager who then went on to college) but every year dozens of MJ players go straight to the NHL, many more within 2-3 years of being drafted. How many jAers even go to the AHL?
I don’t really know what your arguing here to be honest. I am talking about Junior A being good hockey with a lot of talented players. There is a gap just not as big as some people think. Most junior A players are highly talented just not at the same speed as major junior guys. Argue against that. Not about which league has more players drafted. Obvously major junior does. It’s a better league.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
It's a better league
because it has better players, a lot more of them and they are a lot better.
Agree to disagree I guess, but you don’t think perhaps you are biased?
Have you watched a WHL game recently?
I watch probably 200 games a year. And listen to another 200 on radio. Of all levels of hockey. This is what I do for a living. I talk about hockey.
I don’t see how there could be anyway that this statement, “Junior A is a high level of hockey with good, highly talented players, not as good as CHL players but closer than you might think” could ever in any way be considered biased. I cover a Junior B team. So if I was going to be biased it would be towards that level. Which I am not.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions
So
wouldn’t you say that jA, jB, tier II etc are lot more comparable to each other than any of them are to MJ?
How many teams are there at those levels in the country compared to CHL teams?
There’s what 5 WHL teams in BC, how many minor junior teams?
Are players drafted in leagues below MJ?
btw, sounds like a great way to make a living. Think I got what it takes? : D
You do in a Dave Pratt make everyone angry but still be entertained kind of way. Which is a very valuable person to have to be honest.
And to be honest, from what I have seen the gap between B and A is bigger than between A and Major Junior. I have only seen one or two guys from the entire league make the jump succesfully.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
I fuckin hate
Dave Pratt.
But I know what you mean about being of the unpopular opinion, but mine are a lot better founded that his, he talks out of his as, and is often as sycophantic as he is controversial.
I don’t get a chance to listen anymore but I do know for a fact the guy researches his ass off. Like Don Taylor shows up 20 minutes before the show starts. Pratt has been there since 10 in the morning.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 6:27 PM PST up reply actions
Probably perception more than anything. But again I haven’t listened in like a year so maybe Pratt is slipping.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe you are right
I’ve just been unimpressed and uninterested whenever I’ve watched the Sprucekings for example, reminded me a lot of the Thunder/Clippers and while I rarely go to Cougars games anymore, when I did, it was damn good hockey for the most part, and so many of those guys are quality NHLers now.
Do you know if there’s a draft at those levels?
What about AAA bantam? That can be entertaining and talent filled?
Yeah AAA Bantam is good AAA Midget is very good as well. I don’t know if Junior A drafts or not but I do know the Sprucekings are a very poorly run franchise and are hardly ever good. Except when they had Tyler Loney.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
I don't know
not too many years back they were dominant.
I prefer Bantam to midget, most of the best are off in junior or have quit the game at midget, tends to be more gooning and again, disorganized.
You should try to check out the RAMHL then. Plenty of guys who go on to play junior A, college and then pro. In fact Edge Maroon was in town the other day from Calgary and it was one hell of a game. And I have never seen any gooning at a midget AAA game. They were full cages so they don’t really ever fight.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
Well maybe
they’ve cracked down on it or the guys take it more seriously now as a 2nd chance, been a few years since I watched but it used to be not close to the level of talent of Bantam and far rougher in all respects.
I think it does depend on the league too. Like the BCHL is so far superior to other Junior A leagues it’s ridiculous. And the RAMHL is one of the top Midget AAA leagues in Canada. And I know a lot of them get tryouts with Major programs but to be honest not sure how many stick.
Plus maybe the Junior A to college route is more popular or something now so they see it as a second chance.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
And the Prince George Spruce Kings haven’t been dominant since the early 90s.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions
Well they
barely lost the RB Cup a couple years ago, sure they won league titles since then too although maybe not recently.
Probably has been longer than I think since I paid attention though.
They hosted in 2007 but were 8 under .500 in regular season and 11th overall in the BCHL that year. Only reason they even made the finals was goaltending. Jordan White made 91 saves in a 4 overtime semi final. And I think he went on to play Major Junior for a very bad Portland team if memory serves. And they did get shelled in the final. And to the best of my recollection they haven’t won a title in a long time. I will double check. Last time they won league was 95-96.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
Shelled?
Wasn’t it like quadruple OT or something?
‘96 ain’t early 90s but yeah longer ago than I thought.
I used to watch them more in the early 90s though, back when Mario Leblanc was on the team.
I said they haven’t been dominant since early 90s. Didn’t say they haven’t been good since then. And when I said it was a poorly run franchise I was talking last 5-10 years. I know 5 or 6 former Spruce Kings from that period and have heard some stories. If I get time I will pass some of them on.
I guess the thing I feel is that hockey at all levels brings somethine of value entertainment wise and the quality of hockey, other than the speed of the game, doesn’t drop of as much as some people might think. It does drop off obviously but you still see some wonderful hockey even at the Junior B level. Maybe I am biased cause I love hockey so much. But that’s how I feel.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 7:11 PM PST up reply actions
I don't disagree
I just disagree that minor junior isn’t far off from major junior that’s all. I just like seeing the best talent at each level, I think the NHL, CHL and bantam rep provide that, AHL, minor junior don’t, all for the obvious reason most of the best players are in those other leagues at each age.
Good convo though Section, the kind to enjoy over some beers.
I mean yeah obvioulsy it’s nice to watch future NHLers but it’s also nice watching a guy who is 5’6 dominate at the Junior B level and dangle guys out of their pants.
I love beer. And hockey.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
The World Junior ‘A’ Hockey Challenge has definitely proven to be a popular event with National Hockey League teams in its brief history.
A total of 60 alumni from the tournament, which began in 2006 and features 19-years-old-and-under players, have been drafted by NHL teams since 2007.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that a strong presence of NHL scouts will be in Summerside for the 2009 event, which takes place at Credit Union Place from Nov. 1 to 8.
Mike Oke, general manager and chief scout of International Scouting Services, says there are a couple of reasons why NHL teams have taken a strong interest in junior ‘A’ players.
One, he said, is major junior-calibre players want to be closer to home and strong junior ‘A’ programs provide a good alternative while maintaining eligibility for college/university hockey in the United States.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
What's your point?
Should we compare that to the numbers for CHL draftees over the same period?
Or perhaps compare their draft positions?
My point is plenty of Junior A guys are good enough to get drafted. How many major junior guys get drafted from each team? 1 or 2? Less? So it stands to reason if there are 20 guys a year in junior A getting drafted that there are at least another 50 or 100 that are good enough to play major junior in some role. So to me that means there aer plenty of very good players at that level and it is good hockey. If you don’t like it that’s fine. Don’t watch it. I think you will be missing out but that doesn’t really matter as long as you don’t think that.
by Section 312 on Nov 21, 2009 5:10 PM PST up reply actions
So
wouldn’t you say that jA, jB, tier II etc are lot more comparable to each other than any of them are to MJ?
How many teams are there at those levels in the country compared to CHL teams?
There’s what 5 WHL teams in BC, how many minor junior teams?
Are players drafted in leagues below MJ?
A lot of those guys'
production will get adjusted down when the reg top 6 get sorted out, icetime, linemate talent, PP time etc, will take effect, doubt this team will see 6+ 20 goalscorers, we had 5 last year and one of those was a big surprise in Burr and another was Demo who’s gone. Even less likely we go from 1 30 and no 40s to 3 30s and a 40.
A 40 a 30 and 2-3 20s would be my guess, but I’d bet on Grabner and even maybe Hansen being among them, not necessarily Burnier or Raymond, but who knows.
Yeah, we have to put Grabner on line 2 when he comes back. If he fails, I think Raymond slots in
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions
Raymond-Kesler-Grabner is a complete line for as long as they play well together.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
you underestimate the power of the Dark Side.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 6:10 PM PST up reply actions
Wow do you have a crush on AV or something? You never comment except to make some lame comment about the coach that’s neither relevant or factual…you sound like a leafs fan or some punk griefer kid from the CDC board, seriously. Here’s an idea…you don’t like AV cuz he played a defensive minded game that was kinda boring his first two years here. So how about now that he’s doing what you wanted u take a big tall glass of ‘getthefuckoverit juice’ and drink it down.
I’m no fanboy of AV, but i think he does a fine job (and helluva lot better than crow at the end), and everytime I see one of your obsessive stalker style hater posts it just kinda makes me wanna punch a kitten.
Then
you are an idiot.
I appreciate that AV brought D, but he also completely lacks any sense of offense, and juggles his lines more often than you probably change your shorts.
That’s not hating, that’s a fact, which is why I said good luck with expecting any line to stay together.
Now run along back to your cartoons.
Lol ahh yoata, get over yourself. Yes he juggled some lines, but when he finds something that’s effective he tends to stay with it. Lacks any sense of offense? That’s a completely ridiculous statement; the Canucks are a very offensive minded team right now, with the bonus of being able to generate some defense too. That’s one massive difference between the current team and Crawford’s WCE era: these guys have the run and gun but can box out opponents too. That makes for a good team. If the whole team or enough of the players stopped playing in the system that it crumbled, then and only then can you blame the coaching. I’m guessing you’ve never coached a team that had any requirements to win anything or included as many top talent players as an nhl team does, or you’d probably understand why line juggling becomes necessary when performance is down. And let me throw this at you; if AV didn’t line juggle, we wouldnt have ANY of the canucks top forwards doing what they do where they do it except the Sedins. That line juggling you hate so much caused brief pain and confusion to bring us some pretty nice line combo’s. Things are a bit effed up right now with so many players filtering thru the injury parade, but the line juggling of the past couple years has given this team some pretty solid groups. The added bonus is that if someone loses their mojo, there’s precedent to change things up and get people fired back up.
At the end of the day change is not only GOING to happen in a hockey team, it HAS to happen. Now you run along back to your perfect little dream world where you’re the foremost authority on anything.
Wrong
Twins are the only two forwards that have stayed together for long under AV (and as you said, the only ones who produce year after year, coincidence?), once in awhile another combination does for a time, but never consistently, and that, among other things, is what’s effed up about AV.
Whatever has worked for AV has been pure chance, he doesn’t make logical combinations and then give them an opportunity to gel, with him it’s all trial and error, mostly error, but even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. That’s not coaching, it’s guessing.
I think juggling lines is exciting, especially when you ultimately get lines like Burr-Hank-Dan or Mace-Kes-Grabs. Sometimes the unknown can lead to an awesome known.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 21, 2009 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
Cas’…I don’t get why some get that hate on for Raymond and his…I am told by the female fans…“dreamy eyes”.
He is stronger. From what I remember of the preseason talk, about 7-10 lbs stronger and worked out all summer.
You can see it when he hits guys…same as Welly to a lesser degree.
He has the talent to put it top shelf, and is working on the head to know what is the best time to do that.
(Though for me its all the time the way goalies take away the bottom of the net…get it up! On Kipper especially…guy is on his belly more than a beached whale.)
Raymond’s hands look to be improving, and he is cutting to the net instead of around it.
The over/under is 30? I’d take 31 as the bet. But I think he can get 35.
I do have to disagree with the Stone Hands for Bernier to some degree though.
Both his goals were sniped, not off someone’s ass. Both beat the goalie cleanly.
Maybe we can have a number where we stop calling him that?
Say 15 goals…
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
So .. current pace, then.
[It feels weird to say that he’s on pace for 25, doesn’t it? Still feels like he’s in a slump, somehow. Maybe we need to see him score more consistently, instead of in scattered bunches, before that changes.]
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
There’s gotta be a country song in there somewhere about hockey players with dreamy eyes and missing teeth.
Raymond to me looks like a keeper. Even when he wasn’t scoring, you could see that, in tight, he wasn’t just throwing it at the goalies and logo-hunting, he was trying to make a move or pick a spot, and his command of the puck was fine, too. He just needed to learn where his best shots were in the different situations and now, with the add’l chances he generates, he’s learning pretty quick. Kid’s only 24, after all.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
All this talk about "dreamy eyes" got me thinking...
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions
I think Bernier’s ability to deposit goals from close range is way better this year and the hands of stones thing is becoming archaic. I can’t see how anybody can hate Raymond at this time. His offensive and defensive abilties keep improving game by game, an indication that he’s incorporated smarts and confidence into his awesome speed game.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 21, 2009 6:50 PM PST up reply actions
I agree…love Bernier’s game recently, and I would vote to retire the Stone Hands no problem.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Give him a game or 2. The nickname will re-emerge.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 22, 2009 2:21 AM PST up reply actions
Who scores the winning goal? You get an extra point for that!
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 20, 2009 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
Blasphemy!!??
Holy fuck….Lightning like crazy in Burnaby…Hope the power doesn’t go out!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Yeah…lots of rain so far in Nov…which is good.
Its all snow on the mountains
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Nucks Misconduct Store
Your clothing sucks. Go fix it.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
