Blues vs Canucks

[Chizip]

glad ya like it, i should be able to come up with a better one though, dont you worry

 

[Chizip]

Link

This one-liner not funny
Canucks' star scorers stymied by Blues' stellar defensive play

By AL STRACHAN


ST. LOUIS -- Over the years, concentrating your firepower always has been an extremely volatile tactic.

It is possible to have playoff success when most of your points are produced by one line. But it's just as easy to go down in flames.

And smoke is already creeping out from under the wings of the Vancouver Canucks.

They're essentially a one-line team. During the regular season, Markus Naslund had 48 goals; Todd Bertuzzi had 46; and Brendan Morrison had 25.

That's 119 goals. To put it another way, it's 45% of the Canucks' total.

Now let's work out how many goals they have in the playoffs. Naslund? Zero. Bertuzzi? Zero. Morrison? Zero.

Only a lawyer could add that up and get anything but zero.

Little wonder, then, that the Canucks are trailing the St. Louis Blues 2-1 in their Western Conference quarter-final. In fact, had the Blues' all-star defenceman, Al MacInnis, not been injured in the opening minutes of the second game, the Canucks might be facing elimination tonight.

There is a reason that the eggs-in-one-basket tactic has proved to be dangerous. During the season, there is little time for specialized preparation. The schedule is too tightly packed to allow for any real focus on the opposition.

The playoffs are different. Now, coaches know that, for the next two weeks, they'll be seeing only one team. Naturally enough, if the opposition has one weapon that is far more dangerous than any other, that's the one that gets all the attention.

So the Blues looked at the game films, talked to their scouts and came to the realization that the Canucks' big shooters are creatures of habit.

Vancouver had the third-best power play in the NHL, primarily because of that one line. And at full strength, the line sets up in pretty much the same way.

So the entire team could go to school on this one. The penalty killers can employ their tactics at the appropriate time but, five on five, the same principles apply.

Morrison, the left winger, rarely carries the puck. Naslund or Bertuzzi comes down the right side and the two support each other.

If Bertuzzi is the puck carrier, he'll either take it to the net or, more likely, leave it for Naslund around the hash marks and then go to the net.

If Naslund is the puck carrier, he'll either go to those right hash marks himself or come over the blue line and curl, giving Bertuzzi time to go to the net.

Only if that play doesn't open up will he send it over to Morrison on the left.

So Blues coach Joel Quenneville looked at this and devised his defence accordingly.

For one thing, he demands strong back-side pressure. That's hockey jargon for having the forecheckers come back in a hurry. After they've applied their mandatory pressure during the Canucks breakout, they break off and scoot to the appropriate spots as fast as they can.

One of those spots is the area on the right boards where Naslund likes to set up. The other is the spot over the blue line where he likes to curl.

It's an example of the Blues using one of their main assets -- speed -- to counter the Canucks' power by giving them no time to set up.

They're not trying to outplay the Canucks' big guns, simply to negate them. Their aim is to disrupt the attack, not create one of their own. They knock the puck out of the zone, then worry about whether an offensive opportunity might ensue.

On the Vancouver power plays, they again attack with speed. You can't be passive against the Canucks. They'll find the seams and exploit them.

Many teams are afraid to attack for fear of being caught out of position. But the Blues go right at the big line and challenge them to make the plays -- if they can.

Down low, the St. Louis defencemen, especially Chris Pronger and Barrett Jackman, are taking on Bertuzzi physically and making his life miserable. Elsewhere, those speedy forwards are disrupting the attack.

The result? On Monday, the mighty Canucks had 14 shots on goal, the lowest total in the playoff history of the franchise. And that's with the benefit of eight power plays!

Proof once again that regular-season success means nothing during the playoffs.

Isn't this what I was saying before the playoffs when you declared Vancouver an elite team? I think I recall you earn your elite status by how you play in the post season, the regular season reall ymeans nothing.

So I have a question for you Mr Griffiths, if the Blues beat the Canucks in the first round, are they stil the "elite" team you proclaimed them to be?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Hahaha! That's hilarious. Thank-you Chizip, I needed that. Al Strachan is quite simply one of the worst anyalysts in all of sport. He sits in an office and never goes to games, and he's probably hasn't seen the Canucks play once this year. Do you want proof of his incompetency? Here you go:

"Morrison, the left winger, rarely carries the puck. Naslund or Bertuzzi comes down the right side and the two support each other."

Morrison's the left winger??? Bwahaha! Learn your facts, Al. So whose the centre? Is it Naslund or Bertuzzi?? haha! Way too funny. It's the biggest line in hockey, and he can't even get that right. As for everything else he said, it's quite clear he hasn't watched the rest of this team play this year. Sorry, but this article provided nothing more than some cheap entertainment.

To answer your question, I said the Canucks were an elite team based on their regular season play up to that point going back to last Christmas. So, as I defined it, yes, they would still be considered an elite team. But Chizip, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Momentum's a funny thing. It can change like *that*

 

[Chizip]

WHAT A GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOALLLL

NOW WHAT A SAVE BY OSGOOOOOOD

3-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Chizip]

GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL

4-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

best road team my butt

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Now I'm convinced that the refs are being payed off by the Blues organization. That was blatently horrible. Betuzzi and one of the Blues gets thrown off for coincidental roughing, but Bertuzzi gets 4 minutes and (Jackman, I think?) gets 2 minutes??? The announcers couldn't even figure it out what it was for. And then Bertuzzi gets mauled behind the net for the 10th time in the game, but no call. Of course, they call the phantom penalties against Vancouver though, negating their powerplays no less.

Vancouver outplayed them in every aspect of the game. They outchanced them, outshot them (33-20, including 12-5 and 13-6 in the 1st and 3rd!!!). They out hit them, won more faceoffs (about 65%), and pretty much dominated. Wow, bad luck boys. Sad to say, but with that kind of luck, and officiating like that, the series will be over very soon.

 

[Chizip]

luck, officiating, getting screwed



thats the mating call of the loser


the refs have been equally bad for both teams, end of story. the canucks dominated the first, but thats why we have a cup winning goaltender, to keep us in the game. we dominated the 2nd and 3rd periods though, so i kind of think we deserved to win this one.

it's sad when an elite team cant even win in the first round.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

1) The officiating was not equally bad for both teams. It was far worse toward the Canucks.

2) The Blues were outshot (13-6) and outchanced in the 3rd, thus did not dominate as you suggest.

3) If that makes me a loser, at least I'm an honest loser.

 

[Chizip]

2 goals to 0 in the 3rd

i think if you can outscore a team 2-0 every period that would be considered domination

oh and that was also in a period where we werent even trying to score, just trying to hold on for the win, the goals were just bonus

 

[Chizip]

and by my count we had 8 penalties called against us and 7 against you guys. man, we really must have done a bad job paying off the refs for them to call more penalties on us.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

alright i just got home from the airport and i am checking in to see what is going on. is the game still on or is it over?

 

[Chizip]

its over baby, blues win 4-1!!!!

they have a 3-1 series lead, so it's pretty much over

the blues have dominated the series, so i dont expect that to change, they will probably wrap up the series next game

 

[Michael Griffiths]

2 goals to 0 in the 3rd

i think if you can outscore a team 2-0 every period that would be considered domination

oh and that was also in a period where we werent even trying to score, just trying to hold on for the win, the goals were just bonus

Yes, a team can get dominated, but still outscore the opponent. It takes 1 second to score a goal. It takes 20 minutes to dominate a period. It's called hockey.

As for the penalties, you guys should have been called for about 12 penalties, not 8, but whose counting. I wish neither team was called for any penalties, but since the refs were having a field day anyway, I just wish they gave the Blues the same standard.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

angel must be a little worried now.

 

[Chizip]

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

chizip be nice now.


angel, hun i am sorry

 

[Angel]

Angel's puking her brains out. I can't believe the Canucks have done this to themselves. There is no way they'll take the next three games. Not the way they have been playing.

 

[Chizip]

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

that is a great action photo!

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Angel's puking her brains out. I can't believe the Canucks have done this to themselves. There is no way they'll take the next three games. Not the way they have been playing.

Logic dictates that they won't win 3 in a row against the Blues. However, IF (and a big if) they win the next game back in Vancouver (a distinct possibility - one last hoorah at home), they will be quite pumped to play for their lives in St. Louis. IF they pull that game off (once again, a big if, but a distinct possibility since they outlplayed the Blues last night on the road) - they will be going back for game 7 in Vancouver, where you KNOW the Blues do not want to be (either for game 5 or a possible game 7).

I strongly feel the Canucks will win game 5 in Vancouver. Why? Because the Canucks have not lost 3 in a row all season long. The rest could fall into place if they make it happen.

 

[Chizip]

i appreciate your homerism, and that is what a good fan is supposed to have. if we were down 3-1 i'd be saying the same things. but the fact is the Canucks choke under pressure. That was evident in the late season collapse, as it was last night in what was as close to a must win game as you can have. The way the Canucks are talking they sound like a defeated team, I highly doubt they will even win game 5.

What's even more amazing about this domination is that the Blues have done it without this year's Norris winning defenseman Al MacInnis, and 2 other key pieces Mellanby and Cajanek. If everybody can get healthy I really think this is a team that could win the Cup, especially now that Detroit is gone.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Even the Blues and the Canucks agree with me (see bold)...


http://www.tsn.ca

Blues put Canucks in a hole

Associated Press

4/16/2003

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Trailing early is no big deal for the St. Louis Blues.

Martin Rucinsky had two goals and an assist as the Blues, the best comeback team in the NHL during the regular season, rallied after a slow start for a 4-1 win over the Vancouver Canucks on Wednesday night.

The Blues were a league-leading 22-15-3-6 when giving up the game's first goal in the regular season, falling behind in more than half of their contests.

``As soon as they scored, you're taking the most positive thing out of anything,'' said Blues centre Doug Weight, who had two assists. ``Hey, we've proved all year that we're good coming from behind and it's something we definitely talked about.''

Dallas Drake and Chris Pronger scored in the second period after the Canucks opened the scoring. Then Rucinsky scored twice in 1:37 late in the third as the Blues took a 4-1 lead.

``They came out hard, that's what we sort of expected,'' Rucinsky said. ``We stayed with the game plan.''

St. Louis, which got a strong game from goalie Chris Osgood to offset a 33-20 shots deficit, took a 3-1 series lead and can close it out Friday night in Vancouver. The Blues have won all six series in franchise history when taking a 3-1 lead.

The Canucks were second in the NHL with 264 goals in the regular season, trailing only the Red Wings. But Vancouver has been outscored 14-4 in the first four games.

"It may sound funny, but if we play like that, more times than not we're going to win,'' Vancouver captain Markus Naslund said. ``I don't think the series is over.''

Neither did coach Vancouver Marc Crawford, who noted improved play by his team.

``I thought it was our best game of the series,'' Crawford said. ``Sometimes, you get beat by the goaltender on the other side and I think that's what happened tonight.''

The Canucks outshot the Blues 12-5 and took a 1-0 lead in the first period as Naslund, the NHL's second-leading scorer in the regular season with 104 points, registered his first goal of the playoffs.

A strong first period by Osgood, who made a sprawling save on a break-in by Trevor Linden, kept the deficit from growing. Osgood also stopped a second-period break-in by Brandon Reid.

``He seemed so composed,'' coach Joel Quenneville said. ``Ozzie kept us in the game.

``We were fortunate only being down 1-0.''

Pronger, who missed the first 77 games of the season with wrist and knee injuries, tied it with his first goal of the playoffs on a floating wrist shot from just inside the blue-line that eluded Dan Cloutier at 4:35 of the second. En route to the net, one Canucks player ducked the puck and another flailed at it.

Drake capitalized on strong plays by his linemates to make it 2-1 on a 2-on-1 break at 15:07, also his first goal of the playoffs. Rucinsky started the play by outfighting two Canucks for the puck at centre ice, and Weight fed Drake in the slot for his team-leading sixth point of the postseason.

Rucinsky got his first goal of the playoffs with 5:51 remaining on a 2-on-1 break with Drake. He scored again with 4:14 to play, beating Cloutier with a backhander from the right side of the net.

The Canucks broke up their No. 1 line of Naslund, Todd Bertuzzi and Brendan Morrison, which was throttled in the first three games. Naslund, held to one assist previously, scored on a high wrist shot at 11:57 of the first.

The shot deflected off Weight's glove for Vancouver's first goal at even strength in the series.

``It definitely didn't help,'' Weight said. ``But my linemates made it all better as the game went on.''

Bertuzzi, one of the NHL's top power forwards, let his emotions get the best of him on a couple of occasions. He retaliated to a slash by Barret Jackman that wasn't called in the first and got caught spearing Jackman.

Bertuzzi also took a double-minor for roughing after another skirmish with Jackman in the second. Jackman was sent to the penalty box for two minutes.


NOTES - Blues forward Scott Mellanby, one of the team's three alternate captains, was scratched with the team described as flu-like symptoms. He was replaced by centre Steve Martins . . . The Blues played their second game without captain Al MacInnis, expected to be sidelined two-to-four weeks with a separated right shoulder . . . None of the Canucks have more than two points in the series . . . The Canucks were 0-for-5 on the power play and are 3-for-29 in the series.

 

[Chizip]

The Red Wings outshot and outchanced the Ducks every game, yet the Duck's won 4-0, I would call that domination for the Ducks. A goaltender is part of the team, and he can be responsible for the domination.

And Quennville was talking about the 1st period, where Ozzy made a few great saves to keep it a 1 goal game, but that is what you should expect with a Stanley Cup winning goaltender. After the 1st period, we outscored the Canucks 2-0 in the last 2 periods, anyone who doesn't think we deserved to win the game is fooling themselves.

To say the Blues got dominated last night is just foolish. If it is domination then I hope we get dominated for the rest of the playoffs, we would end up with the Stanley Cup. The Canucks are a broken team, I could see game 5 not being a very close game. I'll say another 4-1 or 5-1 win for the Blues.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

A disection of your argument:

Premise a) anyone who says the Canucks dominated is foolish

Premise b) you said the Canucks dominated

Conclusion: Therefore, you are foolish.

hahaha! Tell me another one, Chizip. You're too much.

 

[Chizip]

when did i say the canucks dominated? i said they dominated the first period, and then the blues dominated the last 2, so add those up and that means for the overall game the domination edge went to the blues.

you are the foolish one my canadian friend.

there's nothing left but the crying.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

No, you misread my post. The argument was from *your* point of view, so the word "you" was actually you referring to *me*. I said the Canucks dominated, not you.

 

[Chizip]

right, so you are foolish, i thought we had determined that long ago.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I just thought it was funny that your essential argument was was based on a biased premise, and that it took you 3 whole paragraphs to state it.

 

[Chizip]

my essential argument wasnt that you are foolish, i mean i think everyone already knows that, so no reason for me to argue it. my argument is that there is no way the canucks will win this series. only a biased, blinded by fandom homer would think it is possible. the same type of person that would think the Canucks played well last night.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

The proof was in the chances, the shots, the hits, the face-off wins. The only aspect that the Blues beat them in was goaltending and getting the breaks. That takes luck. It takes luck to win in the playoffs, granted. However, the fact the Canucks didn't have any luck themselves doesn't show that the Canucks didn't play well. Sorry, but you have a weak argument.