Back to Square One

You may also like...

  • William

    Unbelievable. Where were the Sedin Twins? And where is the committment to winning a Stanley Cup. Less than 3 minutes left and the Canucks blow it. Shocked and dissapointed. Chicago is a loser team.

  • William

    Unbelievable. Where were the Sedin Twins? And where is the committment to winning a Stanley Cup. Less than 3 minutes left and the Canucks blow it. Shocked and dissapointed. Chicago is a loser team.

  • Kel

    I think Saturday’s game is game 5, not 6 (See second last sentence in your article.) Also, I think the Sedins almost scored in OT. I also saw Sundin created offense. The Canucks didn’t play very well offensively, but I’m not quick to blame the coach. There were many plays that if they could handle the puck a little bit better (pass, shot), they could have scored. But because they didn’t handle those well enough; the passes didn’t connect and shots were either not on net or not taken. Once they lost possession, the team made the right plays defensively, so it looked like their only purpose was to protect the lead. In fact, it wouldn’t look like if they were sharper in the offensive zone.

  • Kel

    I think Saturday’s game is game 5, not 6 (See second last sentence in your article.) Also, I think the Sedins almost scored in OT. I also saw Sundin created offense. The Canucks didn’t play very well offensively, but I’m not quick to blame the coach. There were many plays that if they could handle the puck a little bit better (pass, shot), they could have scored. But because they didn’t handle those well enough; the passes didn’t connect and shots were either not on net or not taken. Once they lost possession, the team made the right plays defensively, so it looked like their only purpose was to protect the lead. In fact, it wouldn’t look like if they were sharper in the offensive zone.

  • http://www.canuckshockeyblog.com J.J. Guerrero

    I actually think the Canucks were instructed by the coach to protect the lead and nothing else. As soon as they got the puck, they chipped it out and went off on a change. Looking at the Time On Ice charts – http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20082009/TV030244.HTM – kinda confirms this. They were playing 20-30 second shifts in the 3rd period. This tells me they weren’t even thinking of offense.

  • http://www.canuckshockeyblog.com J.J. Guerrero

    I actually think the Canucks were instructed by the coach to protect the lead and nothing else. As soon as they got the puck, they chipped it out and went off on a change. Looking at the Time On Ice charts – http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20082009/TV030244.HTM – kinda confirms this. They were playing 20-30 second shifts in the 3rd period. This tells me they weren’t even thinking of offense.

  • Kel

    The shifts are short but I am not sure it’s not just an indication of the coach’s decision to have short shifts to preserve energy. The Canucks played like that in game 3 and were successful. The only difference is that they were better offensively and had a bigger lead.

  • Kel

    The shifts are short but I am not sure it’s not just an indication of the coach’s decision to have short shifts to preserve energy. The Canucks played like that in game 3 and were successful. The only difference is that they were better offensively and had a bigger lead.

%d bloggers like this: