The Canucks lost another game in the shootout on Thursday night, losing the game 4-3 to the Detroit Red Wings. While they didn’t deserve to win the game based on their play in regulation time and overtime, the shootout is a different animal. It usually has very little to do with the run of play. They lost the shootout because Detroit is a much better shootout team than the Canucks.

The Canucks are one of the best teams in the NHL but they are one of the worst in shootouts. One would think that a team that boasts a Vezina trophy finalist and a lineup filled with offensive talent would be good in shootouts. Instead, Vancouver has a 3-5 record, are 19th in shooting percentage and are 5th worst in save percentage. And this is not a new problem for the Canucks, it has gone on a few years. They were 4-5 last season and 4-4 the year before and 3-7 the year before that. So what gives?

No Go-To Guy

The shooters that beat Roberto Luongo on Thursday night were Pavel Datsyuk and Jiri Hudler. That should come as no surprise, as these are the Red Wings’ go-to guys in the shootout. The Wings have played in 6 shootouts and Datsyuk and Hudler have shot in every single one of them. If they needed a 3rd shooter, Todd Bertuzzi would have been called upon.

The Canucks quite simply don’t have a go-to guy in the shootout. Mason Raymond and Alex Edler were given the assignment on Thursday, but they don’t shoot all the time. Alex Burrows and Cody Hodgson have shot most often, but they have only shot in 5 of their 8 shootouts.

Alain Vigneault

Alain Vigneault does not stop pucks or score goals, and if he had a guy like Pavel Datsyuk in his lineup he would get questioned a whole lot less. But with that being said, Vigneault has done a poor job of giving his team the best chance of winning in the shootout.

Vigneault needs to recognize who his best shootout performers are, and stick with them. Too often he has played hunches or given opportunities to players just because they are having a good game. What he ought to be doing is identifying his top guys and turning them into shootout specialists. The Canucks’ shooters were never more consistent than when Kyle Wellwood and Pavol Demitra were trotted out in each game, despite their play in regulation time. Last year AV failed to recognize Jeff Tambellini as his best shootout option, as he didn’t select him every game despite his excellent career shooting percentage.

This year, Vigneault needs to realize that Cody Hodgson and Alex Burrows are his two best shootout specialists. Burrows and Hodgson are each 2/5 in the shootout this year and consistently put forth a great effort. A lot of fans and media have been suggesting that Vigneault give Daniel and Henrik Sedin another chance. Perhaps Daniel should get the odd opportunity (after Hodgson and Burrows), but Henrik has put forth some of the worst shootout attempts I have ever seen (including this one).

Roberto Luongo

Quite simply, Roberto Luongo needs to be better. He is too good of a goalie to perform this poorly in the shootout. Luongo has a respectable career shootout save percentage at .663. Currently this year, Luongo has a .476 SV% in the shootout.

Luongo is 49th out of 57 NHL goalies in save percentage. He appears lost in the net, biting on every fake and getting beaten by any decent shooter. But it didn’t used to be this way.

In Luongo’s first season in Vancouver (2006-07), he was pretty good in the shootout. He had the 25th best shootout save percentage out of 71 goalies. Lu was even better the following two seasons (07-08, 08-09), but has seen his shootout save percentage drop in each of the last three seasons.

It appears that either Luongo’s reactions are starting to slow down with age, or shooters have a book on him.

Luongo might want to consider shifting the way he approaches the shootout. Unlike some other goalies, Luongo treats a shootout attempt the same as a breakaway. He stays reactive to the shooter and doesn’t make the first move or keep the shooter guessing. While this is probably the best way to play a breakaway, it leaves him prone to shootout attempts when players walk-in with pre-planned moves in mind. A lot of the successful shootout goalies keep the shooter guessing by utilizing the poke check or mixing up their positioning.

Shootout Philosophy

As I have already outlined, I believe the Canucks should identify their top shootout players, and run with them. This should be done with at least 2 of their first 3 shooters. Even though the Canucks don’t have a stud in the shootout like Pavel Datsyuk or Jonathan Toews, they can still identify a specialist or two.

Maybe above all, the Canucks need to treat the shootout seriously. That means practicing it and scouting it. The Canucks ought to be scouting goalie and shooter tendencies. It boggles my mind every time I see Alex Burrows walk-in and score with the same old move on opposing teams. I mean, if I know the move he’s going to do, how is it that NHL teams don’t?

Perhaps the Canucks already do a lot of scouting for the shootout, but it doesn’t appear so.

The good news out of all of this is that there are no shootouts in the playoffs. But the shootout can be the difference between finishing first, second or third in the conference, and that can be the difference in who hoists the Stanley Cup in June.

After the Canucks thrilling 4-3 win yesterday against the Boston Bruins yesterday, I decided to look for a Boston perspective on the game. What I read was downright frightening.

Say what you want about Vancouver’s media, but they don’t openly bend the truth to any degree that they do in Boston. It seems as though the Bruins can do no wrong with the Beantown scribes, much in the same way that the Republican party can do no wrong on Fox News.

Let me offer a few examples:

Joe Haggerty (CSN):

It was an eventful afternoon for Shawn Thornton facing down a Vancouver Canucks team he’s come to hate over the last year.

Six Canucks players ganged up on him in front of the Canucks bench in a chain gang-style attack more appropriate in a prison laundry room rather than an NHL rink. The order of events was pretty simple: Thornton saw somebody slash at Daniel Paille as he exited the ice for a line change, he went to investigate the situation and then got tangled with the biting Burrows.

Burrows waved his stick blade around Thornton’s neck and it was on like Donkey Kong.

“I see myself as a pretty honest player,” said Thornton. “But, I’m not going to let someone spear me in the throat. I’m also a man so I stand up for myself.”

The six Canucks attackers doesn’t even count the two Canucks players sitting on the bench holding Thornton against the boards as six other Vancouver players attempted to work him over. Nathan Horton, Milan Lucic, Zdeno Chara and David Krejci ended up pulling bodies off the pile, but the image of six players attacking one guy was enough to make any NHL traditionalist’s stomach turn.

Poor Thornton. He must have left in a wheelchair after that kind of attack by eight people! Oh wait, he was totally fine? Probably cause he wasn’t Haggerty completely misrepresented the entire altercation. Check out the video below and skip to the 2:00 mark to see how the melee started.

Want a more accurate recap? Burrows taps Paille on the ankle. Thornton slashes Burrows (the euphemism used by Haggerty was that Thornton “investigated the situation”). Burrows poked his stick in Thornton’s chest (as opposed to Burrows spearing Thornton in the neck as was suggested by some in Boston). Thornton drops the gloves and goes after the much smaller Burrows, so his teammates stepped in (even suggesting that 6 players on the ice attacked Thornton is completely false, Hamhuis doesn’t go near him until the rest of the Bruins players pile in, while Henrik looked to join in but decided smartly to go to the bench because there were six skaters on the ice due to the line change). The players that stepped in immediately were Malhotra and Bieksa, who never threw punches followed by Weise and Lapierre. Lapierre was the only player visibly throwing punches.

From Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe:

Playing the Vancouver Canucks is like playing a collection of A-Rods or a full squad of Bill Laimbeers. The defending NHL Western Conference champions are a virtual conga line of Claude Lemieuxes and Ulf Samuelssons.

“B-R-U… I-N-S, WE ALL KNOW WHO’S THE BEST! BRUINS! BRUINS! YAAAAAAAY BRUINS!”.

More from Shaughnessy:

Here’s something from Stephen Harris of the Boston Herald, recapping the Brad Marchand hit on Sami Salo:

On the play, Marchand had the puck along the boards, looked up to see 6-foot-3, 212-pound Vancover defenseman Sami Salo charging at him and ducked down low to avoid the hit. Salo flipped up over Marchand, hit the ice hard and suffered a concussion.

Please. To mention Salo’s height and weight is to suggest that he is some kind of monster that was planning on delivering a bone crushing hit. Watch the replay, Salo is hardly charging at him. He wasn’t going at him with a lot of speed. Furthermore, how often has Salo ever delivered a big hit? Has he ever injured anyone? I can’t recall one and I have been watching him play hockey for ten years. Also, Brad Marchand has a history of this exact type of hit, and in the past it was done maliciously. Sort of like his hit on Daniel Sedin, after the whistle in last year’s Stanley Cup final. Was Marchand afraid of getting nailed by Daniel Sedin on that hit too? Sorry, I meant to say, was he afraid of getting nailed by 6-foot-1, 187 pound Daniel Sedin when he CHARGED at him? There, that’s better.

I’m not sure how any objective observer could watch the game played yesterday and come to such ridiculous conclusions. I think the rest of the hockey world saw what Canucks fans have known all along. The Bruins are a big, tough team, but they also take cheap shots and complain a whole heck of a lot. When they go after players, it’s honourable, and when players go after them, it’s cowardly. It seems as though they have brainwashed their cheerleaders media members as well.

Radio, print and Twitter was abuzz the day after this hit by Marc Methot of the Columbus Blue Jackets on Canucks captain Henrik Sedin:

So cue the debate: are the Canucks tough enough? This debate is of course in response to the fact that the Canucks did not engage Marc Methot in a fight and were roughed up in the Stanley Cup final last June. So are the Canucks tough enough? The answer is: sort of.

The Response to Methot

The Canucks didn’t lose their minds after Henrik was hit, which I think is a good thing. Methot was challenged to fight by Kevin Bieksa and Aaron Volpatti, but declined.  I didn’t think that Methot’s hit was malicious enough for the Canucks to risk taking an instigator penalty, but they did need to get in Methot’s face and give him a few shoves and maybe a face wash. That’s exactly what Alex Burrows attempted to do immediately after the hit.

Some will argue that the Canucks needed to fight Methot, instigator penalty or not, but I disagree. That kind of mentality simply doesn’t mesh with the way the Canucks are built. I would also argue that it doesn’t make their star players much safer (if at all). The Pittsburgh Penguins were second in fighting majors last year and still had their star player run at. The Canucks are emulating the Detroit Red Wings model, which I suggest is a pretty effective model. Pavel Datsyuk was on the receiving end of a big Andrew Alberts bodycheck last season and the Red Wings didn’t feel it necessary to pummel Alberts.

Do the Canucks Need an Enforcer?

The answer to this question is simple: absolutely not. Enforcers rarely have much of an effect on the game in my opinion, unless they can play a regular shift. The Bruins’ Shawn Thornton is an example of a useful enforcer, and the exception to the rule.

Team Toughness

The Canucks don’t need fighters, rather they need team toughness. Do they have enough of this? At this moment, I don’t believe so. I don’t think that is a major problem, but it should be fixed before the playoffs begin in April. Mike Gillis would be well advised to add some muscle on his second or third line, or else the team will be vulnerable to tougher/bigger teams in a seven game series.

So for the moment, relax everybody. The Canucks are fine and their response to Marc Methot was appropriate.

As I sit in the comfort of my own living room, watching drunken hooligans ransack downtown stores, I was finally able to relax myself enough to type this up. I, like most of you, truly believed this was THE year. A President’s Trophy, a Clarence Campbell Bowl, a franchise record for points in a season, a William M. Jennings Trophy, an Art Ross Trophy, and Hart, Selke, Vezina, and Adams Trophy nominations. The highest scoring team in the regular season. The highest scoring defensive corps in the regular season. Let’s not forget that home teams in Game 7s of the finals were 12-3, and the whole trend of Stanley Cup wins after hosting Olympics in Canada. But quite simply put, it was not meant to be. Boston was the better team this series, and as painful as it was to watch them lift Lord Stanley’s Cup in OUR home arena, they deserved it. Here are my reasons why things turned out the way they did.

1. Boston was able to bend the rules enough to gain an advantage.

As much as fans in Vancouver love blaming the officiating and bellyaching about how there is a “conspiracy” against the Canucks, I believe that these are just excuses. No matter what is thrown at you, champions find a way to win. I hate using bad officiating as an excuse, so I won’t, as frustrating as it can be (Game 6, 1st period, Chara beats the crap out of Henrik, yet BOTH are given penalties?!?!) Officiating aside, Boston was able to get away with so much behind the scenes: slashes to the hands and legs, high crosschecks that don’t look that brutal because their hands were placed close enough together to make it look like a push, etc). What made it worse was the embellishing the Canucks did. They already have a reputation of embellishing, so officials are already cognizant that some Canucks will try to sell calls, so when they cry wolf too often, even if it inflicts real pain, nothing will be called. The Canucks could have easily been chippier at the end of Games 3, 4, and especially 6, with the score being out of reach. Mark Messier broke Cliff Ronning’s hand with less than a minute remaining in Game 6 of the 1994 final, and crosschecked Trevor Linden in the face. The game was already out of reach for the Rangers, so why not try to weaken the opponent for the game that really matters, Game 7? Brad Marchand knew exactly what he was doing when he punched Daniel in the face FOUR times in the waning moments of Game 6. I was pleading with the Canucks to resort to some dirty stuff, but alas, nothing.

2. Boston has the better depth upfront.

The Bruins are a large, physical team, especially on the backend, with a good mix of size, skill, speed, scoring touch, defense, toughness, trash talkers, muckers, aggressiveness, and most importantly, the will to fight through any obstacle to win, upfront. Going into the Finals, I knew that Boston’s top 12 forwards were stronger on paper, and after watching 7 games, they definitely proved it. To have a guy like Nathan Horton getting knocked out in Game 3, and being able to go 4-1 the rest of the way proves it. They had Rich Peverley on their FOURTH line. This guy had 22 goals and 55 points for Atlanta last year! His transition to the top line was seamless. Imagine the Canucks losing Alex Burrows, and having to move a 4th line player to the top line. Who would you pick? Oreskovich? Glass? Bolduc? Hodgson?

3. Injuries.

No Hamhuis. No Raymond. No Samuelsson. And only fractions of the true players Kesler (groin/hip), Edler (back/2 broken fingers), Ehrhoff (shoulder), Higgins (foot) were (and I’m sure there are more that we don’t know about yet). It’s true that you can’t use injuries as an excuse, as Ryan Kesler bravely said in his post-game interviews, but let’s be realistic here: that is SEVEN Canucks out or playing through substantial injuries. Add to this the Rome suspension and that makes it EIGHT players. That’s ONE player short of HALF the TEAM (forwards + defense)! It’s true that the Canucks have great depth, especially on the backend, but when guys like Ballard, Tanev, Alberts, Tambellini, and a not 100% healthy Malhotra get called to action in the STANLEY CUP FINAL, it’s tough…and the Canucks could not recover from all those injuries. Aside from Horton, did it seem like any Bruins were in the same physical shape as the Canucks listed above?

What the Canucks need next year to make another run:

Luck.

For a team to make it this far into the playoffs, stars really do need to align. For the Canucks this year, it was a combination of many things: San Jose’s injuries. The stanchion in Game 5 of the Conference Final. The rolling puck on Burrows’ Game 7 OT winner against Chicago. The round 2 Nashville matchup (Kesler was able to bring his game to new heights, mostly due to the fact that Nashville’s 2nd D pairing, which Kesler got to play against a lot, drop off substantially from the Weber/Suter pair, who played against the Sedins). And while the bounces that were there in the first 3 rounds didn’t help the Canucks in Game 7, it did get them 25 games into the playoffs, a Canucks record.

More grit.

The Canucks were bullied by the Bruins. We need more assholes on this team (excuse my language). But seriously, we need assholes who are respected in the NHL…or at least more respected than the “assholes” that are on the team now (Burrows, Kesler, Lapierre). Even Kevin Bieksa gets no respect. I look at a guy like Shawn Thornton who changed the series in Game 3 with his insertion into the lineup. I look at a guy like Dave Bolland, who changed the Vancouver/Chicago series when he returned in Game 4. These 2 are bonafide shit disturbers who for some reason, are respected for their play by fans, media, other players, and referees. The Canucks don’t have anybody like that (Rick Rypien would have fit the role well). And why is it that Vancouver pests in recent memory are all hated around the league? Names that come to mind: Matt Cooke and Jarkko Ruutu.

Humbleness from Roberto Luongo.

I have defended Luongo from many “fans” who are keen on criticizing him about everything he does. I own 2 Luongo jerseys, 1 autographed, and I am truly a big fan. You can’t blame him for the Game 7 loss if the team can’t put a single puck behind Thomas, but man, Roberto needs to be less cocky, less about him, and phrase things in interviews so that others can’t use it against him. I’m finding it harder and harder to defend him, and I hate to say it, but if the fans and media in Vancouver are going to be all over him all the time, I don’t know how much longer this relationship can last (not long enough until his NTC expires). I’m not sure I even want to type out the following, but after listening more and more to his interviews and pressers, reading his quotes, and whatnot, it might just be easier for him (and us) to play somewhere else.

A top 6 forward who can play with Ryan Kesler

List of potential UFAs who could fit this role and within a reasonable salary: Jussi Jokinen. Justin Williams. Tomas Fleischmann. Tomas Kopecky. Eric Cole. And after their performances in the playoffs this year: Sean Bergenheim/Joel Ward. As you can see, the list ain’t great. This year’s UFA forwards aren’t particularly a strong group, so it’ll definitely be slim pickings if the Canucks want to improve their top 6.

Try to re-sign as many of the UFA defensemen as possible.

With the imminent retirement of Sami Salo, and Christian Ehrhoff and Kevin Bieksa heading to unrestricted free agency, this leaves the Canucks D looking like this as of June 15: Dan Hamhuis, Alex Edler, Keith Ballard, Chris Tanev, Aaron Rome. I wouldn’t bet on both Ehrhoff and Bieksa coming back (although I’d love for them both to return), so getting at least one of them is the priority, and I’m leaning towards Bieksa (right hand shot, grit, shutdown abilities, offensive skill, and mobility). There is some high-end defensemen available, but they’re going to be quite pricey. Maybe somebody like Ian White or Anton Babchuk would fit the Canucks mold of being mobile, having a good first pass, and responsible defensively. Plus, if the past few seasons have shown anything, you can’t have enough defensemen on hand.

Health (see above).

All things aside, and all frustration cleared, the Canucks had an unbelievable year, and were one win from winning the Stanley Cup. All recent Stanley Cup champions have endured late round heartache before being able to win the big prize (Pitt losing to Detroit before winning it all, Chicago losing to Detroit in the Conference Final the year before winning it all, Boston losing all those series in Game 7s before winning 3 Game 7s this year to win it all). I’m still very confident that next year will be another great year for this team. Until September, Go Canucks Go!

Late last night I received an email from my friend Darin. Darin is a die hard Canucks fan, about as die hard as you can get. He watches every game, analyzes every play. He loves the Canucks. But he also takes losing pretty hard. He last ranted this hard during the Chicago series last year. He was remarkably quiet during the first round this year, but after last night, he needed to rant.

Enjoy:

I was twelve years old when Jim Robson famously called “the Vancouver Canucks are going to the Stanley Cup FINAL!” after Greg Adams’ famous goal in 1994. And now 17 years later, a new generation has a iconic call of their own (give kudos to John Shorthouse, he wasn’t fooled). It wasn’t pretty, but the Canucks were the best team in this series versus the Sharks, and deserve it. This team keeps winning, and they keep doing it in different ways. Lets review how it all went down last night:

Shots, Shots, Shots…

The Canucks were outshot in every period of the game, except for double overtime. They didn’t direct nearly enough pucks towards the net all night long, save for maybe the tying and winning goals. The Sharks on the other hand directed 56 shots on goal. Roberto Luongo was spectacular and this performance will go a long way to show everyone that he is indeed a big game goalie. He was the first star, and stole the game.

Kesler the Warrior

Jim Robson famously said that Trevor Linden “will play on crutches” and Ryan Kesler wasn’t far off that last night. He clearly injured his leg midway through the game and looked like he was on one leg for the rest of the night. Despite this, he wasn’t a liability defensively and scored a big goal to tie the game with 14 seconds left.

Bad Breaks

The Canucks got their share of bad breaks in game 5. The first Sharks goal was scored off a weak point shot that Keith Ballard whiffed on with his glove, fooling Roberto Luongo. The second Sharks goal was aided by a bouncing puck getting over Henrik Sedin’s stick. I thought the Canucks also got completely jobbed in the first overtime period with non-calls on the Ian White trip/clip and the high stick on Mason Raymond. Both are automatic penalties in my mind, no matter what time of the game.

Good Breaks

Obviously the Canucks got their share of good breaks as well. They benefited from an icing call that went off a Canuck just before the tying goal in the last minute of the third period. They also got away with a high stick in overtime (since when do high sticking penalties get let go seemingly on purpose?). And of course, the break of all breaks, the bounce off the stanchion that fooled everyone except for Kevin Bieksa.

The Stanchion

It was probably the biggest play by an inanimate object since the inanimate carbon rod. Now you can even follow @theStanchion on Twitter. Remember the “hand of god” goal by Maradona? Maybe we’ll start calling this the “bounce of god”. In any case, the hockey gods sure were shining down on the Canucks last night.

Did Henrik Touch it?

By “it”, we mean the Clarence Campbell Bowl, and no, Henrik Sedin didn’t touch it. It’s kind of a funny tradition now, but it’s something that everyone looks for when the conference trophies are handed out. I would have been fine with Henrik picking up the trophy (just don’t drop the top like Linden did).

The Party

What a party it was on the streets of Vancouver last night. Fans filled the streets and one can only dream about what it will look like if they can win it all.

The 1994 Vancouver Canucks had a reunion on Monday, with the likes of Linden, McLean, Courtnall, Adams and others on hand. On the 17th anniversary of Greg Adams’ goal in double overtime in game 5 of the 1994 conference finals that sent the Canucks to the Stanley Cup Final, the present day Canucks will get a chance to match that feat. The Clarence Campbell Bowl will be in the building, and the whole city of Vancouver is ready to party.

But there’s still a lot of work to be done before that can happen, to be certain. For starters, the Canucks failed to put away the Blackhawks and the Predators in game 5 at home in the 1st and 2nd rounds this year. It goes without saying that they will be looking to change that this time.

You could argue that the Canucks were outplayed in game 4, aside from special teams. While that has some validity to it, I think for the most part the Canucks played well in game 4, and that the shot total (35-13 in favouf of San Jose) was misleading. A lot of the Sharks shot total was due to getting a lot of power plays and getting shots in the third period when Vancouver was protecting a three goal lead. The Canucks got a lot of power plays too of course, but were so efficient on them that they often scored on their only shot. So despite the fact that the Canucks were grossly outshot, they clearly have the momentum heading into game 5.

The Canucks won game 5 because they were able to win the special teams battle. And when you win the special teams battle so decisively, you’re going to 99% of the time. I thought the key to Vancouver’s penalty kill was the increased aggressiveness on the puck, especially in the neutral zone. They made it very difficult for San Jose to not only enter the zone, but also to set-up.

The coaching staff must have read Canuckz.com to fix the power play, because they listened to me! All three goals on the power play were scored on one timers, making Antti Niemi move side-to-side.

The Canucks got good news on the injury front on Monday, as Christian Ehrhoff practiced. He might play in game 5, but I would bet on him sitting out another game given the 3-1 series lead and the great depth the Canucks have on the blue line.

As for Joe Thornton, who was knocked out of game 4 by a solid Raffi Torres bodycheck, he will play in game 5. We know he will play, but how effective he will be could be another story. Nobody knows exactly how banged up he is, but it’s probably significant given he was unable to return in game 4.

I don’t expect the Sharks to go down without a fight, and they will have a high desperation level in game 5. I think we’re due for a game that isn’t completely penalty filled and it should be a thrilling game… hopefully just like game 5 in 1994.

You’ll notice that the title of this blog entry does not end with a question mark. That’s because I know what went wrong in game 3 for the Canucks. Here’s what it was:

1. PENALTIES! It’s obvious of course, but you’re not going to win many games when you’re in the penalty box all night. Some of the penalties were undeserved, but a lot of them were well deserved. Stay out of the box and you’ve got a fighting change.

2. The penalty KILL! Also obvious I’m sure, but the Canucks need to get better on the penalty kill. Sure, the Sharks have a good power play, but not this good. Part of the blame goes to Luongo, but he hasn’t been terrible. The Canucks must find a way to stop the Sharks before they enter their zone. Because when they do that and get set up, they’re hard to stop.

3. The 5-on-3 power plays. The Canucks had two opportunities 5-on-3, one was 1:24 long, the other was 29 seconds. They didn’t score on either chance. Antti Niemi was partially responsible for that, he was great, but the Canucks aren’t playing it right. To start, Alain Vigneault was playing 4 forwards and 1 defenceman for both two man advantages. The problem with that? None of the forwards have a dangerous slap shot from the point. In my opinion, every great 5-on-3 power play is set-up with two potential one-timers from the point that scare the dickens out of the other team. Ryan Kesler and Henrik and Daniel Sedin don’t fit that bill. Sami Salo, Alex Edler and to a less extent, Kevin Bieksa, do. If they do that and start with a couple of heavy one timers from the point (and when I say one timers, these need to be side-to-side one timers, not down low/high one timers), then that will stretch the penalty killers and open things up for the Sedins down low. Seems simple to me.

4. Injuries on defense. Part of the reason the Canucks power play wasn’t great 5-on-3 was because Christian Ehrhoff wasn’t on them. He was injured early in the game, and won’t play in game 4. That’s huge loss for the team and they’ll need to find a way to replace him. That’ll likely be Sami Salo, but I think they might be well served to use Kevin Bieksa. Bieksa is a little quicker and a little craftier than the slower Salo. Aaron Rome was also injured, so look for Andrew Alberts and Keith Ballard to return to the lineup.

5. Desperation. The desperation level of the Sharks outmatched the Canucks. That shouldn’t really cause concern, because it’s hard (or impossible) to fabricate desperation. The Sharks needed the game a lot more than Vancouver did, and it showed. The Canucks were unable to weather the storm early, and that ultimately cost them the game. If the Canucks can weather the storm in game 4, they’ll be set up to do a lot better.

And now a little song to cheer you up in advance of game 4…

What a game that was! The Canucks won game 2 by a score of 7-3 and looked like the powerhouse team that won the President’s Trophy during the regular season. That was the best the Canucks have played in the playoffs this year, and it couldn’t have come at a better time. Their top three lines are all producing, and their defense is jumping into the play. Roberto Luongo is steady in between the pipes, and making the big save when he needs to (in both game 1 and 2, he made a key save in the third period while the Canucks were trailing or tied). And their defense, judged by many to be the best in the entire NHL, is looking like it. There’s still a long way to go, but they are firing on all cylinders right now.

But now to the real story of game 2…

The Flash

They’re now the most famous boobs in British Columbia, and brought a little more colour to this series. I’m not really sure what the reasoning for it was (it’s not exactly penalizing Ben Eager is it?), but I’m guessing the CBC is pining for the days of the Green Men’s handstands now. This young lady is now a Twitter sensation and numerous mainstream media outlets are trying to identify/interview her. Holly Conway from the Beat 94.5 spoke to her through email, apparently she was drunk (duh) and is a little embarrassed about it.

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick

Kevin Bieksa is playing amazing right now. This guy was one of my favourite players when he burst onto the scene a few years ago, but like many Canucks fans I absolutely hated the way he played the past two seasons. But Bieksa is an absolute stud right now. Yesterday he had a goal (and a breakaway at that), an assist and a fight against Patrick Marleau. What a beast.

War of Words

The San Jose Sharks are whining again. They were upset at the Canucks diving in game 1 and now Ben Eager is running his mouth. He said that Daniel Sedin turned on purpose before he hit him from behind (Daniel turned after he bobbled the puck), that his slough foot on Mason Raymond wasn’t the appropriate call and that Kevin Bieksa picks his spots. More from Eager on Bieksa:

He was a coward then, and that hasn’t changed

Calling Kevin Bieksa a spot picker is a little ridiculous. To start with, he fought Ben Eager two years ago. Secondly, Bieksa is not simply a fourth line goon, which means he’s allowed to be a spot picker! Did Mark Messier fight any old fool that asked him? How often did Brendan Shanahan turn down fights? I’m guessing quite often. Kevin Bieksa is a leading minute guy for the Canucks, so it makes sense that he would only fight another talented player. Further to that, Patrick Marleau dropped his gloves first!

Surprisingly, head coach Alain Vigneault has been the most outspoken Canuck, sarcastically referring to the Eager hit on Daniel Sedin as “embellishment” and placing some blame on Todd McLellan for Eager’s antics.

Ben Eager is trying to rile the Canucks up, and it’s not working. That sort of stuff carries a lot more weight and frustrates teams a lot more when you’re winning the series, not when you’re trailing.

This series just got interesting.

With a 3-2 win in game 1, the Canucks are 7 wins away from their first Stanley Cup, but surprisingly it’s not all positive news the day after. There are more than a few misconceptions that are spewing from the mass media today. Maybe it’s because there’s a two day break, maybe it’s cause they’re bored. Maybe it’s something else.

Here are a few of the news stories making the rounds today:

Luongo’s puck handling

Roberto Luongo is not known as a good puck handling goaltender. In fact, he has been known as a terrible puck handling goaltender. So naturally after giving up this goal in the first period of game 1, criticism flowed his way. Was it justified? Yes, but no.

Let me explain. Roberto Luongo is not a great puck handling goalie. But he rarely gives away the puck like he did in game 1. For the most part, he plays within his limits and makes the simple play. I’m willing to cut him a break, especially given the fact that he played exceptionally the rest of the game.

Luongo’s critics will find a way to rake him over the coals no matter what. When he had great numbers in front of bad teams, they said he hasn’t won anything yet. Then he won a gold medal, but they said he didn’t play that great. Now he’s a Vezina Trophy candidate on the President’s Trophy winning team in the conference finals and he STILL has doubters. He’ll need to continue his strong play, but lets not act like he’s played poorly.

Niemi is a “winner”

If I hear that “Niemi just wins” one more time, I think I might puke. Saying that Niemi is just a winner is another way to say that he wins despite having average numbers. I think he plays well under pressure, but he has never been a world beater. You know why Antti Niemi has won so much in the playoffs? Because he’s played on excellent teams, that’s why. Niemi is a good goalie and he had a good game, but lets not get crazy here. Luongo is getting raked over the coals for his giveaway in game 1, but there’s been hardly a mention of Niemi’s giveaway.

Canucks divers

Another big story has been about the Canucks taking dives. So is it true? I think it is to an extent. They’re not taking blatant dives, but they certainly are embellishing out there. The criticism is fair, but some members of the media are getting carried away.

John Lu of TSN did a whole story on it today, and even stated that the Canucks lead the league in diving this year. That’s very misleading, considering the fact that only Ryan Kesler and Maxim Lapierre received diving penalties this year. Kesler got one penalty for diving, and Lapierre got three (two of Lapierre’s three diving penalties came before he was acquired by the Canucks).

Are the Canucks diving? Yes. But they’re not drawing many penalties because of it. Ryan Kesler’s head snapped back on a high sticking penalty, but the stick hit him in the face. So they are diving, but it’s been exaggerated a lot.

The Sharks are also picking a convenient time to become sportsmanlike. Wasn’t it only a week ago that they were spraying Jimmie Howard with snow at every chance?

By the way, if the Sharks were diving and the Canucks were complaining about it, there’s no doubt in my mind that the eastern media would be calling Vancouver a bunch of whiners. Just saying…

The Real Story

The real story after game 1 is that the Canucks outplayed the Sharks, and won despite giving the Sharks a gift of a goal to make the game 1-0. They were grittier, faster, stronger… better. That’s not to say that they’ll walk away with this series, far from it. But in game 1, they were the better team, and they won. Luongo and Niemi played equally well, though Niemi had more work.

The other real story from game 3 was the fact that Daniel and Henrik Sedin bumped their slump. Funny how fast stats in small sample sizes change. Henrik Sedin now has 6 points in his last four games.