Hi everyone, I am writing this blog as I listen to the Game of Thrones theme song in a circular loop. This makes blog writing sound even more epic than it already is. This is my first blog entry so go easy on me. Just pretend you’re AV and I’m your son, Aaron Rome. Now that I’ve got introductions out of the way here is my blog.

It has been a few days since Canuck nation felt the stench of defeat sink in so that we can take a look back and dissect this carcass called the Vancouver Canucks 2011-2012 season. Where did it all go wrong?

Well according to bandwagons the world basically ended during the month of October. They wanted Luongo lynched and fed to the wolves. Everyone’s grandmother started to panic but then they started to win in November. Then everyone became a fan again. While the team did not dominate like they did the year before, they got their wins.

Then came January 7, 2012. Canucks vs the Bruins. The most entertaining friggin’ regular season game in documented human history. The only sporting event that came close to this level of intensity documented on film was this:

The game against the Bruins had it all: playoffs atmosphere, intensity, goals and some rough stuff. Canucks won 4-3 but something happened in the weeks and months that followed that game.

Gillis had been preaching a more puck position, offensive dynamic but defensively responsible team would be the way to go. They essentially had three scoring lines that they could roll. He would not change his team to play any other way just in case they MIGHT face Boston again in the playoffs. He wanted to follow the Detroit model.

After that regular season game I think the organization decided to change their tunes internally.

AV hungered for the more traditional line up of two scoring lines and two checking lines. CoHo simply did not fit. Watching Aladdin with David Booth and scoring timely clutch goals did not cut it. The media and radio callers kept hammering the point that the Canucks weren’t tough enough all season long. They were out hustled in the Boston series. Canucks needed more grit. They needed to get tough like a Chrysler Eastwood ad.

The team started to progress into a more defense team and lost their offensive flair and swagger. The confidence was gone and you could tell. Then came the trade deadline, which didn’t help.

Liev Schreiber or is it Cody Hodgson? I dunno but I bet AV hates both of them!

The Canucks traded away their well prized prospect Cody Hodgson for Kassian and added Pahlsson for good measure. AV now had his traditional NHL line up. Canucks got tougher with Kassian (or so they thought) and the fans and media yearning for more physicality cheered. Fans and media pundits felt the Canucks had a more balanced team but they were wrong. The trade was stupid and I’ll tell you why.

The Canucks are trying to win now and trading CoHo away for a project prospect like Kassian is not what the Canucks needed. Pahlsson was a failure because the year is 2012 and not 2007.  He could not win a faceoff and they ended up using Manny and Kesler for defensive zone faceoffs anyways so Pahlsson actually did nothing. They traded away secondary scoring, which they needed with more checkers and grinders than they know what to do with.

The reason the Canucks lost the Cup to the Bruins was not cause Daniel Sedin got punched in the head by Marchand (media/fans have this image ingrained in their heads) but because of inconsistent goaltending, injuries and the inability to score. Edler had hamburger fingers, Ehrhoff had a bummed shoulder and Hamhuis and Kesler’s hips lied to them. MayRay got crunched like an accordion and Samuelsson was done as well. The twins were shut down and we did not have another line to score.

You may argue that Coho aka Liev Schreiber wanted out but CoHo could’ve been packaged for a player for the now or traded in the off season. Note to Gillis, if Rich Winter was that annoying; just block his number until this summer. I’m sure he won’t tweet about it.

Hansel to Gretel: “This is where AV keeps his coveted offensive zone starts!”

This during the Gillis presser, he told the media that he and AV fattened him up like Hansel and Gretel so that he’d look delicious for Buffalo to eat with stellar offensive zone starts but come on. They made it sound like anyone could’ve benefited from those plump minutes, taking credit away from Hodgson’s skills and accomplishments. I’m sure they tried to fatten Bernier up but look how well that worked out. If it were all about the plump starts then MayRay could’ve scored or Kesler this season using that strategy…and we all know Canucks could’ve used some goals during the playoffs. This throwing Cody under the bus strategy and saying he wasn’t all that great, it was the system was Gillis and AV just them spinning the media so that they forget that this trade was a terrible one.

Not an offensive zone start:

The Canucks’ impotent limp down the stretch to win the President’s Trophy was well documented. They couldn’t score and AV decided to have his team play defensive hockey down the stretch. They were in hibernation mode since the Boston game, Gillis admitted as much so what the hell was the coach doing all this time? Isn’t a coach paid to motivate a team? He had four months. He had weeks to figure out a new top line without Daniel near the end but Game 1 Round 1 AV had nothing. The only thing he had at the end of this season was the satisfaction of icing a bottom six line up of grinders and a picture of Aaron Rome in his heart shaped locket.

Canucks could use a swagger coach this offseason:

About a year ago I began thinking of ‘the rules of trash talking’. It started at a Canucks game at Rogers Arena. It was a game late in the season during the Canucks assault on the National Hockey League. The Canucks were number one in the league, showing no signs of slowing down and were winning the game. And that’s when I heard two people behind me talking. A woman and a man were talking, she was a Kings fan and he was a Flames fan. They were running their mouth about the Canucks and weren’t making much sense. I had to say something, considering the fact that the Canucks had JUST beaten the Kings the year previous. [Rule #1, you can't trash talk a fan of the team that just beat you in the playoffs, you have NOTHING to say]

So the Kings fan says “OHHHH you guys are going to lose in the first round!” [Rule #2, you can't trash talk what you think is going to happen in the future. You can only trash talk what has happened or what is happening]

I have found a lot of people in violation of the most fundamental rules of trash talking of late. What rules you ask? Well there are rules. You can’t just go off trash talking whoever you want whenever you want. It has to make sense. If your team just won a Stanley Cup, you can talk a little more. If your team won a cup recently, you can talk too. If your team beat another team recently, go ahead, run your mouth. If you’re a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs, you can’t say much at all right now.

The Boston Bruins just got eliminated from the playoffs today, but sorry Canucks fans, we can’t talk. I mean, we can be happy (and I am HAPPY), I certainly cheered when my man Joel Ward eliminated the Bruins in overtime (side note, I correctly predicted that Ward would score the winner). But trash talk the Bruins? Sorry, but they took our Stanley Cup.

Some people think that Stanley Cup riot jokes are crossing the line. I don’t. It’s fair game. People in our city acted like idiots, so we get ridiculed. Fair enough. I don’t think the jokes are funny but other people do and that’s fair game.

Bruins fans have their own shame now after their loss to the Capitals. Apparently they have a lot of racist fans that let their feelings known after Joel Ward scored the winner.

Trash talking is a great pastime between fans, but it ought to make sense. I thought Flyers fans were pretty brave when they chanted “you can’t beat us” when they were on their way to taking a 3-0 series lead versus the Pittsburgh Penguins.

After the Canucks were eliminated from the playoffs this year, I had a few Oilers fans chirp me on Twitter. I’m not exactly sure on the rules of trash talking, but I think there needs to be some kind of statute of limitations on celebrating your Stanley Cups. The Oilers have 5 of them, but none in the last 22 years. Add to that the fact that they’ve been the worst team in the NHL over the last three years and I think Oilers fans need to zip it for the time being.

I’m also not sure how much we can trash talk the Blackhawks. Sure, the Canucks beat them in game 7 last year, but they beat us twice before that and they won a Stanley Cup.

So there you have it, the rules of trash talking. It’s not a black and white rule book (easy Bruins fans), rather there are shades of grey. Go out, run your mouth, but have some sense.

The Canucks got great news on Tuesday, as Roberto Luongo revealed that he is willing to waive his no trade clause. Now don’t get me wrong, Roberto Luongo is an excellent goalie and I believe in him, but having the ability to trade him as well as Cory Schneider is huge for the Canucks.

Luongo has handled the goalie controversy with a lot of class. He has often been criticized for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, but in this situation he has shown a great attitude. Luongo sounded humble and aware of the fact that Cory Schneider is an excellent goalie.

In my opinion the right move for Mike Gillis is to move Roberto Luongo and keep Cory Schneider. I would have been in favour of this before last season as well, and it has nothing to do with “hating” on Lu. Schneider is younger, cheaper, and perhaps better. Luongo is 33 years old, and has perhaps 2-3 years left as a top flight goalie before his talent is likely to diminish (if it hasn’t already). Not only that, but Luongo is an ‘old 33′ given he has been in the league since he was 20 years old and played 70+ games in a number of seasons. Schneider conversely, has a lot less wear and tear on his body at age 27.

If you keep Schneider, you will retain the better goalie (though this is arguable) and you will have him for many more years in his prime. The move would help the team in the short term by having a lower cap hit, and help long term solidifying the goaltending position for years to come. Even if the Canucks only get a couple of draft picks in exchange for Luongo, shedding his $5.3 million cap hit would allow the team to make a large offer to an unrestricted free agent. Perhaps they would be able to attract Ryan Suter, which would give the team a legitimate stud defenceman for years to come.

Roberto Luongo is one of the greatest players in franchise history, and certainly the greatest goalie in franchise history. He has been criticized a lot in recent years, but people ought not forget the number of exceptional years he has had in Vancouver. If he does indeed get traded, he deserves a standing ovation from the crowd in Vancouver upon his first return.

Interesting news in Canuckland on Tuesday. Mike Gillis held a press conference to address the state of the franchise. Gillis addressed a number of issues, the most intriguing was about the Cody Hodgson trade.

Mike Gillis confirmed what was speculated a lot at the time of the trade, Cody Hodgson wanted out. Gillis then offered up this tid bit: “I spent more time on Cody’s issues than every other player combined on our team the last three years”. Gillis also indicated that the plan was essentially to showcase Hodgson this year, giving him favourable ice time (time on the power play, starting shifts in the offensive zone, etc).

Hodgson was traded to the Buffalo Sabres at the trade deadline in exchange for Zack Kassian and Marc-Andre Gragnani. I didn’t like the trade at all at the time, and I don’t like it any better now. Gillis traded one of his leading scorers for two players who didn’t help the team in the here and now. Sure, Hodgson may have been difficult to deal with behind the scenes, but he was playing well despite this.

Looking back on the trade, it definitely hurt the team. The Canucks had insurance in goal if there was an injury to Roberto Luongo. They had insurance on defence if any of their defencemen got injured. But if one of their scoring forwards got injured (see: Daniel Sedin), they didn’t have much of an insurance plan with Hodgson gone (see: Mason Raymond). News also came out today that Ryan Kesler had been playing with a couple of different injuries, explaining why he wasn’t very effective offensively.

Imagine if the Canucks could have entered the playoffs with Hodgson filling-in for Daniel Sedin on the top line. Or imagine if Hodgson could have played on a line with David Booth, leaving the hobbled Kesler to centre a checking line. Maybe it would have made a difference, maybe it wouldn’t. But it just made no sense then or now to hand the third line centre position to a player who doesn’t score (Pahlsson) and give away a solid point producer, especially on the power play (Hodgson).

My biggest problem with the Cody Hodgson trade is that they got nothing in return to help them for this season. Hodgson may have been unhappy, but he was playing well. I don’t see any reason why Mike Gillis couldn’t have acquired Pahlsson, kept Hodgson as insurance and make the trade with Buffalo in the offseason.

After a second straight President’s Trophy, not many predicted the Canucks would be gone in the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs. Even fewer would have predicted that they would be gone in only 5 games. So where did they go wrong? Lets investigate.

To start off with, this upset is probably not as big of an upset as you might think. To start off, the Kings finished the year with 95 points. That’s more than the winner of the Southeast division (which isn’t saying much I know) and only 2 points back of the Pacific division winner. That point total was also earned in a more difficult division than the Canucks play in. So perhaps the gap in points between the two teams is not as large as it may seem. The Canucks are also much less of a favourite without Daniel Sedin in their lineup.

But still, despite this, the Canucks had the more impressive regular season, no doubt. But the Canucks and Kings were not the same teams in October, November, December and January as they were in February, March and April. The Canucks lost Cody Hodgson and added Sammy Pahlsson. The Kings lost Jack Johnson and added Jeff Carter and made a coaching change. The Canucks’ power play finished the season with impressive numbers but the last half of the season it wasn’t very good. Meanwhile, the Kings finished very low in goal scoring, but were scoring at a higher rate near the end of the regular season.

This is all hindsight of course, and despite this, the Canucks should have put up a better fight.

I place most of the blame in game 1 on Alain Vigneault. To start Mason Raymond on the first line goes against all logic. While Daniel Sedin was out of the lineup late in the season, Vigneault had an excellent chance to have auditions for Daniel’s spot in the lineup. Not much was on the line (they were going to finish either first or second, and would have been better off finishing second as it turned out), and Vigneault experimented. Raymond spent little to no time on the top line, and the only guy that looked at home was Max Lapierre. Instead of starting game 1 with Lapierre with Burrows and Henrik Sedin, Vigneault decided to experiment during the most important time of year. Not surprisingly, Raymond didn’t look good on the first line. Vigneault also mixed up his pairings for game 1 (also against all logic), playing Kevin Bieksa with Alex Edler and Sami Salo with Dan Hamhuis. Luckily Vigneault learned his lesson after game 1, but he didn’t give his team the best chance to win right out of the gate.

Game 2 was a case of the Canucks giving the game away to the Kings. They carried most of the play, yet lost the game 4-2 because of a couple of inexplicable blunders while on the power play. The Canucks outshot the Kings 48-26, but I think that stat was inflated. They got a lot of shots on Jonathan Quick, but many were from the perimeter without traffic in front.

In game 3, the Canucks played like a desperate team, but also a team without confidence. They outshot the Kings 41-20, once again many of their shots came from the outside. Conversely, a lot of the Kings’ shots were difficult shots to stop.

In game 4, the Canucks gained more confidence and were able to make plays (having Daniel Sedin back helped). They also gave up a lot of chances to the Kings but got great goaltending from Cory Schneider.

In the final game of the series, game 5, I thought the Canucks were lucky to send the game to overtime. They got a fortunate bounce to take the lead 1-0, but were outplayed. Cory Schneider kept the team in it, but that only delayed the inevitable.

The Canucks couldn’t score in the 2012 playoffs. Daniel and Henrik Sedin were point a game players in the playoffs, but the secondary scoring went flat. Ryan Kesler was unimpressive, despite 3 points in 5 games. Every other one of their forwards had 0 or 1 point in 5 games. Kesler’s line was largely ineffective throughout the series, as was their fourth line which was grossly outplayed by the Kings’ fourth line, particularly in game 4 and 5. The Canucks’ third line was supposed to be their shutdown line, but they failed to shutdown anything. The Kings’ top line looked dangerous throughout the series.

So what went wrong? In short, everything except for goaltending.

Great stuff here from Kevin Bieksa. Apparently a reporter in Los Angeles (Mike Dunsmore from Fox Sports) thought he was Ryan Kesler, so he just went with it.

Let me start by saying that I don’t think the Canucks will win this series (ok maybe this article isn’t THAT positive). They’re down 3 games to 0 and that’s a near impossible deficit to erase. Even if they play excellent in the next four games, they’ll still need some luck.

But right now everyone in Vancouver is talking like the Canucks have already lost the series. Not so fast.

To win this series, the Canucks will need to fix some things. They will need to get more traffic in front of Jonathan Quick to manufacture some goals. They’ll also need to figure out a way to score on the power play. They will to limit the Kings chances and get great goaltending, as they did in game 3. The Canucks were the better team in game 3, but found a way to lose. If they show that same kind of effort and get some confidence and puck luck, they will be hard to beat.

So how can the Canucks come back? Well, the return of Daniel Sedin would be a good start. He has flown to Los Angeles to practice with his teammates. That suggests to me there’s a decent chance of him playing in game 4. Of course, the mere presence of Daniel Sedin does not ensure a Vancouver victory.

In order for Vancouver to win this series, here’s how it will have to go down:

Game 4: The Kings start the game overconfident, knowing that teams don’t often blow 3-0 leads and taking the Canucks for granted. The Canucks on the other hand come out with a chip on their shoulder, outwork the Kings in every facet of the game and score some goals.

Game 5: The Canucks have a lot more confidence and are still desperate, but now they have the attention of the Kings. The Kings increase their level of play and make things difficult for Vancouver. The Canucks use the emotion of their now boisterous crowd as a catalyst.

Game 6: The Kings now have all the pressure on them. They have blown two straight chances to close out the series and now are desperate not to go back to Vancouver. The Canucks are on a roll.

Game 7: The Kings have lost three in a row and the Canucks have won three in a row. The Kings are petrified of blowing the series and look nervous and tentative.

This probably won’t happen, but if it does happen, that’s how I think it will go down.

Alain Vigneault was a little out of character with his game 2 post game press conference. He went out of his way to mention that goaltending was not the problem in game 2. When asked about who his goalie would be in game 3, he sounded angry and said that he wouldn’t discuss it. Today, when asked who his goalie would be, he wouldn’t say. If you ask me, those are clues that Cory Schneider will start game 3.

Roberto Luongo was excellent in game 1. He made a lot of key saves and was the biggest reason why the Canucks had a chance to win. In game 2, it was hard to blame him on the first two goals, but the last two goals were not unstoppable. I’d give Lu a B+ for game 1 and a C+ in game 2. He wasn’t the reason they lost, but he didn’t stand on his head either.

If I’m Alain Vigneault, I would start Schneider in game 3. This isn’t about blaming Luongo, it’s about crediting Cory Schneider. Luongo had a B+ in game 1, but what if Schneider had an A+ game? They’re getting good goaltending, but what if they could get great goaltending? Schneider had a better goals against average and a better save percentage than Luongo this year. He won big games. Now it’s time to give him the ball and let him run with it.

I think the whole city of Vancouver is wondering what in the world is happening to our beloved Canucks right now. It’s been a long time since we have seen the Canucks start a playoff series 2-0 (11 years in fact). The Canucks do not look like a powerhouse team whatsoever. They look like a team that has lost all confidence in two games.

So what happened? Well, in game 2 the Canucks outshot the Kings 48-26, but lost 4-2. I thought the Canucks played ok most of the game, but gave the Kings some absolute gifts.

Alex Edler’s giveaway at the end of the first period was ridiculous and inexcusable. To try a drop pass in your own zone with under 20 seconds left in the period is an enormous brain fart. I know that the drop pass is included in their power play breakout, but it is meant to be done with speed coming through the neutral zone, not slowly through the defensive zone.

The second gift was given by Dan Hamhuis, also on the power play. Once again the Canucks were unable to make a pass, but then Hamhuis compounded the problem by diving for the puck on his own blueline. It was an uncharacteristic ridiculous risk taken by Hamhuis, in which the worst case scenario (a short handed breakaway) came true.

I put a lot of the blame on the Canucks game 1 loss on the refereeing and Alain Vigneault’s decision making. I thought the refs were fine in game 2 and AV was better as well (though I still don’t understand his refusal to use Max Lapierre with Henrik Sedin and Alex Burrows).

The story of game 2 was specialty teams. The Canucks power play and penalty killing was horrendous. The Canucks were 0-5 on the power play and gave up 2 shorthanded goals. The Kings were 1-4. The Canucks had a terrible time entering the Kings’ zone, and once they did they had a hard time making a simple pass. It was very reminiscent of the series against the Bruins last June. The Kings on the other hand entered the zone with ease, moved the puck around and got shots on net with ease.

Anyone think that having Cody Hodgson in the lineup right now would be pretty helpful? He was the catalyst for their second power play unit all season, and would be a nice insurance policy when Daniel Sedin went down with an injury. To make matters worse, Zach Kassian is getting only about 6 minutes of ice time a game and Marc-Andre Gragnani has been a healthy scratch twice.

If the Canucks were able to make sure their power plays were just average, even if they didn’t score, they would have won game 2. Instead, their power plays were momentum sapping, or worse, when they got scored on shorthanded.

It’s interesting to think that the Canucks didn’t play particularly well in a game they outshot their opponent 48-26. But it’s true. If the Canucks had a better power play, they would have won in my opinion, but that’s not to say they were amazing at even strength. At even strength, they were solid, but not spectacular. A lot of the shots on goal were wrist shots from the outside.

I thought that Roberto Luongo was very good in game 1 and good again in game 2, though not spectacular. I think it’s time for Cory Schneider to get a chance to prove himself in game 3. This isn’t about putting the blame on Luongo, it’s about the talent of Cory Schneider.

It doesn’t look like Daniel Sedin will be back in this series, and that’s terrible news. Losing Daniel is tough enough, but it also means that Henrik is less effective as well.

So the Canucks have work to do. They will need to win 4 out of the next 5 games to avoid the biggest upset in team history. Fix their specialty teams and get some confidence and they’ll be on their way.

First let me start off by apologizing to the hockey gods. This is not the first time I have apologized to them. I first apologized to them after game 6 versus Chicago last season. I apologized because I wrote that we should ‘get our brooms ready’ and that the ‘writing was on the wall‘. Then the Hawks blew out the Canucks in games 4 and 5, and won again in game 6.

So what did I do this time? Well, I stated that Dustin Penner doesn’t scare me (and showed a picture of him dreaming about pancakes). Annnnnd then he scored the winning goal.

I know Homer… This time I have learned my lesson. To hell with blog ratings, we need a Stanley Cup in this city. Dustin Penner, you have regained my respect.

Ok, back to the series. The Canucks did not look particularly good in game 1. Actually, they looked downright terrible. Roberto Luongo was the only reason the Canucks had a chance to win. Even when they were winning or tied in the game, I thought the Kings were the better team. Sure, the way the refs called the game was a bit questionable, but the Kings were the better team.

If I’m head coach Alain Vigneault, I would make some key lineup changes. First off, get Mason Raymond off the top line. Raymond is a useful two-way player, but he is not a front line player. He doesn’t score very much and he doesn’t create space for his linemates. That’s not exactly the description of a player I would like playing with Henrik Sedin. Personally, I thought that Max Lapierre looked excellent when he was playing Alex Burrows and Henrik Sedin.

Secondly, I would reunite the Amex line. Ryan Kesler and David Booth have never looked as good this year as when Chris Higgins was playing on their line. I know that Alain Vigneault wants to have a good checking line, but he can’t do that at the expense of a good scoring line. That would leave Mason Raymond to play with Hansen and Pahlsson and a fourth line of Malhotra, Kassian and Weise.

My changes don’t just come on the forward lines. They absolutely need to get their top 4 defencemen playing on their top 2 pairings. Kevin Bieksa only seems to look good with Dan Hamhuis, while Alex Edler looks most comfortable with the calming influence of Sami Salo. Do that and the Canucks are still left with a very respectable third pairing of Chris Tanev and Aaron Rome.

Those are my only lineup changes for game 2, but of course they need to fix their specialty teams. I thought their penalty kill was much too passive and the Kings got to set-up with ease.

The Canucks power play has been struggling for a long time. They have trouble with their entries and don’t produce many scoring chances once they’re set-up. They will need to figure out a way to enter the offensive zone with greater success. Perhaps the answer is to chip the puck in with speed? I thought the Canucks’ best power play was their last one, when they peppered Jonathan Quick with shots from all angles. I hate those idiots that yell ‘shoooooot’ all the time at Canucks games as much as anyone, but they should shoot it a little more. It’s hard to make pinpoint passes when you’re struggling and lack confidence, so bump the slump with a greasy goal.

Fix the lines, fix the D pairs and fix their special teams. Oh yeah, stay out of the box too, but still be aggressive. Nobody said it was an easy trophy to win.