I know I picked the Canucks to win their series against the Los Angeles Kings, but based on the first two games, I’m afraid I’m going to have to revise that prediction. Kings in 5.
A friend of mine posted a great comment on Facebook: If “this is what I live for,” I’m a little disappointed…
I couldn’t agree more with that statement.
The Canucks have shown little if any real evidence to date that they can beat the Kings. After the Canucks gave up the first goal, a short-handed one I should also point out, in the second game, I said “that’s the series”. I’m sticking by that. It is fairly obvious what the major issues are. I do want to make a few general points though, starting with the goaltending situation and finishing off with a few things I noticed in the second game.
- Goaltending is NOT the issue so far in the series for the Canucks. Too many people are ready to throw Roberto Luongo under the bus and bring in Saint (Cory) Schneider. To those people, I say, “Get a grip!”. The Canucks are not down 2-0 because of Luongo. I would argue that he has in fact very played well in the two games. I will admit didn’t like that fourth goal tonight where he ended up on his belly as it is tough to make saves or even recover in that position. By that point, however, the game was effectively over. In fact, I thought Luongo made some spectacular saves early in the game that kept it from getting too far out of reach too early. This city is absolutely BRUTAL when it comes to the goaltenders on the team and it really is shameful. One day a goalie is a saint with their name ringing through the streets, the next day they are replaced with “We Want The Backup” followed by cheering when the backup goalie is actually put in. Come on people! As for replacing him, Luongo should not be punished for the shortcomings of the players in front of him.
- There is a serious problem with the preparation of this team. They are not in playoff mode in any sense of the phrase. For this, the responsibility lands squarely on the leadership group of the team as well as on the coaching staff. I know a lot was made about how the team finished the last 2 months of the regular season. Too many pundits and fans claimed that the Canucks weren’t winning correctly. I think they were correct in what they said, but totally wrong in what most of them meant. The talk mainly centred around the fact that the Canucks weren’t blowing teams out 5-1 like they did last year and that the close games were simply not the right way to win. I disagree. The problem wasn’t that they weren’t blowing teams out, it was that they couldn’t put in a full 60 minutes of hard, focused hockey. The team never had to push themselves to stay focused for 60 minutes and play with the authority they should have had (and would need in the playoffs). They simply were in cruise control mode and that allowed them the luxury of feeling that they never had to panic or feel desperate. Put plainly, they haven’t played meaningfully in a very long time and that has induced a large number of bad habits. You can’t flip a switch suddenly and shake those habits, especially against a team that has basically been playing playoff-type hockey for 2 months just to get into the post-season. Remember the 6 P’s: Proper Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance!
- I am sick and tired of hearing about how much of a key component Daniel Sedin is and how his absence implies that it is impossible for the team to win without him. Bullshit! If this team cannot withstand the loss of one player, however key, such that they are rendered incapable of playing a full 60 minutes of hard, competitive hockey (which they were not doing before Daniel got hurt, by the way) then the blame must immediately fall to the leadership group of this talented, albeit apparently very fragile team.
- If the Canucks do bow out early, what should happen? A lot of people are saying that it’s the finals or bust for Alain Vingeault. What?!? Are they nuts?!?!? Here’s a coach that has brought this city 2 President’s trophies (back-to-back) and also to within 1 win of the Stanley Cup. Why would people be so eager to throw him under the bus. Regarding point #2, if the team is eliminated early, I definitely think it will be due to the way in which they were prepared going into the series. I do believe that management has a duty to examine things and determine the best course to take with both the players (who certainly shoulder a good chunk of the responsibility) and the coaching staff. I doubt very much that any change should be made at the coaching level. This isn’t to say that the coaching staff should be given a free pass, but their full body of work should be considered, and not just a single best-of-7 series.
- And now some points from tonight’s game specifically:
- The first LA goal looks like it was Alex Edler’s fault – it wasn’t. If you listened carefully (and turned the volume up), David Booth called for the pass. Booth could see the ice and the threat better than Edler and should never have called for the back-pass. While I don’t think Edler has played especially well in the series so far, he was not the goat on that goal.
- On the second goal, Ryan Kesler hangs his defenseman, Dan Hamhuis, totally out to dry. Kesler’s blind pass to the point (when he did have time to have a quick look) put Hamhuis in a no-win situation and while Hamhuis’ decision to try to hold the blueline could be questioned, he should never have been put in that situation in the first place.
- The Canucks completely wasted the late 6-on-4 power play. There was no focussed attempt to overload the puck so LA was simply able to turn every contest for a puck into a 1-on-1 battle that they managed to win. Too many Canucks were standing around waiting for the puck to come to them instead of moving in to support or provide the extra body for the overload. That’s basic hockey people, and the clearest example that the Canucks are, at present, nowhere near prepared to work hard enough to win this series.
- What is with the lack of puck support when Henrik Sedin has the puck on the end boards and is being checked? I can count at least 3 times that his only option was to try to out-battle the (top 2 shutdown) defenseman checking him and try to feed it out to the front of the net where both of his linemates were very well covered. I thought puck support was hockey 101 for a puck possession team.
Personally, I hope I’m wrong about my revised prediction, but unless they are a completely different team on the road, I just don’t see how a few flashes of brilliance will be able to overpower the grinding, hard-working, tight-checking Los Angeles Kings. Do they have the tools/skill to come back? Definitely! Is it possible? Absolutely! Is it probable? That’s the million-dollar question… Let’s hope they can give us part of an answer in game #3.