What Went Wrong: Vancouver Canucks

11 Comments

Of all the profiles done here to cover what caused the demise of a team in the playoffs, there hasn’t been one so plainly simple to draw up and point fingers at what went wrong. The Canucks issues were ultimately easy to figure out, their failure in the Stanley Cup finals was one that saw them go down without so much as a fight in Game 7.

What went wrong for the Vancouver Canucks? The paint-by-numbers crime scene investigation is pretty simple to follow.

1. Offense? What offense?
Eight goals in seven games in the finals. That’s all the Canucks could muster against Tim Thomas and the Bruins defense. Sure there was some bad luck and shots off the post but there were fanned on shots at open nets, inability to corral the puck in scoring opportunities and no wherewithal to fight harder against the Bruins to go for the goal.

The struggles of Henrik Sedin and Daniel Sedin in this series are going to haunt them until they’re able to win a Stanley Cup for themselves. Henrik finishes the Stanley Cup finals with just one goal and no assists while Daniel had one goal and one assist. For one former MVP and a current MVP candidate that’s patently inexcusable.

When you’re two of the best players in the game and your team’s fate rests on your production – you have to do better. The intimidation factor Zdeno Chara and Dennis Seidenberg threw at them with their physical play and positioning made them shy away from corners and pull back on their attack. Someone has to remind them that there is no fear in the Stanley Cup finals dojo.

2. Oh, Roberto
When your team isn’t scoring goals, your role as a goalie is to hold down the fort flawlessly to give your team that slight opening of being able to win games by scoring just one or two goals if possible. Roberto Luongo was able to do that twice in the finals shutting out the Bruins. He was able to hold things together well enough in Game 2 to open the door for Vancouver to come back from being down 2-1. In the other four games he lost, though, things did not go so well.

Luongo was pulled from two games in Boston while allowing a total of 15 goals on the road in parts of three games including a full 60 minutes worth of allowing eight goals in Game 3. Coming up that small in a road game is just not the mark of a championship team. Seeing Luongo get beaten in Game 7 by a great shot by Patrice Bergeron in the first period and then subsequently beaten thanks to a pair of freaky goals helped serve up all the psyche crushing a goalie needs to lose.

While no one will recall Luongo’s great games thanks to the team losing, his effort in the games he lost just was not on par with his play in Games 1, 2, and 5. That brand of inconsistency, even in spite of the Canucks inability to score, is maddening.

3. The disappearance of the vaunted power play
The Canucks power play was one of their strengths all season long scoring 24.3% of the time during the 82-game haul of the regular season. In prior rounds of the playoffs they were solid again scoring 28.3% of the time with the man advantage. In the Stanley Cup finals though, things changed for the worse.

Vancouver went a paltry 2-33 on the power play in the finals helping drop their power play percentage overall in the playoffs to 20.4%. While that number will still look gaudy their 6% effectiveness in the finals is what will stick out like a sore thumb. In three different games in the finals their power play was morbidly terrible.

In Game 1 they went 0-6 but still won. In Games 3 and 4 however, their misery with the extra man hurt them badly. In Game 3 the power play was 0-8 and in Game 4 it was another 0-6 performance. In games where they needed goals by the bunches, they were afforded the opportunity to score them and failed miserably. That lack of execution and inability to produce was their ultimate undoing.

4. A lack of defensive cohesion
Coming into this series the Canucks defense was one of their points of pride and strength. As the series wore down, it began to be a microcosm of what they dealt with all through the season as injuries and suspensions took their toll. Dan Hamhuis’ Game 1 injury proved to be a killer as his defensive ability as a top four guy was lost and forced others into roles they’re not accustomed to.

Aaron Rome’s foolish hit on Nathan Horton not only ignited the Bruins but further weakened his own team’s depth forcing coach Alain Vigneault to figure out whether Keith Ballard or Chris Tanev was going to hurt them less. Having to rely on Andrew Alberts for key defensive stopping minutes isn’t really anyone’s ideal solution to winning games.

Add in Christian Ehrhoff’s bum shoulder and turnovers all over the ice as well as Alex Edler’s two broken fingers he played with in Game 7 and you’re left with a blue line corps that was stretched to its limits and gassed when it was all said and done. With so much shuffling even the Canucks’ tremendous depth was tested to the limits. Having these things come up in the finals where even the smallest mistakes get magnified made life impossible for Vancouver against a very tight and dedicated Bruins team.

***

We know everyone will be eager to blow up parts of the Canucks and will be quick to throw certain big name players under the bus for not performing, but vast changes aren’t needed here. This team will learn by losing on this stage. Whether or not they’re psychologically capable of dealing with such a crushing defeat is the question here. Professional athletes should be able to bounce back from this but sometimes getting back to the Stanley Cup finals can prove to be just as hard as winning it. Coming out of the Western Conference, that road is always a bit trickier and physically demanding.

Vancouver will again be a top team, but until they get a bit tougher mentally and learn to knock it off with the overly dramatic play to win calls from the officials, life will be that much harder for them.

Blues think they’re ‘as sound as ever’ on defense without Shattenkirk

Getty
Leave a comment

Knowing Kevin Shattenkirk wasn’t in their long-term plans, the St. Louis Blues traded the talented defenseman and braced for the immediate blow to their playoff hopes.

That never happened. The Blues actually got better without him.

When the Blues dealt the pending free agent at the trade deadline, they seemed to be creating a giant void on their blue line and gift-wrapping the NHL-best Washington Capitals with their deepest defense in a decade. Yet St. Louis has thrived thanks to the elevated play of captain Alex Pietrangelo and second-year defenseman Colton Parayko while Shattenkirk plays a limited, specialized role for Washington.

With Pietrangelo taking over top power-play duties, Parayko pitching in and 6-foot-4, 221-pound Robert Bortuzzo providing some bulk on the back end, the new-look Blues cruised into the second round with a 4-1 series win over Minnesota and haven’t missed a beat without Shattenkirk.

“We’re bigger, all six guys are big men, and now we have two players that play with a little more nasty than we had when we had five guys that played one way and sort of Joel Edmundson doing the majority of the physical work,” general manager Doug Armstrong said. “Now we have two players that are bringing some of that physical play.”

Armstrong won’t mince words: He didn’t trade Shattenkirk to shake things up. He dealt the 28-year-old for picks and young forward Zach Sanford because there was no chance of re-signing him this summer.

On the flip side, Capitals general manager Brian MacLellan only got involved in the bidding when it became clear Shattenkirk was a rental and not long-term commitment.

After being a top-four defenseman in St. Louis, Shattenkirk is a third-pairing player and power-play specialist for Washington. He was among the team leaders in overall minutes in Games 1 and 2 before having his ice time slashed to a career playoff low 12:54 in Game 4 and ranking fifth or six on the Capitals’ blue line the remainder of their first round series against Toronto.

Shattenkirk said he’s fine with that and doesn’t need an explanation from coach Barry Trotz, who called ice time “irrelevant” to players this time of year. He’s still on the top power-play unit, is counted on to feed Alex Ovechkin the puck from the point in crucial situations and leads Capitals defensemen with three points.

But he’s not in St. Louis anymore.

“I do think that we roll our D pairings a little bit more here, and everyone gets to play a regular shift for the most part,” Shattenkirk said. “St. Louis, we were a little more reliant on our top two guys of playing the big-time minutes, and then power plays and penalty kills kind of determined where the rest of us played more or played less.”

Saying so long to Shattenkirk shifted the big-time minutes on the right side to Pietrangelo and Parayko. Ranked 26th among NHL defensemen in points and 11th in ice time before the Shattenkirk trade, Pietrangelo was second with 18 points and fourth at 26:35 a game after it.

Thrown into tougher situations than his first playoffs last season, Parayko has grown up fast without Shattenkirk around.

“It’s good for me,” the 23-year-old said as the Blues prepared to face the Nashville Predators. “I think that’s the best way to do it, get in there and learn from experience.”

Even the experienced Blues defensemen like Jay Bouwmeester and Carl Gunnarsson have thrived since the trade. Part of it is the structure of Mike Yeo, who replaced Ken Hitchcock as coach in early February, but the defensive improvements have made up for the loss of Shattenkirk’s offensive talent that will earn him a big contract somewhere July 1.

“Defensively I think we’re sound as ever,” Gunnarsson said. “Without Shatty I think we were lacking, especially the first couple games (of the playoffs), some offense. He was huge on the power play for us and that poise with the puck. Some guys stepped up.”

Yeo said his team being in must-win mode from the deadline on helped spur a late-season run that allowed them to also eliminate the Wild in five games. And if the Blues need an offensive spark from a right-handed-shooting first-round pick, they can plug 23-year-old Jordan Schmaltz into their lineup.

In Washington, Shattenkirk is glad to be on a Stanley Cup contender readying for a second-round matchup against the defending-champion Pittsburgh Penguins. He doesn’t mind St. Louis enjoying success without him.

“When I was there this year, we knew we had that capability. For whatever reason we just couldn’t get to our full potential,” Shattenkirk said. “They were a group that believed that they could play this way all year, and they’re doing it at the right time.”

AP freelance writer Nate Latsch in St. Louis contributed.

More AP NHL: https://www.apnews.com/tag/NHLhockey

Follow Hockey Writer Stephen Whyno on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/SWhyno

MORE:Jake Allen gives Blues “a sense of calm.”

Anderson, Cogliano, Ryan named 2017 Masterton nominees

Getty
1 Comment

The PHWA announced the three finalists for the NHL’s 2017 Bill Masterton Trophy: Craig Anderson, Andrew Cogliano and Derek Ryan.

As a reminder, the award is for “the player who best exemplifies the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship and dedication to hockey.”

Ryan distinguished himself as a 29-year-old who battled his way to time in the NHL, managing a goal in his debut game with the Carolina Hurricanes.

Cogliano stands out as one of the “iron men” of the NHL for the Anaheim Ducks. The PHWA notes that he’s never missed a game in his career, managing a streak of 779 games.

Finally, there’s Anderson, who managed an impressive season in net for the Ottawa Senators while his wife Nicholle battles a rare form of throat cancer. That emotional story continued after Anderson backstopped the Senators in beating the Boston Bruins in the first round.

Marleau says he wants to return to Sharks, but it might not be so easy

Getty
3 Comments

It seemed strangely fitting that Patrick Marleau scored the final goal of the San Jose Sharks’ season as the Edmonton Oilers eliminated them in Game 6.

Monday presented questions about what that goal means.

For one thing, it definitely doesn’t sound like Marleau expects that to be his final goal in the NHL, as he believes he has “at least five good years in me, or maybe more,” according to NBC Sports California’s Kevin Kurz.

“I still think I can contribute and play,” Marleau said. “Until I think I can’t do that anymore, I’ll cross that bridge when we get there.”

The 37-year-old made a strong argument that he can still light up the lamp in 2016-17. He scored 27 goals and 46 points during the regular season and ended his playoff run with three goals and an assist (all in the final three contests vs. Edmonton).

Marleau was especially effective once the new year rolled around, collecting 29 points in his last 41 games.

Before we get to the more unpleasant stuff, let’s watch that last goal:

So … yeah, that’s a pretty convincing case that he can at least still play now.

The bigger question is: if Marleau really wants term, are the Sharks willing to give him what he’s looking for?

Marleau admitted that discussions on an extension haven’t even happened yet. When you consider the upcoming challenges for San Jose, you wonder if this is it for a player who’s suited up for a whopping 1,493 regular season games with the franchise (even after there were significant trade rumors over the years).

Marc-Edouard Vlasic‘s outstanding value $4.25 million cap hit evaporates after 2017-18, and the same can be said for Martin Jones‘ $3 million mark. One could imagine the Sharks approaching Marleau with a very appealing one-year offer, but it would be a big leap to imagine the franchise going for a guy who’s approaching 40 instead of a solid starting goalie and one of the best pure defensemen in the NHL.

So, really, the question isn’t “Will Marleau really play for five more years?” Instead, it might be “Does Marleau value playing for the Sharks enough to take a shorter deal or does he want that term right now?”

What is Alex Galchenyuk’s future in Montreal?

Getty
5 Comments

Alex Galchenyuk is already a good player.

The question for the Montreal Canadiens is, can he be great?

Galchenyuk, the third overall draft pick in 2012, is coming off a decent regular season with 17 goals and 27 assists in 61 games. However, it wasn’t as good as last year’s 30-goal campaign, and he didn’t score a single goal in the playoffs.

“Hopefully he took a step back this year so he can take two forward next year,” GM Marc Bergevin said Monday at the Canadiens’ season-ending press conference.

Three assists were all Galchenyuk could manage in six games against the Rangers. More importantly, after more than 300 NHL games of experience, the 23-year-old is still not an everyday center, on a team where center depth is by far the biggest concern.

Habs defenseman Shea Weber thinks Galchenyuk still has a ton of potential.

“I think we’ve seen glimpses of it,” Weber said, per NHL.com’s Arpon Basu, “but I don’t think he’s tapped into how good he can be. One day he’s going to realize it, like all young guys do, he’s going to get it.”

Of course, not all young guys do get it. And at times, there have been questions about Galchenyuk’s competitiveness.

To play center in the NHL, you have to compete all over the ice.

“Ideally, we would love to have him play center,” head coach Claude Julien said. “But I think he realizes the same thing we realize right now. As a centerman, it’s one of the toughest jobs there is because you have to be all over the ice, and you’ve got to be able to skate. As a centerman, you have to be good at both ends of the ice, and you have to be responsible. Right now, he’s not at that stage.”

The kicker in all this is that Galchenyuk can become a restricted free agent this summer. He’s already signed one bridge deal, and he’s at the age now where many young stars sign for big money and a long term.

So, does he want to sign long term in Montreal?

He ducked the question today.

“My season just ended a couple of days ago,” Galchenyuk told reporters. “I honestly didn’t give it too much of a thought yet.”