(upbeat music) - Canak Central Wednesday at Stan Richeaux, Satyaar Shah here in the KinTech Studio. Canak Central is for Enza and Pacific. Vancouver's premier Chrysler, Dodd-Ram and Jeep Superstore on second Avenue between Canby and Maine, or at Enza and PacificChrysler.ca. We got a lot to get into. Miss shots, block shots, yellow jerseys, open nets, star players not performing. You name it, you got it. I had a game too between the Canucks and Nashville Predators, Satyaar. - Yeah, can't get in. (laughing) Could not get inside. - Couldn't get to the inside, the story. - You know, that was maybe one of the weirdest games I've ever watched in my entire life. - Yeah, it was, I mean, very frustrating for Canucks fans, and it just seemed-- - It felt very sea hockey at times. - Yeah, in some ways weird things would happen. - The way the puck would like bounce, looks like it's going, "No, it's gonna hit the post." - Yeah, just wouldn't go in. - Yeah. - It's just, this is not gonna happen. Remember when we had Patrick Alvingon after Great Deadline, he's like, "I tried to get in there, nobody let me in." - That was the Canucks last night. - The Nashville Predators use a game genie to put a brick wall in front of their net. Showing my age with that reference. All right, let's get to the open. (dramatic music) - Welcome to the open. - Oh, that's your home! Are you too good for your home? Answer me! - It is the open where we bring you the latest on the Vancouver Canucks and, look, a game two loss for one. It's a tough one to swallow, I think the team and coach and players were all pretty confident that they did a lot of good things last night and they're not too worried about it. This is just the natural ebbs and flows of a playoff series. They commended Nashville's commitment to blocking shots, but they're still pretty positive on where they're at in this series despite losing game two and they had two Nashville Games 3 and 4 Friday and Sunday. And I'm curious from your take, Sat, a day later, did game two change your idea of the series in any way? Did the game two loss change your idea of the series in any way? - Not really. Like, I mean, they're saying things I wanna see the Canucks do better. Individual players that need to do better, no doubt. But I don't feel any different about what the outcome of the series will be in Vancouver's favor. Now, are they going to do it in five games? Now, I don't know about that, you know, losing game two. It makes it harder to do that potentially. Maybe it does stretch into the six, maybe seven game territory even if it does go that far. But I don't feel any different in terms of what happened last night in the Canucks chances of being able to win this series. Like, I don't feel any worse about their odds of winning it today than I did yesterday on the pregame show. So I think maybe I just listened to too much of the people in the glass half empty category of Canucks nation today in how last night played out. But if anything, last night makes me more confident in having the Canucks as my pick for the series. Was it a perfect game? Absolutely not. They lost 4-1. So it can't be a perfect game. Not even close to a perfect game. But they dominated for much of the 60 minutes. And I know they gave up three goals. They were down three nothing in the third and score effects play a huge part in the way that that third period played out. But I look at that first period even. And to me, there was pretty much only one team on the ice. Yeah, the Canucks had the one breakdown and ends up in their net, Anthony Beauvillais, of course, revenge game for the former Canucks. We knew he was going to come up big. We called it here on the show. At some point, Anthony Beauvillais is going to pop up in this series and it just so happened to be in a first period where the Canucks pretty much dominated the Nashville Predators. You know, you want to talk about shot attempts, the Canucks had 84. Nashville had six in all situations. That includes their power play in the first period. They had six shot attempts in the entire 20 minute frame. And yes, Vancouver had three two minute power plays. One that was, you know, towards the end of this first period and continued into the second, but they had 24. That's a 24 to six difference. That's massive. And they ended up down one nothing in that first period. So it wasn't just the third period where the Canucks were trying to climb back from a three goal deficit while at that time, a two goal deficit. It was a lot more than just the third period where the Canucks dominated. They didn't lose the game because their star netminder is out with an injury. They didn't lose the game because Nashville was that much better. If anything, Nashville was only better in big moments. That is it. And sometimes that's what you need to get it done in the playoffs. And you can get it done in one game like that. But if this game plays out nine times out of 10, the Canucks are winning this game. - I agree to an extent. Like I don't know, honestly, so this topic kinda came up in the post game show to do when this game nine out of 10 times. - And my take was maybe seven, eight times? 'Cause I don't think there were nine out of 10 good. - Okay. - Like I really don't. And especially on re-watching them. They were better than Nashville, no doubt. - I agree, but I think their biggest fault in the game was their execution more than anything else. - Fair, fair. But also the second period like Nashville wrestled back control and when they took the two nothing lead, like the crowd went quiet, the Canucks were really meek for a while. Nashville was tilting the ice and their favor pretty heavily. And dismissed me in a couple of saves, right? And the next thing, no, you don't, three nothing. So I do think in the second, Nashville in really important stretches and maybe for the totality was the better team. So to me, it wasn't like, hey, this was 60 minutes of a clear onslaught from the Canucks and hey, they got goaly, they didn't go their way. But you're right about the first period. The only goal, they get a score to goal and like the only chance they had on the first. And the chance came off when he was blowing the tire behind his own net. - Yeah. - Pedersen getting beat by bivillier to the wall for the puck and then also getting beat to the middle of the ice where bivillier gets a stick on the Phillip Forsberg shot. And in case of this minute, it's so amped up from the chance that he's ready to like slide all the way out of the arena with the way he's trying to go post to post. So that had to happen for them to even score their goal and they had nothing else in that first period. - Yeah. - But the Canucks also, what epitomized their entire game was their inability of getting shots in. So Pew Souter had that incredible chance. It was a 1540 mark on the first period where the puck comes off the board and sorrows makes an incredible save. If he gets it up like maybe a few more inches, that's in the goal, right? Like that should have been a goal for him. - He tried to get it up just didn't get up enough. - Not enough, right? But hey, it's just didn't go his way. It's a good head of a hell of a save, but that should be a goal, right? That doesn't go in. And after that, Dan, they went 10 minutes without actually getting a shot on goal. So they had all that pressure, but they went a whole 10 minutes without a single shot getting on goal. And the two shots that did get on goal at the end of the period, one was a Carson Susie clear from his own zone where sorrows came out to play, which counted as a shot on goal. The other was a floater from the hat from the point by the ball wall that sorrows easily pushed the side. Those are the only two shots that got on goal and there was nothing at all of any consequence. So for that entire first, for as good as they were, there was the only quality shot they got on goal was a suitor chance. Pedersen missed the net on the great chance he had. They could not hit the net. - But that's, to me, that's something that is correctable. Like that's- - Sure, yes. - You know, Pedersen, not only the missed chance at the end of the period, but also the chance that he gives up. He passes up to try the saucer pass that Garland has to, you know, swing at, try and bat it out of the air. And he went full Vlady Guerrero Jr. can't hit a damn thing right now. And missed it. But if you're asking me, and I know this has been talked about over and over and over again, like, yeah, okay, you're looking for the sure goal. But you know what? When I have Aliyah's Pedersen in a fantastic shooting position, I want Aliyah's Pedersen shooting that puck, more than pretty much anybody else on this roster, more than Brock Besser, maybe the only other guy that comes into contention for that kind of conversation is J.T. Miller. But if I get one of those two players in a prime shooting position, shoot the puck. I don't need you passing that to Connor Garland. Shoot the puck. - Yeah, but also when they did shoot the puck, they missed the net a lot last night. - Or ran it right into a predator's shinboard. - Or that, right? I mean, J.T. Miller had a great chance. He skied it. Pew Souter had a great chance off the rush in the first. He skies it. And like the Besser bumper shot never got on goal on the power play. - And was the Joshua chance where he doesn't end up getting a shot on net? - No, I mean, that's later in the game too. And there was a lot of opportunities that they had that they just didn't get shots on goal. And I do agree that, yeah, a lot of it is correctable. And there are things that they can adjust. And if they can tilt the ice in their favor when they push. And I do think when the connects go up a gear, Nashville doesn't keep up very well. - Yeah. - I think that's something that connects do have in their favor if they can do that. The third, they're up three nothing. There is some level of, hey, they're just gonna try to keep you on the outside as much as possible, collapse on their net, and try to see this one out, right? And I think maybe they let that happen too much 'cause they were under siege for the final 20 minutes. But that third probably plays out different if they're not up three nothing, right? But I still do believe, when we've seen the Canucks go up an extra gear, Nashville has a hard time really competing with them. They have to consistently keep that gear up. And for goodness sakes, get their shots here. And you're right about Patterson too. We'll get to him in a second. I know he's like the elephant in the back room. We see the text coming in and everything. But there was a lot of bad decision-making but a lot of shooters. - Yes. - It's either gripping it too hard, like JT skying it, suitor skying a number of guys skying it when they have clear looks. But also, why are you forcing the things through sometimes? You know what I mean? And the other part of it is, how often do you see guys double clutch before shooting the puck? And not just Patterson, like. - Annoyed me. - It was like every single guy was double clutching. And it's like they got in their heads on those. So they tried to, but then as soon as you double clutch, you allow somebody to close out on you more. - Yes. - So they, like as much as yes, you give Nashville credit as yes, you didn't get quite as lucky. They also forced a lot of shots. I mean, you don't get that many shots blocked unless you also throw a lot of stupid shots. And they also threw a lot of stupid shots. There were a lot of things they have to clean up. But if they clean it up, I do agree, they should still be fine. There was way too much of the, you know, caulking the rister and then trying to get it off. Hughes does that from time to time. Patterson did it a lot last night, but the time he did, you know, that space, that shooting lane is gone. You got to eliminate that. Find more ways to get one-timers because Nashville has been great at closing down. And they've changed some of their D zone coverages in order to close up more of those shooting lanes and force the Canucks into some more of these blocked shots. But that's an adjustment they've made. And I do expect the Canucks to now adjust to some of what Nashville did in order to get this win yesterday. - One thing that I want to see them do a bit more, especially with how aggressive Nashville is with fronting them, is try to create the low to high play a bit more. That also means guys, they have to get a little bit deeper. And there was a couple of times. - They definitely could get inside more. - They can get inside more. - Especially in the third period, I thought they were at times getting so frustrated that they were just settling for outside shots. - Yeah, and a lot of guys stayed on the perimeter and then tried to push in a little bit, but it was kind of too late. But in terms of that, so you get some shots blocked. How many shots fell in the middle after getting blocked and a Nashville guy jumped on it and cleared it. - Canucks should have positioned in a lot of those situations. - So I think that's part of it. You do that, some of those shots get blocked. At least you can be there to collect them and get other secondary shots on goal. But I think you have to start generating some more low to high plays too. Guys getting inside, getting down low a bit more. And that's going to cause a lot more, I think they'll cause Nashville to collapse down a bit more. And if you get the puck up, you should have more space to get shots on. You might still get some blocked, but I think staying on the perimeter and really focusing on the point men generating. And that's been something we talked about all year, but a lot of the offense shots, yesterday came from the point again. - Yes. - Like a lot of it was from the very top. You have to get those shots and those passes a lot lower instead of being as high as you were. - So I know a lot of people, like Rick Taco was asked about it last night, there's been this discussion about fronting. Nashville is fronting in order to counter the Canucks and their heavy point shot offense in the offensive zone. What does that mean? Essentially think of, let's say, a attacking player and a defensive player are in front of the opposing net. The defensive player will get in front of the attacking player to really force the blocked shot or get more into that shooting lane rather than try to box that player out or get behind them in order to push them away from the goal they're standing in front of that attacking player. But if you get that shot through and there is a rebound, let's say the puck gets through to the goalie, there's a rebound, if you're the attacking player, you should have body position. That's suitor chance, it comes off the end boards. Why is he much more in position to get to that puck than a Nashville player? Because they're fronting, they're too far away from that. So he's first to get to that puck and gets that chance. There are ways for the Canucks to counteract what Nashville is doing to try and stop them from their heavy point shot offense. - Yeah, and a lot of it, honestly, we talked about this a lot on the post-game show too last night. It's not very sustainable for Nashville to play that way. The question though is, it's not sustainable for you to go on a long run, but is it sustainable for you to win another three games? - Yeah, it's not. - I'm not sure it is, but now that they've won a game, there is a pathway for them to sacrifice their bodies and then be done for the second round. There is a way that goes, but it's very, it's hard for them to, my point is, as much as yes, maybe they can do it in another game or two, it's hard to do it for three more games, but that's not a sustainable brand, a hockey for them to play. - It was reminiscent of the Canucks bubble experience versus the Vegas Golden Knights almost. - It was, it was similar to it. But I actually thought the Canucks were, yeah, the Canucks just had no push, at least Nashville has shown a little push in the first couple of games. Like the Canucks had moments where Patterson did some stuff against Vegas that year in the playoffs, but there wasn't a lot of the Canucks sustaining pressure in the offensive zone. At least, at least Nashville's had a few shifts like that. - And it's one of the reasons they were able to build their lead in the second period, of course. Now, the elephant in the room, we're gonna get more into game two adjustments and the goaltending stuff with Kevin Woodley for those that are ready to just pounce on Casey to Smith as the reason for the game two loss, which I think is unfair. But-- - I don't know if he was great, but we'll talk to Kevin Woodley about it. - Well, yeah. - About it. - He wasn't great, but also, I don't think he was the main culprit. If there is one player you are going to single out, it is number 40 for me. - The main culprit? - The main culprit. - Really? - You having the crosshairs? - To Patterson's credit, he took-- - He got the gun, guns cocked, ready to go. - To Patterson's credit, he took the blame himself last night. - Yeah. - Knowing that, okay, so does any winner loss ever fall on one player? Generally not, no. But if there is one main character in the Canucks loss last night-- - So he's the main, is it the same as being the main character on X, or like Twitter? - Yes, every day there's a main character on Twitter. You don't wanna be that guy. Yesterday, Patterson was that guy. And we all can avoid it, right? He himself couldn't avoid it. Now I know there is a lot to discuss here, and people are saying, well, he's been bad for the last three months. Somebody on Twitter today said to me, he's only scored one goal since he signed the contract, was totally not true. - Well, I mean, people say stuff, and that's the thing I was pushing back on. - Yes. - 'Cause people say stuff, and I push back on it, and you're like, "Well, you're always defending Patterson." I'm like, "What?" - Because you're saying things that are untrue. - That's what they want me to do. - All I'm doing is correcting you with the truth. - I'm like, stick to the facts, and it's fine. - That's it. That's all we wanna do, is stick to the facts here. So sticking to the facts, Patterson is the main character in "Last Night's Canucks" loss. You know, I know you've pointed out, you were on "Kipper and Born" earlier today, and obviously on "The Post Game Show" last night, pointing out his play or lack of play on the first Nashville goal, not getting to that first puck, and then getting beat to the spot by Bovillier, who tips the puck in for the first Nashville goal. He has the two chances in the first period. Passes went up to Connor Garland. The other one just misses the net. He's got a wide open cage, and I know the time is ticking down, so you're kind of in a frantic moment, but you expect Elias Patterson to be able to put that into the back of the net. There's other moments throughout the course of the game. There's a moment in the second period where he's got the puck in the high slot, and he chooses to pass below the goal line to Ilya McCabe, and I'm just like, "What? Why are we doing this?" Any time you can bypass a medium danger shot for a low danger shot, you have to take it. - Yes, to Ilya McCabe, it was one goal in 53 games, or however many it is. That really bothered me as well, and then of course the third goal, and we talked about it after game one. There was a couple of moments where Patterson just blindly threw the puck through the middle of the ice, and you're kind of like, "What's happening here?" And he did it again this time was costly, right? So he factors in on, and he ends up being a minus three total, but he factors in on two directly on two of the Nashville goals against, and has the opportunity to get the Canucks on the board, especially in that first period. He scores that goal, it's one-one. We're talking about a completely different game script going forward. I don't think there's one player on the Canucks who had a bigger chance to change the game's story than Ilya's Patterson did last night. That's all I'm saying about it. - He was involved in so many critical moments of the game. Like two of the goals there. And listen, the first goal, it doesn't happen if Quinn Hughes doesn't blow a tire. And that entire, we haven't talked about it, Patio texted and says, "Can we please talk about Hoaglander?" He's been missing the first two games, right? But we can talk about him, but it's Hoaglander. He's making 1.1 million. You know what I mean? Rookie, first time in the playoffs, young player. My expectations weren't he's got to be a difference maker, but I understand the question. Quinn Hughes last night, I don't think it's been really discussed a lot in the market. - One of his tougher nights. - He wasn't great, especially the first period. That shift, that entire shift, I don't know what he was. - To be honest, as much as I was positive about the Canucks overall game, I thought all of their top players had off nights. - Yeah, and I mean, somebody texted in for a little bit. - Lesser degrees than Patterson, but they all had tough nights. - Someone said for all the hate forties getting worse, six, he's been quiet. He did have me be one of their best chances out of them, Patterson, when he goes in alone on Sorrows. I think Miller fed the puck over to him. Sorrows made a great save on him, but maybe should have scored, but nonetheless. So he had a great chance too, but not exactly a prominent presence. Patterson was still the most prominent presence. Defensively, those are the things that are, whether you want to come inexcusable, they can't happen. The turnover is one thing. And honestly, if you watch the replay, he's the one who tips to go the puck into his own neck too, right? So technically he beats paviliated in head, right? But then, or scissors to the net, but he's the one that scores. But nonetheless, you can't have that happen. And then you can't lose that 50/50 and then get beat by pavilier on the first goal, right? But he was still really involved offensively. You mentioned he should have scored on the wide open net. He missed it, which also epitomizes his lack of confidence in many ways and how his struggles are going, that he rushed it and then missed it. Like he would not miss that shot. And the other problem with that is, and you know, reading between the lines of what the coach said after the game, and there's a feeling that he let it snowball on him, right? You know, like don't, like, what was the term Andrew Burnett? He used it after the first game, be an etch-a-sketch or something like that. Yeah, you just gotta shake it off, man. Shake it off. Like, or be a goldfish show, the old Ted Lasso saying, you can't let it carry over after you've made the big mistake. Absolutely. And now if he scores that and you know, they score on the Garland chance and the Canucks win, there's a completely different discussion about it. So it was there for him. He didn't seize it. And he has to seize it. And the thing is, I'm not excusing. I'm saying he didn't have a good game. We criticized him last night. We can criticize him right now too. But he wasn't invisible. He wasn't like he wasn't involved in the game. He wasn't there. But now you gotta finish, man. We're past the point of, hey, you're playing well. Your numbers are good. You're creating chances. It'll come. And maybe it will. But you don't have a lot of games for it to come. You know what I mean? You have to deliver. And it's time to deliver. And last night was a tough game for him, especially confidence-wise. But there's no time for you to sit here and feel sorry for yourself. No. He's gotta come out and be good in game three. And even if he doesn't score, do you help your team win? Yeah. That's what he has to do. I think, you know, to the point of he wasn't invisible, I had a couple of people tweet me today that Patterson was irrelevant. I mean, he was the opposite of irrelevant last night. He was definitely very relevant in the game. So there was a lot to like about, well, not a lot to like. But there was, like, if you want to spin it and be glass half full about it, I think Patterson, the idea that he's closer to breaking out rather than being further away, I thought he was in a lot more good positions last night. Yeah, but I'm not predicting he's close anymore. Like we've been talking about, he's been close, he's close, he's got games involved and hasn't come yet, you know what I mean? I think it's, I don't know. I hope it comes, you know what I mean? Like, again, I believe in the player long term. Yes. But it's, you gotta start scoring. How many conversations that we have since the All-Star break the body? Hey, he's, he looks close. He looks close. You know, I'm not predicting anymore. Can I explain off coverage on sports that 650 is brought to you by all season's roofing, sun, rain, wind, or snow? All season's roofing has you covered with end to end roofing surfaces, surfaces. For your free quote, visit all seasons roofing.ca. I don't know why I said surfaces instead of services. Anyways, all season's roofing. The best place to be for your roofing services. Stan Rachow, Satyar Shah, you're listening to Canucks Central. (upbeat music) - Hey, it's Jamie Dodd and Thomas Strance. Get your daily dose of Canucks talk with us weekdays from 12 to two on Sportsnet 650. Or catch up on demand through your favorite podcast app. [BLANK_AUDIO]
