[MUSIC] Welcome to In the Booth on SportsNet 650. We are your official home of the Canucks-branded bachelor and Randy Janda with you. And this week's show is here in Edmonton, Alberta. As we get set for games three and four of the Canucks and Oilers in the second round of the Stanley Cup playoffs and Randy, when we flew in, I was expecting to be able to see the city and see the surrounding area. As we came in, there was none of it. It was just smoke. There's a ton of smoke being blown into the area, I believe, from fires in Northern BC right now. I think this is the earliest in the year that I can ever remember having to deal with wildfire smoke. Yeah, and talking to our Uber driver as well. So just this morning is when it started to really come in. So first of all, of course, you hope that it goes away and the fires are contained in BC. But yeah, not the expectation that we had flying into the city, but there's Oilers flags everywhere. As you'd expect, much like Vancouver, there's car flags, there's Canucks flags, there's jerseys. Edmonton is ready for game three. There was that cool little oil tower in the lobby of our hotel that you tweeted out earlier today. By the way, there is also some sort of singing convention going on at our hotel and people that know more about these things may know what we're talking about. But we arrived at the hotel and in the lobby were about 40 women singing very nicely, by the way. Yeah, acapella, like in a chorus, in a group, in a choir. And most of the music I heard them singing was Disney songs. We did hear a Sweet Caroline, which is a Red Sox fan I was fired up for. And, you know, someone in the hotel was telling us that this is some sort of big convention that happens here every year that I was unaware of. But that was an interesting way to arrive in Edmonton with the smoke and with, you know, women singing. You've got a friend in me from Toy Story as we came into the hotel lobby. Can you feel the love tonight was also, you know, being sung as well, which was a very romantic song to walk into. But yeah, nearly Neil would have been proud of that rendition of Sweet Caroline. That was something else. But it's kind of a cool vibe where we were thinking about recording the podcast downstairs originally. And then we thought maybe the music might be a bit of a distraction for the listener. So we're now in batches room here recording rather than having the sweet acapella vocals of, I don't even know where these folks are from. But I'm assuming they're from out of town and I'm assuming from maybe all over Canada. Yeah, who knows? You know, maybe people would rather listen to some of the nice singing that I was talking about. Don't worry. I'll end off the podcast with my baritone voice and my best Barry White impression. How do we do that? Yeah, we go. So with the smoke, a little bit of an underwhelming arrival to Edmonton for us, which is kind of apropos because it was a little bit of an underwhelming finish to game two for the Vancouver Canucks. And let's start there looking back at game two where the Oilers never never led in the hockey game. It was a close hard fought game. Canucks got the lead. They built three different leads. But the story as Rick Talkett put it post game and quite rightly so coming out of game two was Conor McDavid and Leon Dreycidal and their absolute dominance of the Canucks in particular in the third period. Yeah, and not going back to that period. You look at the shot clock. It was 15 to two for the Oilers. But how much of that was that line where you load them up in the first 40 minutes. Did they look dangerous? Absolutely did, but in the third period, they ratcheted it up and the Canucks couldn't handle it. And here's the issue. Them on their own is one thing. Dreycidal and McDavid, we know what type of players they are, but it had a carryover effect for the other lines for the Edmonton Oilers and it gave them momentum. It gave them confidence and it really just made the Vancouver Canucks a little bit tired. That fatigue starts to set in. And what happens when you start to have that fatigue batch? Generally, when you start making mistakes, when your judgment kind of goes out the window a little bit and we've heard that from Rick Talkett. You got to learn how to play tired during the season. That was something we heard a lot from the coach for these reasons where you're eating a lot of pressure, which is not the way the coach likes to defend to begin with. And what happens? Eventually, the damn breaks and that's unfortunately that happened for the Canucks in the third period on that Conor McDavid goal and kind of did carry over into overtime as well. And that was maybe the most frustrated I've seen Rick Talkett. Well, maybe not the most frustrated. He's had some games throughout the regular season where he's been really upset with the performance. You could tell that he's trying not to be too negative in the postgame media veil, but he was not happy with the way the Canucks ended that game. And, you know, yes, it's a tough bounce off Ian Cole's stick and, you know, you could tell that he didn't like that either because when I asked him about it, he said, you know, we always tell our defensemen to get out of the blue paint because bad things always happen there, like deflections and things like that. So Ian Cole certainly didn't play that goal as well as he might have hoped, but he kept talking about holding onto pucks and not just flipping them out. And I think from a Canucks perspective, you can say, yeah, they needed to make more plays. They needed to be more composed. On the other side of the coin, you can give the Oilers credit and the McDavid line in particular for how relentless they were on the forecheck, taking time and space away from the conduct defenders and from their forwards as they tried to exit their zone, which forced them to flip it out, you know, under pressure. And again, we'll see how Vancouver responds in this element of the game, especially after how much talk it harped on it coming out of game two. But that line in particular was really good on the forecheck and it made a big difference in the game in terms of how much sustained zone time they were able to have, how much time they had the puck on their stick. And that's one thing we've heard from the Canucks too, is the best way to beat the Oilers is to have the puck on your stick and maintain possession so that they don't have it. And that certainly didn't happen, especially in the final period of regulation last night. And then, you know, the game ends relatively early in overtime on an unlucky bounce. Having the puck on your stick is something we saw in the second period. The Canucks are actually growing in confidence. That Lindholm line was starting to kind of up their game in the third period. What happens to your point, start flipping the puck out, that does two things. A, you're probably not able to get a change because you're not getting it deep enough where you're able to go to the bench. So you're getting tired yourself and it's also allowing the Oilers to come in with speed, which is you're getting caught flat footed on the blue line. So you're able, they're able to break through, they're able to A, attack you at or B, chip it past you and get deep and have that opportunity on the forecheck. Couple of things there for Vancouver that you have to clean up, but you talked about not being comfortable with the puck on your stick, not, you know, pushing forward. That's a kind of a fight or flight kind of scenario for the Canucks where in that third period, they were in flight mode. They weren't fighting through it. They weren't trying to beat the pressure. They weren't trying to skate through trouble and skate through that pressure. And that's where something that Rick Talkett said, that composure word, we talked about a post game with the boys after the game. But Rick Talkett mentioned that as well, just having that extra second to say, "Hey, don't rush this play. Don't panic under pressure. This is high stress hockey. You're playing against the best players in the world." And there is a carryover effect where the rest of the lines were able to benefit from that momentum, that Leon Drys title and Conor McDavid created. But you have to meet that with your own skill. You have to meet that with your own resolve. And that's something that Canucks in game two didn't have. They had it in game one where you saw them grow in confidence. You saw them have, you know, create those opportunities. And I would say even in game two, Batch, you know, the Nikita Zadorov plays a classic example where you see space in the neutral zone. You take it and you create something from it. So even in game two, there were one or two moments that they were able to take advantage of, but here's the problem. In the third period, when that team in front of you is attacking, they're in attack mode. How do you respond? In that third period, unfortunately, the Canucks didn't have that composure. And then on the game tie and goal, there was a lack of composure too, with Carson Sousi chasing ahead and Tyler Myers diving at the puck and missing. And suddenly it's Conor McDavid on a breakaway and what's Arthur Sheilov's going to do in that situation. So composure is an interesting one. I also thought Rick Talkett referencing Sydney Crosby after the game in his postgame media availability was interesting too. And he talked about how, you know, Crosby is always so cool with the puck on his stick, regardless of the kind of pressure he's facing. And something that he said in that answer that stood out with me is you've got the puck. Like, why are you panicking when you have the puck? You have possession. Sure, you're going to be pressured and they're going to come and try and take it from you or hit you into the boards or strip you the puck or whatever, but you still have possession. So as long as you've got possession, if you can use body position, which Talkett talks about all the time, protect the puck and make a play. You know, that's obviously going to be the most much more preferable option than panicking and throwing the puck away because either it's a bad turnover and they get a scoring chance or a good look as a result. Or you're just flipping it out of the zone. And with the way that line can transition the puck back down your throat, it might as well be the same thing as if you turn it over in zone because they have so much speed and they have so much counter attacking ability. And that's what we saw throughout most of that third period was Canucks would flip a puck out under pressure and that line would skate it right back in their face and that in the end is what allowed the Oilers to come back and win that hockey game. And I'm not trying to take anything away from McDavid and Drycidal because in order to force the other team into those sorts of mistakes, you have to be able to apply that kind of pressure and apply it relentlessly. And I thought those two guys in particular really leveled up late in the game and made the difference for the Canucks, but you know, it's going to be interesting to see how things go now transitioning to Edmonton here where the Oilers will have the last change where they might be able to dictate more of that matchup. We'll see if they keep Drycidal and McDavid together going forward, but the Canucks are going to face some of that pressure throughout the series. And it might not be the same guys that we're facing it in game two. It might be guys further down the lineup if Chris Noblock really wants to chase matchups. So that message from talking about being composed in those high pressure situations is a drum that I imagine he will continue to beat as this series carries forward. This goes for all teams, but you're only as strong as your weakest link, and I'm not calling any specific players a weakest link, but my point is in those moments and your point about coming to Edmonton now, the Oilers having that last change. If there's something that Noblock wants to target, it's going to be something that dictates everybody on the roster has to kind of level up here because now you're hitting a situation where you're going to be on the defensive. You don't have to counteract what they're doing before. In Vancouver, from a line perspective, you're able to dictate the matchups and that goes for the players batch in terms of executing, but this also goes to Rick Talkett. I think there was some, you know, moments in that game where the players certainly could have made better decisions and that Carson Susie played to keep the puck in. He doesn't is one of them, Tyler Myers, you know, diving in to stop Conor McDavid. You've got to get the puck there because if you don't get it, you're done. And that's exactly what happened to Tyler Myers. He couldn't know how much Rick Talkett hates diving in. For sure. And you remember, with Tyler Myers, if you back up there, and it's a very tough spot to be in because Conor McDavid is a player that can blow past you, right? If you're caught flat-footed. But at least you can use your stick in that perspective. At least you can try to catch up with the play and you might be able to make that play. When you dive in like that, it's, you know, go big or go home and it's a panic decision. It's a panic decision that's the last ditch effort and it's a high-risk play when you have a one-goal lead. So the players have to execute, but I will say some of the deployments in game two were an interesting decision as well. Using the Lotto line is something we'll talk about. I know there's some questions that we asked listeners for and there's concerning the Lotto line. I think this is also Rick Talkett understanding maybe there's some decisions he's got to refine as well because in game two, sticking with the Lotto line, when they weren't able to generate, when they weren't able to generate away from the Leon Dry side on Conor McDavid line, is that a lesson you learned to say, maybe this line isn't providing us with the uptick or that, you know, that production or at the very least a threat of production. Do you move away from that? Because I know there's been a lot of talk in Vancouver about the Lotto line going back a few years. The most recent iteration just hasn't produced results. And I don't like deploying the Lotto line in a series like this. And, you know, maybe if you're trailing and you really need a goal late in the game, I can understand it situationally. But when I look back at last night's game, and I know Bick was talking about this with you guys on the post game show, the McDavid line generated everything for the Oilers. And although some of the other lines had territorial advantage for Edmonton or, or, you know, forced the Canucks to play in their own zone a bit, they didn't produce offense. All the offense in that game was from McDavid and Dry Cital and Hyman and the guys on that line. So to me, the Canucks strength that the Oilers don't have at least at the moment if Dry Cital is less than 100% and not going to center his own line. And we'll see if that happens going forward in the series. But the Canucks strength is their depth is the fact that they can roll out Miller on one line, Patterson on another line, Linholm on another line, down the middle. And in my mind, that's their pathway to victory in this series is not putting all your eggs in one basket just like the Oilers are doing. But saying, okay, we're going to have to try and contain McDavid and Dry Cital when they're on the ice. That's a matchup we've got to be aware of in the games where we control last change. We want the Miller line or the Linholm line out there in that situation. But the big missed opportunity from the last game is not, oh, the Canucks top guys didn't get it done when he put them together. The missed opportunity is all the other lines that couldn't generate when McDavid and Dry Cital and Hyman weren't on the ice. And I know they weren't on the ice a lot because they basically played half the game in terms of the way Chris Knoblock deployed them. He played the wheels off those guys. And when they're playing like that, why wouldn't you? But, you know, that's still 30 plus minutes where those guys aren't going to play. And those are the 30 plus minutes every night that the Canucks have an opportunity to win games and potentially win this series. So putting the lot of line together while you might think, oh, you know, top guns against top guns and you try to counteract McDavid, what does everybody always say when they talk about Conor McDavid and Leon Dry Cital? They're going to get their looks. They're going to get their points. You can only contain them so much. So while you want to match up, while you want to try and contain them, you can't do that at the expense of your own potential to produce offense because you still need to score goals preferably or most likely when those guys aren't on the ice in order to have success because they're going to get theirs and they're going to control possession when they're playing the way they did in game two. I guess the question I have is when you go to the lot of line because the stats are not friendly to the lot of line in that game in just over three minutes of ice time, five on five ice time, zero shot attempts and ten shot attempts against. Five high danger chances against zero. If you don't have any shot attempts, it's highly unlikely you're going to get high danger chances as well. So they were not able to create really anything when they're on the ice five on five together. How much of this is actually not having finish or trust in Elias Pettersson's line mates right now because the reason I asked that is if you look at the numbers of what they were able to create in game two, Pettersson's line did okay. They didn't score, which is the name of the game, but territorially they're better. There was actually some progress there, but they're not getting that finished product. So at some point as a coach you're essentially saying, "Hey, that's great. Pettersson's playing a little bit better as well, but in the end I need finish from this line." It's frustrating, but I'll give you an analogy that me and you will get, maybe the younger listeners might not. When you're a kid you're growing up, we all loved water guns, right? Imagine having a super-soaker, one of those big ones with the trigger and your pump in it and it was the best water gun it still might be. Kids still play with super-soaker. I'm sure they might, but you get what I'm saying. It was the neon colors and everything. What happened, and this happened occasionally, when that pump jammed, it wouldn't move. It's still a super-soaker, but guess what, no water is coming out of there. That's what's going on with the Lotto line right now. Looking at it, it looks great. It's flashy. You got all the stars, but the production is simply not there. So, it's a conundrum that Rick Talkett's going to have to figure out, because on one hand you got this line that historically has been able to produce going back a few years. But the alternative right now, if you are not seeing that production from them is, Hoglander, Pettersson, and Mikayev, which is also not producing. So, what do you do and how do you get a Leus Pettersson started here? Because I feel like when you go to the Lotto line, it's not necessarily about JT and Brock. We need to have a Leus Pettersson with somebody and create something. Well, and it looks like we're going to see changes to some degree, because Rick Talkett, when he met with the media on Saturday before the team headed to Edmonton, eluded to the fact that Neil's Hoglander may come out of the lineup. And let's spend some time talking about Hoglander here, and I'm not trying to do this to pick on one player and try and blame him for anything. Ian Cole has had his fair share of tough moments. I'm sure we're going to talk about him as well before the show is over, because there was a hint that Noah Julesen could come into the lineup too. Now, maybe that's due to Tyler Myers and whatever injury he was dealing with in game two. He left the game for a little bit after sort of an awkward fall into the boards and ended up coming back and finishing the game, but you wonder if his status is questionable for game three. That's Julesen in play. It could be because Ian Cole has had a really tough couple of games, although I doubt Talkett would go away from Ian Cole this quickly based on his veteran tenure, his leadership capabilities, and all of that. And the way he played against Nashville, Rick Talkett was going out of his way to compliment him from that series, so that'd be a pretty significant fall from Grace. Exactly, but when Neil's Hoglander, it seems clear that there is a somewhat significant chance that he will come out of the lineup for game three, and there are a variety of things we could get into with Hoglander, but I think the thing that you're talking about is the lack of production from that line, and that is a key part of it because Hoglander, as much as we know he's capable of offense, you know, he had a great offensive season scored a lot, has not generated much in the postseason thus far, but it's also that trust factor that you allude to. And if Elias Patterson's line is going to have to be on the ice at times against Conor McDavid, especially with these games in Edmondson, and I don't know if that's the matchup that Rick Talkett wants, and it may not be the matchup that Chris Knoblock wants to, because if he chases match ups with the McDavid line away from the Miller line, then it means that the Miller line then can chase match ups away from the McDavid line, and that could generate more offense for Vancouver, but that's what I think it comes down to. Two things really that could see Hoglander come out of the lineup is the lack of offensive production from that line, and the lack of trust from Rick Talkett in terms of deploying him. Last time I checked, Niels Hoglander was bottom two on the team in terms of average ice time in the playoffs. I believe only Sam Lafferty has played fewer minutes on the Vancouver Canucks this postseason than Niels Hoglander in terms of average per game, and that speaks to a head coach that even though he has a 20 goal scorer, even though it's on paper or top six line, there's not a lot of trust in the two-way game and there isn't production right now either, so when you get into a situation like that, it's not at all surprising that Niels Hoglander might be candidate number one to come out of the lineup if indeed they're going to make a change. One of the, I wouldn't say criticisms, but one of the concerns or things that Rick Talkett's brought up with Niels Hoglander is when he's playing his game, essentially when he's playing like a bottom six forward, in the top six, he's successful. Sometimes players, especially young players, when they get elevated to a certain line, they start to think of themselves as a top six player, and you get away from what you do well. With Niels Hoglander, we haven't seen the physical nature of his game in the playoffs here. He had one hit in that second game against Edmonton, and I'm not saying he's going to be the second coming at Tom Wilson. Nobody's saying that, but to play his best hockey, you have to notice him on the forecheck. Haven't seen that enough. He needs to have that super past in his game that we see from him at times. Absolutely. The other thing is, you have to make the right decisions when you're playing with skilled players, and we talked about the Canucks not hanging on to the puck. Late in that game, Niels Hoglander, unfortunately, hangs on to the puck too much when in transition, off the rush. The timing when he's playing with skilled players like Elias Patterson is like, you've got to release the puck a little bit quicker sometimes. If you don't, you're going to either kill a transition attack or making that decision of getting pucks deep, of dumping in a puck when there's nobody on the forecheck. What is that? That's a turnover. That's going back the other way. The timing sometimes is still, it feels like the processing speed of one Niels Hoglander. He's kind of overthinking it right now, or he's trying to do too much maybe. So there's a couple of things there, and I think the trust factor is big here. 10 minutes and 20 seconds in game two, which is more than he was averaging before that game. And again, it's an overtime game, so they're going to be factors, although off the top of my head, I don't know how many shifts, if any Niels Hoglander got in the five plus minutes of overtime. He didn't play very much, and Fielde Giuseppe at eight minutes and 51 seconds, Sam Lafferty at 854, but here's the thing about these guys. They are in the bottom six. In those limited minutes, what can you do? PDG had three hits. Lafferty had six. Lafferty hit a crossbar. Even in those limited minutes, there are opportunities there, and you're playing a little bit more to your style in a bottom six role. You're not going to get that much time. They understand it. With Niels Hoglander, there weren't any takeaway moments from that game to say he did this well, or he did that well. When you're in the top six, there's an expectation that you stand out for the good reasons, especially when you're playing next to one of the best players on the team. So I think with Niels Hoglander, we have this during the regular season as well. Sometimes you need a reset. It feels right now. His confidence is lost. You can't really find his identity in the playoffs, and it's a tougher place to play for a young player. You've got to really break through and find that identity in the playoffs, because it's not the same as the regular season. Getting to the middle of the ice is tougher. Working your way through the neutral zone is tougher, but that's something you have to do when you play on the top six. Yeah, and I think your point about timing in terms of holding onto pucks is the important one, because there is a time and a place where you need to hold onto a puck under pressure and make a play, and that's what Rick Talkett's talking about. But I can think of a specific rush, and I can't remember if it was in game one or game two, but Hoglander's bringing the puck to center. Patterson's streaking down the far wing with speed. McKayev's streaking down the near wing with speed. And Hoglander, instead of either making a good pass to a guy picking up speed to the attacking blue line, or dumping the puck in and then allowing a guy to get in and try and beat the icing because he's got speed, holds onto the puck of the red line, makes a east-west move to try and elude pressure and keep the puck and what happens. Patterson, McKayev both have to stop at the attacking blue line, and that's when Neel's Hoglander decides to dump the puck in. And at that point, you said it, you're just conceding possession because now those guys have no chance to get in on the forecheck and recover it before the Oilers have a chance to transition. So it's little things like that. We already know there wasn't trust in his defensive game, and I alluded to the minutes in the playoffs, even in the regular season. I think it was February 10th, Rick Talkett moved Neel's Hoglander up onto Elias Patterson's line. But even February 10th onwards, Neel's Hoglander was bottom three or four forwards on the team in terms of guys that play regular minutes in terms of average ice time. And even though when you see the line rushes, he's a top line forward or a top six forward, he was still playing significantly less than Patterson and at times even McKayev. And that, again, comes back to trust. And if the head coach can't trust a player who's going to play on a line that is starting to trend in the right direction, I think we have to give Elias Patterson his flowers here for the way he's played to start this series. He's got to get Patterson some help, and if Hoglander's not helping, he's got to come out of the lineup or go down the lineup at the very least. And that's the thing I think in terms of getting Patterson that help, there are limited options, especially if you want to play center. One option is you move Lafferty up. He's playing a much more physical game. He's playing with a little bit of speed. I wouldn't say it's consistent, but he's got that. We've seen him in the regular season. He can, when he lowers that shoulder, he can play an aggressive style. He can be physical. The other alternative is, you know, if that happens, Hoglander goes down in the lineup, and that's where he simplifies his game. Playing next to a Blueger and PDG, you hope that he goes back there, kind of reintroduces himself to that role. And then eventually, if you play well, you can say, "All right, you're on the elevator, you're moving up the lineup." That's a perfect scenario. Outside of the lineup, Neal's Hoglander, if you take him out with Silly Podkolsen, trust is going to be an issue there as well. He's a young player. He's physical, but is he the right piece? And then outside of that, Neal's Oman. You've got Lina's Carlson. Don't have that offensive upside, but maybe might be a little bit more trusted. So those are essentially your options. It's a matter of who is the best fit there. I still think keeping Hoglander in the lineup, maybe in a fourth-line role, just to see if you can build that game back up, and you can put him in the second-line role a little bit later on, maybe even in-game, is probably the best choice for Game 3 batch, but we'll see. Rick Tockett isn't playing him very much. And if you feel like you have a better option outside the lineup, you might have to hit it up here in Game 3. This is in the booth on SportsNet 650, your official home of the Canucks-branded bachelor and Randeep Janda with you from Edmonton ahead of Game 3 on Sunday night between the Canucks and the Oilers. On the other side of the break, we'll talk through some of those options. If someone's going to come into the lineup, potentially for Neal's Hoglander, potentially for someone else, who's it going to be? Who could be the best fit? What are the options? We'll discuss those things, and we'll take questions from you, the listeners as well. When we return, they see in the booth on your official home of the Canucks, SportsNet 650. Welcome back to In the Booth on SportsNet 650 with Brendan Batchelor and Randeep Janda. We are your official home of the Canucks playoff hockey, and if you're listening on the radio and you missed any part of the show, it does live as a podcast as well on the Canucks Central podcast feed, so make sure to subscribe. We said we'd take some listener questions here in the second segment, so let's get right to them. The first one comes in from Dan, who says, "How do you intend on killing time in Edmonton before the games? I'm really sorry for asking the tough questions so early on. Take as long as you need to answer, and I think we'll take a little while to answer Dan, and we'll come back to this one at the end of the show and circle back and talk about that." Not only is that a tough question, that might be the toughest question we've encountered in a long time. Edmonton just catching strays here this time. Show to Nikita Zadorov, by the way, with the clip of the week. Yeah, no kidding. Definitely made some headlines there. Here's one from @JungleBets on Twitter, who asks, "Is pod calls in the best option if we, meaning the Canucks, make a change at forward?" And this is what we were alluding to before the break, where there is a chance, at least, that Niels Hoaglander could come out of the lineup going into game three, and Rick Talkett referenced a few guys that could be options. The silly pod calls, it is one of them. Niels Oman's another. Liness Carlson is another. So, I'll let you answer first here, Randy. Is pod calls in the best option, or would you be looking at an Oman or a Carlson, or maybe someone else on the list of black aces to potentially come into the lineup? Yeah, the key factor here for me in the playoffs right now is, and let's look at the Hoaglander example. What's one of the important factors? Trust. And I think the silly pod calls in would run into the same problem. He brings a physical element, he brings some speed, but the last time we saw him in a Canucks uniform on the ice, confidence was a little bit of an issue, again, trust was an issue. I don't know if that's the player I'd bring in. I'd probably bring in, and I know the ceiling is not as high, but from a trust factor, Niels Oman is probably the player you're looking at. So, Sam Lafferty, if he moves up, you're probably looking at Sam Lafferty moving up to the second line spot. Niels Oman playing on the fourth line, alongside Fieldie Giuseppe, and maybe a Niels Hoaglander just to add a little bit more defensive responsibility, depending on how you move these players around. Of course, if Hoaglander's coming out altogether, you'd have to kind of redo the lineup, but I look at Niels Oman being that player to go in if Hoaglander comes out, and you've essentially got Blueger Oman PDG on that fourth line, and Lafferty up on that second line playing on the right-hand side. So, is it a sexy addition, so to speak, from an offensive perspective? No. But you've got trust in that Blueger Oman duo to at least play well defensively, be aggressive on the forecheck, and key factor for me there, Batch, is trust. That's the word that I think every coach in the NHL can play off time, needs in their players defensively. Absolutely. To me, the answer to this question depends on deployment. So, I would say it's either Podkollzen or Oman, if you're going to put them in a fourth line role, and like you're talking about move Sam Lafferty up the lineup, let's say, as an example, or even move Fieldie Giuseppe, you could move Fieldie Giuseppe up onto the Miller line, because you know he's played well there, you could move Pew Shooter to play with Patterson, you know, there are a variety of things you could do, you could move Lynn Holman to the wing with Patterson and put Teddy Blueger back with Joshua and Garland. There are all sorts of options here, but if the role that you're taking coming into the lineup for Hoaglander is a fourth line role, then you're right, trust is the most important thing, and that's where I would look at Neal's Oman, or maybe Vasily Podkollzen, you know, he did get a pretty good run there at the end of the regular season, and you know, although I agree, there is still an issue with confidence in his game to a certain extent, and he didn't produce any offense, I trust him more to make the right play, say for example, on a neutral zone rush, like we were talking about with Hoaglander, then I do with Neal's Hoaglander. And one thing about Podkollzen early on when he was first called up, he was comfortable hanging onto the puck, he was comfortable to make a play attacking empty space in the neutral zone, something that this team needs right now, or at least need it in the third period of that game, so on the back end of his tenure, he stopped doing that a little bit, so which version of Vasily Podkollzen are you going to get if that does happen? The other side of this conversation for me is if you're going to put whoever you bring into the lineup on Patterson's line, so let's say Talkett says, I don't want to mess with any of the other lines, and based on some of the deployment we've seen from D. Giuseppe Blueger and Lafferty on that fourth line, like he had them out in overtime against McDavid, if I'm not mistaken in game two, and we can certainly debate that choice and how it worked out for the Canucks, but he has had some trust, which is the key word of this whole conversation, in that line. So let's assume that he says, I don't want to mix up that line, I don't want to mix up the line home line, I don't want to mix up the Miller line, I just want to take Hoaglander out, and I want to put someone in that can maybe provide a bit more pop with Elias Pedersen. Then I'm looking at Leonice Carlson, and I guess there is a conversation to be had about Jonathan Lecker Mackey as well, although he's got no NHL experience, and although he had a very good season, is very raw, very green, and again, talking about trust, which maybe is less of a factor if you're just looking for offense from someone on that second line, we also talked about the fact that, you know, Talkett probably needs to be able to trust that line a little more, especially if they have to play some harder matchup minutes, so it needs to be someone that he feels comfortable with their two-way game too. And that's where I go to Leonice Carlson, is Carlson played four games in the NHL this year, didn't produce a point, but Talkett, I could remember specifically complimented him on some of his wall battles and body positioning and things like that, that he did that are, you know, not the sexy offensive production kind of things, but they're things that allow a coach to trust a player a little bit more. And then on top of that, he was a point-per-game player in the AHL this year, so, you know, does that mean that he will produce at the NHL level? No, it doesn't, he didn't have any points in his four games that he played for the Canucks this year, but if you're going to play with Pedersen, you know, you're taking a Swede off his line, put a Swede back on his line, a guy that has an opportunity for offensive potential, I could certainly see Rick Talkett considering doing that with a guy like Leonice Carlson. Leonice Carlson is an interesting one because he was the preferred option early on in the season in terms of call-ups. Remember, he was practicing with the team, you mentioned it, he got some games, and one of the areas, two things that Rick Talkett likes about him. A, the size, he's a bigger body, he's got some pro experience, and the second thing is, I remember this specifically, you know, he's got a pocket saying he's a sticky player, in the neutral zone he's a sticky player. How do you shut down, or how do you play against these Edmonton Oilers? You got to control the neutral zone, you got to chip a body. Carlson's good at that, so I understand that logic there, and part of this is also a batch, when you start looking at the other names of the black aces, there's a lot of untested players there. I guess the other guy we haven't brought up yet is Arshteep Baines. And that's what I was getting through. Arshteep Baines is a player that had NHL experience, he's a smart player. But in the more physically demanding games, against Vegas and the LA Kings where he played, those are his two toughest games. You know, those are moments he said, alright, he's a good player, he's a smart player, but he's also somebody that, that physicality of those matchups, he wasn't comfortable at that point. And in a playoff game like this, where you're going to be eating pressure, every moment is scrutinized. And that's not only on Arshteep, to me that's a Vasili pod Coles in question as well, is that the right swap for me? I still think that's a player that's untested, and to throw him in the deep end like this, when his game profiles a little different right now, Carlson is kind of to me like a Niels Omon. You know what you're getting, might not be the highest of ceilings, but the trust factor is there. I think Arshte still has some way to go in that front. Yeah, and correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory of those games that you're alluding to with Vegas and LA was some bad decisions with the puck under pressure. And that is exactly what the Canucks do not need in this series right now. Yeah, the composure factor, right? When you're playing against teams that maybe aren't playoff teams and you have a little bit more time and space, you're able to make a decision. But when there is guys like Gavricov and Nick Hague breathing down your neck or a Braden McNabb who you've seen this hits on YouTube and all of that, that's a threat on the ice. You don't have that time and space and that goes for, you know, a Darnell nurse in this series. Yeah, those are guys that will pressure you and we haven't even mentioned the forward. So, composure is a key work and trust. That's why Carlson and Omon to me, if you're making that swap, the safer, maybe not that exciting move, but in terms of Lena's Carlson, just a trusted line. But here's the issue though, can they give you offense? Can they play that quicker, you know, that straight swap is Lena's Carlson. I don't think Neil's Omon's going to the top six. He'd be going into the fourth line. But Lena's Carlson goes to the top six either. I know some people listening will say, give him a chance. He's got a great shot. He didn't produce any offense in his cameo appearance, shall we say, late in the regular season. Yeah, with Lena's Carlson, he didn't produce anything either. It's just probably the more likely of those options. But, you know, that's where anybody that's saying, hey, Arch the bench is an option. He played primarily in the top six with J.C. Miller and had some opportunities on the power play. But this is a different ballgame. This is a different level in the playoffs and you're going to have less time and space. Before we move on to another question though, we kind of alluded to the possibility of Noah Jolson coming in on the blue line too. And I think this is probably most likely due to a potential injury with Tyler Myers. But Ian Cole has been catching a lot of flack after the puck goes off his stick and into the net on the overtime winner in game two. And he had a really tough game one with some bad decisions with the puck and some poor plays that ended up in the back of his own net. We touched on it briefly, but I don't think Tockett's going to go away from Ian Cole. At the same time, Ian Cole is a veteran guy has to be a whole lot better the rest of this series than he was in the first two games. No doubt in game one was worse because not only were there a couple of plays, the too many men on the ice penalty, of course, was something that he was trying to jump off the ice for. But the play, the second goal of that game by Matthias echolm for the Edmonton Oilers where he just bounces the puck off the boards and that sets up. It's a freebie for the Edmonton Oilers. You were right to drive settled. Right to drive settled who set up echolm. Yeah, I thought in that game, you could also see the ice time. He ended off with just over 13 minutes. This game up until overtime played pretty solid, right? 19 minutes of ice time. He was playing it pretty well, but here's the issue in the blue paint as a defense man. You're going to get in trouble and it felt like he didn't know where Zach Hyman was on the play. That puck, if it had gone through, it's probably going straight through the blue paint to the left corner. It's going straight through. So as a defense man, you're trying to play the puck without knowing where the player is. Hyman didn't look like he was close enough to make that play. So I think that awareness in that moment, and it's that word we're going to bring up again, kind of lacking the composure in that situation and in game one, he's a he's a warrior of a player. He's going to throw hits. He's going to eat a lot of shots. And I've been impressed, especially in the Nashville series, his patience with the puck, taking an extra second to make that pass. Rig talk, it's mentioned that as well. But the first two games of this series, when you're eating a lot of pressure, you got to make sure you make the safe play and batch. There is actually a couple of moments in that game where kind of just through the puck through the middle of the ice in the Canucks defensive zone, they didn't get burned. But in this series, you can sense that Ian Cole is feeling that heat. Now the question is, is Noah Jules in the guy to replace him if you're making that change? Noah hasn't played in some time. It's of course going back to the last round when Tyler Myers had that illness. Game two. Game two. It's, you got to roll with their both physical presence. They eat a lot of shots. They're key penalty killers when they do play. I don't think he's going to go away from Ian Cole just yet. Ian's got to also step up in his game. He's had a couple of rough games here. And the one thing we have to mention too is that Ian Cole is playing his offside right now, which they've had mixed results with him in that role this season. But with the six guys they want in the lineup right now, he's going to have to do that. So that's the only way that I could maybe see talk it going away from him is saying we need a right shot on that right side. Jules in is a right shot. We're just going to make that change. And with the ways that Orov's playing, you can't pull him out, you're not pulling Myers out. I don't think you're pulling Susie out. You're certainly not pulling Haroneker Hughes out. So if there is a change that is not an injury change on the blue line, it will be Ian Cole. But I do not expect that to happen at this point in the series right now anyway. Well, Nashville was a little bit more of a, I think, a controlled series for Vancouver. And that's a game that Cole can thrive in where, you know, you stick to your structure, you're not eating a lot of pressure against Edmonton. They're on you. And as we saw in the third period where, you know, maybe you're chasing a little bit, you're out of your structure, Ian struggling in the first two games. So we'll see. I'm with you. I don't think he takes them out. He's a key part of that penalty kill. But it's until, you know, at some point, if you eradicate those mistakes from your game, that's great. If you don't, then Rick Talkett's going to have to make a decision. All right. We got time for a couple more questions here before we get to the Rose ceremony at the end of the show at Blogtrot on Twitter. writes in and says, do you not wish talk would launch into a Mark Crawford-esque rant on these refs? Quote, trying to take out our star player and we get no call. And I think we got the Rick Talkett version of going at the referee's post game after game two where he said, look, it's a tough job. And then after providing that caveat, he did what I was always, okay, so I used to be, we're going to go way back into batches history. I used to be a shift supervisor at Starbucks in my late teens. Really? And when we were given a relatively low level of management training, because I was a supervisor, I wasn't an actual manager or anything like that. Humbleberg. We were taught about the compliment sandwich, which is, if you got to criticize somebody, compliment them, then provide the criticism, and then compliment them again. So they feel good going into the conversation, and they feel good coming out of it, and you've also given them the critique that you need to. Rick Talkett did the compliment sandwich on the referee's last night. He said, man, it's a tough job. Then he said, I don't like the sleuthoots. I think those are dangerous. You know, I don't want to see those in the game. And then he said, you know, but those guys that wrap the game tonight are veteran officials. I've never had problems with them in the past. I think they do a great job. And it's a tough job. So he did what I was taught to do as like an 18 year old shift supervisor at Starbucks. That's the closest Rick Talkett's going to come to criticizing the officials. I think unless there is an obvious massive error, and I'm, you know, there were some officiating issues in game two. I wouldn't say any of them got to the point of massive error. Should that have been a high stick on you? Certainly should have been a four minute penalty. That could have changed the game. Should Adam Henrique have gotten more for his spear between the legs of Neil's Hoglander? I think so. Derek Ryan. Derek Ryan, excuse me. Yes. Then there was the slew foot from Andrew Kane. So there were some missed calls, but none of them to me reached the level of like complete egregious cost the Canucks the game level. I do wonder if talking has another level to go to with criticizing the officials, but he's managing those relationships right now. And as much as it would probably feel really good to just unload on the refs for what was a tough night for them. I think it's fair to say that's not going to help you get the call in game three or game four or five or six or seven going forward. I think we got to be extremely clear about one thing. What is being said in front of the cameras and us is very different from what Rick was saying on the bench when he was receiving explanations. Or what he'll say to Brad Watson, who's the series supervisor, who by the way was the series supervisor for the Nashville series and talk it went out of his way to compliment Brad Watson for the level of communication that he had with the coaches in that series. So those private conversations we don't know about, but the public ones that happened during the game, Rick talk it wasn't happy. We could see him. He was he was not happy during the game on some of those calls. So those conversations are going on directly. The other thing is, I think the anger comes from, of course, Queen Hughes gets the high stick should have been a four minute penalty. And in a lot of games, that's happened. That's a blown call. You move on. But the fact that there was also a slew foot to have two of those, I can understand the anger and I can understand the anger from blown calls. So from a fan perspective, if you're a player out there saying, come on, if you're going to miss one, we can understand two, you got to do it better. We can have those takes, but Rick talk, it's not going to do that. Rick talk it. Not publicly. Not publicly. There's there's ways you can politic in the NHL. And I thought Chris Knoblock actually did this low key prior to game two where he was asked about the penalties and he was asked about some of the extra work that Canucks were doing. I believe water skiing was a word that was used by our friend Bob Stauffer. But that's a question that's asked and Knoblock in a very cerebral way answers the question, but says, yeah, there's stuff going on. Like, you don't, you put it out there in the media, but you're not criticizing anybody. You're just saying, yeah, that's the way that's being called right now. There are certain ways to highlight it without highlighting. And I think Rick talk it to your point about it, compliment sandwich, which is hilarious because the guy made a living with his knuckle sandwich and being the leader in Gordiohatrix and scoring goals. And now he's making compliment sandwiches. The message is still being sent. It's just that we don't see a lot of it. We don't hear a lot of it. But it is something that is not in his nature. If he gets there at some point, if it is egregious in his mind, I wouldn't be surprised. Coaches at some point lose that, lose that fuse, right? They lose that patience. But it's, I don't think it's in his nature to do that. All right, we're very tight for time here. We have one more question from sports philosopher Vancouver on Twitter asking where we're at with she loves had a tough game one, but in some spots has been great overall. How confident should the fans be in? How confident should the team be? And my answer to this very quickly is very confident. I'd be really surprised if they go away from him. After game one, I was sort of, you know, on the fence about if he has a tough game too, then maybe you'd see dismissing game three. I don't think she loves did anything to deserve coming out of the crease. 27 saves and a couple of high degree of difficulties. There's double save on McDavid and dry settle on the power play. Unfortunately, the Oilers score right after that. No fault of his. But he looked composed even late in that third period where he's making saves in quick succession. He's battling as long as Thatcher Gemko is not, you know, healthy, he's not ready to go. Archer she loves if he plays like that, I'm comfortable. I think the leash got a little bit longer actually after game two. Maybe it had been shortened after game one. I feel like that was a start that gives the coach confidence to say, all right, he's playing a big game and I'm not going to move away from him right now. And this is a perfect conversation to have as we transition into the Rose ceremony because I'm giving my rose to her because she loves this week. I think he's been put in a very tough spot here and did not have a great game one. They found a way to win anyway. And his response game in game two in response to this question gives me more confidence in the young man than I had before because he's had a bit of a wobble. But he's come out of it and he's shown that he can refocus and get back to the kind of hockey that he needs to play. So Archer she loves gets my rose this week, Randy. I'm given my rose and this might be a little dated, but I still think it's relevant. Eliza Lindholm, that game one performance, a goal assist, 78% in the face off circle, playing a physical brand hockey, which he continued in game two had another four hits on top of the five hits he had in game one. That's the player I'm going to my rose to because I think we're starting to see another level to his game, something we never even saw in Calgary. He's bringing a the skill, but there's a physical element as well. And that does it for our time on in the booth this week. Oh, we completely forgot. We have to talk about what we're going to do in our downtime in Edmondson. I think we're going to Boston pizza tonight, right? That or another chain that was very, very famous. Maybe Joey's. Remember? Sure. Yeah, the best place to eat in Edmonton, right? That's what we've been told. That's that's the spot, but we're going to figure out some things for next week on the podcast. We'll let you know what we ended up doing. Maybe follow us on social media, but if you have any ideas, please send them our way because I have no idea what I'm going to do in the city. And that does it for us on in the booth. Game three Sunday night, the Canucks and the Oilers, and we'll have it for you right here on Sportsnet 650.
