For a Coach, Mason Raymond and Mikael Samuelsson Require Completely Different Approaches

Ryan Kesler's wingers are polar opposites. It's like a sitcom on ice.

Early in Sunday's game versus the Calgary Flames, Canucks' winger Mikael Samuelsson turned the puck over in his own zone, allowing Flames' center Michael Backlund to walk in, uncontested, and score the game's first goal. It was painful. For this ill-timed and completely avoidable mistake, Samuelsson was summarily benched, and wouldn't return from fourth-line exile until much, much later in the game.

It was a kneejerk benching, albeit deserved, but it warranted an interesting observation from a few: Mason Raymond, Samuelsson's linemate, has a tendency to make similar mistakes, yet he's rarely benched in such a reactive fashion. Granted, Samuelsson's error was pretty terrible, and most certainly a valid reason to bench a guy, but the observation remains valid. Alain Vigneault does appear quicker to bench Mikael Samuelsson than Mason Raymond. Why?

Because they're very different, and one has an abundance of the selfsame confidence the other lacks.

Mason Raymond is a young prospect. He's still learning and developing both his skillset and his mental fortitude. He's open to coaching, introspective to a fault, and still emotionally shakeable. And, like a lot of young players, he has a tendency to lose confidence when things aren't going his way. In many cases, the worst thing for him is to get stapled to the benched, as he gets down on himself, and winds up holding his stick too tight and trying to overcompensate. If he gets himself stuck in a rut, it's better to let him play through his issues than to feed them. We've seen this all year. He's had a spotty season, but Alain Vigneault has exercised a lot of patience with Raymond, knowing that, often, a benching would merely exacerbate his struggles.

Mikael Samuelsson, on the other hand, is an aged veteran. He's not as teachable, and he's not nearly as emotional. He's an even-keeled player, and he's got the mental fortitude to take a benching without taking a hit to his confidence. He's also downright robotic at times, but he can drift too far down that path, often forgetting to invest emotion into his play. Thankfully, Samuelsson's got temper issues. What to do if you catch him drifting to sleep? Offend him. His reaction to a personal slight is to thumb his nose at the perpetrator, then go out to prove him wrong.

Here's Mikael Samuelsson, from an article by Brad Zeimer, on using his snub from the Swedish olympic team last year as motivation:

"It's not only a coincidence," Samuelsson said Tuesday, acknowledging for the first time that he has been motivated by the Swedish snub. "I was pissed and I'm still like, not upset, but I said what I think and I still think that. Obviously, I had something to prove, I guess. . . I want to play good hockey and I want to prove to guys that I can."

And here he is, after a benching earlier this month, from an article again by Brad Zeimer, (who apparently works nights as Samuelsson's psychologist):

"I don't want to say anything, but I got pissed off, for sure," said Samuelsson, who was dropped down to skate with Maxim Lapierre and Tanner Glass, while Jeff Tambellini was moved up to skate with Mason Raymond and Ryan Kesler on Vancouver's second line.

You'd think Samuelsson was quoting himself.

In that same article, Alain Vigneault admits that the decision to demote Samuelsson came after the Swedish forward took a couple shifts off. Effectively, Sammy was benched to wake him up, a strategy that simply wouldn't work for Mason Raymond, whose confidence would be damaged by the same tactic.

"It was a simple decision of reading your team," Vigneault explained. But it's not so simple. Ittakes a watchful eye and an attention to detail to properly decipher and manage the wide array of personalities in any dressing room, and Vigneault has these guys figured out. As a result, when benched, Mason Raymond powers down, but Mikael Samuelsson gets fired up.

I Watched This Game: Canucks at Wild, February 15, 2010

Canucks 4 - 1 Wild

With tonight's victory over the Minnesota Wild, the Canucks successfully staved off their first

two-game regulation losing streak since November, when they went three straight games without collecting a point against Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Phoenix, in that order. Again: that was in November. This stat, incredible as it is, never seemed more in jeopardy than heading into tonight's game. And, unlike Watson the computer, it had every right to be in jeopardy: the six-man defensive unit iced by the Canucks tonight was about as green as a Lamborghini Murcielago; the team was playing in a very unfriendly building; the Canucks were on the second night of a back-to-back. Yet, somehow, they won. Breaking news: this team is resilient. Also breaking: I watched this game:

• Outshot, outhit, and outplayed for the second night in a row, the Canucks submitted a pretty paltry effort, even going so far as to play the entire third period without putting a shot on Nicklas Backstrom. They had 14 shots total. Like the movie Crash, they didn't deserve to win anything, but somehow, they did. Unlike the movie Crash, however, the Canucks did it with a pretty thin cast.

• If you're wondering how, exactly, the Canucks eked this one out, look no further than Cory Schneider, the Canucks' backup netminder, who stopped 28 of 29 shots on the night to keep the Canucks in it. Having watched Schneider for awhile now, I feel fairly confident in saying that he's going to be a very good goaltender for a long time. He does two things incredibly well: the first is getting in position to make the save. The Wild tried all night to get him moving side to side, but Schneider always seemed to be in the right position to take the puck squarely on the chest. The second thing he does well is sweep the puck away with his goal stick. I don't remember the last time a Canuck goaltender was as active clearing pucks out of his crease. Schneider is turning himself into a very hot commodity. I should say that it seems a downright shame to be salivating simply at Schneider's trade value (the NHL equivalent of Grampa Simpson's classic "I can't wait to eat that monkey" quote), but that's where this is headed.

• The only downside to any Canuck victory against Minnesota is the inevitable "Canucks Tame Wild" headline. We get it. It's been done. You can do better, everyone. May I recommend: "Canucks Poach Wild", "Canucks Stuff and Skin Wild", "Canucks Put Wild in Small Cage and Allow Flash Photography" or, if the Canucks are at home, "Canucks Abuse Wild Domestically."

• Any hope of easing Sami Salo back into the lineup went out the window when the rest of his defensive cohorts fell down that mine shaft, but he's proved capable of the big minutes almost right away, and begun producing immediately. Salo played over twenty minutes tonight, picking up an assist for the second straight game when his powerplay point blast was tipped by Manny Malhotra. I like that the Canucks are playing Salo on the second unit of the powerplay, and resisting the urge to float him to the top spot in Alex Edler's absence. Salo has immediately improved the B unit with his threatening shot, the unit scoring in two of the three games since he's been back. Interestingly, both times, the goal was the first of the game and the Canucks went on the win.

• Do people in Minnesota wear anything other than flannel and fleece? HD TV indicates that they do not.

• Ryan Kesler's empty-net goal was the Canucks' only shot of the period, and a source of a triple upstaging. 1) The Canucks upstaged the Wild by scoring the empty-netter. 2) Alex Burrows missed the open net for a goal that would have extended his league-leading point streak, then Kesler upstaged him from further away. 3) John "King Homer" Garrett made a passionate case for Burrows receiving a point, claiming he may have touched the puck when it came off the boards. It was not to be. However, Christian Ehrhoff then upstaged John Garrett by making a passionate case for himself: This, from a Michael Russo tweet: "Hilarious, but Christian Ehrhoff is begging for assist on empty-netter. Hit his shin pad. The off-ice officials having passionate debate." Ehrhoff got that assist. Everyone was upstaged tonight.

• The reunited third line of Manny Malhotra, Raffi Torres, and Jannik Hansen combined for the Canucks' second goal, and it was great to see that line create offense for the second night in a row. This has been our most successful third line trio, and I'm of the mind that you keep it together now, no matter what. Let them work through their problems as a unit, like Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz in What Happens in Vegas. It will be a lot easier when Malhotra has games like tonight. Manny finished the night with a goal, an assist, and a +50% faceoff percentage.

• Say you're Alain Vigneault: what do you do when your team is exhausted and your defense corps is decimated? You hand the keys to your two Selke-calibre centers and you instruct them to trap the Hell out of the mother. Manny Malhotra and Ryan Kesler both took 28 shifts, game-high among forwards, as well as taking twenty faceoffs apiece. For contrast, Henrik Sedin took only eleven. In fact, Vigneault played the Sedins sparingly, only skating Daniel Sedin for 15:55. Kesler and Malhotra did what Selke-calibre centers do, winning faceoffs, making the smart, defensive play (which, in this case, was chipping the puck out of the zone), and pitching in a goal and an assist each. Suffice it to say, Vigneault's decision to ride these guys worked. I tell you all of this so that, if anybody tells you the Wild play a boring system, you can point out that it was the Canucks, in fact, who turned this one into a snoozefest. The Wild play a fairly uptempo system these days.

• Apart from one ugly giveaway, I hardly noticed Yann Sauve at all. Good.

• Martin Havlat somehow managed to finish the game minus-3. This is especially cathartic when you recall the defensive acumen he appeared to have in the Canucks last visit to Minnesota. Q: Martin Havlat is defensively sound. A: False.

• When did Cal Clutterbuck become amazing? The NHL's next great agitator did it all for the Wild tonight, scoring their only goal and narrowly missing on a number of other great chances, and getting away with a couple cheapies by high-sticking Christian Ehrhoff and butt-ending Henrik Sedin. Guy's a total jerk, but wow, is he good. And what a name. If I didn't so wish a pox on him, I'd think he was pretty fantastic.

• Christian Ehrhoff had four blocked shots tonight. It's gone completely unnoticed, but Ehrhoff has become a major shot-blocker in a very short time. Last year, in 80 games played, Ehrhoff had 82 blocked shots. This year, he's tied with Kevin Bieksa for the team lead at 81. He's done this in only 55 games played. Yes sir, Ehrhoff is singlehandedly taking this team to Blockoland.

• And finally: Mikael Samuelsson has improved on a lot of things since the All-Star break, but if I can highlight one, it's been his ability to find space to get his shot off. Watch him drift into the open area on the Canucks' third goal. Not since Fast & The Furious: Tokyo Drift have I seen drifting of this magnitude.

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs Flames, February 12, 2011

Canucks 4 - 2 Flames

There was a surprising amount of hand-wringing following Wednesday night's loss to the Anaheim Ducks, especially considering the Canucks hadn't dropped two consecutive games in regulation since November. Suffice it to say, there was little to worry about (unless you're Brad Zeimer, the Freddy Kreuger of Vancouver hockey reporting, in which case the possibility that people will realize there's nothing to worry about threatens your very source of power). Bearing in mind recent trends (such as zero pointless streaks in 2011), it was highly likely that we would see a bounce-back of flubberesque proportions. Unsurprisingly, that's exactly what we got. The Canucks gave themselves a pre-game Flubber rubdown and bounced back harder, even, than the laws of physics allow, capping off another fantastic Hockey Day in Canada with a win over the Calgary Flames. I watched this game:

• It was a tight game, and I need to state, for the record, that I'm thrilled by this. I love that the Flames are back to playing good hockey. While I relish watching them lose, it's not nearly as much fun when it's a foregone conclusion. The closeness of the last two contests has increased the entertainment level exponentially.

• The Sedins and Kesler combined for one paltry point last night--a Daniel Sedin assist, because he's still out for blood--but Alex Burrows and Mikael Samuelsson had two goals apiece. These guys are on fire right now, and it can only bode well for the Canucks if they jump from three scoring threats to five. Samuelsson turned the entire tide of the game with two great shots, including the game-winning goal. And, if you think the Sedins and Kesler weren't factors, consider that both his two goals don't happen without perfect screens by Kesler and Daniel Sedin, respectively.

• Samuelsson has really picked up his play, most notably getting his lethal wrist shot back, but it should also be noted that he's now getting first-unit powerplay time and he's back playing on Ryan Kesler's wing. Those are plum offensive minutes, and they factor into his uptick in scoring. Consider this effect the next time you bemoan the trade of Michael Grabner.

• Good eye by Craig Simpson on Samuelsson's even-strength goal (above). It was a set play. After winning the draw cleanly to Bieksa, Kesler heads to the net while Mason Raymond inches up the wall towards the blue line. Meanwhile, Samuelsson parks himself in an open area, high above the right faceoff dot. After Bieksa and Raymond open up a passing lane, Raymond feeds him for a quick snapshot. Both the shot and Kesler's screen in front are perfectly placed, and Kiprusoff has no chance. Now, how do you know it's a set play? Because nobody ever goes there. It's like the back corner of the Costco parking lot. You know that anybody who parks there is up to something.

• Mason Raymond is often infuriating, but he's also got 9 points in his last 8 games. I hate the way he circles the zone (a move I heard one guy call the MayRay-Go-Round), but it's hard to fault a guy that can be counted on to keep the puck 200 feet from his own net, even if he rarely takes it to the other team's. Plus, he had two assists. His goal-mouth pass to Alex Burrows for the opening goal looked accidental, as Raymond appeared to lose the puck while trying to shoot it. However, he went to the net and got a fortuitous bounce, and that's a common string of events. Furthermore, Raymond nearly had another assist when he beat his defender with a wicked head juke before centering the puck for Kesler, who couldn't bury it. Heck, the way Samuelsson and Kesler are going, if Raymond can continue to buy space and get them the puck a little more often, he'll be fine.

• A while back, Justin Bourne wrote an article on the ways players slow down the game. One of them was to have wingers kill time getting waved out of the faceoff circle on purpose. We saw another use for this tactic last night, as Niklas Hagman got himself intentionally tossed in order to give his linemates a bit more rest after an icing call. It was amusing to watch Henrik Sedin just stand there, waiting for Hagman to get kicked out, as if to say, go ahead, idiot.

• Manny Malhotra had a two-point last night, picking up assists on both of Alex Burrows' goals. In both cases, all he did was win a faceoff. He won 13 of 16 faceoffs last night. One faceoff win led to the vital opening goal; one led to the empty-net goal that sealed the win. As Skeeter said last week, Malhotra is an enabler, and his remarkable faceoff prowess bookended this victory. Stuff like this happens more often than you realize; he just doesn't always end up on the scoresheet for it.
  

• Jannik Hansen had a game-high six hits, and continues to be the best forechecker and pokechecker the Canucks have. He's a pokechecking monster (a pokeymon, if you will). It's like when your parents first joined Facebook: he pokes everything. He's also a huge part of the Canucks' penalty-kill, which killed off all three penalties the team took and now has a streak of 40 kills, more than enough for Halo 2's Overkill Medal. Like M.O.D.O.K., one of the greatest comic book villains of all time, The Canucks' penalty-kill is a mental organism designed only for killing. Jannik Hansen is a huge part of this.

• Speaking of the penalty-kill, I liked Alex Burrows' heads-up play when Andrew Alberts broke his stick. First, Burrows gives Andy Alby his stick, then stickless, he skates right up to Jarome Iginla and nudges him away from everything. It takes them both out of the play, turning an effective 5-on-3 with Jarome Iginla on it to a 4-on-3 without him. Clever.

• Kevin Bieksa was, again, the rock of the Canucks' defense, and he played some delicious defense on Jarome Iginla. Not since Brach's Rocks have I seen such a deliciousness from a rock. Bieksa took his lumps, too. In one instance, Jarome Iginla took him out with a Mario 64-style butt drop. Bieksa had a team-high 25:24 of ice time, which is impressively low considering the injuries on the back end. For contrast: Jay Bouwmeester had over twenty-six minutes of ice time, and the Flames' defense is healthy.

• The Canucks were able to keep Bieksa's minutes down somewhat because they got some great play out of their bottom-three guys, especially from Aaron Rome. He picked up an assist, finished the game a plus-2, and dished out three hits, including one Ballard-esque hipcheck along the boards. It's a little easier to understand Vigneault's man-crush on Rome when he plays like that, but here's something I'll never fully understand: the philosophy of Martin Heidegger.

• And finally: Sami Salo had a nice, quiet first game back. Give Rick Bowness and the rest of the coaching staff credit for resisting the urge to give him a (Byfuglienian) buttload of minutes. He looked a little shaky at times, including a seriously foolish interference penalty in the third, but that's okay. He's rocking a four-game health streak now.

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs Senators, February 07, 2011

Canucks 4 - 2 Senators

You'd have thought, from the tone of the media coverage leading up to this game, that Ottawa was coming in with a bag over their collective heads, while the Canucks had been spotted a guillotine, a French audience, and a death warrant personally signed by Maximilien Robespierre. From the outset, this one looked like a routine execution, the league's best team up against, arguably, the league's worst team. Of course, that's not how it went. Rather than crush the Senators like the Crushinator might have crushed them, the Canucks jumped out to an early lead, indicating a crushing, then nearly lost it with some sloppy play in the second. As a result, this one was a lot closer than anybody had expected, myself included. My official prediction was a Canuck victory by the score of 50 million billion to 1. I wound up being off by one goal. I watched this game:

• The big story was the play of the Canucks' second line of Raymond, Kesler, and Samuelsson, which appears to be coming to life like the denizens of Stephen King's Pet Sematery. They led the way last night, with 3 goals and 8 points between them. Kesler played the way he usually played, capable of giving straight men pause, and Raymond and Samuelsson finally looked like suitable linemates, using their respective speed and shootiness to great effect. The game-winning goal (above) was an excellent display of their reignited chemistry. Kesler fought the puck through the neutral zone before Raymond gained some room in the offensive zone with his speed. MayRay then fed it back to Kesler, who found Samuelsson in front. It was very cute, like Animaniac sister Dot.
  

• Also worth mentioning is that Kesler made that pass with Jannik Hansen's stick, given to him after his own lumber snapped in the neutral zone. I wondered what Hansen was thinking while Kesler was using it to dazzle. I suspect the following: 1) Why doesn't it do that when I'm holding it? and 2) Maybe now they'll finally let me join their study group.

• Not featured in this clip of the Kesler goal is the post he hit seconds prior. His shot really is something else. Not literally, of course--it remains a shot. Kesler has become a remarkable player. I'm downright salivating at the thought of what he could fetch us in a trade. I'm thinking a top-line, two-way, power forward center and a late draft pick.

• On the heels of being named one of the NHL's three stars for the week, Mikael Samuelsson potted another two goals. His empty-netter to seal the win was a reassertion that yes, he will shoot from anywhere (joke credit: @MFitz24). Thanks for reminding us, buddy, but next time, gain the red line. Samuelsson is like that member of the sniper team that picks off the bank robber right at the moment the cop on the inside is beginning to get through to the guy, and the audience is beginning to sympathize with him. Then bam! He's dead. Not in Mikael's bank!
  

• If you're not sure whether or not you're the squeamish sort, have a look at Keith Ballard's knee. Are you vomiting? You're squeamish. I've eaten licorice that wouldn't bend like that. Anyway, Ballard left the game with an undisclosed injury (early bet: knee) early in the first. The good news: this hardly disrupted Alain Vigneault's perma-gameplan of giving all Ballard's minutes to Aaron Rome.

• Rome then exacerbated the Canucks' lack of playable defencemen when he took 1140 seconds in penalties for fighting with Chris Neil, and I have to give a ton of credit to Neil on this one. When the Senators went down by two, Neil tried to start something with Rome, and Rome smartly declined. But here's the thing: the Canucks have been playing with the lead so much this season, they almost always decline, and Neil was the first one to force the issue. The first chance he got, he took a run at Henrik Sedin. For those complaining it was in any way dirty (I'm looking at you, Garry "I only own paisley ties" Valk), it looked nearly identical to every Raffi Torres hit. It was fine. And, it necessitated a response, which was the point. Then, Neil smartly looked off Daniel Sedin, who was first on the scene for some reason (and took a Burrows-esque stab at Neil's genitals) before pummeling Aaron Rome. That is how you get what you want. The fact that it put the Canucks down to 4 defenseman for much of the entire second period (during which Ottawa scored twice) was a bonus. You may hate Chris Neil, but his was an absolutely perfect piece of agitation.

• It's a small beef, but let's talk about Aaron Rome's delay of game penalty: really? Rome was lying on his belly when he swept the puck away. Can he really be blamed for the fact that it took off like a hornuss? I say no. If the Bible's creation story has taught us anything, it's that, once on its belly, a creature goes from treacherous to harmless pretty quickly. How can the referees not read this situation? In the third period, Roberto Luongo briefly lost his stick. Had it met the puck in the corner, would he have received a delay of game penalty too? The order to call this penalty by the letter of the law has only made the referees look like fools. In a parallel universe, they're the guys ticketing motorists for turning right at a red light.

• Andrew Alberts probably wasn't expecting to play 17:10 (that's Aaron Rome icetime) last night, but he was pretty great in his first game back in the lineup. Alberts used his body to great effect (like Willa Ford), finishing with a game-high seven hits, two blocked shots, and a plus-2.

• When Alex Burrows is playing with confidence, he becomes more than a Sedin linemate--he's his own weapon. On his goal, he looks off Daniel Sedin to take the puck to the net himself. The power move completely surprises Chris Phillips, who cuts behind the goal, thinking he's going to shrewdly take the puck away. Instead, Burrows finds himself alone in front, and shows a great bit of patience to put it past Elliott. There was an article in the Province only yesterday about Burrows working with Glenn Carnegie to take that extra second with the puck after missing four open chances versus Chicago. The extra work appears to have paid off instantly.

• How about that 3-on-0 rush the Senators got? Granted, it doesn't happen if the puck doesn't jump over Daniel Sedin's stick, but the rest of the team picked a poor time to have a tea party at the bench. I was surprised Luongo was even in the net.

• Dan "Community Man" Hamhuis was the big-minute guy, logging over 30 minutes in the absence of Ballard and Rome. He's such a good guy he didn't mind the extra work. He had plenty of energy left over, too. During the intermission, he freed Tibet.

• I always wonder about the player that serves the bench minors. Is he aware he's in there because he's the least important? Coach says I'm the best at breakaways, that's why I'm in here.
  

• And finally, you had to feel bad for the snake-bitten Senators, who hit three posts in about a two-minute span when a goal would have tied the game. Not since the cast of Canada's Worst Driver has a group hit so many consecutive posts.
  

I Watched This Game: Canucks at Stars, February 1, 2011

Canucks 4 - 1 Stars

It might be safe to say the Canucks are better than the Stars. It stands to reason. The Canucks have beaten the Stars in every single one of their three meetings this year (QED, bitches). In fact, Vancouver has outscored Dallas 15-3 in these contests (4-1, 7-1, and 4-1). From a Canucks' fan perspective, there's little to dislike. Really, the only thing about which you could gripe would be the team's inability to shut these guys out, and you know what? I'm gonna gripe about it. It's unacceptable, really. I'm downright sick of these bogus 59-minute efforts. Yet again, the crappy Canucks gave up a single craptastic goal to the craptacular Stars. Ridiculous. Anyway, I watched this game:

• The Stars were clearly motivated to seek some measure of revenge tonight, especially after coming apart in the two previous losses. For the first time in three games, they kept their heads, and tried, instead, to punish the Canucks with tough physical play. They sort of succeeded, too, registering 48 hits to the Canucks' 18, led by captain Brendan Morrow, with eight. That's a Michael Jackson to Jermaine Jackson ratio of hits. Thankfully, all the Canucks skated away without injury, save Aaron Volpatti, who left the game with bruised rib cartilage.

• The Sedins have taken a beating over their careers, and considering how much time they spend with their back to defenders, ripe to receive unlimited crosschecks, you'd think their spine was made of silly putty by now. Instead, they've simply gotten quite good at absorbing the blow. I noticed one play where Daniel Sedin actually backed into the crosscheck, and the perfect timing of it caught his defender off guard and caused him to lose his footing. It was sort of brilliant.

• With the massive hit advantage, the shots completely even and the scoring chances relatively even, you'd think the Stars would have fared better. But there's still special teams, where the Canucks have been good all season, and downright spectacular against Dallas. As Gord McIntyre points out, they're 8-for-15 in three games against the Stars this year. "I don't know why," said Henrik Sedin, when asked about this, "But we own a lot of teams." I believe he meant to say pwn.

• The great thing about the Canuck powerplay is that it can beat you a few different ways. They have a number of set down-low plays, plus the on-the-fly wizardry of the Sedins, but lately they've been getting it done with shots from the point. Mikael Samuelsson's goal came on a beautiful wrist shot from that weird spot on the ice just above the faceoff dot where it's against the rules for the goalie to try to save it if it's a power play. Christian Ehrhoff's was your basic blistering slapper.

• Speaking of Ehrhoff, I'm going to be honest: If Samuelsson has to replace one of the point men on the power play, I much prefer he steps in for Alex Edler. Edler's a better passer than Ehrhoff, but he's not nearly as mobile. Edler's typically the static defenseman on the five-man unit, and that's a much easier vacancy to fill than Ehrhoff's specialized roamer role. Recall how the Canucks' power play suffered when Ehrhoff was out with the ear injury. With Edler out, they didn't miss a beat.

• Speaking of defencemen, let's talk about Dan "Community Man" Hamhuis. He blocked a whopping seven shots tonight, and still found time to block two more in a charity basketball game for at-risk youth. He played a game-high 24:38, and, as usual, you hardly noticed him.

• Am I the only one who's completely blown away by Lee Sweatt and Chris Tanev? Sweatt showed fabulous improvement in his second NHL game, playing physically and looking stronger on the puck than the game before the break. He threw three hits and blocked two shots in 14:53 of ice time. Chris Tanev, meanwhile, looked incredible in his 17:04 of playing time. I was especially impressed with one play where he went into the corner, drew two forecheckers, then made a calm, crisp outlet pass before absorbing the hit. His patience is remarkable. People were making a big deal about Cody Hodgson being the first Mike Gillis draft pick to make the NHL, but let's not downplay the GM's ability to find NHL quality talent elsewhere. Sweatt's a European signing, and Tanev was a free agent out of college. Considering any team could have signed these guys, Gillis deserves credit for the fact that they're on the Canucks right now.

• Speaking of Cody Hodgson, it was nice to see him come out of this game without having to make an appointment with a medical specialist of some sort. It was a pretty quiet first night on the stat sheet for Cody, but if you want to raise an eyebrow, consider that he was 2-for-9 in the faceoff circle. That's not good, but the real story here is the fact that he took so many. Alex Bolduc was getting two a game on a good night. Is tonight the most faceoffs a Canucks' 4th-line center has taken in one game this season? I think it might be. Anyhow, apart from this, I thought Hodgson was only all right. At times, he looked slow, but he looked smart, and he looked skilled. He also looked a bit like Charlie Conway, captain of the Mighty Ducks. He should get right out in front of things and tell Alain Vigneault to stay the Hell away from his mom.

• Before you get on Cody for the faceoffs, by the way, all the Canucks were terrible tonight in this regard. Their best guy was Henrik Sedin, who went 8-for-17. The team went 36% on draws. All-Star hangover? Kesler and Henrik still have to readjust to the other guy caring who wins the faceoff.

• You've got to feel for Dallas a little on the shorthanded goal (above). After cutting the lead in half, Loui Eriksson gets a pass in a good area and looks poised for another great shot. Instead, the puck jumps, sending the Canucks the other way on a two-on-one. Pay special attention to Jannik Hansen's fake, which freezes Stephane Robidas and allows Hansen to space out the rush. Robidas knows that Kesler is streaking down his blind side, so when Hansen suggest an early pass, you know Robidas is worried that Kesler's about to blow by him. He backs up a little. Instead, Hansen keeps it, now with room to go wide, and the eventual saucer pass to Kesler is a beauty. This goal was a huge backbreaker, although not as huge a backbreaker as The Big Show's Cobra Clutch Backbreaker.

• Cory Schneider was good, but this is no longer a new and interesting story. He's always good against the Stars. Stars of any kind, actually. Even Space Jam's MonStars would be no match for Cory Schneider. He should team up with Ben Affleck to form an intergalactic crime-fighting duo: Moonraper and Starcrusher.

• Brilliant observation from Daniel's wife, Rachael: when the announcer says "no score," he is incorrect. The score is 0-0. Instance where the phrase might be acceptable: when the press box runs out of Skor.

• And finally, how weird was it to have such a pitiful attendance? Granted, this had everything to do with a Dallas snowstorm that made it difficult to get to the arena, but still. At times, it gave the game an eerie sound, as the crowd noise was chillingly muted. I'm not sure who had a harder time with it: broadcast guys, who sounded nonplussed by the quiet, the production staff, who couldn't seem to stay away from depressing crowd shots, or the events staff, who clearly printed more "Crush the Canucks!" posters than they needed. They had so many, even, that they were giving them to Canucks fans. One little girl had folded over the "Crush the" portion and was proudly waving a sign that said "Canucks!" That girl is a genius.

Shirokov's Playing, So Who Sits?

Yes, this picture is from the future. Don't ask how we got it.

Earlier today, news broke that the Canucks had recalled Manitoba's leading scorer Sergei Shirokov, likely in response to my goading. Shirokov becomes the thirteenth forward on the Canucks' active roster, a spot that opened up when Alex Bolduc went down with another shoulder injury. Despite joining a team with twelve healthy forwards, however, Shirokov will immediately draw into the lineup in Colorado.

This is wisdom for two reasons: first, the Canucks are having a wee bit of trouble scoring goals lately. Vancouver is suffering through a perfect storm of scoring slumps right now, as half the forward corps seems suddenly incapable of bringing offense. Fans in Minnesota and New York would be forgiven for thinking Jonathan Roy is more likely to beat a goaltender than this team's forwards. Second, Shirokov is in the midst of a 12-game point streak. He's hot now. You don't call a guy like that up just to sit him; good on the Canucks for rewarding his strong play with an immediate spot in the lineup.

But who's sitting if Shirokov isn't? Gord McIntyre speculates that it might be Jeff Tambellini, and while it may well be, it's not that cut and dry. There are five guys who might find themselves sitting next to Derek Jory tomorrow night. After the jump, PITB examines who they are and why they might be in line for a benching.

JEFF TAMBELLINI

Why he might sit: He can't seem to find his Magic Shooty Spot. After potting 4 in 5 games, the tiny winger has gone 10 without a point, and if we wanted an Italian leprechaun that never scores, we would have signed Paul Giamatti.

Why he might not: Alain Vigneault likes Tamby's defensive play, and might see fit to start him as the 4th-line center. Vigneault has gone on record saying Tambellini's doing everything but scoring which, while true, is a dangerous ice of rhetoric. Coincidentally, Brian Burke announced today the Toronto Maple Leafs are doing everything but winning.

AARON VOLPATTI

Why he might sit: Apart from a well-timed fight in Minnesota that briefly stalled Minnesota's strangehold on the momentum, Volpatti rarely stands out.

Why he might not: It's hard to scratch a guy when you forget he's even on the roster.

RAFFI TORRES

Why he might sit: Shirokov likes to hit too, so Torres's greatest asset might not be as missed as you'd think. Furthermore, Torres has gone 9 games without a goal, and worse, he's been suspect without the puck. In Minnesota, rather than check his man, Torres made like a kid in his a Christmas pageant by completing losing his focus, facing the wrong way, picking his nose, then waving at his dad.

Why he might not: I can't be the only one who lives by the don't piss off the guy with the crazy eyes and the tattoos code. Plus, this is the third time this season he's had a 9-game goalless streak, so he's totally due.

MASON RAYMOND

Why he might sit: After scoring in his first game back since missing a month with a wrist injury, Raymond has gone cold, going eight games without a goal and six games without a point. He's lost his permanent spot on Ryan Kesler's wing, isn't burying his chances and put himself in an awkward position: he suddenly appears replaceable and his contract is sizable enough to be happily moved.

Why he might not: Of the slumping forwards, Raymond's goalless drought is the most jarring. He remains a vital part of the Canucks' top six, and curing him of his struggles is paramount to the team's offensive game. But this slump didn't come from nowhere; he's coming off an injury and may still be suffering from it. Is sitting him the best option, or are his issues something he needs to play his way out of? It's like when your cat gets herself stuck in a plastic grocery bag. She could suffocate without your help, but she also needs to learn how to get herself out in case this happens again. There's no right answer.

MIKAEL SAMUELSSON

Why he might sit: Samuelsson has gone 11 games without a goal, and only has one assist in that span. Though he played a strong individual game in New York, he's not clicking with his linemates and has looked disinterested at times this season. If we wanted an intelligent but often enigmatic and alienating Swede, we would have signed Ingmar Bergman.

Why he might not: While he responds well to getting snubbed, nobody on the coaching staff wants to tell him he's sitting out. You're never too old or too mature to have your feelings hurt when someone tells you to go [forget] yourself.

I Watched This Game: Canucks at Rangers, January 13, 2011

Canucks 0 - 1 Rangers

It is the worst letdown in the world when the Canucks suffer a shutout loss. It's a worse letdown than Urkel O's (the cereal that showed so much promise). Not only am I forced to watch the Canucks lose, but I'm forced to watch as they're held off the scoresheet. Truth is, it's boring. Plus it means the highlight package will also be boring: Don Taylor: in the second, Mikael Samuelsson streaks into the zone and shoots--it is blocked. It means the post-game breakdown will be boring. Blake Price: Henrik Lundqvist is a good goalie. It means fan conversation will be boring. Fan: I thought the Sedins weren't that good tonight. Like the pace of the game, everything slows to a crawl until the next one. It's a torture.

That's right. Watching bad hockey is literally torture. I, like any good Canadian, would sooner give away national secrets than watch a shutout loss. This is why Canada should never go to war with the United States: we're too easy to torture (and boy, do they torture). Sigh. I watched this game:

• Well everyone, the Canucks lost in regulation. Don't panic, but this can only mean one thing: it's the end of days. How will it happen? I theorize the following: the human race is about to be overthrown by a coalition of marmots and marmosets. Their combined brainpower will allow them to crack the evolutionary code and evolve at alarming rates. Their combined military power will create an unstoppable marmy. People: it's marmageddon.

• I'm exaggerating slightly. Nothing can evolve that quickly, save Canuck fans' opinions on their team. This loss isn't the end of the world. It sucks that the Canucks' point streak and Cory Schneider's point streak both had to end, but it was going to happen eventually. Hopefully, this loss is just a loss, and not the beginning of a streak going the other way. It's going to take much more winning to remain atop the NHL, where the Canucks maintain a three-point lead on Detroit and Philadelphia.

• Let's get right out in front of any potential navel-gazing and establish that the Rangers played one Hell of a defensive game. The Associated Press called it an all-heart performance, and while it may not have been the hockey equivalent of trying to liberate Scotland, it was certainly commendable. The Rangers swarmed the puck, had 13 different guys combine to block 24 shots (including 5 from Dan Girardi), and forced the Canucks to shoot from the outside all night. Against a team like Vancouver that scores the majority of their goals a foot from the crease, that's a solid recipe for success.
  

• The Canucks lost this game along the boards. Sadly, there's no statistic to back this up, but when the Canucks are playing well, they win their offensive zone puck battles and sustain offensive pressure. Led by pinching expert Kevin Bieksa (the grandma of the NHL), they keep pucks inside the blue line and break down defensive structures by throwing it around the zone willy-nilly. Last night, the Rangers prevented them from doing this.

• Also, Henrik Lundqvist stopped all the shots. That helped too.

• While New York's 24 blocks came from thirteen guys, Vancouver's 12 blocks came from only four defensemen, including four apiece from Kevin Bieksa and Dan Hamhuis, who quietly played a stellar game. It's always a bummer when a team loses 1-0 because the strong defensive effort of the losers goes relatively unnoticed. The Ham n' Juice pairing looks as defensively sound as any Canuck tandem this town's seen in years, Bryant Reeves and Stromile Swift notwithstanding.

• Ryan Kesler continued his shootiness, throwing five on net, and attempting another five. However, the shot king last night was Mikael "Shooty McShooterson" Samuelsson. He had five shots as well, with two blocked and four more missing the goal. He's a funny player. He shoots when he should pass; he holds the puck when he should move it, such as when he dragged the puck back in the neutral zone when any other player would have dumped it in. Sammy's not unlike Daniel and Henrik in that he plays the game at his own, mechanical pace, and can frustrate by appearing take it easy or playing without urgency. He's just a measured, intelligent player. Last night he was our best forward. Let's keep him.

• Let's not keep him on the first unit power play. Why, I ask, did the Canucks put him on the point instead of Ehrhoff for the five-on-three? Why did they take Kesler out from the front of the net and put him at the point? If you're wondering why they did not score, tackle these first two whys and you'll probably have your answer.

• Mason Raymond had some jump as well, but he seems to have forgotten how to capitalize on a chance. Even in Monopoly, all he gets are parking fines and poor taxes.

• Cory Schneider had a fine game, but there's definitely something to Richard Loat's observation that the team plays better defensively in front of him. I agree that they tighten up a bit. Combine that with the run support he's been getting in his starts (and his own strong play) and you have a recipe for a going this many games without a regulation loss. Last night, however, the run support dried up and Schneider saw the goose egg in his middle column disappear.

• Speaking of middle columns: perhaps realizing that his team wasn't about to sneak one past Henrik Lundqvist, Alex Burrows went five-hole on Marc Staal instead. Thanks a lot, Burr. Not only do I have to defend your hair-pulling when I tell people you're my favourite player, but now I have to defend your groin-spearing? It's embarrassing loving a man who pulls hair and stabs groins. And yet my love persists. Burrows will probably get a phone call from the league, as nether attacks are never cool--unless you're making a short film. Here's hoping he sees some discipline, as it's fairly warranted, especially after the refs decided instead to instead punish Marc Staal for failing to protect his testicles.
  

• Such are the foibles of a young goalie, but this is the third or fourth game in a row where Cory Schneider's made a pretty egregious error. Last game, it was the slapstick fall that gave Jamal Mayers a freebie. He nearly handed the Rangers another when he coughed the puck up behind the net. The look on Roberto Luongo's face afterward was priceless.

• According to the stat sheet, the Rangers had 38 hits to the Canucks 31. No they didn't. Madison Square Garden employs one of the most liberal stat guys in the country. Note that the Rangers have 573 hits on the road and a league-leading 731 at home. Who is this guy, thinking everything's a hit? He's probably the guy that greenlit Kesha. This is a surefire hit. Also, I bet the police answer domestic abuse calls at his house all the time. She hit you again, sir?

• Daniel and Henrik did have a quiet game, though it probably helped that the Rangers were allowed to latch onto them like brain slugs. I've heard some criticism of the Sedins for disappearing, and I think it speaks to their expectations as the offensive leaders of this team. All this talk of Ryan Kesler as a dark horse for the Hart is silly if he's not even the one held accountable when the Canucks get shut out. That said, when your scoring leaders don't score, that's a problem. Score more, Daniel and Henrik.

• And finally, I realize that playing Aaron Rome semi-regularly is a good way to prevent him from playing like he hasn't played in months, but when he plays that way in spite of this approach, you have a problem. This is the catch-22: Aaron Rome plays like he shouldn't be playing, but he'll only play worse if you don't play him. Unless you never play him again. Get well soon, Salo.
  

Ask it to Bulis: The Greatest Canucks' Moustache & Other Inquiries

Ask it to Bulis is a regular feature wherein casual readers and hardcore Bulies alike can put their questions to two guys no more qualified to answer than they are. Harrison and Daniel preside:


Greatest Canucks' mustache: Babych or Snepsts? -- @staticotaku

H: Tough first question. I'm gonna go with Snepsts, and for totally subjective reasons. It was a slightly fuller, more unkempt mustache that covered a little more area. And because of its downward curvature, he looks the most like Mr. Johnson, the beleaguered blue Muppet who constantly makes the mistake of eating at Charlie's Restaurant, where Waiter Grover works. I have so much sympathy for Mr. Johnson, as there were clearly no other restaurants in Sesame Street (like the Red Robin in Maple Ridge), I can't help but love Harold Snepsts.

D: I have to disagree. Babych has the classier, more kempt moustache. It was big and bushy, but under control. Snepsts has a classic 'stache, but it's just a little too out-of-control for my tastes. There's a reason Babych is #7 on this list of top ten 'staches in all of sports and Snepsts doesn't even warrant a mention.

H: Because MSN.com has the last word on this, apparently.

Are they actively showcasing Schneider? -- @ttuckertweets

H: Yes and no. The Canucks don't play Schneider in games to actively showcase him to other teams. Organizations have scouts so that teams don't have to do that. However, the Canucks are definitely going to trade him eventually, and Schneider's great play is turning every one of his starts into a showcase. Effectively, and we've said this before, Schneider is showcasing himself.

D: Yes. Schneider isn't aware of this, but he's been placed in a Showcase Showdown wherein all 29 of the other General Managers in the NHL will be competing in various mini-games to test their financial acumen (Glen Sather isn't expected to get very far), presided over by a funny-looking man in a bad suit. No, not Drew Carey, I'm talking about Gary Bettman. Once they get to the Showcase Showdown, the two remaining GMs will attempt to guess closest to Cory Schneider's retail value without going over. If one of them gets the retail value exactly right, they get both Schneider and Luongo.

If Schneider continues to play well, what is his trade value in offseason? Do Canucks trade him then or wait? -- @sir_earl

H: I can safely say I have no idea what Schneider will fetch in a trade. His potential is immense, but there's little frame of reference for his open market value. Some people have pointed to Jaroslav Halak as a frame of reference (who fetched a decent prospect and a third), but I think it's a completely different situation. Schneider's younger, projects to be better, and, if the Canucks trade him this offseason, he won't require contract negotiations on the heels of a breakout postseason that could have been a fluke. Halak's situation was unique because his value spiked suddenly, and St. Louis got him for relatively cheap because they were willing to deal with that. That's why Schneider's value will be the highest if the Canucks trade him after this season: he'll still be on an affordable deal.

There are risks with acquiring Frecklesnoot too. His likely price means that he has to play like a starter for a GM to justify his acquisition. It's risky, especially since Schneider has still only played a handful of NHL games--his body of work is impressive, but it's a small sample size on which to judge the rest of his career. A hesitant GM could point to the team in front of him. You've probably noticed the Canucks are the best team in the NHL, and that tends to inflate stats. That said, Schneider still has the appearance and pedigree of a future stud, and there are teams out there I have to believe are eager to acquire his services.

The Canucks won't trade him until the offseason. Schneider remains an acceptable option if Luongo suffers a postseason injury or meltdown. And, if the Canucks go deep into the playoffs (or, perish the thought, win the Cup), then Schneider's value goes up yet again because he's got playoff experience on his impressive resume.

D: What Harrison said, mainly because we talked about this exact question over the phone and he stole all my answers.

Why and how did you pick Bulis as your blog's mascot? -- @artemchubarov

D: The phrase "Pass it to Bulis!" dates back to the 2007 playoffs, when the Canucks faced the Stars in the first round. As you may recall, game one of that series went an absurd four overtimes and was the 6th longest game in NHL history. It was an insane game: Brent Sopel had injured his back prior to the game picking up a cracker. The players needed intravenous fluids to stay hydrated between periods. Both Burrows and Cooke were injured early and ended up as the only players on the Canucks to play fewer than 20 minutes. Willie Mitchell led the Canucks with over 47 minutes in icetime. Crazy.

I was watching the game with a large group of friends. After regulation time ended, we started debating who would score the winning goal. There were votes for Naslund, Morrison, Linden, and, of course, the Sedins. I, on the other hand, figured it would be someone completely unexpected. Isn't it always the unlikely heroes that arise at such times? And who was the unlikeliest of potential heroes on the Canucks at the time? Clearly, the answer was Jan Bulis.

As time passed and the likely and expected heroes did not score, the more likely my suggestion seemed. Once we got into the second overtime, we began to shout "Pass it to Bulis!" at the TV every time the unhirsute one hit the ice. By the third overtime, we were shouting "Pass it to Bulis!" whenever the Canucks got possession of the puck, even if Jan wasn't on the ice. By the fourth overtime, we were weeping softly and muttering under our breath "will someone please, please pass it to Bulis..."

And then Henrik scored. And Jan Bulis finished with 2 points in 12 games in the playoffs. Stupid Bulis.

H: Stupid Bulis? How dare you speak ill about the patron saint of this blog! I would never.

What made Wellwood so endearing to you? -- @indelibleline

H: Well, he's adorable. But I think we've been drawn to Wellwood because he's such a unique personality. Welly's unique, but he's also uniquely self-aware in that he can speak honestly about his quirks. This is a guy who once called himself the weakest guy in the NHL, and he's never backed down from that or tried to fix it. He just doesn't like to work out. He's got incredible skill, but sometimes I think he kinds of regrets it, maybe wishes he did something else. He seems like the rare guy for whom it's just a job, and I think I admire that, because I recognize those feelings of wage-earners' ennui in myself. We are all Kyle Wellwood.

D: He's such an oddball that I'm dumbfounded that anyone could possibly dislike him. One of my favorite Wellwood moments came at the 2008 (or 2009 maybe?) Superskills. During one of the many lulls in activity, most of the Canucks were seated against the boards. Shane O'Brien was busy acting like a complete goof, entertaining many of his teammates. Everyone seemed to be in conversation, joking around and having a great time. Meanwhile, Wellwood was lounging in one of the faceoff circles, leaning on one elbow and idly playing with a puck with his stick. His ridiculous puck control while lying down in an incredibly lazy fashion while seemingly incapable of interacting normally with his peers pretty much perfectly encapsulated Welly. I also think he's a far more complete and effective player than most people, as illustrated by this adamant defense of Wellwood's defensive capabilities, and I think it's pretty natural to grow attached to a player that you're having to constantly defend.

Why are Canucks fans finding things to rag on Luongo about? Is he forever going to be the focal point of fans' whining? -- @camdavie

H: Yes. Luongo's been touted as the savior of a skeptical Canucks' fanbase, and they're constantly looking for flaws in his game to validate their pessimism. There are a number of other factors, too. First, people don't really understand the goaltending position or how situational it is. They don't understand that no goalie stops every shot, or that Martin Brodeur, widely believed to be the greatest goalie of all time, played much better behind a solid defense in a solid defensive system. Marty's not playing so well these days, but nobody's clamoring to strip him of his legacy. They understand he doesn't have the team in front of him that he once did. Luongo, on the other hand, takes the blame for every goal that goes in, because he has yet to achieve the Brodeur-like success people expect of him, and Cup-hungry fans examine those expectations in a vacuum.

D: Canucks fans are so used to ragging on their goaltenders that they simply don't know what to do with a goaltender who isn't terrible and isn't going anywhere. For a long while the Canuck net was filled with a series of mediocre goaltenders, none of whom were able to replicate the success of the most-praised goalies in franchise history, Richard Brodeur and Kirk McLean. Quite frankly, no goaltender will be considered to be "good" until they help carry the Canucks to the Stanley Cup finals as Brodeur and McLean did. It's nonsensical, but true. The reason Kirk McLean is held in such high esteem isn't just because he was a great goalie (he was), but because he carried the Canucks to the Stanley Cup finals and made The Save. No goaltender will be able to avoid the constant criticism in this market until he takes a team to the Stanley Cup finals.

Are the Canucks happy with Bieksa and Hamhuis as the shutdown pair or are we short a top stay-at-home D? -- @arby18

H: I think they're extremely happy with the pairing. Bieksa and Hamhuis are a shutdown defensive pairing that moves the puck exceptionally well, but if you want to know where their real strengths are, it's along the boards. Between Hamhuis' team-best hipchecking and Bieksa's team-best pinching, these guys control the boards in both zones, severely cutting down on the workload in front of their own net.

D: With Hamhuis and Bieksa constantly facing the toughest competition night in and night out and still posting fantastic +/- numbers, there's not really anything to complain about. It seems that Mike Gillis prefers to have a defensive corps that can all move the puck rather than having a mix of stay-at-home and offensive types.

Do we have a number one defenceman? -- @beninvictoria

H: Yes we do. His name is Alex Edler. Although I know what you're getting at. The Canucks rely heavily and equally on four guys. I think Canuck fans see guys like Lidstrom, Pronger, Keith, or Doughty, and assume we can't win unless we have a perennial all-star like that, and we don't.

But the assumption isn't true. Other Cup prerequisites that aren't true: you can't win with a Euro captain; you can't win with a high-paid netminder; a skilled team can't beat a gritty team; you can't win with a questionable fourth-line. Here's what happens every year: the best team in the NHL wins the cup, and then people extrapolate their strengths and claim that's the special formula for winning. Think about the previous Cup winners and how, every season, the radio guys claim the Canucks don't have enough of whatever that team's best element was. Carolina didn't have a defensive stud. Detroit had a Euro captain. Marc-Andre Fleury made five million a year.

The Canucks have a different model for their defense than Chicago did, relying equally on four guys rather than heavily on two. If it works out for them, you'll hear people saying you need two top pairings rather than one. If it doesn't, people will continue to clamour for a defensive stud to anchor the defense.

D: Yes we do. His name is Kevin Bieksa.

Kidding, kidding. I'm going to disagree with Harrison on this one and say that we don't have a number-one defenceman. As much as Edler has the potential to become one, he's not quite there yet. The top-four defencemen for the Canucks all average over 22 minutes a night. Edler is at the top of that list at 24:08, but there's not much of a gap in ice time between any of them. They all have a similar +/- and Edler and Ehrhoff's have similar point totals. Edler averages an extra shift per game, which isn't quite enough to vault him into number one territory.

Why is Samuelsson playing [badly]? -- @RE4713

H: He isn't. Samuelsson has been fourth in team points almost all season, and still remains the top scorer after the Sedins and Kesler. He remains one of the team's headiest players, and his patience and stickhandling continue to make room for his teammates. He plays a similar plodding style to the Sedins, however, and that confuses people who think: slow=bad; fast=good.

That said, he's not playing as well as last season, but last season was a bit of a peak year for him. An inordinate number of his goals were fluky (Sam's Surprises, we called them). He was bound to come back to earth, and he has. Unfortunately, this is why people are on him. Ignore the decreased goal totals and look a little closer: you'll see he's still making massive and valuable contributions.

D: Agreed. He's not playing poorly, he's just not matching the career year he posted last season. Also, with the emergence of Jeff Tambellini and the continued progression of Jannik Hansen, he's not going to see the same number of minutes that he did last season and won't be able to put up the same number of points. He's also not getting as luck as last season: his shooting percentage hit the lofty heights of 13.7%. His previous three seasons he had a shooting percentage of 7.4%, 4.4%, and 7.4%. His shooting percentage this season? 7.5%. Really, he's not playing poorly, this is just a regression to his normal self. And his normal self is still fourth on the Canucks in points.

One of my friends thinks the Sedins should be the first option for defensive zone faceoffs. He says that a team should send out their best players to defend their own zone against the opposition's top line because they have the skill to break up plays and exit the zone, with possession. I disagree and would like to hear your thoughts. -- Reid

H: The short version: you're right and your friends are wrong. The long version: zone starts are one of the ways a coach can manage the game from the bench, and it's a pretty simple principle. Get your offensive stars out in the offensive zone, where they have a headstart on what they do best. Conversely, get your top defenders out in the defensive zone for the same reason. Why do otherwise? Your best offensive players may stickhandle out of the defensive zone, but they waste their energy playing defense and skating through the neutral zone, then all they've got left is to dump it in and change. If you have a choice, you start them in the offensive zone and hope they stay there.

D: I'm going to be more blunt than Harrison. Your friends are stupid. You need smarter friends. Ryan Kesler and Manny Malhotra are two of the best defensive forwards in the NHL. The Sedins are decent in the defensive zone, but there's no reason to have them start there when Kesler and Malhotra are the other options. There's a reason the Sedins point totals have improved with the emergence of Ryan Kesler. One of the reasons is that he provides a secondary scoring threat that the other team needs to contend with, but the primary reason is that he (and now Malhotra as well) starts in the defensive zone against the opposition's best players, allowing the Sedins to get prime offensive zone starts.

There's a reason why the Sedins have one of the most favorable offensive zone start percentagesin the league and Manny Malhotra has one of the most unfavorable. It's not because Alain Vigneault is stupid.

H: Right. Your friends are the stupid ones.


If you have a question for a future edition of Ask it to Bulis, send an e-mail to passittobulis@gmail.com or tweet us at @passittobulis with the hashtag #askittobulis.

I Watched This Game: Canucks at Red Wings, December 22, 2010

Canucks 4 - Red Wings 5 (OT)

The Canucks and Red Wings have met twice this season, and both games have been among the most entertaining of the year. We at PITB often talk about the way Canucks fans view their team's games through a vaccuum; we disregard the play of the other team and blame everything, positive and negative, on Vancouver. But that's impossible to do when the Canucks play the Red Wings because it's so unmistakably clear you're watching an elite team. No hockey club in the NHL moves the puck like the Red Wings and few forecheck like they do. Each moment a red jersey isn't within two feet of the puck, it's a minor miracle. When they play the way they did last night, frankly, it's a wonder they ever lose.

That said, the Canucks had a chance to take this one. They led by a goal going into the third period, but unfortunately, a couple bad goals by Roberto Luongo took victory from their hands. It was frustrating. I watched this game:

• Roberto Luongo is being ripped apart by the fans and media, especially by his diehard haters, but let's try to remember something else: Detroit had 45 shots. Luongo was actually excellent most of the game; unfortunately, Henrik Zetterberg beat him on two goals that looked like they should never have gone in. And, when one was the game-tying goal and the other the game-winner, it's probably fair to pile on the flack (even if the second doesn't happen if Ehrhoff just gets the freaking puck out). Still, realize that the Red Wings' shots were typically of a higher quality than Vancouver's (including the game-winner, which was, contrary to popular opinion, a great shot), and Luongo should be credited for keeping his team in it. So, while Lou's gaffes may have cost us the two points, his overall play earned us one.

• The Canucks' power play broke out of its slump in a big way, going 2-for-3 and drastically changing momentum each time it hit the ice. For the first two periods, the Red Wings were controlling the run of the play the majority of the time, but when they took a penalty, Vancouver made them pay, got back into the game, and slowed their dominance for a stretch. The puck movement on the power play was brilliant, as was the down low-work by Ryan Kesler, who got two power play assists on nearly identical plays. Kesler also had a game-high 6 hits to go with his 3 assists.

• Jeff Tambellini's goal came on a seeing-eye wrist shot (above) that, upon review, defies physical laws. What a laser. Tamby had a game-high six shots to go with three hits and two blocked shots, and his defensive prowess continues to impress. He's become a very complete player in a very short period of time. Not since we discovered my younger brother's prodigous Ikea-building ability have I seen someone put it all together so quickly.

• I thought Brian Rafalski, Todd Bertuzzi, and Dan Cleary were phenomenal. Unfortunately, they play for the Red Wings.

• In the faceoff circle, Kesler and Malhotra continued their dominance, with 14-for-21 and 12-for-20 showings, respectively. Henrik Sedin had a rough night, however, going 8-for-21, including a brutal 3-for-10 in the offensive zone. Personally, I thought the Sedins only had an iffy game, and I'll tell you that a couple more offensive zone possessions wouldn't have hurt. Alex Burrows was lifted from their line from Mikael Samuelsson for a handful of shifts in the third period, but he wasn't the problem; it was that the line was consistently starting without the puck on offensive zone starts.

• Pavel Datsyuk was looking dangerous in this game until he broke his hand.

• It was nice to see Mikael Samuelsson score, if for no other reason that it will remind fans that he can. His seventh goal of the season was a big-time go-ahead goal on one of his patented wrist shots while Raffi Torres streaked to the net as a screen. While it broke a 9-game goalless drought, Samuelsson's stats haven't actually been too bad this season. He's fourth on the team in scoring with 22 points. I keep hearing about Sammy's disappointing season, but the numbers indicate something else. And numbers don't lie.

• Sometimes, when Samuelsson plays against the Red Wings, you can see how he used to be a part of this remarkable puck moving machine. Like Seven of Nine in Star Trek: Voyager, he retains many traits of the Borg.

• As frustrated as you are, keep in mind that the Canucks really elevated their level of play to stay in this game. Detroit allows an average of 29 shots per game, and the Canucks put 39 on Jimmy Howard. That's a lot of shots. Add that to the Red Wings' 45 shots and both goaltenders must have known exactly how Sonny Corleone felt in the Godfather.

• I'm wondering if Aaron Volpatti's quiet play is the result of the game being too fast for him. He's supposedly a big hitter, but we haven't seen it, and while I'm fairly certain the Canucks have asked him to pick his spots, you think he'd have picked one by now.

• And finally, Dan Hamhuis was the big minute guy tonight, finishing with a game-high 25:23. I thought he played a fabulous game, keeping forwards to the outside, moving the puck out of the zone quickly, and making big hits along the boards. Clearly, Vigneault thought similarly, as Hammy had a whole three minutes more ice time than Alex Edler. The guy who really saw his minutes reduced, however, was Keith Ballard. He's been knocked back down to 14 and a half minutes.

I Find This Photo Odd: Some Dude's Leg Edition

This image is from the season-opener (that's a Kings' leg Sammy is strangling). I'm not really sure what to say about it.

I feel like this photo is already photoshopped, like something else was in place of that leg before. Maybe originally, Samuelsson was posing with a horse, or a puppet, or a great big number seven, or a novelty candy cane, and some joker came along and spliced an upside-down leg in there. Maybe Samuelsson is really angry and he's actually in the process of contorting this Kings player so he can go eff himself? My brain is trying to make sense of this, but it can't. What the crap is going on here?

I find this photo odd.

Kesler is Struggling, But it's Not Entirely His Fault

A lot of finger-pointing takes place after a game like last night's, so it was only a matter of time before somebody brought up Ryan Kesler's early struggles. I've heard criticism from a few sources this morning, and it's not entirely undeserved. Kesler has 1 point in his first 6 games, and hasn't looked to be nearly the dominant second-line center we saw last season. He's not creating as many chances as we're used to; he's missing shots; he's not as noticeable. At this point, it's hard to believe this guy has 134 points in his last two seasons. What's his problem?

Well, it might have something to do with the fact that Kesler has been removed from every situation in which he thrives.

The majority of Kesler's success came either on the 2nd line with Mason Raymond (and usually with Mikael Samuelsson), or on the 2nd powerplay unit. This season, he's spent little time with Raymond, and no time whatsoever on that 2nd PP formation. He's freshly shaven Samson.

Last night, the 2nd line consisted of Ryan Kesler between Peter Schaefer and Jannik Hansen, a duo that has combined for zero points this season and will likely improve that number very slowly over the next six months. To wit: they're not 2nd line players. It's hard to even call that unit a second line when two-thirds of it are unmistakably bottom-six guys.

Why is Kesler with them? Despite 50 assists last year saying otherwise, he's never been a particularly effective playmaker, so he's certainly not the right guy to carry the line's offensive load. In fact, most of Kesler's offensive success comes when he's paired with other skilled players. He saw success two years ago with Mats Sundin and Pavol Demitra. He developed an offensive identity last season with burgeoning scorer Mason Raymond (and they worked best when the third guy with them was a playmaker). Kesler's an opportunist, not a generator, and there will be far fewer opportunities than he's used to when he shares the ice with Jannik Hansen and Peter Schaefer.

On the powerplay, Kesler anchored the second unit, camping out near the half-wall, and sniping shots from out above the circle. He scored 12 power play goals last season, a lot of them the same way. He was an effective, consistent threat defensive formations had to respect, and it opened up space for everyone else on the unit. Kesler was the lynchpin of a power play formation, but now he's a fifth option, with Daniel, Henrik, and two point shots all looking for the puck. Even if that first unit has success, it won't be because of Kesler. His goal the other night is evidence he remains an excellent powerplay option. We could use one of those on the second unit. Why waste him on the first?

Secondary scoring was not an issue last season, but with Kesler's struggles, it's become one this year. It's not entirely his fault: Kes has been completely neutered thus far. If you want him to be an offensive option, you need to let him play his game. What does Alain Vigneault expect him to do when all the elements that make him successful are taken away?

Put Mikael Samuelsson Back with Raymond and Kesler

Sunday night's game versus the Carolina Hurricanes was full of bumped slumps, as Mason Raymond, Mikael Samuelsson, and Ryan Kesler all tallied their first goals of the season. The previous four games had been tough for them, as all three had generated numerous chances, but had not managed to find the back of the net. It was a problem. Though the Sedins tallied at least a point in each game, the secondary scoring--a huge part of the Canucks' success last season--was not coming. As a result, Alain Vigneault switched up the lines. Strangely, however, Mikael Samuelsson, who had success skating with Kesler and Raymond in last year's regular season, did not find his way back to the second line. He was moved to the third, while Mason Raymond headed to the first line.

It may have worked in the short-term, but it's the wrong move: Mikael Samuelsson needs to be reunited with Raymond and Kesler.

We've seen from Raffi Torres and Jannik Hansen's lack of success on the second line that it's difficult to create chemistry with Raymond and Kesler. Samuelsson already has it. Last season, the Raymond-Kesler-Samuelsson unit was one of the top ten lines in the NHL, for much of the season better than the first lines of two-thirds of the NHL.

On Sunday night, Samuelsson connected with Raymond on two goals, despite only skating with him sparingly.

Raymond and Kesler play a uniquely frenzied style defined by hard forechecking, shots and rebounds, and speed to loose pucks. Unlike the Sedins, who create offense with measured plays, sound positional movement, and puck control, Ray and Kes create it by causing chaos in the offensive zone that breaks down defensive systems and opens up space. But it's a delicate balancing act. Too much chaos and it's... well, chaos, which is what you get when you pair them with similarly mucky guys like Hansen and Torres. Raymond and Kesler need somebody to settle them down.

The Sedins don't have this problem. They seem to score consistently, in much the same way each time, and their slumps are typically the result of predictable puck movement. Alex Burrows is the best fit for them primarily because of the mucky, unpredictable way he plays. He keeps things interesting. With two wingers that have a tendency towards an overly patient approach, a guy like Burrows opens up a second way for them to play: loose.

Raymond and Kesler already play loose. 5-on-5 goals from the Ray/Kes pairing are as random as the jukebox in Shaun of the Dead. They need to skate with somebody who will be somewhat predictable, and who will open up the patient side of their game. Samuelsson does that best. He gives Raymond and Kesler more options, time and space. He turns their chaos into organized noise.

He settles them down a little. Kes and Ray are Baloo and Kit Cloudkicker. Samuelsson is Rebecca Cunningham.

We've seen, in his time with the Canucks, that Samuelsson is an the excellent addition to any line. Because of his experience and intelligence, you know he'll be able to learn from and adapt to his linemates, which is why he's been a good fit with the Sedins. However, he fits best with Raymond and Kesler, and they're the ones who need him the most. Put Mikael Samuelsson back on the second line.

Every Goal Mikael Samuelsson Scored Last Season

This is the third and final entry for this weekend in the "Every Goal" series. Stay tuned next weekend as I'll be compiling every goal scored by Daniel & Henrik Sedin, as well as Alex Burrows. That's 93 goals, so I'm not looking forward to it. I'll likely be motivated, however, because there are Canucks(ish) hockey games to be watched this week. That is sweet.

Mikael Samuelsson was something of a surprise to Canucks fans last season. He joined the team from the Red Wings on a 7.5 million, 3 year contract. It seemed high, and many were skeptical he'd have an impact worth his contract, but he proved the doubters wrong with a 30-goal season, timely production, and versatility that saw him play everywhere from the first to the third line, with success in all situations. He always seemed to be in the right place at the right time, he put the whole team in a shooting mentality with his shoot-first approach to entering the offensive zone, and he was a greatteam guy. In short: he was good, see for yourself. Here is every goal Mikael Samuelsson scored last season.

1. Oct. 1 vs. the Calgary Flames

I said earlier in this series' that Edler's passing ability on the power play was sorely underrated, and here we see it again. Samuelsson's first goal of the season comes on a tip from a brilliant Edler pass. Notice as well: as soon as Sammy scores, he takes a crosscheck from a Flames player and swings his stick in retaliation. He doesn't connect, and it's a good thing. The whole thing happens in one fluid moment, but it's early evidence of Samuelsson's propensity for reacting to a slight without thinking first (you know, like a famous interview).

2. Oct. 7 vs. the Montreal Canadiens

Another power play goal, this one on a rebound. Samuelsson joins Wellwood in front of the net, and he's left completely alone. I like the little push on Wellwood's back to let him know he's there. As soon as Wellwood realizes Samuellson's with him, he just starts nudging Mara away from the crease. Crazy observation: Wellwood is moving Paul Mara. With what, one might ask, his mind? I didn't know he had the core strength for that.

3. Oct. 16 vs. the Calgary Flames

So far all of Samuelsson's goals have come on the powerplay. This one's a tap-in, as Henrik's cross-ice pass (which also would have resulted in a tap-in) doesn't get through, but Bernier's does, and Samuelsson buries it into the open net. I wonder if Bernier meant to do that, or if this was a failed tap-in of his own that wound up working out for us.

4. Oct. 17 vs. the Minnesota Wild

Scored from a similar position to the previous one, Samuelsson picks up a rebound off of an Alex Burrows spin attempt, gets it from his backhand to his forehand quickly, and roofs it. A skillful goal from a player whose goal-scoring prowess was already beginning to surprise. One thing I like about this powerplay tactic--the down-low pass followed by the spin and attempt to jam it--is if it doesn't work, the puck's momentum spits it out to the open man at the side of the net.

5. Oct. 21 vs. the Chicago Blackhawks

I remember this goal and thinking it was awesome. Brian Campbell tries a lazy drop pass in his own zone, with Samuelsson forechecking, and he pokes it away from Pat Kane. By the time realizes Samuelsson has the puck, he fires a great wrist shot past Niemi. One reason Samuelsson fit well with Raymond and Kesler last season was that he forechecked as hard as they did.

6. Oct. 29 vs. the Los Angeles Kings (at 0:52 of clip)

In this clip, Samuelsson one-times a sweet Alex Burrows pass right in front of the net. In the Kesler edition of the "Every Goal" series, I pointed out that Burrows' passing has become a major asset for him over these past two seasons, and here is more evidence of that. I know I'm claiming that nearly every one of our players is a great passer, but it's true: the Sedins are incredible passers, but Raymond, Burrows, and Edler rarely get their due. The Canucks are a very good passing team.

7. Nov. 3 vs. the New York Rangers

Speaking of forechecking, here's another example. The Raymond-Kesler-Samuelsson line was rarely all that pretty (which made for a nice counterbalance with the wizardous sedinerie of the first line. The second line just forechecked hard and potted rebounds. That's what we have here, as Raymond dumps the puck in and forces the Rangers defenseman to turn it over to Kesler. Kesler shoots it, Lundqvist gives up a rebound, and Samuelsson puts it home. Textbook for these guys.

8. Nov. 3 vs. the New York Rangers

Another garbage power play goal off a rebound, this one from a Kesler shot, but again I want to draw your attention to Alex Edler's incredible pass to get this one started. Look at it, marvel at it, recognize how good he is.

9. Nov. 20 vs. the Colorado Avalanche

The first of what I would like to call "Sam's Surprises". These are the goals where you went, "Was that a shot?" "That went in?" "What the Heck?" Samuelsson scored a few of them. Pay special attention to John Shorthouse's commentary, as he goes to say, "Samuelsson, for Schneider, in front," but when the puck takes that weird bounce, he just stops at "in." Way to improvise, Shorty.

10. Nov. 28 vs. the Edmonton Oilers

The passing on this play is ridiculous. Let's give Samuelsson credit for the one-timer, but Alex Edler's powerplay passing again factors into it, as does Mason Raymond's this time around. I've been banging the "Mason Raymond is a pretty good passer" drum for a couple days now, and this is another good example. His only knock is that he still can't do it at top speed with regularity. That may come this season.

11. Dec. 29 vs. the Phoenix Coyotes

This might be the only time I say this, but much of the credit for this goal goes to Darcy Hordichuk. He goes hard (really, really hard) to the net, drawing defenders and creating a messy screen. Samuelsson does what he always does and shoots the puck, and with that sort of traffic in front, there's no way LaBarbera can see it.

12. Dec. 31 vs. the St. Louis Blues

Can we call this one of Sam's surprises? When Shorty calls it a sharp angle shot, it might be the last great understatement of 2009. Note here the difference between Samuelsson, who shoots from there, and Raymond, who would have dragged it across the crease. This one also shows off Samuelsson's strength, as he pushes Barret Jackman off the puck smartly to free it up for him.

13. Jan. 5 vs. the Columbus Blue Jackets

Another weird one, as he enters the zone without the puck, seemingly puts himself offside, then fortuitously gets the puck back and just shoots it right away. The shot itself is a laser, but the circumstances surrounding the goal are bizarre. Part of me thinks the goal counts because not even the referees were ready for him to shoot that puck. That's what Sammy does. Have puck? Check. Shoot puck? Yes.

14. Jan. 7 vs. the Phoenix Coyotes

A great forecheck by Kesler as the period is winding down leads to this play in front, as Samuelsson again scores from a pretty sharp angle. Normally, I'd get down on a player who shoots this much, and I know they called him the Logo Hunter in Detroit, but he must have improved his accuracy or something, because this many goals on quick wrist shots and bad angles can't be a fluke.

15. Jan. 9 vs. the Calgary Flames

Again we see Samuelsson benefiting from some hard work on the forecheck by the second line. Mason Raymond gets the turnover, tries to wrap it around, and it squeaks out to Samuelsson, who buries it.

16. Jan. 16 vs. the Pittsburgh Penguins

Much like the last goal, this one comes off some unified forechecking, as Kesler creates the turnover, then Raymond exacerbates it, and the Canucks get it back. The shot from the point is bouncing, but Samuelsson still gets a stick on it for a redirect, and it jumps over Curry. Sidenote: who the Hell is Curry?

17. Jan. 23 vs. the Chicago Blackhawks

All alone in front, Samuelsson opens the scoring in a game I fondly remember, apart from that part when Andrew Ladd tagged Kesler below the eye. I hate Ladd. Anyway, speaking of Kesler, he makes this play happen, fighting off three Blackhawks to get his first shot off, then outhustling them to get to puck a second time and tip it out to Samuelsson. I'm a big fan of Kesler's brand of playmaking. He's not the best passer in the world, but he creates scoring chances by hustling, checking, and going desperately for loose pucks. When you're skating with opportunists like Raymond and Samuelsson, that can only bode well for you. I'd love to see him with a playmaker this season, though, to add a new dynamic.

18. Jan. 25 vs. the Buffalo Sabres

Another goal I fondly remember, this one came as a shock to everybody, because Samuelsson enters the zone with the puck on his stick and doesn't shoot it. Everybody thinks he's gonna, even Henrik Tallinder, but instead, Sammy makes a couple of jukes, then drags it to the backhand and slides it home. Way to switch it up. Notice as well the presence of the Green Men, who were an absolute blast last year, as long as we were winning. I think Vancouver collectively soured on them during the Blackhawks series, but is that really their fault? Was it ubiquity that wore that joke down or the citywide bad mood that sapped the joy from every joyful thing? Guess we'll find out this season if Force and Sully return for a second season of pressing their groins against the penalty box glass.

19. Feb. 2 vs. the Montreal Canadiens

Wherein Samuelsson scores on a one-timer on the power play. It's a 4-on-3 power play, so there's already a lot of room, but you have to imagine the Canadiens D-corps aren't respecting Sammy's slapshot the way they'd respect Sami's slapshot. That's the mistake.

20. Feb. 12 vs. the Columbus Blue Jackets

Here was have another one of Sam's Surprises, as Samuelsson's quick wrist shot is blocked by Derek Brassard, sails high in the air, and lands behind Steve Mason for the goal. It concerns me that the Canucks scored two goals of this sort last season--hopefully we didn't use up all of our flukes in 09-10.

21. Feb. 14 vs. the Minnesota Wild (at 6:41 of clip)

Another Samuelsson shot that surprises everyone. This time, he's sent in alone by Kesler, and I don't mean on a breakaway. I mean he's by himself and there's no rush developing. Still, he just skates in and snaps an unexpected wrist shot, and it goes in. It's old hat for him by now and it's more of a tendency than an anomaly, which is likely why Kesler sprung him like that.

22. Mar. 3 vs. the Detroit Red Wings

The first in a 9-goals-in-6-games streak that pushed Samuelsson to 30 on the season for the first time in his career, improving on his previous career-high by seven. What sort of goal is it? Another of Sam's Surprises, as Samuelsson comes off the boards and shoots it at a strange time and from a strange angle. Nobody is expecting it, much less Chris Osgood, especially with the Sedins on the ice. You've got those two playmakers, both capable of their wizardous sedinerie, and you shoot the puck willy-nilly? Samuelsson, you're an odd duck.

23. Mar. 5 vs. the Chicago Blackhawks (at 7:59 of clip)

Samuelsson's goal here comes by deflecting an Andrew Alberts shot from the point. Yes, Alberts. Why is he shooting from there? Because the Canucks are down 6-2. They would go on to lose 6-3 in one of the suckiest games of the season for a Canucks fan, but it wasn't all bad. My band, Cinnamon Toast Funk, had a really awesome CD release party that night. I remember checking the score just after Skeeter's band, Hooray For Gooba opened for us, and being sorely disappointed that we were already down 5-1 or something stupid like that.

24. Mar. 7 vs. the Nashivlle Predators

Holy cow, are these the only type of goals Samuelsson is going to score anymore? Another Sam's surprise, as he takes a slapshot from a stupid angle and it goes in. Note here that if the hockey gods aren't having a laugh, Dan Hamhuis uses his speed and angling ability to prevent a 2-on-1. It's textbook defending, right up to the point where the heavens open up and Samuelsson is kissed by the hand of fate.

25. Mar. 9 vs. the Colorado Avalanche

I remember this game well. My wife and I were on a vacation in Cannon Beach, and I used Internet powers to pull the game up on her laptop. We were down 3-0. I checked in sporadically, the feed was laggy, and I missed almost everything. But somehow, we won. A large part of that was Mikael Samuelsson's hat trick, which began with this put-back on a Daniel Sedin rebound. Note the guy in the old-school Vancouver Millionaires jersey in the audience. He's so cool, I wish he was my dad.

26. Mar. 9 vs. the Colorado Avalanche

Samuelsson's second goal of the evening is also on a rebound. So many of his goals last season were. Frankly, they were either rebounds or Sam's surprises; those are the ways he scores.

27. Mar. 9 vs. the Colorado Avalanche

Samuelsson's hat trick goal is about the laziest tap-in I've ever seen. Look at him. He looks like he's putting. He looks like a less racist Fuzzy Zoeller, he does. I'm also amused by his body language here. I recognize he's watching the puck intently to see if he needs to take another whack at it, but he kind of looks like a boy poking a dead bird with a stick.

28. Mar. 10 vs. the Phoenix Coyotes

Samuelsson's 28th goal of the season comes on a forced turnover by Henrik, who pokes the puck away from Ed Jovanovski. Samuelsson gets it at the side of the net and jams it in.

29. Mar. 13 vs. the Ottawa Senators

The 29th goal of the season comes on the power play, as Samuelsson takes a nice pass from the point, courtesy of Pavol Demitra (who would go on to prove in the playoffs that he should never, ever, ever be back there) and fires that patented wrist shot of his.

30. Mar. 13 vs. the Ottawa Senators

Samuelsson gets his 30th of the season on his first breakaway goal. Backhand is where Samuelsson goes when deking, so we shouldn't be surprised that's what he does with it this time. It's a nice goal to reach that career landmark and a fitting end to this list. I like Samuelsson. I'm concerned that last season was a career year for him; he'll likely need another one just as good for the Canucks to improve on the 09-10 campaign. Here's hoping he can match his totals. Part of me doubts it, as I'm skeptical he'll get so many fortunate bounces, but this last clip demonstrates that he's got a wicked shot, luck or no luck. If he plays with the Sedins, and he should to start the season, given the Burrows injury, he'll get ample opportunities to use it.