The Power Forward

[ClamRussel]

There will always be those who would prefer if we turned the game into an ice dancing competition but hey that's what they like.

Tell me who exactly wants to turn this game into an "ice-dancing competition."

It's a straw man argument.

There's a big difference between arguing for having tough players who fight and can be effective players and loading up on borderline tough-guys and enforcers.

It's about having effective players who can fill a role, not some tough guy who is a liability and won't be used when the stakes are the highest.

Geesh Coco, I didn't think you were so sensitive, as you certainly can dish it out to Fred. Anyway when I say there are those wanting an ice dance competition it is posters like you that I am referring to. You have continually made it clear that you don't like a tough guy on the team unless he is also skilled enough to take a regular shift. Bravo, bravo, if you know of one who is available please call MG as he is looking all over the hockey world for just such a guy. If however reality finally bites and you can see that ain't happening then it's time to lower your sights a little and get as tough a S.O.B. who can skate to take care of the stars on this team. In my long life I have enjoyed playing lots of different sports and I can tell you that you never, NEVER allow a team mate, especially a star, to be bullied like Daniel was. You also don't sit back and watch while another one has his back broken. Those are the real reasons that Glass is gone. Those are the real reasons that MG is now bringing in heavyweights for the tryout and it seems that you aren't happy. Well too bad. I'm sure glad you were never one of my team mates. Hockey is a game of speed, skill, violence and intimidation. You can't intimidate if your toughest players won't fight. Have you ever watched ice dancing? You might just like it.

^^^this! I don't want a bunch of goons & thugs here but what I do want is players who will either A) DETER punkfuckers like Marchand from continually abusing our stars like Daniel *or* B) go out there and pound the shit out of punkfuckers like Marchand early on so it doesn't snowball to the point that he knows he can speedbag our star players. Either way nothing happened and look where that got us, no where. At the same time I can do w/o the designated heavyweight who can't play and are here for one and only one reason. We need guys who can contribute....guys who can hit & forcheck and contribute offensively from time to time. It doesn't have to be a top 6 power forward if MG feels the price tag is too high.

[coco_canuck]

Geesh Coco, I didn't think you were so sensitive, as you certainly can dish it out to Fred.

Ah, yes, right of the bat it's obvious you're making lame inferences.

Bravo, bravo, if you know of one who is available please call MG as he is looking all over the hockey world for just such a guy. If however reality finally bites and you can see that ain't happening then it's time to lower your sights a little and get as tough a S.O.B. who can skate to take care of the stars on this team.

How low should we set our sights?

Do you think a John Scott type player would be on the ice in a Stanley Cup final game?

We're talking about having players who can be on the ice during a Cup final game, where Daniel Sedin looked like a bitch. If we don't have players who can at least take a regular shift, they're not going to be there when we need him on the biggest stage.

Those are the real reasons that Glass is gone.

No shit, but too bad that was your only coherent thought.

Those are the real reasons that MG is now bringing in heavyweights for the tryout and it seems that you aren't happy. Well too bad. I'm sure glad you were never one of my team mates. Hockey is a game of speed, skill, violence and intimidation. You can't intimidate if your toughest players won't fight. Have you ever watched ice dancing? You might just like it.

Stop flexing in the mirror, and ease the strokes. You began with a smattering of smack and then just like a primitive neanderthal, a tough-guy ego reared it's head, gaining confidence as the post went along.

If you're going to bring it, bring something other than "I'm sure glad you were never one of my team mates", or "Have you ever watched ice dancing? You might just like it."

I've physically sparred with tough guys and to say I've verbally sparred with wittier people would be a disservice to the definition of wit.

By the way, I'm not unhappy about Fedoruk and Nolan trying out, and I'm not against having an enforcer on a 2-way deal, I just don't see the same ultimate benefit if we go deep in the playoffs.

For it to matter, we need players who can play, and that's just a fact regardless of whatever lame character attacks anyone wants to use.

[BladesofSteel]

Didn't need a HWE last season, while the PP was tops in the league and the middle weights held their own.

Are we talking about what this team needs to win the SC? I guess since its August, I'm more inclined to discuss what the clubs needs are come October, seeing as its likely going to differ from that of March (Se7en months from now)

Don't need another Darrin Langdon, Wade Brookbank, Jason Strudwick-like 'contributor' on this team.

[Fred]

Years ago I was invited to attend a work shop at UBC. The speakers were Anatoli Tarasov and Tom Watt who was the head coach for the'Nucks at the time ( as I said it was a long time ago ) In the second half of the work shop we had Burnaby Blue Hawks demonstrating Russian physical drill and while I was standing there Tom Watt was mentioning that while intimidation had no place in amateur hockey he said it was an acceptable tactic used throughout the pro leagues. Now I'd disagree with his assessment of no intimidation in amateur hockey because when I played and the times I some times watch a beer league game today it's there. I've seen it in women's hockey. It's a part and parcel of the very fabric of the game. You don't want your star players being paid huge money sitting in the box and you certainly don't want then breaking their hand on some numb skulls helmet. So what's the alternative you carry some guys on the 4th line to look after your star players. Now if some can't follow this I can repeat it in big letters or I can draw picture but that's the way the game is played failure to recognize this is making like an ostrich

Don't need another Darrin Langdon, Wade Brookbank, Jason Strudwick-like 'contributor' on this team.

I always remembered what Marcus Naslund said about Wade Brookbank...it made every one on the bench 6" taller Christ man he or any other 4th liner is going to play 5 mins maybe less a game. Remember Sct Thorton in the SC. Boston didn't dress him at first and then they astutley realized that the refs were not calling much and in he went, smart move by the Bruins coaches and another mistake by AV

[BladesofSteel]

Don't need another Darrin Langdon, Wade Brookbank, Jason Strudwick-like 'contributor' on this team.

I always remembered what Marcus Naslund said about Wade Brookbank...it made every one on the bench 6" taller Christ man he or any other 4th liner is going to play 5 mins maybe less a game. Remember Sct Thorton in the SC. Boston didn't dress him at first and then they astutley realized that the refs were not calling much and in he went, smart move by the Bruins coaches and another mistake by AV

Who could forget? You among others can't get over it and move on to what lies ahead.

The team is largely the same, with the exception of a small contingent of depth players all vieing for 2-3 positions up front. Gillis is getting primed for another successful regular season in preparation for a long playoff run. During which, he will be assessing what moves to make for the Spring. I hardly think he's as transfixed on one playoff series as some posters here seem to be over-indulging with.

[ESQ]

As I said in the Cam Janssen thread, fighting/toughness/"intimidation" has a place in hockey, but its not often on Cup-winning teams. Look at the past several Cup winners (I couldn't get fights/game before 08/09, only PIMs/game):

Boston (2nd in the league in fights/game)
Anaheim (1st in PIMs/game)

Obviously two "Gritty", toughness-first teams, Anaheim was blessed with 2 of the best power forwards in the game racking up fights and PIMs. Anaheim has maintained that style since, won one round, missed the playoffs once, and barely made it in last year. We'll see how Boston fairs if they keep that style.

Chicago (21st in fights/game)
Pittsburgh (23rd in fights/game)
Detroit (30th in PIMS/game)
Carolina (26th in PIMs game)
Tampa Bay ( 28th in PIMs/game)
New Jersey (29th in PIMs/game)
01/02 Detroit (24th in PIMs/game)

These teams put skill first, and intimidated in other ways than the threat of physical violence. Carolina's struggles are obvious (in spite of having a premier PF as their captain). Chicago struggled this year in the Playoffs, but they stayed in the bottom of the League in fights, and really that series was hanging by a thread and could have been won by Sharp. Tampa was stacked, and even though Calgary was 4th in PIMs/game they couldn't wi

Look a bit more closely at Pittsburgh. Last year they tied Boston for 2nd in the league in Fights/game. It was also their worst year since the Crosby renaissance - out in the first round and best player taken out on dirty hits. They were a tough, gritty, old-school hockey team, but they didn't get results. The increase in toughness did not offset the loss of skill with Crosby and Malkin injured, and more importantly did nothing to deter players from going after their stars.

The one team that has stayed competitive throughout the post-lockout period is Detroit, and they have consistently been in the bottom third of the League in PIMs and fights, and I would say haven't had a tough guy/intimidator/"true PF" since Shanahan's prime. Detroit has gone out in the first round only once since the lockout.

If you need more proof, the Canucks have been in the top 6 in the League for fights/game and/or PIMs/game almost every year since the WCE era....except for last year (you know, the one where the won the first President's Trophy in team history and went to Game 7 of the SCF).

If anyone is going to continue to say "you need toughness/intimidation/violence to win", please bring something to back that up, because I just don't see it. Its worked twice in 6 years, and the last time it turned out that team was an aberration and the fall back to earth was almost immediate.

[ClamRussel]

If anyone is going to continue to say "you need toughness/intimidation/violence to win", please bring something to back that up, because I just don't see it. Its worked twice in 6 years, and the last time it turned out that team was an aberration and the fall back to earth was almost immediate.

You are confusing toughness w/ thuggery; 2 totally different things. Name one SC winning team that wasn't "tough". I can't think of many save Colorado or Tampa Bay. To imply Detroit or Chicago weren't tough is deluded...or Pittsburgh. Anaheim & Boston may be the model "tough" teams in that they some goons involved...but if Vancouver was as tough as Chicago or Detroit I think most fans would be on board. Do you really think those teams would have allowed Zetterberg or Toews to be speedbagged w/ no response?

[Canuck-One]

Coco you are a peculiar guy. First you say you don't need an enforcer and then you say well yeah you do but only if he is a skilled player who is also an enforcer. You harp on and on about a no fight team then you go to extremes and say if I disagree I'm bringing in John Scott. Is this how you always frame constructive criticism. You argue like a child. I asked you if you knew of a tough guy with skill who was available and I'm guessing you don't because you certainly didn't name one. When you grow a little bit and gain some maturity in your conversational skills we'll discuss it a little more. I for one would bring in the toughest S.O.B. that I could sign until the time came where I could draft/trade for a player with the requisite Cam Neely skills. You seem to want to watch our skilled players being run, face washed, boarded etc.

[coco_canuck]

Coco you are a peculiar guy. First you say you don't need an enforcer and then you say well yeah you do but only if he is a skilled player who is also an enforcer.

Hmmm, how about you find a quote from me saying we don't need a tough guy who can play.

I've consistently said we need to have a tougher line-up, but the type of toughness we need isn't limited to fighting and intimidating. I'd love to have tough, intimidating forward who can play, but we also need forwards who can win battles in the corners and in front of the net.

At the end of the day, you win by scoring more goals than the other team, and the Canucks greatest undoing was their inability to score goals. They needed players who could win those battles more than they needed a guy who could fight, although that would have been welcome as well.

A tough guy who can't play and AV won't trust, such as Hordichuk, will not be in the line-up in crucial games.

I asked you if you knew of a tough guy with skill who was available and I'm guessing you don't because you certainly didn't name one.

There's Brad Winchester, a guy I've wanted the Canucks to sign before free agency started.

You say the John Scott comparison is an extreme, but I used it because the so-called "toughest SOB available" is a John Scott type player.

The biggest, "toughest SOB available" is David Koci. Do you really think it's a stretch to say Koci and Scott are similar types of shitty players?

Do you think Koci would dress for the Canucks in the cup finals?

Considering we're in August and there's nearly nothing left in the free agent market, did I need to give you these examples?

When you grow a little bit and gain some maturity in your conversational skills we'll discuss it a little more. You seem to want to watch our skilled players being run, face washed, boarded etc.

This from a guy who said:

Have you ever watched ice dancing? You might just like it.

That's arguing like a child.

In terms of conversational skills, I've backed up everything I've said, and despite your delusions, I've been very consistent with what I've been saying. You've made lame attacks and accusations with substantiating any of it...not exactly strong conversational skills.

Whichever way you want to twist it, you're the one looking foolish.

[KeyserSoze]

At the end of the day, you win by scoring more goals than the other team, and the Canucks greatest undoing was their inability to score goals. They needed players who could win those battles more than they needed a guy who could fight, although that would have been welcome as well.

A tough guy who can't play and AV won't trust, such as Hordichuk, will not be in the line-up in crucial games.

Exactly.

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that the Canucks need to be tougher.

Adding the toughest SOB available may be fine during the regular season, but it isn't going to help anyone come April/May/June, and that's what it's all about, right?

No one said that finding a tough guy that can play a regular shift in the playoffs would be easy, but that's where MG should be setting his sights when it comes to getting tougher.

[LotusBlossom]

... You seem to want to watch our skilled players being run, face washed, boarded etc.

It doesn't matter what level of a Canuck fan you are, there is no one on this board that wants to see this.

Really?

That's a pretty moot point to your argument with coco, IMO, Canuck-One.

At the end of the day, you win by scoring more goals than the other team, and the Canucks greatest undoing was their inability to score goals. They needed players who could win those battles more than they needed a guy who could fight, although that would have been welcome as well.

A tough guy who can't play and AV won't trust, such as Hordichuk, will not be in the line-up in crucial games.

This pretty much sums up what we are looking for in our 'tough guy'. I don't mind having someone with some 'presence' on the ice, but at what cost? Lack of scoring? Lack of skill?

I'm with coco on this one. As Clam has said earlier in this thread, I don't want a bunch of goons and thugs, I want a winning team with a little edge.

[coco_canuck]

No one said that finding a tough guy that can play a regular shift in the playoffs would be easy, but that's where MG should be setting his sights when it comes to getting tougher.

I don't mind having someone with some 'presence' on the ice, but at what cost? Lack of scoring? Lack of skill?

You're both right, and that's the reality of the situation. Considering where the Canucks are as a team and the system they play, they need players who can take a regular shift if they're going to play in the playoffs.

Any player who doesn't fit that won't be anything more than a part-time player in the regular season and an extra body for practise in the post-season.

It doesn't matter what level of a Canuck fan you are, there is no one on this board that wants to see this.

That's just a lame shot and a weak goading attempt on the dude's part.

[Fred]

[quote]by LotusBlossom on Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:14 pm

Canuck-One wrote:
... You seem to want to watch our skilled players being run, face washed, boarded etc.

It doesn't matter what level of a Canuck fan you are, there is no one on this board that wants to see this.

Really?

[/quote

I'm wondering how much this featured in the post season player interviews, because one thing we can all agree is MG is bring in a lot of gritty type players for try out at camp. It has to lead you to believe that players like the Sedins have said we're sick of being punched in the face or run head first into the boards or crossed checked by the goalie. I know in their positioned i wouldn't like it, I doubt if any one would. He (MG) seems to have a theme to his signings this summer

[Canuck-One]

Apparently there is a misunderstanding about my position. I firmly believe in bringing in ONE guy who can handle anything that may happen on the ice. I did not intend that we "load up" with goons. Brad Winchester would have been a good choice but unfortunately there seems to be some questions that the Canuck brain-trust have about him and he will probably not be invited. So that brings us back to my original position. You never let a team mate get beaten like Daniel or Mayray were and not respond. So yep I would bring in a tough S.O.B. to deal with this crap. If his knuckles scrape the ice, I don't care. If he only plays 1 minute per game, I don't care. I want to see Daniel and Hank making those sweet passes without being purposefully injured. I'm not sure what you want at all. Would you leave them to their own devices or are you willing to protect them. Never mind the BS about a skilled goon because if one was available MG would have already signed him.

[dhabums]

Apparently there is a misunderstanding about my position. I firmly believe in bringing in ONE guy who can handle anything that may happen on the ice. I did not intend that we "load up" with goons. Brad Winchester would have been a good choice but unfortunately there seems to be some questions that the Canuck brain-trust have about him and he will probably not be invited. So that brings us back to my original position. You never let a team mate get beaten like Daniel or Mayray were and not respond. So yep I would bring in a tough S.O.B. to deal with this crap. If his knuckles scrape the ice, I don't care. If he only plays 1 minute per game, I don't care. I want to see Daniel and Hank making those sweet passes without being purposefully injured. I'm not sure what you want at all. Would you leave them to their own devices or are you willing to protect them. Never mind the BS about a skilled goon because if one was available MG would have already signed him.

Do you truly think that a single goon prevents these things when he isn't even on the ice or bench? Perhaps it prevents something in November in a mean nothing game, but a talentless goof isn't going to prevent anything that happened.

However, if it's just the need to satisfy you need for revenge, so be it. But let's not confuse the two.