Canucks Have No Balls

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby sagebrush » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:49 pm

ukcanuck wrote: ...the Canucks tried to be proactive in this area last year by initiating the rough stuff as much as possible, they out hit everyone they faced but in the end as you say, injuries at critical points was their principal undoing.

Out hitting teams is usually good. It disrupts their flow, gets our guys into the game emotionally (queue Doc), and helps gain control of the key areas of the ice. Injuring yourself to get a hit - is not good.

Out hitting teams doesn't do much to deter cheap shots, that can injure our guys. A different kind of toughness is required. A nastier kind.
User avatar
sagebrush
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:02 pm

ukcanuck wrote:[
On a positive note it really seemed that the Canucks tried to be proactive in this area last year by initiating the rough stuff as much as possible, they out hit everyone they faced but in the end as you say, injuries at critical points was their principal undoing.


The Canucks undoing against Boston was getting into the scrums in the first place. All year they stayed away from it to great success, and then in the finals they reverted back to their old ways. There were plenty of reasons why they did, some understandable but a lot of it out frustration.

As Vigneault says, be a strong, physical team whistle to whistle. The Canucks have no problem skating and hitting with any team in the league. We were weak in front of the net and in the corners due to Boston's advantage in that area as well key injuries. They were never going to win a physical war and scrum battles against Boston, but they got into it anyways and looked silly doing it.

It's not a matter of going toe-to-toe with the most physical teams in the league, it's about playing "Canucks hockey," finishing checks and being strong on your skates. As they're built, that's their game, not engaging in consistent physical battles with other teams.

They're not cut out to play that style of game on a consistent basis.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:32 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
Strangelove wrote: Gillis has needed to add toughness for quite some time. He's made some anemic attempts, but the sad truth is he has failed miserably. Now I understand that most fans love to guzzle the koolaid the GM is serving but it pains me that the Canucks are so close to the Holy Grail yet WON'T get there without addressing this glaring weakness.



:lol:

Are you serious?

Gillis doesn't need any Kool aid after his team had the most successful season in club history.

The idea that any Canuck fan would consider last year to be a failure is just mind boggling.


Damn straight I’m serious Mr Potatoe. :devil:

I said he failed to ADD TOUGHNESS.

And I said you’re guzzling koolaid if you can’t see said failure.

I also said Canucks WON'T get there without addressing this glaring weakness.

Feel free... between gulps... to tell us why you disagree! :mex:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:38 pm

coco_canuck wrote:Biggest reason they lost to all those teams is because the Canucks weren't good enough when they faced them.

It's astounding how much weight people put into the physical side of the game when a team was simply outclassed.


Oh I get it.... the huge edge in toughness each year was just coincidence!

Bartender I’ll have what he’s hav..... oh wait. :look:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Ropesauce » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:04 pm

coco_canuck wrote:.............. and Thomas had a historic performance for the Bruins.

wondered when someone was going to mention this.

The Canucks strategy of making the opposition pay for any liberties taken by scoring on the PP worked great until they came up against a ridiculously hot goalie.

Questionable calls and the injuries also played a far more significant role in the SCF loss than any perceived lack of toughness.
User avatar
Ropesauce
CC Rookie
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:01 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:17 pm

Ropesauce wrote:The Canucks strategy of making the opposition pay for any liberties taken by scoring on the PP worked great until they came up against a ridiculously hot goalie.


Well the obvious answer to the Thomas Dilemma was: RUN THOMAS.

But that takes balls y'see... :D

What to do about 2 players shooting the puck at Luongo during warmup (one of them being Thomas) + What to do about Marchand rabbit punching Daniel + What to do about Thomas chopping-down & blocker-punching Burrows with under 2 mins left in a 4-0 game???

Now normally the answer would be RUN THOMAS. After all he was their star and he was acting like a prick. But pussy-canucks don't do it. WHY? Because they know they can't go toe-to-toe with the Big Bad bruins. If they run Thomas, Chara puts a Sedin in the hospital (for eg.).

I'm not saying toughness is the best thing.

I'm saying it's the ONLY THING!! :devil:

Kidding, just saying it's definitely a factor in your Stanley Cup playoffs....
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Topper » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:48 pm

Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby herb » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:38 pm

^

:D
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby sagebrush » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:15 pm

The Cains drew lots of PP time to beat the Bruins, but would you get that in the play offs?
User avatar
sagebrush
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Per » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:42 pm

Strangelove wrote: Now I understand that most fans love to guzzle the koolaid the GM is serving


It's not really koolaid, more of an Okanagan Valley icewine...

"It’s luscious, full, rich, and unique. I doubt there’s another Chardonnay icewine like it made anywhere. All wildflower honey and sugared almonds, with an intriguing hint of some spice way in the back of the profile—maybe cinnamon, maybe allspice? A full-on taste experience, a glorious wine."

Now all I'm asking is that next June we'll be drinking champagne out of a huge silver cup instead.

Well, not that I have anything against ice wine... it'd just be nice to experience what the Vancouver Millionaires once did.
User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:26 am



I wouldn't knock the methods of the Stanley Cup champs much.

They felt it was time to send a message, who are we to argue? :mex:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Rumsfeld » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:32 am

sagebrush wrote:The Cains drew lots of PP time to beat the Bruins, but would you get that in the play offs?


Well, we already know we wouldn't. The Canes might, though.
Cowards die a thousand times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2632
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Pissed in the Canyon

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby ClamRussel » Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:48 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
ClamRussel wrote:K, thats crap. Based on Shanahan's approach this year, and a NEW precedent being set w/ Rome in the Finals that most certainly should have been 5+game+suspension. Is the NHL serious when it comes to player's safety? Torres got 4 games last year (BEFORE the new precedent was set) for taking a run at Eberle...face to face mind you...where's the line? Eberle got up right away, didn't seem hurt. What IF Henrik doesn't get up? Then is it a suspension? You have a guy who took a run at Henrik...let up a bit but still followed through enough when he could have avoided the hit, plenty of time....Sedin doesn't see it coming, total blind side. As per usual, the punishment is based on whether the player is hurt or not (Horton) and not the crime/intent. Hits from behind are easily as dangerous as any head shot, possibly more so. Is Torres suspended for 4 if he hits Ryan Jones and not Eberle? Preferential treatment? Where's Henrik or Daniel's?


Not every hit from behind is suspendable.

One thing you missed is it wasn't a head-shot, the hit wasn't square into the back of Henrik, Methot didn't drive him through the boards, and it wasn't charging. If you remove your Canucks glasses and actually compare that hit to the head-shots we've seen suspended you'll see it's not as bad as you say. Methot also isn't a repeat offender and Henrik also bears responsibility for putting himself in that position, something he admitted after the game.

Torres' suspension happened because it was a blindside hit to the head, and Torres already has a bad reputation as a head hunter.

By your logic, JF Jacques shouldn't have been suspended for making a B-line to Duco and beating him up since Duco is a borderline player.

You said this hit was far worse than some of the suspensions we've seen, which ones are those?

Also, when injuries happen the punishment is increased and it's not a fact the NHL hides any longer, Shannahan has been very clear with that. If Henrik was injured, then I'd expect a suspension, but the hit really wasn't as bad as people made it out to seem.

Although, it's pretty difficult having a discussion when you're treading into another famous Canucks conspiracy...the NHL is out to get the Canucks at every turn and aren't protecting the twins.

Do you honestly think the NHL was reluctant to suspend a nobody in Methot from a shitty Columbus team because they have something against one of the best players in the league?


Laughable.

This got 2 games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLrko9zE8s

This got 0 games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKm7-3MlofM
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby ukcanuck » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:19 am

ClamRussel wrote:
coco_canuck wrote:
Do you honestly think the NHL was reluctant to suspend a nobody in Methot from a shitty Columbus team because they have something against one of the best players in the league?


Laughable.

This got 2 games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLrko9zE8s

This got 0 games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKm7-3MlofM



The only thing thats different between these to videos is that Sedin is stationary and probably should have known that someone was there, he would have been able to hear the footsteps coming...whereas, the other hit seems to have fulfilled all the requirements for an illegal hit.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Topper » Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:56 am

1 - A path to the puck is never predictable for a Sedin.

2 - Methot did not follow through with his arm as Letang did.

3 - Henrik saw him coming and turned his back to Methot.

The best news out of those videos is that Shanny The Media Whore had the balls to suspend a star player while at the same time did not jump to offer extra protection to another star player.

He showed some much needed and much asked for consistency in calling supplementary discipline.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests