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 rats19 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:28 pm

I think dank and hank shud spank for themselves...would solve everything....everybody shud hit anybody who fucks with us....ffs, i know, broken knuckles....
You are who you hang with.....
User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over there.....

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:31 pm

coco_canuck wrote:The call on the ice was the right one, and it should have been left at that.


Totally disagree....

coco_canuck wrote:That's not the Canucks game


Well that's the whole point ole bean: They need to make it part of their game. 8-)
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby dhabums » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:40 pm

herb wrote:
dhabums wrote:Does anyone actually believe that having some team toughness will prevent all team injuries? Is anyone saying that? Do you really believe that the point being put forward is to make sure nothing ever happens? I think this is why so many people get confused with this. Too many people desperate to simplify discussions into black or white.


Some are hypothesizing that we need to get tougher in order to protect the Sedins from dirty hits like the Eager one in the SJS series.

The Bruins being a "tough" team last year did nothing to prevent a star player of theirs from being knocked out by a dirty hit. The fact that Horton was knocked out by a "team with no balls" is interesting to me because it seems to fly in the face of that hypothesis.


Hits "like the one". You can choose to single out an event as relevant or look at the bigger picture.

While you may not stop the guys hell bent on running people, I have zero doubt that the image your team projects will affect how many players decide to act.
User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:55 pm

Strangelove wrote:I suppose what we're really talking about here is cumulative physical responses... arent we?

A reputation of being... actually being... a tough team?


Essentially.

As I said to Clam, the Canucks aren't a team that can engage in physical battles consistently, and they can't carry out the persona of a team that will always fight and instigate retribution.

Physical intimidation only has value if you can carry it out on a consistent basis.

Strangelove wrote:Really?? HERE??


dhabums wrote:Wayne Gretzky insisted McSorley be included in the deal to LA. True story? Maybe. Do you think Marchand tries that garbage on 99?


Strangelove wrote:Sometimes it's best to respond immediately. I think you would agree.


Yes I would agree, I should have clarified what I meant by immediate. I like the instant response on the ice to a dirty hit, guy gets hit, and a teammate goes after the culprit. But when that doesn't happen despite efforts to do so, I don't think this team should instigate a fight over a hit like Methot's, or exact revenge the next time that guy steps on the ice.

We also know players have long memories. There will be a time down the road when he'll be on the receiving end of a hard hit, or even a fight. We're all familiar with that type of retribution. It's a long season, and there will be a time and a place.

You also brought up Russell. If you watch the replay, Burrows goes after Methot but Dorsett intervenes and the linesman jumps in front of Methot.

Like I said, I'm all for that instant response on the ice. One of the things that angered me the most about Oreskovich was him standing by when Marchand upended Henrik and Daniel and he just stood there and did nothing, and I've said that numerous times on this board and the old CC.
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 coco_canuck » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:59 pm

Strangelove wrote:Totally disagree....


Did you think it should have been a major, a suspension?

I don't think it should have been a suspension, but then again I think some of these suspensions being handed out have been extreme in some cases, and I thought Rome's suspension was horseshit.


Strangelove wrote:Well that's the whole point ole bean: They need to make it part of their game. 8-)


Hey, if we can get Weber, or someone like him, a power-forward, and a big and tough 2-way 3rd liner, then maybe we can play that type of a game.
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 Madcombinepilot » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:20 pm

I dont think that its just questionable hits on our star players that need retaliation, its the perception thats its ok to do those hits that needs to be changed. Everyone on our team faces more questionable hits.

I watch a lot of hockey games, and it sure seems to me that teams think the way to play the Canucks is to be extra physical with them. the Raymond hit was an extreme example of that. Yeah, both sedins have been hit this year on plays that seemed suspendable in the pre season, but there have also been more questionaqble hits on our 'fringe' players that people (and refs, and announcers) just let slide.

With the doctrine being get on the canucks physically, and with the sign 'most hated' around the teams neck, it seems that other teams get to take more liberties when playing against the canucks. look at the penalty calls for ands against this year. Its like the playoffs are still on with phantom calls against us and missed calls for us. if no penalty is called, how can we retaliate on the PP? If burrows gets a toe in the crease, he is called for goalie interference, yet holmstrom can run over Lu with no call based off reputation alone. In fact, with the league (and ref's) knowing that the easiest way to get Luongo off his game is to take a run at him, its sure seems acceptable to do so now... "cause its the only way to get one by him" Even with Luongo moving back farther into his crease, opposing players just play him deeper in the blue paint -- with no calls. Burrows brushes a goalie pad 2 feet outside the crease and he is gone for 2, and has to 'answer the bell'...


Now, if we had a crease clearing 'Rick Rypien' style defender back there, a guy who was on the ice for 12-14 minutes a night, that would sure reduce the # of BS plays if the opposition had 'to answer the bell' against us... I could handle us getting some bs instigator penalites or the extra 2 for roughing if it made other teams respect our crease like we have to respect thiers. If it reduced the total questionable hits to the team, well, thats a bonus too.
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with untill you understand I am in charge.
User avatar
Madcombinepilot
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1938
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:54 am
Location: Saskatoon, Sk.

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby ClamRussel » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:33 pm

coco_canuck wrote:The Methot hit was bad, but if we're being completely honest, the hit wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, it was aggrandized because it was the Captain. Methot didn't exactly hammer Henrik and he certainly didn't follow through to drive Henrik into the boards. The call on the ice was the right one, and it should have been left at that.


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?

coco_canuck wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Totally disagree....

Did you think it should have been a major, a suspension?

I don't think it should have been a suspension, but then again I think some of these suspensions being handed out have been extreme in some cases, and I thought Rome's suspension was horseshit.


Agreed on the latter...but the Rome suspension did happen. The suspension parade in the preseason did happen. Isn't this the new standard? Guess not. Guys have been suspended for alot less than what Mehtot did, where's the consistency? <---rhetorical question.

Madcombinepilot wrote:I dont think that its just questionable hits on our star players that need retaliation, its the perception thats its ok to do those hits that needs to be changed. Everyone on our team faces more questionable hits.

I watch a lot of hockey games, and it sure seems to me that teams think the way to play the Canucks is to be extra physical with them. the Raymond hit was an extreme example of that. Yeah, both sedins have been hit this year on plays that seemed suspendable in the pre season, but there have also been more questionaqble hits on our 'fringe' players that people (and refs, and announcers) just let slide.

With the doctrine being get on the canucks physically, and with the sign 'most hated' around the teams neck, it seems that other teams get to take more liberties when playing against the canucks. look at the penalty calls for ands against this year. Its like the playoffs are still on with phantom calls against us and missed calls for us. if no penalty is called, how can we retaliate on the PP? If burrows gets a toe in the crease, he is called for goalie interference, yet holmstrom can run over Lu with no call based off reputation alone. In fact, with the league (and ref's) knowing that the easiest way to get Luongo off his game is to take a run at him, its sure seems acceptable to do so now... "cause its the only way to get one by him" Even with Luongo moving back farther into his crease, opposing players just play him deeper in the blue paint -- with no calls. Burrows brushes a goalie pad 2 feet outside the crease and he is gone for 2, and has to 'answer the bell'...


Now, if we had a crease clearing 'Rick Rypien' style defender back there, a guy who was on the ice for 12-14 minutes a night, that would sure reduce the # of BS plays if the opposition had 'to answer the bell' against us... I could handle us getting some bs instigator penalites or the extra 2 for roughing if it made other teams respect our crease like we have to respect thiers. If it reduced the total questionable hits to the team, well, thats a bonus too.


Well put MCP!
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Per » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:49 pm

Madcombinepilot wrote:I dont think that its just questionable hits on our star players that need retaliation, its the perception thats its ok to do those hits that needs to be changed. Everyone on our team faces more questionable hits.

I watch a lot of hockey games, and it sure seems to me that teams think the way to play the Canucks is to be extra physical with them. the Raymond hit was an extreme example of that. Yeah, both sedins have been hit this year on plays that seemed suspendable in the pre season, but there have also been more questionaqble hits on our 'fringe' players that people (and refs, and announcers) just let slide.

With the doctrine being get on the canucks physically, and with the sign 'most hated' around the teams neck, it seems that other teams get to take more liberties when playing against the canucks. look at the penalty calls for ands against this year. Its like the playoffs are still on with phantom calls against us and missed calls for us. if no penalty is called, how can we retaliate on the PP? If burrows gets a toe in the crease, he is called for goalie interference, yet holmstrom can run over Lu with no call based off reputation alone. In fact, with the league (and ref's) knowing that the easiest way to get Luongo off his game is to take a run at him, its sure seems acceptable to do so now... "cause its the only way to get one by him" Even with Luongo moving back farther into his crease, opposing players just play him deeper in the blue paint -- with no calls. Burrows brushes a goalie pad 2 feet outside the crease and he is gone for 2, and has to 'answer the bell'...


Now, if we had a crease clearing 'Rick Rypien' style defender back there, a guy who was on the ice for 12-14 minutes a night, that would sure reduce the # of BS plays if the opposition had 'to answer the bell' against us... I could handle us getting some bs instigator penalites or the extra 2 for roughing if it made other teams respect our crease like we have to respect thiers. If it reduced the total questionable hits to the team, well, thats a bonus too.

I'm firmly on the team management side here; it's better to punish the opponents on the power play than by fighting. That being said, just like everyone else in this debate I do not think it's a completely black or white issue. At times you may have to stand up and defend your team mates.

You bring up the one issue where I do think this is fundamental - defending your goalie.

It should be absolutely clear that we do not accept any one running our goalie.
That's the one instant in a game where I do think starting a fight is always justified.

The Sedins are grown men playing a game where physicality is an important aspect. They can take care of themselves.

But Luongo is a goalie, and as such he will repeatedly have to get into vulnerable positions, neglecting his own security. Therefor his team mates need to make sure that his safety is never endangered. Anyone attemting to run your goalie should pay. Especially when your goalie is some one as moody as Luongo. A very talented goalie, one of the very best in the league, but with a tendency to tantrums and at times being thrown off his game. By ensuring that he is not run, and by swiftly demanding retribution when he is, we improve his work place environment and help him stay focused on his game.

I always prefer to see the refs controlling the game, and if they make sure to penalise everyone that gets in the goalie's face - fine. But even then I think the culprit may deserve a bit of a notice from our team.
User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Per » Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:55 pm

coco_canuck wrote: We also know players have long memories.


Well, except for the ones that have received too many hits to the head, of course. :hmmm:
User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:12 am

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?
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 8:59 am

coco_canuck wrote: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.


:lol:

It was a dirty hit. Henrik was questionable for the next game and I'll bet he's still feeling it. I also remember Henrik suggesting after the game that a suspension might be in order. But then as YOU said: players have long memories and will no doubt seek retribution down the road. Bieksa said basically the same thing about Methot & his hit. Dirty & dangerous hits have traditionally resulted in on-ice nasty-ass retribution.

If Shanahan doesn't deal with it, the players must.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was...

You need toughness for that. :D
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:15 am

coco_canuck wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Well that's the whole point ole bean: They need to make it part of their game. 8-)


Hey, if we can get Weber, or someone like him, a power-forward, and a big and tough 2-way 3rd liner, then maybe we can play that type of a game.


Well that's what I believe most folks are saying. It's definitely what I've been saying. 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.

The Canucks have balls but they're extremely small. You need big balls in the testosterone-filled NHL.
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby KeyserSoze » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:23 am

Strangelove wrote:
coco_canuck wrote: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.


:lol:

It was a dirty hit. Henrik was questionable for the next game and I'll bet he's still feeling it. I also remember Henrik suggesting after the game that a suspension might be in order. But then as YOU said: players have long memories and will no doubt seek retribution down the road. Bieksa said basically the same thing about Methot & his hit. Dirty & dangerous hits have traditionally resulted in on-ice nasty-ass retribution.

"There's no need to explode through a guy when his back is to you," Bieksa said of Monday's hit. "There's no reason Methot can't go for the puck there and go stick on puck. But he made his hit and we got a power play and, hopefully, next time it's a little bit more."

Even Hank referred to it as a cheap shot.

I didn't feel that Methot let up on the hit even though Hank's back was turned, and I also thought that play, especially from what we have seen in the season/pre-season leading up to it, deserved more then just a 2 min minor. Perhaps not a suspension, but a double minor or 5 min major would hav been justifiable imo.
User avatar
KeyserSoze
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:39 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby sagebrush » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:07 am

There's little doubt the Methot hit was dirty. The penalty call seemed light. The Canucks aren't known for cheap shots (just diving), but some strategic slashes and elbows (to Methot) could have sent a message. Consider what Boston did in the SCF. Instead, we settled for the win.

There may be a time when the message is more important than the win.
User avatar
sagebrush
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Hockey Widow » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:57 am

I think the win is always more important than retribution. 2 points is 2 points. We won't change our reputation overnight. All of our players need to man up a little more and show that team toughness they talk about.

While I don't advocate a 4th line goon, good for one thing, I do advocate a tougher 4th line capable of making an impact and sending a statement.

In this case in point I believe is deserved a suspension based upon the way suspensions are now being handed out. The time to make a statement by the NHL is before a major injury. If he gets 5+ games he never does this shit again. But then again I believed Eager should have been suspended as well.

It really does seem that it is open season on the twins and always has been. It is hard to figure out why. But it is reality. The Canucks do need to develop an identity that enough is enough and find a way to have a response that does not cost them games. This incarnation of the Canucks gets too distracted when looking for pay back. When they lose their composure they get caught running around and look like a junior team on the ice. They just are not good at getting away from the game plan.

We need someone to step up but not at the cost of games.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Boston Canucker, Google [Bot], Hockey Widow, Southern_Canuck and 2 guests