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 LotusBlossom » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:59 am

Hockey Widow wrote: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.



Gentlemen, you can all stop debating now. The lady has spoken and she's right! Thanks!

Carry on. Nothing more to see here. 8-)
Didn't you know?I'm Front Page news! ;)
User avatar
LotusBlossom
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:53 pm
Location: Metro Vancouver

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Topper » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:10 am

Last season the Canucks did have a reputation as a tough team to play against and there was a time when Burrows, Kesler and Bieksa were more hated than they are today. I'm sure Kelly remembers.

Do they need additional pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence? Only if they can skate and score goals.

If you are going to send a message, it is best done immediately. The same shift. that means Burrows or a defender answering for Dank (Dank is plural BTW, Dan+Hank=Dank). I also need to ask what is wrong with a couple of guys 6'1"-6'2" and a hair under 190 sticking up for themselves on occasion? They needed answer the bell, but a push back and face wash every once in a while may cut them some slack.
Last edited by Topper on Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 4989
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby mathonwy » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:24 am

I think there should be a "If.. then.. else" process in place.

If

Hank/Dank/Luo/Kes/Edler gets cheapshotted

then

Ballard/Bieksa/Volpatti/Weise/Burr/Higgins goes to offending player and challenges them

elseif offending player declines then

We start running at their stars. Low bridge. Charge. Slash (Matty Ohlund style). Everything except for headshots (and shouldershots of course). I'll take a 2 minute minor everytime to see Volpatti retaliate on the Methot hit by laying the lumber on Nash's wrist.

It's about consequences. Methot's actions led to Nash's wrist getting slashed. Easy peasy.

It's not human nature for any of our guys to start running at the other team's stars. We just don't have any assholes on our team. However, I firmly believe that this can be a learned skill. Now that Avery's in the minors, maybe he's available to consult? :lol:

The message HAS to be sent to the league in general that it is not acceptable to fuck with our stars. We may not initiate the dirty play, but we DO need to be able to respond in kind.
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby sagebrush » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:34 am

Topper wrote:....If you are going to send a message, it is best done immediately....

mathonwy wrote:..The message HAS to be sent to the league in general that it is not acceptable to fuck with our stars. We may not initiate the dirty play, but we DO need to be able to respond in kind.

Agreed & agreed.

The message is not just to the offending player (who took liberties) and to other players who might do the same, but to the refs as well. The refs need to know that if they don't adequately police our games, someone else will....and it will make the refs look bad. The Canucks didn't do this in the SCF, and it hurt us.
User avatar
sagebrush
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:23 pm

Strangelove wrote:Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was...


Oh, now you're just being a Talking Head...

:P

Strangelove wrote: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.


I think you're too disenchanted with a team that was a hair away from winning the cup and failed mostly due to having too many injuries.

We don't necessarily have to follow the Bruins model to win the cup. Above all else we need health and scoring depth. It's pretty evident this team lacks another true top 6 player, and I'd love that player to be a power forward, but a capable goal scorer, someone who can score in traffic can also be a big boost.

We'd all love to have complete team that does everything and has all the size and toughness everyone wants, but that type of team isn't put together overnight, and for the Canucks to enter the realm of the Bruins, they need more than one or two additions.

I'm certainly not "drinking the Gillis kool-aid," but the man has proven to be a very good GM and the trading window has yet to close. We're only 5 games into the season, we're not completely healthy and we're not yet sure how good the team will be.

This team is built for speed, skill, puck domination, strong defense and excellent special teams. It's proven to be pretty successful in Gillis' reign as GM, and I'm not going to expect this team to play another way unless they have a major face-lift.
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 dhabums » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:28 pm

coco_canuck wrote:I think you're too disenchanted with a team that was a hair away from winning the cup and failed mostly due to having too many injuries.


If last year was our first in the NHL I'd agree 100%.
User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:35 pm

dhabums wrote:If last year was our first in the NHL I'd agree 100%.


What does this current team, that's essentially been our core for the past 3 years and has had additions have to do with anything else in our history?
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 Potatoe1 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:55 pm

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



: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.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby dhabums » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:58 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
dhabums wrote:If last year was our first in the NHL I'd agree 100%.


What does this current team, that's essentially been our core for the past 3 years and has had additions have to do with anything else in our history?


There are those other 2 years. I think I just might be tired of hearing how we almost won last year. I get it, we lost 4-3. We could have lost all 7.

At the risk of speaking for others, I'd say many fans were disappointed or even embarrassed about the WAY we lost last year and not that we did lose.
User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby dhabums » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:00 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


:lol:

Are you serious?


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


Are you taking more of those creative reading classes?
User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Potatoe1 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:04 pm

dhabums wrote:
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


:lol:

Are you serious?


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


Are you taking more of those creative reading classes?



How about creative cropping.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby ukcanuck » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:05 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
dhabums wrote:If last year was our first in the NHL I'd agree 100%.


What does this current team, that's essentially been our core for the past 3 years and has had additions have to do with anything else in our history?


Just a guess but...Going back to the 7 game Dallas series (2008) it could be argued that series was the last one where a team tried to play chess with the Canucks. Since then, each season has ended with a physical team using head games, intimidation, taking liberties and skill to do us in.

after the success of the hawks and bruins its not hard to imagine whoever the Canucks draw in the playoffs this year will try the same tactics.

on a related note. has the change in Luongo's game since the loss to Anaheim got something to do with the way that he has had to battle the crease crashing that the Canucks have failed to stop? Is the attempt to play deeper in the net and to rely on technique rather than reflex a way of dealing with opposing forwards that really wouldn't be a problem if we had a Pronger or Stevens-like stud Defenseman?
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:42 pm

ukcanuck wrote:Since then, each season has ended with a physical team using head games, intimidation, taking liberties and skill to do us in.


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.

They were laughable against a superior Anaheim roster, they didn't have the speed and depth to beat Chicago in 09, they had injuries and lacked the depth to beat Chicago in 10, and they were decimated by injuries when they faced Boston last year.

But, it's the intimidation and physical edge that were the biggest reasons for the Canucks losses right?

I'm not denying it happened, and I probably hated watching it more than you because I'm an ill-tempered fuck when it comes to watching my team, but this issue is comically overblown.

The reason the Canucks came close to winning the cup last season was because they added Hamhuis, Malhotra, Higgins, Lapierre, they had Schneider share the load with Luongo, Hansen took a step as a player, and the Canucks hired Newell Brown to revamp the PP.

They went from being a perennial 3rd seed and 2nd round loser to winning the President trophy and getting to game 7 of the Stanley Cup because of the depth, skill and talent those players provided.

Teams built to have a physical edge will always take it to their advantage. Chicago had it and so did Boston, but they also had strong rosters, and Thomas had a historic performance for the Bruins. The Preds tried play a physical game with Canucks but didn't have the skill to keep up, and when San Jose tried to use their size up-front they found themselves chasing.
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 Hank » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:46 pm

Topper wrote:Do they need additional pugnacity, testosterone, truculence and belligerence? Only if they can skate and score goals.

If you are going to send a message, it is best done immediately. The same shift. that means Burrows or a defender answering for Dank (Dank is plural BTW, Dan+Hank=Dank). I also need to ask what is wrong with a couple of guys 6'1"-6'2" and a hair under 190 sticking up for themselves on occasion? They needed answer the bell, but a push back and face wash every once in a while may cut them some slack.


See, this is what I agree with.

If ya can't play, forget about it.

Messages need to be sent immediately. Letting it fester between periods or games can turn it into something much uglier. ie. Bertuzzi.

Sometimes it's worth it to take a penalty to send a message instead of turning the other cheek for a power play opportunity. Depends on the score and the game situation. Sending a message could mean jumping on the perpetrator right away, going after their star players or running up the score.

What's wrong with DHank retaliating once in a while? They'll gain some room and some respect if they use their sticks in other ways. Instead of all those cheap hooking infractions that they take, why not shatter a couple of them twigs on the back of some legs? A gloved punch or some facewashes? If it gets rough, you'll bet the other guys will jump right in. How does a little shit like Briere get room? Because he's a little prick with a big stick. Leave them guessing in the regular season and maybe fucks like Bolland and Marchand will think twice in the playoffs.

All this talk about toughness, sometimes you gotta do it yourself boys.
Hank
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:33 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby ukcanuck » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:31 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:Since then, each season has ended with a physical team using head games, intimidation, taking liberties and skill to do us in.


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.

They were laughable against a superior Anaheim roster, they didn't have the speed and depth to beat Chicago in 09, they had injuries and lacked the depth to beat Chicago in 10, and they were decimated by injuries when they faced Boston last year.

But, it's the intimidation and physical edge that were the biggest reasons for the Canucks losses right?

I'm not denying it happened, and I probably hated watching it more than you because I'm an ill-tempered fuck when it comes to watching my team, but this issue is comically overblown.



I'm not arguing with you and in fact agree with most of what you are saying but while you are accusing some of over emphasising the physical nature of our losses, I don't think its unreasonable to want and expect that the Canucks as an organisation focus on the physical part of their game. 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.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests