Kamloops very own Mark Recchi

[ukcanuck]

NicholasGoss35 Nicholas W. Goss
BleacherReport.com Featured Columnist for the Boston Bruins & NBA. Credentialed reporter at the 2011 Stanley Cup Final. Born in Boston. Suffolk '12

I shouldn't have been so lazy and checked , a bit convoluted re Luongo I thought.

no kidding, standing in front of a slapshot from the weakest shooter in the NHL is insane for most mere mortals. I cant think of any goalie in the pros who should be considered soft....soft in the head maybe

[Potatoe1]

Here's an article not generated from Vcr that lists what they believe is the softest players in the league

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9535 ... in-the-nhl

we have 3 of them

What idiot lists Sydney Crosby as one of the softest players in the league?

That article is automatically void.

[Rayxor]

They seem to change the definition of soft from player to player.

Its one or a combo of: 1. does not play a physical game. 2. gets hurt a lot. 3. Is an agitator that doesn't fight much. 4. big player who doesn't use his size effectively. 5. a known diver or whiner. 6. will disappear in physical games. 7. seems to lack heart or desire. 8. Is not "mentally tough" 9. gets paid too much.

Some guys rank high in one category but would be very low in another. The list seems heavily skewed to events within the past 6 months. The columnist should have just titled it "Here are some players i don't really like for various reasons."

Matt Cooke would be among the top of the list for criteria 3 and 5 but does not make the grade. Whatever, man.

[Cornuck]

Matt Cooke would be among the top of the list for criteria 3 and 5 but does not make the grade. Whatever, man.

It's the Bleacher Report - do any of their articles make sense?

[Fred]

Great point brought up on the Cooke hit on Savard.....there was no repercussion in the game when it happened just like the Lucic/Miller hit. Sure Cooke was called out in the following game much as I suspect Lucic will be called out tonight

[dhabums]

Matt Cooke would be among the top of the list for criteria 3 and 5 but does not make the grade. Whatever, man.

It's the Bleacher Report - do any of their articles make sense?

Funny that Avery, a guy with 80 career NHL fights made the list. Reads more like a list of "guys I hate" by the author.

I do applaud the NHL for giving credentials to retards, it's good to lend a helping hand.

[coco_canuck]

You can learn a lot about someone from what they read and what sources they deem legitimate or even discussion worthy.

[herb]

You can learn a lot about someone from what they read and what sources they deem legitimate or even discussion worthy.

What are you implying coco? That somebody who regularly reads the National Enquirer, erm I mean the Bleacher Report, may not exude intelligence, intellect and insight?

[Fred]

I guess you could say some folks divulge a small mean spirit when they post

[Blob Mckenzie]

Kind of odd that we as Canuck fans all wrapped up in our own myopic world rarely if ever mention why the Bruins won the cup. It's always a littany of reasons why Vancouver lost the finals, as opposed to giving the other team any credit for winning.

The Bruins won because they played a great defensive game. They got stellar goaltending- Tim Thomas was a fucking brick wall. They imposed thier physical will on the Canucks regardless of whether the officiating was sketchy or not ,and it definitely was BTW. A big part of Boston's game is toughness and physical play and that is part of the reason they won. Not to mention Zdeno Chara turning into a bigger faster Larry Robinson and giving one of the most dominant performances on the back end I have ever seen.

[herb]

Totally agree Blob. There were two teams playing.

As much as I think injuries were a huge factor for us, the bottom line is that the Bruins played well enough to win the series and the Canucks did not. Thomas was essentially unbeatable.

Even if 100% healthy and with the best officiating possible, the Canucks were in very tough against Thomas and Chara.

I hate Boston.

[dbr]

Kind of odd that we as Canuck fans all wrapped up in our own myopic world rarely if ever mention why the Bruins won the cup. It's always a littany of reasons why Vancouver lost the finals, as opposed to giving the other team any credit for winning.

It's probably pretty natural for fans. That series seemed pretty winnable at the outset (and extremely winnable when the good guys were up 2-0) so it's certainly relevant to consider why it slipped away.

And the Bruins definitely deserve credit (and I agree with your evaluation of their strengths in that series) but for a group of people who watch the Canucks play 82 + playoffs it's probably more comfortable to consider how our team can avoid past mistakes and get back to the Finals than to consider how good that fucking Bruins squad is.

But yeah.. their two best players were probably the two best players in the series, there isn't much that's going to counter that.

[Potatoe1]

Kind of odd that we as Canuck fans all wrapped up in our own myopic world rarely if ever mention why the Bruins won the cup. It's always a littany of reasons why Vancouver lost the finals, as opposed to giving the other team any credit for winning.

The Bruins won because they played a great defensive game. They got stellar goaltending- Tim Thomas was a fucking brick wall. They imposed thier physical will on the Canucks regardless of whether the officiating was sketchy or not ,and it definitely was BTW. A big part of Boston's game is toughness and physical play and that is part of the reason they won. Not to mention Zdeno Chara turning into a bigger faster Larry Robinson and giving one of the most dominant performances on the back end I have ever seen.

I'm not sure anyone would disagree, they are a very good team.

That said the Canucks are not going to beat the Bruins by being more like the Bruins. They are going to beat the Bruins with better puck movement, higher skill, better special teams, and goaltending that is at least somewhat comparable.

Our ability to do the things that makes "us" a very good team was significantly impaired by the injury situation and the massive gap in goaltending.

[Larry Goodenough]

Kind of odd that we as Canuck fans all wrapped up in our own myopic world rarely if ever mention why the Bruins won the cup. It's always a littany of reasons why Vancouver lost the finals, as opposed to giving the other team any credit for winning.

The Bruins won because they played a great defensive game. They got stellar goaltending- Tim Thomas was a fucking brick wall. They imposed thier physical will on the Canucks regardless of whether the officiating was sketchy or not ,and it definitely was BTW. A big part of Boston's game is toughness and physical play and that is part of the reason they won. Not to mention Zdeno Chara turning into a bigger faster Larry Robinson and giving one of the most dominant performances on the back end I have ever seen.

I'm not sure anyone would disagree, they are a very good team.

That said the Canucks are not going to beat the Bruins by being more like the Bruins. They are going to beat the Bruins with better puck movement, higher skill, better special teams, and goaltending that is at least somewhat comparable.

Our ability to do the things that makes "us" a very good team was significantly impaired by the injury situation and the massive gap in goaltending.

Injuires were an issue, as was travel. The travel stuff is rarely mentioned.

Vancouver traveled over 51,000 miles during the regular season (3rd most in the league), while Boston traveled 35,000 miles (21st in the league).

Then Vancouver was jetting to Chicago (1770 miles), Nashville (2030 miles) and San Jose (824 miles), for a total distance of over 4600 miles. Meanwhile Boston was going to to Montreal (250 miles), Philladelphia (270 miles) and Tampa (1180 miles) for 1700 total miles. So, before these 2 team met, one had travelled almost 3 times as during the playoffs, while the other never left their time zone.

Call it an excuse all you want. The science is there that this put one team at a disadvantage.

[Rumsfeld]

You can learn a lot about someone from what they read and what sources they deem legitimate or even discussion worthy.

You sure can, coco.

*removes reading glasses and gently places well-worn copy of Mein Kampf on immaculate coffee table*

You sure the hell can.