Page 4 of 5

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:03 pm
by rats19
ukcanuck wrote:
rats19 wrote:Cdotcom saying its lou tomorrow against minny...wtf?
I mentioned it before but if I were AV, I'd a sat em both down in camp and read the "its all a 1a 1b rotating gig" sermon. shut outs and standing on head will not ensure the crease for the next game BUT, record over the next 48 games will determine to some degree my choice for starting goalie in playoffs...

do you think this is why I am not an NHL coach?
likley...that and some other stuff...

but I mean I dont really care but its not sticking to any pattern.....whatsoever...maybe thats the pattern :idea:

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:24 pm
by ukcanuck
rats19 wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
rats19 wrote:Cdotcom saying its lou tomorrow against minny...wtf?
I mentioned it before but if I were AV, I'd a sat em both down in camp and read the "its all a 1a 1b rotating gig" sermon. shut outs and standing on head will not ensure the crease for the next game BUT, record over the next 48 games will determine to some degree my choice for starting goalie in playoffs...

do you think this is why I am not an NHL coach?
likley...that and some other stuff...

but I mean I dont really care but its not sticking to any pattern.....whatsoever...maybe thats the pattern :idea:
Actually I think thats smart on AV if its so....a pattern denotes a plan, and a plan excludes one or the other....

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:25 pm
by Topper
ukcanuck wrote:No shit especially for us pukes who can't get out to Rogers place in person
I don't recall Jim Robson saying "pukes".

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:28 pm
by Strangelove
Topper wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:No shit especially for us pukes who can't get out to Rogers place in person
I don't recall Jim Robson saying "pukes".
Wasn't it....

"A special hello to hospital patients and shut-ins, the pensioners, the blind, all the pukes who don't get out to games but enjoy the hockey broadcasts."

Something like that...

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:39 pm
by Blob Mckenzie
Nah it was Cherry who called guys pukes after they drank all that dope.

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:44 pm
by ukcanuck
Topper wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:No shit especially for us pukes who can't get out to Rogers place in person
I don't recall Jim Robson saying "pukes".
Lol I remember Robson having way more class than that,

I guess I went with pukes as I dont fit in those other more respectable categories... n

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:44 pm
by Strangelove
rats19 wrote:Cdotcom saying its lou tomorrow against minny...wtf?
Yeah, Schneids lets in 2 goals in 2 games, going .964

.... and in goes Lou??

But then Lou is as hot as it gets.

Remember these days kids, there's never been anything like it before, and likely never will be again...

TWO TOP FIVE GOALTENDERS ON THE SAME TEAM! :shock:

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:24 pm
by Hockey Widow
Seems like the plan is to run then 2-3 games each. Also seems like they are playing the numbers games. They are using stats to help make a decision as to who starts and where. I guess with two number ones you have that luxury of using the stats and letting them both run for 2-3 games at a time.

This controversy sucks doesn't it. I mean the biggest problem we have today is trying to figure out which number one gets the start. How I long for the days when we worried about who was going to be top 2 on D, who was going to play centre, did we have a fourth line, etc. I hate goalie controversies. They are so draining on the fans, the team and the media.

The disruption this team is experiencing because of this is overwhelming. If the team didn't have to deal with this distraction, this dissension in the dressing room, no telling where they would be in the standings. Perhaps the twins would have more goals if they could just concentrate on playing hockey. Maybe Kesler would have a more burning desire to return to the line up. Maybe Ballard would play better, oh wait he is. Maybe the distraction of this goalie controversy has allowed Ballard to settle down and play his game knowing he is not under the spot light anymore?

It doesn't matter what MG gets in return. He needs to rid the team of this major controversy, this overwhelming distraction. For the sake of the franchise, please Mike, just get a 4th already and be done with it. After all thats what Thomas commanded and he has a cup. For the life of me I do not understand why MG was not in on that. Surely he could have made that deal with the NYI. But no....We get to bear witness to the franchise falling apart before our eyes because MG can't pull the trigger on a washed up, over paid, contract laden back up goalie who is doing nothing but causing problems in the dressing room. MG wouldn't know a good trade if it jumped up and bite him. Luongo is way better than Timmy and MG couldn't even get a 4th for him. Time to move him out and bring in someone with balls. Brian Burke is available and he left this franchise with a trove of riches, turned it around and almost brought us to the 3 rd round of the playoffs, once.


It must be true. The media says it is or if it isn't it soon will be.

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:28 pm
by rats19
Sarcasm becomes you hw..well done

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:50 pm
by ukcanuck
Thanks HW, my sarcameter just blew up, I got springs and gears all over the place now...

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:02 pm
by SKYO
HW FTW
rats19 wrote:Sarcasm becomes you hw..well done
:thumbs:

I love how everyone outside of the Canucks locker room is making it a big controversy, but inside all their doing is cracking jokes, getting along and more importantly winning games + kicking ass.

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:08 pm
by Topper
She's not being sarcastic.

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:17 pm
by Hockey Widow
Topper wrote:She's not being sarcastic.

One night in a van and you know me already!

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:20 pm
by rats19
Topper wrote:She's not being sarcastic.
The second half of paragraph 4 drips...

Re: Canucks goalie controversy discussion thread

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:21 pm
by rats19
Hockey Widow wrote:
Topper wrote:She's not being sarcastic.

One night in a van and you know me already!
See there she goes again....