Page 16 of 18

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:08 am
by herb
Frustrating that we could have, should have, won games one and two. Canucks were the better team in both games.

Things would be a lot different if we had.

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:27 am
by Reefer2
Heard on the radio that Bieksa may be injured.

Let the excuses begin again.

Frack is this team ever lame.

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:37 am
by herb
Reefer2 wrote:Heard on the radio that Bieksa may be injured.

Let the excuses begin again.

Frack is this team ever lame.
No excuses.

This team is as healthy as it has every been in the playoffs and is having its worst showing of this "core's" generation.

At least the epic collapses against Chicago were in the second round, and we were able to actually win some games and score some goals in the process.

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:11 pm
by Benjo
I tip my hat to those posters that said many of the Canucks were having career years in 10-11. I didn't believe it at the time and I thought many of our players had just finally reached their potential and would maintain it for 4-5 years, that just doesn't seem to be the case.

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:23 pm
by donlever
herb wrote: No excuses.
It's called Avquitonitis.

You can hear it periodically in the voices of key personnel.

Kes.

Bieksa.

Lagongo.

As I understand (and totally believe) it ain't the only issue but this team appears to have seen enough of dem der coaches.

Cue Phil Collins....

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:35 pm
by herb
donlever wrote: It's called Avquitonitis.
Is it curable? Rehab? Surgery? Really good drugs??

donlever wrote:As I understand (and totally believe) it ain't the only issue but this team appears to have seen enough of dem der coaches.
Certain aspects of the Canucks, certainly the powerplay, haven't been clicking for months. There's definitely a certain amount of blame that lies at the feet of the coaching staff, but at the end of the day, this team needs more horsepower up front too.

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 1:38 pm
by donlever
herb wrote:
donlever wrote: It's called Avquitonitis.
Is it curable? Rehab? Surgery? Really good drugs??.
A good old fashioned bleeding usually does the trick.
herb wrote:
donlever wrote:As I understand (and totally believe) it ain't the only issue but this team appears to have seen enough of dem der coaches.
...but at the end of the day, this team needs more horsepower up front too.
Can't disagree with that, personally I was tired of this bunch a year ago.

But then I've pretty much avquitonitis the whole NHL for that matter.

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 4:51 pm
by Hockey Widow
I think most of us will be shocked if AV is not let go. I have heard that the Canucks have some interest in Ruff. Not sure how serious the interest is.

The other coaches need to go to. The only adjustment they have made on the PP is to drop Kesler back to the point, which is fine. But for the life of me I don't get why they don't play into the teams strengths and have Garrison on the 1st PP unit. If nothing else he might break a few bones on sone of those inclined to block shots. :mrgreen:

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 5:48 pm
by Lancer
Hockey Widow wrote:The other coaches need to go to. The only adjustment they have made on the PP is to drop Kesler back to the point, which is fine. But for the life of me I don't get why they don't play into the teams strengths and have Garrison on the 1st PP unit. If nothing else he might break a few bones on sone of those inclined to block shots. :mrgreen:
Agreed. I don't know how it fits with whatever code they follow on NHL ice, but if teams just want to layer in the blockers then why not let the Garrisons and Edlers aim for vulnerable spots on the blockers? Break a couple of ankles (or jaws/cheekbones if you're lucky) and see how willing those fuckers get to step into their lanes. Vigenault should have called that one after the first couple powerplays in game one and start plunking the shot-blockers. Even if it costs you game one, you're sending a message out there. :twisted:

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:14 pm
by Arachnid
Hockey Widow wrote:I think most of us will be shocked if AV is not let go. I have heard that the Canucks have some interest in Ruff. Not sure how serious the interest is.

The other coaches need to go to. The only adjustment they have made on the PP is to drop Kesler back to the point, which is fine. But for the life of me I don't get why they don't play into the teams strengths and have Garrison on the 1st PP unit. If nothing else he might break a few bones on sone of those inclined to block shots. :mrgreen:
At least he would know zKickassian & Roy (if he would resign), I like Ruff, good with young players, rough (RUFF!) with vets :D

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:15 pm
by Arachnid
donlever wrote:
herb wrote: No excuses.
It's called Avquitonitis.

You can hear it periodically in the voices of key personnel.

Kes.

Bieksa.

Lagongo.

As I understand (and totally believe) it ain't the only issue but this team appears to have seen enough of dem der coaches.

Cue Phil Collins....
Maybe we need a new owner :wink:

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:22 pm
by Hockey Widow
Ownership has been fine. To my surprise. They spend to the cap and beyond and have given MG everything he has asked for. They have given him full autonomy. What more could a gm ask for really?

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:29 pm
by Arachnid
Hockey Widow wrote:Ownership has been fine. To my surprise. They spend to the cap and beyond and have given MG everything he has asked for. They have given him full autonomy. What more could a gm ask for really?
Ownership gave us MG & AV, that is all.

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:32 pm
by Hockey Widow
Arachnid wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:Ownership has been fine. To my surprise. They spend to the cap and beyond and have given MG everything he has asked for. They have given him full autonomy. What more could a gm ask for really?
Ownership gave us MG & AV, that is all.

No, they gave us MG. MG kept AV and extended him. They also gave us their cash.

Maybe they kiss and make up and rehire Burke?? LOL NOT

But who is out there as a GM that you would want. I'm not familiar with who may be available.

Re: Canucks Vs Sharks, Round I

Posted: Tue May 07, 2013 12:14 am
by Waffle
HW, when the Dallas Stars announced the hiring of Jim Nill the only two other names that were tossed out as being considered were Ron Hextall who is an assistant in LA and Brian Burke. I don't know anything about Hextall's credentials to be a GM, and probably a lot of people won't know him from his playing days, but he was a fierce competitor as I am sure you know.

On another note, the talk I have seen regarding the Colorado coaching position seems to revolve around three people: Dallas Eakins of the Toronto Marlies (who is supposedly good with young player development but is considered a more defensive system minded coach), Doug Houda in Boston who I don't know much about, and, believe it or not, our very own AV!!

Regards