GDT: Oct 10 - Canucks @ Columbus - 4pm - SNET-P(HD) RADIO: 1

[dbr]

No easy answer to this one. Moving a selke winner like Kesler to the wing seems foolish, and our 3rd line is used in such a defensive roll that moving Manny doesn't make much sense either.

As for Cody moving to the wing, over the long term that is probably the answer but it will be a challenge in the short term.

People consistently site his slow foot speed as his biggest weakness but right now it isn't. His biggest current weakness is his strength along the wall and the fact he wins very few board battles. Moving him to the wing will only exacerbate things.

He is finally starting to look comfortable at this level and putting him in a position that is less conducive to his success could undo the progress he has made.

Then again it could be perfectly fine.

Or then again management could just take the easy way out and send him down or stick him on the 4th line again.

Yeah it's a tough call one way or the other.

I guess at least this time Cody would have an NHL calibre linemate on the fourth line in Lapierre (who I believe played the wing in Montreal from time to time).

Manny also has experience on the wing, and perhaps an opportunity to let Hodgson play a defensive role is something that appeals to AV (certainly moving from the fourth to the third line is something he would probably prefer to do with a young player like CH).

But I do think Hodgson could play wing on the second line; he has not been great along the boards but Ryan Kesler is and if either Sammy picks up his game or they move Higgins up then the line would still have two effective forecheckers to protect Hodgson.

Frankly none of the wingers have impressed much at this early juncture and we don't have the scoring depth to drop an offensive talent like Silent G all the way to the bottom of the lineup.... but you're right that there isn't an easy answer. Of course if Hodgson can't keep up this level of play then the answer will get a lot easier, if not more appealing.

[Potatoe1]

I'll try a non-hockey example especially for you. Let's say you have a place in the Okanagan you go up to twice a month. You've grown tired of the 4.5+ hr drive. If you knew you could drive as fast as want without ever getting a ticket, would you? I would. So would lots of others. Some people do it anyway, despite the police. Those people get fined and suspended. But it sure is nice to stop everyone else from doing it to prevent people from getting injured.

Are you really trying to explain this with the above example?

Do you seriously think I do not understand the effect of "consequence" on behaviour. Most very young children understand the concept.

What you do not seem to understand is that "most" NHL players fear being suspended far more then they fear being punched in a scrum.

Having a tougher line up will cut "some" of the crap, (i.e Marchant speed bagging Daniel) but the hit we saw last night is a terrible example yet people will use it to further the naritive which was started in the finals.

If the long suspensions we saw for hits from behind in the pre-season are not enough to stop someone hitting Hank from behind then do you honestly think that the very limited form of frontier justice that can be delivered at ice level is going to change anything?

This is what people don't seem able to grasp.

Even if you are willing to throw a game away to make a point, there isn't very much that can be done at ice level.

As I have said all along, I would love a tougher line up but those who think putting some scary goon is going to stop hits like the one we saw last night are completely out of touch with reality.

You discount the effect that physical deterrent has in hockey because you've never played hockey in a league that allowed fighting. Either that or you are the toughest guy in the city and nobody on the ice scared you.

You would be wrong on both counts.

[Larry Goodenough]

Luongo always starts slowly and this year will be no different.

You mean this year will also end in a goaltending meltdown? Great, thanks for ruining the year Carnac.

Much more obvious however is the notion that Methot in the split second he had to make the decision, calculated his risk / reward on hitting hank and deduced that he could make that hit because some random Canucks would no beat him up for it.

Pure Nonsense.

On a play like that Methot or any other player should and is, far more worried about a long suspension then a few punches to the face.

As you so often do Pot, you try to turn things into an either/or situation so you can have a strong opinion. I doubt anyone here thinks Methot would have hit the brakes in fear of hitting 33 if we were a team that did something. But when you, as a team, send a message that crap will be tolerated it makes it easier for any opponents to act as they want without fear.

I'll try a non-hockey example especially for you. Let's say you have a place in the Okanagan you go up to twice a month. You've grown tired of the 4.5+ hr drive. If you knew you could drive as fast as want without ever getting a ticket, would you? I would. So would lots of others. Some people do it anyway, despite the police. Those people get fined and suspended. But it sure is nice to stop everyone else from doing it to prevent people from getting injured.

You discount the effect that physical deterrent has in hockey because you've never played hockey in a league that allowed fighting. Either that or you are the toughest guy in the city and nobody on the ice scared you.

I think this "physical deterrent" expectation is just an old habit from simplistic thinking, perpetrated largely from a reactionary media looking to draw attention to themselves with a chicken little story.

If I see Vancouver chasing guys everytime an opponent hits a Sedin, I'm running them even more, ensuring the Canucks are seen by the league as losing their composure. I'll then turtle to draw a penalty. The next game, I'd do it two more times expecting the same, driving the opposition even battier and giving my less talented team a better chance to win.. Then, during my next contract negotiation, I'll be seen a premier agitator who draws penalties and isn't afraid to target the other teams best players. That should earn me an extra million a year.

Or, I can run a Sedin and take my own penalty. Their composure, silent anger and deadly powerplay will most likely give a talented Canuck team an even greater chance to win the game. Now my coach will go 0-3 and will already be on the hot seat after 6000 people saw my team lose yet again. He'll yell at me before the next game against Vancouver to avoid penalties at all costs as it's the only chance we have to win... I'll take a penalty regardless and instead of that premier agitator title and the extra millions, I'll be in the minors.

[dhabums]

Having a tougher line up will cut "some" of the crap, (i.e Marchant speed bagging Daniel) but the hit we saw last night is a terrible example yet people will use it to further the naritive which was started in the finals.

The narrative didn't start in the Finals, it was just re-opened on hockey's biggest stage. I will repeat this for you, nobody thinks Methot will magically stop last night because he might have to fight. It is about the level of respect/fear your opponents have going into the game and how they will act. There is no reason to look over your shoulder when playing the Canucks.

If we are going to allow other teams to do what they want then it will continue to happen. I am not talking about suspension worthy things because that isn't the issue. This team shouldn't allow their tickets to success to get touched by anyone without the possible fear of retribution. You are not going to stop everyone ever, but we have taken the opposite approach of allowing anyone to act as they please.

No slash, no punch in the head, no hit after the whistle should go unpunished. While some may celebrate PP goals in November, I'll take healthy Sedins in June rather than the annual "they are injured" stories.

[dhabums]

I think this "physical deterrent" expectation is just an old habit from simplistic thinking, perpetrated largely from a reactionary media looking to draw attention to themselves with a chicken little story.

I disagree, I'd say it is more basic human nature. It's even possibly derived from decades of hockey.

--

Look no further than this board. Follow the rules or be banned. People then start to follow the rules. Time we start making the rules.

[dbr]

But being banned or having your drivers license suspended aren't analogous to getting a punch in the face or having your goalie run... they are analogous to getting a big fat suspension from the league.

Your analogies should be closer to advocating we ram people on the road when we're not happy with their driving, or attack fellow posters on this board if they break the rules.

[Potatoe1]

Having a tougher line up will cut "some" of the crap, (i.e Marchant speed bagging Daniel) but the hit we saw last night is a terrible example yet people will use it to further the naritive which was started in the finals.

The narrative didn't start in the Finals, it was just re-opened on hockey's biggest stage. I will repeat this for you, nobody thinks Methot will magically stop last night because he might have to fight. It is about the level of respect/fear your opponents have going into the game and how they will act. There is no reason to look over your shoulder when playing the Canucks.

You responded to my post and you clearly did not understand the point.

I was not saying that toughness wouldn't help this team nor was I saying that we shouldn't have gone a little harder after Methot.

What I was saying is that because of what happened in the finals, the media and fans are going to over react to every situation even situations like last night where our toughness level really wasn't relevant to the hit delivered on Henrik.

The current narrative is that the Canucks aren't tough enough and you can beat them by pushing them around. The media and fans seem destined to take very poor examples (like the one we saw last night) and use them to further their own story.

This fan just isn't buying it.

I don't think you can beat the Canuck's by trying to push them around and taking cheap shots. I think that teams who try this will find themselves on the losing end most nights.

I don't believe they are less likely to "stick up" for there stars then a lot of teams, and I don't believe they are more prone to diving then a lot of teams.

There was a ton of nonsense created by media during the run to the finals, most of it is simply junk that should be ignored.

[Larry Goodenough]

Having a tougher line up will cut "some" of the crap, (i.e Marchant speed bagging Daniel) but the hit we saw last night is a terrible example yet people will use it to further the naritive which was started in the finals.

The narrative didn't start in the Finals, it was just re-opened on hockey's biggest stage. I will repeat this for you, nobody thinks Methot will magically stop last night because he might have to fight. It is about the level of respect/fear your opponents have going into the game and how they will act. There is no reason to look over your shoulder when playing the Canucks.

If we are going to allow other teams to do what they want then it will continue to happen. I am not talking about suspension worthy things because that isn't the issue. This team shouldn't allow their tickets to success to get touched by anyone without the possible fear of retribution. You are not going to stop everyone ever, but we have taken the opposite approach of allowing anyone to act as they please.

No slash, no punch in the head, no hit after the whistle should go unpunished. While some may celebrate PP goals in November, I'll take healthy Sedins in June rather than the annual "they are injured" stories.

One more time, if that is the Canucks response, then as an opponent, I will slash, punch and hit a Sedin after the whistle every chance I get knowing it will draw a reaction and a penalty.

In today's NHL, few players fear retribution. If they do, it's tempered by the millions of dollars they will earn by being the type of player that runs the Sedins and then puts his team on the powerplay by drawing retribution.

[KeyserSoze]

What I was saying is that because of what happened in the finals, the media and fans are going to over react to every situation even situations like last night where our toughness level really wasn't relevant to the hit delivered on Henrik.

Pot, it doesn't really matter what happened in the finals or what media/people are saying about it...when Marc Methot takes a cheap shot run at your Captain like that there needs to be some consequences.

The current narrative is that the Canucks aren't tough enough and you can beat them by pushing them around. The media and fans seem destined to take very poor examples (like the one we saw last night) and use them to further their own story.

This fan just isn't buying it.

I don't think you can beat the Canuck's by trying to push them around and taking cheap shots. I think that teams who try this will find themselves on the losing end most nights.

I agree, and the Jackets did find themselves losing last night.

I also agree that is not why Boston beat the Canucks in the finals.

But the point is that if someone is going to make a point of taking a run at 22, 33, 17, etc they need to actually beleive that there might be consequences...maybe not on that shift, or maybe not even to them directly, but someone on their team will be paying the price if you take a cheap shot on one of our star players. And it certainly does not take a goon to do this.

[Hockey Widow]

Points won in Oct are just as valuable as points won in April. We got the 2 points. Maybe we don't get the 2 points if we run around and try to extract revenge for the hit. I think a league suspension of 4-5 games would serve more of a deterrent than any revenge the Canucks could have meted out. But I don't think the play will garner a suspension, and it should. Thats the message that needs to get sent about respect. Don't wait for a player to get a serious, potentially career threatening injury. Hammer the guy right now with 4-5 games and he doesn't do it again. Punch him in the face and he walks away laughing.

[Potatoe1]

One more time, if that is the Canucks response, then as an opponent, I will slash, punch and hit a Sedin after the whistle every chance I get knowing it will draw a reaction and a penalty.

Correct... Unfortunately some fans and media live in the alternate reality where logic just doesn't exist.

n today's NHL, few players fear retribution. If they do, it's tempered by the millions of dollars they will earn by being the type of player that runs the Sedins and then puts his team on the powerplay by drawing retribution.

Raffi Torrez is not a good fighter but every time he steps on the ice he is looking to crush people. I doubt he knows or cares who is in the other teams line up.

He's played like that for almost a decade and I honestly cant remember any situation where he received any type of physical retribution for his actions.

Sure he's had to fight a few times but for the most part his fights are just some hugging and a few love taps.

A tough line up isn't going to detour players of his ilk, what is going to detour them is penalties and suspensions.

[UWSaint]

Bieksa and Hamhuis have looked like the two defensemen most in regular season mode, but having two defensemen chase a guy behind the net to get in a hit is going to lead to a chance. Ginger didn't bail them out, but looks like the goalternder most in regular season mode.

Jeff Carter + Rick Nash = Daniel + Henrik ... playing one handed.

If Sturm and Sammy are starting slowly, the answer is not to "promote" Higgins to the second line and make your third line weaker. At least the Canucks have two solid lines now, and this is the third line that has the most potential of being a traditional third line. Sammuelsson and Sturm are not strong enough defensively (though still awaiting final judgment on Sturm).

Without a complete second line, silent 3 made the second line look almost dangerous at times. If he plays like that, then I can see him staying up and sliding over to wing, getting time on the 2nd PP unit. Very important set of games for silent 3 coming up.

When Kesler and Raymond return, there will be 4 good lines and 3 pretty good D pairings, and two very good goaltenders.

Until everyone else gets hurt.

But watch other teams play hockey; the Canucks strength is their depth.

And one of the best, if not the best, first lines in hockey.

Ballard should get 2d pp time, but not because I think he's better in the zone than the 5 who've gotten time so far (2, 3, 6, 23, 26). Hamhuis' pass to silent 3 in the second showed Hamhuis can read a play and execute. But Ballard should be in because the second unit needs Ballard as an entry-into-the-zone alternative. The second group looked fine set up, but was much weaker (now for two games in a row) at getting set up. Salo's a dinosaur, Burrows fumbles, and silent 3 doesn't hit the line with speed.

All in time, Chris Tanev. But, geez, ten years ago Bryan Helmer was the Canucks' 6th D.

Volpatti is this year's Desbiens.

Hansen gets the unsung player of the game from me. Deserved second assist and great forecheck that led to a turnover and (IIRC) a BJ penalty.

3rd period is a charm. Canucks should start home games an hour later so they can close it out in the Second.

[Potatoe1]

Pot, it doesn't really matter what happened in the finals or what media/people are saying about it...when Marc Methot takes a cheap shot run at your Captain like that there needs to be some consequences.

People are acting like the team just skated away.....

Watch the replay, after the hit there was a pretty lively scrum (given who was on the ice). Later in the game Burrows ran their goalie and apparently both Bieksa and Volpatti tried to fight Methot.

What exactly should they have done beyond that?

[Rumsfeld]

Pot, it doesn't really matter what happened in the finals or what media/people are saying about it...when Marc Methot takes a cheap shot run at your Captain like that there needs to be some consequences.

What exactly should they have done beyond that?

Heads. Spikes. Walls.

[BladesofSteel]

Pure Nonsense.

Good post Tate.

Ballard was good and only playing him 13 min is an absolute joke.

The main reasoning for the lack of ice-time in my mind is that Ballard isn't seeing any special teams. The bulk of his 13 min is 5 on 5.