VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby DonCherry4PM » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:03 pm

Whew, for a minute there I thought normalcy had gone out the window. :D

Have to say I don't respect LA as much as either of you two. Luongo playing well, is obviously a precondition for us winning a series let a lone a game in the playoffs. But I don't think he has to be near his best when going against Quick. Luongo near his best and our defense staying relatively healthy and our offense continuing to produce means this series is done in five. Luongo average and the above remaining the same I see the series pushing out another game and maybe two depending on how average. Other permutations and we are going to see more of a mixed bag. So maybe I should have defined "too much trouble" as requiring 7 games rather than just leaving it open to interpretation.

Edit: I still take Luongo playing decent in the playoffs as implied, but given his play for the last month, this may be a fault on my part. Luongo, don't make me the fool.
Last edited by DonCherry4PM on Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu
User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:11 pm

DonCherry4PM wrote:Luongo near his best and our defense staying relatively healthy and our offense continuing to produce means this series is done in five.


I guess we'll agree to disagree, but I warn you: It was this type of "biased homerism" amongst Canuck fans in 2003 that lead to us having egg on our faces after we played the Wild. :oops:

I hope you're right, but lets not underestimate the Kings here. They only finished 2 points behind us in the standings.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby Cornuck » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:13 pm

The biggest difference will be that the Canucks - as a team - have a few playoff rounds under the belts. The Kings have a couple of guys with experience - But Brown, Kopitar, Quick, Doughty, etc - have none.

The Sedins will be ready to go. Demitra is ready to go. Kesler and Burrows are always ready to go. Our forwards > their forwards.

We're hurting a little on D - I'll give the edge to the Kings here - but a slight edge.

Goaltending? Both Quick and Luongo have struggled lately. Luongo has a better chance of returning to form. Quick could just be tired from playing so many games for the first time. I'll give Luongo the edge here. If they have to go to Ersberg or Bernier - it could even out, unless Luongo gets re-focused.
Over 40 years of pain - I just want one day of glory.
User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4581
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Chester, NE

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby the toucan kid » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:19 pm

I guess it actually *is* possible for me not to receive some kind of gay backhanded compliment on here. :shock:


Well one can't hide their feelin... I mean that was as straight a compliment as you will ever receive. :lol:

Anyway, look I think in terms of talent, rather than statistical production in the regular season, LA has as good a group of forwards and just as adaptable a group as we have (better up the middle too, which always comes into play in the playoffs). I personally would take their D over ours, pretty much just because their top pairing is a little better, and after that it's a bit shitty for both teams anyway. As for goal, we should have the advantage, but Quick can play very well and Bernier is an interesting wildcard. So, I'm not sure we're going to win by any measurement, I just hope we do anyway. Home ice may never have been more important.
User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3838
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby DonCherry4PM » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:27 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:I guess we'll agree to disagree, but I warn you: It was this type of "biased homerism" amongst Canuck fans in 2003 that lead to us having egg on our faces after we played the Wild. :oops:


Well, at least we can agree on that - the disagreement that is.... I consider myself warned.

Still, I think we have a more solid team in the sense that it is now more balanced than in it was 2003. We have more depth than we have had in a long time. (offense mind you, not defense). Really, assuming Luongo plays up to an average of his previous playoff performances, I think our only foreseeable problem or Achilles heel, if you will, is defense (not going to say that is a small heel). But I see our strengths outweighing this problem so long as injuries do not continue and we end up having Salo and Bieksa etc. sitting out. Sure there is a bit of bias there but our team is actually good this year. Why not allow oneself a little bit of confidence. I think we have a high probability of making it out of the first round victoriously all things being equal. I stand by that.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu
User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby Fred » Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:45 pm

Kind of worrying when the Canucks "D" feature houshold names such as Albert, Rome, Baumgartner and O'Brien. :shock:
cheers
Fred
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby Sid Dithers » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:01 pm

Cornuck wrote:Demitra is ready to go.


ROFLMAO!!!

Stop it man, you're killing me!
AraChniD iS stoOpiDz!
User avatar
Sid Dithers
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: Surrey, B.C.

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby Puck » Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:36 pm

HockeyGirl wrote:You don't understand the difference between private citizens and/or companies refusing to give someone airtime, and the GOVERNMENT doing it ... do you?


My point was that for a country which continually points to freedom as a backing for its actions and its basic raison d'etre, it's ironic that any faction therein, company or otherwise, would sensor anyone's creative work and hamper their livelihood. Mind you there is precedent from the McCarthy-era, too. Freedom's all well and good as long as you're in the majority?

As for the giant caps government comment, it was not the Government, it was the University of Ottawa. Did Fox news report otherwise? (Just curious)

But nevermind all that. I believe you began your time on this forum in good behaviour and only responded in defence of your home like most of us would. Now that we're back to hockey... let's stay there.

cheers HG :cheers:
User avatar
Puck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby LotusBlossom » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:42 pm

HockeyGirl wrote:
Jelly wrote:First of all, Gramma police. and yes, i spelled that wrong, on purpose.

and look, we vancouverites have a very special commodity that we, uh, in general, use, if not abuse, and, stuff.

and when we do use, or abuse, these, commodities, we, uh, are really bad at spelling and grammar and shit.

stuff.


and i never knew you need grammar to win hockey games.



next up, you tell us that we spell Bieksa wrong, and Sedin suppose to be Sundin, and Naslund's first name is Mats... oh wait, that's Bob Cole... i probably should delete this... but.. meh..



focus on the subject, if your going to attack my grammar, i'll get to post my three thousand word argument why we should nuke USA.


Well the subject was you calling Americans dumb, and doing it in a post full of mistakes.


In Farhan's defense, he did or is attending an American college. :mex:
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: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby LotusBlossom » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:47 pm

Curious...

Who is starting in net for the Kings? It's the night before the game and I'm not really sure, but perhaps the Kings' coaching staff isn't all that sure either.
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: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby Kel » Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:02 pm

LotusBlossom wrote:Curious...

Who is starting in net for the Kings? It's the night before the game and I'm not really sure, but perhaps the Kings' coaching staff isn't all that sure either.


All the predictions and previews were made assuming Quick is the starter. I think Quick is going to start the series but we may see J Bernier if Quick performs poorly.
Kel
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:26 pm

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby Kel » Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:16 pm

the toucan kid wrote:
I guess it actually *is* possible for me not to receive some kind of gay backhanded compliment on here. :shock:


Well one can't hide their feelin... I mean that was as straight a compliment as you will ever receive. :lol:

Anyway, look I think in terms of talent, rather than statistical production in the regular season, LA has as good a group of forwards and just as adaptable a group as we have (better up the middle too, which always comes into play in the playoffs). I personally would take their D over ours, pretty much just because their top pairing is a little better, and after that it's a bit shitty for both teams anyway. As for goal, we should have the advantage, but Quick can play very well and Bernier is an interesting wildcard. So, I'm not sure we're going to win by any measurement, I just hope we do anyway. Home ice may never have been more important.


I agree they have a good group of forwards, but I don't agree they're better up the middle. It's pretty hard to find two C better than Henrik and Kesler (at least from the Kings, Crosby and Malkin are better). Even Wellwood has been playing well. The only question is at the fourth line C position. I also would not take their D over ours, as I still believe in the potentials of Edler, Bieksa and even SOB. Salo when playing at his best like he did against St Louis is probably as good as anyone. Doughty is great overall but from what I've seen in the Olympics, he does sometimes make defensive mistakes that our forwards have the skills to capitalize on. It won't be an easy series but I am not very concerned about the prospect of being upset in round 1, at least given what we know now.
Kel
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:26 pm

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby the toucan kid » Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:35 pm

I agree they have a good group of forwards, but I don't agree they're better up the middle. It's pretty hard to find two C better than Henrik and Kesler (at least from the Kings, Crosby and Malkin are better).


Indeed, but in terms of depth and ability on the draw I definitely like guys like Halpern, Stoll and even Handzus better to handle Hank. If we're going to use Kesler to handle Kopitar, then that might hamper his offensive time, in which case their secondary lines might just win the day. I actually do think they can roll lines a LITTLE better than us. While Wellwood has been bringing some nice complementary production - although a lot of it on the PP - his line can't be what we consider our secondary scoring of course, and certainly can't handle the match up game that comes with the post-season. Not having a checking center was always an issue, but it becomes an out and out problem tomorrow night.

The only question is at the fourth line C position. I also would not take their D over ours, as I still believe in the potentials of Edler, Bieksa and even SOB.


You're entitled to continue to believe in their potential of course, I still have some warm feelings for Edler myself, but faith in potential is not really a convincing argument. Imagine the potential of what Doughty could do to us singlehandedly as he is probably the only real number one defenseman in this series - and frankly the only other potential number one also plays for the Kings (he's not there yet though).
User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3838
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:56 pm

Arachnid wrote:
So uh...you wanna go over to the LA boards with me and cause a war? *crunches a carrot*

:D


haha - I would man but I don't have much free time nowadays....atleast to the extent where I could *really* commit to the level of trolling that I once did.

Unfortunately, it is no longer 2004....where I could teach tennis to little old ladies at 5 star resorts for a few hours, and then spend 2-3 hours per day knocking cyber opponents the f*ck out. ;)
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: VANCOUVER CANUCKS VS LOS ANGELES KINGS ROUND 1

Postby Farhan Lalji » Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:59 pm

LotusBlossom wrote:
HockeyGirl wrote:
Jelly wrote:First of all, Gramma police. and yes, i spelled that wrong, on purpose.

and look, we vancouverites have a very special commodity that we, uh, in general, use, if not abuse, and, stuff.

and when we do use, or abuse, these, commodities, we, uh, are really bad at spelling and grammar and shit.

stuff.


and i never knew you need grammar to win hockey games.



next up, you tell us that we spell Bieksa wrong, and Sedin suppose to be Sundin, and Naslund's first name is Mats... oh wait, that's Bob Cole... i probably should delete this... but.. meh..



focus on the subject, if your going to attack my grammar, i'll get to post my three thousand word argument why we should nuke USA.


Well the subject was you calling Americans dumb, and doing it in a post full of mistakes.


In Farhan's defense, he did or is attending an American college. :mex:


Why am I being "defended" in an argument that I am not even a part of. :? :lol: This bout is between HockeyGirl and Jelly!
Farhan Lalji
 

PreviousNext

Return to Creeper's Bar & Grill

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest