Canucks Have No Balls

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby dhabums » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:21 am

Benjo wrote:
porp wrote:
Seriously, the twins need to learn how to surreptitiously stick out their elbows a big more or give the other guy an extra shove after they've both (checker and a Sedin) gone down after a hit. Maybe a slew foot too, for good measure, and a glove in the face.



Don't they take enough hooking penalties without adding elbowing, roughing and tripping penalties? They have tried to stand their ground in the past and it blew up in their faces.


I'll trade 1 weak hooking penalty for 2 elbows, an instigator and a slash. Especially in October.
User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby darren » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:52 am

Strangelove wrote:
Nope, Nazzy didn't receive what he was asking for.


WE are discussing the need for a "response" when star players get hit. I'm not quite sure what YOU are talking about.

Steve Moore had his career ended a couple of weeks later as a direct consequence of his hit on Naslund. Is that not enough of a "response"? Or should the Canucks have hired a hitman? (Maybe Bobby Clarke could have come out of retirement to break his ankle?)

How did that response help the Canucks? Do you think that afterwards, someone decided to hit Naslund, thought about Steve Moore, then thought better of it?
User avatar
darren
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby LotusBlossom » Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:20 pm

It doesn't have to be often, it doesn't have to be a goon line, but it does have to be a hard hitting group of guys that will show those that take it out on our stars that the perpetrators are marked men.

Letting Torres go hurt because the fucker can hit like there was no tomorrow and didn't care who he hit. I like Volpatti, but I'm with the few there that like Duco. Duco has balls and willing to drop them. I was rather surprised after camp and preseason that he wasn't part of the team.

Disciplined hockey is fine and in the long run will rack you up the points you need to finish your division but having a guy to send out a message every now and then when our big guys get messed with isn't such a bad thing. It doesn't necessarily mean a fight, but a good hard hit that makes you think twice before gunning for either the Sedins or Kes.
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: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:31 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:Eager just as easily could have ended Daniel Sedin's playoffs with the hit he layed on him.


Mike Rupp, Aaron Asham, Max Talbot and Eric Goddard played on the Penguins, giving them one of the toughest, if not the toughest, bottom 6 in the NHL last season.

All that muscle and truculence didn't stop Crosby from being targeted and having his bell rung twice, putting him out for almost an entire year. Malkin took a beating, and ended up tearing his ACL on a hit that was a tad low when he was racing to the end boards to pick up a rebound.

Star players are always targets and always have to face punishment from the opposition. The big bad Bruins lost Savard and Horton to head shots despite all the muscle on their team.

Having an enforcer or a tougher line-up will not act as a deterrent in today's NHL. Since the shift from old-time hockey and the adoption of the instigator, along with the obvious increase in pace of play, star players are always targets regardless of the what sort of conceived deterrence a team may or may not have. It's been one of the big debates of the new NHL, is it right that players seem undeterred about going after stars when the rules seem to protect shit disturbers and dirty plays?

Does that mean the Canucks are tough enough as it stands? I don't think they're quite there yet. I'd like to see another tough top 6 forward and more consistent toughness from our 4th line, but if you think Daniel and Henrik will be any safer from hard hits and dirty plays with a tougher line-up, then you're in for a rude awakening.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Cornuck » Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:36 pm

I think the Canucks have/had balls, but it's AV that's castrated them by building a system of calm, composed play. The one play that everyone keeps bringing up is the "speedbag" incident. Don't you think that Bieksa could have pounded Marchand into pulp if he was allowed? If the refs call a game properly AND the power play is working, then the no response strategy will work. If either of those factors change, then we should adapt our game plan, which is something AV isn't really good at.

If the Canucks had won the Cup, there are many teams that would have run like lemmings to copy our approach, instead Boston one the extra game, so you see a bunch teams getting 'tougher'.

Letting Rypien AND Glass go, might not have been the best move since teams now have the impression that we can be pushed around at will. We don't need a goon, but we should have the parts to bring in a decently skilled power forward at some point this season.
Over 40 years of pain - I just want one day of glory.
User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4887
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Chester, NE

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Island Nucklehead » Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:15 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:Eager just as easily could have ended Daniel Sedin's playoffs with the hit he layed on him.


Mike Rupp, Aaron Asham, Max Talbot and Eric Goddard played on the Penguins, giving them one of the toughest, if not the toughest, bottom 6 in the NHL last season.

All that muscle and truculence didn't stop Crosby from being targeted and having his bell rung twice, putting him out for almost an entire year. Malkin took a beating, and ended up tearing his ACL on a hit that was a tad low when he was racing to the end boards to pick up a rebound.


We're not talking about Crosby taking an inadvertent headshot while turning, or a weak hit on the boards. We're talking about a guy skating around the ice trying to hurt people. Neither one of Crosby's concussions were dirty hits, nor were his offenders dirty players. Players are going to get hit, it's hockey.

The fact is that teams KNOW the Canucks are soft. They KNOW we don't have the ability to go shot for shot. If our PP isn't working on any given night, then we're fucked. As Cornuck said, our system is to punish teams on the PP. If that fails we're completely hooped. If we get into a greasy battle and the refs put the whistles away (see: Finals), we're hooped.

We're obviously not going to out-muscle teams like the Flyers and Bruins, but having a guy that can punish people now and again with tough checks and the odd face-smashing would certainly benefit the Canucks.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4245
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:44 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:We're not talking about Crosby taking an inadvertent headshot while turning, or a weak hit on the boards. We're talking about a guy skating around the ice trying to hurt people. Neither one of Crosby's concussions were dirty hits, nor were his offenders dirty players. Players are going to get hit, it's hockey.


Then why did you ignore the example of Savard and Horton?

Those hits, plus countless other stars on teams with tough guys goes in the face of what you're saying.

There's no deterrent to stop those kinds of hits no matter how tough your bottom 6 is.

You also seem to forget the Canucks versus the Hawks the two years we were eliminated when we had at least two of Rypien, Hordi and Glass and yet our stars, including Kesler who got a dirty hit to his face by Ladd, had to take punishment.


Island Nucklehead wrote:The fact is that teams KNOW the Canucks are soft. They KNOW we don't have the ability to go shot for shot. If our PP isn't working on any given night, then we're fucked. As Cornuck said, our system is to punish teams on the PP. If that fails we're completely hooped. If we get into a greasy battle and the refs put the whistles away (see: Finals), we're hooped.


If our PP doesn't work we may be able to exact some retribution but that doesn't' help us win games no matter how much you and others want to kick your feet and scream at the top of your lungs.

What I find infinitely amusing is the clamoring for tough guys and guys who can fight and exact revenge with virtually no one suggesting we get the right type of toughness this team and lacks much more than meat head who can drop the gloves.

The Canucks need players who are strong both ways and make it tough for the opposition to get any space in the defensive zone. We need toughness in the corners, in front of the net and battling through the neutral zone. We need the type of toughness that will make this team harder to score on and helps us score more goals.

Until you and others get this through your heads, we'll be doing this incessant circle-jerk talking about balls and tough guys.

But please, don't let that get in the way, so carry on.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Island Nucklehead » Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:12 pm

coco_canuck wrote:Then why did you ignore the example of Savard and Horton?


Because guys are going to get hit. Rome hit Horton late. He was suspended the rest of the playoffs. Do you honestly think he would have survived another game?? It's about the RESPONSE. It's easy for people to look at the game and say "wait for the PP" and "take the high road", but anybody that plays hockey knows that when one of your stars is knocked bloody and stupid, and they other team is laughing in your face and chirping you about it, if you have nobody on your bench to respond then you are completely demoralized.

Talk all you want about them being professionals and grown men, hockey is still hockey. Your teammate gets flattened/gooned, and you need someone to respond. If you don't understand that then you've never played the game, or your team was junk.


You also seem to forget the Canucks versus the Hawks the two years we were eliminated when we had at least two of Rypien, Hordi and Glass and yet our stars, including Kesler who got a dirty hit to his face by Ladd, had to take punishment.


Where did I say we need a goon? We need someone that can respond. Someone that plays minutes, but plays them with some toughness and isn't afraid to fight. Ladd would be awesome, thanks.

Everyone knows you're going to take a beating in the playoffs. You need to have the ability to inflict a beating on the opposition too. Torres was awesome for that last season (see: Seabrook getting creamed). "Wearing them down" doesn't mean making them skate...

You seem think people saying "we need to get tougher" are the same as those saying "we need a goon". Totally different.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4245
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby sagebrush » Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:25 pm

Two kinds of toughness can be confused.

1/ The kind of toughness that allows you to own the areas of ice the provide the best scoring chances. Toughness that allows you to be strong on you skates, to push others out of position, to be nasty enough to make people think twice before entering your area - without taking (too many) penalties. Toughness to enough knock others off the puck while being hard to knock off the puck yourself.

2/ The kind of toughness that allows you to punch someone's lights out, and put your team on the PK.

A lot of the first, and a little of the second kind would be good.
User avatar
sagebrush
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 815
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:57 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:Because guys are going to get hit. Rome hit Horton late. He was suspended the rest of the playoffs. Do you honestly think he would have survived another game?? It's about the RESPONSE.


I hope that's only a hyperbole.

Island Nucklehead wrote:If you don't understand that then you've never played the game, or your team was junk.


Wonderful logic Aristotle.

I remember losing games and saying: "at least we didn't let them push us around."

If your PP doesn't work, the physical response is meaningless.

It's far more demoralizing not being able to score goals than taking punishment. I don't remember cowering in fear when we played against teams with tougher players. I remember not being intimidated and making teams pay on the scoreboard. Far more satisfying.

I think many underestimate the mental psyche's of these players. Players can still have resolve and discipline without having a severe physical response. Players can still finish their checks and play the team hard, and ultimately get revenge by scoring goals.

If you've played the game, you surely agree that the sweetest form of revenge is scoring goals and winning games, and your odds of scoring goals are far higher when you're on the power play.

How's that for some simple and reasonable logic?

We can bitch and moan about toughness all we want, but your toughness and physical response ultimately mean fuck all if you can't punish them on the PP and beat them on the scoreboard.

The reality of what happened to Boston is this:

The Canucks had several key injuries, and their key players were shut down by the Bruins who played a smothering defensive style. Boston's physicality and tough checking style kept the Twins in check, and with a hobbling Kesler, the Canucks had no second line to pick up the scoring. The Bruins took a lot of penalties, many of the physical variety, but they were also allowed to get away with an inordinate amount of penalties. The Canucks failed to make the Bruins on the PP, and the pressure was on Luongo to keep every game low-scoring, and he ultimately cracked under that pressure as the team in front him also struggled as the series went on.

Those are the real reasons the Canucks lost. The toughness and taunting fall under another less meaningful sub-section of reasons the Canucks failed to beat the Bruins in game 7.

So what do the Canucks really need to win?

They need to stay healthy, and they need more offensive players who thrive in tight-checking, physical hockey games. That's what we need more than anything else. Now having some more toughness would be nice and helpful, but it's not even close to the most important thing this team lacks.

That's the reality, but we're stuck endlessly arguing about more toughness and a physical response, completely exaggerating the importance of this issue.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Potatoe1 » Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:51 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote: but anybody that plays hockey knows that when one of your stars is knocked bloody and stupid, and they other team is laughing in your face and chirping you about it, if you have nobody on your bench to respond then you are completely demoralized.


I love how people on this board think the NHl is the same as the house or rep league hockey that played when they were in their teens.

We are talking about professionals in their late 20's early 30's. It is simply not the same.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Island Nucklehead » Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:55 pm

coco_canuck wrote:I hope that's only a hyperbole.


No. The Bruins literally would have hacked his head off Happy Gilmore style and used his skull as their hardest worker award. :?

If your PP doesn't work, the physical response is meaningless.


Wrong. If you're PP is working you don't really need a response. Like you said, you punish them on the PP.

I'm saying when the PP doesn't work, as in the Finals, you might want to have someone to offer that push back. We pretty much agree that we need some tougher players. And nowhere did I say it was the most important thing this team needs, just that we certainly could use it. We already proved we can take the dive/eat punches method to within a whisker of the Cup. I'd rather see this team do it (and win, obviously) with a little more sack.

You also pointed out our injury troubles in the Finals. I wonder if having some tougher, grittier folks in the lineup that could play meaningful minutes would help at least meter out a similar amount of punishment on our opponents?

Potatoe1 wrote:I love how people on this board think the NHl is the same as the house or rep league hockey that played when they were in their teens.

We are talking about professionals in their late 20's early 30's. It is simply not the same.


Oh right. They're all become robots once the paychecks start. Everytime a player has to fight after a big hit on an opponent is for show right? Crosby really wants to fight Ballard after he sends Malkin flying. Beagle really wants to fight Asham when challenged...
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4245
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Potatoe1 » Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:08 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:I love how people on this board think the NHl is the same as the house or rep league hockey that played when they were in their teens.

We are talking about professionals in their late 20's early 30's. It is simply not the same.


Oh right. They're all become robots once the paychecks start.



duh, no.

But if you think a 30 year old is as easily intimidated, or rattled, or demoralised as a 16 year old then you are kiding yourself.

Like I said there is almost no comparison between your house leage and NHL hockey. You might as well have played baseball.
Last edited by Potatoe1 on Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:17 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:No. The Bruins literally would have hacked his head off Happy Gilmore style and used his skull as their hardest worker award. :?


It was to illustrate how much you're exaggerating Boston's hypothetical physical response.

Island Nucklehead wrote:I'm saying when the PP doesn't work, as in the Finals, you might want to have someone to offer that push back. We pretty much agree that we need some tougher players. And nowhere did I say it was the most important thing this team needs, just that we certainly could use it. We already proved we can take the dive/eat punches method to within a whisker of the Cup. I'd rather see this team do it (and win, obviously) with a little more sack.


So lets say we had someone who pushed back, would that have allowed us to win game 7?

Do you think the Bruins would have eased up one ounce if we had a guy who could have pushed back?

Island Nucklehead wrote:You also pointed out our injury troubles in the Finals. I wonder if having some tougher, grittier folks in the lineup that could play meaningful minutes would help at least meter out a similar amount of punishment on our opponents?


What, you mean would Henrik, Kesler, and Ehrhoff who were hurt before we got to the Final?

Hamhuis hurt himself throwing a hip check and Higgins broke his foot blocking a shot.

Only Edler and Raymond were seriously hurt against Boston, Edler getting a slash on his hand and Raymond being driven into the boards.

Do you think the Bruins would have neglected slashing Edler or driving Raymond into the boards if we had guys who could have pushed back?

If so, then you should watch the Flyers vs Bruins playoff series over the last couple of years.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Potatoe1 » Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:47 pm

coco_canuck wrote:What, you mean would Henrik, Kesler, and Ehrhoff who were hurt before we got to the Final?

Hamhuis hurt himself throwing a hip check and Higgins broke his foot blocking a shot.

Only Edler and Raymond were seriously hurt against Boston, Edler getting a slash on his hand and Raymond being driven into the boards.

Do you think the Bruins would have neglected slashing Edler or driving Raymond into the boards if we had guys who could have pushed back?

If so, then you should watch the Flyers vs Bruins playoff series over the last couple of years.



You forgot Bieksa, our toughest player, who was injured from a cheap shot by a player he could beat the ever living piss out of if he wanted too.

Shame we had no one who scared Peverly or that might not have happened......

:?
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Benjo, TDA Rum, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests