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 Canuck-One » Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:57 pm

I'm a little surprised by so many posters arguing with our "battle of the blades" fans, Coco and Potatoe. The team concept means you don't let your star players take a beating boys. You never, NEVER allow your stars to be bullied. If MG can't get this through his head then the cup won't be here until after he is gone. I do however believe that he does and that he is looking for that player. Until Milan Lucic becomes available, I would hire a John Scott or similar knuckle dragger and leave him in Chicago. Take the number of the jerk who runs the Sedins and bring up Scott the next time we play them. Privately tell him to beat the s@*t out of the guy and he will be getting some promotion money coming his way speaking at the next Aquilini "team building" function. Oh no say it isn't so says the ice dance twins (Potatoe and Coco) but oh yeah I would buy a ticket to that game. So Potatoe and Coco if you own seasons tickets and the Canucks do just like I said, you'll make a fortune from the highest bidder who will love to watch it happen. You two will of course turn down the money and stay away because you are morally opposed to revenge, right.
User avatar
Canuck-One
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:49 am
Location: Living the Life

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:08 pm

Canuck-One wrote:-You never, NEVER allow your stars to be bullied.-


Ah yes, the resident neanderthal is here again, are you still smarting from the last go around you had at a debate?

Feeling a little jaded are we?

Canuck-One wrote:So Potatoe and Coco if you own seasons tickets and the Canucks do just like I said, you'll make a fortune from the highest bidder who will love to watch it happen. You two will of course turn down the money and stay away because you are morally opposed to revenge, right.


I do enjoy my season tickets and I do enjoy revenge, but feel free to make things up as you go along and keep flashing those impressive discourse skills of yours, I'm sure it'll come in handy when you realize there aren't any pearly gates for you to enter.

Seriously, the best you can bring is battle of blades, ice-dancing jokes? Have you been spending too much time in the playground watching kids argue?

I wonder if the imaginary fairy land has an IQ requirement.
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 7:48 pm

Canuck-One wrote:I'm a little surprised by so many posters arguing with our "battle of the blades" fans, Coco and Potatoe. The team concept means you don't let your star players take a beating boys. You never, NEVER allow your stars to be bullied. If MG can't get this through his head then the cup won't be here until after he is gone. I do however believe that he does and that he is looking for that player. Until Milan Lucic becomes available, I would hire a John Scott or similar knuckle dragger and leave him in Chicago. Take the number of the jerk who runs the Sedins and bring up Scott the next time we play them. Privately tell him to beat the s@*t out of the guy and he will be getting some promotion money coming his way speaking at the next Aquilini "team building" function. Oh no say it isn't so says the ice dance twins (Potatoe and Coco) but oh yeah I would buy a ticket to that game. So Potatoe and Coco if you own seasons tickets and the Canucks do just like I said, you'll make a fortune from the highest bidder who will love to watch it happen. You two will of course turn down the money and stay away because you are morally opposed to revenge, right.



:lol:

I guess you were trying to insult me with this but it's actually kind of a funny post.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:39 pm

Strangelove wrote:And I distinctly remember Marcus going public with his request for protection.

I believe it was before Steve Moore took him out.

darren wrote:And he got it. That sure helped, didn't it?

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

darren wrote: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?

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?


Ummm let's try this again.

Nazzy didn't receive what he was asking for.

Perhaps YOU should think about that. :lol:

Strangelove wrote:And why was Nazzy asking for protection??

Maybe Marcus Naslund knows more about hockey than you do? Just a thought.


;)
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7148
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:43 pm

Funniest thing about this thread is that Coco & Pot are both on record stating Canucks need to get tougher.

"Canucks Have No Balls" :lol:

Right fucking on Mr Russel!
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7148
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Topper » Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:52 pm

Canuck0ne, I don't believe Coco or Spudly are opposed to revenge. ;)

Time and place, it may be 24 seconds after the infraction when the red light goes on and the perpetrator does his walk of shame down the red line from the penalty box to his bench. Wasn't that the way to San Jose last spring?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby LotusBlossom » Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:03 pm

Canuck-One wrote:I'm a little surprised by so many posters arguing with our "battle of the blades" fans, Coco and Potatoe. The team concept means you don't let your star players take a beating boys. You never, NEVER allow your stars to be bullied. If MG can't get this through his head then the cup won't be here until after he is gone. I do however believe that he does and that he is looking for that player. Until Milan Lucic becomes available, I would hire a John Scott or similar knuckle dragger and leave him in Chicago. Take the number of the jerk who runs the Sedins and bring up Scott the next time we play them. Privately tell him to beat the s@*t out of the guy and he will be getting some promotion money coming his way speaking at the next Aquilini "team building" function. Oh no say it isn't so says the ice dance twins (Potatoe and Coco) but oh yeah I would buy a ticket to that game. So Potatoe and Coco if you own seasons tickets and the Canucks do just like I said, you'll make a fortune from the highest bidder who will love to watch it happen. You two will of course turn down the money and stay away because you are morally opposed to revenge, right.


As a girl who played hockey and then tried to figure skate, I guess you don't skate very well to know that it's tougher to figure skate in a technical manner. :mad: :P

Potatoe and coco would probably look good in a pair of tights...but that's wishful thinking :whistle: :lol:
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 Todd Bersnoozi » Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:27 pm

Anyone remember, did Daniel shake hands with Marchand after game #7 last year?
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Tiger » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:11 pm

Will always remember 82 playoffs - the white towels in chi town.. the toughest team with very little skill going to the finals to be beat by a dynasty team with equal toughness and a lot more skill..
the 94 team... combination of skill and toughness and BALLS .. best playoff series by the Canucks ever..Linden carrying the team on his back with all players playing ballstothewall hockey
2011.. only Torres,Kesler,Burrows and 3rd liners answered the bell.. puked watching Marchand bitch slapping Daniel Sedin with no response from Daniel .. ffs he's bigger than Marchand and shouldn't need a babysitter/
This years edition is not any better and I don't expect a Stanley out of the Sedin's ..maybe Kesler line will get it done...

Maybe the problem is that they are twins and have to play together to be most effective in their style of game? It means we have to have 2 out of 3 of our first line with no physical response possible? 1 skilled player ( like 99 ) with 2 players that are physical works.. Though I am not advocation a Semenko type... just thinking about the unique problem of having twins as a first line..Maybe spliting them and adding a tough winger? ( sorry Tiger Williams style player are in short supply ) ..
" If you cant beat them in the alley - you can't beat them on the ice
User avatar
Tiger
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:09 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby ClamRussel » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:42 am

Potatoe1 wrote:
ClamRussel wrote: Eager didn't even get a penalty on the play if I remember correctly.



ClamRussel wrote:Uhh I was referring specifically to the hit from behind on Daniel.
Thanks for the misguided sarcasm though. :roll:



Uhh the hit was a penalty......


Inconsequential, the point was the NHL did nothing. A 2min "boarding" penalty is hardly looking after the (star) players. Might as well have been no penalty. Did the Canucks score on that PP? No. ie they didn't make him pay. If the refs had an ounce of decency it would have been 5+a game. After that colossal fail, the NHL had an opportunity to right a wrong, send a statement, and chose to be whistlin' dixies. How in the world can that 2 minute minor be seen as being a deterrent in any way whatsoever?

My point was not whether Eager is effective, its whether allowing the Sedins to be rammed from behind into the boards in hopes of scoring a PP goal is really a wise game plan long term.

Oh ya, uhh
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3633
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Topper » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:52 am

Clam, by advocating harsher penalties to those who take liberties with star players, you are in effect also advocating lessor penalties against star players who take liberties with plugs.

While Ovechkin and Malkin say thank you, it is this sort of inconsistency that needs to be removed from the game.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Per » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:26 am

coco_canuck wrote: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.

Excellent post. I'd give it a plus if I could... Oh, wait, here: +
User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Potatoe1 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:18 am

ClamRussel wrote:
Potatoe1 wrote:
ClamRussel wrote: Eager didn't even get a penalty on the play if I remember correctly.



ClamRussel wrote:Uhh I was referring specifically to the hit from behind on Daniel.
Thanks for the misguided sarcasm though. :roll:



Uhh the hit was a penalty......


Inconsequential, the point was the NHL did nothing. A 2min "boarding" penalty is hardly looking after the (star) players. Might as well have been no penalty. Did the Canucks score on that PP? No. ie they didn't make him pay. If the refs had an ounce of decency it would have been 5+a game. After that colossal fail, the NHL had an opportunity to right a wrong, send a statement, and chose to be whistlin' dixies. How in the world can that 2 minute minor be seen as being a deterrent in any way whatsoever?

My point was not whether Eager is effective, its whether allowing the Sedins to be rammed from behind into the boards in hopes of scoring a PP goal is really a wise game plan long term.

Oh ya, uhh



At this point we are beating a dead horse, but once again I would like to point out that there is nothing at all the Canucks can do to stop Eager from Hitting Daniel from behind in that situation.

Once the damage was done we had 2 choices, turn the other cheek and win the game, or spend the rest of the night mucking around with Eager or going after the Sharks other top players.

We decided we wanted to win and the results speak for themselves.

That game was pretty much the perfect example of the Canuck's philosophy working and it was a pretty horrible example for you to use to try and further your own argument.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby damonberryman » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:38 am

I have been just as angry at Marchand and the NHL as anyone. I think a player like Neil or someone of that type would be good for the team. However, i also think if Kes and Hamhuis had not been hurt we would have won. The PP did not go dry. it lost one of its important pieces in Kes. If we had won, and we came within a game, everyone would be all about how skill beats toughness. It was close. Given that the Canucks are basically the same I see no reason why they will not compete well. If we pick up a piece near the trade deadline, like Morrow or Iggy, great. If not we will still be near the top. Adding players like Carcillo, Eager, Hordichuck and that ilk did not improve those teams. they will get more majors but that is it. I do want someone to take out the little rat Marchand, but mainly due to his punk remarks and gestures. I am not comfortable putting this down to a lack of balls. It is more about a different way of looking at the world.
damonberryman
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:07 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Sparrow » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:45 am

coco_canuck wrote: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.


100%
Sparrow
AHL Prospect
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:16 am

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], BladesofSteel, ClamRussel, Cookie La Rue, Cornuck, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 guests