Moderator: Referees
Canuck-One wrote:-You never, NEVER allow your stars to be bullied.-
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.
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.
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?
Strangelove wrote:And why was Nazzy asking for protection??
Maybe Marcus Naslund knows more about hockey than you do? Just a thought.
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.

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.
Uhh the hit was a penalty......
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.
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.
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
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.
Users browsing this forum: BurningBeard, JelloPuddingPop, Lancer, rats19 and 3 guests