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 coco_canuck » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:32 am

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


The difference is we're placing a lower value on physical retribution. All the toughness in the world won't help you if you don't get the players that help you on the scoreboard.

The days of nuclear deterrent's scaring the daylights out of opponents and protecting stars like Gretzky are over. The NHL has changed and enforcers and tough guys simply don't have the same deterrent value.

I've been critical of the instigator rule for a long time and I love fighting and physical hockey, but it doesn't have the same place and value in the game as it used to and it's just a fact. With that in mind, unless your team is built for toughness, i.e. Boston, you have to create a roster of players that can score under any circumstances and play strong defense. Yes toughness is valuable and you need a mix of players to be successful, but if you don't have the players that thrive and score goals, you won't win games.

ClamRussel wrote: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.


You seem to be saying the only way you can get retribution is by scoring on the subsequent PP, otherwise they didn't make them pay.

The Canucks went 3 of 7 on the PP in game two and proceeded to beat San Jose 7-3, taking a 2-0 lead in the series. The Canucks did score on a goal on Eager's second penalty, a trip in Raymond.

San Jose, namely Eager, flew around the ice and tried to even the score for Bieksa beating up Marleau and they ended up taking 7 penalties and giving up 3 power play goals.

Hey, but Eager sure showed the Canucks that they can't take liberties with their star players...

ClamRussel wrote: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.


You're making two major assumptions.

One, that the Canucks have a game plan that says "let's let the other team take runs at our star players so we can go on the man advantage."

Secondly, that the Canucks would prevent any future questionable hits to their star players if they had a physical response.

We can argue this until we're blue in the face, but if you scan the NHL since the lock-out, you'll see star players on tough teams still getting smacked with dirty hits. Having someone on your team that goes after physical retribution does not work as a magical deterrent.

Granted, having more physical guys who can respond make your team tougher to face and it may help cut down on some of the after the whistle pushing around, but if you think anyone will be holding up in game speed then you're seriously misjudging the effect of having guys who can answer the bell physically.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby jackalman » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:04 am

[quote="coco_canuck"][quote="Strangelove"]
Eager's second penalty, a trip in Raymond.

quote]
I thought Mason was skating a little funny, and now I know why!
I think Eager should have got a major for that one.
jackalman
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:16 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby herb » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:28 am

Clam, did the Big Bad Bruins deter Aaron Rome on the Team With No Balls from KOing their star forward with an illegal headshot?
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Canuck-One » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:04 pm

herb wrote:Clam, did the Big Bad Bruins deter Aaron Rome on the Team With No Balls from KOing their star forward with an illegal headshot?


Whoa what illegal headshot. Mike Murphy called it a hockey hit, it was just a nano second too late for his liking.
User avatar
Canuck-One
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:49 am
Location: Moving to Blackfalds

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby ukcanuck » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:11 pm

herb wrote:Clam, did the Big Bad Bruins deter Aaron Rome on the Team With No Balls from KOing their star forward with an illegal headshot?


no but that did seem to be the turning point in the series, they (Bruins) came out in the second period full of piss and Vinegar and pumped in 4 goals as I remember. it seemed that the hit rattled the Canucks more than it did the Bruins. Raising the issue of team toughness and mental toughness, which I think is what is getting confused in this thread. This season we want to see the Canucks respond in ways they did not in the final...whether that is a top six forward or a top 4 defenseman, i think most agree that a goon fourth liner is not getting on the ice in the finals enough to make any difference but someone who can will himself and his team over the last hurdle, we already have a few guys like that (well at least one) but they (he) were injured when it counted, perhaps one more would have made the difference.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2162
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby herb » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:18 pm

The point is, the Bruins being "tough" did nothing to deter a monster hit taking out one of their star forwards.

Being late is what made it illegal, right Canuck-One?
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Potatoe1 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:44 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
herb wrote:Clam, did the Big Bad Bruins deter Aaron Rome on the Team With No Balls from KOing their star forward with an illegal headshot?


no but that did seem to be the turning point in the series, they (Bruins) came out in the second period full of piss and Vinegar and pumped in 4 goals as I remember.



So the toughest team in the league came out and punished us by scoring goals....

How ironic..
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby dhabums » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:04 pm

herb wrote:Clam, did the Big Bad Bruins deter Aaron Rome on the Team With No Balls from KOing their star forward with an illegal headshot?


Does anyone actually believe that having some team toughness will prevent all team injuries? Is anyone saying that? Do you really believe that the point being put forward is to make sure nothing ever happens? I think this is why so many people get confused with this. Too many people desperate to simplify discussions into black or white.
User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby dhabums » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:11 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
herb wrote:Clam, did the Big Bad Bruins deter Aaron Rome on the Team With No Balls from KOing their star forward with an illegal headshot?


no but that did seem to be the turning point in the series, they (Bruins) came out in the second period full of piss and Vinegar and pumped in 4 goals as I remember.



So the toughest team in the league came out and punished us by scoring goals....

How ironic..


It would be actually ironic if they were scored on the PP after the hit. But alas, irony is tough to understand. They did score on wimpy penalties then torched us on our PP. Now that's good irony. I applaud our successfulattempt to make the biggest a**hole on the ice feel safe all series long even if he was skating off after a fight with his arms in the air or smacking our best player. Full of confidence = full of kicking our ass. You are free to disagree.
User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:30 pm

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


The difference is we're placing a lower value on physical retribution. All the toughness in the world won't help you if you don't get the players that help you on the scoreboard.

The days of nuclear deterrent's scaring the daylights out of opponents and protecting stars like Gretzky are over. The NHL has changed and enforcers and tough guys simply don't have the same deterrent value.


In the first paragraph you talk about "retribution".

In the second paragraph you talk about "deterrent".

A "lower value" for each in today's game?

Agreed but it's still relevant to some degree.... and is lacking on your Vancouver Canucks.

In August you stated you'd like your Canucks to have an insertable fourth-line enforcer during the regular season.

And there ain't nuthin wrong with that big guy....

coco_canuck wrote:I've been critical of the instigator rule for a long time and I love fighting and physical hockey, but it doesn't have the same place and value in the game as it used to and it's just a fact. With that in mind, unless your team is built for toughness, i.e. Boston, you have to create a roster of players that can score under any circumstances and play strong defense. Yes toughness is valuable and you need a mix of players to be successful, but if you don't have the players that thrive and score goals, you won't win games.


Well said, I think we all pretty much agree that toughness needs to be added to the Top 6/Top 9 and/or Top 4.

Surely no one is saying it would HURT (obviously we're not talking about subtracting offense).

Ummm... what.... are you guys arguing about again?? :lol:

Strangelove: The Peoples Poster
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 5929
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby herb » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:32 pm

dhabums wrote:Does anyone actually believe that having some team toughness will prevent all team injuries? Is anyone saying that? Do you really believe that the point being put forward is to make sure nothing ever happens? I think this is why so many people get confused with this. Too many people desperate to simplify discussions into black or white.


Some are hypothesizing that we need to get tougher in order to protect the Sedins from dirty hits like the Eager one in the SJS series.

The Bruins being a "tough" team last year did nothing to prevent a star player of theirs from being knocked out by a dirty hit. The fact that Horton was knocked out by a "team with no balls" is interesting to me because it seems to fly in the face of that hypothesis.
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:17 pm

Strangelove wrote:Agreed but it's still relevant to some degree.... and is lacking on your Vancouver Canucks.

In August you stated you'd like your Canucks to have an insertable fourth-line enforcer during the regular season.

And there ain't nuthin wrong with that big guy....


There's nothing wrong with having an enforcer on a 2-way and there may a place to play him in the regular season on occasion, but it would be a strictly regular season player that may get anywhere from a handful to a dozen games. He would do nothing to help with our playoff toughness since he wouldn't dress for a single game. I don't see an encompassing benefit of having an enforcer, but it's always prudent to have all types of players in your system.

Strangelove wrote:Well said, I think we all pretty much agree that toughness needs to be added to the Top 6/Top 9 and/or Top 4.

Surely no one is saying it would HURT (obviously we're not talking about subtracting offense).

Ummm... what.... are you guys arguing about again?? :lol:


In those terms there really isn't a disagreement, but my responses have been directed at those who seem to believe a physical response will stop the opposition from taking liberties with our star players, but that's simply not going to happen. Regardless of the physical response, teams and certain players on teams will always go after star players and make life difficult on them, and sometimes the line is crossed.

Some seem to believe star players on tough teams are never targeted or hurt, and that's not the case.

We can want physical retribution all we want, but unless we score goals and make teams pay on the PP, teams won't respect our star players. Getting tougher is only a part of what the team needs.

My other objection to this discussion is some placing exaggerated importance of extracting retribution and having a so-called "deterrent" on the team.

Many seem to believe tough teams always have immediate repsonses to liberties being taken with their stars, but the fact is, retribution is typically extracted at opportune times that doesn't allow it to be a detriment to the team. Teams that respond to all actions without prejudice are incredibly undisciplined and get themselves in more trouble with the way the game is officiated and regulated on and off the ice. We saw JF Jacques get a suspension for going after Duco, and it seems to me any player that goes for that type of obvious retribution on an unwilling participant will face suspension.

A lot was made of Asham fighting Beagle, but one thing lost is Beagle accepting and willingly dropping the gloves. That situation may be viewed much differently if Beagle had been jumped. The Canucks against Columbus challenged Methot on two occasions but he declined.

It seems some believe retribution must be swift and the consequences and benifits are cut and dry, but they're not.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby ClamRussel » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:09 pm

Topper wrote: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.


Topper, I'm not advocating that. I'm being realistic and the fact is the NHL has different rules when it comes to "star" players for the most part. The Sedins don't seem to be included in that category is all. Agreed the inconsistency needs to be gone.

Potatoe1 wrote: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.


No its not, its part of a pattern that is very disturbing.

A) No reaction by the Canucks. In the playoffs, early in the series, I applaud them for showing such discipline. You do the right thing and hope the NHL is proactive and takes steps to protect the health of a player and ensure these things don't happen in the future.
B) No reaction by the NHL, no major penalty, no suspension. Apparently Colin Campbell felt it was a hockey play and only warranted the 2min minor. Nice job!
C) Methot almost does the same thing to the other Sedin and injures him on the play. Little to know reaction in a mean-nothing game against a bottom dweller. Early in the season, time to send a message that this is NOT acceptable and will not continue. Against the BJs a good team should be able to send a message and still win the game. Total fail.
D) Watch what happens when guys take runs at Nugent-Hopkins, Eberle or Hall. Watch what happens when guys take liberties with even Letang. It won't eliminate it from happening but most people would agree its at least a deterrent and reduces the amount of times that crap happens. With the Canucks I don't see any anyone doing much about anything like that happening to the Sedins. Lets see what happens next time we play Boston or Columbus. I don't see Pekham or Asham blowing games for their teams by sticking up for their star players, in fact they rarely ever get instigators in those scenerios. They certainly have't lately.

I'm not advocating an Eager on our team so please stop twisting that around. He's a goof an went a long way to preventing San Jose from making a go at it. Is that really how the NHL wants to see Daniel's career ended? I'm looking for some reaction from someone besides the SJ coach & GM. I'm not advocating thuggery, but the NHL seems to condone the abuse of the Sedins and this shit needs to stop ...and quick.

coco_canuck wrote:You seem to be saying the only way you can get retribution is by scoring on the subsequent PP, otherwise they didn't make them pay.
...

You're making two major assumptions.

One, that the Canucks have a game plan that says "let's let the other team take runs at our star players so we can go on the man advantage."

Secondly, that the Canucks would prevent any future questionable hits to their star players if they had a physical response.


See above. Its the Canucks saying they'll make them pay on the PP is it not? Its certainly some fans on this board. The fact that Eager is an idiot and blew that game for San Jose hardly takes away from my point that he almost ended Daniel's season and ONLY received a 2min minor which we didn't score on. I'm looking at direct cause & effect. This isn't about Eager, its about Hank & Dank, what some players seem to want to do to them and how or why the NHL turns a blind eye. Just recently Hordichuk was yapping about how he can't wait to get out there & abuse the Sedins and see what happens. The fact he's another idiot is not the point. What is disturbing is why is there this attitude that its open season on those 2 guys, why won't the NHL do anything about it...and since the NHL won't, why won't the Canucks? What will it take, a career or season ending injury? A response isn't going to prevent "any future questionable hits to their star players" but no response will certainly guarantee there will be more. What has this place turned into, Gandhi'sCorner.com?!? :eh:

herb wrote:Clam, did the Big Bad Bruins deter Aaron Rome on the Team With No Balls from KOing their star forward with an illegal headshot?


Ask yourself this Hank, why did Rome get FOUR games for a questionably late (less than HALF a second) open ice straight on forward hit in the Stanley Cup finals whereas Eager & Methot got ZERO for running the Sedins from behind into the boards? Also, calling the Rome hit "dirty" is quite a stretch. It was a hockey play that was a hair late w/ a guy admiring his own pass. The only thing dirty about it was the suspension handed out from "Mr. Kings." How fair of him to change the rules mid-stream.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby Strangelove » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:04 pm

coco_canuck wrote:In those terms there really isn't a disagreement, but my responses have been directed at those who seem to believe a physical response will stop the opposition from taking liberties with our star players, but that's simply not going to happen. Regardless of the physical response, teams and certain players on teams will always go after star players and make life difficult on them, and sometimes the line is crossed.


Agreed that a physical response won't "stop the opposition from taking liberties with our star players".

But it still has some effect... even in the modern NHL.... right Coco?

I believe you said "lower value nowadays."

Yes I'm sure we all agree it still has value.

The question is how much.

I suppose what we're really talking about here is cumulative physical responses... arent we?

A reputation of being... actually being... a tough team?

coco_canuck wrote:Some seem to believe star players on tough teams are never targeted or hurt


Really?? HERE??

coco_canuck wrote:We can want physical retribution all we want, but unless we score goals and make teams pay on the PP, teams won't respect our star players. Getting tougher is only a part of what the team needs.


So you're saying toughness AND scoring ability are important.

Agreed!

coco_canuck wrote:Many seem to believe tough teams always have immediate repsonses to liberties being taken with their stars, but the fact is, retribution is typically extracted at opportune times that doesn't allow it to be a detriment to the team.


Sometimes it's best to respond immediately. I think you would agree.

coco_canuck wrote:The Canucks against Columbus challenged Methot on two occasions but he declined.


IMO a Canuck should have immediately gone after Methot exactly as Kris Russell went after Burrows one week ago.

Yes, i know it wasn't true goaltender interference.....

Strangelove: The Peoples Poster
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 5929
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Canucks Have No Balls

Postby coco_canuck » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:24 pm

ClamRussel wrote:What is disturbing is why is there this attitude that its open season on those 2 guys, why won't the NHL do anything about it...and since the NHL won't, why won't the Canucks? What will it take, a career or season ending injury?


I think you're blowing this thing out of proportion.

Other than Eager on Daniel and Methot on Henrik, what other dangerous and obvious hits have they been on the receiving end of over the past year?

The Methot hit was bad, but if we're being completely honest, the hit wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, it was aggrandized because it was the Captain. Methot didn't exactly hammer Henrik and he certainly didn't follow through to drive Henrik into the boards. The call on the ice was the right one, and it should have been left at that.

The difference between Beagle going after Letang and then getting KO'd by Asham and the Methot situation, is Beagle answering Asham's challenge and dropping them, whereas Methot twice declined challenges from Volpatti and Bieksa.

You're of the mind that the Canucks needed to send an immediate physical message in light of the Cup Final against the Bruins, and some yapping by an inbred who's giving his voice to save the role of the endangered enforcer.

I disagree with the need to send that type of message and chasing an inconsequential player, Methot, around and then instigating a fight with him a close hockey game. The fact that it's early and it's Columbus has no bearing on the Canucks mindset to win and being in control of their game. One of their strengths last year was remaining composed, disciplined and focused on winning every night.

Not only that, we all agree that the Canucks aren't the most physically intimidating and nasty team, one that is certainly not suited for toe-to-toe physical battles on a nightly basis. With that in mind, should the Canucks, as they're built, be avenging any questionable hit with an exaggerated response, and thus setting themselves up as being a team that will retaliate to every physical challenge?

That's not the Canucks game, and it's not one they should be getting into. They have players who will challenge the opposition and they will continue playing hard, but they're not going to cross the line to exact revenge, and they're ill suited to carry out that role on a consistent basis over a long season.

The Canucks best response is answering on the PP and ultimately winning games. Columbus got the ultimate fuck you by losing a game they were leading at home.

As for setting a precedent against the always physical Flyers?

I didn't notice any intimidation from the Flyers, and our star players certainly weren't "banged around." The Flyes understood they were up against one of the best teams in the league with an elite power play.

Teams target players in an effort to get them and the team off their games. There may be the odd questionable hit, but players typically don't look to badly injure their opponent. If anything, the Canucks should have done less of the yapping and walked away from more scrums than they did against Boston, because that's not what their suited for as a team. They got frustrated and got off their game.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 guests