nuckster wrote:Why not just attempt to make them our second line and find a way to de-emphasize them as our #1. Imagine creating a productive 1st line then having the Sedins as our second line option? It would help create a dynamic where they weren't required to face the other teams #1 line and defense paring...could have a nice effect. Food for thought.
herb wrote: ....NEVER tried this. Not even on the PP.
I'm just suggesting that sometimes the answer is staring you right in the face. Not saying it would solve all of our problems, but it would reduce the need to find two wingers for Kesler, increase flexibility and give this group a fresh look.
donlever wrote:Well, he did try Daniel on the point (lol)......baby steps eh herb?
donlever wrote:...not to mention invigorate the players, no doubt they have pride, so manipulate them into (re)proving themselves.
Orcasfan wrote:What a bunch of pathetic, adolescent-minded, boring, and ignorant pack you lot are! I'm talking to the idiots who have hijacked this thread (like so many others on this site) for the sake of seeing their inane, insulting, and stupid words in print! Why don't you guys go get a life somewhere else (preferably) and, if you really are adults, and not 5 year-olds (like your toilet humor suggests), maybe you should finally think about growing up! Believe it or not, this is not your private wanking club! If you're not interested in having reasonable discussions about Canucks hockey, I'm sure there are lots of other places on the Web that would welcome your brainless input!
rats19 wrote:Uncle dans leg wrote:Rummys a blanket biter?
and UDL chews wood?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Southern_Canuck, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests