GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

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: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Hockey Widow » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:22 pm

Well, I think MG said as much in his fire the coach presser. He mentioned several times that the team was built for the "new" NHL but the "new" is over and it has resorted back to what we have now. He said you take one year as an anomaly then when it happens again you realize you have to change the plan.

He fired his shot at the NHL. He built us a team that was fun to watch and dominant and you felt they could win every game. Then along comes Boston, coupled with all our injuries, and the NHL reverted back to accepting the bulling style of play. We had been coached to turn the other cheek, play whistle to whistle and kill em on our PP. Who can deny that 2011 was a fun team to watch and you felt we could win every game? What we are seeing in Boston now is the same thing the Canucks had to contend with. The NHL is gutless when it comes to ensuring that games are reffed the same way. I still cannot believe that that little rat didn't get a penalty for using Dank's face as a punching bag just like Iw as in disbelief that Jager got away with that can opener.

I think MG alluded to this for well in his presser. He built a team to play under the system the NHL said they wanted but in the end they didn't really want it. So now he has to re-tool. I guess what we are all waiting for is to see what this means exactly.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:24 pm

herb wrote:Another sign of how the inmates run the asylum in Canucks-land.


If there's a "country club atmosphere" then "team-management-style" Gillis is to blame

.... and it's doubtful he has what it takes to fix it. (hi Dude) :drink:

Strangelove: The Peoples Poster
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 5919
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby herb » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:25 pm

Strangelove wrote:Right, and it turned out that team wasn't anywhere near tough enough, amirite?


Nope, but neither is anybody else in this league. Nobody matches the Bruins toughness.
User avatar
herb
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:17 pm
Location: Mars

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Rumsfeld » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:28 pm

The Pens have nothing to complain about compared to the Canucks... they're one of Bettman's favourites as well and have gotten plenty of questionable PPs when the game was close.

The Canucks would have beaten the Bruins with some half-decent road goaltending and a referee that wasn't corrupt.
Registered mammyrammer
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Torts' doghouse

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby tantalum » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:31 pm

Sutter preaches the same thing. Make no mistake the NHL is regressing back to the clutch and grab style of hockey. They've introduced enough stupid penalties (puck over the boards, hand on puck during a faceoff, any tap on the wrists, coming out of your lane by 6 inches to hit a guy who pushed the puck by you etc) that they can now safely have a bunch of PPs while letting the clutching, grabbing and hooking go. It was never more evident than in OT when Neal is cutting into the slot for a great opportunity only to be completely hooked off the puck with no call and then of course the Jagr hook to create the turnover. So yes, if you can't beat them well then join them. The canucks have been loathe to join them at this point. For all the talk of the skilled Hawks team, they have joined them. The Pens haven't.

The problem is the canucks never join them except half heartedly so it is easy to see when a canuck transgresses. you need to do it numerous times a shift and every player has to do it. Hell Chara could be called 2 or 3 times a shift for all the slashes he dishes out. Simple fact is a ref won't put a guy in the box 10 times a game.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Rumsfeld » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:33 pm

The Kings are hilarious in the offensive/neutral zone. I don't think I've seen them try to pass it into the middle once this playoffs regardless of who's open. Down the boards and grind grind grind.

Pretty lame hockey if you ask me. At least the Bs make some nice plays 5-on-5.
Registered mammyrammer
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Torts' doghouse

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Rumsfeld » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:39 pm

tantalum wrote: For all the talk of the skilled Hawks team, they have joined them.


I've heard commentators saying this as well, but I really don't see it. The Hawks win with a great transition game, skill and team defense. They are a little dirty but they don't muck it up and grind it out like the Blues, Kings and Bruins.

Other than that I concur with your post. The Canucks tried to play a physical system the last couple playoff rounds but they seem to abandon that style halfway through the game because they simply don't have the personnel to sustain it.
Last edited by Rumsfeld on Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Registered mammyrammer
User avatar
Rumsfeld
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm
Location: Torts' doghouse

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:42 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Well, I think MG said as much in his fire the coach presser. He mentioned several times that the team was built for the "new" NHL but the "new" is over and it has resorted back to what we have now. He said you take one year as an anomaly then when it happens again you realize you have to change the plan.


There never was a "new" NHL.

Oh sure, they started calling more penalties after the 2004-05 lockout in the REGULAR SEASON.

But many hardcore oldschool hockey fans & pundits doubted that would carry over to the playoffs.

Gillis was a fool to believe things would change in that regard.

Like Gallagher said "the refs are only going to call so many penalties before they put the whistles away".

Hockey Widow wrote:He built us a team that was fun to watch and dominant and you felt they could win every game. Then along comes Boston, coupled with all our injuries, and the NHL reverted back to accepting the bulling style of play. We had been coached to turn the other cheek, play whistle to whistle and kill em on our PP. Who can deny that 2011 was a fun team to watch and you felt we could win every game?


You felt they could win every REGULAR SEASON game.

You had your doubts how they would do in your Stanley Cup playoffs.

Hell, immediately following the 2011 playoffs, many of us still argued your Vancouver Canucks MUST get tougher

... although the majority seemed to swallow Gillis' "within one game of the Cup" bullshit. :roll:

"Toughness"

Gillis keeps using that word, I do not think he knows what it means.

Strangelove: The Peoples Poster
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 5919
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:51 pm

herb wrote:
Strangelove wrote:Right, and it turned out that team wasn't anywhere near tough enough, amirite?


Nope, but neither is anybody else in this league. Nobody matches the Bruins toughness.


You don't need to match the Bruins toughness.

You only need to be tough enough to withstand the Bruins toughness.

Your Vancouver Canucks are not tough enough to win your Stanley Cup.

Gillis has yet to learn this.... even after the failure in 2011.

Not in 2012, not in 2013....

Gillis shows no signs of having learned this valuable lesson.

Strangelove: The Peoples Poster
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 5919
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Lancer » Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:56 pm

Gillis based his philosophy after the Det-Pit SCF series, and was fooled.

IMO, Gallagher is calling out the NHL for not calling the game according to the rulebook. If the winning tactic is to saturate the officials because 'they can't call everything', then the league can't carp when every team starts copying the act and it turning into anarchy on ice.

As for the Bruins' get-out-of-jail-free card in terms of penalty killing, IMO the situation is easy - start laying off point bombs and put some 4th liners to hack, cross-check and injure the penalty killers (maybe knock some of them down to the ice while Garrison aims a howitzer at their face) and attrite their penalty kill to nothingness. Worse comes to worst, start running their goalie. After all, the refs can't call everything... :twisted: If the league is going to let teams go down this road, you may as well cut the chase to the dead end. :mex:
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.
User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Arnprior, Ontario

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:04 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:Well, I think MG said as much in his fire the coach presser. He mentioned several times that the team was built for the "new" NHL but the "new" is over and it has resorted back to what we have now. He said you take one year as an anomaly then when it happens again you realize you have to change the plan.


There never was a "new" NHL.

Oh sure, they started calling more penalties after the 2004-05 lockout in the REGULAR SEASON.

But many hardcore oldschool hockey fans & pundits doubted that would carry over to the playoffs.

Gillis was a fool to believe things would change in that regard.

Like Gallagher said "the refs are only going to call so many penalties before they put the whistles away".

Hockey Widow wrote:He built us a team that was fun to watch and dominant and you felt they could win every game. Then along comes Boston, coupled with all our injuries, and the NHL reverted back to accepting the bulling style of play. We had been coached to turn the other cheek, play whistle to whistle and kill em on our PP. Who can deny that 2011 was a fun team to watch and you felt we could win every game?


You felt they could win every REGULAR SEASON game.

You had your doubts how they would do in your Stanley Cup playoffs.

Hell, immediately following the 2011 playoffs, many of us still argued your Vancouver Canucks MUST get tougher

... although the majority seemed to swallow Gillis' "within one game of the Cup" bullshit. :roll:

"Toughness"

Gillis keeps using that word, I do not think he knows what it means.


You're so right and I remember arguing and reading others arguing the same thing in 2008 and 2009 and 2010 AND 2011. In fact going back to the west coast express this franchise has always skated away when their stars get worked over. I think the Bertuzzi over reaction has a lot to do with it.

It was like the entire city turned their backs on the team I wonder how the city of Boston would have reacted???
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Jovocop » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:10 pm

Lancer wrote:Gillis based his philosophy after the Det-Pit SCF series, and was fooled.

IMO, Gallagher is calling out the NHL for not calling the game according to the rulebook. If the winning tactic is to saturate the officials because 'they can't call everything', then the league can't carp when every team starts copying the act and it turning into anarchy on ice.

As for the Bruins' get-out-of-jail-free card in terms of penalty killing, IMO the situation is easy - start laying off point bombs and put some 4th liners to hack, cross-check and injure the penalty killers (maybe knock some of them down to the ice while Garrison aims a howitzer at their face) and attrite their penalty kill to nothingness. Worse comes to worst, start running their goalie. After all, the refs can't call everything... :twisted: If the league is going to let teams go down this road, you may as well cut the chase to the dead end. :mex:



That is one of the reasons why AV has to go. He was too classy for the NHL playoffs. AV refused to run up the score nor trying to hurt the opposing players.
User avatar
Jovocop
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ESQ » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:15 pm

Strangelove wrote:
You don't need to match the Bruins toughness.

You only need to be tough enough to withstand the Bruins toughness.

Your Vancouver Canucks are not tough enough to win your Stanley Cup.

Wrong. If the Lightning had won game 7, the Canucks could very well have won the Cup. If they hadn't won, it would have nothing to do with toughness, it would have been getting outscored by the Lightning's amazing forwards.

If the Lightning had gotten a single power play in game 7, its most likely you would not be able to make a statement like "the Canucks are/were not tough enough to win the Cup."

As I pointed out after the 2011 loss, there have only been 2 Champs since 2000 who won on measurable toughness - meaning being the biggest, taking a lot of penalties, and getting in lots of fights. Every team that won, other than the Ducks and the Bruins, won on offense and skill and were in the bottom third of the league for PIMs and fights.

The '10 Blackhawks are a bit of an anomaly as they were big, but they didn't take many PIMs and they clearly beat Pronger and the Flyers with their blazing offense, not toughness and grinding them down. Same with the Stevens-led Devils - dirty and hard-hitting, but didn't take many PIMs.

So in MG's defence, there was no precedent for the 2011-2012 stretch where dirty, tough, high-PIMs teams won back-to-back Cups. I strongly believe that run will come to an end with this year's champs, because I highly doubt the League will let Boston get away with their shenanigans against the Hawks. If that does happen, or if we have a Kings-Bruins finals, we will be back in the 70s.
ESQ
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Island Nucklehead » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:18 pm

Strangelove wrote:Gillis has yet to learn this.... even after the failure in 2011.

Not in 2012, not in 2013....

Gillis shows no signs of having learned this valuable lesson.


Really? Trading an offensively gifted, yet soft, player in Hodgson for a wild-man, snap-show, Ben Eager-breaking freak in Kassian wasn't an acknowledgment that the Canucks need to get tougher? Guys like Booth were supposed to make the Canucks bigger. Guys like Sestito are supposed to absorb punches, and get 2 year contracts for being completely marginal hockey players... the Canucks have been consistently drafting bigger players of late. I'm willing to bet (not much, I'm broke) that he replaces Raymond with a bigger player.

Gillis has bought into this, but you can't turn the roster over overnight. I'm still waiting for him to find a mean motherfucker to cross-check the piss out of people on the back end. I could care less if Edler gets us 50 points back there, I want people to require an ice bath post-game if they wanna stand in front of Schneider. If you want to build a team for "playoff" hockey, quit having so many fancy boys.

The Bruins leading regular season scorer ranked 43rd in the NHL... maybe this "offensive hockey rules" scheme of Gillis' is BS.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:22 pm

ukcanuck wrote:You're so right and I remember arguing and reading others arguing the same thing in 2008 and 2009 and 2010 AND 2011.


Especially folks such as THINKER, Blobby, and yours truly? :thumbs:

ukcanuck wrote:In fact going back to the west coast express this franchise has always skated away when their stars get worked over.


Yep, captain Naslund basically demanded more protection one summer.

Nonis failed to provide that.

ukcanuck wrote:I think the Bertuzzi over reaction has a lot to do with it.

It was like the entire city turned their backs on the team I wonder how the city of Boston would have reacted???


One could argue that if the Canucks had more toughness, Bert would've never had to try to take care of business.

One could argue that a lack of true grit has been the downfall of your Vancouver Canucks for many years.

One could argue that poster Strangelove has been arguing exactly that lo these many years.

Strangelove: The Peoples Poster
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 5919
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClamRussel, Google [Bot], Raile and 12 guests