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 vic » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:29 pm

Jovocop wrote: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.


AV also didn't like his players playing the "asshole" role - they weren't "allowed" to.

Anyone else remember that game against Nashville when Kassian bumped into Rinne? He looked over and saw Weber coming after him, instead of just dealing with Weber, Kassian gives Rinne another whack then deals with Weber. That is being an asshole and AV hated it. Next game, against the Blues (who have their own share of assholes), Kassian gets a whopping 12 minutes and then he was down to 9 minutes in the next game.
User avatar
vic
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Island Nucklehead » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:33 pm

vic wrote:
Jovocop wrote: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.


AV also didn't like his players playing the "asshole" role - they weren't "allowed" to.

Anyone else remember that game against Nashville when Kassian bumped into Rinne? He looked over and saw Weber coming after him, instead of just dealing with Weber, Kassian gives Rinne another whack then deals with Weber. That is being an asshole and AV hated it. Next game, against the Blues (who have their own share of assholes), Kassian gets a whopping 12 minutes and then he was down to 9 minutes in the next game.


Yep. There's a fine line between reigning Kassian in, and letting him do what he's meant to do. If the opponents know he's neutered, he's useless. If you give him just enough rope to go fuckin crazy every now and then... nobody will fuck with him.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:36 pm

ESQ wrote:
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."


So I'm proven "wrong" by some kind of hypothetical "if"? :lol:

ESQ wrote:As I pointed out after the 2011 loss, there have only been 2 Champs since 2000 who won on measurable toughness


Oh you "pointed it out" did you... won that debate did you? :lol:

ESQ wrote: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.


Boston is going to win the Cup.... again.

Deal with it. :thumbs:
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Jovocop » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:37 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:Yep. There's a fine line between reigning Kassian in, and letting him do what he's meant to do. If the opponents know he's neutered, he's useless. If you give him just enough rope to go fuckin crazy every now and then... nobody will fuck with him.


Would that be nice to have a guy like Odjick? :lol:
User avatar
Jovocop
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:43 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote: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?


That was a good move in the right direction, but too few moves in my ever so humble opinion.

Island Nucklehead wrote: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.


Token gestures.

Booth is too nice of a guy.

Sestito is an AHLer.

And he hung onto Raymond (my whipping boy from Day One) for way too long and then lost him for nothing.

Island Nucklehead wrote:If you want to build a team for "playoff" hockey, quit having so many fancy boys.


:thumbs:
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Island Nucklehead » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:44 pm

Jovocop wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:Yep. There's a fine line between reigning Kassian in, and letting him do what he's meant to do. If the opponents know he's neutered, he's useless. If you give him just enough rope to go fuckin crazy every now and then... nobody will fuck with him.


Would that be nice to have a guy like Odjick? :lol:


Yep. Even having Ryps (RIP) was great for the franchise. Would you fight the guy, knowing that he's WAY crazier than you, and all he wants to do is break your face? Dale Weise and Tom Sestito are chumps.

I say let Kassian go full-Kassian. He can't play 18 mins/night anyways, what does it matter if he spends 7 minutes in the box beating the ever-loving fuck out of the first person that takes a swipe at Hank/Dank/Kes/Burrows/back-up goalie/water boy???

Either I'll score on you, or I'll drag your lifeless corpse across the ice... fearsome.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4043
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ESQ » Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:15 pm

Strangelove wrote:
ESQ wrote:As I pointed out after the 2011 loss, there have only been 2 Champs since 2000 who won on measurable toughness


Oh you "pointed it out" did you... won that debate did you? :lol:

Ya I think I won it...nobody bothered to challenge it in a debate with, y'know, actual facts, and I see you're not up to the challenge either :lol: Then again, maybe everybody on the board just ignored my lengthy, heavily-researched post and carried on with their lives, tough to say.

My point is that an event completely out of the Canucks control (outcome of game 7 of ECF) has made the narrative of the Canucks being not tough enough. Had the coin landed on the other side we wouldn't be having this kind of hand-wringing.

Boston is going to win the Cup.... again.

Deal with it. :thumbs:

To borrow from a wise man,
Strangelove wrote: So I'm proven "wrong" by some kind of hypothetical "if"? :lol:
/irony

You may be right, my point is that there was no recent precedent for the Bruins-Kings style teams winning back-to-backs, and that there is no precedent for those style of teams going 3-for-3.
ESQ
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:29 pm

ESQ wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
ESQ wrote:As I pointed out after the 2011 loss, there have only been 2 Champs since 2000 who won on measurable toughness


Oh you "pointed it out" did you... won that debate did you? :lol:

Ya I think I won it...nobody bothered to challenge it in a debate with, y'know, actual facts, and I see you're not up to the challenge either :lol: Then again, maybe everybody on the board just ignored my lengthy, heavily-researched post and carried on with their lives, tough to say.

My point is that an event completely out of the Canucks control (outcome of game 7 of ECF) has made the narrative of the Canucks being not tough enough. Had the coin landed on the other side we wouldn't be having this kind of hand-wringing.

Boston is going to win the Cup.... again.

Deal with it. :thumbs:

To borrow from a wise man,
Strangelove wrote: So I'm proven "wrong" by some kind of hypothetical "if"? :lol:
/irony

You may be right, my point is that there was no recent precedent for the Bruins-Kings style teams winning back-to-backs, and that there is no precedent for those style of teams going 3-for-3.


Sorry ESQ, but I got to call bullshit on your theory that had the lightening won their game seven we would have a cup and therefore being tough enough is not the reason the Canucks are golfing yet again...

They (lightening) did not win game seven against Boston and if remember correctly it was a penalty free game meaning that Tampa was free to out skill Boston, that didn't happen, so in this universe the Canucks still have too high a PQ or pansy
quotient.

Oh and your contention that only two of the last dozen winners were tough teams is crap too. every championship team since 1893 has been a tough team by definition.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ESQ » Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:56 pm

ukcanuck wrote:Sorry ESQ, but I got to call bullshit on your theory that had the lightening won their game seven we would have a cup and therefore being tough enough is not the reason the Canucks are golfing yet again...

They (lightening) did not win game seven against Boston and if remember correctly it was a penalty free game meaning that Tampa was free to out skill Boston, that didn't happen, so in this universe the Canucks still have too high a PQ or pansy
quotient.

In my book, a penalty-free game means infractions are not being called, which gives a competitive advantage to the team that commits more infractions. So Tampa was not free to out-skill Boston in that game, Boston was free to out-goon Tampa once the whistles were put away.
Oh and your contention that only two of the last dozen winners were tough teams is crap too. every championship team since 1893 has been a tough team by definition.

That is a valid point, I did specify that I was only relying on "measurable toughness" based on taking high PIMs and fighting majors. That isn't the whole story on toughness, which is why I pointed out that Chicago in particular was an anomaly.

But it is absolutely true that it is extremely rare for teams that fight a lot to win a Championship, and to some people that is the definition of toughness. I've looked at stats on this going as far back as I can, and Boston, Anaheim, and LA are the only champions to be in the top 1/3rd of the League in # of fights.

Obviously this leaves out the toughness factor of a team like the 03 Devils, where Scott Stevens had a huge physical impact but the team didn't fight a whole lot. That's a kind of toughness that my theory can't address, and I admit that. But my point is the "toughness" or (the term I prefer) bullying style we're seeing is something completely different from other tough teams - Stevens' Devils, Draper/Maltby/McCarty Red Wings, Lemieux's Avs, Staal's Canes, etc. etc. They all had tough players, but they didn't fight a lot or take a lot of penalties.

I don't mention the previous 2 winners (Lidstrom's Wings and Sid's Pens) because I don't think anybody considered either to be a "tough team", they clearly put skill and discipline first.
ESQ
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:25 pm

Yeah Coco Canuck makes the same argument as you do ESQ but bullying does not mean knuckle dragging slopes brow stupidity. It means being able to finish what gets started.

The example of Marchand rabbit punching Sedin is an apt one. Marchand is a slippery prick so trying to get revenge in him will lead to getting out of position and a goal against. But grabbing another bruin who had nothing to do with it at the right time and cross checking his teeth down his throat and pointing to Marchand on the way to the box is a suitable response.

The trouble is go down the Canuck line up in that series there is no one with that set of gonads. No one guy who will face down the biggest meanest prick on the other team.

Another case in point, read Dryden's account of the 76 sweep of those broad street bullies. Montreal had Bouchard, risebrough Robinson Lambert, all tough customers that stacked up against the flyers toughness, according to Dryden they had no fear of the flyers and it showed on the score board.

Toughness does win
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Topper » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:26 pm

ESQ wrote:An Ottawa reporter wrote the exact same article about the Ducks in 2007-08 following the first match-up after that SCF.

Its a real shame that this is what the NHL game has devolved to, but he's right.

Someone here also said the same thing a couple of days ago.
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: 4675
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:19 pm

ESQ wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
ESQ wrote:As I pointed out after the 2011 loss, there have only been 2 Champs since 2000 who won on measurable toughness


Oh you "pointed it out" did you... won that debate did you? :lol:

Ya I think I won it...nobody bothered to challenge it in a debate with, y'know, actual facts, and I see you're not up to the challenge either :lol:


*looks at audience*

:eh:

He don't know me too well do he?

Firstly, allow yours truly to point out that your Vancouver Canucks had more PIM/G than your Boston Bruins in the 2011 playoffs (ergo: the PIM stat proves nothing in regards to post-season toughness, as stated THE POINT is that the refs tend to put the whistles away at a certain point).

Secondly, please note your Big Bad Boston Bruins presently sit at 8th in your 2013 playoffs PIM/G stat, your Vancouver Canucks are 4th (ergo: obviously Gallagher and yours truly are not talking about PIM numbers, rather just the opposite, we are talking about refs NOT calling all the penalties they arguably should on “bully” teams. I would also point out that, going by your posts in this thread, you seem to agree with that assessment…. so ummm WHY are you still talking about PIMs?)

Thirdly, you seem to be conceding that 3 of the last 7 Stanley Cup Champion teams were throwbacks to the 70s nasty brand of physical hockey. Ducks, Bruins, and Kings (I include your LA Kings because you stated “if we have a Kings-Bruins finals, we will be back in the 70s”). BTW there is presently an approximate 50% a team EXACTLY like your Bruins/Kings wins the Cup this year, meaning 4 of the last 8 Stanley Cup Champion teams would be what you seem to refer to… if I may be so bold… as “goon squads”?

Fourthly, what, may I ask, is your problem with 70s hockey?

Fifthly, let’s keep in mind you are not going to win the Cup unless you outscore the opposition, so quoting goal-scoring stats is much too simplistic (even your nasty Cup-winning Ducks, Bruins, and Kings were among the top teams in GPG). No, obviously what we are endeavoring to do is look deeper, beyond the stats if you will (will stats ever prove whether or not the refs have put the whistle away at a certain point in time?). Listen ESQ, the nerdification of a blood sport like hockey is only going to take you so far. And make no mistake: One knows one has gone full nerd when one finds oneself trying to use stats to argue a position like “Toughness is NOT a major factor in winning your Stanley Cup.”

Sixthly, we’re starting in 2001 (rather than sooner) because presumably it helps your argument.

Okay, with all that in mind, let us begin, shall we?

2001 Colorado – has there ever been a top 4 tougher than Blake, Bourque, Foote, and Klem? Or bottom 6ers tougher than Nieminen, Yelle, Hinote, Dingman, and Parker (okay, Parker hardly played but still he was available if teams wanted to play them that way). Their 2 top forwards Sakic and Forsberg are legendary for going into beast-mode come playoff time (no backing down from physical play, just the opposite in fact). Yes they had some pussies in their top-6, but like I say, you need a good blend of fancy boys and assholes (the fancy boys on that team felt protected and Sakic + Forsberg took no shit from no one).

2002 Detroit – Top 9 included nasty SOBs Shanahan, Holmstrom, McCarty, Draper, and Maltby. And no one will ever call fellow top-9 star forwards Yzerman, Hull, or Fedorov pussies. Yep, 8 of their top 9 forwards were some of the toughest-to-play-against forwards in playoff history! 2 of their top 4 dee were Chelios and Fischer, who just happened to 2 of the meanest nastiest dirtiest dee in the league that year. Obviously fellow top-4 dee Lidstrom was squeaky clean, but nobody ever intimidated Nicklas Lidstrom amirite? And intimidation or lack thereof is at least part of what we’re talking about, no?

2003 NJ – Top 4 included beasts Scott Stevens and Colin White and fancy-boy playoff legend Scott Niedermayer. Gritty forwards Madden, Langenbrunner, and Jeff Friesen were 1, 2, and 3 in scoring and +/- that playoff year (so not sure how you can argue it was skill over brawn for that team that year). And assholes Turner Stevenson, Jim McKenzie, and Mike Rupp were available for 4th line duty. But seriously. Legendary asshole Scott Stevens averaged 25 minutes per game = say no more.

2004 TB – Top 4 were Kubina and Sarich (hard to believe but they were both physical beasts that year) plus the physical J.C. Cullimore and never-been-intimidated fancy-boy Dan Boyle. That’s TOUGH and balanced. Hard hitting big bodies in Lecavalier, Andreychuk, Fedotenko and Modin plus small-yet fearless Richards and St Louis made for an awesome top 6. Fearsome policemen Chris Dingman and Andre Roy patrolling the 4th line….

2005 – LOCKOUT

2006 Car – Monsters Staal, Brindamour, Ladd… plus not-huge-yet-physical Recchi and Weight in their top 9. And on dee… hmmm… yeah, y’know what… I’m gonna give you that one lol.

2007 Ducks – You agreed with me.

2008 Wings – They had, scattered throughout their lineup, forwards who seemed thrive on physical play AT THE TIME in Franzen, Cleary, Holmstrom, Samuelsson, Draper, McCarty, Draper, and Maltby. Nice blend of physical dee in Kronwall (who also led the dee in scoring), Stuart, Chelios, and Lilja... along with fancy-boy scoring stars Lidstrom and Rafalski. Physical team!

2009 Penguins – Top 9 had major physical forces Staal, Guerin, Kunitz, Cooke, and Fedotenko. Nice blend with superstars you-know-who and you-know-who at the top of their respective games. Orpik went into absolute beast-mode that year and, along with the giant Hal Gill and fancy-boy stars Gonchar and Letang, made a for a well-balanced top 4.

2010 Blackhawks – Are you kidding here? Ummm BYFUGLIEN gone wild, Seabrook + Keith at the top of their game, Sopel transformed (somehow) into a shutdown machine… killing penalties with aplomb along with Niklas Where The Hell Did He Come From Hjalmarsson? Physical forwards on every line including Toews, Hossa (underrated in that department), Sharp, Ladd, Madden, Brouwer, Kopecky, Eager, Burish? ALL physical players (with Bickel and Fraser in reserve). The Blackhawks POWERED their way to the Stanley Cup.

2011 Bruins – You agreed with me.

2012 Kings - You agreed with me (I think).

Remember, yours truly never said you had to have THE most physical team in the league to win the Cup.

Yours truly merely stated your Vancouver Canucks are sorely lacking in that department.

Oh, and WHEN your Boston Bruins win your Stanley Cup again this year, that will make SEVEN

… (7) straight years a team much more physical than your Vancouver Canucks has won your Stanley Cup.

And so... in closing... my dear ESQ, let me just say: Welcome to the 70s. :mex:


.
Last edited by Strangelove on Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Vpete » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:22 pm

I've come to the realization that Gallagher may have been right more often than I thought he was wrong. I always hated his 'players first' way of thinking for years but the last few I have come to a true appreciation of his insight.

Yeah I know, quit drinking, but I'm not. Whether he is the first to say it is irrelevant, he summarizes thoughts well and the state of the game has come to the point where the officials are now worn down. Players are smart habitual beings in THEIR environment and they pick up on the nuances that allow them to succeed or fail, or at least the smart ones do.

Guys like Torres and Cooke played on the edge until that line was pulled so far back from the edge for them they were rendered useless. However what Gallagher explains is different, it's a battle of will and fatigue and the Bruins are prepared to win that battle.

The real turning point IMO was the Chara hit on Pacioretty. IF that was not worthy of a suspension or discipline then the Bruins knew and accepted where their line was. Make it look like part of the game and not flagrant and take the 2 mins if it's called. They have been masters at that and really, it's no different then embellishment. The difference is the officials are not shamed for missing a call. In fact the officials are almost forgiven for not being able to keep up with the calls they need to make.

The issue now is can the Canucks get enough assholes before the NHL wakes up and changes the rules. Gillis essentially admitted what the game had become without stating what Gallagher did but the media on large have not caught up. They are lemmings and the few who get it realize the peril to the game. The Bruins PEnguins series had sequences of play where it looked masterful but really, no one wants to watch a 4 rounds of that style of hockey. It's not dead-puck era but something different- more dead style era and once again the NHL is faced with dealing with tradition vs entertainment.

Sadly TV ratings will be used to tell us what we should like, not what the sports wants to showcase.
Brick Top: Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me.
Vpete
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:28 pm

Vpete wrote:The issue now is can the Canucks get enough assholes before the NHL wakes up and changes the rules.


Not to toot yours truly's own horn, but yours truly has been saying that all along.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

It's not complicated: Assholes win your Stanley Cup. :wink:
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7174
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Tciso » Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:55 am

tantalum wrote: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.


I have been calling for using the 10 minute misconduct penalty like PEZ from a Darth Vader dispenser for years. Guys like Chara should get the occasional 2 minute call, but, throwing him in the box for the last 10 minutes of a game is probably a bigger hit to a team. Especially if the box is already full of your other hooking/slashing/face washing arseholes on 10 minute misconducts. The 10 minute misconduct allows refs to throw out the bad apples, but not have the whole game played 4 on 4.
The Cup is soooooo ours!!!!!!!
User avatar
Tciso
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClamRussel, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 7 guests