men against boys
Moderator: Referees
men against boys
once again we see the difference between this club and a contender. where were the hits? why don't the wings pay the price for touching the puck? we stand back in awe for 40 minutes and try to catch up with 20 of try...
the twins are ineffective. gillis will have no hair left soon.
it must be frustrating paying the exhorbitant prices to witness this type of mediocrity in person. i wonder if mgmt. has any idea of how good they have it in this market.
the twins are ineffective. gillis will have no hair left soon.
it must be frustrating paying the exhorbitant prices to witness this type of mediocrity in person. i wonder if mgmt. has any idea of how good they have it in this market.
Disclaimer: This is an internet message board. The messages you read and their authors are to be taken seriously at your own risk. Remember, you don’t have ANY idea who these “people” really are, do you?
- ClamRussel
- CC Legend
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: New South Wales, Australia
Re: men against boys
Maybe thats the problem, people flock like sheep to get tickets no matter how good or poorly this team performs. If I had seasons tix after last years defesive debacle I'd be tearing them up. As long as the team is close to making the playoffs every years, our "7th player" will line up in droves to keep the consecutive sellouts rolling alive. Perhaps if people stopped paying those exorbitant prices for a mediocre product there might actually be some pressure on mgmt to improve this team.BigBert wrote:it must be frustrating paying the exhorbitant prices to witness this type of mediocrity in person. i wonder if mgmt. has any idea of how good they have it in this market.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy
Re: men against boys
Didn't Henrik score tonight? (I didn't watch the game). Anyway - I guess we will "agree to disagree" about the twins. The twins are only ineffective (or perhaps 'inconsistent' is a better choice of word here) as 1st liners. Again - I refer back to the 05/06 season where the twins, as 2nd line players, were arguably the best 2nd line in hockey.BigBert wrote:o
the twins are ineffective. gillis will have no hair left soon.
For anyone who read these boards this past June, will know how obsessed I was with re-uniting the WCE.
A re-united WCE for only 9 million for all 3 players (low risk, high reward). The caveat here would be that Veenyo would let these guys play under their old "WCE" type style (is it just me, or does anyone else wonder why Veenyo didn't play this style of hockey last year....when we had Naslund...speaking of Naslund, he's almost a PPG player right now).
The Sedin's would've been "freed up" to play on the 2nd line, while teams would still have to be extremely wary of the WCE (just in case they reverted back to their old brilliance). Kesler and Burrows would have still kicked butt on the 3rd line. With only 9 mill having been spent on our re-united WCE, the Canucks would have still had enough cap space to bring in another top 4 defenseman (one with good speed).
Anyway - that was my train of thought from 5 months ago. I argued that neither Bertuzzi nor Naslund were "washed up"...and that instead, both players were victims of "incompatible systems." So far - it looks like I was right. .
- Madcombinepilot
- MVP
- Posts: 7093
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:54 am
- Location: Saskatoon, Sk.
Re: men against boys
I think that the problem with last nights game was the style that the Canucks played. THey tried to play like the Red Wings, but don't have the skill to do it. IF they would have stayed with the Canuck Style of this year, which is a heavy forecheck, they might have done better. Kudos to the Wings who move the puck so well and make it tough to get that forecheck rolling, but I thought that it was an entertaining game to watch, it just wasn't the type of hockey from us that we expected.
I think that would make it a coaching thing.. not being able to keep our guys focused on playing our style...
I think that would make it a coaching thing.. not being able to keep our guys focused on playing our style...
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with until you understand I am in charge.
- the toucan kid
- CC Legend
- Posts: 3923
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am
Re: men against boys
I'm honestly not all that concerned with last night's effort, only reason we didn't win was that our special teams were awful, a better powerplay or pk and we were right with them. A possible caveat would be the slow starts which continue to plague us a bit.
Farhan, here's the thing, even if you are right about Naslund and Bertuzzi as players (I'm still skeptical), they as people do not want to play for this team. There is no way in hell Bertuzzi is coming back, and I got the same instinct from Naslund. So your theory is prohibited from examination on those grounds alone
Farhan, here's the thing, even if you are right about Naslund and Bertuzzi as players (I'm still skeptical), they as people do not want to play for this team. There is no way in hell Bertuzzi is coming back, and I got the same instinct from Naslund. So your theory is prohibited from examination on those grounds alone
Re: men against boys
The only positive I would have for this team is that there doesn't seem to be a 3rd period meltdown, or even a let down. For many years, this club could enter the 3rd down by one and you may as well as stopped watching.
Now, if we can work on a fast start...
Now, if we can work on a fast start...
Doc: "BTW, Donny was right, you're smug."
Re: men against boys
to beat the wings stay off the PK. we were even with them until that stat. They are deadly and have found the true success in this NHL. a holmstrom and a powerful PP will win you many games.
good game but it shows our lack of anywhere near being "elite"
A Sundin may have helped alot but I dont believe he alone will get us out of the first round. it just masks what we are. an incomplete team. If not stressing pure Defense AV is a 1D coach. he cant do both like Babcock. (mind you he doesnt have as many tools still but that is lack of drafting - so again an incomplete team).
good game but it shows our lack of anywhere near being "elite"
A Sundin may have helped alot but I dont believe he alone will get us out of the first round. it just masks what we are. an incomplete team. If not stressing pure Defense AV is a 1D coach. he cant do both like Babcock. (mind you he doesnt have as many tools still but that is lack of drafting - so again an incomplete team).
-
- CC 1st Team All-Star
- Posts: 728
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:43 am
Re: men against boys
Where did this come from?
No one took the body to Detroit in the entire playoffs either - they're simply a team that is good enough/fast enough not to get hit. I believe most teams lay off the hits as it puts you out of position for the counterattack against the skilled Red Wings.
They outshot the champs 13-3 in the 3rd and were within a bounce of tying them. They played them straight up in both contests thus far.
The Sedins also scored 5 on 5. That's more 5 on 5 goals than the entire team of "men" to which you referred and hardly "ineffective".
I'm not sure what you expected this year that you're so disappointed - perhaps we have differnt expectations?
No one took the body to Detroit in the entire playoffs either - they're simply a team that is good enough/fast enough not to get hit. I believe most teams lay off the hits as it puts you out of position for the counterattack against the skilled Red Wings.
They outshot the champs 13-3 in the 3rd and were within a bounce of tying them. They played them straight up in both contests thus far.
The Sedins also scored 5 on 5. That's more 5 on 5 goals than the entire team of "men" to which you referred and hardly "ineffective".
I'm not sure what you expected this year that you're so disappointed - perhaps we have differnt expectations?
-
- CC 1st Team All-Star
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:43 pm
- Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Re: men against boys
No question there's a difference in skill between both teams but I would hardly call it men against boys. We lost by one goal and the Canucks took it to them in the third period. There seems to be a distinct group of people on this board who are eager to blow this team up.I don't see any benefit of doing that and waiting 3-5 years to get back to the playoffs and watching many young guys take their lumps and seeing Luongo going somewhere else to win a Stanley Cup. Stay out of the penalty box and the Wings are beatable.
38 years without a Stanley Cup and counting.
- Mikodat
- CC 1st Team All-Star
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:58 am
- Location: Victoria
- Contact:
Re: men against boys
difference in the game was the first two dumb penalties bye Bieksa and Burrows.. down 2 .. zip... Defensive lapses resulting in 3 goals against.. ... This team has got to stay outta the penalty box .. specially against the best PP in the NHL... other than that we played them even...
Nuck fan Since 1970 and still no Cup
Re: men against boys
I agree we shouldn't take penalties against the Wings, but that call on Bieksa was (as far as I am concerned) a bad call. It was a minor facewash after Samuelson was whacking at the puck that Luongo was holding on to. Bieksa was sticking up for his goalie, and that is OK in my books. I still don't see why that was called, and it isn't like it was the 4th time Bieksa was involved in an after whistle scrum.Mikodat wrote:difference in the game was the first two dumb penalties bye Bieksa and Burrows.. down 2 .. zip... Defensive lapses resulting in 3 goals against.. ... This team has got to stay outta the penalty box .. specially against the best PP in the NHL... other than that we played them even...
It is either open season on Luongo or it isn't. I prefer to make a pretty serious statement early in the season that the crap that teams were pulling last year is NOT going to happen this year. Sure, we may end up on the lopsided end of some calls, but at least we will have a goalie that isn't being run over on a regular basis (like last year).
- the toucan kid
- CC Legend
- Posts: 3923
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am
Re: men against boys
I agree and disagree Doc. I think that it was definitely a penalty and should be called, but at the same time one we need to take on occasion.
Re: men against boys
Here's my thing:BigBert wrote:once again we see the difference between this club and a contender. where were the hits? why don't the wings pay the price for touching the puck? we stand back in awe for 40 minutes and try to catch up with 20 of try...
the twins are ineffective. gillis will have no hair left soon.
it must be frustrating paying the exhorbitant prices to witness this type of mediocrity in person. i wonder if mgmt. has any idea of how good they have it in this market.
I don't care if we lose to a top-tier Detroit team that is trying to prevent losing 3 games in a row. Detroit is a great team, and they beat us. I can live with that. it's just when the Canucks give head to teams like Columbus, Chicago, and Boston when I start getting annoyed. Absolutely no reason to lose to garbage like Columbus, and then lose to a team that had was playing its 3rd game in 4 nights. As we saw last year (and two years before that), a difference of one or two points can decide whether a team makes the playoffs or not (and we all know where we ended up).
Having said that - I was glad to see the Canucks soundly spank the L.A. Kings and Nashville Predators. That's the way it should be.
One thing that a team like Detroit has ALWAYS been exceptional at, is that they take care of business...period. People can lament the fact that Detroit's plays in an embarrassingly weak division, but these guys still give you NOTHING...and as result, have very few "bad" loses (if at all). During the final 10 games of the season last year, Nashville played garbage teams such as Columbus, St. Louis, and Chicago, but spanked them handily...and made the playoffs. The Canucks on the other hand, were mathematically eliminated by the non-playoff bound Edmonton Oilers.
Bottom line? Little things add up. Perhaps Detroit's mental prowess (i.e. ability to be focused and consistent each and every game) is perhaps a bigger reason for their amazing success rather than their overall talent.
- westvandal
- Moderator & MVP
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:04 pm
- Contact:
Re: men against boys
Slightly off-topic, but who here doesn't think Babcock should be coaching in 2010?
E1-E4 = I made it up.
E5 = Found it on tsn.
E5 = Found it on tsn.
- Mikodat
- CC 1st Team All-Star
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:58 am
- Location: Victoria
- Contact:
Re: men against boys
Agree.... but against the most powerful PP in hockey.. this wasn't the occasion .. But all in all not a bad game.. and the team tried hard for the comeback.. close enough .the toucan kid wrote:I agree and disagree Doc. I think that it was definitely a penalty and should be called, but at the same time one we need to take on occasion.
Nuck fan Since 1970 and still no Cup