puckdontlie

you're absolutely right. I'm gonna ignore the NHL. It's too bad because I've been a fan of hockey and esp the canucks for a long time. But like how people like soccer but wish FIFA would reform I guess hockey fans don't feel the same. Blind loyalty or get out... I choose to get out

Well I agree Tootoo is a pretty scummy player. Well no one is admitting to what is being said but consensus seems to be that it's pretty ugly even though it's not suspension worthy. Right now it seems to be like a republican debate.... nobody wins. Both Burrows and Tootoo are dirty players and both guys are on teams that aren't good enough to talk smack and back it up.

The Canucks getting blown out against Chicago many times, Boston, LA, SJ and Calgary in recent history is karma... I like gritty but not dirty play. I believe a big part of the losses was that Burrows, Kesler, etc. was pissing guys off and that made them come back at us harder and want to stick it to us. It made the refs want to stick it to us. Even if they have the talent I don't have respect for guys like Patrick Kane, Brad Marchand, Slava Voynov or Dustin Brown. Emotion without scummy play was the run in 94. I enjoyed that a hell of a lot more than the embarrassing antics in 2011. The best hockey I've seen in the last 4 years was the Olympic games where team Canada put on clinics... none of that had anything to do with fighting or trash talking.

Tootoo and Burrows are both trash... they're both dirty players and I don't care who's dirtier. Refs shouldn't make it personal but Burrows did himself no favours with his dirty reputation in the first place. I'd enjoy the Canucks a hell of a lot more if Burrows wasn't on the team.... it was mega bad when we also had Torres, Lapierre and Kesler... yes that was part of the cup final team but if they just stuck to hockey they would have won the cup or at least lost honourably.

Well Tootoo would be one hell of a liar and the worst kind of scum if it's not true. If there's an investigation and third parties like the guys who ran the penalty box say it never happened then I'll stand corrected. But I believe there's a 90% chance that what Burrows said was pretty ugly.

That's not true at all. If Daniel Sedin went out today and said the n word or someone talked smack about Rypien then I'd be all over them too. On the flip side, there seems to be a lot wishing and hoping for Tootoo to screw up so that we can confirm that once a screw up, always a screw up.

Whether it was real or not, Burrows is an unnecessary distraction. We turned the page on other players with negative baggage in Cooke, Luongo, Hodgson, Kesler and Kassian. Even if we win because Burrows smack talked the other team, how can you be proud of a dishonourable victory. I think it's time for Burrows to go.

On the flip side, what does Tootoo have to gain by lying about this? NJ is in the other conference... it gives no competitive advantage. Given that other people in the league have spoken out about Burrows, a league that has an unwritten code, I think what Tootoo said was legit.

I watch hockey for the speed and skill, not below the belt, crossing the line trash talking BS... The play should do the talking for itself. If the only way they can win is by low blow personal attacks then they're no better than Donald Trump. If Tyler Seguin and Zack Kassian can be traded for character issues, I hope Benning does the same with Burrows if he's serious about building a character team.

I'm a canucks supporter minus Burrows. His hard work story has been tarnished by sinking to new lows in trash talking. Just like with Matt Cooke, love the team but not the some of the dirty players on it.

I wonder if that affects a GMs performance in the bedroom

I think $500,000, NMC, a new truck and two parking spaces to park that truck is a fair offer. Upgraded to three parking spaces if he scores more than 30 goals.

If we want Kassian to be in better shape the Canucks should get a bunch of hot girls to walk in for his entire workout. That kinda motivation works for me.

Oh man no wonder I hate life whenever I visit CDC. I bet many fans on here will debate to the death like lawyers whether pharrell's song titled happy is a sad song. If the canucks were as defensive as their fans they would get 82 shutouts a year.

Draft Day

Feaster = famine

I feel like there's no one left to root for in the organization after MG's press conference. The stupid thing is that if MG did get the style of play that he wanted he would be even more exposed since these players can only go so far with the quick transition, puck possession game. Even AV made the guys sit back last year and go into survival mode. The year before that the team played an uptempo, puck possession style but got owned against the Kings in the first round. The Kings actually beat us at our own game in transition but played awesome D. We try to play awesome D this year but our 4 NTC dmen can't handle it, our forwards are too slow to break out and it's suddenly everybody else's fault. So instead of improving on our D, MG's solution is to hide our faults by wanting to play run and gun and hope for the best. Before I was a huge MG fan because he let the on-ice product do the talking for him. Now the on-ice product is crap and his passive aggressive smack talking in the media is classless and ill-timed.

I want to know why MG had an interview on a random day, with guys he knew that would ask him tough probing questions, rather than wait til the end of the season. He put Torts in a tough spot where JT had to basically be on defense mode against blood sucking media sharks. I think it was total BS on MG's part.. what is he accomplishing here? While you can blame the toronto media for their unfair portrayals, why play into the hands of those guys by feeding these monsters? MG may be ok in terms of hockey moves but he's a PR nightmare. Why would any player want to play on this gong show of a team? What a mess.

The vision is clearly stated by MG as: "I want us to play up-beat, puck possession, move the puck quickly, force teams into mistakes, high-transition game," To me it's the GM's fault if this doesn't match the play on the ice. If the players are there but the coach refuses to use them it's the coach's fault short term, GM's fault long term if he doesn't make a change. I feel torts was sending a message at times in the season with his comments that he doesn't have the personnel to execute his game plan. The sedins are excellent at puck possession but the rest they're not as good at. It's troubling that the superstar players aren't viewed as a threat off the rush. Seriously, if you had to cherry pick out of the top 60 forwards in the league, would they be in the top half? To me no, because they lack the speed and the finish in transition. MG said: "our problems are far reaching and will be addressed. If people don't want to get onside with how I view this team and how it's supposed to play then they won't be here.” The other players I mentioned, I know some were flawed, but they had attributes which bought into the vision. AV's choices went against the vision yet he was still here. However, I think AV did the best with what he had for the most part so I have to say it's the GM's fault that he didn't supply effective enough players to fully carry out the vision. If that list of coaches was poor, then it's poor foresight on MG to get rid of AV without a suitable replacement, similar to the Schneider/Lu situation where he is now salvaging the fact that Lack will have seasons of Carey Price like meltdowns in his early years before he will be a star goalie, if at all. I think the MG is ultimately responsible for not carrying out his vision. If the analysis is that it doesn't matter who coaches, that the canucks will stay a middling team that has to overacheive like Phx and Nsh to compete, then that should be on the GM. Also I actually agree with you said about nonis although there are two sides to the coin. Ultimately though, batting average has to come into play... I know only used a small example but I'd say overall his batting average is average because he has a middling team although he has a vast treasure chest of resources. I could pick any GM and say that for any player X that worked out, there was player Y that didn't. But to me the bigger issue is that his top players do not fit his vision yet he forces his coaches to fit these square pegs in round holes.

We blame ownership for overruling MG and hiring torts but look at who MG was considering if it was up to him: - Dallas Eakins - scott arniel - glen gulutzan http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=424771 I don't think it matters who the coach is though... the canucks are a middle of the road team in terms of talent. Even at their peak I never saw the core as totally fitting gillis' vision as a team that can play in transition. It's teams like the hawks, bruins, kings and sharks that were scoring the odd man rushes against. The shootout with the team is sad artistically and in terms of results. MG himself said that if the team doesn't play how they want them to then they're out yet he kept AV on despite him getting the say over shipping out hodgson, not keeping grabner, not playing Ballard, not giving shirokov more chances, picking peter Schaefer over Brendan Morrison and most of all keeping the sedins who are as opposite from effective transition game as you can get. While ownership meddles, maybe that's a good thing if MG insists that oreskovich should be playing. While MG fluked out on santorelli, there's an ebbett and a tambelleni which brings his batting average back to average. MG is the problem. Ownership fired Noni's because he didn't have a plan despite no major F ups and I'm sure MG is gone too.