whcanuck

Members
  • Content count

    314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

127 Good

About whcanuck

  • Rank
    Comets Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

1,840 profile views
  1. That's what I wanna know
  2. Hey guys I'm sure many of you have met several Canucks players past and present, and probably some guys from other teams as well. Who were really good guys? Who was not? I'll get the ball rolling Knew the video coach of the Minnesota Wild back in the 2002-03 season (man did he ever chirp me about being a Canucks fan, said we'll see who wins if we ever see you in the playoffs...boy that bit me lol). Saw them play the Blackhawks that year up in St. Paul and met a few of the players after the game. The Good Steve Sullivan- Very nice guy, very friendly, stayed to talk with us as long as possible after the game Pierre-Marc Bouchard- Very soft-spoken, but a nice guy Cliff Ronning- This was after his Canucks days, very quiet and reserved The Bad Eric Daze- Basically ignored us, but maybe just wasn't in a good mood that night Let's hear yours. Bet some of you have some great stories living in an NHL city (a privilege I do not have sadly :/ )
  3. Is Ovechkin playing his last game in D.C.? Who else goes? This for sure has to be the last straw for this group
  4. Ok, so I'm originally Canadian, but moved to the states as a teenager about 17 years ago and have lived here ever since. When I first moved here in the early 2000s, ESPN actually covered hockey, showed a couple games a week and even had its own hockey show called NHL 2Nite. But after the lockout of '04-'05, ESPN and the NHL parted ways, now all you get is a few highlights on SportsCenter after they're done talking endlessly about the same NFL and NBA topics over and over and over again. For all you guys living in Canada, I envy how much hockey is covered on TV, online, in the newspaper and talked about at the watercooler, it's something I really really miss. If you live in a state where hockey is popular ie. Minnesota, Michigan, Mass or NY you'll get some hockey coverage, but I've lived in Iowa and now South Carolina and although there are passionate fans of the sport in these places, there are very very few of them, it's almost a cult sport in the SE U.S.A. This was the first year of my life I never saw a single Canucks game and I'm thinking about getting the NHL Center Ice pkg next year because the hockey coverage is next to nonexistent if your favorite team isn't the Blackhawks, Bruins, Red Wings, Penguins, Rangers etc. So here's my question, what do you guys think of ESPN's treatment of hockey? How do you feel about NBC's coverage of it? I think ESPN doesn't take it seriously as a sport and would rather talk about guys getting arrested in the NFL or some fight between a player and his coach in the NBA. NBC is trying, but the times they cover games baffle me (I'm sorry but I've never been able to get behind Saturday or Sunday afternoon hockey games, I like hockey to be played at night) and they seemingly always show the same 6 teams, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston, Detroit, New York Rangers, Philadelphia etc. I also feel their commentators are kinda second rate...never liked Pierre McGuire, and Jeremy Roenick and Mike Milbury? Yikes. Let's hear what you guys have to say
  5. Wow that's a really interesting insight. I think a lot of the old timers like Orr, Dryden, Gretzky have said that they want to see more creativity in the game too.
  6. Hey guys So I've been watching hockey for about 25 years now (not as long as some, but that's still a decent amount of time.) Started watching around the '92-93 season in the height of the Mario and Gretzky era and the early days of the Russian Rocket Pavel Bure :). Started really watching hockey a lot closer after the Canucks famous '94 Cup run and was an avid follower from then on. When I go back and watch the old highlights, especially from the 1990s, I get a sense the game was more exciting. The players' overall skill level was not as high as it is now, the guys that did have that high skill tended to dominate...the Bures, the Yzermans, the Sakics etc. It seemed especially that the old arenas, like the Pacific Coliseum, Montreal Forum, Maple Leaf Gardens, Chicago Stadium, provided a lot more intimate experience for the fan, like they were almost right on top of the ice and it seemed like those crowds could generate a ton of noise! (that may have something to do with lower ticket prices and fans were likely more everyday people than the high-rolling businessmen that fill NHL arenas now, but that's another debate). Just compare the noise level from Game 6 of the '94 Finals at the Pacific Coliseum to any Canucks game ever played at Rogers Arena (2011 Finals included) and I don't think the noise is anywhere close to what it was back then. It seemed like the personalities were more interesting back then too, you could always spot Lemieux, Gretzky or Yzerman when they had the puck, now it seems that almost every player is so talented and similar that they all come off some assembly line that creates hockey players (a few exceptions of course, you can always spot McDavid and Crosby out there). The games back then seemed a lot more end to end, trading scoring chance for scoring chance, but now the players are so big and fast and the systems are so structured that it's become more like soccer, where you really have to work and be patient for a scoring opportunity. I'm trying not to be too much the guy that always says "everything in the past used to be better" because that's not true. Players have tons of ability now and the goaltending position has evolved in leaps and bounds throughout the past quarter century. Plus the latter half of the 90s wasn't so great with the Devils' implementation of the neutral zone trap and the merciless clutch and grab era. What would you guys do to make hockey more exciting?
  7. Really? Wonder what it would be???
  8. I tried looking for this thread to see if it had already been made but I couldn't find it (I apologize if it's redundant and could someone re-direct me if it is?) But since Adidas is now the official jersey manufacturer for NHL sweaters next year, what two jerseys are the Canucks going to wear? Is the stick n' rink logo going away? I think they should wear the stick both home and away but that's just me. I'd be sad to see the orca kept over the stick n' rink.
  9. I think Tavares is a #1 center definitely, but I don't think MacKinnon is, at least not at this point. I just remember Tavares being very hyped, maybe not the next Crosby per se, but he's never scored 40 goals nor cracked the 90 point barrier, something Markus Naslund did a couple of times and he's likely never going to the hall of fame, but I bet Tavares does. Now I understand Tavares' supporting cast is definitely lacking, and I think JT is a great player, but I thought his numbers would be better at this point of his career. Whichever post said MacKinnon's development has stalled put it perfectly imo. He had that great rookie year but since he's done next to nothing. Again though, poor supporting cast. Both players are very talented but judging by how much they were hyped when they were drafted their numbers should be a bit higher.
  10. I wanted to hear your guys' opinion on something. When John Tavares was first scouted, he was considered so exceptional as a 15 year old that he was allowed to play in the OHL. He was going to be the next Crosby, but bigger. Nathan MacKinnon comes out Nova Scotia just like Crosby, and he lights up the QMJHL, makes the WJC team as a 16 year old (something that maybe only a handful of guys have ever done) and he's now the next Crosby. Tavares has had some really good years, a couple Hart Trophy nominations and he basically dragged the Isles to the 2nd round last year for the first time in more than 20 years. But he's never come close to Crosby numbers, never scored 40 goals and never reached 100 points, things that Crosby and Ovechkin have done numerous times in the past 10 years. MacKinnon had a great rookie year, looked a lot like McDavid, but since then he's just been very "meh." My question is what's going on with these guys? Do they not have the supporting cast to be the franchise saviors they were expected to be? Or were they just a little over-hyped? For MacKinnon it may still be a little early but Tavares should be hitting his peak in the next few years.
  11. I agree, but like those guys I listed, Chelios, Leetch, Coffey, Bourque etc. I play defense and prefer a shorter stick. I'd rather give up a little bit of reach and be able to handle the puck and pass really well. Plus I have no trouble getting good shots away with a short twig
  12. Just thought I'd share something that I've noticed over the years. Watching old highlights from the 80s and 90s, and even before, I've noticed that the length of player's sticks was quite a bit different back then, most guys used pretty short twigs. Gretzky, Yzerman, Mario, Brett Hull, and defensemen too like Ray Bourque, Brian Leetch and Chris Chelios all used short sticks. If you look at the game now, seems like everybody's using a telephone poll, with the exception of a few guys like Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Matt Duchene. Have any of you guys noticed this? The sticks used to come up to around the guys' collar bone or a little higher but now on skates it seems like they're coming up to the player's chin at minimum. For any of you fellow hockey players, how long do you like your hockey stick to be?
  13. I can't believe Iginla, Belfour and Malkin were left off but Sundin and Toews made it. Come to think of it I don't think Patrick Kane should have made it either.
  14. For all of you thrash metal fans, how would you rank the big 4 of Thrash Metal ie. Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax? Or if you'd like to include another band in there, absolutely nothing wrong with that. To spark discussion, could you explain your rankings? I'll get the ball rolling. 1. Megadeth- I actually think they are the most technically skilled and have the biggest discography. Are all the albums classics? Heck no, but Peace Sells, Rust in Peace and Countdown to Extinction are all great, great albums. Dave Mustaine's guitar playing is off the charts and the political anger in a lot of their lyrics makes them an engaging listen. 2. Slayer- By far the thrashiest and fastest of the big 4 imo. Their first five albums epitomize thrash metal and their speed and overall intensity on those records is virtually untouchable. Even 25-30 years after some of their best work, it's as intense as ever. 3. Anthrax- A lot of people probably rank them last, but I really like Among the Living and Persistence of Time. They're probably the least dark of the big 4, they even sound like they're having fun in a lot of their songs. I even like the John Bush era Anthrax in the early 90s. 4. Metallica- For a long time Metallica was my favorite band, I was obsessed with them in high school. Then I heard the other thrash bands and I think they've all stayed way closer to their roots than Metallica has. I still really really like Metallica's 80s output as well as the Black Album. I'm not going to say they sold out as that's what pretty much everyone says who no longer likes Metallica. But I am going to say they've taken the most musical mis-steps since their popularity peak in the early 90s. I can't remember the last time I heard a really good Metallica record. How would you guys rank them?
  15. Remember when O'Sullivan was relevant???? Neither do I