oeteman

Members
  • Content count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Neutral

About oeteman

  • Rank
    Aces Star
  1. Wow lol. If you think for a second that a professional hockey player in the NHL is going to let off the gas in the playoffs because the opponent is a friend of theirs, you're mistaken. If that is true, I think everyone can agree that we DO NOT want those players on our team. We need the playoff energy and tenacity that Calgary showed. Not guys worrying about jeopardizing an off-ice friendship. In the end, friends understand that this is business, and playoffs are serious business. Friendships are put aside for these times.
  2. Extremely troubling to hear that the ownership feels the same way.
  3. I love how people argue "1 game away from stanley cup" to justify our team. 1 game or 100 games away, we didnt get it and its a loss.
  4. Now I'm confused! What "situation and approach" are you referring to? "Opportunity to reevaluate" what exactly? You still haven't made your point clear. It sounds like you're just a disgruntled fan voicing his distaste for the Canucks. If thats the case, make it clear what you're getting at and don't purchase tickets.
  5. 3 years ago when our core was in their prime and healthy. The "brute force" is what won the cup that year.
  6. Credibility lost. In your last paragraph it sounds like you have some sort of personal vendetta against the Canucks organization. Anyways, the Canucks actually look like a team with some heart lately and have a coach who fuels the fire. We are in a scoring slump but goals will come. So unlike you, I'm taking this as a good thing and remaining positive!
  7. All hypothetical and there is still a huge risk of having a star player being injured. Having the Sedins out this stretch would be incredibly crippling, and worth more than a powerplay against Calgary or even 2 points. I'm going to read your post from the perspective of a father who probably has children in the minor hockey system. So yes, I see where you're coming from. When/if your kids grow up and play hockey to the junior/pro level. You'll see where the majority of these posts are coming from. Canucks have been the kids on the block who are viewed as buckling under intimidation. The fact Calgary even dressed, let alone started that line up was a pretty good indication of what they had planned for that game. The risk far exceeds the reward = JT did the right thing. We can completely agree on the hallway incident. Way out of line on JT's part.
  8. I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would start their best players against a 4th line of bullies. You would have started the Sedins against that Flames opening line up? What if Daniel or Hank got a concussion from a late hit or broken jaw from a sucker punched after a whistle? Great, a goon gets a 2minute penalty or a game... Calgary doesnt care and we're out a star players during a stretch to make the playoffs. The risk was WAY too high. And could you imagine the backlash onto JT if that had happened? Give your head a shake and look at the end result.... We won the game and traded 4th line penalties.
  9. That directly related to his actions following the first period. Which I don't think anyone believes was a good move. It does show that he's passionate about the game and our club though.
  10. It was equal, was it not? Both teams played with a shortened bench, we got the win, we're still in playoff contention, they're still not... Don't see the problem. The top players have to be playing top minutes because we need all the points we can get right now. The game was close, they would have logged absurd minutes anyways. This game (minus the JT hallway incident) was a great step forward for the Canucks. Dealing with adversity and not letting anyone take liberties.
  11. So we swapped 4th liners with the other team and had the same ejections as we did... I still don't see the problem. "A bit silly" - We got the win and were equally set back by penalties as the opposing team... ? John Scott V.S. Phill Kessel as mentioned above... prime example of what could have happened. "Stretching things a lot" - still not worth the risk. Those are our best players! And its against Calgary! The whole reason teams think they can start their fourth line to rough up our first line is because of our history against rough teams. I'm glad JT is trying to change that image.
  12. "Nothing would have happened"? Again, that is not a risk that we can afford to take at this time. We are in playoff contention, and Calgary is not. Torts made the right decision. And yes, I have faith in our 4th line so theres nothing wrong starting them to match theirs. Plus the brawl on the ice is good hockey. I loved it! Yes, JT acted a bit over the top in the hallway between the rooms. I agree, that was completely uncalled for. There was enough talk that went on ice level, no need for the extra off-ice dumb crap.
  13. I don't agree with sending out our 2nd line to turtle and hope for a PP while getting jumped. Just puts our players at risk for the potential playoffs. Not worth the risk, and if you're a Canucks fan, you know the value of a healthy post season line up. And it also looks awful. I don't want to send a message around the league that goons can go after our star players. That is the image we are trying to get away from. I'm so sick of players taking liberties with us and our powerplay being complete garbage making it impossible to capitalize. We sent a message that night that we cannot be pushed around any more. And obviously other teams/players saw it and took note.
  14. MG has had some awful moves during his tenure here. We have the same issues we've had for the last 5 years!
  15. We have the exact same issues we've had for 5 years now! Enough is enough, get a GM with some balls and brains