Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 12 votes

I've had budgies with longer memories..........


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
158 replies to this topic

#1 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:28 AM

Honestly, how many ass kickings do we have to take until we start building for a Stanley Cup?
Personally I was gutted when we didn't learn lessons after we were "molested" out of the finals.

Then I thought we would "man up" before the playoffs. We did but it turned out young Kassian was still in diapers.

We were shown the door by LA and I sat in awe as this team who finished 8th pummelled us into submission.................Ah well I thought MG will have seen this and big things will happen and steps will be taken to toughen up for next season.

But NO.

First we show interest in a College guy a strong wind would blow over.
Then we sign a top four D who has as much push back, it would seem (unless I am missing something) as Mason Raymond on a bad day.

Now idiots on here foam at the mouth about Jokinen and Versteeg

WTF!

Do we really want to win the Stanley Cup? I am seriously beginning to doubt it.
The grit / push back that makes the difference as far as I can see is NOT in the 3rd and 4th lines it's where the real battles take place...........the 1st and 2nd lines in both offence AND defence.

When is this team going to get back to basic principles. The D is for first and foremost keeping goals out of our net and ensuring our goalie is NOT molested.

The offence is for getting goals 5 on 5 and in particularly from the forward trio. We have lived for too long on the PP at this Club and it's high time we started taking names and kicking asses.

We are already known as pushovers and divers, is this an attempt to enhance our PP figures? If so we need to get our priorities right.

MG, I'm not impressed with your FIRST BIG MOVE. Unlike many on here I have a very good memory.
Kevin.jpg

#2 WeatherWise

WeatherWise

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,897 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:30 AM

There's no question this is a wait-and-see contract. Nobody knows whether or not Garrison is a one-year wonder. This will be his season to prove that he has earned his new $27.6 million, six-year contract; he could very well become another scapegoat if he falters.

These past 12 months have not been Gillis' finest. This team has lost some of its most effective players from the 2011 Stanley Cup run, and the players we have replaced them with still have much to prove. Hopefully, a few more decisions will be made before the start of the season. As of now, I feel this team still needs one major piece if it intends to compete for the Stanley Cup again.

Edited by WeatherWise, 02 July 2012 - 01:35 AM.

The greatest segue into a weather segment.

#3 ILL BILL NECRO

ILL BILL NECRO

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 09

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:42 AM

Honestly, how many ass kickings do we have to take until we start building for a Stanley Cup?
Personally I was gutted when we didn't learn lessons after we were "molested" out of the finals.

Then I thought we would "man up" before the playoffs. We did but it turned out young Kassian was still in diapers.

We were shown the door by LA and I sat in awe as this team who finished 8th pummelled us into submission.................Ah well I thought MG will have seen this and big things will happen and steps will be taken to toughen up for next season.

But NO.

First we show interest in a College guy a strong wind would blow over.
Then we sign a top four D who has as much push back, it would seem (unless I am missing something) as Mason Raymond on a bad day.

Now idiots on here foam at the mouth about Jokinen and Versteeg

WTF!

Do we really want to win the Stanley Cup? I am seriously beginning to doubt it.
The grit / push back that makes the difference as far as I can see is NOT in the 3rd and 4th lines it's where the real battles take place...........the 1st and 2nd lines in both offence AND defence.

When is this team going to get back to basic principles. The D is for first and foremost keeping goals out of our net and ensuring our goalie is NOT molested.

The offence is for getting goals 5 on 5 and in particularly from the forward trio. We have lived for too long on the PP at this Club and it's high time we started taking names and kicking asses.

We are already known as pushovers and divers, is this an attempt to enhance our PP figures? If so we need to get our priorities right.

MG, I'm not impressed with your FIRST BIG MOVE. Unlike many on here I have a very good memory.


Who would you sign then genius? You talk trash but dont say what the GM should have done...
Posted Image

#4 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:43 AM

Then we sign a top four D who has as much push back, it would seem (unless I am missing something) as Mason Raymond on a bad day.


Yeah you are missing something, Garrison was top 50 in hits for D last year. He's also extremely strong, and very willing to clear out his crease.

Maybe you should wait longer than one day into Free Agency before you start writing the season off.

Edited by Jagermeister, 02 July 2012 - 01:47 AM.

Posted Image

#5 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:50 AM

Who would you sign then genius? You talk trash but dont say what the GM should have done...


Look at my posts / topics.
Kevin.jpg

#6 It's Bieksa's Fault

It's Bieksa's Fault

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 08

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:57 AM

ITT: Signing Garrison to a semi-risky contract isn't a bold move because he's not Suter or Parise.


#7 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:58 AM

Yeah you are missing something, Garrison was top 50 in hits for D last year. He's also extremely strong, and very willing to clear out his crease.

Maybe you should wait longer than one day into Free Agency before you start writing the season off.


Top 50 eh?...........Impressive..................my ass!

I would have said an Elite team and 2 times PT winner should have been aiming at top 10. I'm quite happy to wait but if this is an indication of how MG corrects the GLARING FLAWS in a team with SC aspirations, then I'm not exactly filled with confidence.

Also I note how you neatly avoid the last 2 years. This is not just a complaint about now it is an accumulative complaint about his apparent blind spot.

I'm not the only one who sees this as a terminal weakness (with reference to SC aspirations) in the team. These boards have been thick with it, as have the media............................................................. GARRISON does not address this problem imo.
Kevin.jpg

#8 needtogetswole

needtogetswole

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:11 AM

in order for us to have a solid 3rd or 4th line as you want - you can't be paying guys like suter / parise - 8 million +

a balanced team is a better team

1-2 superstars don't make a team.

surprises is what make a legitimate team - could be young guys stepping up or players like ehrhoff that were getting written off but then ended up producing big for us during the right times.

doesn't mean you need to sign shea weber / suter/ parise - i'd love to have them but that'd make us lack somewhere else in the line up because of the money were dishing out to them.

#9 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:24 AM

Top 50 eh?...........Impressive..................my ass!

I would have said an Elite team and 2 times PT winner should have been aiming at top 10. I'm quite happy to wait but if this is an indication of how MG corrects the GLARING FLAWS in a team with SC aspirations, then I'm not exactly filled with confidence.

Also I note how you neatly avoid the last 2 years. This is not just a complaint about now it is an accumulative complaint about his apparent blind spot.

I'm not the only one who sees this as a terminal weakness (with reference to SC aspirations) in the team. These boards have been thick with it, as have the media............................................................. GARRISON does not address this problem imo.

That's because he wasn't signed to be a tough guy?
He's a strong, physical D who can put up 15 goals, and you're going to complain?

Look at Detroit, they won cups with pure skill, this year they signed Jordin Tootoo. They haven't had that tough guy for a while, I bet people complained about it all the time. Coming into Free Agency this year, did anyone really expect for Holland to make a signing like that? Not really. So why would it be so illogical to think that maybe MG will still sign a player to fit that role?

That being said, there are still plenty of players out there who can take on that pugilist role, so why don't we all wait to see what happens in that regard before we start passing judgement?
If come the start of the season, we still don't have anybody like that, then you have something to complain about.

Edited by Jagermeister, 02 July 2012 - 02:27 AM.

Posted Image

#10 dura_mater

dura_mater

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,588 posts
  • Joined: 18-December 08

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:27 AM

Honestly, how many ass kickings do we have to take until we start building for a Stanley Cup?
Personally I was gutted when we didn't learn lessons after we were "molested" out of the finals.

Then I thought we would "man up" before the playoffs. We did but it turned out young Kassian was still in diapers.


But NO.

First we show interest in a College guy a strong wind would blow over.
Then we sign a top four D who has as much push back, it would seem (unless I am missing something) as Mason Raymond on a bad day.


WTF!




First we show interest in a College guy a strong wind would blow over.

Actually it was more Schultz showing interest in us so settle down.

We were shown the door by LA and I sat in awe as this team who finished 8th pummelled us into submission.................Ah well I thought MG will have seen this and big things will happen and steps will be taken to toughen up for next season.

Toughness wasn't why we lost. You could start with the fact we were without our top offensive players in Daniel.

Now idiots on here foam at the mouth about Jokinen and Versteeg

"Idiots" on here are not MG, again simmer down.

Then we sign a top four D who has as much push back, it would seem (unless I am missing something) as Mason Raymond on a bad day.

The guy is 6'2" so I'm not sure what you're referring to. As for short memories, do you remember how we have fared after our top offensive defenseman in Ehrhoff left? Well guess what, MG just got his replacement.
"BoKnows53"
My stinky team isn't on top of the Standings anymore Waah waaahh, fire everyone because I say so

- New Era Canucks Fans

#11 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:27 AM

in order for us to have a solid 3rd or 4th line as you want - you can't be paying guys like suter / parise - 8 million +

a balanced team is a better team

1-2 superstars don't make a team.

surprises is what make a legitimate team - could be young guys stepping up or players like ehrhoff that were getting written off but then ended up producing big for us during the right times.

doesn't mean you need to sign shea weber / suter/ parise - i'd love to have them but that'd make us lack somewhere else in the line up because of the money were dishing out to them.


I see what you are saying but my point is we already have the majority of the good pieces we need.................it's the bits that supply the game change and the "nasty grit" we lack imo.

We have a potentially good 3rd and 4th line, it's the 1st and 2nd lines in offence and defence weaknesses we need to address.
Kevin.jpg

#12 SILLY GOOSE

SILLY GOOSE

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,096 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:34 AM

Lot's of time left to address bottom 6 needs if that is what your crying about.

D is looking solid with Garrison being signed.

In other words, STFU and let MG do his job.

HONK HONK

0au3Jj.gif


#13 ILL BILL NECRO

ILL BILL NECRO

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 09

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:35 AM

Look at my posts / topics.


No... Your post here makes me never want to read another one of yours why would i look up more?
State what you would have done.
Posted Image

#14 DownUndaCanuck

DownUndaCanuck

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,335 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 07

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:38 AM

As much as I loved Salo, he was old and not physical enough. Garrison's game is built for the playoffs, and we need more big, physical and strong defencemen like him. Great move by MG to let Salo go and sign this defensive stalwart. Now if we can get one more hitter on the blueline (or let Alberts play instead of Tanev) we'll be fine back there. We need maybe 1 more depth defenceman and we should be fine, because Tanev's game is not built for the playoffs - he's simply not big and strong enough, and either is Ballard.

Up front we have the pieces necessary to win a championship, with a good mix of skill, size, toughness and speed. I would say we need to get a bit deeper at the center position because that's the 2nd most important spot on a team, and we haven't replaced Hodgson's loss very well so far.
Posted Image

#15 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:39 AM

I see what you are saying but my point is we already have the majority of the good pieces we need.................it's the bits that supply the game change and the "nasty grit" we lack imo.

We have a potentially good 3rd and 4th line, it's the 1st and 2nd lines in offence and defence weaknesses we need to address.


Garrison filled a hole we had all season, and with Salo chasing the big bucks down to Tampa, we needed a defenceman like him more than ever. Bonus is the fact that he is also physical.

Regardless of what you say, we did address a team need, I guess it just wasn't the one you were hoping for. Again, plenty of time for that to be addressed as well.
Posted Image

#16 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,509 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:40 AM

I see what you are saying but my point is we already have the majority of the good pieces we need.................it's the bits that supply the game change and the "nasty grit" we lack imo.

We have a potentially good 3rd and 4th line, it's the 1st and 2nd lines in offence and defence weaknesses we need to address.

For a guy who has wanted Mason Raymond in our top-six since forever, what caused this sudden epiphany? Relax, wait for the Gillis pitch for Shane Doan to run its' course.

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.


#17 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,260 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:42 AM

Garrison is 6'2" 218 lbs. He hits, blocks shots, and has put up points. I'd say it's a pretty good pick up for the price.

We're just past the first day of free agency. Lou still needs to be moved and there may be others moved as well. No need to hit the panic buttom Bodee there's a lot of time between now and October.
Posted Image

#18 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:42 AM

First we show interest in a College guy a strong wind would blow over.

Actually it was more Schultz showing interest in us so settle down.
We did show interest in him, we tried to land him

We were shown the door by LA and I sat in awe as this team who finished 8th pummelled us into submission.................Ah well I thought MG will have seen this and big things will happen and steps will be taken to toughen up for next season.

Toughness wasn't why we lost. You could start with the fact we were without our top offensive players in Daniel.
Even with Daniel we were no match for the physicality of that team. We tried to match it and gave away the first two games.

Now idiots on here foam at the mouth about Jokinen and Versteeg

"Idiots" on here are not MG, again simmer down.
I was just reinforcing the title heading.........I take it I'm allowed to do that?

Then we sign a top four D who has as much push back, it would seem (unless I am missing something) as Mason Raymond on a bad day.

The guy is 6'2" so I'm not sure what you're referring to. As for short memories, do you remember how we have fared after our top offensive defenseman in Ehrhoff left? Well guess what, MG just got his replacement.

With respect replacing Ehrhoff was never the answer to our problem..........in fact we made up most of his points..........He certainly never had a much in the way of defence and little in the way of push back...............So I maintain we have spent time and money on getting something that is irrelevant to our deficiencies.

Maybe you would do better to try and understand the thrust of my argument instead of condescendingly telling me to "settle/simmer down"


2009–10 Florida Panthers NHL 39 2 6 8 23 — — — — — 2010–11 Florida Panthers NHL 73 5 13 18 26 — — — — — 2011–12 Florida Panthers NHL 77 16 17 33 32 4 1 2 3 0





Kevin.jpg

#19 cyacry

cyacry

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:42 AM

sigh i feel sorry for MG...didn't people want MG to sign a D? well now he did and this is what he gets?

#20 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 02:58 AM

Baggins, I hear you. :) However there is a certain deja vu about all this and it is worrying.

As I have said on another thread MG seems like a good guy, he goes out looks for good players, with good character and good value................but he seems to miss the big picture. He selects individuals but doesn't seem to see what the team is missing to make it a strong contender.

We fail not for lack of good players but lack of good big "nasty" players. Guys who if the opposition push, will push back and go further if need be.

We also lack 1, maybe 2 game changers. A Perry type player for the Sedins.

I see this as cap wasted on not what we need and therefore it dilutes our bargaining ability for players we actually are crying out for..............that is why I'm unhappy.
Kevin.jpg

#21 ILL BILL NECRO

ILL BILL NECRO

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 09

Posted 02 July 2012 - 03:00 AM

The OP will never be happy... We are better then 95 percent of the league and he still has a problem. He is likely the type of guy that shows up to buy a five hundred dollar car and complains non stop that its not in absolute perfect shape.
Posted Image

#22 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 03:01 AM

Baggins, I hear you. :) However there is a certain deja vu about all this and it is worrying.

As I have said on another thread MG seems like a good guy, he goes out looks for good players, with good character and good value................but he seems to miss the big picture. He selects individuals but doesn't seem to see what the team is missing to make it a strong contender.

We fail not for lack of good players but lack of good big "nasty" players. Guys who if the opposition push, will push back and go further if need be.

We also lack 1, maybe 2 game changers. A Perry type player for the Sedins.

I see this as cap wasted on not what we need and therefore it dilutes our bargaining ability for players we actually are crying out for..............that is why I'm unhappy.

"sigh i feel sorry for MG...didn't people want MG to sign a D? well now he did and this is what he gets?"

Way to miss the point friend. The D we needed was someone who would protect the goalie, stand up for the team and intimidate the Marchands of this world...............not quite what we have here. We have here an Ehrhoff type with a Hamhuis disposition.





Kevin.jpg

#23 pimpcurtly

pimpcurtly

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,368 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 06

Posted 02 July 2012 - 03:11 AM

I'd really like to hear your plan of attack, Bodee. Like how would you woo all the wonderful free agents to us but still keep it cap friendly. Or would you take the trade route? I see a lot of armchair talky but not much realistic walky. ;)
Posted Image

#24 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 03:11 AM

The OP will never be happy... We are better then 95 percent of the league and he still has a problem. He is likely the type of guy that shows up to buy a five hundred dollar car and complains non stop that its not in absolute perfect shape.



I want to see our MG take steps to get us a SC while I am still walking this Earth.

Being better than 95% is a stupid statement. We were supposed to be better than 99% but a team ranked 8th in our Conference won the Stanley Cup because they built a team for that sole purpose. Not only that but they rolled over every other contender they met.................we didn't even do that in our prime.

Now are we going to ask why and then do something about it or like you are we going to glory in our (soon to be deteriorating) league position and continue to be eternally disappointed.

I drive a lovely Honda Accord, paid top "dollar" for it too..............although I hardly ever use it :)
Kevin.jpg

#25 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 02 July 2012 - 03:12 AM

Whatever, our leading scorer was hurt and we flip-flopped on the goalie situation terribly. It's really not even about the lineup with this team I don't think, it's about the fanbase, the media, the atmosphere in the city surrounding this team. What does it say when the crows boos the starting goalie, in a meaningless game, before the playoffs even start? A game we went on to win? It's a goddamn disgrace, and as soon as it happened I KNEW we were going nowhere in the playoffs.

Don't even get me started on Gallagher and co. in our traitorours media corps, they'd sell the whole team downriver for a headline.

And yes, I've suspected since 2003 or so that all the dope in the air around here is negatively affecting the franchise. The fanbase does indeed have the memory of a goldfish, why do you reckon that is? We finally get a decent goalie and we drive him out of town in what, five years? Nobody remembers Potvin/Cloutier/Auld I guess? Fools! Get off the f***ing bong for a second and learn about hockey! Today's clamoring for stupid, overpriced free agent deals, any deal for god's sake! was just the most recent example. People need to get a f***ing clue already, this is the BEST the Canucks have EVER been, y'all noobs need to show some appreciation and quit ruining it!

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#26 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,998 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 02 July 2012 - 03:44 AM

Baggins, I hear you. :) However there is a certain deja vu about all this and it is worrying.

As I have said on another thread MG seems like a good guy, he goes out looks for good players, with good character and good value................but he seems to miss the big picture. He selects individuals but doesn't seem to see what the team is missing to make it a strong contender.

We fail not for lack of good players but lack of good big "nasty" players. Guys who if the opposition push, will push back and go further if need be.

We also lack 1, maybe 2 game changers. A Perry type player for the Sedins.

I see this as cap wasted on not what we need and therefore it dilutes our bargaining ability for players we actually are crying out for..............that is why I'm unhappy.


I think you are selling MG a little short when it comes to the big picture.

MG's move make perfect sense to me (especially considering the term) when looking at the uncertainty of Edler's or Ballard's future. I hear what you are saying about getting some players with nastier attitudes and I'm all for it, but as Baggins said, the hour is young and MG has some moves yet to make. I believe that he does indeed want to get some more size and grit, let's give him the opportunity to make us happy (FA signings are quick and easy compared to trades).
Posted Image

#27 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 04:01 AM

That's because he wasn't signed to be a tough guy?
He's a strong, physical D who can put up 15 goals, and you're going to complain?

Look at Detroit, they won cups with pure skill, this year they signed Jordin Tootoo. They haven't had that tough guy for a while, I bet people complained about it all the time. Coming into Free Agency this year, did anyone really expect for Holland to make a signing like that? Not really. So why would it be so illogical to think that maybe MG will still sign a player to fit that role?

That being said, there are still plenty of players out there who can take on that pugilist role, so why don't we all wait to see what happens in that regard before we start passing judgement?
If come the start of the season, we still don't have anybody like that, then you have something to complain about.


Jag, I think with respect you should read my post again. This is the only reference I made to the 3rd / 4th line.

"The grit / push back that makes the difference as far as I can see is NOT in the 3rd and 4th lines it's where the real battles take place...........the 1st and 2nd lines in both offence AND defence."

You see, my gripe is with the 1st and 2nd lines. I'm not talking about Tootoo types I'm talking about Iginla, Perry types

Again I have never looked for pugilists I am looking for larger versions of Bieksa. Guys who you push around at your peril. He is aggressive in the extreme and can back the aggression up. Garrison shows no sign in his past of being able to do that.

Guys like Komisarek and Sbisa or Subban.
Kevin.jpg

#28 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,782 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 02 July 2012 - 04:10 AM

Top 50 eh?...........Impressive..................my ass!

I would have said an Elite team and 2 times PT winner should have been aiming at top 10. I'm quite happy to wait but if this is an indication of how MG corrects the GLARING FLAWS in a team with SC aspirations, then I'm not exactly filled with confidence.

Also I note how you neatly avoid the last 2 years. This is not just a complaint about now it is an accumulative complaint about his apparent blind spot.

I'm not the only one who sees this as a terminal weakness (with reference to SC aspirations) in the team. These boards have been thick with it, as have the media............................................................. GARRISON does not address this problem imo.


Although I liked the pick-up of Garrison, I have to agree with you for sure that this team needs to get meaner on the back-end and we badly need help in our top 6.

Edited by DarthNinja_S19Blade, 02 July 2012 - 04:11 AM.

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#29 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 02 July 2012 - 04:28 AM

Here are some of my thoughts.

I feel the Sedins with Burrows line falters against a physical approach and this is not guaranteed to be addressed by a PP. Furthermore the effects of this are felt more in a best of 7. I think the answer is to team them with a big gritty in yer face winger who could cause enough disruption to free up the Sedins. I have proposed someone like Perry if not Perry himself.

Our 2nd line is a mess and I really question whether a fit Kesler will change that. I am not a fan of Booth. I don't dispute he is brave with a lot of positive attributes. It is more that I doubt if he has ever been a passer of the puck (he doesn't do it well) and we need someone who will enhance Kesler while still producing. I had in mind a Clowe type (hard nosed point producer) of player with Burrows taking the other wing.

My third line would be along the lines of Raymond,Higgins and Hansen or if Raymond was traded we could try Jensen.

The 4th would be Volpatti/Lapierre, Lapierre/Malhotra, Pinizzotto/Weise. Whichever worked out best, after all we don't know how well Volpatti, Pinizzotta and Manny will emerge from the pre season.

My views regarding the D are obviously affected by our acquisition. One I have stated was not required, however I would be trying for something along these lines and of course some trading would be involved.

Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Komisarek
Sbisa/Ballard - Tanev

This would imply Edler being traded as he is too soft for the team I have in mind now that we have acquired Garrison. Ballard, I would also trade if it meant getting someone like Sbisa.

There you have it. Don't look at the names as much as what I am trying to achieve with the team. There are others like Doan who could no doubt be substituted.
Kevin.jpg

#30 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,182 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 02 July 2012 - 04:42 AM

I'm in agreement with Bodee.

In that we need to address physical competitiveness. Torres and Malhotra signings, plus Hamhuis went a long way. Nothing since has replaced the regression of Malhotra and loss of Torres.

We also lost talent (and size) in Samuelsson.

On face value signing Garrison is a great move, and evidently cheaper than keeping Salo and Rome. A big boost, like with Booth, in younger more dynamic legs and bigger muscles. We are clearly more athletic and adding to "our window." But neither made his name bashing anything or making them pay.

It wont mean a thing unless we also compliment them with some serious GRUNT back in our line up!




(edit) and coaching will make a difference.

Our first line really has to be most effective on the PP cuz it is too small to compete as a two way, eye for an eye, line. We have bodies in the line up. We need passing on the 2knd. Splitting the Twins is the other solution.

Danny/Booth/Kesler as a first has speed size, superior goal scoring and now a brilliant passer
Burrows/Hank/Kassian Hank can make Kassian a player, and Kassian can make a line physical
Jensen/Lapierre/Higgins Adds a goal scorer and some size
Raymond/Malhotra/Bitz Two centers, speed, two goal scorers and nastiness...

Easy to argue that line up is not as good, as it does not load as much talent on the top line. Its Waaay more capable of matching up in speed and size!

But no matter what, we need to add some NASTY size on D, we have no one!



Who would you sign then genius? You talk trash but dont say what the GM should have done...


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 02 July 2012 - 05:00 AM.





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.