Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bodee

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

158 posts in this topic

We didn't lose the LA series because of a "lack of pushback".

We lost the LA series because the Canucks got OUT WORKED. Sutter got his team firing on all cylinders. Players like Kopitar found another gear, and played some of the best hockey of their career. We were out hustled, slightly outhit, in the end the Kings just wanted it, while the Canucks looked like a team that just ran out of gas.

Forechecking and puck possession were key factors. LA never got off the puck. They also rarely did the "dump and chase" thing. Their forwards and big d-men lugged the puck up the ice got it to the slot or the point and having someone crash the net they got results. When you spend all your energy trying to recover the puck, you're in constant pursuit. AV also did not have a plan b. He thought Daniel would be back at the start, but didn't plan on him taking longer. Why? Once again there seems to be a disconnect between the coaching staff and our doctors and trainers. Wouldn't the prudent thing be to call someone from the farm just in case?

Yes the Canucks need to get bigger. But we need size, speed and skill. As Deb would say as well we also need the rules to be called more consistently. Clearly no one informed Gillis or anyone else that clutch and grab is back in the NHL.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe fighting these guys will change the way they play?

Fighting Marchand will not change the way he plays.

Fighting Lucic will not change the way he plays.

Fighting Perry will not change the way he plays.

Fighting Brown will not change the way he plays.

Has fighting Torres changed the way he plays? Nope.

They've all been fought. Has it change the way they play? Nope. Not at all. The way they play is what got them to the NHL You want somebody to fight them to make YOU feel better. It won't change injuries that have already occurred nor will it change the way they play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psst, Bodee...it was Daniel, not Hank that Keith took out. ;)

And the inconsistency in how the refs have applied the rules is what has made it difficult for GM's to find pieces to work within them. Remember, we're not supposed to be going the way of goonery and thugs. We had Raffi, who'd explode on anyone/thing on two skates and how did that pan out? Look what happened with Bernier...so guys who play with that edge/passion can also have it backfire in a game/series changing event. I'm sure these guys are just playing their game - one of grit and toughness, but it's a fine (inconsistent) line that means you have to find a balance.

FTR, I love that good ol' style of hard knocks hockey, but it's a risky one. Some teams can get away with it...unfortunately, we haven't been one of them so it doesn't make sense to find players based only on that criteria. I feel MG does well at this...at making calculated vs impulse moves and considering all aspects of the game, not just one dynamic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn't lose the LA series because of a "lack of pushback".

We lost the LA series because the Canucks got OUT WORKED. Sutter got his team firing on all cylinders. Players like Kopitar found another gear, and played some of the best hockey of their career. We were out hustled, slightly outhit, in the end the Kings just wanted it, while the Canucks looked like a team that just ran out of gas.

Forechecking and puck possession were key factors. LA never got off the puck. They also rarely did the "dump and chase" thing. Their forwards and big d-men lugged the puck up the ice got it to the slot or the point and having someone crash the net they got results. When you spend all your energy trying to recover the puck, you're in constant pursuit. AV also did not have a plan b. He thought Daniel would be back at the start, but didn't plan on him taking longer. Why? Once again there seems to be a disconnect between the coaching staff and our doctors and trainers. Wouldn't the prudent thing be to call someone from the farm just in case?

Yes the Canucks need to get bigger. But we need size, speed and skill. As Deb would say as well we also need the rules to be called more consistently. Clearly no one informed Gillis or anyone else that clutch and grab is back in the NHL.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is CDC at its finest. 1 guy has a suggestion and gets flamed for giving it. This team need some toughness and be willing silence the people when they talk trash.

The hit on Hank is a perfect example, clean or not (I don't think it was) our players should have destroyed Brown.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This team needs to be feared not just for what they can do on the PP, but what they will do to you if there star player (captain) gets hit or Goalie gets bumped.

I am not saying we should completely goon up but we should add some fear to this team.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got outworked because we were "beat down" Our lack of size forced us to take penalties and led to us going 2 games down. When we got our act together we realised they had the power throughout that team to physically grind us down. The poster below you explains it well for me.

That series of games highlighted my point. You need to "fight for the right to play your own game" I don't mean actually fight (sometimes it comes to that though) I mean to physically impose yourself on the opposition. The Sedins, Burrows, Raymond can't do that.........even Booth Higgins and Hansen were out of their league.

Let's say for example Henrik is being "molested" and decided to drive a King into the boards..........what would the outcome of that be? I reckon if he had got the King a "good one" he would have been targeted and splattered. Payback? not from our team. We could I suppose have gone apecrap (like we did against Boston) and got banged up. It's a vicious circle and there is only one solution, as far as I can see and it doesn't lie with "Ehrhoff Mk2."

I repeat yet again, my post was a complaint about the opportunity we missed to make a start. It is no use doing it in the 4th line, they are not on the ice long enough and in any case usually don't have the finesse.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jagr and Arnott can score, so can Johnson (probably more in a good team) and Souray I didn't say to replace the whole bloody team did I? .............No I said the opposite. I was talking about our choice in FA. We still, hopefully have more to come in trades

We are not short of a whole bunch of players who can score (that was what he took out of it, not me) We are short of decent players who can push back and allow the rest to play (and score) Hell we have two of the best scorers in the League............but they get bullied off their game.

Parenteau is JUST the kind of player we need, whether you think so or not. He puts up points and sticks up for his team mate.

As for the rest of your post it's just piss and wind mate. If you think the Canucks cannot be improved on, can't be "beefed up" fine. You are entitled to happy clap. But don't condemn me or others who think otherwise. We also are entitled to our opinion. Read my posts again..........you have plainly missed the point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way past his prime? .............maybe (we have lost him now anyway) Watch this and don't feel too embarrassed.

Could you even imagine what placing him with the Sedins would have done for this team.

And yeh I suppose getting this guy would just ruin our chances..........I would rather have Semin than Booth that's for sure........6'-2 @ 212 lbs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahaha of course Jagr is past his prime! Yeah he would have been a good player to get. Again...1 player, 30 teams to choose from. Do the math genius.

Semin....there's an interesting one, and a player I would like to see on this team...but nothing to do with the theme of this thread whatsoever.

Don't mistake me questioning your a$$hole comments and me saying we have a good team to me saying the team can't improve..that's moronic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right .........to recap.

1) Most on here think Garrison is someone we really needed (I add "really" because we must, judging by the contract)

2) Some agree he wasn't what we needed but we should get him anyway because he could be another Ehrhoff and it's only money.

3) Some go into knicker twist mode at the very thought of someone finding fault with the team or MG. This mode also prompts insults and disrespect but includes a clause that these insults and disrespect under no circumstances should be returned.

4 )Some agree that push back is needed but belong to the "mañana" school of GMing apparently like GM himself.

5)A few agree with the OP and that this was an opportunity to start putting the push back in place

That's all from me folks, hope most of you have enjoyed this thread ............designed to jog the memories of the budgies out there and be constructive and thought provoking at the same time.

OK Deb, lock it, I have a an early rise tomorrow, as a few of the happy clappers have had a whip round and managed to raise enough money to hire a firing squad to keep me quiet..........I wouldn't want to be late :frantic: for that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was your first post. You state you want guys with push back.

My argument, and others in this thread, is I want guys with push back who are good players as well, not just goons.

My question is, who was available in free agency that fits that bill?

You posted a list of players. I went through a eliminated PA Parenteau, who is not a big player and is not a physical guy most of the time, as well as Alex Semin, who I describe in the same was as Parenteau, except as a sniper instead of a playmaker.

I then eliminate the players from your list who cannot score, as I feel those players are generally not very interesting to add to this team. Parros is one guy I wouldn't have minded, but not for just under a million.

Prust, Methot, Carkner, Souray, are all giant MEH players. Souray is the one guy out of that list that is going to put up points, but he's a defensive liability who has character issues. Not the guy I want to see on the Canucks.

Jagr and Arnott are two big guys who can score, but Arnott is not a guy who puts up numbers consistently anymore, and both are well past their prime.

I have little doubt that every team in the league was interested in Jagr, how could they not be? As you point out, he's a big veteran player who can still put up respectable numbers. We pretty well know from watching TSN and reading twitter and formulating educated guesses that at least Philidelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Dallas, Edmonton, and likely Vancouver had interest in Jagr, plus I am guessing many more. So you have one player that anywhere from 5+ teams are vying for. Hence "do the math." What the hell do you think that means? It means that player had his choice of many many teams.

Are you psychic? How do you know the Canucks didn't table any of these players an offer? How do you know they just didn't want to sign with the Canucks?

You come out flying with attacks against the Canucks management, starting with the title of your thread. I take offense to you comparing Gillis to a "budgie" because I think he's doing a good job and I also think that's a sh*thead way to start a discussion, debate, argument or what have you. Now because myself and others are attacking you back you are spazzing out. Relax. And go ahead and rip me for my post count, we've all wasted time we'd like to get back on here, I have not gained any perch from my incessant time wasting on CDC>

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said all I want to say apart from this.

Learn, if you already don't know the origin of "spazzing out" and then delete it from your vocabulary forever, you pompous clown.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought toughness was the reason why we lost in the SCF and it definitely wasn't the reason why we lost to LA. Sure the Sedins were "pushed around" by the Bruins but if Kesler, Higgins and other secondary scoring players stepped up we could have definitely made up for what the Sedins were unable to do. That along with a fair share of non calls and injuries did us in IMO. As for this year, we just couldn't score straight up (who knows maybe a Cody Hodgson could have helped but meh, hopefully Kassian can develop into some sort of a Brendan Morrow-esque guy who can score and hit). You can bring in all the fighters you want but the bottom line is that in order to win a game you have to have scored more goals than the opponent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Krejci amassed these points because he was both a good player and he had a GANG of guys around him at all times who would step in at the slightest attempt to ...................shall we say "face wash him."

Boston pummelled anyone to win the right to play their game..........as we found out.

I'm afraid you have proved my point exactly.

Also if you care to check back on my posts I attempt at all times to say a big player should also be a good player. Versteeg had his best 2 years in a Chicago team that took no prisoners

Lastly, I would be interested if you could point out anywhere that I have said there is no place in a team for a smaller player.........that said .............our team at present would be the last place a wee guy would want to play........as evidenced by how we rolled over when Keith cheap shotted Henrik.

Just look down at some of the Chicago team Versteeg played in and let me know when you come to a softie. :)

D BRIAN CAMPBELL 82 7 45 52 5 22 4 0 1 108 6.5 16 L ANDREW LADD 82 15 34 49 26 28 0 0 2 195 7.7 36 C DAVE BOLLAND 81 19 28 47 19 52 2 2 4 111 17.1 10 L PATRICK SHARP 61 26 18 44 6 41 9 0 4 184 14.1 2 D DUNCAN KEITH 77 8 36 44 33 60 2 1 1 173 4.6 25 D CAM BARKER 68 6 34 40 -6 65 5 0 1 101 5.9 33 L DUSTIN BYFUGLIEN 77 15 16 31 7 81 3 0 4 202 7.4 7 D BRENT SEABROOK 82 8 18 26 23 62 3 1 1 132 6.1 22 L TROY BROUWER 69 10 16 26 7 50 4 1 0 126 7.9 46 C COLIN FRASER 81 6 11 17 3 55 0 1 0 67 9.0 55 L BEN EAGER 75 11 4 15 1 161 0 0 0 80 13.8 8 D MATT WALKER 65 1 13 14 7 79 0 0 0 83 1.2 43 D JAMES WISNIEWSKI 31 2 11 13 6 14 1 0 0 70 2.9 37 R ADAM BURISH 66 6 3 9 3 93 0 0 2 83 7.2 23 D AARON JOHNSON

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Han is like 70 and still pumping out Raiders of the Lost something or other movies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.