Clonedanielsedin Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I wouldnt mind if we just got guys who can help Kesler score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterBean Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Already have them. Higgins, Hansen, Booth and Burrows have all shown good chemistry with Kesler. Some kind of combination of those players on the 2nd should work fine. The real problem with the second line is that AV keeps both wing's position a revolving door, he juggles around with it too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 For me, where MG falls down is not that he always looks for "his definition of character" but that he doesn't analyse the team's requirements and address them for the here and now. After the SC final it was obvious we lacked size and "physical presence in the top 2 lines. So he approaches Owen Nolan........an ideal choice if he had been fit but he couldn't make the grade. Good try......so what does he do next........he just forgets all about it....................... Not quite he signs Bitz, a poor substitute who proves to be even worse fitness wise. Then he signs Kassian who is just not ready and who knows if he will be ready this season. For me MG and his scouts seem to lose focus/concentration and in the end he seems to give up and go for "futures" or bargain basement buys. The Kassian deal is not resolved in our favour......yet. I'm not saying we should not have traded Cody but we were "spreadeagled" by that deal because we traded someone who WAS contributing for 2 players who couldn't and worse still we totally f----d up the D giving Gragnani his minimum number of games. We should have been stabilising the D with the SC coming up. Then we let Gragnani go. Did I imagine the big build up MG gave Gragnani?............As I say he seemed to lose focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tragoedia Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Sedins to Boston for Lucic and Marchand. Booth for Carcillo and a 3rd Edler and 2nd for Brown Line - up Burrows Kesler Brown Higgins Lapierre Hansen Lucic Schroeder Kassian Marchand Malhotra Carcillo Hamhuis Bieksa Garrison Ballard Tanev Alberts Schneider Luongo That's a cup winning team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagofcats Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 If the goal is to win Stanley Cups then yes, stop getting character players. Character and class won't win you Cups anymore in this era. It's unfortunate that classy veterns like Iginla, Doan and Smyth haven't won as much as they probably derserved to. Now you have guys like Kane/Byfuglien, Lucic/Marchand and Richards/Brown winning it all. Sure having more character guys on your team probably makes the fans like them more and increases the reputation of the team but does it in anyway improve the chances of winning? No. Now it's about toughness, grit and a level of SELFISHNESS and DISREGARD. Character players ex. Malhotra and the Sedins, care to much about thier opponents and the game to commit themselves 100% to the cause of winning. The level of integrity you govern yourself with does not improve your chances of success in hockey. Lucic and Marchard didn't give a damn about who they play and how they were percieved. They just want to win and didn't care how they got there or how many people they disrespected or injured along the way. It's the ugly truth but being intimidating and classless (at times), improves your chances of success since you can commit yourself to winning and not have morality or guilt hold you back. If you want to win you better be going after guys like Clowe, Foligno, Carcillo, Clutterbuck, Ruutu, Neil, Kaleta, Bolland, Abdelkader, Ott, Cammalleri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 If the goal is to win Stanley Cups then yes, stop getting character players. Character and class won't win you Cups anymore in this era. It's unfortunate that classy veterns like Iginla, Doan and Smyth haven't won as much as they probably derserved to. Now you have guys like Kane/Byfuglien, Lucic/Marchand and Richards/Brown winning it all. Sure having more character guys on your team probably makes the fans like them more and increases the reputation of the team but does it in anyway improve the chances of winning? No. Now it's about toughness, grit and a level of SELFISHNESS and DISREGARD. Character players ex. Malhotra and the Sedins, care to much about thier opponents and the game to commit themselves 100% to the cause of winning. The level of integrity you govern yourself with does not improve your chances of success in hockey. Lucic and Marchard didn't give a damn about who they play and how they were percieved. They just want to win and didn't care how they got there or how many people they disrespected or injured along the way. It's the ugly truth but being intimidating and classless (at times), improves your chances of success since you can commit yourself to winning and not have morality or guilt hold you back. If you want to win you better be going after guys like Clowe, Foligno, Carcillo, Clutterbuck, Ruutu, Neil, Kaleta, Bolland, Abdelkader, Ott, Cammalleri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dura_mater Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 All those trades you suggested are extremely lopsided against the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagofcats Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 <p><p><p> I don't buy that integrity and class hold you back from giving 100%. Hockey is a tough sport and intimidation is part of the game, but there are still rules and penalties to punish players who cross the line too much, so it's not like the biggest bullies win all the time. Sakic, Yzerman, Gretzky, and Lidstrom weren't held back from giving 100% when they won multiple Cups. Now I'm not saying there's no place for bullies on a team, but it's not the only way. Hockey is a sport that allows you to be aggressive and intense without always being an asshole. Some of the guys out there that are competing the hardest are also very humble off the ice. I agree that the amount of integrity you have doesn't improve your chances of success, but I disagree that it actually holds you back, unless you're a total soft teddy bear who is scared of everything. And you don't make it to the highest level in a tough sport like hockey by being a total soft teddy bear. I would say the fact that Smyth, Iginla, and Doan haven't won the Cup has more to do with them playing on crappy teams for most of their career rather than them being "too nice". I mean neither of those 3 are exactly what you would call "soft". They're great guys off the ice, but on the ice they all play hard and have quite a bit of sandpaper to their game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SukhKular Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Just wondered about this and thought it'd be a good discussion to have on here so here it is: We all know the Canucks are keen on bringing in "character" players, by drafting, trading, signings...by any means of bringing in a player, our organization wants these type of players. You'll always here "he's a character player" when someone new is brought in, and Gillis and AV say it all the time when they describe the new guys. Check out when MG talked about drafting Gaunce and signing Garrison, they're both "character" players. MG describes it as a person who is a leader on and of the ice, can help teammates and try's his hardest. Well, I think there's a synonym for that: someone who has skill but can't stand up for players. Now don't take this is an insult, I love the character guys we have here but it seems all of them are afraid in getting in opponents faces. Brown is a leader too, but he isn't a character guy according to MG's description, but I think we need to move away from that a bit and get guys who are nasty and can take that side out when needed. Few players we have that are character players and can stand up are: Kassian, Bieksa. Lapierre, Burrows, Kesler do it at times and for depth players, we need our big players doing it. Our team seems to get manhandled in any series we play and most the guys watch our guys get hurt. It's not how the Cup is won now and you have to adapt to the play as time goes on and structure your team around current winners otherwise you'll be left behind when tw challenge approaches. Check out the past 2-3 winners, all the teams had skilled players but also had key players that were nasty and dirty. We need that to win otherwise we won't succeed much. The refs has also adapted and give lots of lee-way after a whistle and I find it funny when our players look at refs and say, "wtf, no call!? He clearly hit me illegally". The leagues changed, the refs changed and in overal, the games changed so I was wondering if you guys agree or disagree that we should step aside from getting "character" guys, aka, players that got skill but don't stand up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I think the OP is making a false argument. Nothing I have ever heard MG or AV say suggests that they don't think tough guys are character players. I never heard them say anything except positive things about Brown and the way he played us... I think the OP is dead wrong in suggesting they wouldn't consider him a "character" guy. Character doesn't mean being a sweetheart... it means not being a butt-hole kind of guy that screws his team by going out drinking until 4am the night before a playoff game. Doan would be a character guy by anyone's definition and he doesn't exactly float around like a butterfly. I think it is just that we don't want a pure goon who can only play 2 minutes a game and can't skate. They want a tough guy who can play a regular shift, those are hard to come by... They are certainly trying to get bigger and tougher to play against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bd71 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Every player that signs with any team is a "character" player at the press conference! It's one of those things that people say to justify things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babych Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Outside of Vancouver, those aren't "character" guys, they're nuisances. -Nobody knows who Kassian is, so he shouldn't be on the list. -Bieksa's got a reputation as a spot-picker (well-deserved). -Lapierre might be the most universally despised (and least respected) player in the NHL. -Burrows has gotten better, but he's still well-known as a hair-pulling, finger-biting, diving, nuisance. When I think "character", I think Willie Mitchell. Jarome Iginla. Ryan Smyth. Guys who have been around, and who command RESPECT. The Canucks are still severely lacking in that department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The comment on Gretsky above is kind of misleading in that he had some of the hardest players around protecting him. "Dave Semenko was Gretzky's bodyguard early on and later Marty McSorley was placed into the role. With instigator penalties, third man in penalties, and no more bench clearing brawls, today's superstars do not get the kind of protection the former greats had from their "Enforcers". In those days, if you hit a team's "star players", you could expect to have your clock cleaned in your immediate future". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peaches Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Honestly, the Sedins are so good that the Canucks can take the hit of grooming Kassian on the first line so as to have some protection. D. SEDIN - D. SEDIN - KASSIAN It serves nothing to have Kassian on the bench waiting his turn and never be on the ice at the same time as whoever is taking liberties on the Sedins. If Kassian is on the bench when players take liberties against the Sedins, then when he does take on an opponent, if it is even possible during the game and eapecially on the road, it looks premeditated and morivated by retaliation and vengeance: the refs never take that lightly and the said player never becomes one of the greats of the game. If he's on a line with the Sedins, he can take care of business right there and then just like the best of them. The Canucks would also risk turning the Hodgson trade into a lopsided commodity westward. And players like Duncan Keith....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5minutesinthebox Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Our character guys are what got us to the Cup finals. The likes of Manny, Higgins, Lapierre, Torres...these were the additions to the team when the rest of the team pretty much stayed the same. They arent just character they are depth with character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5minutesinthebox Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Sedins to Boston for Lucic and Marchand. Booth for Carcillo and a 3rd Edler and 2nd for Brown Line - up Burrows Kesler Brown Higgins Lapierre Hansen Lucic Schroeder Kassian Marchand Malhotra Carcillo Hamhuis Bieksa Garrison Ballard Tanev Alberts Schneider Luongo That's a cup winning team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meyer_Buttreeks Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Outside of Vancouver, those aren't "character" guys, they're nuisances. -Nobody knows who Kassian is, so he shouldn't be on the list. -Bieksa's got a reputation as a spot-picker (well-deserved). -Lapierre might be the most universally despised (and least respected) player in the NHL. -Burrows has gotten better, but he's still well-known as a hair-pulling, finger-biting, diving, nuisance. When I think "character", I think Willie Mitchell. Jarome Iginla. Ryan Smyth. Guys who have been around, and who command RESPECT. The Canucks are still severely lacking in that department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I agree 100% but not for the reasons you stated, although those arguments are warranted as well. I agree because this is a hockey team where the goal should be winning, not being nice guys. Also, with all these character guys there is all this pressure to re-sign them. Everyone talks about Higgins character, Raymond's, such a nice guy with a bad back, Manny is such a team guy, Lapierre is such a great player to have, and while I agree somewhat this team simply needs to get more skilled, and it's far more important than character when it comes to winning hockey games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Sedins to Boston for Lucic and Marchand. Booth for Carcillo and a 3rd Edler and 2nd for Brown Line - up Burrows Kesler Brown Higgins Lapierre Hansen Lucic Schroeder Kassian Marchand Malhotra Carcillo Hamhuis Bieksa Garrison Ballard Tanev Alberts Schneider Luongo That's a cup winning team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Architect Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Sedin- Sedin- Kassian Doan- Kesler- Booth Burrows-Schroeder-Higgins Hansen- Lapierre- Malhotra dats that good sh*t. Plz doan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.