Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Should the Canucks Stop Getting "Character" Players?


This topic has been archived.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

#61 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,626 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:11 PM

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.


That's because we don't have a second line right winger. It doesn't matter who you put there that line is going to suck. Unless we actually get a guy with enough skill to play in the top 6 it doesn't matter who they put there. I almost actually get AV on this one. He's got no options.

Bring in Semin MG, c'mon already.

Edited by Dogbyte, 20 July 2012 - 01:11 PM.

There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#62 canucklehead_82

canucklehead_82

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 08

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:10 PM

We need goons just as much as we need character and skill, and if you have players that fit in multiple categories, so much the better. A diverse team is more likely to succeed as they can meet most challenges, provided everyone is pulling the same direction towards a common goal. Best example would be the Ducks the year they won.

#63 riffraff

riffraff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,050 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 07

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:31 PM

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.


SpOken like someone who's played the game.
Posted Image


CanucksSayEh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:
When the playoffs come around, nobody is scared of getting in a fight, but every night, they get their mom to check under the bed for Raffi Torres.

#64 Bertorama

Bertorama

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 04

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:44 PM

Character player doesn't mean skill that can't stand up for the team. Character player is Trevor Linden. Gino O or Stan Smyl. Players who carry the heart of the team, skill is a benefit but it's not a must.


Regardless. We need skill all the way. We made the worst trade of the year trading for so called character in dealing CH.

LA beat us because we couldn't control the play anymore. Not because our strength. I know I'm alone on that thought in many ways but if you truly watched the moment CH was gone chemistry was lost. Defense couldn't make a pass and the forwards just got out played.

We also need a player to get the Canucks to stop thinking about the fear of loosing it needs to be a fearless rookie. That fear destroys all the skill and character you can have on a team. Maybe it's more coaching as much as I hate to say it. I'm not pointing the finger at AV, rather the coaching staff.

If you are afraid of loosing.....you will loose....

The Canucks have been afraid of loosing the big one for three years now and it shows!

Edited by Bertorama, 20 July 2012 - 07:49 PM.

thcanucks_skate_spin.gif


#65 kawasaki bomber

kawasaki bomber

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 10

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:33 PM

Burrows and Kesler and dirty and nasty players who are key players. Honestly, a team with Lucic, Carcillo, Kesler, Burrows, Brown, Marchand would win a stanley cup



Don't know if you noticed that Kes and Burr were told to take more of a "star" (whinny b*tch) approach to their game, and they had no problem in doing so, it keeps them healthy and on the ice longer. They got promoted!



I completely agree, I'm sick of these "character" guys. Character obviuously goes a long way but a hockey team needs to be balanced and when you have to many Chiefs and not enough indians to do the job, ego's start to surface and your "character" goes right out the window and eventually at some point someone caves e.i. Hodgson, M. Schneider etc, etc...
Worst of it is, is that players, regardless of their contracts, they can still go awol on their team, either game-wise or literally!!!

So are these players being targeted for being character players, thinking they have the 'leader' gene in them? or being lame character guys willing to do what management tells them to? and otherwise risk their reputation on the league? (Obviously this does not apply to guys like Luongo or Kes or BK4 because those guys can screw up their situation beyond repair with us and still get major contracts the very next day if they wanted to.

So what is it? Leadership character? or lame character? either or, I don't want it!!! the Sedin's have enough of this so called "character" for the entire team!! now we need the bodyguards and the snipers! Maybe after exiting the playoffs on the first round, felt like the school bell for Gillis and co. because this roster needs to improve asap and nothing is being completed, it may be done but currently, not completed.

#66 CookieCrumbs

CookieCrumbs

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:31 PM

I wouldn't mind having a guy like Kaleta/Carcillo. Just to play against teams like Boston/L.A and take runs at their stars, when all other teams do is take runs at our stars.


I like both Carcillo and Kaleta. I would be so stoked if we went after Kaleta.

#67 Hotdawg

Hotdawg

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 11

Posted 20 July 2012 - 11:39 PM

I would rather lose with character than win with dishonesty.

#68 CookieCrumbs

CookieCrumbs

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 20 July 2012 - 11:46 PM

That's a lie.

#69 Hotdawg

Hotdawg

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 11

Posted 20 July 2012 - 11:59 PM

That's a lie.

what you talking bout Crumbs'?

#70 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 21 July 2012 - 12:56 AM

I would rather lose with character than win with dishonesty.


The trouble is, sport is stacked with teams who won with "dishonesty"

What does it actually mean? Were the Bruins a dishonest team or a team who played to win, who targeted the opposition weaknesses when they felt they might lose playing them any other way.

The way I see it, there are officials whose job is to decide what actions are punishable and it is any team intent on winning's job to play to the limit of these actions and occasionally over that limit when necessary.

The only way we could have taken credit from the hockey world for our 2010-11 Finals display would have been if we had come back in 2011-12, stronger and smarter and yes more "dishonest" and won it.

Critics then would have said of 2010-11 that we were a tough team, with character and guts but were too injured to go the final yard.

MG would have told the fans, "I felt your pain, I addressed our weaknesses and I have given you a SC."

We now know that was not the way things panned out, sadly.
Kevin.jpg

#71 Ryder1234

Ryder1234

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Joined: 19-July 09

Posted 21 July 2012 - 01:10 AM

we need either

1)players without souls

or

2)robots disguised as humans


make it happen gillis


Posted Image

:bigblush: lolgetit

Posted ImagePosted Image


#72 Fakename70

Fakename70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 827 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 10

Posted 21 July 2012 - 01:16 PM

While I certainly don't endorse the goon or thug type, I still think that the Canucks --- and especially a certain contingent at CDC --- are too focused and enamored by the gentlemanly "character" type. Particularly those who are "good in the community" (actual CDC quote from 2010-2011) and nice guys ON the ice as well as off it. Since when does being "good in the community" have anything to do with how well one performs in a game? I don't think that ANY Canuck fan wants to see someone from their favourite club out there running around like Marchand, but, the addition of a few well-placed deterrents and/or, for lack of a better word, villains (re-signing a healthy Volpatti was a good start. Would love to see MG make an offer to Subban, and, I still haven't given up on Doan, either) in place of the typical "nice guy" that hockey fans tend to associate with this team and its' perceived softness, while not a guarantee of a championship, wouldn't bother me a bit.

#73 Fakename70

Fakename70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 827 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 10

Posted 21 July 2012 - 01:28 PM

The trouble is, sport is stacked with teams who won with "dishonesty"

What does it actually mean? Were the Bruins a dishonest team or a team who played to win, who targeted the opposition weaknesses when they felt they might lose playing them any other way.

The way I see it, there are officials whose job is to decide what actions are punishable and it is any team intent on winning's job to play to the limit of these actions and occasionally over that limit when necessary.


YES! SPEAK ON IT!
While it can be debated if the B's played "dirty", I'd rather look at it as them being smart enough to realise that the officials had no interest in calling them for any of the after-the-whistle rough stuff, and the Canucks being ill-prepared to fight fire with fire. They waited for calls that clearly were never going to be made, and Boston simply kept at it. This on top of Tim Thomas standing on his head was not a good combination for the Canucks at all.

Some might argue that Boston should've done the right and honourable thing by toning down the "antics". But, I don't fault them at all for going all out to win that SC. Like them or not, there's no questioning if they as a team "wanted it" during that series. Whereas, by contrast, there were certain Canucks that left me wondering when, exactly, were they planning to pull their head out and make something happen.

#74 DefCon1

DefCon1

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,416 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 08

Posted 21 July 2012 - 01:59 PM

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.


What is with this "character" stuff? We need to pursuit the best player that have the best skills and the best attitude and passion needed to win a cup.

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image

QUOTE (Rye and Kesler @ Jun 29 2009, 10:24 PM) Where is Celebrities? I am tryin to find it on Club vibes but i can't find it. Is it relatively new? Sounds good though we will have to check it out.

I think Germany is the exception because they should know how to use their own balls.

QUOTE (pacecar @ Aug 2 2009, 11:53 AM) Sheep are ok but horses, ewww.


Posted Image





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.