smurf47 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 If you put the same energy defending your stance instead of defending yourself this thread would barely be a page. Elaborate on the craft of goaltending is all I ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 And did you answer my questions? Did you defend your opinions? This is a thread about Lou., not about me teaching you goaltending. You really want to learn, go to a reputable goalie school. You just might be surprised at whats entailed. I'm not defending my position, 43 years of involvement, gives me confidence enough to state what I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Smurf47, You have disappointed me greatly. There, was the chance to legitimize yourself as a connaisseur of the craft. You have failed not only to write the work, you have also failed to respond adequately to my enquiry, as well as proving to me your having been in University. As far as I am concerned, you lose face, as well as credibility. Of course, you very well know that in University, most professors are tolerant of they who try and subsequently give extensions from time to time. You can always, when you feel inspired, to write this body of work at your leisure so as to let people know you're knowledgeable in the matter discussed. Unfortunately, such claims as you make concerning personal accomplishments in goaltending without any sources backing up your claim does not merit recognition in any way. Considering you have failed at delivering said work, Considering you have proven nothing regarding your claim, Considering you have dismissed any chance at a legitimate challenge, I can only regard you as a young fan (not necessarily in age) and therefore, though I will await an elaborate response to my challenge, I will not be responding to your post and/or communicating with you again on this board until you make a mature effort to prove me otherwise. I'm not one to engage in a piss match. Good luck and farewell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TmanVan Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Smurf47, You have disappointed me greatly. There, was the chance to legitimize yourself as a connaisseur of the craft. You have failed not only to write the work, you have also failed to respond adequately to my enquiry, as well as proving to me your having been in University. As far as I am concerned, you lose face, as well as credibility. Of course, you very well know that in University, most professors are tolerant of they who try and subsequently give extensions from time to time. You can always, when you feel inspired, to write this body of work at your leisure so as to let people know you're knowledgeable in the matter discussed. Unfortunately, such claims as you make concerning personal accomplishments in goaltending without any sources backing up your claim does not merit recognition in any way. Considering you have failed at delivering said work, Considering you have proven nothing regarding your claim, Considering you have dismissed any chance at a legitimate challenge, I can only regard you as a young fan (not necessarily in age) and therefore, though I will await an elaborate response to my challenge, I will not be responding to your post and/or communicating with you again on this board until you make a mature effort to prove me otherwise. I'm not one to engage in a piss match. Good luck and farewell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 You seem like the type of guy who would walk in a bar in a suit and tie and start running your mouth to regular joe's and look down on them like scum because they don't have a degree, or wear clothes as nice as you. Its funny how quick that heir apparent attitude can change after a straight right hand to the jaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Yes actually they do. And last year it was worse than ever. Just listen to the team 1040 after Luongo has a weak game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Maybe your'e right but that's because the damage was already done. Last year it was worse than ever because we'd just came off losing the Stanley Cup in 7 games with Luongo having some of his worst ever games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 can't help but post this again Phaneuf - not going to improve the Canucks blueline - don't care if he has a big shot and throws the odd big hit - he's a highlight reel hockey player who has as many brain cramps as any veteran in the NHL - not to mention that he's yet another left handed / left side guy (who isn't even particularly strong on his strong side imo). Over-rated - very excessive cap hit - only a captain in Lalaleafsland where leadership qualities are as scarce as playoff berths - a part of the reason (like the rest of the Leafs inconsistent, porous blueline) that the Leafs young goaltenders struggle so much - they are young goaltenders that can't really count on the guys in front of them - the inconsistency is entirely predictable given the team in front of them - and it starts from their captain down. Toronto needs Luongo because they need a guy who can stick his finger in the dyke. I highly doubt that Gillis would consider taking Phaneuf in return - just a bad fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Post SCF. They got a shortened break and fell short. Same as Detroit, New Jersey, Anaheim, and most other franchises the year after they win the Stanley Cup. Watch this year (post lockout). I believe we'll see unreal hockey from everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunningWild Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=645327 Of course, lockout or no lockout, fans want to know about your unique goaltending situation. How do you view what is in front of you -- is it an opportunity for the organization or strictly business? "Well, I look at it in multiple ways. I really like Roberto [Luongo]. I like him as a person. I like him as a goaltender. He's a phenomenal guy, a phenomenally hard-working player, zero maintenance. He is the kind of guy that any team would like to have. If we're going to make a transaction, do anything, it's going to be done so we can improve our team in other ways. "When you take an All-Star player off your team, you have to do that with a lot of faith that you're improving in different areas. And, you know, I don't see that big of an issue if Roberto is with us. I don't see that as an issue at all. I think he's a true professional and I know he and Cory [schneider] have a great relationship. You know, that may end up being the plan depending on when we get started. I think they would both be fine with it. We're going to do what is best for our hockey team. We're going to make sure we're in the best position to win the Stanley Cup and that may be with both goaltenders." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 It is in fact with two bonafide goaltenders the Canucks have the best chance to winning the Cup. Keep them both fresh throughout the season and playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 No thanks to Phaneuf, his brain gaffs, his brutal attitude and terrible cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 While both Chara (1) and Weber (2) are not available, Phaneuf is a league wide top three defenseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Whoa, hold up, did you just say Dion Phaneuf is the 3rd best D in the entire league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 While both Chara (1) and Weber (2) are not available, Phaneuf is a league wide top three defenseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 While both Chara (1) and Weber (2) are not available, Phaneuf is a league wide top three defenseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 top 3 in the NHL or top 3 as in he's a "top3"? That makes sense. He sure isn't a top 2 dman for us. Too unstable and sloppy defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Seriously, I hope you're kidding. He would very clearly be our #1 d-man. He'd get more points and be far more physical than anyone we've got. Some of the things read on this site are just incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 The only problem with that ^ is that once again, you have a 4 million dollar man playing on your third pairing. Not only that, but even after (theoretically) losing Ballard's salary, you're actually spending more on your defense. I'm not as down on Phaneuf or MPS as are a lot of people on this board, but I think the Canucks have to look more at areas of need. They don't need another left-shooting defender challenging the top 4 and they don't need another left winger. This is why myself and oldnews have been touting the Bjugstad-Petrovic deal since day one. It doesn't add to the Cap and it addresses areas of need. (a center with size and a physical right-handed D-Man) It's isn't a case of whether they are beeter or worse prospects that others mentioned, it's just that they fit better into the team's structure. Now, it may be true that Tallon won't budge on Bjugstad, but I'm not convinced. Just as many of Gillis' detractors are claiming that he's playing it close to the vest, the same could easily be true of Tallon. For that matter, I still believe that Yzerman could be doing the same thing. I had stayed away from this thread for quite awhile, because I thought the arguments on both sides had become cyclical, but I thought this was a pertinent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Phaneuf would deff be a # 1 or 2 on this team, don't forget he plays for T.O. I don't want him because of the cap hit though, unless we shipped Ballard out. Hamhuis-Phaneuf Edler-Garrison Tanev-Bieksa I don't know how the pairings would work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.