Gollumpus Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Then explain this that has been thrown at you many times, which you have dodged each time: If Kesler and the rest of the Canucks weren't injured as you say they were, explain all the rehab they had to go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Uhm, Steve? It's called "playing not at 100%". If you use the "I" word he won't understand what you're saying. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 No sudden change. Credit where credit is due but many other posters take care of that well enough. I never thought Luongo was a terrible goalie, it just seems to me like he has most of his worst games in the playoffs and that's not what I personally expect from a supposed elite goaltender. Also Schneider has outshined him therefore I feel like he's expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Because Kesler was not performing to his 2010-11 level, and he has shown an inability to stay healthy (or at least refrain from telling everybody how hurt he is). And it looks like it's time for another reminder that "the rookie" was 3rd in team goals, whilst centering the 3rd line and being given very few minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 FLA Luongo Kesler VAN Campbell Bjudgstad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Your proposals remind me very much of GHL's. Very one sided 95% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Again - don't let any facts cloud your prejudice. I don't expect you to understand this King, but perhaps the most difficult job in the NHL is being a shutdown center on the worst clubs in hockey. Your claim that he wasn't shutting anyone down in Columbus merely reflects an opinion that you base on absolutely nothing - and to say he was a disaster in Vancouver is oblivious. The third line was far and away the best line for the Canucks in the time he was here. Pahlsson had comparable scoring stats to Hodgson: Pahlsson6 points in 19 games with 3rd line minutes - Hodgson 8 points in 20 playing big minutes - Pahlsson was a +4 while actually playing a shutdown role, Hodgson was -7 playing matchup minutes - which means Pahlsson's line outscored the best lines on opposition teams while Hodgson got schooled the minute he was no longer sheltered by Higgins and Hansen. What a disaster! Anyone who watched Canucks hockey could see his line dominating - they enjoyed an obvious territorial advantage - they were playing in a context where the top line was missing Daniel, the second line was hobbled, and a great deal of weight had fallen on the third line. They carried it and then some. The Canucks weren't going anywhere further with a liability centering their third line. Smart move - undermined only by injuries to Daniel and Kesler. Not going to beat L.A. when your third line is the only line that is healthy and playing well. Pahlsson 'only' had a goal in the playoffs and really, he should have been able to shut down Brown, Kopitar etc - what a letdown. Pahlsson was a guy who had very low offensive zone starts - only 29.7% - delivered 46.6% offensive zone finishes - and his relative corsi in the ballpark of that rookie you lavish with undue praise. Where Pahlsson was -9.0, Canucks with a comparable role were -20.7 (Lapierre) and -32.6 (Malhotra) - and only a noob would complain about the defensive job that either of those guys did. The only credible things you said were that Pahlsson was leaning towards home, and that Kassian was a reasonable gamble to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Listening invokes true enlightenment and therefore, greater assertiveness when speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Bolded stuff is meaningless fake stats generated by distilling rainbows that flow from the rectums of giant unicorns kept at a top secret NHL military base somewhere in the arctic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Listening invokes true enlightenment and therefore, greater assertiveness when speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 "You've got to find the serenity with inside the chaos. When you unfurl yourself for everyone to see, there is a dominant submission." - Lil C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Very well placed. I might add that "If we were meant to talk more then we listen, we'd have two mouths and one ear" - Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 My friend, this is not a proposal. It is a response to the refered post, based on 3rd grade logic; a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 "3rd grade logic"; actually, it's 3rd grade reading comprehension on your part. Did I say that Kesler "is not as good as he once was"? No, I said that he wasn't playing to his 2010-11 level. Big difference. Do you disagree with that statement on Kesler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 He wasn't playing to his Selke winning form because for the 900th time he was playing injured! And AGAIN, you dodge my question about the rehab him and other players had to go through. Too scared to know the truth King? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 So now you're saying Kesler was injured after saying he wasn't injured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 This is undeniable. Kesler is an idiot with a big head who wanted to score 41 goals again, and the coaching staff is even stupider for allowing him to play. I clearly remember AV's comment, "I told Kelser he can play but I don't want to see him limping out there." It was quite obvious he was injured all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Yeah. What King was trying to say is that Kesler wasn't injured because of his logic: 'Kesler wasn't injured enough to be able to still play.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Yeah. What King was trying to say is that Kesler wasn't injured because of his logic: 'Kesler wasn't injured enough to be able to still play.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 "3rd grade logic"; actually, it's 3rd grade reading comprehension on your part. Did I say that Kesler "is not as good as he once was"? No, I said that he wasn't playing to his 2010-11 level. Big difference. Do you disagree with that statement on Kesler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.