Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3002 replies to this topic

#1441 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:07 PM

Our health was not the reason for the loss. The Canucks choked, plain and simple. Pooped all over themselves with fear in Boston, 3 times. The Canucks were up 2-0, and all they had to do was not lose 4/5 games to the Boston Bruins - which is exactly what happened.

You're not going to convince me that "injuries" were the cause of our loss, so if that's the goal, may as well just stop. I don't consider anybody who's playing to be "injured", no matter what Mike Gillis tells me via the radio.

You weren't arguing the reason for the loss, you were arguing that we were not injured. Big difference.

You may not consider anyone playing to be injured, but when guys immediately have surgery after losing the whole world disagrees with you.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#1442 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:08 PM

Our health was not the reason for the loss. The Canucks choked, plain and simple. Pooped all over themselves with fear in Boston, 3 times. The Canucks were up 2-0, and all they had to do was not lose 4/5 games to the Boston Bruins - which is exactly what happened.

You're not going to convince me that "injuries" were the cause of our loss, so if that's the goal, may as well just stop. I don't consider anybody who's playing to be "injured", no matter what Mike Gillis tells me via the radio.


It wasn't just the injuries - the other reason was the officiating, hahaha!!!! :bigblush: :bigblush: :bigblush:
  • 1

#1443 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,672 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:12 PM

On that one shift, it became very clear that he was not fit to play in an NHL game.

...unlike a guy like Kesler, who was. Get it?


Oh. Now I am confused. I was assuming that you would have suggested that Sedin stay at the bench and not go to the dressing room so he he could avoid the head injury which sidelined him for the remainder of the season.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 22 November 2012 - 07:15 PM.

  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#1444 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:12 PM

I am old enough to know that Gallagher was a heel when Burke was around - I agree with you there - it's just that I think he still is a heel. There may be a little truth to your claim that he has moderated somewhat, but that is intermittent - he still completely loses his mind on a regular basis, and is still the biggest grown-up whiner I can think of in the entire free world.

I also agree that there is not much for him to whine about - but he is extremely creative in this sense, and when he finds something he feels justified to whine about, he hits richter scale proportions with it.

Also true - Gallagher wasn't the only guy touting more ice-time for Hodgson - Botchford always manages to parrot him.

If you think my opinions are a little too stern, this kind of nonsense may have something to do with it: have a read - if this is the new, improved Gallagher, you might understand why I don't bother to remember much of his past - the old Gallagher made it necessary to format the old hard-drive - a complete, deep, clean sweep.

http://www.theprovin...l#axzz2D0UE6g5W


That article is pretty dumb :lol:

...but really, it's very "Tony". He's probably better on the radio than he is in print. Hilarious, insightful, and just the most perfect voice on earth. He was definitely more of a heel a decade or so ago - I believe Brian Burke had even tried to get him fired, at one point, no? But back then, really, the Canucks were largely terrible, and not really a fault of Burke's, moreso a systemic issue where the league was dominated by the Detroit's, the Colorado's, etc., annually.

I think the guy's great. Not afraid to voice his opinion.
  • 0

#1445 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:14 PM

But my point is that you can't excuse the fact that we were severely injured, and that if we were as healthy as Boston it would have made a huge difference. This is the clear fact you have not yet replied to and continue to deny.


"The clear fact" - so you're Vancouver's team doctor, and you're friends with Boston's team doctor, and you've both exchanged information surrounding the event which has led to this "clear, factual" conclusion?
  • 0

#1446 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:15 PM

It wasn't just the injuries - the other reason was the officiating, hahaha!!!! :bigblush: :bigblush: :bigblush:


Pretty much - these are a few of the reasons why the Canucks are the league's most hated team!

Because it's not ever the Canucks - it's always something else!

:bigblush:
  • 0

#1447 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:17 PM

Oh. Now I am confused. I was assuming that you would have suggested that Sedin stay at the bench and not go to the dressing room so he he could avoid the head injury which sidelined him for the remainder of the season.


Not sure what you're getting at, but the fact that he went out and attempted to play, and quickly left the ice for good, will hopefully add some clarity to my "injured"/"playing hurt" division for you and a few others.
  • 0

#1448 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,157 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

"The clear fact" - so you're Vancouver's team doctor, and you're friends with Boston's team doctor, and you've both exchanged information surrounding the event which has led to this "clear, factual" conclusion?


......

Now I would like you to respond to that, and not sidetrack this time.


:picard: I guess I asked too much..

I don't have to be apart of the medical stuff, when the team realses the info the fans, and everyone can see that certain players need surgery and rehab, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see there are injuries.

Again your sidetracking because you know your denying clear facts and that it makes you look very stupid.

So I will give you a chance redeem yourself, please reply to what I said in my last post this time Without Sidetracking.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1449 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,672 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:23 PM

Not sure what you're getting at, but the fact that he went out and attempted to play, and quickly left the ice for good, will hopefully add some clarity to my "injured"/"playing hurt" division for you and a few others.


I'm not sure what you're getting at, so I guess we're even. And I thought I had this all figured out.

For how your system works, if Sedin stayed in the game he'd be playing not at 100%, but if he went to the dressing room he'd be injured. So why wouldn't the Canucks training staff keep him on the bench so he'd stay at not 100% rather than send him to the dressing room where he came down with a regular season ending concussion?

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 23 November 2012 - 07:02 AM.

  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#1450 laxgoalie

laxgoalie

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:24 PM

"The clear fact" - so you're Vancouver's team doctor, and you're friends with Boston's team doctor, and you've both exchanged information surrounding the event which has led to this "clear, factual" conclusion?

Your pissing me off and I'm just reading. Is a players word good enough for you? Or is that not enough... Read this article: http://bleacherrepor...for-the-canucks
I'll highlight the key points of the article, and please tell me how injuries were not a large part of the reason that we lost to Boston.

...
Mikael Samuelsson was lost in Game 3 of the Western Conference Semi-Finals against the Nashville Predators, after he injured his abductor tendon and sports hernia.
Samuelsson had surgery to correct both injuries on May 19.
Christopher Higgins blocked a shot in the third period of Game 5 against the Predators. He had been playing with a presumably broken foot since.
Christian Ehrhoff was injured in Game 3 of the Western Conference Finals against the San Jose Sharks, when he was hit hard into the boards by Jamie McGinn.
In order to play in the Stanley Cup Finals, Ehrhoff had his shoulder shot up with painkillers in every game.
Both Ehrhoff and Higgins will require offseason surgery to correct their ailments.
Ryan Kesler reportedly played with both a groin tear and hip labrum tear, which were suffered late in Game 5 against the Sharks.
Dan Hamhuis was lost in Game 2 of the Stanley Cup Finals, after he tore his groin muscle from throwing a thunderous hip check on Bruins forward Milan Lucic.
Mason Raymond, of course, was lost in Game 6 to a vertebrae compression fracture after he was awkwardly driven into the boards by Bruins defenseman Johnny Boychuk.
Alex Edler was the other casualty in Game 6, as he broke two fingers in the third period. He played through it in Game 7 and logged 26:20.
Those are the injuries that we know of so far, but based on the words of Canucks forward Jeff Tambellini, there must have been more.
"There were probably shooting six guys up [for Game 7]," he said.
Andrew Alberts was also rumoured to have been injured in Game 6 after leaving the game late in the third period.
Earlier in the series, Sami Salo was slow to get up after falling awkwardly. It’s possible he could have suffered a groin injury.
There have been no reported serious injuries on the side of the Bruins.
...

Edited by laxgoalie, 22 November 2012 - 07:26 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image Posted Image

#1451 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:25 PM

That article is pretty dumb :lol:

...but really, it's very "Tony". He's probably better on the radio than he is in print. Hilarious, insightful, and just the most perfect voice on earth. He was definitely more of a heel a decade or so ago - I believe Brian Burke had even tried to get him fired, at one point, no? But back then, really, the Canucks were largely terrible, and not really a fault of Burke's, moreso a systemic issue where the league was dominated by the Detroit's, the Colorado's, etc., annually.

I think the guy's great. Not afraid to voice his opinion.



Tony finishes that article with "And people wonder why Vancouver fans sometimes seem a tad negative"

More ironing than Phyllis Diller.

I think he's the definition of a man-child - and whiner.

Whine -
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch:

Here's urban dictionary's definition of a whiner:

|"people who bitch about anything and everything and never have anything good to say...waaaa, (insert complaining about anything here) i'm never happy with anything because my glass is half empty"



And people wonder why Vancouver fans sometimes seem a tad negative.

Read more: http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2D0ZKmSV4


  • 0

#1452 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,950 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:27 PM

Pretty much - these are a few of the reasons why the Canucks are the league's most hated team!

Because it's not ever the Canucks - it's always something else!

:bigblush:



IT'S THE PLAYOFFS!!!
  • 2

#1453 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,157 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:27 PM

Not sure what you're getting at, but the fact that he went out and attempted to play, and quickly left the ice for good, will hopefully add some clarity to my "injured"/"playing hurt" division for you and a few others.


As a matter of fact King I dug up a little something..

http://bleacherrepor...for-the-canucks

Edit: Oh Nevermind someone else already found the article for me.

Your pissing me off and I'm just reading. Is a players word good enough for you? Or is that not enough... Read this article: http://bleacherrepor...for-the-canucks
I'll highlight the key points of the article, and please tell me how injuries were not a large part of the reason that we lost to Boston.

...
Mikael Samuelsson was lost in Game 3 of the Western Conference Semi-Finals against the Nashville Predators, after he injured his abductor tendon and sports hernia.
Samuelsson had surgery to correct both injuries on May 19.
Christopher Higgins blocked a shot in the third period of Game 5 against the Predators. He had been playing with a presumably broken foot since.
Christian Ehrhoff was injured in Game 3 of the Western Conference Finals against the San Jose Sharks, when he was hit hard into the boards by Jamie McGinn.
In order to play in the Stanley Cup Finals, Ehrhoff had his shoulder shot up with painkillers in every game.
Both Ehrhoff and Higgins will require offseason surgery to correct their ailments.
Ryan Kesler reportedly played with both a groin tear and hip labrum tear, which were suffered late in Game 5 against the Sharks.
Dan Hamhuis was lost in Game 2 of the Stanley Cup Finals, after he tore his groin muscle from throwing a thunderous hip check on Bruins forward Milan Lucic.
Mason Raymond, of course, was lost in Game 6 to a vertebrae compression fracture after he was awkwardly driven into the boards by Bruins defenseman Johnny Boychuk.
Alex Edler was the other casualty in Game 6, as he broke two fingers in the third period. He played through it in Game 7 and logged 26:20.
Those are the injuries that we know of so far, but based on the words of Canucks forward Jeff Tambellini, there must have been more.
"There were probably shooting six guys up [for Game 7]," he said.
Andrew Alberts was also rumoured to have been injured in Game 6 after leaving the game late in the third period.
Earlier in the series, Sami Salo was slow to get up after falling awkwardly. It’s possible he could have suffered a groin injury.
There have been no reported serious injuries on the side of the Bruins....


Now without sidetracking, in the context of your argument that we weren't injured and that it wasn't one of the reason's we choked.

I would like to hear your explaination of this, again without sidetracking.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 22 November 2012 - 07:28 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1454 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:41 PM

Now without sidetracking, in the context of your argument that we weren't injured and that it wasn't one of the reason's we choked.

I would like to hear your explaination of this, again without sidetracking.


The only explanation is to ask a simple question: if they were so injured, why were they playing? Cody Hodgson could've been playing.

And BTW, hairline fractures occur all the time and can go untreated. Don't let the jargon fool you. "Broken" does not accurately reflect the severity of the injury. And just because Boston didn't report their injuries, like the Canucks were so quick to do, does not mean that they didn't have any.
  • 0

#1455 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,157 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:56 PM

The only explanation is to ask a simple question: if they were so injured, why were they playing? Cody Hodgson could've been playing.


I guess this means there is no explaination, just more sidetracking. :( Alas I was looking forward to your explanation of why you refuse the clear facts layed infront of you, but I guess I can hang my hat on that you can't give me an explanation that wouldn't make your argument look any worse than it already does, so instead you refuse to.

But unlike you I will answer your question, it's really simple.

Those players had carried us all that way, and without turning this into a Coho debate those players at less than 100% were better options than Coho, Atleast according to AV. At the time Cody wasn't the player we saw flashes of brilliance from last season, it wouldn't have been an upgrade if at all.

Broken" does not accurately reflect the severity of the injury.


If that's the case than you should re-write the meaning of the word broken.

Because anytime something is broken it usually means that there is a painful injury that hampers there ability to play significantly.

But I guess in this playoffs that wasn't the case, even though it has been the case in every other playoff year. How Odd.

And BTW, hairline fractures occur all the time and can go untreated. Don't let the jargon fool you. "Broken" does not accurately reflect the severity of the injury. And just because Boston didn't report their injuries, like the Canucks were so quick to do, does not mean that they didn't have any.


I find it odd that we didn't hear anything about Boston players needing major surgery, especially in today's universe where that stuff is impossible to keep from fans and media. Especially when everyteam reveals that info after they are eliminated, even the Cup Champs do it, But I guess they didn't for some strange strange reason.

And BTW, I don't know if you learned how to read or not, but I didn't see anything about a Hairline fracture, although I did see Compressed Vertebrae Fracture.


King your grasping at straws, actually less than that, your grasping at imaginary grass. Just admit you are wrong, and stop making yourself look worse than u already do.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 22 November 2012 - 07:58 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1456 laxgoalie

laxgoalie

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:01 PM

The only explanation is to ask a simple question: if they were so injured, why were they playing? Cody Hodgson could've been playing.

And BTW, hairline fractures occur all the time and can go untreated. Don't let the jargon fool you. "Broken" does not accurately reflect the severity of the injury. And just because Boston didn't report their injuries, like the Canucks were so quick to do, does not mean that they didn't have any.

To answer your first question. They were playing because its a once in a lifetime opportunity, hockey players would do anything to get their hands on the Stanley Cup. So a few pain filled games are worth getting your name on the cup.
And where is the hairline fracture you are talking about? Is it Edler? http://sports.nation...broken-fingers/ Read that about Edler before saying so. One of his fingers took more than 11 weeks to heal. So nope no hairline fracture there. So yeah I think broken very accurately describes the severity of the injury.

Edited by laxgoalie, 22 November 2012 - 08:03 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image Posted Image

#1457 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,157 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:05 PM

The only explanation is to ask a simple question: if they were so injured, why were they playing? Cody Hodgson could've been playing.

And BTW, hairline fractures occur all the time and can go untreated. Don't let the jargon fool you. "Broken" does not accurately reflect the severity of the injury. And just because Boston didn't report their injuries, like the Canucks were so quick to do, does not mean that they didn't have any.


Boy your lucky that the minus button was removed, otherwise you would have a worse rep than the original clutch.
  • 1

zackass.png


#1458 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:31 PM

To answer your first question. They were playing because its a once in a lifetime opportunity, hockey players would do anything to get their hands on the Stanley Cup. So a few pain filled games are worth getting your name on the cup.


I guess Dan Hamhuis would disagree, then?
  • 0

#1459 laxgoalie

laxgoalie

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:45 PM

I guess Dan Hamhuis would disagree, then?

No Dan Hamhuis was physically unable to play. He tore his groin which causes loss of function in your leg. I have torn my groin, you can't walk without extreme pain, let alone skate. You lose almost all your strength in your leg, so him playing would have only hurt the Canucks chances of winning... So no Dan Hamhuis was doing what was better for the team... I guess with your logic, Mason Raymond would also "disagree" then?

Also I noticed you failed to respond to Smashian Kassian. You can't think of a way to sidetrack your response? Or did you just give up, because you know he's right?

Edited by laxgoalie, 22 November 2012 - 08:49 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image Posted Image

#1460 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,157 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:02 PM

Also I noticed you failed to respond to Smashian Kassian. You can't think of a way to sidetrack your response? Or did you just give up, because you know he's right?


I also found this interesting.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1461 WolfxHaley

WolfxHaley

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:26 PM

I love this thread
  • 0

Posted Image


#1462 eretz canucks

eretz canucks

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 821 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:25 PM

If we're gonna deal with Anaheim anyways:

VAN
Schneider
Ballard
1st

ANA
Ryan
Fowler
2nd



I'd do this in a heartbeat!!!!! Great trade for Vancouver but I bet ANA days no
  • 0

#1463 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:30 PM

The only explanation is to ask a simple question: if they were so injured, why were they playing? Cody Hodgson could've been playing. And BTW, hairline fractures occur all the time and can go untreated. Don't let the jargon fool you. "Broken" does not accurately reflect the severity of the injury. And just because Boston didn't report their injuries, like the Canucks were so quick to do, does not mean that they didn't have any.

Holy crap, can you honestly read what you've written and seriously not think you are stretching to the outer limits of possibility just to satisfy your stupid claim that we weren't injured? This is worse than the Luongo/Gillis co-conspiracy to raise Schneider's value or the Oilers would say no to a Luongo for Paajarvi trade; worse than the Phaneuf is top 5 in the league, and handedness doesn't matter. This is a plain and simple straight forward published frick'n truth that you are disputing. This isn't just some half brained polar opinion of yours on some mostly intangible over flogged topic that there is no actual answer to. You are making yourself look silly. Man up.
  • 3

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#1464 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:09 AM

Our health was not the reason for the loss. The Canucks choked, plain and simple. Pooped all over themselves with fear in Boston, 3 times. The Canucks were up 2-0, and all they had to do was not lose 4/5 games to the Boston Bruins - which is exactly what happened.

You're not going to convince me that "injuries" were the cause of our loss, so if that's the goal, may as well just stop. I don't consider anybody who's playing to be "injured", no matter what Mike Gillis tells me via the radio.


Dude. Please.
  • 0

#1465 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,343 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:15 AM

Wow, almost every post on this page was in response to King, and the three that weren't, one was marvelling at the responses, another one was agreeing with another poster replying to King, and the 3rd was unrelated. Does anyone see a problem here?
  • 0

schroedersig2_by_elvis15-d5szksn.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#1466 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:00 AM

Sorry; a clarification. I did not call your perspective propaganda; I called the whole presentation of the Hodgson affair by Gillis this.

I did think you expand on this viewpoint that he was pitching a tad too aggressively from time to time. Comments like "for you Hodgson lovers give it up"... If Gillis was completely right, Kassian would have been a monster for us in the play off's. I would have preferred him saying right when the trade was made that, perhaps they made some mistakes, but Hodgson wanted more than we can offer him at the moment. So we're offering him a chance and also offering Kassian the chance to the big dominating winger we also need.

Meh; back to new business.



Huh? What?

I'm not sure there is much point of engaging with this. Call my perspective propaganda if you choose - I call it keeping things in context. I can't bother to get too concerned about claims like that. Calling Gillis a "politician" is more propaganda than anything I said.
Likewise, regarding your claim that I am calling anyone who writes on Hodgson "blind" and a "blithering idiot". I have never said anything resembling that, to anyone. Play victim if you need to - I'm not talking down, I simply disagree, and have said as much - you have taken the liberty of putting a bunch of stuff in my mouth - I never called Hodgson a "wash out" - I never called you anything resembling a "tree hugger" - honestly, you're pretty defensive and have resorted to alot of embellishments - and ironically, I am as much of an "environmentalist" as the next person. If you are going to protest so much about what I have written and want me to respond honestly, you'll have to take less liberties rewriting, 'paraphrasing', and misrepresenting what I have said.
Lastly, if you are going to object to the notion that you are a Hodgson lover, you might want to edit that "Hodgson you look so very pretty" declaration of yours.


  • 0

#1467 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:35 AM

No Dan Hamhuis was physically unable to play.


Ryan Kesler and everyone else not named Hamhuis & Raymond, conversely, were not physically unable to play.

Got it?
  • 0

#1468 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 23 November 2012 - 06:28 AM

Holy crap, can you honestly read what you've written and seriously not think you are stretching to the outer limits of possibility just to satisfy your stupid claim that we weren't injured? This is worse than the Luongo/Gillis co-conspiracy to raise Schneider's value or the Oilers would say no to a Luongo for Paajarvi trade; worse than the Phaneuf is top 5 in the league, and handedness doesn't matter. This is a plain and simple straight forward published frick'n truth that you are disputing. This isn't just some half brained polar opinion of yours on some mostly intangible over flogged topic that there is no actual answer to. You are making yourself look silly. Man up.


Awww, did I touch a nerve?

Look, call it what you will, at the end of the day, it's an excuse! Not much else to it. I don't doubt that the Canucks were banged-up, just like I don't doubt that the Bruins were, too. The NHL playoffs has that effect.

But anybody who's deemed fit enough to play in an NHL game should be held accountable for their performance, and not be able to use the "oh, well I was injured" alibi, which seems to be the annual MO for this organization. I've heard Mike Gillis flat-out say on the radio that we lost the Cup because we were injured, which, IMO, is just ridiculous.
  • 0

#1469 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,672 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:17 AM

Awww, did I touch a nerve?


Hmm, would this mean that WiDeN would be posting at not 100%, or would he be injured?


Look, call it what you will, at the end of the day, it's an excuse! Not much else to it. I don't doubt that the Canucks were banged-up, just like I don't doubt that the Bruins were, too. The NHL playoffs has that effect.


Okay, now you're introducing a whole new term here. Where does "banged-up" fit in with injured and playing not at 100%? Is it less than injured and more than playing not at 100%?


But anybody who's deemed fit enough to play in an NHL game should be held accountable for their performance, and not be able to use the "oh, well I was injured" alibi, which seems to be the annual MO for this organization. I've heard Mike Gillis flat-out say on the radio that we lost the Cup because we were injured, which, IMO, is just ridiculous.


Yes, there is a lot of ridiculous in this discussion...

So, the only way the Canucks could use the "we were injured" excuse is if the guys who were playing not at 100% were sat out. This then begs the question: if they were sat out, would we now be having a discussion about how you believe the team doesn't have any heart and is unwilling to play injured... sorry, not at 100%?

regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#1470 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:18 AM

Awww, did I touch a nerve?

Look, call it what you will, at the end of the day, it's an excuse! Not much else to it. I don't doubt that the Canucks were banged-up, just like I don't doubt that the Bruins were, too. The NHL playoffs has that effect.

But anybody who's deemed fit enough to play in an NHL game should be held accountable for their performance, and not be able to use the "oh, well I was injured" alibi, which seems to be the annual MO for this organization. I've heard Mike Gillis flat-out say on the radio that we lost the Cup because we were injured, which, IMO, is just ridiculous.

I'm not defending it as the reason for the loss. I am talking about whether we were injured or not, and you still have refused to reply to the article describing all of our injuries, because acknowledging it would mean you were obvious wrong.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.