Pears Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Really? Because I don't see any of the Canucks' medical team posting on this site regularly. The guys that were "injured", as you say (Kesler, Burrows, etc.) were playing. If you're playing, you're assumed to be healthy enough to do so. Harping about how "decimated" the Canucks were - who were playing, except for Hamhuis & Raymond - is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. Boston outplayed us, and they won. That's all there is to it. Vancouver had a 2-0 lead, and Vancouver went on to lose 4/5 games and (thus) the Stanley Cup (at Rogers Arena). Calling it anything else is just sad. Never ask the barber if you need a haircut - and don't buy the tale that the GM tells you on the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Really? Because I don't see any of the Canucks' medical team posting on this site regularly. The guys that were "injured", as you say (Kesler, Burrows, etc.) were playing. If you're playing, you're assumed to be healthy enough to do so. Harping about how "decimated" the Canucks were - who were playing, except for Hamhuis & Raymond - is nothing more than a pathetic excuse. Boston outplayed us, and they won. That's all there is to it. Vancouver had a 2-0 lead, and Vancouver went on to lose 4/5 games and (thus) the Stanley Cup (at Rogers Arena). Calling it anything else is just sad. Never ask the barber if you need a haircut - and don't buy the tale that the GM tells you on the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 In the seconds it takes to fall off a cliff, there is a lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Not true at all. Gallagher has repeatedly praised Gillis and the way that this organization is ran on the radio. He was far more of a heel when Burke was running the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Yes they out played our team when our team was at about 50-60%, if our team wasn't as depleted as it was and we had that extra 50% or even 20% do you think it would have made a difference? absolutely, Your just blind to the fact that our team was injured, and that greatly affected our level of play, that's not MG lying on the Radio, its the clear facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Boudrias was right - your claim that of not true at all is not true at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 OK, yup, we were 50%. Like I said, if that's what you guys want to believe, go right ahead! I prefer to reside on this planet called Earth, but Canuckland is a nice alternative, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 For the 5000th time. Its 'not what we want to believe', its a fact that's as clear as day. Interesting that once again you decide to ignore my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 OK, yup, we were 50%. Like I said, if that's what you guys want to believe, go right ahead! I prefer to reside on this planet called Earth, but Canuckland is a nice alternative, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 What do u call missing two top 6 forwards, missing your top defensemen, your 2 all-star center's being injured, 5 of your 7 regular defensemen being out or injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Actually, Hamhuis was injured and therefore could not play. I believe what WiDeN meant to say was, "You mean players are allowed by their medical staff to play not at 100% because they have a chance at winning the Stanley frick'n Cup even though those trainers and coaches have reputations to uphold?" (see the bold part) Does this clear things up for you? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 That there was an element of truth in it still does not excuse it from being propoganda. It was only when Gillis was getting roasted in the media and in public opinion (a time no politician ever engages in anything resembling media manipulation?) it was put out there that Hodgson's numbers were pumped up to increase his trade value. As he then got slaughtered he further threw CoHo under the bus saying (paraphrasing) that Hodgson was more trouble over three years than all the other players put together. No question Gillis was covering himself and he did not look good doing it. It's not cool speaking down to people, even though your opinions are educated and have some substance behind them; your arguments still paint that anyone who writes on Hodgson is blind and perhaps a blithering idiot??? Oh you tree huggers, oh you CoHo lovers. Me, I said I enjoyed his play and thought he was helping us. And how many posts do you see buying wholesale as fact that Hodgson's numbers having been completely pumped up? Propoganda works... I painted that he was being used in a role he could add offense, was helping the team and that it was perhaps good coaching. Something you appear to be softening to below. And I believe that is an excellent assesment. No he was not ready to replace Hank, nor Kesler (even injured) and needed the right grooming to round out parts of his game which were weak. But I've also seen him painted a liability and a poor player. Regardless of being a lover or hater, that he still needs work on the rest of his game to increase his role is a bottom line fair statement! I'm a business manager. I also don't buy Gillis had to cave to a rookie's whining. Hodgson had a contract and still gets paid to do a job. "Shut up and play the best minutes we can give you and work on your defense" when push comes to shove! I'm in the camp that believes the trade was a mistake if we also wanted to win last year. So that still does not resolve the question of timing. Pahlsson and a partially hobbled Kesler sharing defensive minutes with CoHo given mop up minutes would have been fine with me. He had a habit of breaking games in our favour. That might have been a better thing against L.A. than what we iced??? All those Corsi stats mean little in comparison to a game breaking talent. Hodgson, while not as effective as Hansen or others defensively was also not couphing up the puck or blowing games for us. Quite the opposite. You do not trade him just cause he's whining. But forward to post 1384 again; You were responding to If Kesler was really injured to the point we knew he would not be that effective... , if even CoHo knew it, then so did MG and AV. Your point was "show what a team guy he is by respecting the veterans and thriving in his role, and take advantage of the particular situation!" That is a perfect and fair sentiment. But if Kess were injured? Well, maybe that would be real logic for a mini re-build (such as trading CoHo) because really our odd's of winning without Kesler at his best were not great. And it may have been dangerous to rebuild around a whiner. Unfortunately, you cannot tell the public that you have given up on the season? I, FTR, was never a guy who said Pahlsson was a failure or played poorly. I personally think it's possible he was brought in to make the public believe we were actually doing everything possible to win. Pahlsson was a propoganda statement to mask a mini re-build? And I still think Gillis had no business throwing all that junk out there. Nor are you completely on base calling Hodgson a wash out based on Corsi when he had a knack for getting teamates going (at times Kesler could not) & a slapshot that can be blown past some of the world's best goalies! As I said earlier; lets just hope Kassian now add's the physical elements we need to pay off Gillis's move! Hey, for fun; how far back does Corsi go? Not that Coho would ever get that good, but I doubt a guy like Brett Hull would have had a good Corsi, particularly when he was young? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 "Not at 100%" is far different than being injured. My simple rule is that if you're deemed healthy enough to play, you better go out there and do your job. Anybody who's playing is accountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 What do u call missing two top 6 forwards, missing your top defensemen, your 2 all-star center's being injured, 5 of your 7 regular defensemen being out or injured. I'm not sure what you call it but it's clear fact that we were nowhere close to 100%, or even 80% where I would say Boston was around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Two top 6 forwards, like Horton and Savard? Or your top defenceman, like Chicago was with missing Seabrook for 3 or 4 games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Yeah, I got it. I was clarifying a point on your behalf. Bobby Baun playing with a broken bone in his leg, or Kesler playing with his back all screwed up were playing "not at 100%", rather than playing injured, in your terminology. And if they were to be sat out, then they'd become "injured". I don't see why people don't get this. For example, when Daniel Sedin took that head-shot from Duncan Keith, he dropped down to playing not at 100% for the one shift he played before leaving the game. This is when his status changed from not playing at 100% and he became injured with the concussion which sidelined him for the remainder of the season. Right? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 This is all just sidetracking by you again because you have no response to my point. Just stop ignoring the clear fact that we were well below 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Not sure how old you are, but I can guarantee you that Tony Gallagher was far, far, far more of a heel when Burke was our GM. Gillis has had a ton of success during his reign, so there's really not been much for TG to whine about, unlike the mid-to-late 90s when Burke was at the helm. Gallagher's article on Hodgson was a nice example of Jerry Maguire's famed mission statement: "the things we think, but do not say". He was not the only guy touting more ice-time for Cody, either, BTW. Was your CDC account not intact around that time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 For example, when Daniel Sedin took that head-shot from Duncan Keith, he dropped down to playing not at 100% for the one shift he played before leaving the game. This is when his status changed from not playing at 100% and he became injured with the concussion which sidelined him for the remainder of the season. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.