King of the ES Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 From your constant harping on the subject, I suggest it's you who seems unable to deal with the Canucks loss. Everyone else has come to grips with the fact that the Canucks lost that series, except you who just can't seem to let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'm not harping on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 So you are now saying that the Canucks choked. I guess if one is choking then one can't be playing at 100%. Are you saying that the Canucks lost because the entire team was playing at less than 100%? And since the Bruins won, then they must have been playing at 100%, which would have given them a distinct advantage. So are you now making excuses for the Canucks? It would appear that from your perspective, it's not okay to lose because you are playing injured (because obviously, you can't play injured), but it is okay to lose because you're playing at less than 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'm not harping on anything. It's just pretty upsetting to see so many people on this forum repeating Mike Gillis' radio excuses rather than thinking for themselves. "We lost the Cup because we were injured" is just a ridiculous statement, and Gillis should really be embarrassed for saying it so many times. The Cup was lost because Vancouver choked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 That's not why we lost the cup, with the team we had the reason's were an inability to score #1 and inconsistent play #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 If it makes you feel better to say those things instead of "choked", fine, be my guest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I watched those games. I think its fair to say Boston wore down and outplayed the Canucks. There were plays, IMO, where guys choked. I hated the Marchand goal where he walked around everybody, possibly 4 guys, cut across the ice in front of Lou who fell on his face and scored an easy goal. But they beat us senselessly till we had no 2knd or 3rd line, or functional top 4 D. And who was left could not handle the match ups; an example being the Twins taking neutral and D zone draws against top lines instead of offensive starts which is their strength. It would been great if Lou earned his $10 mill salary and stole a game in Boston; but really Boston put us in situations we could not win. Ultimately they deserved the win much more than we lost it... As to trade theory; I debate (often with DeNiro) that we have continued to acquire talent without really addressing some of the match up factors that fell apart. - Without Samuelsson, we did / do not have a strong passing secondary forward. - We have 5 LW who can play top 2 lines in the NHL (Danny, Burrows, Booth, Higgins and Raymond) + debatably our best prospect (Jensen). - Hansen is, but Kassian will be our top RW. Not the same balance there. Nor does playing our left wing depth at RW provide physical bodies that compliment mostly talent on the left side. We're too small! - Edler brings (perhaps better) scoring than Erhoff, but not the same puck carrying ability. - What defence man do we have that will punish Lucic or Marchand, Thornton or Horton in front of our net? - Same topic, we can be excited about Tanev, but what does it say when he is our 2knd best right D? The answer is Garrison may move some bodies out of the way and make plays that avoid abuse in front of our net. But I would prefer to continue to improve our D with at least one big body plus a puck mover. I would also like to see play making and size somewhere between 3rd line center, the right wing and prospects added to our system. How much is coming in the Lou trade? Edit / clarification; Edler is also better defensively than Erhoff, but we still miss his ability to handle and carry the puck.I still do not question letting him walk, but seek replacing that skill amongst moves. This makes no sense. The Canucks choked. Period. They had one thing to do: not lose 4/5 games to Boston. They lost 4/5 games to Boston. Can't get much simpler than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I'm still waiting for King to reply to some of my questions and previous points: I wouldn't mind hearing his response to this, especially after he asked me the question specifily but never replied once I gave him a true answer that wasn't in his favour. No because the games Seabrook missed were the games the hawks won. Bolland came back and was a huge key to there success scoring in all of there wins I do believe, and more than once in some. And on top of that both were good and ready to go for the do or die game 7 along with a full healthy squad of Hawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 This makes no sense. The Canucks choked. Period. They had one thing to do: not lose 4/5 games to Boston. They lost 4/5 games to Boston. Can't get much simpler than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Yes, simple and your answers go hand in hand. I mean in their brevity , of course... Just curious about your very interesting way of defining terms and events. According to you, the Canucks "choked" in that seven game final against the Bruins. I'm wondering how you would define the first series in that Cup run? The Canucks beat the Hawks in a seven game series, after taking the first three games. All they had to do was not lose 4/4 games and they didn't. So, was that series a dominating victory by the Canucks (since they won), or an almost choke because they lost 3/4 of the last four games? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 That was very nearly a choke in my opinion. It couldn't have been any closer, and this after being as far ahead as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 To "common folk" like you and I, it may have been a near choke. However, in the black and white world of King, it is one or the other. It is do, or do not. Just like a player is injured, or he is not. Is losing 3/4 games a choke, or is it not? I'm looking to establish some boundaries of King's definition of the term "choke". regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 To "common folk" like you and I, it may have been a near choke. However, in the black and white world of King, it is one or the other. It is do, or do not. Just like a player is injured, or he is not. Is losing 3/4 games a choke, or is it not? I'm looking to establish some boundaries of King's definition of the term "choke". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Loving all the Luongo proposals over the last 2 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 What's really black and white is the fact that Boston won, and Vancouver lost. Because of this black and white fact, guys like you and Smashian are trying to pin some sort of explanation on why the Canucks lost, since you refuse to accept that such a powerhouse could actually lose. Regarding injuries/surgery, whatever. There are plenty of different types of surgery, all varying in severity. I can say with confidence that their injuries must not have been too severe, if they were not forced to miss any hockey games along the way - like Hamhuis & Raymond were. It's just an excuse sold to the rabid fanbase that wants an alibi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 OR...did Chicago choke in game 7??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 So, I'm looking for clarification here. If the Boston series was a choke, in that the Canucks lost three of the last four, was the Chicago series also a choke, in that the Canucks lost three of the last four? It's black and white. Is it a yes or a no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 This argument is more pathetic than if you two were arguing over semantics. The Canucks lost. Who cares what the reason is? It's done. Over. Fin. Now, to the thread topic. Luongo. Say if Luongo would accept a trade to San Jose or Ottawa, who do you think the Canucks could get in return? I have a man-crush on Douglas Murray, so any trade with San Jose would be great to have him involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 This argument is more pathetic than if you two were arguing over semantics. The Canucks lost. Who cares what the reason is? It's done. Over. Fin. Now, to the thread topic. Luongo. Say if Luongo would accept a trade to San Jose or Ottawa, who do you think the Canucks could get in return? I have a man-crush on Douglas Murray, so any trade with San Jose would be great to have him involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 ^^^Never really thought it was possible for San Jose or Ottawa trade, I just wanted an end to the Canucks 2011 playoff run argument. What a joke that was. Truthfully, I think Luongo would accept a trade to San Jose; but like you said, Neimi would have to be moved at the same time to make it happen. And although I may be in the minority of people that actually like Marleau, I don't see the Sharks giving up on him anytime soon. Unless of course, in this imaginary scenario, they really wanted an upgrade in goal and they were bidding for Luongo's services against Toronto and Florida. That said, I don't think San Jose believes that their problems right now have anything to do with weak goaltending, nor do I. Neimi has been a flash in the pan so far, but he is hardly the issue of San Jose's playoff woes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.