• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      All Threads Must Contain Tags!   07/25/2017

      ALL THREADS MUST CONTAIN TAGS   All threads in this forum must contain tags prefixed to topic titles. The purpose of the tags is to eliminate confusion in recent threads lists, and to create an organized and consistent environment. Moderators may immediately lock and thread that does not contain tags.    Tags must be placed at the start of your thread title, following this exact formatting:    [Tag] Thread Title   Here are some of the most used popular tags:    [Proposal]
      A trade, or trades, for next season, or even the off-season.
      [Off-Season]
      FA signings, off-season trades for RFA's, UFA's rights etc...
      [Value Of]
      (A question regarding a players worth, whether from another team, or the Canucks)
      [Speculation] Posting a rumor (with a source of course), but providing why it could be possible for the Canucks to land that player.   [Discussion]
      Thoughts on team trading strategy and composition.   Please feel free to create your own tag if none of these suit your thread.   

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

eretz canucks

VAN - FLA

Recommended Posts

Coho was given offensive minutes once he started complaining and wanting a trade to up his value. I am not blind you are. In fact Mike Gillis STATED IN AN INTERVIEW THAT THE CANUCKS HAD POSITIONED COHO TO LOOK GOOD FOR A TRADE. I am blind? really wow ok, so you know more than what came out of MG;s mouth now.

So that's now MG, Burke, Wilson and Eakins you know better than hey?

Coho not critisized? LMAO...WOW REVISIONIST HISTORY? Didn't AV say the kid lied about his back because he was scared that he had to admit he wasn't ready????

Offensive minutes means Tavares minutes buddy, first/second line. The leafs gave Kadri that, not 4 mins a game that CoHo got first year, then 3rd line 2nd year, and yet he couldn't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I said, Coho was put into offensive situations.

You went on a tirade for nothing, we both made the same point. Just more proof you are the retarded clam that can't read.

And when I said. "He was never critized when he turned the puck over or made a bad defensive play".

I think it was a clear clear clear indication I was talking about his on ice play, but again you just try to spin it in anyother way because you have no reply that makes you seem smart, and you can't admit you are wrong.

As for your Tavares point, I was already able to supply proof that Kadri was mostly used in 2nd/3rd line roles, and never with the top line aside from the odd shift/PP here and there. That is something you haven't been able to do for your point. so really there's no legitimacy behind what you say.

Ah the irony.

Actually case close you lose.

Because not only did you spin the argument to make you seem less stupid.

You also conveniently "forgot" to explain my points about Kadri, that I wanted to hear your explanation too so badly. how odd.

Now I'll give you one more chance. Please explain:

#1.

#2.

Or else I'm just going to stop feeding into your pointless trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, and yet it is you who are the one who has been behaving in an adolescent manner, as has been pointed out by several other posters.

Nah, I have other things to do with my time which are far more interesting than searching for posts which you may, or may not have made 2 or 3 years ago. If you aren't interested enough in what you previously may have said why should anyone else take anything you say as being serious.

Provide a name, link the post and then I'll be glad to read it.

Was this a dig? Or is it an indication of flattery?

regards,

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh you failed :picard:

That wasn't the arugment, we agreed on that smart guy.

What I wanted you to reply too was:

#1.

#2.

Clearly that is too difficult for you, because you can't admit you are wrong. So unless you want to reply to those points and have an actually discussion then don't reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh you failed :picard:

That wasn't the arugment, we agreed on that smart guy.

What I wanted you to reply too was:

#1.

#2.

Clearly that is too difficult for you, because you can't admit you are wrong. So unless you want to reply to those points and have an actually discussion then don't reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to butt into your discussion but I think I'll give Gollumpus a hand, I'm not 100% sure about my answers but I think they're reasonable.

He was put into the offensive zone so he could look more offensively talented and get a better +/- so he would be a better trading asset than putting him in the defensive zone and get scored on.

1. Brian Burke doesn't want to ruin Kadri's trade value if he gets injured playing in the NHL, he keeps him smothered so his trade value is still high, he knows if he gets injured his value will decrease dramatically which is why he is left in the AHL to develop, Also he's still quite a small guy and since he would be playing on the third or fourth line it would be easy for him to get injured.

2. Brian Burke thinks his team is a play off team and doesn't want a rookie on his team when the play offs come so he sends him back down to the minors when his players are ready to play again so they will be ready come playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to butt into your discussion but I think I'll give Gollumpus a hand, I'm not 100% sure about my answers but I think they're reasonable.

He was put into the offensive zone so he could look more offensively talented and get a better +/- so he would be a better trading asset than putting him in the defensive zone and get scored on.

1. Brian Burke doesn't want to ruin Kadri's trade value if he gets injured playing in the NHL, he keeps him smothered so his trade value is still high, he knows if he gets injured his value will decrease dramatically which is why he is left in the AHL to develop, Also he's still quite a small guy and since he would be playing on the third or fourth line it would be easy for him to get injured.

2. Brian Burke thinks his team is a play off team and doesn't want a rookie on his team when the play offs come so he sends him back down to the minors when his players are ready to play again so they will be ready come playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wowzers...ok I'm done with you

But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!But Burke will play a rookie goalie, a rookie in Schenn (when he was) a rookie in Gardiner, wow wow wow!

:picard:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What's fair is he was given many opportunities and did not seize them. That says something to a coaching staff and GM, eventually your chances wear out. You see that with many players, especially if you are not doing the things the coaches are asking of you, that's why this happens no other reason.

2. One player who is not consistent in the NHL is not the cause of their winning. Clearly, he was given another opportunity and the coaches felt he was still not ready, not that he is being blacklisted.

I am not really sure why you don't get this. Its honestly very frustrating arguing a point with someone who just thinks is just simply that people have it out for this guy.

I'll ask you a question

Why is it that you cannot accept the reason he has not made the NHL has been because of his play, his committment to fitness and his commitment to the team concept?

Why is it that you want to give him the easy excuse out that the reason he is not successful is not because of things he isn't doing but because of someone else?

Why is that you can't accept that an individual's success is based on their efforts? Where do you get these views from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.