Nino Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 last time i checked they had the same line up playing infront of them. limiting the chances against Lu? so you're saying they purposely gave up scoring chances to Broduer but then Lu came in and they said whoa better not give up chances he sucks? bottom line the coaching staff thought Lu gave them a better chance to win and did exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 I have a problem with giving a free pass to a player who's largest question mark is his ability to work hard. For me he starts on the 4th and is told work you but off or your back in Chicago, outwork everyone and you will move up the lines. Edit: why are we talking about this in a Lou topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It was well documented that Broduer and Lou were playing bad at the time of the Olympics, what it came down to was who was the best of the two at the time. I think the fact that the Olympics were in Vancouver gave the nod to Lou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 last time i checked they had the same line up playing infront of them. limiting the chances against Lu? so you're saying they purposely gave up scoring chances to Broduer but then Lu came in and they said whoa better not give up chances he sucks? bottom line the coaching staff thought Lu gave them a better chance to win and did exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 And using this same reasoning is why Lui is going to be traded and Cory given the chance now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NuckNuckNucks Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 You can't use reasoning on diehard Lou fans, many have tried but they have blinders on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Surprised to hear you say this as you've given the impression a number of times that you don't like the Garrison signing at all - but I agree with you. Garrison brings a lot of positives. I don't agree regarding Tanev however - he may not be a big, punishing player, but he's an inch taller than Lidstrom and only 5 pounds lighter at this point - and if there's anything Lidstrom has proven, it's that you don't have to hit or punish anyone to be an elite blueliner. I'm not saying Tanev is the next Lidstrom, but I am saying that he has very good hockey intelligence, exceptional poise and lots of potential - not to mention that he was a +10 in only 25 NHL games last year. Let's give him a chance before writing him off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I am not writing anybody off.That was not the argument but your trolling is noted. Garrison and Tanev are both positional d men. Neither throws his body or their knuckles. Ballard and Bieksa can throw both,Eddy can punish with the body while Hamhuis is also a positional d man. There has to be more of a physical presence and Garrison's height and supposed excellent position play do not give the Canucks that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.