Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 42 votes

Multiple Warning Signs Surrounding Zack Kassian


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1489 replies to this topic

#151 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 03:46 PM

Oh I am embarrassed King. So embarrassed in fact thatI don't know if I'll be able to show my face here anymore!
And - I'm really insecure about my clouded analytical abilities.
But regardless I think I'm pretty spot on where your tendencies are concerned. It would be hard not to be ...
You paraphrase people more freely than anyone on this site - just own it.
You're also not schooling anyone with your "analytics".
You seem to think that pretenses to being a 'devil's advocate' somehow lends automatic legitimacy to your posts.
You'll have to do better than that. All form, lacking content.


The problem is,Old News,is that you do not show your face so you have this belief that what YOU do is legitimate.
Somebody has to present the other side of the coin.
Berating others is Old News, and gives nothing of value.
  • 0

#152 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,640 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 03:46 PM

Where did I say "disaster"? Does "warning signs" mean "disaster"?

I don't care what's leading him to this performance, I care that it's actually taking place. Fewer goals, fewer points, fewer SOG, and higher PIMs. Most people around here were expecting him to be dominant in the AHL this year (I was not one of them). He's not performing as well as he was last year. That's why I'm starting this discussion.


Exactly. "I don't care" Mean I don't know

He could be playing the best hockey he has even played but been hitting a ton of posts and running into hot goalies and you wouldn't even know it since you don't know whats going on.

Usually when someone raises concerns they have been watching the games and anaylzing the person's play enough that you can actually raise a valid concern, like if you think he isn't playing well explain why rather than using stats that really don't prove anything because you can't prove how he is playing cause you don't watch.

And everyone that has watched and watched the game the other night on sportsnet has pointed out he has played well.

Just watch the games before you comment on how he is playing otherwise your "Concerns" are just brushed off as trolling to aggravate us and for good reason.
  • 0

zackass.png


#153 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 01 January 2013 - 03:47 PM

Lol that video suits you well.

I love how you have no issue disecting that he has some weakness's yet whenever I bring up his strengths you don't even reply with anything, speaks to your intelligence.

I can understand critizing prospects but your just biased, and if you think so little of Kadri I guess you have absolutely no hope for Schroeder. And even believe that Kassian won't be able to become a bonified top 6 forward, since Kadri has acomplished more than both thus-far.


Its official, you know Nothing about hockey.

Its ok...go back to GM mode in NHL 13
  • 1

#154 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 03:52 PM

*
POPULAR

I've already addressed this. It's a reference to the PA announcer at Canucks games back in the Coliseum/GM Place days. "Yourrrrrrrrr Vancouver Canucks!"

Anyway, I'm not sure on what planet valid concerns brought up about a prospect constitute not being a fan of the team in question, nor do I have an idea of why one's fandom on this site appears to be measured by how much of a raving cheerleader he is.

I see you nicely sidestept the part of Baggins post about Hodgsons medical diagnosis..the one you blatently blame the Canucks as being the big bad guys. Half truths are the first warning signs of a troll.
  • 5

#155 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,640 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:22 PM

Its official, you know Nothing about hockey.

Its ok...go back to GM mode in NHL 13


I love how you don't even respond to what I say, instead you post pathetic insults. Even in your post prior you conviently sidestepped all the good things about Kadri aswell as why he would work for us and cut straight to the bad in his current situation (And over dramatized them too I might add) Clear sign you just don't like him, rather than giving him a fair chance and assessment.

I think your the one who knows nothing about hockey.
  • 1

zackass.png


#156 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:23 PM

Exactly. "I don't care" Mean I don't know
He could be playing the best hockey he has even played but been hitting a ton of posts and running into hot goalies and you wouldn't even know it since you don't know whats going on.
Usually when someone raises concerns they have been watching the games and anaylzing the person's play enough that you can actually raise a valid concern, like if you think he isn't playing well explain why rather than using stats that really don't prove anything because you can't prove how he is playing cause you don't watch.
And everyone that has watched and watched the game the other night on sportsnet has pointed out he has played well.
Just watch the games before you comment on how he is playing otherwise your "Concerns" are just brushed off as trolling to aggravate us and for good reason.


One does not have to watch games and listen to the opinions of others to make a commentary.
So,Kas played a good game.That is what is expected as he is paid to perform as a professional.
Vancouver and Chicago management decided to bench Kassian.
If the management that owns the rights of said player have sent this message it is not rocket science to formulate an opinion that there are legitimate concerns.
Homerism is annoying.Going on 50 years now.Go Canucks Go.
  • 0

#157 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:43 PM

Being analytical involves considering all things that lead to something, not just that it happens. This is true in the case of your concerns about Kassian....you only care to see that his stats have dropped in relation to last year and have quickly concluded that this is problematic and his performance is questionable. But an analytical mind would take into consideration all things contributing to that before deciding that it's of concern.


I understand what you're saying and agree, but this is just hockey, and those numbers are pretty important - just ask Jason Garrison, who earned himself a 6-year contract after having a breakout season in 2011-12.

When it's a highly-touted prospect, at an age like Zack's, with an opportunity that Zack's got, and his numbers are declining, call me crazy, but I do think that that is a valid concern that is worth discussing.
  • 1

#158 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,311 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:44 PM

One does not have to watch games and listen to the opinions of others to make a commentary.
So,Kas played a good game.That is what is expected as he is paid to perform as a professional.
Vancouver and Chicago management decided to bench Kassian.
If the management that owns the rights of said player have sent this message it is not rocket science to formulate an opinion that there are legitimate concerns.
Homerism is annoying.Going on 50 years now.Go Canucks Go.


if you had actually watched the game that resulted in kassian/schroeders benchings you would realize it was a game they lost in the final minute of play giving up 2 goals to lose in regulation. both goals were caused by horrible defensive plays by connauton and i think joslin on the first one, resulting in brutal icing calls and goals on the ensuing faceoffs.

arniel didnt even take a timeout in the final minute on 2 icing calls even after the first one that resulted in a goal. the warning signs surrounding his stupidity are alarming if anything. hard to blame tired wingers (kassian) for being late to the point (resulting in the winning goal) when they were dead tired because the coach was too stupid to take a timeout.
  • 1

#159 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,579 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:46 PM

Who are we arguing about today?

Kassian? Hodgson? Or Schultz?
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#160 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,640 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

One does not have to watch games and listen to the opinions of others to make a commentary.
So,Kas played a good game.That is what is expected as he is paid to perform as a professional.
Vancouver and Chicago management decided to bench Kassian.
If the management that owns the rights of said player have sent this message it is not rocket science to formulate an opinion that there are legitimate concerns.
Homerism is annoying.Going on 50 years now.Go Canucks Go.


Vancouver and Chicago didn't decide to bench Kassian due to preformence it was the genius Arniel, JS and ZK were the most consistent players at the time, go back and check the PGT's.

And they have to watch and understand what is going on to make an accurate judgment on how one is playing, sure anyone can spout off about something they dont know (King does it all the time) but to make an accurate analysis you usually have to watch the game.
  • 0

zackass.png


#161 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,640 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:51 PM

Who are we arguing about today?

Kassian? Hodgson? Or Schultz?


Everyone is trying to explain to King it is worth watching the games before you analyze the way people play.

As for substance we are arguing about all sorts of things.

- Phaneuf/Hamhuis
- Kassian
- The Ballard trade/Grabner

And I'm sure Hodgson and Schultz have been brought up a few times too.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 01 January 2013 - 04:53 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#162 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:54 PM

So which part is inaccurate again? King doesn't undervalue Canucks - Luongo is worth "table scraps" and Hamhius isn't as good as a 21 year old (Fowler) who is -111 relative to him over the past two seasons....
King doesn't exaggerate - it's just that when someone compares Hamhius to Phaneuf, he equates that on behalf of the other poster as the equivalent of comparing Malhotra to Joe Thornton. LOLZZZZZZ. You paraphrase people more freely than anyone on this site - just own it.


Like anything else, Luongo is worth what somebody else will pay for him - an amount that I don't think will be very high. Certainly nowhere near the expectations of most people on this site, who's proposals have included Teddy Purcell/Keith Aulie/1st, Ryan Johansen, Biggs/Kadri/1st, Kadri/Rielly, Kadri/Gardiner, etc. It's not because I don't think he's a good goalie, it's because the context of this deal makes it such that nobody will want to overpay. My thoughts are that Schneider should've been moved at any point after his stellar 2010-11 rookie season. Gillis failing to act on that has left us in the precarious position of trying to sell a pretty old, pretty expensive goalie, with a lifetime contract, who has an NTC (limits the available buyers). Gillis has backed us into a very weak bargaining position, which always dictates the terms of the deal. One day - maybe pretty soon - you'll all understand a little better.

On Hamhuis/Phaneuf, somebody made the point that Phaneuf sucks because Sutter traded him away for garbage. I then asked if he felt that Joe Thornton was garbage, too, since he was also traded for garbage. Fair question, is it not? You're again trying to paint me as a fool and telling a fairy tale about what actually happened.
  • 0

#163 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:56 PM

Everyone is trying to explain to King it is worth watching the games before you analyze the way people play.


I'll again point out to you that I live in Chicago, and have almost certainly seen him play in person FAR more than you have.

But, again, thanks for trying.
  • 0

#164 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,640 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:04 PM

I'll again point out to you that I live in Chicago, and have almost certainly seen him play in person FAR more than you have.

But, again, thanks for trying.


Then you should have no issue breaking down his game, telling me what is wrong with his game, where the issue is and what is causing his poor play.

Rather than blatantly avoiding it like you have the last 2 times.
  • 0

zackass.png


#165 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,640 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:08 PM

Like anything else, Luongo is worth what somebody else will pay for him - an amount that I don't think will be very high. Certainly nowhere near the expectations of most people on this site, who's proposals have included Teddy Purcell/Keith Aulie/1st, Ryan Johansen, Biggs/Kadri/1st, Kadri/Rielly, Kadri/Gardiner, etc. It's not because I don't think he's a good goalie, it's because the context of this deal makes it such that nobody will want to overpay. My thoughts are that Schneider should've been moved at any point after his stellar 2010-11 rookie season. Gillis failing to act on that has left us in the precarious position of trying to sell a pretty old, pretty expensive goalie, with a lifetime contract, who has an NTC (limits the available buyers). Gillis has backed us into a very weak bargaining position, which always dictates the terms of the deal. One day - maybe pretty soon - you'll all understand a little better.

On Hamhuis/Phaneuf, somebody made the point that Phaneuf sucks because Sutter traded him away for garbage. I then asked if he felt that Joe Thornton was garbage, too, since he was also traded for garbage. Fair question, is it not? You're again trying to paint me as a fool and telling a fairy tale about what actually happened.


Thank godness Gillis didn't do that, his value is way higher now, you would be surprised, his value then probably wasn't a ton higher than what Lindback got Nashville. or what was rumoured for Bernier (Frattin + 2nd)

Yes we have to move and older goaltender, but also think, since Gillis held out he also got us a young starting goaltender who is already star calibre and getting better each year.

Also Thornton and Phaneuf weren't traded for Scraps. You just think they were looking back in hindsight like you did with the Grabner trade, at the time the value didn't look nearly as bad as it did today.
  • 0

zackass.png


#166 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,960 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:42 PM

I've already addressed this. It's a reference to the PA announcer at Canucks games back in the Coliseum/GM Place days. "Yourrrrrrrrr Vancouver Canucks!"

Anyway, I'm not sure on what planet valid concerns brought up about a prospect constitute not being a fan of the team in question, nor do I have an idea of why one's fandom on this site appears to be measured by how much of a raving cheerleader he is.


So as usual you only respond to the least significant part of my post. How about responding to the part of my post that is your biggest problem: completely ignoring any mitigating circumstances that may be involved.

You criticized the Canucks medical staff for "misdiagnosing" Cody's back injury. I responded with:

"It's not exactly misdiagnosed when he did in fact have a bulging disc. What was missed was a muscle tear. Which was also missed by his own doctor, his junior teams medical staff, and a highly regarded back specialist in the US. But people tend to ignore that part. Btw, the following year it was the Canucks medical staff that found the problem everybody missed the previous year."

Here's the question I'd like a straight answer to:

Should the Canucks medical staff be condemned for missing a less obvious injury (a muscle tear) that was aggrivating an obvious injury (a bulging disc) when when every medical proffessional Cody went to (including a leading US back specialist) all missed the very same less obvious injury?

No smoke and mirrors. A simple yes or no answer is all that's required.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#167 CrashCanuck

CrashCanuck

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 08

Posted 01 January 2013 - 06:18 PM

2012-13 Regular Season Rochester Americans 17 5 13 18 -1 47 8 1 3 1 0.333
Above are CoHo s whopping stats for this year. I guess the trade was a good one. CoHo had a total of 19 goals 22 assists in the NHL most of those points with an offensive powerhouse. I would say Canucks will do just fine with ZK and they won't have to deal with his daddy and mommy trying to coach and manage the team
  • 0

#168 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 01 January 2013 - 06:22 PM

Here's the question I'd like a straight answer to:

Should the Canucks medical staff be condemned for missing a less obvious injury (a muscle tear) that was aggrivating an obvious injury (a bulging disc) when when every medical proffessional Cody went to (including a leading US back specialist) all missed the very same less obvious injury?

No smoke and mirrors. A simple yes or no answer is all that's required.


Is "Couldn't Care Less" an option?
  • 0

#169 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,561 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 06:49 PM

On Hamhuis/Phaneuf, somebody made the point that Phaneuf sucks because Sutter traded him away for garbage. I then asked if he felt that Joe Thornton was garbage, too, since he was also traded for garbage. Fair question, is it not? You're again trying to paint me as a fool and telling a fairy tale about what actually happened.


?
This is pretty irrelevent King.
But regardless, here is what you did, which is pretty clearly more of 4)
"And out of curiosity, do you think Manny Malhotra is also better than Joe Thornton? Thornton was traded to San Jose for a bag of pucks, which couldn't be due to a management error, could it?"

The Hamhius is better than Phaneuf debate becomes 'do you think Malhotra is better than Thornton?'
What exactly does Malhotra have to do with Phaneuf and Hamhius?

Also irrelevent, but what you call "garbage" is typical, pure hindsighting - the "garbage" were three guys who were first round draft picks including Sturm, who had four straight 20 goal seasons in 2005, and Stuart who was San Jose's top scoring defenseman at 24 years old (a 40 point blueliner at that early stage of his career).

Edited by oldnews, 01 January 2013 - 07:07 PM.

  • 0

#170 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,561 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 07:41 PM

Old news,then kindly take your own advice and mind your own business.


says the guy who then makes the very next post - ironically, yet another case of not minding his own business...

The problem is,Old News,is that you do not show your face so you have this belief that what YOU do is legitimate.
Somebody has to present the other side of the coin.
Berating others is Old News, and gives nothing of value.


'Oh oldnews, don't talk back to King when he claims you should be embarrassed or have no analytical abilities.' Poor King. You are very mean oldnews. I know what you believe oldnews.
You really should take a cue from Mr. Sensitive. When he's not calling people a lunatic or 7/11 employee, he minds his own business... Except when he's not minding his own business and trying to intervene in a conversation between oldnews (oh it might be your business after all oldnews) and King (whose name does not happen to be nucknit).
Mind your own business oldnews..
yada yada yada

Edited by oldnews, 01 January 2013 - 08:57 PM.

  • 0

#171 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,561 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 07:44 PM

Is "Couldn't Care Less" an option?


Is that your way of saying "don't confront me with the actual context - I don't have an answer to that - I don't want to talk about it anymore"?
  • 0

#172 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,449 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 01 January 2013 - 08:15 PM

Who are we arguing about today?

Kassian? Hodgson? Or Schultz?

Is "Couldn't Care Less" an option?

People must be really bored around here to be chatting with this OP about anything.

This thread is even making me miss Sharpshooter's endless rants about his/her anti-religious agenda. He/she uses a few too many memegenerator gifs, but at least he/she puts up a decent debate.

This OP requires more pre-written walls of texts, preferably written by somebody else, to back up his points, imho.
  • 0

comeundone.gif


#173 lowest common denominator

lowest common denominator

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 01 January 2013 - 08:16 PM

I responded with:

"It's not exactly misdiagnosed when he did in fact have a bulging disc. What was missed was a muscle tear. Which was also missed by his own doctor, his junior teams medical staff, and a highly regarded back specialist in the US. But people tend to ignore that part. Btw, the following year it was the Canucks medical staff that found the problem everybody missed the previous year."

Here's the question I'd like a straight answer to:

Should the Canucks medical staff be condemned for missing a less obvious injury (a muscle tear) that was aggrivating an obvious injury (a bulging disc) when when every medical proffessional Cody went to (including a leading US back specialist) all missed the very same less obvious injury?


The Vancouver doctors screwed up with Hodgson, as did other doctors afterward. Does that make it ok? Are we talking about top of the line medical sports proffesionals or not? A bulging disc and a muscle tear. 2 problems and they couldn't find one of them. The Vancouver Drs also screwed up on their evaluation of Willie Mitchell and who knows what else?

I can get past that part, but the thing is, Coach of the Year called out the precious rookie for being weak or lazy or whatever he said, when the young lad actually had a back injury. This bs after a crap diagnosis which could have easily ended CoHo's career, and at the most crucial time in his overall development to boot. That's a warning sign to ZK.AV is a "put out or get out" type of guy, even to the rooks ::D



Hey TomL who's the band in your sig?

Edited by scottiecanuck, 01 January 2013 - 08:40 PM.

  • 0

#174 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,449 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 01 January 2013 - 08:33 PM

Amplifier. Tool's little brother band from the UK.
  • 0

comeundone.gif


#175 RAMBUTANS

RAMBUTANS

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 06

Posted 01 January 2013 - 08:38 PM

Who are we arguing about today?

Kassian? Hodgson? Or Schultz?


Bulis, I think.
  • 0
Mr. Reputable of the HFBoards

#176 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,960 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:07 PM

Is "Couldn't Care Less" an option?


Considering you brought the subject up why are you now avoiding answering to it with "Couldn't care less"? You cared enough to bring it up so anwer to it.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg


#177 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,978 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:20 PM

Anyone else willing to bet that nuck nit/King/Mr Reputable are all the same guy?

They show up in the same threads like they communicate telepathically, vote each other up constantly and make the same arguments interchangeably. It just screams "One sad lonely man with too much time".
  • 3

Keswho.jpg


#178 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,238 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:33 PM

Anyone else willing to bet that nuck nit/King/Mr Reputable are all the same guy?

They show up in the same threads like they communicate telepathically, vote each other up constantly and make the same arguments interchangeably. It just screams "One sad lonely man with too much time".

i'm fairly certain they are.
  • 0

#179 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,640 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:45 PM

Is "Couldn't Care Less" an option?


Actually King I don't think it was:

No smoke and mirrors. A simple yes or no answer is all that's required.


I guess you missed that part buddy.


Also irrelevent, but what you call "garbage" is typical, pure hindsighting - the "garbage" were three guys who were first round draft picks including Sturm, who had four straight 20 goal seasons in 2005, and Stuart who was San Jose's top scoring defenseman at 24 years old (a 40 point blueliner at that early stage of his career).


I know he looks through hindsight and acts like we all knew what was going to happen back then.

Just like he thought it was so apperently obvious that Grabner was a 30+ Goal scorer when we delt him for a dire need after he couldn't crack the line-up consistently.

I just want to know what Crystal ball he is looking though and if there are any extras for myself and MG.

I can get past that part, but the thing is, Coach of the Year called out the precious rookie for being weak or lazy or whatever he said, when the young lad actually had a back injury. This bs after a crap diagnosis which could have easily ended CoHo's career, and at the most crucial time in his overall development to boot. That's a warning sign to ZK.AV is a "put out or get out" type of guy, even to the rooks ::D


I agree.

Let's fire AV.

i'm fairly certain they are.


I like the new sig.

And that Avatar isn't bad either.
  • 0

zackass.png


#180 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,960 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:57 PM

The Vancouver doctors screwed up with Hodgson, as did other doctors afterward. Does that make it ok? Are we talking about top of the line medical sports proffesionals or not? A bulging disc and a muscle tear. 2 problems and they couldn't find one of them. The Vancouver Drs also screwed up on their evaluation of Willie Mitchell and who knows what else?

I can get past that part, but the thing is, Coach of the Year called out the precious rookie for being weak or lazy or whatever he said, when the young lad actually had a back injury. This bs after a crap diagnosis which could have easily ended CoHo's career, and at the most crucial time in his overall development to boot. That's a warning sign to ZK.AV is a "put out or get out" type of guy, even to the rooks ::D


I can understand why AV said what he did. For six weeks Hodgson kept saying his back was fine and not causing him any problems. Through camp and preseason his story never changed: it's fine. Then the moment he's cut and sent back to junior he goes to the press and says, "oh my back". What's his coach supposed to think? Either Hodgson lied about his back for several weeks or he was making excuses for getting cut. As it turned out, your precious lied about his back.

Although I can understand why Hodgson would lie about his condition, it certainly didn't help with solving the problem. Perhaps if he had been honest the medical staff would have looked deeper and found the secondary problem at that time. But they never had the chance to look deeper as Hodgson lied and then left after being cut to see his own doctor. Then subsiquently other medical proffessionals. All of whom stopped at the obvious.

I'm sure anybody here faced with the choice between millions to be made in the NHL or a return to junior would likely be less than honest about an injury to have the opportunity to make the team and the payday that goes with it. But his lie set him back a year instead as it delayed finding the root of the problem. Blame Hodgson as much, if not more, for the problem dragging on as it did.
  • 0

MentalMidgetSig.jpg





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.