Bodee Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Schneider needs to feel the heat every night..................so I voted Schneider. If there is anyone but an elite goalie there we have to flush him out while we still have Lu. "If Luongo doesn't try hard (and who could blame him if he didn't), he would have less than great stats which might also reduce his value. It also would obviously do nothing to help us win games." Have learned nothing about Lu. You should be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken kaniff Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Schneids the 1st game. Lu the 2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 If the shootout is your concern, then start Luongo as he stopped all 5 shootout attempts on him while Schneider let in 4 of 5 at the end of the practice today.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawberries Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 it has to be cory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Yes, because the best indicator of future success is a player's most recent practice, and not: 2011-12 Shootout Save% Luongo - .595 Schneider - .625 2010-11 Shootout Save% Luongo - .538 Schneider - 1.000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 No, I am not. Luongo has been thrown under the bus but us so called fans. It's never been an issue with goal - it's been an issue with our D and our O coming back to help. Name any goalie in the league and I bet that if they were on the Canucks, we still would have lost to the Kings and the Bruins. As a Canucks fan since the 70's what I'm choked about is the lack of player personnel upgrades done by the team. That is, management seems content to keep going with what they got instead of trying to improve...not these piddly little signings...I want a guy like Perry or Doan on this team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifafu Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Schneider is awesome and should be given every start he can handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Carell Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 This is the epitome of a stupid question. You start your home opener with your starter, Schneider. Anything else would be flat-out ridiculous. ...But, I guess a 1/3 of the voters are flat-out ridiculous. Gotta love CDC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Schnieder. We can't afford another weak start from Luongo with our injuries at forward. It;s a tough situation to throw Cory into but I have nothing but faith in the kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotesMagotes Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 No....what's really clueless is that people think having 2 goalies is an issue and going on and on and on about it - feeding on the chum that the media tosses to them... The biggest issue for the Canucks (proven by the last 2 playoff years) is lack of scoring. This team can't seem to score when it counts - that is in big games. We would have lost to the Bruins and the Kings no matter which goalie (from any team from any generation) was in net. The fact is, the Canucks couldn't score enough goals to win. Goalie position is not the issue, Goal production is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 No....what's really clueless is that people think having 2 goalies is an issue and going on and on and on about it - feeding on the chum that the media tosses to them... The biggest issue for the Canucks (proven by the last 2 playoff years) is lack of scoring. This team can't seem to score when it counts - that is in big games. We would have lost to the Bruins and the Kings no matter which goalie (from any team from any generation) was in net. The fact is, the Canucks couldn't score enough goals to win. Goalie position is not the issue, Goal production is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotesMagotes Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 You don't think trading Luongo could help solve that problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watsuko Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 It really doesnt matter. We have two star quality goalie's. no issues in the room. Get the W and move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MANGO Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 No....what's really clueless is that people think having 2 goalies is an issue and going on and on and on about it - feeding on the chum that the media tosses to them... The biggest issue for the Canucks (proven by the last 2 playoff years) is lack of scoring. This team can't seem to score when it counts - that is in big games. We would have lost to the Bruins and the Kings no matter which goalie (from any team from any generation) was in net. The fact is, the Canucks couldn't score enough goals to win. Goalie position is not the issue, Goal production is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I voted for Schneider to start but now that I think about it, maybe Luongo should get the first game. Anaheim sucks so it might be the best way for Luongo to get his feet wet due to his usual slow starts. Edmonton and Calgary are arguably better teams which happen to be our next opponents so Schneider should probably have those games. After that they can divide up the games appropriately, a Schneider/Luongo 70/30 split would be best in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed_17 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Could you imagine the field day the media would have if Luongo got the first start!?!?! Barring injury, (knock on wood), there is no way Luongo starts. I mean this isn't all political, but I think AV may want to avoid having rabid reporters eating Lou and Schneids alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neufy161 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I start them both. Schneider in net, and I make Luo the first ever goalie-fourth-line-forward. He's got good size, and he can block a mean shot. With Lappy moving up the lineup, there's an opportunity for Luo to step in and show his versatility. And just try to get that puck past Luo and then Schneider. Do the math. .919 compounded by .937. Good E%##%ing luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandhi Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Yes...but if no one is offering what we need - then don't let your area of abundance rot or worse yet - go for nothing? The Canucks have 2 goalies capable of being the starter on any team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Can125 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 No....what's really clueless is that people think having 2 goalies is an issue and going on and on and on about it - feeding on the chum that the media tosses to them... The biggest issue for the Canucks (proven by the last 2 playoff years) is lack of scoring. This team can't seem to score when it counts - that is in big games. We would have lost to the Bruins and the Kings no matter which goalie (from any team from any generation) was in net. The fact is, the Canucks couldn't score enough goals to win. Goalie position is not the issue, Goal production is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverCanucksRock Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'd go with Mclean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.