Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Botchford: "McSchofties"


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#91 pwnstar

pwnstar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,311 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:41 AM

welcome to the madhouse Cory
  • 0

Posted Image


#92 vcr1970

vcr1970

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:45 AM

I don't have a problem with the article. Schneider let in some bad goals and that's what was reported.

The truth hurts sometimes, but that's all he's reporting.

In typical Vancouver fashion its overstated (e.g. any comments about how good Kassian is) but he's just reporting what he sees.
  • 0

#93 CptCanuck16

CptCanuck16

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 09

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:29 AM

To be fair...if the general public actually were not so dumb and unimaginative in having an informed opinion about the Canucks, then it would be a different scenario altogether.


Sure as sh!t you will get another bunch of threads about goaltending in the next 48 hours because of that article.

Botch, you suck. Always have.



Yes! Thank you! The media in Vancouver IS always so negative it's disgusting.

I for one am appalled by the idiot fans on CDC who constantly parrot the media's unfounded critiques. Grow a brain and start using it, people! Think for yourselves! I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed that what ever non sense is discussed on the Team1040 or written about in the Province shows up in multiple CDC threads written by OP's who make it sound like it is their own original thought when in reality they were spoon fed what to think by the idiotic media.
  • 1

#94 thema

thema

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:54 AM

Mike Gillis must have JUST began his professional career by this twisted logic. Give Botch a pass because he's been in the 'biz for 16 years but Gillis 'the home-wrecker', who is faaaar from just getting his feet wet- is a fool, a clod and destroying this franchise?
You, Sir, fail on so many levels. It's quite pathetic actually. Get out your 'fire MG' sandwich board and your usual "he sucks", "bad for this team" b.s. and quit your lame attempt at defending a world class horses ass.
Your anti-MG and everything he stands for/does crap is oooooh so tired.



You do realize that GMMG had exactly ZERO experience as a GM AT ANY LEVEL when he was awarded the job here don't you?
  • 0

#95 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,473 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:25 AM

Also note I'm not saying those were not bad goals, of course they were


So you're mad at him for reporting what happened? AV said himself there was a couple of goals Schneider would like to have back.
  • 0

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#96 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,396 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 17 February 2013 - 08:39 AM

I don't have a problem with the article. Schneider let in some bad goals and that's what was reported.

The truth hurts sometimes, but that's all he's reporting.

In typical Vancouver fashion its overstated (e.g. any comments about how good Kassian is) but he's just reporting what he sees.

So you're mad at him for reporting what happened? AV said himself there was a couple of goals Schneider would like to have back.


Schneider was beat for two brutal goals — a couple of McSchofties — and was one of the reasons the Canucks blew a 3-1 lead and spoiled Henrik's night

Did Botch not take his anti depressants pre game? So dramatic. It was a loss - a tough one in a game that we should have won, but I get so tired of focusing on the goaltenders like they're the only players on the ice in the goaltender graveyard here. Look at the big picture, Botch....as a sports journalist, it's a disservice not to.

If he'd just reported what happened, it would be different. But he tries to get all cute and apply a label, as well as going further to villainize Schneids by placing him in a spoiler role. What happened to "no I in team?". There were many reasons and, yes, he has said "one of" but why single him out then? So he didn't just report what happened, he turned it into more than that.

This type of stir the pot "journalism" and reporting is a little McSchoft. McBotched. "Brutal". "McSchoft". "Spoiled". Sounds like Jason didn't get a Valentine and needs a hug.
  • 1

Posted Image


#97 Canucks fan in chicago

Canucks fan in chicago

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 882 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:47 AM

Schneider has had three bad games this year. Luongo has had half of one. I agree with Botchford. 48 games sched, every single game is important and you can't be blowing a 3-1 lead. I know you shouldn't blame the goalie but those were two of the softest goals I've seen. But wait guys, we start playing Luongo again and Schneider might start tearing up and his agent will tell the media he "deserves" to start.

Edited by Canucks fan in chicago, 17 February 2013 - 09:49 AM.

  • 0

#98 MC Fatigue

MC Fatigue

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:15 AM

You do realize that GMMG had exactly ZERO experience as a GM AT ANY LEVEL when he was awarded the job here don't you?

Yes, I know Mike's history and in my post I did not specifically say "GM"
Because MG had no experience as a GM previous to his present job does not automatically indicate he is a bust or not fit for the position as nuck twit may have you believe.
And for the record, I don't agree with every move MG has made but to say any and all of this teams woes, (including Luo's possible desire to be shipped out, no Stanley Cup,moronic media twist, etc.) are attributed to Gillis 'dropping the ball', is unfair imo and quite foolish.
  • 0
" I don't understand, can somebody tell me what's going on? Why is there a drunk Chinese man doing push-ups on my front lawn?......and why's he wearing lipstick??"

#99 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,746 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:29 AM

I think that is Gillis that is running him out of town or at least driving him to the airport on the Nucks bus.

If not,I believe he would be staying.

Of course you do. :rolleyes:
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#100 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,746 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:35 AM

Gillis said on Thats Hockey that if Luongo came to him and changed his mind and asked to stay, that he would of course consider it. That means that Luongo asked for a trade. Which means it wasn't management that ran him out of town. But alas, he didn't say those EXACT words "Luongo asked for a trade" so go ahead and say what you will, but any logically thinking person knows that 2+2=4, the sun rises every morning, and Luongo asked for a trade.

Or it means Luongo offered to waive his NTC.

Or it means Luongo asked Gillis if they could consider his option.

Or one of several things.

Perhaps Luongo said he'd like to be traded if he's going to be the backup.

I did get a chuckle out of your "no evidence that he didn't" comment. Of course there would be no evidence if something didn't happen.
  • 2
Posted Image
Posted Image

#101 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,924 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:02 PM

Gillis said on Thats Hockey that if Luongo came to him and changed his mind and asked to stay, that he would of course consider it. That means that Luongo asked for a trade. Which means it wasn't management that ran him out of town. But alas, he didn't say those EXACT words "Luongo asked for a trade" so go ahead and say what you will, but any logically thinking person knows that 2+2=4, the sun rises every morning, and Luongo asked for a trade.

I disagree.

The entire world knows that Luongo has been on the block since last season's playoffs ended and Lou said that he would waive his NTC "If asked to do so".

Knowing that the team is pursuing a trade for him, it is entirely conceivable that Luongo could decide he wants to be part of a team with a chance at winning a Cup and approach the GM asking to stay.

This could all quite easily take place in the absence of a trade request from Roberto Luongo...

This reminds me of when Neil MacRae coined the term "Sedin Sisters", a slur which still gets thrown around in other cities despite HOF caliber careers, especially in the playoffs. And none of these guys are 'hockey experts', the only newspaper guy to ever cover the Canucks that really knew the game was Grant Kerr. Vancouver hockey coverage is, and always has been, the worst in the world.

We would be a lot better off with no newspaper, radio, or tv coverage at all.

I think we all have to bear in mind that there are writers who report and writers who offer opinion.

Botch is technically a reporter, but like Tony G, he sells most of his papers by offering his opinion. The unfortunate truth is, negative opinion is what sells. Nobody ever made it big by cheerleading (except Tom Larscheid)

Personally, I take what most sportswriters and TV personalities write and say, with a grain of salt. When I do listen, I listen to guys who stick with reporting and keep the opinion to a minimum. There is virtually no-one in the Toronto area that I take seriously, unless you consider Ottawa's Bruce Garrioch to be close enough.

For me, there are two guys who make me want to hear what they have to say: Pierre LeBrun and Eric Duhatschek. There's a good reason we don't hear from these two guys all that often and it's because they don't "report" on non-stories like so many of their peers.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#102 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,396 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:29 PM

I think we all have to bear in mind that there are writers who report and writers who offer opinion.

Botch is technically a reporter, but like Tony G, he sells most of his papers by offering his opinion. The unfortunate truth is, negative opinion is what sells. Nobody ever made it big by cheerleading (except Tom Larscheid)

Personally, I take what most sportswriters and TV personalities write and say, with a grain of salt. When I do listen, I listen to guys who stick with reporting and keep the opinion to a minimum. There is virtually no-one in the Toronto area that I take seriously, unless you consider Ottawa's Bruce Garrioch to be close enough.

For me, there are two guys who make me want to hear what they have to say: Pierre LeBrun and Eric Duhatschek. There's a good reason we don't hear from these two guys all that often and it's because they don't "report" on non-stories like so many of their peers.


True enough, but I wish the guys supposedly on "our side" would keep it in check and not make negativity their recurring theme. Or save some of it for the bad guys or those outside the organization. Mind you, I come from a homer perspective to some degree, but do you know what also sells? Humour. People like to read things with some humour infused in and I think that's what he's going for, but he's missed the mark. It's overkill and inflammatory because, with any kind of comedic relief, it's all about the timing. The timing of this is bad...the whole goaltender controversy has been beaten to death and, quite frankly, "it is what it is". There's nothing new here - each goaltender will have moments of glory and those not so great moments. Show me a goaltender who's on all the time. So must we document each and every win/loss like it makes or breaks our team?

Until something does transpire, must we keep picking sides? It's like everyone and their dog wants to have some influence with their spin on things but, ultimately, it's all for not as only management and the players involved will make the final decisions. Until then, must we keep throwing our own under the bus? Enough already, find a new "story" because this one's been bookmarked for now.

Opinion pieces or not, he has a regular spot reporting in Vancouver about the Canucks and it does persuade those who may not follow closely in their embrace of (or turning on) the team. People who don't know may count on his "opinion" to be truth/fact. So he at least should remember that goaltenders have bad games and let bad goals in and look at the overall picture in presenting his opinion. When we had momentum there were 3 fights and 6 penalties against us in one period that sort of changed that....to not consider that is short sighted.
  • 0

Posted Image


#103 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,424 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:12 PM

Gillis actually flat out said before the season started that "every player coming to camp is competing for their job". Luongo and Schneider were not omitted from this statement


For sure, I just don't think that's what was said at the end of the last season when they were getting Schneider to sign his contract extension.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#104 VancouverCanucksRock

VancouverCanucksRock

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,553 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 09

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:07 PM

His conception was a Botch
  • 0
Posted Image WHen idiots think numbers are words, I do believe in 2012 for cleansing Earth of the idiots

#105 thema

thema

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:15 PM

Yes, I know Mike's history and in my post I did not specifically say "GM"
Because MG had no experience as a GM previous to his present job does not automatically indicate he is a bust or not fit for the position as nuck twit may have you believe.


Perhaps not but there is ample evidence to support the notion that he has not been exactly the messiah that he is often portrayed as on this board. IMHO he has screwed up just enough to cost us a Cup. I'm about 50/50 on his moves so far and his whole "thinking outside the box" nonsense is just smoke and mirrors. Neither the best GM in the NHL nor the worst but somewhere in the middle.

Edited by thema, 17 February 2013 - 02:15 PM.

  • 1

#106 thema

thema

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:25 PM

Blame the refs like good Canucks fans and move on.


I laughed out loud at this because I THINK you're serious.
  • 0

#107 thema

thema

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:33 PM

There's a rule in journalism that Botchford doesn't follow: When you write an opinion down, ask yourself, would you feel confident stating that opinion to the player's face? I doubt Botchford would have the balls to talk about Cory's 'McSchofties' in person with him present.


As a professional journalist (i.e. one that actually gets paid to write opinion pieces) I can safely say that I have never ever heard of that "rule". However one that can be carved in stone on any pro journalists tombstone goes "if you get read you get fed" and ol' Botch sure does get read apparently. Therefore he gets fed and well apparently.

CDC's reaction to the media as a whole is amusing. A quick perusal of this board finds posters complaining about the CBC, TSN, Botchford, Gallagher, Don Cherry and just about any journalist who doesn't proclaim that the sun shines out of the collective Canucks' ringpieces. Strangely I have never EVER read a criticism of John Garrett on this board. I wonder why?

Edited by thema, 17 February 2013 - 02:33 PM.

  • 1

#108 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,746 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:54 PM

As a professional journalist (i.e. one that actually gets paid to write opinion pieces) I can safely say that I have never ever heard of that "rule". However one that can be carved in stone on any pro journalists tombstone goes "if you get read you get fed" and ol' Botch sure does get read apparently. Therefore he gets fed and well apparently.

CDC's reaction to the media as a whole is amusing. A quick perusal of this board finds posters complaining about the CBC, TSN, Botchford, Gallagher, Don Cherry and just about any journalist who doesn't proclaim that the sun shines out of the collective Canucks' ringpieces. Strangely I have never EVER read a criticism of John Garrett on this board. I wonder why?


Only because you haven't been around long enough. A while back there was a big anti-Garrett sentiment on the boards.


General statements are general. Also you'll find an overwhelmingly positive outlook towards Bob Mackenzie on these boards who certainly isn't cheerleading the Canucks.

Good journalism gets the credit it deserves and Vancouver sports media in general gets the credit it deserves. (see what I did there)
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#109 bd71

bd71

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:01 PM

As a professional journalist (i.e. one that actually gets paid to write opinion pieces) I can safely say that I have never ever heard of that "rule". However one that can be carved in stone on any pro journalists tombstone goes "if you get read you get fed" and ol' Botch sure does get read apparently. Therefore he gets fed and well apparently.

CDC's reaction to the media as a whole is amusing. A quick perusal of this board finds posters complaining about the CBC, TSN, Botchford, Gallagher, Don Cherry and just about any journalist who doesn't proclaim that the sun shines out of the collective Canucks' ringpieces. Strangely I have never EVER read a criticism of John Garrett on this board. I wonder why?


Best post I've seen in a long time. And the ironic thing is I firmly believe the Canucks media are probably the biggest cheerleaders in the league. I can't watch Garrett and Shorthouse. I almost always watch the other feed if I can. Horrible homers. Almost as bad as Chicago White Sox man Hawk Harrelson, the undisputed biggest homer is sports.
  • 0

#110 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,870 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:13 PM

Best post I've seen in a long time. And the ironic thing is I firmly believe the Canucks media are probably the biggest cheerleaders in the league. I can't watch Garrett and Shorthouse. I almost always watch the other feed if I can. Horrible homers. Almost as bad as Chicago White Sox man Hawk Harrelson, the undisputed biggest homer is sports.


Go read Blackhawks media and then come back here and tell us how homer ours is.


As a professional journalist (i.e. one that actually gets paid to write opinion pieces) I can safely say that I have never ever heard of that "rule". However one that can be carved in stone on any pro journalists tombstone goes "if you get read you get fed" and ol' Botch sure does get read apparently. Therefore he gets fed and well apparently.

CDC's reaction to the media as a whole is amusing. A quick perusal of this board finds posters complaining about the CBC, TSN, Botchford, Gallagher, Don Cherry and just about any journalist who doesn't proclaim that the sun shines out of the collective Canucks' ringpieces. Strangely I have never EVER read a criticism of John Garrett on this board. I wonder why?


And you are?

Good journalism gets the credit it deserves and Vancouver sports media in general gets the credit it deserves. (see what I did there)


+1

Edited by TimberWolf, 17 February 2013 - 03:14 PM.

  • 1

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#111 Clinch16

Clinch16

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 453 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 11

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:14 PM

As a professional journalist (i.e. one that actually gets paid to write opinion pieces) I can safely say that I have never ever heard of that "rule". However one that can be carved in stone on any pro journalists tombstone goes "if you get read you get fed" and ol' Botch sure does get read apparently. Therefore he gets fed and well apparently.

CDC's reaction to the media as a whole is amusing. A quick perusal of this board finds posters complaining about the CBC, TSN, Botchford, Gallagher, Don Cherry and just about any journalist who doesn't proclaim that the sun shines out of the collective Canucks' ringpieces. Strangely I have never EVER read a criticism of John Garrett on this board. I wonder why?


Funny...I was reading using John Garrett's voice inside my head until that last sentence. Weird!

CDC voice: "Are you trying to be funny while quoting a real live professional journalist?"

John Garret voice: "Yes."
  • 0
Posted Image

#112 Watermelons

Watermelons

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 11

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:26 PM

TBH I don't think Schneider or Luongo (or the entire Canucks team for that matter) give a $hit about what Botchford writes...
  • 0

tumblr_lv6jbk180f1r5jtugo1_250.gif  Kirby_eats_a_watermelon.gif 


#113 Watermelons

Watermelons

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 11

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:31 PM

Best post I've seen in a long time. And the ironic thing is I firmly believe the Canucks media are probably the biggest cheerleaders in the league. I can't watch Garrett and Shorthouse. I almost always watch the other feed if I can. Horrible homers. Almost as bad as Chicago White Sox man Hawk Harrelson, the undisputed biggest homer is sports.


Two words: Jack Edwards






  • 0

tumblr_lv6jbk180f1r5jtugo1_250.gif  Kirby_eats_a_watermelon.gif 


#114 bobopan

bobopan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,532 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:40 PM

Schneider has had three bad games this year. Luongo has had half of one. I agree with Botchford. 48 games sched, every single game is important and you can't be blowing a 3-1 lead. I know you shouldn't blame the goalie but those were two of the softest goals I've seen. But wait guys, we start playing Luongo again and Schneider might start tearing up and his agent will tell the media he "deserves" to start.


Im assuming the "half" bad game your talking about for Luongo is the 1st Anaheim game... so why does that count as a half bad game for him but your including the entire game for Schneider?...

As far as im concerned Schneides has had 2 poor outings...1st game and last night. Anyone that wants to lay blame on him for the SJ game needs their heads checked. He will be fine, apparently if you let in more than 2 goals now your laying an egg LOL.

Botchford is just as bad as Gallagher..maybe even worse. After all is this not the man whom "wrote"...wait made up a rumor of Gaborik purchasing a home here.
  • 0

#115 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,777 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:23 PM

A great hockey team, a great market that is rabid over hockey, and a bunch of nitwits in the print media.

Why not try the hockey writer approach? We have a cheap bottomfeeding approach to journalism in this town that hasn't bothered to truly educate itself about the game, and yet purports to report on it to us...

Here's an interesting question that I'd love to hear AV asked - as opposed to the endless pathetic, small-minded jabs of halfwits who can't hold a candle to his hockey knowledge...
(I'm sure AV would have a very solid reason, and I'd be interested to hear it):
Jason Garrison spent a lot of time both 5 on 5 and on the pp playing the right side to Campbell in Florida - he did play the left side to his other partners, and that is how we are using him here. Wondering why AV has decided to move Edler to the right side as opposed to Garrison?
Also, what motivated AV to match up Edler and Hamhius and move Bieksa to play with Garrison?
  • 1

#116 BRAVEMAN91

BRAVEMAN91

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 03

Posted 17 February 2013 - 08:11 PM

Well...here's the thing about Botchford. He's an idiot.



Hahah, best post. I was razzing Botchford for his Luongo obsession and he banned me from following on twitter. What a baby... Likes to dish heat out, but cant take it.
  • 1
Posted Image

Follow Me on Twitter: @braveman91
Checkout my Canuck videos on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/braveman91

#117 vcr1970

vcr1970

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:01 PM

Perhaps not but there is ample evidence to support the notion that he has not been exactly the messiah that he is often portrayed as on this board. IMHO he has screwed up just enough to cost us a Cup. I'm about 50/50 on his moves so far and his whole "thinking outside the box" nonsense is just smoke and mirrors. Neither the best GM in the NHL nor the worst but somewhere in the middle.


Well said.

I agree 100% with this.
  • 0

#118 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,473 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:53 AM

Schneider was beat for two brutal goals — a couple of McSchofties — and was one of the reasons the Canucks blew a 3-1 lead and spoiled Henrik's night

Did Botch not take his anti depressants pre game? So dramatic. It was a loss - a tough one in a game that we should have won, but I get so tired of focusing on the goaltenders like they're the only players on the ice in the goaltender graveyard here. Look at the big picture, Botch....as a sports journalist, it's a disservice not to.

If he'd just reported what happened, it would be different. But he tries to get all cute and apply a label, as well as going further to villainize Schneids by placing him in a spoiler role. What happened to "no I in team?". There were many reasons and, yes, he has said "one of" but why single him out then? So he didn't just report what happened, he turned it into more than that.

This type of stir the pot "journalism" and reporting is a little McSchoft. McBotched. "Brutal". "McSchoft". "Spoiled". Sounds like Jason didn't get a Valentine and needs a hug.


First time reading their articles Deb? They sensationalize. It helps sell papers. He could have been AV nice and said "there were a couple he'd like back", but that's not what sells papers these days.

It's fine to say "no I in team", but it doesn't change the fact there were a couple of soft goals. No team out there plays such an airtight game that their goalie doesn't need to make any saves at all. The goalies job is to keep the puck out of the net, and when he let's in soft ones he's not helping the team win. Soft goals tend to take the air out of the teams sails. People on this board have no problem throwing the d-men under the bus for blown plays, so why shouldn't the goalies be criticized for bad goals.
  • 2

HiromiOshimaB.gif


#119 DownUndaCanuck

DownUndaCanuck

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,609 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:00 AM

Someone states the facts (Schneider blew us that game), throws a corny word like "McSchofties" in an article and you guys are willing to defend him?

Meanwhile Luongo gets crap left-right-and-center, more unjust criticism than I've seen any other professional sports player had to deal with and no one defends him.

They're two guys playing in the hottest seat in pro sports so they better be able to deal with it. Luongo has proven and is proving right now that he can shrug off the pressure and still play well - now this is Schneider's first ever real sign of weakness and criticism so we'll see how he handles it. So far he's not doing a great job but there's still time...
  • 0
Posted Image

#120 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,924 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:03 AM

Here's an interesting question that I'd love to hear AV asked - as opposed to the endless pathetic, small-minded jabs of halfwits who can't hold a candle to his hockey knowledge...
(I'm sure AV would have a very solid reason, and I'd be interested to hear it):
Jason Garrison spent a lot of time both 5 on 5 and on the pp playing the right side to Campbell in Florida - he did play the left side to his other partners, and that is how we are using him here. Wondering why AV has decided to move Edler to the right side as opposed to Garrison?
Also, what motivated AV to match up Edler and Hamhius and move Bieksa to play with Garrison?

All good questions, but I'd have to wonder if they shouldn't be directed to Rick Bowness, rather than AV...
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!




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.