189lb enforcers? Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 1 minute ago, CeeBee51 said: and Kesler and Lapierre to name a couple more. Thanks I'm really only trying to stay true to the word itself here and to respectfully commemorate the team's past warriors, in accordance with the spirit of the concept of the ring itself. I suspect some hate mail coming my way, but whatever. We can't all be on one side or the thing will tip over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 33 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said: Its an interesting discussion. You're points are fine and I'm not disagreeing with most of what you state. How many posters wishing to see these two in the ROH are Millennials? - The demographic of folks who grew up in the Paricipation Ribbon recognition culture of celebrating all levels of achievement and effort. I ask this because this effort certainly has that feel to it. Naslund's number in the rafters reminds us just how low the bar is set for achievements for this organization. Once he beat a career grinder in Smyl and a very mediocre-numbers Linden, well, he just had to get up there. Well heck, if he's up there, Bure has to be too! And on it goes. It is what it is. The ROH is just an extension of this, but perhaps the best option for folks like the team's first captain, etc. The ROH should not serve as a catch-all for each era's fan favorites or it might as well just be called, Alumni Ring. This thread is hoping to dilute the spirit of the Ring and the task of the title altogether. My point? Burrows, never mind his outstandingly poor on-ice antics and sportsmanship, has done very little to be put ahead of the likes of a Courtnall or Gelinas, etc. to be deserving of such a distinction. The guy was a pretty much a rat, hated by the league, not because he was so effective, but because he was an eyesore for the sport. This might be hard to hear because he was "our rat", but let's not pretend he didn't deserve his criticism. Like buddy said a few posts back, it's called The Ring of Honor. Burrows and that word in the same sentence has probably only ever come up - in this thread. Burrows in the ring of honor is as close to an oxymoron as one could use, IMO. Bertuzzi, he did far less for the team overall, but probably more damage to the sweater than Burrows did. I think fans forget that this franchise might have been a loser for most of its existence, but this was a hard place to play and the team had respect right up until about when Linden retired and guys like Cooke and Burrows starting their sideshows here. I'd rather not be reminded of that kind of hockey when I look at the walls at the rink, but that's just one man's opinion. While I vehemently disagree with you on that 'other' thread. I do agree in part with you in this one. (we're making progress!) Yes, its true that the bar is set very low here. But one has to look at the reality of the situation. The Canucks have been for the most part embarrassingly inept, especially at drafting and/or trading away great prospects. And our on ice accomplishments in 47 years show that. So its either we put no one up in our rafters or we settle for less for the sake of marketing and a little self dignity. Its political. Its show and tell. Objectively, Linden and Smyl do not deserve to have their numbers retired IMO. But from a business and fan point of view, Linden especially, just had to have his number retired. Can you imagine if any other player decided to wear Linden's number 16 after he retired? If the answer is no, then what's the point in NOT retiring it? As Einstein said, its all relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 2 hours ago, kilgore said: While I vehemently disagree with you on that 'other' thread. I do agree in part with you in this one. (we're making progress!) Yes, its true that the bar is set very low here. But one has to look at the reality of the situation. The Canucks have been for the most part embarrassingly inept, especially at drafting and/or trading away great prospects. And our on ice accomplishments in 47 years show that. So its either we put no one up in our rafters or we settle for less for the sake of marketing and a little self dignity. Its political. Its show and tell. Objectively, Linden and Smyl do not deserve to have their numbers retired IMO. But from a business and fan point of view, Linden especially, just had to have his number retired. Can you imagine if any other player decided to wear Linden's number 16 after he retired? If the answer is no, then what's the point in NOT retiring it? As Einstein said, its all relative. Shake hands and go for a beer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xur Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Bertuzzi. The guy made me a fan of hockey into a fanatic with canucks tattoos and I still to this day name all of my video game characters Bertuzzi. My son wore 44 while he played hockey and won provincials. The guy is what every team to this day compare power forwards too. He was when the canucks were tough. Everyone always talks about how soft the canucks are now. No one said that when we had bert. Imagine a Sedins in their prime with Bertuzzi in his prime. I would take that over any other line in canucks history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samurai Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Bert ended another hockey player's career. He is remembered around the league for that incident. Will never happen with him. As for Burrows he is a unique story for the franchise. From that great period of hockey he is one guy that stands out. The Sedin's will have their jerseys retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I loathe the Ring of Honor. It's utterly pointless and am embarrassment for a franchise with no Cups. Bertuzzi belongs in the Ring of Dishonor. Burr should have a concourse or something named after him, and if the team persists with the Ring of Honor, he easily warrants a place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I think Burrows probably belongs. He'd be the only guy with 800 games as a Canuck not to be up there, and his game 7 goal and key role in 2011 are reinforced by how passionate the fans generally remain about the guy. His departure was a level above other important Canucks of his era like Bieksa, Kesler, Hansen, etc. I've said it before, Richard Brodeur is long overdue for the ROH. Long, long overdue. A category of his own when it comes to being slighted for this honour. As for Bertuzzi... Well, Burrows was disliked around the league for his antics, but unfortunate as it is, Bertuzzi's career will always be defined by one horrible incident. There's just really no way to come back from it, even if that's unfair. He should get a round of applause or Standing O whenever he shows up in the stands for a game, but immortalized in the ROH? Probably a bit too much. And there are still players like Ronning, Tanti, Boudrias and Lidster that should probably be put ahead of Bertuzzi anyway for their careers as Canucks, as great as Bertuzzi was for a few years there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 8 hours ago, samurai said: Bert ended another hockey player's career. He is remembered around the league for that incident. Not to discount the sucker punch Bert gave but how many people REALLY remember the azz that played a large part in causing two actually elite player careers to end prematurely? The puke's name is Gary Suter. He took out Wayne Gretzky & Paul Kariya on two cheapshots. Gretzky's back was never quite the same & there's no need to mention Paul concussion problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Burrows for the RoH. Unfortunately as others have posted, Bert threw away everything by that one stupid decision.. I thought he was an excellent hockey player and was one of my favorite canucks at the time. Definitely an RoH candidate but now not a chance and i would not even want to be associated with him. He deserves everything he gets for the Moore incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead73 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Pretty tough for the Canucks to Honor Bertuzzi from a PC standpoint... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerMainLander18 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 If I were building a team around a player, I'd pick Bertuzzi. But for Ring of Honor, Burrows. Both of them were true warriors for the franchise tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Goblin Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 On 10/10/2017 at 9:29 AM, goalie13 said: While I am a big fan of both, I don't think either of them should get that honour. Look at the guys that are up there... Kurtenbach - First captain McLean - Franchise leader in several goaltending statistics Gradin - Former highest scoring centre in franchise history Snepts - Former franchise leader in games played and penalty minutes Quinn - Won the 1992 Jack Adams Award Ohlund - Highest scoring defensemen in franchise history While Bert and Burr were a big part of the team for a long time, how do they compare to those kinds of qualifications? The only team record I could find that either are credited with is Burr is tied with Adams for most playoff OT goals. They were great Canucks, just not RoH great. I beg to differ. To add onto that list... Bertuzzi - Most powerplay goals in a single season with 25 (tied with Bure) - Longest point-scoring streak in team history - 15 games (7g 12a) - Most exciting player award - 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 - 4th most goals (by player) in a single season with 46, only behind Bure, Mogilny, and Naslund - 6th most points (by player) in a single season with 97, only behind Bure, the Sedins, Naslund, and Mogilny - Represented Canada 3 times while with Vancouver between 1998-2006 - 8th GPG in a single season - T-10th most GWG in a single season with 7 - 9th and 10th for PPG in a single season - 7th all-time points - 9th all-time assists - 10th all-time goals - 10th all-time PIM - ALWAYS had our team's back* Burrows - Most exciting player award - 2008, 2009, and 2010 - Unsung hero award - 2008 - Represented Canada twice while with Vancouver - 2012 and 2014 - T-10th most GWG in a single season with 7 - 5th most shorthanded goals in a single season - 6th all-time games played - 9th all-time goals - 3rd all-time +/- - 7th all-time PIM - 7th all-time even strength goals - 2nd all-time short handed goals - 8th all-time game winning goals - 7th all-time shots - ALWAYS had our team's back* - Heart of the Underdog* - Dragon Slayer* I'm pretty sure they are qualified for the ROH. References https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/leaders_career.html https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/leaders_season.html Vancouver Canucks Media Guide 2008-09. Vancouver Canucks. 2008. "2002-03 League Leaders - Powerplay goals". National Hockey League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 28 minutes ago, Green Goblin said: I beg to differ. Fair enough. You dug into the stats far deeper than I did. But here's the thing... other than most PPG in a single season and longest point streak, none of the stats you quoted are franchise leading. And ultimately, I think that's what sets them apart from guys in the RoH. Obviously, I'm not on the selection committee. I just tried to look at the difference between guys that are on the RoH and guys that aren't. And while I'm a big fan of both of them, I think Bert and Burr have more in common with guys that are not in the RoH than they do with guys that are. In the end though, I bet the decision on who goes in the RoH is more of a marketing decision than it is a hockey decision, which is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.