[PGT] Colorado Avalanche at Vancouver Canucks | Nov. 16, 2019

[xereau]

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Gretzky was ahead of his time really.  Only a few years later an actual Mickey Mouse team joined the NHL...

'Member when Gretz accused the IIHF refs at the Olympics of 'tying one arm behind our backs'? That was awesome.

[bree2]

1 hour ago, Jack Fig said:

As a top 5 (or better) player in this league, I don't think he needs to stop doing anything. The sport, and league, like him just the way he is ..... a competitive animal with incredible talent.  

and as of last night Mr. Whiney.  so what if he is top five in the league , good for him, it doesn't excuse how he whined about our team. 

[Jack Fig]

13 minutes ago, bree2 said:

and as of last night Mr. Whiney.  so what if he is top five in the league , good for him, it doesn't excuse how he whined about our team. 

It excuses everything ..... he's not paid to be Ghandi. His job is to put the puck in the net and he did so last night quite spectacularly. If a Canuck had scored that goal you would have still been bouncing up and down on your sofa an hour after the game. Everything he did on and off the ice tells you how uber-competitive he is.

Maybe the Canucks should trade for him, eh?

[Jack Fig]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

I have never been one to defend other teams...my loyalty is with this one and screw them.

That's fine. But if it's okay for you to employ straight partisanship to your team, then why are you critical of Mack when he does ... especially keeping in mind he is the best and highest-paid player on his team? He has a little more invested in the situation than you or me. Is he not extended the same latitude you claim for yourself?

 

I'm out! (gotta go watch the Giants!)

[coolboarder]

15 hours ago, Wilbur said:

It's a tough rule and I feel for Calvert (like I did for Tanev after taking Laine's shot) and not saying the rule can't be changed, but if the rule is changed that will give a platform for the games worst to take advantage of it.

I feel that the play shouldn't stop just because he decided to go low and attempt to block the shot. If he stood and the puck went to his face, it makes sense to stop the play.   Players were getting hurt when blocking the shots and he had to get up and play while hurt.   Remember the Quebec's rule in the playoffs which caused uproar against the Rangers.   Players can easily fake the injury just to stop the play so the only exception is that the puck hit the face while standing.   In this case, it was too vague for the ref to catch and the puck hit him on the back of the head, not the front while he was on the ground.  The ref in this case correctly allowed the play to continue because it hit the shift of his own stick.   It is the stick sound that the ref detected in which the play was continued in the first place. W/ho in his right mind wants to block that low, risking his body/head like Calvert did?   Sometimes it's better to allow the shot to go through.   If you are blocking shots, block it feet first and Calvert didn't.   

[-DLC-]

26 minutes ago, Jack Fig said:

That's fine. But if it's okay for you to employ straight partisanship to your team, then why are you critical of Mack when he does ... especially keeping in mind he is the best and highest-paid player on his team? He has a little more invested in the situation than you or me. Is he not extended the same latitude you claim for yourself?

 

I'm out! (gotta go watch the Giants!)

Defend him - just don't expect me, on the Canucks board, to agree.  Seems a little out of place for those going out of their way to do so.  Too pc is kind of on the same level as whining to me. 

 

If you're a guy complaining about the goals the other guys got but didn't earn, maybe try harder for that not to happen next time?  The goal to win it with conviction would have spoken much louder than the whine about why the other guys should have just let you when you thought you had it in the bag.

We beat these guys in OT last time I went to watch them play...they're beatable.  I kind of chuckle that some here are so overtly willing to go to bat for our opponents...especially when they throw our team under the bus.  It kind of speaks volumes to me.  People who try too hard to go against the grain and be cool are a little suspect and, if anything, that lacks confidence to me.   Don't be afraid to pick A team and stick with it...through good and bad.  Choosing the team that's hot in the moment is kind of for sheeple.  Or having lots of teams...which is ok...but don't rally for them on a particular team's board and then act like others are out of place.  Like we should somehow convert and go "ok, sure - GO AVS, GO NATE".  No.  This is my team, my loyalty is here and I am already sick of the Colorado Avalanche (again).  Hate them.  And their Superman.  Now I'm done because, well, I don't care enough to invest more energy in this.  It's a game some like to play...I don't.

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

23 minutes ago, Jack Fig said:

It excuses everything ..... he's not paid to be Ghandi. His job is to put the puck in the net and he did so last night quite spectacularly. If a Canuck had scored that goal you would have still been bouncing up and down on your sofa an hour after the game. Everything he did on and off the ice tells you how uber-competitive he is.

Maybe the Canucks should trade for him, eh?

I think also a distinction must be made between the kinds of D-bags.

 

One who just whines or yaps.  Those kinds of individuals hurt nobody but MAYBE someones feelings.  A loser like Sean Avery...to my knowledge, outside of maybe a little jab here or there with his stick, only had a pretty filthy mouth.  No careers were ended with that.  Doesn't mean I don't dislike/loath a player like that.

 

Then you have a REAL special case like Brad Marchand.  Not like was he a yapper but he went out of his way to deliberatly injure another player.  I put a guy like Kadri in that category as well.  On another level of "evil".

Edited November 17, 2019 by NewbieCanuckFan

[Alflives]

15 minutes ago, Jack Fig said:

That's fine. But if it's okay for you to employ straight partisanship to your team, then why are you critical of Mack when he does ... especially keeping in mind he is the best and highest-paid player on his team? He has a little more invested in the situation than you or me. Is he not extended the same latitude you claim for yourself?

 

I'm out! (gotta go watch the Giants!)

It’s a Canuck’s fan board.  Go defend Mack on the Av’s board.  Fanatics are fanatical about their teams.  If a person isn’t fanatical about their team, are they really (by definition) a fan?  

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

I think also a distinction must be made between the kinds of D-bags.

 

One who just whines or yaps.  Those kinds of individuals hurt nobody but MAYBE someones feelings.  A loser like Sean Avery...to my knowledge, outside of maybe a little jab here or there with his stick, only had a pretty filthy mouth.  No careers were ended with that.  Doesn't mean I don't dislike/loath a player like that.

 

Then you have a REAL special case like Brad Marchand.  Not like was he a yapper but he went out of his way to deliberatly injure another player.  I put a guy like Kadri in that category as well.  On another level of "evil".

If a guy is playing against us, I hate his guts.  That’s a fanatical view, but I’m a fan.  People who are not fanatical might need to define themselves in another way than saying fan? 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If a guy is playing against us, I hate his guts.  That’s a fanatical view, but I’m a fan.  People who are not fanatical might need to define themselves in another way than saying fan? 

I was merely making a distinction between levels of "evil".

 

By default, I put the Leafs, Flames & and Oilers in Dante's lowest level hell.  All others (outside of the Canucks obviously) are in various higher levels of hell....

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by NewbieCanuckFan

[-DLC-]

11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

It’s a Canuck’s fan board.  Go defend Mack on the Av’s board.  Fanatics are fanatical about their teams.  If a person isn’t fanatical about their team, are they really (by definition) a fan?  

I'm going to have to call foul on those who are so rah rah rah the other guys.  It's a little strange.

 

Would you go to The Cactus Club and expect to order a Keg steak then demand they're wrong for not supporting that?  Around these parts We Are All Canucks.  And proud of it.

[-DLC-]

10 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

I was merely making a distinction between levels of "evil".

 

By default, I put the Leafs, Flames & and Oilers in Dante's lowest level hell.  All others (outside of the Canucks obviously) are in various higher levels of hell....

 

 

 

Uh, I don't see the Bruins on that list?

[-DLC-]

13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If a guy is playing against us, I hate his guts.  That’s a fanatical view, but I’m a fan.  People who are not fanatical might need to define themselves in another way than saying fan? 

Hmmm, what rhymes with fan?  BAN

[Pete M]

17 hours ago, WZRD said:

Speed kills in OT. You’ll still never see Green throw Virtanen out there. 

seeing a lot of WD in Green....release the hounds...

 

Horvat is playing like an individual, right now, the play dies on his stick, he needs to start using his team mates by setting up simple plays.

[-DLC-]

2 hours ago, Jack Fig said:

Here's the thing: homers in all cities think their team is 'special'. But in the collective, they're not. The Canucks are one franchise out of 31. Like one of 31 McDonald's locations that dot the landscape of a city. The only thing that 'might' make one location more special or noteworthy than another is the people within it. Having special people within matters, otherwise you're just selling the same hamburger as the location down the street. Want to be something special? DO something special. 

Here's another thing:  trolls in all cities think the other team is special.

 

Around here, if the Canucks aren't special to you you may be in the wrong place.  Just sayin'...look around at the decor.  It's a hint.

 

If you want the hamburger down the street, go get it.  We're not serving it here.  This prodding wasn't something I was going to buy in to but I've got plenty of time (and a nasty barking cold) on my hands today.  

 

This team IS doing some special things.   Catching the Av's celebrating a win too early and tying up a game in the third WAS special.  Didn't end the way we'd wanted...but they gave us an in so it was possible.  For everything special you celebrate about the Av's, I counter with things I find special on my team. 

 

But let's face it, "special" in this league is only confirmed by winning a cup.  Last time I checked, Nate and crew have the same number of cups as Bo and Co.  A cup won by an Av's team when they were toddlers isn't really tied to them....if so, can you send me the stats on that?

 

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Pete M said:

seeing a lot of WD in Green....release the hounds...

 

Horvat is playing like an individual, right now, the play dies on his stick, he needs to start using his team mates by setting up simple plays.

I’d love to see Jake start OT.  

[Shirotashi]

30 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Defend him - just don't expect me, on the Canucks board, to agree.  Seems a little out of place for those going out of their way to do so.  Too pc is kind of on the same level as whining to me. 

 

If you're a guy complaining about the goals the other guys got but didn't earn, maybe try harder for that not to happen next time?  The goal to win it with conviction would have spoken much louder than the whine about why the other guys should have just let you when you thought you had it in the bag.

We beat these guys in OT last time I went to watch them play...they're beatable.  I kind of chuckle that some here are so overtly willing to go to bat for our opponents...especially when they throw our team under the bus.  It kind of speaks volumes to me.  People who try too hard to go against the grain and be cool are a little suspect and, if anything, that lacks confidence to me.   Don't be afraid to pick A team and stick with it...through good and bad.  Choosing the team that's hot in the moment is kind of for sheeple.  Or having lots of teams...which is ok...but don't rally for them on a particular team's board and then act like others are out of place.  Like we should somehow convert and go "ok, sure - GO AVS, GO NATE".  No.  This is my team, my loyalty is here and I am already sick of the Colorado Avalanche (again).  Hate them.  And their Superman.  Now I'm done because, well, I don't care enough to invest more energy in this.  It's a game some like to play...I don't.

 

Does sticking with a team through good and bad mean you cannot be critical or agree with other teams criticism of our team? I think not. Look at Ovi's criticism of the leafs did all the leaf players categorically state he was wrong? No some said he was right. Me and some of my buds who watched the game(something very few people do)agree with NM that we didnt deserve to  tie the game up. They could have easily scored 3-4 more goals if not for Demko. 

 

We all want the same thing at the end of the day we want a winning team that can win the cup. You dont get that team by turning a blind eye to criticism or players that are under performing. Lets not be Nashville ok? 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Shirotashi

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Shirotashi said:

Does sticking with a team through good and bad mean you cannot be critical or agree with other teams criticism of our team? I think not. Look at Ovi's criticism of the leafs did all the leaf players categorically state he was wrong? No some said he was right. I think and some of my buds who watched the game(something very few people do)agree with NM that we didnt deserve to  tie the game up. They could have easily scored 3-4 more goals if not for Demko. 

 

We all want the same thing at the end of the day we want a winning team that can win the cup. You dont get that team by turning a blind eye to criticism or players that are under performing. Lets not be Nashville ok? 

What?

you do realize we fans have no actual control over our team’s decisions, right?  

[-DLC-]

3 hours ago, Shirotashi said:

Does sticking with a team through good and bad mean you cannot be critical or agree with other teams criticism of our team? I think not. Look at Ovi's criticism of the leafs did all the leaf players categorically state he was wrong? No some said he was right. I think and some of my buds who watched the game(something very few people do)agree with NM that we didnt deserve to  tie the game up. They could have easily scored 3-4 more goals if not for Demko. 

 

We all want the same thing at the end of the day we want a winning team that can win the cup. You dont get that team by turning a blind eye to criticism or players that are under performing. Lets not be Nashville ok? 

I'm not arguing that we can't be critical.  I don't think it's NM's place to be, though because that comes off as arrogant.  Focus on his team, not ours.

 

"They could have"?   They didn't...let's stick to facts and reality.  The Canucks could have too...if they weren't assessed two penalties in the first maybe momentum would have been on their side?  So there are could haves that go both ways.

 

Your buddies opinions aren't "the" final word.  You deserve to tie a game if...you tie it.  That's how it works.  No one cares if they were flukey, greasy, the goalie left the building, whatever.  

 

I doubt any Canuck player would agree with Nate that they didn't deserve the cheesy tie.

[lmm]

58 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If a guy is playing against us, I hate his guts.  That’s a fanatical view, but I’m a fan.  People who are not fanatical might need to define themselves in another way than saying fan? 

oh alf, that is such a sad attempt to justify stupidity using your  limited understanding of the language. Next you will tell us that gay means happy and a faggot is a bundle of sticks.

Words meanings morf over time and fans are not neccesarily fanatical. If you are actually THAT fanatical about sports, you probably should not be aloud into the games, lest you think maining the opposing players or their fans is a good ( acceptable) idea. Its not. But that is what fanatics do.

A more apropriate definition of "fan" is fanatic light, you see shortened word= less intensity,

because there are many more fans that go to events to enjoy themselves, not wallow in the "hate" you feel is reasonable.

Being hateful 82 times a year is a sign of sickness, its not funny and its not cute.

Edited November 18, 2019 by lmm