Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[PGT] Calgary Flames at Vancouver Canucks | Feb. 08, 2020

Rate this topic


-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, RU SERIOUS said:

Hughes played like $h1t with goofy plays, got trapped a few times and many incomplete soft intercepted passes.  He looked like a rookie last night - but I agree that in the long term he'll be O.K.  just stating facts................

He did have a sub par game, luckily for being a rookie it’s a rarity, I’m excited about his future, hopefully we can develop him into the star he should be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ShawnAntoski said:

No backpedal, I just repeated what I said.  You on the other hand are deflecting and backpedaling.  :lol:

You have no knowledge of hockey.

 

Most find it hard to converse with people who are not able to comprehend the game. You basically stated what I said but in other words. Lol. 

Then you back pedal by saying...this is what I meant...

 

Ok....

robert downey jr ok GIF

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2020 at 7:28 AM, WZRD said:

Hmm when the coach hasn’t played him in forever what exactly did you expect him to do?

Come in and show the coach that he’s an NHL calibre dman. Guys waiting in the pressbox need to show something right away. They should be fighting for their careers. Of course he isn’t in top form, but the guy still practices how many hours a week? It’s not the same as a game for sure, but the guy’s been a pro for close to a decade... I was thoroughly underwhelmed. Fantanberg has been a much better option all season. His injury will hurt us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rekker said:

I don't agree. Edler, Sutter, Roussel, Schaller, Bear, Benn all off the books at the end of next year. That's just off the top of my head. LE can be bought out end of next year with a manageable hit as well.

And then you will need to resign Petey and Hughes. Those two will take a boat load. The window is small. No money to add for this year or next. Then things open up. Hopefully we have some youth from within pushing the door down.

Cap management is critical to winning the cup.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Alflives said:

I will watch when we have a new coach, who insists on all players playing the right way.  Would Babcock play LE, Sutter, Roussel, and any other support players who are so friggin’ passive?  He’d demand JB gets some young and hard nosed guys up from the minors, and play them.  

Good Lord, way to twist that around to a completely different subject, odd.........

Hmmm

 

Go Canucks go 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Alflives said:

Our young elite core guys are great, and deserve a great coach, who will insist the support players play the right way.  Right now we have Green allowing our support players to be soft.  That just can’t and shouldn’t ever happen.  Babs would insist on hard nosed play from those those guys, and bench them if they weren’t hard to play against.  

Does JB lack the self confidence in his role as GM to have a coach like Babcock?  I expect our owner would spend the money.  

Babs, Babs, Babs, Babs......

 

unnamed.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, smithers joe said:

imo, we should fire the stick boy. he’s the fault for every loss.  we deffinately can’t credit the opposition for outplaying us, or that we just didn’t have enough energy some games.  you can’t find good stick boys anymore.

Spot om Joe... followed by the hot dog vendor... don't make them like they used to...

Edited by spook007
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, appleboy said:

And then you will need to resign Petey and Hughes. Those two will take a boat load. The window is small. No money to add for this year or next. Then things open up. Hopefully we have some youth from within pushing the door down.

Cap management is critical to winning the cup.

If Petey and Hughes take up 20 million it still leaves 60 + for others. We aren't the Leafs. Also, pretty good depth coming up from the minors which equals cheap labour. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, rekker said:

If Petey and Hughes take up 20 million it still leaves 60 + for others. We aren't the Leafs. Also, pretty good depth coming up from the minors which equals cheap labour. 

The first part of your statement is true. Petey and Hughes could eat up 20 mil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, appleboy said:

The first part of your statement is true. Petey and Hughes could eat up 20 mil.

Have you not seen the list of good prospects the Canucks have coming along?  The cheap (ELC) players coming up over the next five years will keep our window for winning open for a long time.  Drafting, and building a pipeline full of young talent is (IMO) the only thing JB has done really well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, knucklehead91 said:

You do realize how beaten up the Canucks were right? Like the list of injuries prior to the finals compared to bostons one and only injury is staggering. We lost because we ran of steam and suffered too many injuries too early in the playoffs. We made to the finals and went as far as game 7, on a crippled team.

toughness isnt about throwing the hit, thats the easiest damn choice to make. Hmm throw the hit or get hit? What are you going to do? You are going to throw the hit because you are too much of chicken sh!t to take a big hit to make the play.

simple hockey 101 that. Take the hit to make the play. Avoid the hit and lose the puck.

Henrik was folded in half from behind by Ben Eager in the WCF.

Kesler blew his hipflexor in the 2nd round

Our defence was decimated before the finals and then we lost Hamhuis game 1. Salo got submarined, the list of injuries goes on and on and on. We ran out of steam simply due to injury. We pushed it all the way to game 7. I could feel the canucks struggle in each game because they were completely burnt out from travel and injury. In and out of their time zone every single round. Flying every couple days. Boston didnt leave their time zone until the finals. Canucks travelled 10x more than Boston, which wears on you on its own.

Bostons only injury was Horton

Not going to rehash the series, been there a hundred times. 

What I will say is that it’s no coincidence that as the PC culture has been developing in the media which celebrates the victim, so was the excusing of the Canucks’ play, in particular the Sedins, while they were being bullied... instead, labeling them as tough. 
 

As an aside and a departure in the toughness discussion, I think the collision between the developing culture of celebrating the victim, (which includes accolades for “toughness” and other empowering survival-related words to describe the bullied person or position in society) and the Canucks’ style of play largely resembling that of a victim (of a bully), is why we might debate the spirit of the word, “toughness”, as it relates to the Sedins and the ongoing lack of capacity for pushback demonstrated by the Canucks.

 

Bullied, were the 2011 Final’s Canucks. 
But... Since we no longer label bullies tough, the Bruins weren’t tough, they were deplorables of some kind, while the Sedins and company were the real tough ones. 
 

It was viewed as toughness to play through abuse while being bullied in Canuck nation. I had a different view.
 

My views of the Sedins and the Canucks rosters which allowed and continue to allow their finesse, star players to be abused do not align with the Orwellian newspeak like, to be bullied shows toughness. 
 

In sports at least, victimhood, it’s identity and the celebration of it are misaligned with emerging societal narratives and culture. To call the Sedins tough for never pushing back is part of the CDC culture, which dare I say, is changing...?

 

Good. Finally. 
Welcome, Deplorables. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

musical GM’s, coaches and players is the way to go. if any of them don’t live up to our ideals, change em. if we have to trade petey and quinn to get the tough guys we want so be it. they would be cup contenders with babcock as coach. 

our canuck team is not a finished team yet. they are fighting for a play off spot, that they may or not make. i’m rooting for them to make it, but otherwise this team continues to build. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dumb Nuck said:

Well, in 50 years Canucks have 0 cups, that’s 0%, in the last 10 years 4 teams that fired their coach mid season won the cup, any way you want to do the math it’ll come up greater than 0%.

Odds still favour teams NOT firing the coach mid season. Genius...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DarthMelvin said:

You have no knowledge of hockey.

 

Most find it hard to converse with people who are not able to comprehend the game. You basically stated what I said but in other words. Lol. 

Then you back pedal by saying...this is what I meant...

 

Ok....

 

An expected respond from a loser cause the evidence is in this thread.  All your response was garbage gibberish: name calling and the expected response of a child - you have more knowledge in hockey (even with that you failed).  I never said, I am an expert in hockey - just fan.  Also, another typical loser move - (your welcome for), taking credit for my stated opinion and adding nothing to this conversation.  I could go on but that would only bring me to your level.  

 

Anymore, name calling or whatever, is all you got and it will mean nothing coming from a loser like you. Don't change cause you would not know how to anyways - Loser loser loser loser loser....

online dating loser GIF

 

Opportunity: without the name calling, clarify your stance (using your own words).

 

 

Edited by ShawnAntoski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, appleboy said:

The first part of your statement is true. Petey and Hughes could eat up 20 mil.

Looking at the contacts and numbers the raises for Petey and Hughes won't kick untill after next year. Really a lot of contracts off the books after next year. Center depth could be a concern moving forward. Gaudette into Sutters role? Beagle gone in two years will leave a big hole. Rafferty for sure will fill in cheap on D. Rathbone is a very high probable on D. OJ maybe, Brieser. But ya, center depth could be an issue with not a lot of cash left to get a legit UFA center as I don't see one coming up through the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dumb Nuck said:

Well, in 50 years Canucks have 0 cups, that’s 0%, in the last 10 years 4 teams that fired their coach mid season won the cup, any way you want to do the math it’ll come up greater than 0%.

I love it when CDC can teach the kids sometnig useful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sweathog said:

I don't buy the injuries excuse, I'm sure Boston had their share of injuries to deal with as well. Injuries doesn't explain the fact that in the first two games the Bruins were quite passive, and the Canucks were mainly allowed to play their game. Once Boston ramped up the physical play however, everything changed, winning 4 of the last 5 games quite handily.

 

Toughness is not about throwing hits? Not sure what you're getting at here. Kind of explains my point though. Canucks were getting rid of the puck earlier than usual because they wanted to avoid getting hit, because they were intimidated. 

 

Henrik DID get flattened by Eager, which explains my point even further. Eager knew they were a soft team, that there would be no consequences for the hit. Their best player, their captain is on the receiving end of a dirty play and absolutely no response from his teammates. Nope, can't give up that powerplay.

 

I can understand your point about travel being a factor, if it wasn't for the fact that the Kings (also a tough team) won two cups despite being a West coast team.

 

Yeah the Canucks did outshoot the Bruins in game 7, but from what I saw a lot of those chances were perimeter shots, routine shots that didn't give Thomas too much trouble.

 

I understand your points, but imo toughness was the determining factor why the Canucks lost that series.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/735243-2011-stanley-cup-finals-injuries-too-much-to-overcome-for-the-canucks
Sorry Lucic stubbed his toe.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nhl.nbcsports.com/2011/06/16/bruins-stayed-mostly-injury-free-during-run-to-the-stanley-cup/amp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, rekker said:

Looking at the contacts and numbers the raises for Petey and Hughes won't kick untill after next year. Really a lot of contracts off the books after next year. Center depth could be a concern moving forward. Gaudette into Sutters role? Beagle gone in two years will leave a big hole. Rafferty for sure will fill in cheap on D. Rathbone is a very high probable on D. OJ maybe, Brieser. But ya, center depth could be an issue with not a lot of cash left to get a legit UFA center as I don't see one coming up through the system.

I thought the Jim era was going to be about picks and developement.

this is how our team looks now

trade- 1st round pick - 1st

trade- 1st from prev admin- signing

signing - 5th - 1st

signing- signing- trade/trade

 

3rd from 2admins back -college signing prev admin

1st ------------------------coll signing prev admin

signing/signing-signing

2nd pick

 

trade, prev

2nd

 

forwards

4 trades

4 signings

3 1st

1 5th

---------

1 1st prev admin

 

D

1 1st

3 signings

-----------

3 prev admins

 

G

2nd

---------

trade prev

 

now the reason I bring this up, and attach it to your post , is that so far players like Rathbone,  Raferty and Brisebois have not made the club

And if they did, are they an improvement on what we have now?

Rathbone could only replace Stacher as 2nd small D

Raffferty and /or Brise could replace Tanev as slightly undersized D

and if they did, are we actually better off than we are right now?

At some point we need to replace Edler, Myers and Benn, our 3 biggest and oldest D.

Other than Tryamkin none of our prospects replace any of those guys size. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, canuck2288 said:

You seem to be the only one that thinks that on paper this team can’t make the playoffs 

 

I am pretty sure JB himself said that was the objective this year and I am pretty sure that “nobody” happens to be the GM 

I am pretty sure every GM is going to say that before the year starts at least if they want to keep there job. Did you honestly expect them to be where they are? I think they have exceeded expectations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...