- Popular Post
I'm Your Huckleberry
-
Posts
310 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by I'm Your Huckleberry
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
17 minutes ago, Jaimito said:As a fan, I love these little glimpses into team dynamics. JT Miller is a beauty. Look how stoked Huggy is when he calls his name. Also, did I hear "Tequila Tanev"?
-
7
-
6
-
1
-
On 5/31/2020 at 4:48 PM, Baggins said:
As bad as the reffing was the Canucks averaged 8:07 PP time per game while the Bruins averaged 6:37 per game. The B's outscored the best PP in the league 5-2 in the series. PP opportunities were 33 to 27 in the Canucks favor. Average shots per game were 35.1 to 32.1 in the Canucks favor (186 to 152). Hits were 260 to 227 in Vancouver's favor. So the Canucks overall out hit them, out shot them and had more PP's in the series yet lost. I don't believe for a second Daniel fighting Marchand would have made a difference. The difference in the series was health and goaltending. Thomas was great for 7 games, setting an NHL record for saves in a final, while Luongo was great for 3. Would Luongo have been better with a healthier D in front of him? Would the Nucks have been better at scoring sans all the injuries to Henrik, Kesler, Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, Edler, and even Hanhuis? That's where I believe the series loss is, not one incident between Daniel and Marchand. I've maintained all along injuries and Thomas gave the Bruins win. With an honorable mention to Chara for the job he did on Henrik (even though it was often illegal). He was on Henrik like a bad stink through the series.
I remember being livid at the time because it seemed like the Bruins would get the calls when the score was close, and then the Canucks would finally get their PPs late in the game when the game was beyond reach. I even remember thinking the refs were purposefully calling the game that way so they could point to the same stats you pointed to to justify calling a fair game. That series felt like a total fix at the time, but I wonder if I’d feel the same way if I re-watched it now. Too bad I have no desire to re-open those old wounds!
-
1
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Squamfan said:
One of these days something is going to leak about the league helping the bruins during the 2011 season and it’s going to be the biggest cheating scandal in the history of professional sports. When your dad works works for the league, and previously emails where leaked on how he asked refs to go easy on your son something is very wrong. It also does not help when Bettman and Daily continually when into Jacobs office with knee pads
I was surprised how quickly that was pushed under the rug. It’s difficult to believe it ended there and nothing more was done, but I am sure everybody involved learned a lot from those leaks.
That incident was full blown corruption at worst, and extremely unprofessional at best. Either way, he should’ve resigned or been fired for harming the integrity of the league. We can only hope things have improved since then, but that 2011 series definitely didn’t inspire optimism.
-
Part II is up today: https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks-best-team-history-part-2/
I really enjoyed both of these articles, despite having to re-live some painful memories. I can't help but wonder whether Bieksa's new career, and his relationships with some of the mainstream media, is helping change how that 2011 team is portrayed in the media. Whatever the reason, it's refreshing to see.
For those of you who haven't read either article, I urge you to do so. They are essentially just a compilation of quotes from a variety of team personalities over the years, including players, coaches, management, trainers, and staff. Part I deals with the team's rise to 2011, and Part II deals with the 2011 season and fallout.
The highlight of these articles, for me, was the insight into team chemistry and organizational culture. Watching the team at the time, it was obvious how close the players were. The comradery was evident not only on the ice but also in any video produced by the team during those years. This article only builds upon that. It seems like this team really had a lasting impact on all of the players, even those who were only with the team for a short time. People who were frustrated with their individual situation (e.g. Keith Ballard) clearly still have a lot of respect for that team. Furthermore, the article provides some insight regarding organizational alignment and the culture around the team. It seems like everybody knew their role, everybody was on board with management's vision of the team, everybody communicated honestly, and everybody was given an opportunity to be heard. While Mike Gillis may have had some shortcomings, he definitely deserves praise for building the culture that enabled this team to be great.
These articles were also painful to read. It's clear these people are still hurting and have regrets about how everything unfolded. I get the sense a lot of them feel like they were competing against the Bruins AND the league, but they are competitors and look inward for things they could have done differently rather than make excuses. Depth defenceman Aaron Rome is still carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders because he believes he was solely responsible for the loss. If there was any doubt, this article makes clear just how much heart and competitiveness that whole team had. These guys gave everything they had for us and should be celebrated.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I don't chime in too often, but I feel like I need to in this thread to make three points.
1) As a society, we need to re-evaluate how we react to people who say things we don't like.
2) Don Cherry deserves to be let go for his failure to remedy the situation.
3) Ron MacLean failed to perform his role.
In a conversation, it's the speaker's responsibility to communicate their thoughts effectively to their audience. However, the ability to communicate effectively requires a lot of skill/knowledge/experience/etc. This means A LOT of people do not effectively communicate what they intend on their first attempt, if at all. Therefore, while the speaker must do their best to communicate effectively, the listener must also do their best to understand the speaker's point. This sometimes requires withholding judgment until the situation can be clarified.
Don Cherry did not communicate effectively. Regardless of whether he was speaking about immigrants or city dwellers, Don offended some people because he did not accurately convey his point. The people who were offended were entitled to say they were offended and why. Without the offended speaking up, people would struggle to know when they are being disrespectful. However, the offended need to be more patient. Not everybody is bad, and not everybody speaks 100% accurately all of the time. It's only fair and respectful to allow the offending person the opportunity to either commit to their statement or amend it appropriately (rather than, for example, clamouring for somebody to be fired on Twitter). In this case, Don had that opportunity. He made the statement on Saturday and was fired on Monday. He could have apologized for offending people at any point, even if he did not mean to, and then clarify his statement. However, he didn't and that's why he deserves to be let go.
Ron MacLean let Don down though. Don is an 85 year-old hockey man. Nobody should expect this man to consistently convey his thoughts effectively. For this reason, he probably should've retired or not been brought back years ago. However, he's a Canadian icon and was kept on. As Don's sidekick, Ron's only job was to keep Don on track and in line. In this case, Ron should have recognized Don made an edgy comment. He should have prompted Don to clarify his statement immediately. Instead, he just nodded along. While he may not deserve to be fired because he owned up to his mistake, he deserves to feel at least partially responsible for Don's job loss.
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
I'm honestly dumbfounded as to how anybody enjoyed The Last Jedi. That movie was trash in so many different ways that I wouldn't be able to list them all even if I tried. If you enjoyed it, good for you. R.I.P. Star Wars
-
Pettersson clearly has some skill but he's played softer than I'd like to see all tourney. I hope he gains the confidence to take pucks back with authority when he bulks up. Looks like he could be a player though, and I'll be cheering for the kid.
-
1
-
-
This episode was one of those rare times a fictional story made me feel like somebody punched me in the stomach.
-
Kirkland has the biggest set of stones. This team is the team of destiny and I hate them for it.
-
1
-
-
Tough break tonight. Kelowna got the luckiest of goals to get on the board and give them some life early in the 3rd. Off a stick off a dman off the post, and as the dman goes to clear the puck it skips and he knocks it in. Then the Royals ice it with 30 secs left, 3 steps from the red line. Try to eat the clock along the boards, epic battles, crowd counting down the seconds. With a second left the puck is jarred loose and thrown to Kirkland on the far point who has ice in his veins and the biggest stones ever as he decides to step around the shot blocker rather than one timing it. As the crowd yells zero Kirkland picks top corner with 0.2 seconds left. Both teams come out charged in overtime, Kelowna is throwing every puck on net while the Royals are putting nice plays together but can't hit the net. Eventually Kelowna squeaks a greasey one five hole on a confusing flurry following a defensive zone turnover. Tough luck, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Props to Kirkland for carrying his team in this series. Tyson Baillie is a punk though.
-
3 hours ago, Stierlitz said:
Q: Not many players start in the NHL with points. Do you feel that this is special moment? A: Yes obviously, but how would you not get points playing with such excellent players? The game in general was pretty good. Our mistakes cost us but this is hockey. Only one who does not do anything does not make mistake. We will try to improve the situation and get better results.
Damn. That was profound.
-
3
-
-
What did Henrik say?
-
So is this where Nikita Tryamkin jokes go now?
-
4 hours ago, Monty said:
I watched the first two seasons of BE, and just haven't got to the rest yet. Really enjoyed it, just sort of forgot about it. Have season 3 sitting unwrapped on my shelf for 2 years now
As for Take Shelter, get on that. Watched it for the first time a year or so ago, and it quickly vaulted into my top 5 favorite films. Although Starship Troopers and Who Framed Roger Rabbit are also on that list...
Having starship troopers on your list only makes you more credible.
-
Finally saw The Revenant, probably one of the most beautiful and difficult movies I've watched. Gruesome, ruthless, and raw. Loved it, go watch it, somethingsomething Tom hardy
-
I think when evaluating anybody's play you have to consider the role they're supposed to be playing. Watching Jake play in this tourney it looks like the coaching staff wants him to play a heavy net front game to open up space for the rest. He's not the guy that is going to be carrying the puck and distributing it. They might give it to him to gain the zone with his speed but otherwise it looks like his role is to win pucks on the forecheck, cycle, and go to the net.
Whether or not this suits Jakes game is a different story but I think he's been doing what has been asked of him pretty well. It would be nice to start seeing him jam some home from the top of the crease but I don't think saying he is having a poor tournament is fair.
But then again what do I know? I'm just a guy on his phone.
-
Saw The Stanford Prison Experiment. I was already very familiar with the experiment and still found it disturbing. Definitely worth a watch.
-
Spectre - 5/10
Standard Bond film. Not great, but it wasn't terrible. However, the ending was completely underwhelming.
Oh yeah, and three different helicopter scenes AND a separate plane scene? Jeez.
I agree. I mean it was still somewhat entertaining because it's a Bond movie, but I definitely laughed way too hard at moments that were not intended to be funny. In my opinion, Skyfall should've been the end of Bond; there won't ever be a Bond movie that beats it.
-
The Drop on Netflix was really good. Tom Hardy with another quality performance, worth watching just for him.
-
Where do you find new mixes to listen to?
-
What We Do in the Shadows is a terrific comedy that's flying under the radar. Definitely worth checking out.
-
Just watched Nightcrawler, it immediately became one of my favourite films of the year. For some reason I love Jake Gylenhaal thrillers.
Loved the ending. I kept waiting for everything to come crashing down on Jake's character but I loved that he just walked away according to plan in the end.
Then I watched Birdman, and all I can say is wow what a terrific film. Loved absolutely everything about it. Not sure if there was a single thing that irked me.
-
-
Speaking of Tom Hardy, anybody seen that movie Locke?
Just watched it and was shocked at how heavy and engaging it was despite the entire film being Tom Hardy driving in a car, taking and making phone calls. Tom Hardy has an incredible ability to make me feel sad, but in a good way because it's due to his superb acting.
[PGT] Vancouver Canucks at Minnesota Wild | Aug. 07, 2020 | Canucks win series 3-1
in Canucks Talk
Posted
This has to go down as one of the most memorable post-game interviews ever. I laughed out loud last night when I saw it and then again this morning when I remembered it. I think everybody knew that clip was going to go viral, and you just know the boys gave it to him after. Tequilaaaaa Tanev what a beaut.