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

Dazzle

Members
  • Posts

    11,843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Dazzle

  1. I think it's a joke that a bunch of guys can say his shot is nowhere near Boeser, as if you could açcurately reference the shots and gauge their speed/weight. All I'm saying is that the claims about his shot being nowhere near elite is stupidly premature.
  2. There's more to hockey than just scoring. He's not hurting the team, in the same way that Gaudette had, with his defensive lapses.
  3. What an amazing take. Yeah, never mind.
  4. So you're saying they're not a bottom feeder? We're one of the bottom feeding teams, FYI. Anyone on this list is a bottom feeder, minus Seattle. Also, asking for a friend, how many games has Gaudette played 15+ minutes? Pick Team Record Pts PPG RW Streak L10 Top 2 #1 Ovr 1 Buffalo 13-29-7 33 0.674 10 Lost 1 4-5-1 34.9% 18.5% 2 Anaheim 14-27-7 35 0.729 9 Lost 4 3-6-1 26.5% 13.5% 3 Seattle 22.8% 11.5% 4 New Jersey 14-27-7 35 0.729 11 Lost 10 0-9-1 19.1% 9.5% 5 Columbus 15-25-10 40 0.800 11 Lost 9 1-7-2 17.2% 8.5% 6 Ottawa 18-27-4 40 0.816 14 Won 1 5-5-0 15.3% 7.5% 7 Detroit 17-25-8 42 0.840 15 Lost 1 4-3-3 13.3% 6.5% 8 San Jose 18-24-5 41 0.872 12 Lost 8 1-8-1 12.3% 6.0% 9 Los Angeles 17-22-6 40 0.889 15 Lost 2 3-7-0 9.3% 4.5% 10 Calgary 21-24-3 45 0.938 18 Lost 1 5-5-0 7.3% 3.5% 11 Vancouver 19-20-3 41 0.976 13 Lost 1 5-4-1 6.3% 3.0% 12 Arizona Forfeited 21-22-5 47 0.979 17 Won 1 3-7-0 5.2% 2.5% 13 Chicago 22-21-5 49 1.021 14 Lost 1 5-5-0 4.2% 2.0% 14 Philadelphia 22-19-7 51 1.062 14 Won 1 4-4-2 3.2% 1.5% 15 Nashville 26-21-2 54 1.102 18 Won 1 6-3-1 2.1% 1.0% 16 NY Rangers 25-18-6 56 1.143 22 Won 2 7-2-1 1.1% 0.5%
  5. Green has had some good games. But the fact that there were no shots in the third for the first 10 minutes show a lack of urgency. It's the same issue with the PP. A lack of urgency.
  6. Nah. The Canucks still have a chance. It's difficult, but they still have a chance. 14 more games to go. It's still too early to write them off.
  7. Canucks are honourable that way. We also don't use timeouts to spare the humiliation for the other team.
  8. "I liked our game tonight. That's a good young team over there"
  9. Not enough shots on net for a team that desperately needs a goal.
  10. I'm not assuming. Three games with 7 minutes of ice time is a bad start so far. Also the Chicago myth is that they know how to use their players to their advantage. Clearly, this is not the case. Dylan Strome has been a fairly regular scratch so far. Our Highmore has been out of their lineup, yet we have maximized use of him. Gaudette isn't utilized. Chicago is no different than any other team..
  11. No thanks on the edit. Almost everyone here knows you're the one in the wrong.
  12. But this is the not the interpretation to be taken from our discussion. I don't think ANYONE, including myself, disputes that this playoff chase will be a difficult one. Of course the math is against the Canucks. The problem is that Provost was conflating phrases that have vast differences in meaning. For example, "Out of reach" is NOT the same as "unlikely". If you can just imagine the idea of something being out of reach, you'd realize that it's completely different than saying something is unlikely. Given how Provost had interchangeably used both terms in his old posts, as well in his most recent posts, it seems to me that he doesn't know the difference between the two, or he doesn't care. When he was called out on it, he tried to defend his position from TWO MONTHS AGO. His title "now out of reach" means or implies impossible, even though there was still two months worth of hockey that could have changed the outcome, which is exactly what happened. From how I see it, he is more about protecting his ego than actually trying to make sense of things. In short, Provost was wrong and he doesn't want to admit it, as usual. You can see him twisting the definitions of things to fit 'his' definition/understanding. That's a dishonest way of conducting yourself.
  13. But this is the not the interpretation to be taken from our discussion. I don't think ANYONE, including myself, disputes that this playoff chase will be a difficult one. Of course the math is against the Canucks. The problem is that Provost was conflating phrases that have vast differences in meaning. For example, "Out of reach" is NOT the same as "unlikely". If you can just imagine the idea of something being out of reach, you'd realize that it's completely different than saying something is unlikely. Given how Provost had interchangeably used both terms in his old posts, as well in his most recent posts, it seems to me that he doesn't know the difference between the two, or he doesn't care. When he was called out on it, he tried to defend his position from TWO MONTHS AGO. His title "now out of reach" means or implies impossible, even though there was still two months worth of hockey that could have changed the outcome, which is exactly what happened. From how I see it, he is more about protecting his ego than actually trying to make sense of things. In short, Provost was wrong and he doesn't want to admit it, as usual. Funny how Provost liked your post.
  14. But this is the not the interpretation to be taken from our discussion. I don't think ANYONE, including myself, disputes that this playoff chase will be a difficult one. Of course the math is against the Canucks. The problem is that Provost was conflating phrases that have vast differences in meaning. For example, "Out of reach" is NOT the same as "unlikely". If you can just imagine the idea of something being out of reach, you'd realize that it's completely different than saying something is unlikely. Given how Provost had interchangeably used both terms in his old posts, as well in his most recent posts, it seems to me that he doesn't know the difference between the two, or he doesn't care. When he was called out on it, he tried to defend his position from TWO MONTHS AGO. His title "now out of reach" means or implies impossible, even though there was still two months worth of hockey that could have changed the outcome, which is exactly what happened. From how I see it, he is more about protecting his ego than actually trying to make sense of things. In short, Provost was wrong and he doesn't want to admit it, as usual.
  15. There seems to be a ton of flak for Gaudette being traded out for Highmore. However, Highmore, to his credit, has already looked BETTER than what Gaudette has contributed to this roster. Small sample, of course, but Gaudette this season hasn't been that great offensively anyway. At least we don't have to worry about subpar defensive play.
  16. So the thing is, we have to analyze why these players are spare parts for their team. If Gaudette was a poor fit for Vancouver, why is he a poor fit for Chicago (early to say, but trending that direction)? It is fair to say that he, similar to Vancouver, cannot play on a bottom 6 role, even on a sub-par team like Chicago. Meanwhile, Highmore has flourished (or at least hasn't looked out of place) for Vancouver. Chicago isn't going on some win streak either. They've won AND lost without Gaudette. I'm sure he'll slot in some time, but it seems like this season will be basically a write-off for Gaudette. The thing he'll have to work on is elevating his game for next season.
  17. For all the overrated praise Gaudette gets, he's played 7 minutes in his first game and scratched for two games straight. Meanwhile,. Highmore has been playing 15+ minutes in all zones. Gaudette was a poor fit for Vancouver. And it's debatable whether he's even a fit for Chicago. A bottomfeeding team keeping Gaudette out of the lineup. I think that says a lot about his game.
  18. Yeah. I would love to see the Canucks claim a playoff spot against all odds. It would taste especially sweeter to see Provost try to weasel his way out of being wrong, like every other time he has.
  19. So let me get this straight... You haven't addressed how "out of reach" is understood the exact same way as you saying "unlikely". You've been questioned on that by me and by others... You haven't answered why you thought the playoffs was out of reach, despite the fact that two months worth of games had to be played first... So your English is bad because you used the wrong phrase. Your math sucks because you were so certain that the Canucks were out of it. But yeah, I didn't have a "valid" argument to you at all, according to you. Keep your head buried in the sand there, Provost.
  20. It doesn't really matter. Maybe the Canucks will lose all 15 games, or maybe not. No one will have the answer. Only a foolish person would declare something to be out of reach before the calculations are finalized. Provost reminds me of Trump who declared he "won the election". What a joke.
  21. Provost, I know you're going to double down on what you said TWO MONTHS AGO, but let's bring this back to your thread: Your term "out of reach" was being used in place of "unlikely", which you yourself confirmed earlier. That is wrong. You are conflating the two meanings of it. Out of reach, visually, means you CANNOT GET IT. It's beyond what you can do. In short, linguistically, you erred. There are still many games left to play (15), thus questioning your math/probability skillzz when you said something was "out of reach". In short, mathematically, you erred. Remember, you declared something was out of reach two months ago. By defending something you said two months ago, while wilfully downplaying the significance of 30-40+ hockey games, shows you cannot be reasoned with. No matter how you twist and turn in your next future posts, you'll never be able to address the above points, which was why you hadn't bothered.
  22. No, I misused the term "running" If you ENTER a lottery many times, as in you buy tickets, you DO increase your chances of winning. That is the point. Because we have games in hand, we DO have the chances to go up the standings. Once we lose those games in hand, it'll be over. Calgary and Montreal both had games in hand, but they both squandered them. Hence, we 'lucked' out. Still invalidates what you said about "out of reach" though haha.
×
×
  • Create New...