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

Rob_Zepp

Members
  • Posts

    11,946
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Rob_Zepp

  1. Blood pressure is excellent. I am having some fun with this. The VP case is because they KNOW he is going to NA after this season....has NOTHING to do with the original premise that Juolevi will make the team over Rafferty to make the GM look good. That remains a laughable comment that I called and changing that proposed situation as being a reality doesn't change how ridiculous that claim was. Ps - extortion? LOL. Have a good one. Thanks for the grins.
  2. Could not agree more that there seems to be a plan...but also still feel Canuck fans who have either forgotten about OJ or had written him off will be quite pleasantly surprised how much impact he will have in a positive way in the mobility on the back end and complement the star power of Hughes and NS. Rathbone can flat out fly and the next group of D prospects in the pipeline have none with lead feet either. For anyone who hasn't watched OJ recently, his play last year in Utica was sometimes dominate but almost always steady as steady can be. He drove the play, played with determination and used his big frame well. He looked ready. My guess is once the season starts and people see minutes from him (I am assuming he is making the team), the tantalizing attributes that made him one of the most sought after Dmen in that draft will become more apparent.
  3. How on earth is the dump of names remotely related to your premise that given two rookie Dmen, one will get the gig based upon making the GM look good or bad? I called that out and asked for examples which you said were "countless" and you give a name salad. What rookie Dman in the league got a gig over a better player to make a GM look good? Rookie forward if you like too. A team is selected by the coach with management input but with rookies, there isn't much between them besides performance...if that wasn't the case, why do you see so many lower round picks and even college FAs gets spots over higher round players every year on pretty much every team...including your Canucks. Love how this is taking on a new life with some other posters. This is the CDC I missed. False narratives and a death grip on them. Love it!
  4. It is indeed cooool. The example that started the conversation was about one rookie D being chosen over another rookie D as one would make the GM look better. I called that out and this iteration started with some, you included, taking it in other directions so that is very cooooool. Cool.
  5. COVID killed one gig for me and opened up another one that had me both busy and less involved in the day-to-day aspects of the hockey world. It has largely wrapped up and back into hockey world but in a different capacity and it fits my quasi wanting more free time perfectly. Don't have as much travel obviously or access directly to players and such but still have some good contacts out there and there is a lot of chatter/excitement about the team in Vancouver....almost more than seemingly is with many on this site. The TT deal was good for what it was and given all the uncertainty, can't really fault it (I can't anyway).
  6. Mark Messier was a rookie with the Canucks and took the spot of another rookie? Didn't know that. Cool.
  7. I don't mind the beer and am happy to be friends but back to two rookies and one making the team to "save face" is not going to happen nor can you find an example. Having been a rookie and having been someone who was bummed at being cut, I can tell you I simply wasn't good enough and there was no "saving face" involved in the decisions.
  8. How about someone who played it? Politics plays a part in all aspects of life but the argument he/she/it was making was that the Canucks management would allow one rookie player who is worse at playing hockey than another rookie player make the team to save face. Your example of a rookie versus a veteran with a contract is a moot point too - not same argument he/she/it was making. Still waiting if you want to play. Will understand if you don't as it is a flawed argument.
  9. Sounds like my European dating experiences.....
  10. Oh, something from the dark ages is one of the "countless" examples? Further, one player was not "cut" for the other in that case and it is no way similar to the claim made about two rookie assets and that one may be chose over the other due to egos and would be one of "countless examples". Sorry, this one doesn't cut it at all. To save you some time, neither will any other example as it is a ridiculous premise.
  11. ok, I'll bite. Been around a lot of hockey clubs in my life and not once have I seen a personnel decision made to make someone "look good" that would harm a team's success. Tell me some examples of such hockey decisions from the "countless" examples you have.
  12. I wonder if his stellar posting is all on himself or if someone gets the credit?
  13. If you honestly believe that this would decide who makes the team you have not a clue about how professional hockey works. Benning could give a rat's behind how an asset is acquired and the coach even less so. This artificial crap about egos and such driving personnel decisions is beyond ridiculous. The Canuck management and coaching staff are paid for on-ice results and not a hope they would sacrifice that to make themselves "look good".
  14. Not too much but watched a lot. COVID really took an interesting twist with what I was up to and led me into a venture that was consuming but really fun and waayyy more rewarding than I thought when entering it. Felt guilty about the ability to thrive both intellectually and financially while so many were hurting (and continue to) with the measures to combat this pandemic. I did watch a lot of AHL last year with the Comets one of a few teams. Gady is a bit too slow still and seems to have lost a lot of confidence. Lind is a player and looks like an NHL player. Jasek is a long-shot as he is good at pretty much everything but outstanding at nothing. Bailey, who you didn't ask about, is a freak of nature for how well he skates and he has a heavy shot and is a beast of a man - but something isn't right about him. I could see him getting 30 goals in the NHL or getting zip. Something needs to click and I really think it is all mental. He has more tools than many who are stars in the league.
  15. OJ is a stud. Kid has had some injury hiccups and those seem to be behind him (knock on wood). Will be interesting to see how he does this season but he is so much better than the majority here seem to realize. The way he can move a puck out of the zone (now with Hughes and NS too!), you may see the Canucks lead the league in zone exit efficiency in part by having him in lineup. Kid is also huge AND mobile. Again, not sure who people think he is when they rag on him - even Google lets you see his AHL work last year and that alone shows a lot of what he can do.
  16. Comes from his Jake Daniels addiction.....
  17. I see people still think Tryamkin is an NHL player but Juolevi can be shipped off. Glad to see CDC didn't change much over the past 12 months!
  18. There is more to being the the top six than scoring. Vancouver was a higher than average scoring team last year but also gave up their fair share of goals. I think you can look at this just stats wise if you are trying to be an average or even good team but if you want to be a great team, you need all in your top six to drive the play, have great possession stats, have an ability to shut down play as well as generate offence. Then again, all teams have flaws but Vancouver's are largely now in their depth at forward - it would be nice to have at least two more veterans that could slot into top six roles IF this team is going to go another step. That can wait a year or two if need be but this isn't yet a team that is going to get to that final four or better without more depth...from within or otherwise.
×
×
  • Create New...