Remy
-
Posts
990 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Remy
-
-
Remember last year when all our woes were blamed on AV? Well, he clearly wasn't the problem, and neither is Gillis.
Remember, last year was shortened due to lockout and this year we were hit by a reduction in cap. Despite that, Gillis still managed to snag us a stud in Bo Horvat. We'll appreciate that some day, I'm sure.
This team needs some serious work, no question about it. But more than anything, it's our current roster that needs to be held accountable.
-
So we swapped 4th liners with the other team and had the same ejections as we did... I still don't see the problem. "A bit silly" - We got the win and were equally set back by penalties as the opposing team... ?
The problem is the extra stress that's put on our players when playing with a shortened bench. To me, that's the real injury risk. For most of the season we've overplayed our top players, why exacerbate that even further? Just to match up with what Calgary's coach wants us to do? I don't see the sense in that.
-
1
-
-
"Nothing would have happened"? Again, that is not a risk that we can afford to take at this time. We are in playoff contention, and Calgary is not. Torts made the right decision. And yes, I have faith in our 4th line so theres nothing wrong starting them to match theirs. Plus the brawl on the ice is good hockey. I loved it!
Yes, JT acted a bit over the top in the hallway between the rooms. I agree, that was completely uncalled for. There was enough talk that went on ice level, no need for the extra off-ice dumb crap.
Again, the risk of "something might have happened" if we start the first line does not outweigh the reality of going ahead with a line brawl and having too many of our own players ejected from the game.
And I don't buy the notion, even for a second, that if Torts starts our first line that they end up scrapping and getting ejected. It's a really absurd assumption. Just based on history alone, please tell me how many times the Sedins have been ejected for fighting. Of course Calgary's fourth line may try to come out hitting (checking), but that's part of the game. It's still a favourable match up for us. During regular play, wouldn't our coach LOVE to match up our top line to Calgary's fourth?
The Sedins would not have fought, and anyone thinking there would have been another "Marchand incident" is stretching things, a lot.
This was an emotionally cathartic moment for the fans, that's why it's being supported. But please don't try to rationalize it. It wasn't a rational thing, it was emotional. I highly doubt its efficacy in effecting any kind of real change, so in that sense I think the whole thing was a bit silly.
-
3
-
-
I respect your POV, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
I realize that the playoffs are in jeopardy, but I see sending Kes out for a shift against Calgary's goon squad as a risk (albeit a small one) that the team cannot afford to take.
IMO, an injury to Ryan Kesler (and/or Kassian for that matter) would be far more damaging to the playoff picture than a missed opportunity for an extended PP against a team that's a division bottom feeder anyway.
So, do you think it was better to play a full sixty minute game with only four defensemen, and a shortened bench in general? I think that put us at a far greater risk of injury, if you ask me.
-
Except this is a workplace where there are hits, fights, yelling, cheering...so a little different environment I'm sure. You have to apply the logic to same situations but this is quite different than the average desk job. And we're not talking promotion, we're talking discipline.
It wasn't his boss he blew a fuse at...it was the equivalent of a greasy, slimy coworker. Happens.
We can't afford to take the high road or path of least resistance anymore...lead us nowhere.
This team's been damned when they don't (fight back) and now they are, in every sense of the word. It was time for that.
I have nothing but respect for you, Deb, and I think you make some good points. You're right that it's not the typical work place environment. My analogy certainly isn't perfect, but I just keep coming back to the same point: how does any of this benefit us? I understand the frustration, but I don't understand how Torts going into the Flames locker room and yelling at them is any kind of solution.
Now, if this is a wake up call that we're trying to send to the league, then they need to stick to their guns. No apologies. But the reality is the opposite, as it's already been made clear by Gillis that nobody within the organization, including Tortorella, is trying to defend his actions. So if this was about "sending a message', then it has now become a pretty mixed message.
I'm a passionate fan as well, I love this team and want them to do well. I was at game 7 against Chicago in 2011, and I was as heartbroken as anyone when we lost to Boston. This team represents the fans, all of us, so it's fair for me to say I don't want to be associated with a hot-headed coach's antics. That's not who I am, and that's not how the team was when they had the most successful years that this franchise has ever seen. I want to see us calm, steady, and winning.
-
Depending on the Refs to do a proper job of sorting out penalties has not gone well for the Nucks in recent times.
This is the thing I don't get from Tort supporters (on this issue). "Well, we weren't having any luck with the refs anyway" isn't a very good justification for just blowing up instead.
It's like saying "My boss wouldn't give me a promotion after I tried working really hard, so I just started yelling at him instead. Standing up for myself and all that, rawr!" See how quickly that weak logic breaks down?
By the way, is Hartley not allowed to ice his fourth line? What does it matter if they start the game or if they get thrown on the ice after a couple of shifts? He could have "attempted to start something" at any time. It's how we respond that matters, and Torts took the bait, I'd say. That's on us. We weren't trying to match a team like San Jose, LA, or Anaheim. We're talking about freakin' CALGARY here. Why would we engage in antics with a team below us in the standing? We stand to gain nothing by doing that. Instead, we have to play a full 60 minute game with a severely depleted bench, putting all kinds of strain on an already exhausted roster. It just doesn't make any sense.
Taking the high road under AV got us to game 7 of the Cup final. Just because it didn't work out that time doesn't mean we should discount how it clearly worked very, very well. I do not think this "new strategy" will get us nearly as far, let alone a Cup win.
-
1
-
-
Yah he wasn't bad, but our team was regressing with only one win in two playoff showings, and we were the laughing stock of the league known as the 'cry baby divers'. Teams loved to beat on us because we thought so highly of ourselves in our 'non-combative' style. We got too smug under AV. Torts while whipping the players into working hard,also has to stand by his team and defend it.
I agree that the team had issues under AV as well, and in my posts I did say that our reputation has been poor for several years. I thought that 2010/11 was when we handled it the best, right up until the pressure of the SCF got us off our game. Since then, I'm not sure I really agree with Gillis' remodelling. We had something that was working really well, and I think we just got a bit unlucky, especially with injuries.
So, before we were whiners and divers. Now, we're trying to be tough guys.
Why can't we be a team like 2010/11 and just stop the whining and diving, rather than trying to re-invent the entire team's identity? I loved the professionalism that team displayed, never getting too low after a loss, or too high after a win. It clearly worked for this group, why try to make them something they're not?
-
1
-
-
Ten games back we were doing the best the team had done since 2011. It's a slump, they happen from time to time. Give your head a shake pal.
If it's "just a slump" then why do we have our head coach charging into the other team's locker room? Would "it's just a slump" actually lend credence to my view that we should probably act like a professional team and play through it? That's not what I'm seeing on the ice though, and it's not what we saw from the coach tonight. I've seen this team through some slumps, and they're not all equal. Sometimes, a team plays well but doesn't get any breaks. This is the opposite. The team is not playing well and I haven't seen them make so many mental errors, for such a consistent period of time, in years. Turnovers, breakaways, and total collapses (allowing other teams to score with under a minute left, multiple times, and allowing several goals against in under a minute, multiple times). They need to act professionally and CALM DOWN. I think that would help enormously with their mental mistakes they're making, and that's something AV understood.
Yeah, because the league had so much respect for us in the past, right?
Tell me, genius, how many cups have we won by trying to play nice? Yeah, that's what I f***ing thought.
So much anger and frustration, it's not healthy man. The league has not had a lot of respect for the Canucks in the past few years, I full agree and have already said as much. But stuff like this will only make it worse, not better. Let's be real here, what do you expect to happen that will somehow be in the Canucks favour after our head coach blows a gasket? But with all your anger I doubt you really thought the consequences through, you're just being reactionary, like a lot of other fans that seem to prefer adopting a victim mentality, rather than one of perseverance. Maybe we should be looking at the things the team needs to changer, rather than continuing to blame others for our lack of success. Also, put it into context and look at how the cap drop has effected us - this season, like last, is a bit of an oddity.
-
1
-
-
What Tort's did was a lot better than just standing there shaking your head while going though a pack of trident.
Sure, Tortorella really accomplished a lot with his tantrum, didn't he? Now the league will respect us, and the other teams, too. All the frustrated fans are so happy to watch a frustrated coach, because that's how they'd like to react in that situation. I guess it's just too bad that it's not how the real world actually works.
AV was a great coach that brought a ton of professionalism to this organization, along with the best years in this franchise's history. Vigneault commanded respect from anyone that knew hockey which, apparently, does not include a highly vocal portion of the Vancouver fanbase.
But guess what, careful what you wish for has never been more true. We're facing one of the worst seasons in recent Canucks history, and our reputation has never been worse. So yeah, gosh darn that last coach we had.
-
4
-
-
Hard to argue with results......this is the worst hockey played by this organization in 10 years
I was honestly thinking the same thing.
- Played our top guys too much to start the season.
- Juggles lines even more than AV (and I'm an AV fan, by the way).
- Put too much emphasis on shot blocking, even by our top players - because it's sure worth blocking one shot and then missing several games due to injury, especially if you're in our already thin top six.
- Does not seem to be motivating this team - after the worst loss for this franchise in the past ten years, they still came out flat against Phoenix and got shut out. And tonight we're struggling with Calgary ... at home.
- Many multiple goals against coming in a short period of time. Demonstrates that the team is not prepared, and not focused.
- Embarrasses the organization by visiting the Flames locker room during the first intermission. The Canucks have already had a bad reputation for the past few years, this type of behaviour is NOT the answer to that problem.
That's just off the top of my head. I was coming around on him after a few weeks into the season, and I really gave him the benefit of the doubt with his "I've changed my ways" approach, but tonight has clearly shown that's not really the case. I want John to do well, but many of my fears about hiring him have been realized already.
- Played our top guys too much to start the season.
-
#moralvictory
Right guys?
-
1
-
-
I want seven minutes in a room with Devorski. Alone.
-
Failure to Launch
-
I hope all of you remember that the cap went down this year. And last year there was a lockout. So those of you criticizing MG, just put it into perspective, please.
-
1
-
-
Gillis on trades: "I wanna see our full team play together. I'd like to see our team a little bit more before we start jumping the gun." -team1040
Guess 2.5 years hasn't been enough time to see this team, before making a trade
This is just lip service, plain and simple. With the cap this season, there isn't much Gill can do anyway.
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
0 Goals in 23 games.
This is a player we EXACTLY need. GOOD JOB GILLIS!
Yes, let's throw Gillis under the bus over a reported RUMOUR.
-
5
-
It is beyond stupid to blame Luongo. Yeah, he probably should have had that second goal.
BUT
We scored ONE freakin' goal, and it was from a five on three. That's just not going to cut it, let's get real. To single out Luongo ... give me a break. Some of you really are lousy fans.
-
2
-
-
Gettin' real tired of your crap, Thomas Canucks.
Fixed that for you.
-
^same logic can be used for atheists. I can say it's the 1700's, we're walking and we see a computer on the side of the road. It shocks us and we don't know exactly what it is. So I assume logically that someone must of made it/created it but the guy beside me says no, it came to be and was made in an explosion.
I would argue against you, but I think your own words are the most convincing argument against the position you're taking. It is painfully obvious that you lack any real knowledge or understanding of the subject.
Saying "nu uh, you didn't debunk my nonsense" doesn't make your ridiculous posts any more legitimate. They're still nonsense, and you're just trying to play a game.
-
Russian Rocket, your ignorance as it pertains to evolution is astonishing.
Many people have actually made legitimate efforts to point out your errors, but I'm not convinced that you're even being genuine. In either case, I find myself feeling embarrassed for you.
I'm going to focus on just one small section from the nonsense article you posted. It is one small excerpt that absolutely destroys the credibility of the entire article, and to pretend otherwise is simply silly.
Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.The basic skeletal structure of all mammals is the same, but the bones often come in different sizes and serve different functions. This is actually evidence in favour of evolution, not against it. The fact that the whale's "hind legs" serve a new function is exactly what we would expect evolution to produce. On a much, much smaller scale, you can look at the differences in human structure to see just how this works. Some people are tall, some people are short. Now, take those variations and extrapolate them over millions of years and millions of species.
Also consider this striking piece that links whales to other mammals: their spines move vertically - up and down. Fish (non-mammals) have spines that move horizontally - side to side. In addition, whales are warm-blooded while fish are cold-blooded. In other words, the link between whales and land mammals is entirely obvious.
To paraphrase Dawkins, I suspect that a creationist would celebrate each time a "gap" species was discovered. Now, instead of one "gap", there's two. If you can't see the difference between that, and actual science, then you might as well profess the Sun revolves around the Earth simply because you can see it moving across the sky. Linking what you see, to what comes intuitively, is a dangerous game. It's not necessarily intuitive that whales developed from land-roaming mammals, but that is what the actual, scientific evidence demonstrates.
Worst case scenario, I hope what I wrote is at least interesting to someone. I doubt it will sink in with Mr. Rocket.
-
1
-
-
Russian Rocket, you can't just post nonsense and then put the burden on other posters to debunk it. That's not how you generate a legitimate conversation. What's more, your posts come across as disingenuous, as though you're trying to provoke more than anything else. You're linking to a lot of silly websites and youtube videos to do your talking for you, but any of us could go and dig up that tripe if we were so inclined; it doesn't add much to the conversation.
Besides all that, I actually have read several intelligent replies to your posts that have offered thorough explanations. When confronted with this, you simply default to the "well, it's an answer but it's not perfect." Your entire strategy, by doing this, is a sad attempt to put religion and science on equal footing. That is the entire structure of your argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
Science, and our understanding of the world (be it evolution, the big bang, etc), is not nearly so fragile as you would suggest. But any holes in scientific understanding do not give validity to religious explanations as an alternative. Science is flexible and searches for the answers it's missing; religion says "this is the answer, now take it on faith without any proof or evidence."
Science still provides the best explanations for life as we know it, and the existence of the universe. The parts we haven't filled in yet don't mean that it's equally plausible for everything to have been created by a magic sky man.
It's like this: modern medicine hasn't found a cure for cancer. So it's like you saying "well, if modern medicine can't cure cancer, then it's obviously flawed. Therefore, holistic medicine is equally as valid." Do you see the problem with that? Because if you would choose holistic medicine over modern medicine as a result, well ... good luck with that.
-
2
-
-
2.) Are you seriously that dumbfounded and stupid? I clearly pointed out atheist flaws.
Except that you really, really didn't.
-
1
-
-
The idea of LUCA is based on common biochemistry and genetics that we see in all life today. LUCA being a part of a population of early life or proto life and not alone is what we'd expect. It's sort of like how the most recent common ancestor for all humans alive today wouldn't have been the only person on Earth. The probability of a single origin as opposed to multiple is ridiculously more probable mathematically. The Wiki article goes into it a little more:
http://en.m.wikipedi...versal_ancestor
You've been misinformed. New genes arrive all the time. All you need is a gene to be mistakenly duplicated during replication or acquired from outside sources, such as viruses.
http://23bios1unsoed...n-of-new-genes/
Humans are adapted to raise their young. That's why we can have altricial babies. Why would a baby need to live on its own?
Evolution is NOT random. The mutations are, but mutations are selected for based on which ones would be more conducive to an organism passing on its genetic information to offspring in a given environment. Survival of the fittest. It's an entirely predictable and directed process.
Very good answers, you covered everything I would have said.
And DD, I appreciate your genuine and mature post. You're clearly not in the same league as Russian Rocket, so I apologize for thinking you were.
-
Nothing is absolute. I get the impression you think the theory of evolution is. That would indicate to me you have a stong belief in the divine. Nothing changes here in CDC people always willing to belittle rather than engage in an actual discussion.
Okay, you can play the victim card if that makes you happy. It completely reinforces everything I already suspected about your posts, though. You made some statements regarding evolution that I called BS. They were, and I clearly stated why they were. I followed that up by asking you some questions. You said evolution has all these flaws, I asked you to point some out. You didn't. Not a single one. Instead, you went with the indignant "people always willing to belittle rather than engage in an actual discussion." Is that because you didn't have an answer to my very innocuous questions? You know, the ones that would have actually provoked a discussion? I'm just asking you to back up your comments, but you completely ignored that in favour of being defensive and painting yourself the victim of some heinous bullying. For shame!
For the record, I have a "strong belief" in evolution the same way that I have a "strong belief" that if I jump into a swimming pool, I'll get wet. It is an opinion I hold based on very strong, very clear empirical evidence. Maybe not evidence you are aware of, but evidence that exists nonetheless. If you're unwilling to take the time to find out about it, it's pretty hard for me to convince you.
As for Russian Rocket, I would like to reply to some of your earlier posts where you, unlike DD, actually (albeit very unsuccessfully) tried to poke holes in evolution. But I fear it's more of an uphill struggle than I have the energy for. Still, if I'm not too tired later tomorrow I might come back and try to address some of your points.
[PGT] "Down with the Sickness"
in Canucks Talk
Posted
I agree completely. This time needs a sports psychologist. Or a new one, if they already have one.