-
Posts
12,646 -
Joined
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Down by the River
-
[Report] Matt Niskanen suspended 1 game
Down by the River replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in General Hockey Discussion
One game is basically saying "we don't want to suspend you at all, but here's a game to try and get people off our back". Don't think that's going to work. Mtl should be pissed, especially with AV laughing about it after being a little bitch about a PP late in a game. -
[Proposal] How Much Money Could You Lose...
Down by the River replied to Down by the River's topic in Canucks Talk
I put $50 on the Blues to win tomorrow. I'd easily pay $50 to see the Canucks play in the second round. That's $50 to (1) see the Canucks win a game on Friday and (2) guarantee that at least four more games of playoff hockey will be played. With this pandemic, I'm happy to pay for extra hockey. -
Alf was an absolute idiot. I'm glad he is alive but I'm glad he's gone.
-
[Proposal] How Much Money Could You Lose...
Down by the River replied to Down by the River's topic in Canucks Talk
Haha man I am very frugal. Gotta be my Scottish ancestors. It took me years from being a student to having a full time job to actually stop living like I was still a student. I bet a bit of money on the Blues tonight. So happy to lose the money. There are a lot of betting sites out there, I won't post links because I'm pretty sure it is not allowed on CDC, but they are easy to find. -
How much money could you lose, and still be ecstatic that the Canucks move on to the second round? For example, if I asked you to give me $100 to see the Canucks win, but if they lost, I'd give you $150, would you do it? Proposal: Bet an amount that you are comfortable with on the Blues next game. If the Canucks win, you don't care about the lost money. You're ecstatic that they won and the amount you bet is not so much that it negates the euphoria of winning. If the Canucks lose, you won some money. Keep the amount you bet, donate the earnings to a charity of your choice, and repeat the process for game 7. Either the Canucks move on, or, at the least, CDC helped raise some money for charity (or drop your winnings on booze to drown your sorrows, whatever you feel).
-
Based on how things stand, not a single upset in the first round?
-
please no more dump and chase - watch this video!
Down by the River replied to apollo18's topic in Canucks Talk
It could just be that so much of the hockey culture in the past 50 years has been "get pucks deep"... which I don't necessarily disagree with. If you can get pucks deep AND establish the forecheck, it is far safer than trying to maintain possession. Great way to wear down a team's defence by making them turn to retrieve pucks. The cases I'm talking about is where there is literally no forecheck presence whatsoever. It is just a matter of handing the puck back to the other team with no opposition to the breakout. It isn't until the neutral zone at best that the forecheckers arrive from the change. I only see this happen a couple times a game where the forward clearly should not have shot the puck in (e.g., it wasn't to relieve major pressure, just moreso a habit). -
I was legitimately fearing for Hendrick's life in that fight. It was just an insane size mismatch.
-
please no more dump and chase - watch this video!
Down by the River replied to apollo18's topic in Canucks Talk
It is easy to hate on the Leafs, but one thing that they do that I love is their willingness to play the puck backwards into their own dzone to complete a change. The forward gains center, but instead of just firing the puck deep to change, which creates an uncontested breakout going the other way, they fire the puck back to the dman to complete a change while maintaining possession. This might not be something they want to do all the time with a guy like Benn that could struggle holding onto the puck for forwards to reset, but if you have a guy like Hughes, send the puck back, let him go behind his net and regroup. -
The Departed: 7/10 I used to think this movie was so good. But on rewatch, Scorsese's stupid camera tricks for no reason other than him wanting to be different (e.g., the telescoping, weird camera shots/angles in some scenes for no reasons). The obsessive use of finding different ways to fit the movie's title into the dialogue. Jack Nicholson's stupid lines ("This isn't reality TV!"). Perhaps controversial opinion: Scorsese's last 20 years of film-making haven't been especially great.
-
This. I've grown disinterested in both networks because of the 'radio wars' fighting. If there is a sports equivalent of identity politics, this is it. Their bickering just comes across as petty and unprofessional.
-
ew
-
The Blues can't make an outlet pass in their own zone and are too slow in the neutral zone. They are the better team below the hashmarks on offense but even down low in their own zone they aren't very effective because their dmen can't move the puck. Canucks' D have also made some blunders, but they have the ability. Aside from Pietrangelo, they just don't have the personnel to help the breakout.