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

filthycanuck

Members
  • Posts

    2,320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by filthycanuck

  1. Erhoff, Hamhuis were playing top 4, top 2 minutes, hardly constitute that as being "nah" or how about... Malholtra being the best faceoff man in the league Higgins, Torres playing big roles in the playoffs and Samuelsson was a mainstay in the top 6 in the early regime years Sundin playing a big part in Kesler's development But I see your point, we a got a Norris trophy with Gudbranson, a Selke with Brandon Sutter, 8 straight playoff appearances, a prospect pool thats just the absolutely envy of the league and all the cap room in the world to make a run to sign McDAvid, Matthews, Makar. Damn, Jim's a miracle worker
  2. and yet people will remember Gillis time as the greatest era in Canucks history. Newsflash, nobody cares who he drafted, as long as he delivered wins. Bennings team had 2 playoff appearances, one with basically Gillis' boys against Calgary, and the other was due to a technicality because of the pandemic. 10 years from now, what are people going to remember about Bennings teams? LOL youre grasping on straws thinking people are going to remember this regime as a good one and yet people will still have fresh in their minds the 2011 run and the rivalry against the Hawks
  3. Failing miserably? Oh you mean Jim Benning, whos teams missed the playoffs more times than Burke, Gillis, and Nonis? Hell, Bennings teams might have missed the playoffs more than those 3 COMBINED. How was his tenure successful exactly? Do explain, Im sure people here would LOVE to hear your excuses. How he left us with a brimming cupboard of prospects? WRONG. How about that massive capspace we have to rebuild the team, oh wait a second, we don't have that either!!!!! So what constitutes a successful Jim Benning era exactly? Presidents trophy, and even after 2011 still managed to make the playoffs twice after and stay competitive, not one season of a bottom 5 finish. Oh wait, the other guy did that. But hey, we got a calder trophy to show for it.
  4. Normally I wouldn't entertain Evander Kane being a Canuck, but the more I thought about it, it MIGHT be worth a shot if its league minimum or close to it at least, heres the reasons why. 1) Alex Chiasson sucks, so Kane would already be a massive upgrade 2) Like it or not, Jim Rutherford is in the evaluation stage for this franchise. If we don't make it to the playoffs, he probably gets a pass because of the management turnover, and whatever moves hes bound to make is going to be the mold of what this team is going to look going forward 3) The biggest reason probably is that he's playing in Vancouver his hometown, the team he grew up watching, and probably dreaming of putting their jersey on since he was a kid. Most of all, he's going to be playing in front of his FAMILY. This might reign in his antics a bit, theres a bit of a difference playing somewhere else, and you're family isn't there than playing right in front of them on a regular basis. I don't think he'd want them to be dissappointed with his antics, especially in front of them regularly If they don't sign Kane, its cool, understandable why they won't, but just stating some reasons why they should. If he keeps his head on straight, thats a big IF, he'd be a very useful player down the stretch
  5. If Demko goes down, yes because they sure as hell ain't making it in with Dipietro. Halak is good enough to get you into the playoffs, but how far, thats another story. Especially during this covid crap, you're gonna need 2 goalies in case one guy ends up in the covid list
  6. What did Gillis do after 2011? Finish bottom 5 in the standings.....oh wait? Thats JIM BENNING. Gillis teams were at least competitive, and made it to the playoffs in 2012. They were never the laughing stock of the league like the majority of Bennings tenure. Hell, Bennings teams have more bottom 5 finishes than Gillis, Nonis, and Burkes teams combined. Each of those regimes have more wins than bennings teams in the playoffs.
  7. Ok so youd rather have a full prospect pool but miss the playoffs almost annually? Lol. Funny you bring up the presidents trophy as an excuse but yet have a boatload excuses on how benning was better. "He got left nothing" wah wah wah
  8. How many Presidents trophies and trips to the stanley cup finals did Burke, Nonis and Benning have combined? Nobody cares about calder trophies, nominations, yadda yadda. You're crazy if you think Gillis is thinking, "hey im gotta get a bunch of picks so the the guy taking my job is gonna be successful" LOL. He's trying to save his behind, not build it up for the next guy. Brian Burke mortaged a lot of picks before Nonis (to think they were friends too) got there and he did the same thing prior to Gillis. We already know how bad Gillis is in drafting, but he brought results. Let me ask you, if Nonis had all these guys, Kesler, Sedins, Luongo, etc where was their trip the finals?, lets hear your excuses Gillis augmented Nonis and Burke's guys with Hamhuis, Torres, Lapierre, Higgins, Erhoff, Malhotra and to a very small extent Samuelsson, Tambellini, maybe even Keith Ballard. Without those guys I mentioned except Malhotra (who played a HUGE HUGE part in the regular season) we don't make it to the finals. Erhoff was a massive piece but people who actually watched that run know that Torres and Lapierre played critical roles, with Hansen forming probably the best 3rd line this franchise has ever seen
  9. Lockwood should already have been through the door, taking off his shoes and going in the house considering what little or nothing Chiasson has been giving us
  10. That was the cost of business. Not his fault the players he wanted NTCs and NMCs. I'll take those bad contracts if they at least played big parts on a stanley cup final run, and a long stretch of success, which they did. Hamhuis, Kesler and Burrows all had those clauses, and we wouldve never been in the finals without those guys. Gillis job was to take care of his term as GM, whatever happens to the guy next to him, not his problem
  11. Look it up, Quinn said that Mogilny was the most talented player he's coached and I could've sworn I read that Sergei though Mogilny was the best out of the 3 in their line. Almo was a more complete player than Pavel. The effort wasn't always there with Almo, but he was the superior player when he turned it on.
  12. Patrick Roy was different cat though. That 93 series, when Roy was in the zone was probably one of, if not the greatest goalie performances Ive ever seen. It seemed Gretzky was the only guy scoring on him and he shut down everybody else. That Canadiens team had no business winning the cup if it wasn't for Roy and OT goals from Leclair
  13. Bure vs Mogilny, best on best, Mogilny was the better player. Aucoin, Fedorov and Pat Quinn seem to think so too, and we can't exactly discredit their opinion. Theyve seen both up close and personal
  14. Defencemen can skate a lot better now than they did back then, so you can't really say Pavel would make todays Dmen look like pylons. Add to the fact that todays player, most treat hockey as a 365 day/ 7 days a week job where they train year around, not to mention all the nutritional advances, todays players are probably just as fit as Pavel was back in his heyday
  15. I think it was Kevin Lowe that had a crazy story about Bossy. It might have been an all star game practice or something, Bossy took 10 shots at Fuhr WITHOUT looking at the net, just going on feel, he scored on 8 and 2 went off the post. Ive never seen Bossy play but judging from what ive read, Bossy was a special goal scorer
  16. Yup I agree. The poster Elias Pettersson considers Kurri as "generational" strictly by numbers but they have to be measured by the peers they played against. I guess its a millenial thing where bars have to be lowered, I dunno. When Gretzky and Lemieux played, they were both better than everybody else, they were undeniably the best players in their era, you can say the same thing about Crosby and now McDavid
  17. Way too much. Even the word elite has lost its lustre, geez idiots in this site consider EP40 an"elite player", hes not even a top 20 player in the league
  18. I don't agree with you a lot of things but I'll agree with you with a lot of what you just mentioned. To me, generational means at some point, the player is just a rung or 2 above his peers a stretch of years during his era. It can't be just about numbers as era's differ with rules where the game is a that time. It has to be non debatable, at that stretch of years, he has to be undeniably the best player. I agree with all the players you mentioned, but I certainly put Crosby as generational. For a stretch for maybe 4-5 years, he was undeniably the best player in the planet and still is probably top 5 to this day. Stats can be skewed from the era's they played in. Connor McDavid is defintely generational, as he is, and probably the best player the last 3 or so years and still getting better. Mario and Wayne are in a different category on their own as during their time, they were going blow for blow with 170 - 200 pt seasons and the rest were just not just 2 rungs below but a whole different ladder LOL
  19. I think Bure would still be a top line player especially with the new age fitness, the vastly improved technology in the equipment. People can bark all they want that Pavel had to do it in an era with clutching and grabbing, they don't realize that the defencemen this era , some can probably skate as well, if not better than him. In Bure's days, he was skating around guys like Scott Stevens, Derian Hatcher, Al Macinnis, Rob Blake etc, flat footed Dmen that would not survive in todays game (maybe Big Al would with his shot)
  20. Unless you are just using hockeydb as your baseline,sorry to disappoint, Bure isn't even in same realm of Mario in the goal scoring dept. Whatever Bure can do, Mario can do better with half the effort. Im a Gretzky fanboy ( i own like 60 cards of his, public disclaimer), but I'll admit, Mario Lemieux is probably the greatest player Ive ever seen play
  21. You know what generational means right? A generation is 10 years, the fact that you mentioned like what? 5 or 7 guys in a "generation" means your bar is pretty damn low. Seriously, Jari Kurri? generational? Who's delusional now? Whatever you say homer. Nobody cares what you think, eh eh Jack Rathbone , hes a top 4 Dman this year blah blah, all you spew is garbage with your rose colored glasses, you make every draft pick we have sound like they are going to be all stars. Ive mentioned before, you claim to have seen Bure and all these other guys play and yet the username you can come up with is Elias Pettersson LOL geez, you ain't fooling anybody millenial
  22. Ive seen Pavel MANY times live and on tv. Hell, I was probably one of the few guys thats seen Pavel live which I believe was his first visit, and might have been his only visit back to Vancouver as a Panther. I don't think ive even needed to youtube Pavel's highlights as a Canucks as most Ive already seen in the sportsdesk, sportspage and the early parts of sportsnet days
  23. Even if they make it to the playoffs, too many injuries in the secondary, Whoever meets them in the playoffs, they are gonna get rained on. Just not happening this year for them
  24. Best team in the AFC North bar none. Burrow had a hell of a game today
×
×
  • Create New...