Grape

Members
  • Content Count

    3,142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,527 Revered

1 Follower

About Grape

  • Rank
    Fruit

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ann Arbor
  • Interests
    Vancouver Canucks

Recent Profile Visitors

17,723 profile views
  1. Lol let me know which part is inaccurate before you come with your age argument . It's a message board, not an academic paper; I'm not going to cite sources for you lmfao. I found intriguing quotes and pasted them. If you're upset with that I can't help you! Edit: Another thing, unless you're extracting your numbers off of original databases and doing your own statistical analysis, you're also finding your "proper research" through essentially the same mediums as I am. The difference here is that you disagree with my viewpoint.
  2. You don't at all think that there is fear mongering or mass hysteria that have existed based off of the existence of Coronavirus? Though I respect your point, I would think that it's a bit ignorant.
  3. I don't think so. I'm just saying I agree with those quotes that I found on another forum. Didn't bother formulating my own quotes since it was easier to copy and paste. I'm not citing them as sources so to speak.
  4. The whole issue of the coronavirus is so overblown in terms of the preventative travel measures that are "needed." Here are a few quotes I found elsewhere that I thought were eye-opening: "This is one stupendous mass hysteria. The FP is reporting that, I believe internationally, there have been 79,000 cases with 2,000 deaths. In the US, for the 2019-20 regular old flu season, so far there have been over 200,000 cases and approaching 15,000 deaths. The things folks latch on to and lose their minds over are simply incredible" "The amount of elevated risk is minuscule. The risk of being able to reenter the country, on the other hand, is non-minuscule, because apparently the people who make those decisions don't understand risk analysis." "Social media is running with the mass hysteria. Every time I look at Twitter or Facebook I see a new video of suited up Chinese dudes hog-tying some poor guy and throwing him in a quarantine truck. Then they spray all the **** down with some fog stuff." "-Travel ban effect on public health: negligible. A virus with an unknown incubation period, believed to be at least a week, and which can be spread asymptomatically, simply cannot be stopped by a travel restriction. -Travel ban effect on the public: mostly bifurcated. The fears of some members of the public will be assuaged, because "they" have the virus and "they" aren't "here." Others will panic, because "they" have the virus and will come "here" and kill "us." -At the end of the day, washing your hands will help more than any travel restriction ever could." I see it this way: if weather during a certain season during the year was unexpectedly horrible, and might cause a lot more accidents, do you just ban autonomous vehicles all around? I understand that the coronavirus is a VIRUS, and there are more complicated aspects to it, but the risks are not even close to what the fear level would indicate it to be, and it would take A LOT of additional negligence for the virus to be a legitimate issue in North America. There's no analytically logical explanation to banning travel to the extent that some have taken in the case of coronavirus, as there is no logical explanation to banning autonomous vehicles in the case of bad weather. The only explanation therefore lies within and is built solely in the mind.
  5. So a poster on Reddit proposed a Madden for Toffoli straight up deal 51 days ago, and got downvoted so much he deleted his topic.

     

    Now majority think it was a fantastic trade despite having to give up even more assets. Toffoli is already one of my favorite players, but this is groupthink at its finest.

    1. Show previous comments  6 more
    2. Brad Marchand

      Brad Marchand

      According to this spectacular Reddit post, the Canucks have the most Tylers in the NHL and roughly 17% of all Tylers in the NHL:

       

    3. goalie13

      goalie13

      Cue the proposal threads trading for all the other Tylers.

    4. Tortorella's Rant

      Tortorella's Rant

      Most of the trades that actually go through, if proposed on CDC and elsewhere in advance, would get laughed at. The difference is it comes from an authority figure in reality, or as you said.. group think. So suddenly perspective changes

  6. Disgusted at how Calgary is -9 in goal differential and at the top of the Pacific. Only in Hockey. 

    1. Where's Wellwood

      Where's Wellwood

      They've played two more games than us and have one more win and one more OTL. Our goal differential is 17 goals better. So either, we've won by a lot more games than them, they've lost by a lot more games than us, or both.

    2. Gaudette Celly

      Gaudette Celly

      Either they'll improve it or they'll come back down to where they belong.

  7. Man relax. We’re all just posters with different opinions. You’re getting way too defensive and arrogant with you’re posts (not just this one). You make a generalization about NHL players that has nothing to do with my aforementioned points. Yes, most peak around 25 but you act like that applies for everybody. You also act as if what you get back from a trade has nothing to do with how good the player is; if you’re trading away a top 25 scorer you’re going to get high value. I also said the exact opposite of personally wanting to trade Boeser so not sure what your issue is here. I respect your opinion but you’re going backwards with this argument instead of forward by rebutting mine. By that I mean that I can literally just copy and paste my exact previous post to counter your argument, but I’m too lazy to do so.
  8. I don't want to give up Brock for emotional reasons as I love him as a player and person, but I wouldn't be mad if we got a lot value for him. If I had to bet on someone potentially declining in the following years, it would be Brock. His physical tools seem like they've diminished since his rookie year and may further do so of no fault of his own (injuries). And yet, he's maintaining a PPG pace as you said as a 22 year old. As a result, his value is EXTREMELY high, but as diehard fans who watch him every night, you can sort of tell that he's not necessarily the same player, and you can have a hint of doubt that he may not ever get his rookie year physical tools back. That makes him a player who you can potentially trade now, and look back and say: "wow we didn't expect that trade to turn out so well." Again, not advertising it for my own sentimental reasons and none of the above is definitive of course, but if we were to explore trades I wouldn't be mad either.
  9. Might seem crazy, but I think we played our best game of the year just now, or at least tied with 5-3 vs the Kings.

     

    This is taking into consideration that the Blues were also excellent. Just an all around playoff type game.

    1. Drive-By Body Pierce
    2. DADDYROCK

      DADDYROCK

      St Louis came in redhot and we stayed right with them,good to get a point but a 3 on 0 poor Marky.

  10. Here's a thought: wouldn't it be smart if whenever you're playing a team of the opposite conference, to arrange the game to go to overtime on purpose so that both teams at least get a point? It doesn't affect your standings at the end and it guarantees you a point each game.

    1. goalie13

      goalie13

      First, that would start looking suspicious really fast. 

      Second, if you have the ability to get the win and not have to risk that second point, why would you chance it in OT/SO?

      Third, standings come into play in the Stanley Cup Finals.

    2. Grape

      Grape

      @goalie13 Yeah I’m not saying it’s viable at all over the course of a whole season so there’s no arguing with the first point. To your second point though, I’m not sure I really understand: in a regular scenario you start off with 0 points and try to earn 2 by winning the game, in this scenario you start off with 1 point and try to earn 2 by winning the game, you’re not risking anything. To your third point, you’d be getting an extra point as well so any extra point you give to the opponents the opposing conference, you would receive as well, so there’s no harm in the Finals either.

       

      However, in a situation where both team desperately need a point to get in the playoffs, I could see something like this happening.

  11. Interesting observation: HFboards seems to think Hughes was elite and by far the best player tonight. CDC seems to have very mixed opinions about Hughes tonight.

    1. Show previous comments  11 more
    2. vinny_in_vancouver

      vinny_in_vancouver

      If I remember correctly, Hughes and Tanev were at the end of a shift so maybe that contributed to the seeming lack of final effort. But didn't McDavid shoot on Tanev's side?

    3. StealthNuck

      StealthNuck

      Yeah, they were pretty bagged when Sutter coughed it up. I think he did shoot on Tanev's side but the entry was on Hughes side.

    4. MJDDawg

      MJDDawg

      Started slow, finished strong. Could just see him growing in confidence as the game went on. Can see him start to take over games once he starts to feel more comfortable.

  12. Hoglander is much more than hands. Hands won't get you far if you only have hands. Hoglander is so good at maneuvering himself on the ice and is able to get into advantageous situations where is skill and speed shine.
  13. No passing away has come to shake me as much as Botch's, at least recently. I literally can't believe this.

     

    I've always loved him, and say what you will about his journalism, but he was the heartbeat of Canucks journalism forever and a truly great man.

     

    I suggest you guys read Wyatt Arndt's tweets to get a feel of what he was all about. This is truly saddening and I feel numb right now. 

    1. Show previous comments  7 more
    2. Gally

      Gally

      @Dazzle That's a POS comment, fans like you are the reason why Canucks fans get a bad name. There's a time and a place to critique someone's work. If you didn't agree with his takes that is fine but your comment is incredibly insensitive. Botch did so much for young writers and he was one of the few media members who listened to the fans. Maybe if you actually read his work you wouldn't be so quick to call him negative.

    3. Alflives

      Alflives

      @Dazzle

      I think Botchford was really a Canuck's fan, and honestly wanted the team to be better, and win a Cup.  It was his job to sell copy, and Internet hits for his employers, which he did.  None of us here really knew him, but I always got the underlying impression that he was like on of us here, and very passionate about the Canucks and his views on making the team better.

       

    4. debluvscanucks

      debluvscanucks

      @Dazzle.   I think what happens with death is that it puts things into perspective and allows us to think outside our own negative thoughts and see a bigger picture.  

      It's not over romanticizing in my view....it's putting things aside in order to focus on what's important in the moment.  That someone young has passed, tragically and, by all accounts, unexpectedly, so the stuff from before is paused to pay respects.   As a journalist, we may have hated what he had to say (at times) but, it's about being more than that.  He was a husband, father, colleague, friend and so our attention is diverted to those things.

      It's a very respectful thing to do in my mind  At the moment someone is ripped away from this earth, it's pointless to dwell in that place of negativity that may have once swirled around them.  Unless they did horrid and cruel things anyhow.

      He seemed like a genuine, honest, fun loving person so even if he said things that were hard to hear or we disagreed with...it seems he was a good man.  So it's out of respect that we leave him with that.  Especially in light of the fact that his death was an untimely tragedy that no one saw coming.

  14. Nasvhille's PP success rate this season was 12.3%, to illustrate how awful this is: Each game is usually 60 minutes long and each powerplay is usually 2 minutes long. If you were on the powerplay the entire game you'd have 60/2 = 30 powerplays. 30 x 0.123 = 3.69 goals per game. Tampa Bay averaged 3.96 goals per game this year.

     

    Even if Nashville played on the powerplay the whole entire game, you could still expect them to score less goals than TB playing a normal game 5 on 5.

    1. Where's Wellwood

      Where's Wellwood

      And yet Nashville won more playoff games than TB :lol:

  15. Ugh **** the Blue Jackets and everything that exists in Columbus

    1. King Heffy

      King Heffy

      But the headlines after winning the cup would be great:


      "Happy Ending for BJs".

    2. drummer4now

      drummer4now

      Imagine the Blue Jackets sweeping or beating the Tampa Bay Lighting... :mellow:

       

      I respect the Blue Jackets they have always been a clutch and underdog franchise..

    3. Down by the River

      Down by the River

      ^ "BJs finish off Kucherov, Lightning".