We Are All Cucks
-
Posts
262 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by We Are All Cucks
-
-
3 hours ago, combover said:
Pretty lame for the team to be searching and getting permission to talk to other coaches while they leave Green and the team twirling in the wind.
terrible ownership/ management and a horrible way to treat an employee.
if he’s done fire him if not more say sothis kind of garbage is why high quality people won’t work for this ownership.
im sure green is super motivated knowing Scott walker is an option to replace him
reminds me of how this ownership treated Louie when they were over him.
it’s become more and more evident there is really only one way to get this club back on track and that’s if they sell the team.
It’s clear FA doesn’t have the mental capacity to be in charge.
#SELLTHETEAM
I hope that’s the chant
or
#fireAquallini
I doubt you'd get the whole arena to chant that, but can you imagine? The owner is so prideful that this would surely resonate.
This whole debacle goes to show how badly the owner has made things since the end of the Gillis era - when his hands were clearly tied - through to the Linden thing, and now with Benning making/being forced into making choice that are simply not good long term operational decisions. The theme here is ownership being too involved. Always has been.
The only way forward, I'd say most would agree, is at least a new GM and coach, if not a president that will buffer the owner from the team. The debate lies in how/when to go about these things. Let's put it this way though: if an interim GM and interim coach were put in place and had the same/slightly worse record than what they have under the current ones, would that be worse optically than what is going on now? I'm of the strong opinion that the answer is 'no'. People would kind of expect that to happen. And be okay with it. It would represent the start of a rebuilding process. Would it be worse on our players? Again, no. They'd have a different voice, and could learn from it. They'd immediately escape the dumpster fire that is the current situation. They need that. Now, if the new interim coach/GM were to do *better* than our current group, obviously that's a good thing (like frogurt). Leaving it as is only makes everyting worse (like pottasium benzoate). By not firing both immediately, the owner is again showing he's not thinking in the best long term interests of the team.
I obvs want success for the team and the owner, but I'm sure it's not coming. And I'm sure the new management group will be equally influenced and corrupted by the owner.
-
1 hour ago, shiznak said:
What about Brent Sutter?
We can have Darryl vs. Brent, with Brandon playing for his daddy.
Actually an interesting under-the-radar idea there. What's he been up to?
If he won't come, maybe one of the 12 other brothers will
-
Back in their day as the 86ers the Whitecaps had one of their players (Lenarduzzi?) as both player and coach.
Maybe get Petey to be head coach...see if it helps his game to coach himself? Miller to draw up some systems? Garland to be assistant coach in charge of spin-o-ramas in the corner? Motte is back - if not full on head coach, he could be official coach of pre-game pump-ups. Lots of possibilities here.
-
You mean something like this?
-
1
-
1
-
-
If it happens, it needs to be somebody with the tag "interm" placed before their title. More dominos will likely fall, and there's no sense in bringing in somebody on a more permanent contract until the rest of whatever "shakeup" we're going to see takes place.
-
2
-
-
You'd think being at the longest ever Canuck's game would be something you'd want to brag about; an exciting event; a tale for the ages.
Well, when you shell out huge dollars to bring a date to the game, the beer stops being flowing after the second period (and you've got like 8 more periods to go), it's too loud to adequately converse, and the only event the two of you can rally around is another Luongo save, you kind of just end up wanting to forget.
But, even if I try to forget, my credit card remembers.
-
1
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:
How about the worst career move (to leave the Canucks)?
My vote goes to Anson Carter.
I remember reading fantasy news in a hockey magazine at Safeway (remember magazines?!) prior to the post-Carter year.
The advice, roughly paraphrased here was: "Don't draft the Sedins too high. Their potential for bust is through the roof without Carter to play with". Now, nothing personal against Anson - seemed like a good dude - but did he ever make a mistake not re-signing.
And also, could that also be the reason we don't buy magazines anymore? I mean, I'm open to other suggestions, but I feel like flabbergasting miscalculations like that could be the very reason they went out of style.
-
1
-
-
Lots of focus here on whether Quenneville adequately "owned up to his mistake" or not, and consequently, whether we ought to "accept" this ownership.
Two things in response to that. First of all, the conditions under which he made the apology are immediately tainted, as has been mentioned. It's hard to take his words at face value. Based on the timeline of the "admission" and resignation, etc., he has relinquished any benefit of the doubt. Put this way: is the power of his apology stronger or weaker if he comes out sooner? Obviously sooner, so in this case, it will take longer for people to believe the integrity of the apology. There is a direct relationship between the amount of time it takes to own up and the amount of time it takes for others to believe someone is actually sorry.
Secondly, the focus on whether Quenneville has adequately apologized is kind of missing the point. An apology doesn't absolve somebody just as pleading 'guilty' doesn't get you off the hook for murder. Second chances are hugely important, but for goodness' sake let's not just hand them out at the first sound of a squeaky sorry - earn them. (And for the record, second chance really shouldn't mean a multi-million dollar contract as a leader of a high-profile sports team)
- as for the first point, for his own benefit, Chevyldayoff ought to take notice
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 minutes ago, Warhippy said:Man i'm still so on the fence about this and I feel horrible for it.
As a human being Quennville refusing to address this after the allegations surfaced and suggesting the sport and pursuit of a cup were more important is unfathomable. It's honestly just an utter crap thing to do to the players you're supposed to lead and help grow.
But....
He's the 2nd winningest coach in history. His major crime is his view of hockey over investigation and refusing to take it seriously. Watching tonights game, if he makes actual efforts to grow as a human and start taking his player's mental health and overall safety seriously; I'd still accept him as a coach in a season or two because he's a damned winner and everything he builds succeeds lately. He's got that Bowman/Burns touch behind the bench and as disgusting as I feel I want a damned cup.
I mean, ya know. He's terrible and will never be looked at as anything but a guy who ignored a very serious allegation of assault, he put his career over his players safety and that's unacceptable.
But....
Is he the one that wrote the letter of recommendation? If so, he bears significant responsibilty for putting young people in danger. It's despicable.
These actions can't be undone. As with the Mailloux situation, here's how contrition works: you admit responsibility, you work your ass off to make things right. Why do you do this? Not to get your old life back, not to "make up" for something that can't be undone. You do it because it's the right thing to do and you are truly eager to prevent these things from happening again *for their own sake*. As soon as he takes another job, I question the value of his repentance, because it appears he wasn't making amends for the right reasons.
As for him being a good coach, think about the players who he will be in charge of in the future. How will they play for him? Will they trust his hockey mind, likely. Will he ever again have full trust of his players as an individual who is batting for his team? I doubt that. This alone seems like a good enough reason never to hire this excrement again.
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
To be fair to Hirsch, Cheech is off-topic, has weird stories, and sometimes doesn't gel with Shorty. We tolerate (and even enjoy) this because we are familiar with him, it's funny in an old-man-who-likes-pizza kind of way, and he's a living classic.
As some have mentioned, Hirsch does similar things. Thing is, he hasn't had the chance to create chemistry with Shorthouse, and is still picking up the art. Positive is that Hirsch has a lot of the positive characteristics Garrett does. I say if he continues, by the end of the season he's gonna grow on a bunch of people, and he'll have a bunch of homers on his side.
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
Whoa! Just in...Kane being investigated for every crime under the sun.
-
Honest question: Do you think Buffalo and Detroit do these trades? I feel like unprotected 1sts wouldn't be included in either deal.
-
-
42 minutes ago, BabychStache said:
Ya! We are winning the “give your fans anxiety” race!
Yep, but isn't that kind of the Canucks' MO?
-
-
I thought McDavid was the supposed to be the sceviour of that organization!
-
3
-
-
12 hours ago, grumpyone said:
So like a one week mid season tourney?
Each division all to themselves. All teams play each other once. All games at a neutral site, divisions at 4 neutral sites, possibly indoor baseball stadiums so maximum crowds. They could be like the bubble, 2 games per day(obviously not 2 games for one team on the same day). Everyone plays 5 games in 7 days.
4 separate mini trophies awarded based on points gained with some tie breakers based on goals for/against etc.
Charities involved with the monetary winnings, of course. ie: each team plays for a certain charity...Canuck Place etc.
Use this to replace the all star fiasco.
I like this idea if, as mentioned, the games are part of the regular season standings, too. With 4 divisions instead of 6 it's a bit harder to pull off, but having 2 weeks of only intradivisional play and the winner gets the rights to home ice in the playoffs (providing they make it), or something along those lines. I think it would be fun - probably a scheduling nightmare, but that's not my job, so I don't care.
-
12 hours ago, Provost said:
The NBA is discussion some form of mid-season tournament that would break up a long season. The reported plan is one that would award a trophy and earn players $1 million each for winning it.
I have long thought we needed something mid-season as the dog days of Jan/Feb get pretty dreary and unwatchable.
I would propose something like clustering all the in division games into a mini tourney with some trophy awarded (Cascadia Cup style) and having the winning players split pots of cash between themselves and their charity of choice.
It would resolve a few playoff chases before the trade deadline and spur some extra movement there and incentivize players to not phone it in mid-season when the regular season games tend to be the worst.
Not adding games to the schedule, just formatting a segment of games within the regular season into a mini tournament.
The great thing about the Cascadia Cup is that it's not additional games, but just an extra tourney within the boundaries of the regular season. If something like what you're suggesting were to be implemented, this would be ideal. That means no extra games, but extra to play for when they're already playing.
Let's start with a mini point counting tourney for eliminated teams from the playoffs, as has been suggested often over the years, with the prize being 1OA. The team with the most points after their official elimination is the winner. It keeps things interesting for teams outside of playoffs, promotes winning, reduces tanking, and it doesn't add extra games.
-
1
-
-
Gees. A lot of great names up there. Really wish it was divided into weight class.
-
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:This....absolutely kills me. Like KILLS ME....
Messier...
Hate him all you want and we all do but his numbers speak for themself.
Otherwise it's Luongo/Bertuzzi all day long
Not intending to pile on, but as others have pointed out, its his Canucks' prime.
To be fair, though. In his Canucks' prime, his numbers were still good: 1 captaincy stolen, 11 disrespected every time he wore it, 23 man roster that he managed to destroy from the inside, 207 games where I'd rather have had a steaming pile of s*** on the ice than him.
-
1
-
2
-
4
-
I voted Bert. But, wait, I also voted Linden as greatest Canuck ever. Bert was most dominant season-by-season, whereas Linden had duration in his favor. Does that even make sense? Is it even true? Do I even need to justify myself? Can't I just accept that both are freakin' legends? So many questions, so little time (to waste when I should be doing other things).
-
9 hours ago, Patel Bure said:
I honestly have dibs on Demko. I think he will establish himself as a top 3 goalie in the league this year (if he stays healthy). Demko was lights out in the bubble and was starting to play at that level again before the Covid outbreak last season.
Yeah. Is already an incredible goalie. Could easily get to the point where he not only compensates for our D's inefficiencies, but actually makes them look good. Personally, I think the best bet may be JT. Starting with this season, if the Canucks put it together, he could have not only one, but two or three monster years, changing this conversation entirely.
*Okay, well done, self. I have convinced me that I need to go and bump JT up two rounds in my fantasy projections. Good thinkings, you.*
-
1
-
-
Funny thing is that we have an insane crop of potentials currently playing for us on this list. Any of Hughes, Miller, Demko, or Boeser could easily end up being the best ever American in their prime, playing for the Canucks.
The above said, they haven't reached it yet, and as for now, it's an easy answer. Kes was best.
Bureshear gets an honorable mention from me.
-
2
-
1
-
-
As a goalie...how do I choose? An incredible case could be made for so many of these guys.
Hasek could steal a goal, a game, a series on any given night. He was jaw-dropping and instilled a sense of bewilderedness and disbelief in his opponents.
Roy was one of the GOATs and just acted like a vacuum in the net, sucking up any chance of offense from the other team.
Look at Brodeur in his early years: he was acrobatic, then when the modern butterfly took over the game, he said "pas de problem, I can do that, too".
How about Plante? His best years came when he was nearly 45 lol! I cringe at my joints acting up pulling the stuff he did. Perhaps one of the toughest men to play the game, too.
Tretiak could have shattered records if he had had an NHL career. What we missed out by not seeing him play on this side of the world is a travesty.
Esposito, Dryden, and the 70's goalies, Sawchuk, Hall, Bower as the trailblazers before them.
Bernie Parent in 73-74 had 47 wins and a GAA under 2. Lol!
George Hainsworth in the 1920's posted GAA's under 1. Different game, but...under 1?
What about Nabokov?
Fuhr had a great team, but he played 79 games in 95-96. That's willpower mixed with a bit of white powder.
Even Tiny Tim (*shudders*) in his prime for those one or two years channeled his inner Hasek by stealing games, and his inner Roy by being (more than slightly) a nut-job.
Sorry, I went off. I've now got my list of highlights to peruse to psyche my old, slow ass up the next time I play.
As for the actual question? Hasek is the correct answer. I chose Tretiak just cuz he's underappreciated. Any of the goalies I listed above are not going to get an argument from me. Wrong answers include Tommy Salo, Dan Cloutier, and Greg Millen.
-
1
-
.png.daec9a5f14dc69029c3da4029c8450ac.png)
Brendan Lemieux bites Brady Tkachuk
in General Hockey Discussion
Posted
Props to Vernon there for doing what he had to do.