Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Kevin Bieksa you are really...

Zigmund.Palffy

By Zigmund.Palffy
in Canucks Talk

Recommended Posts

Sharpshooter Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Sharpshooter

Posted
Posted

He missed the hit, it was a split second play...so what? What's Hansen's excuse for tying up his man? He didn't think Purcell would score???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpshooter Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Sharpshooter

Posted
Posted

Bieksa, Hamhuis bounce back

By Gordon McIntyre Mon, Dec 13 2010

A lasting image from Saturday night's ovetime loss to Tampa Bay is Kevin Bieksa letting Steven Stamkos get by him, then Bieksa lining up the young Lightning star along the end boards, and finally Bieksa slamming into the glass while an untouched Stamkos slips the puck to the slot for a Teddy Purcell goal.Bieksa also let Stamkos get body position for his first goal, when the puck bounced past Cory Schneider off Stamkos's chest, and the usually reliable Hamhuis was no better.

The duo, supposedly on the ice in shut-down roles, were on for three Tampa goals.

But Alain Vigneault decided to leave them together on Sunday and the two were instrumental in shutting down the Oilers' talented youngsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duodenum Canucks Third-Line

Duodenum

Posted
Posted

Jesus, Obviously it's pretty common sense that no single person is responsible for a series of events. This is the problem is that people want to point to one player rather than see the whole picture or the series of events so to speak.

The other problem is using your example as a shield to say "hey guys I'm not saying it's all his fault but his huge mistake cost the canucks a goal."

If you want to try to disprove that, go right ahead. Otherwise we're just talking in circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duodenum Canucks Third-Line

Duodenum

Posted
Posted

Disprove what?

There's nothing to disprove.

Exactly.

1) Bieksa made a mistake

2) it resulted in a goal

3) other mistakes were also made towards the occurence of the goal (relevant ones)

4) This is what wall said and what I am telling both Rupert and Baggins

Why bring this up in the first place then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Barry_Wilkins Canucks Prospect

Barry_Wilkins

Posted
Posted

Anyways...Bieksa in my mind, played a factor in contributing towards a goal by not connecting with that hit on Stamkos. However I don't believe he had many great options at the time. He could have let Stamkos get the puck and gone to the net, but that would have left the #2 goal scorer all by himself with the puck, feet from our net. He could have tried to play the puck and not the man, which most dmen are taught not to do....but because Stamkos got there before Bieksa, he could have gotten the pass off anyways. Bieksa couldn't have gotten to the puck first, as Stamkos is much faster than Juice.

This is definitely one of the funniest posts yet from a Bieksa apologist.

"Contributing factor".

If Bieksa makes the easy play, there are no other factors that come into play.

Not many "great options at the time".

You're right. There was only one option. The easy one. Which was to simply stay in front of Stamkos so's to prevent a clear path to the net for him or for a pass to a dangerous area. This is something that all Dmen are taught in midget hockey. The "Stamkos is a great player" excuse is nonsense, because in that position it doesn't matter who the opponent is, all the Dman has to do is stay between him and the front of the net, and there is no great option for Stamkos.

But as usual, Bieksa makes the routine defensive play a hair-raising adventure.

I also like the argument that well, Bieksa had a "so-so" game (but so did many other players, too!!), he and Hamhuis played much better in Edmonton. (So did the other players.) This feeble-minded wishy-washy grasping at straws to level the ice is incredible.

Bieksa made a boneheaded play. Again. But the important point is that these boneheaded boo-boos are unforced. There's never a safe moment on the ice when Bieksa's in the vicinity. He'll fall down, unprovoked. He'll deflect the puck at Luongo, unforced, as he did in the Tampa game in the first period. (The similar play by Alberts was actually Torres' fault since he made a rushed bad pass to Alberts.)

He played well in Edmonton. Hooray. Who knows what kind of game we'll get from him against Columbus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmployeeoftheMonth Canucks Second-Line

EmployeeoftheMonth

Posted
Posted

Exactly.

1) Bieksa made a mistake

2) it resulted in a goal

3) other mistakes were also made towards the occurence of the goal (relevant ones)

4) This is what wall said and what I am telling both Rupert and Baggins

Why bring this up in the first place then?

Why bring it up? You are aware this is a discussion board right...for discusion debates and occasionally disagreements. I bring it up because what you said makes it super easy for people to get away with being able to trash a player but hide behind semantics. It's like throwing bull#&%^ while saying have a nice day.

I'm sorry if you don't approve but I honestly don't care. (See what I did there when I told you I was sorry and said I didn't care?)

Anyways I made a point about while your theory is true it's also a mask to hide behind. If so and so makes a mistake and there's a string of mistakes before and after don't you agree it's stupid to single out that player? Even if it's coupled with some sissy statement like "it wasn't just him though"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
لني Canucks Prospect

لني

Posted
Posted

Lollerz @ 'Bieksa apologists'.

Could be a name of a band.

Anyways...he still isnt as bad as the poo-poo-on-Bieksa-for-flimsy-reasons camp.

It is not like he is Steve McCarthy for crying out loud.

Buy it's gotta be all one word: Bieksapologistz.

It's like my wife asking my buddy who has a thing for japan if he's a japologist. I said "yeah he likes to make excuses for their behaviour 70 years ago."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duodenum Canucks Third-Line

Duodenum

Posted
Posted

Why bring it up? You are aware this is a discussion board right...for discusion debates and occasionally disagreements. I bring it up because what you said makes it super easy for people to get away with being able to trash a player but hide behind semantics. It's like throwing bull#&%^ while saying have a nice day.

I'm sorry if you don't approve but I honestly don't care. (See what I did there when I told you I was sorry and said I didn't care?)

Anyways I made a point about while your theory is true it's also a mask to hide behind. If so and so makes a mistake and there's a string of mistakes before and after don't you agree it's stupid to single out that player? Even if it's coupled with some sissy statement like "it wasn't just him though"?

Last I checked this is the Bieksa thread. This is where people go to point Bieksa's mistakes and good plays. If Bieksa was part of the chain of mistakes that leads to a goal, it will get pointed out here.

Especially when it was Bieksa's mistake that was the biggest and most obvious in this play. You might have a case if Bieksa and Hansen switched places.

Not to mention hating Bieksa is the cool thing to do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmployeeoftheMonth Canucks Second-Line

EmployeeoftheMonth

Posted
Posted

Last I checked this is the Bieksa thread. This is where people go to point Bieksa's mistakes and good plays. If Bieksa was part of the chain of mistakes that leads to a goal, it will get pointed out here.

Especially when it was Bieksa's mistake that was the biggest and most obvious in this play. You might have a case if Bieksa and Hansen switched places.

Not to mention hating Bieksa is the cool thing to do!

It is a Bieksa thread but if the information still isn't correct or there is more to the discussion that also counts.

I know you;re joking with that last part but sadly it's not always a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duodenum Canucks Third-Line

Duodenum

Posted
Posted

It is a Bieksa thread but if the information still isn't correct or there is more to the discussion that also counts.

I know you;re joking with that last part but sadly it's not always a joke.

Yea, I understand but I wasn't making any generalized statements, I was just applying it to that specific play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...