sampy Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Bieksa wouldn't have fared any better against McQuaid. Considering he just dropped a much tougher and bigger Mayers, yeah he would have, probably even would have won too, at least he wouldn't have turtled and looked like a puss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Erhoff was garbage Agree and he's not doing very well with Buffalo either. One of the worst minuses on a high scoring team. Only 2 goals and 1 was an empty net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Considering he just dropped a much tougher and bigger Mayers, yeah he would have, probably even would have won too, at least he wouldn't have turtled and looked like a puss. We'll see how far the Canucks go this year without Ehrhoff. Guaranteed they don't make it past the second round unless they add another defenseman on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Agree and he's not doing very well with Buffalo either. One of the worst minuses on a high scoring team. Only 2 goals and 1 was an empty net. Bieksa has one of the worst minuses on an even higher scoring team. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The Canucks would be doing better with Ehrhoff here... guaranteed. It's not a coincidence that the D looks like crap without Ehrhoff. The D certainly didn't look that bad last year. It's not a coincidence that the D have more than made up for the "loss" of Ehrhoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 We'll see how far the Canucks go this year without Ehrhoff. Guaranteed they don't make it past the second round unless they add another defenseman on the team. Guaranteed? Just making sure we're seriously serious about this guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 It's not a coincidence that the D have more than made up for the "loss" of Ehrhoff. Point production wise yes. But many of the d-men have been forced to play more offensively in order to make up the loss of Ehrhoff, which makes them even more susceptible to poor defensive zone coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Point production wise yes. But many of the d-men have been forced to play more offensively in order to make up the loss of Ehrhoff, which makes them even more susceptible to poor defensive zone coverage. That's not correct at all. Many of the points are gifted to whoever was gifted his spot on the 1st pp unit. After that it's not that much to make up for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Guaranteed? Just making sure we're seriously serious about this guarantee. I guaranteed a Vancouver/Boston final last year at the beginning of the 2010/2011 season. I think I'll be accurate with this guarantee as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I guaranteed a Vancouver/Boston final last year at the beginning of the 2010/2011 season. I think I'll be accurate with this guarantee as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 That's not correct at all. Many of the points are gifted to whoever was gifted his spot on the 1st pp unit. After that it's not that much to make up for. Explain why the D looks so bad then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Explain why the D looks so bad then... Same reason they did last year for the first while. Or are you doing that thing where you just use this last game as your point? I've already shown that Bieksa hasn't really been worse...I'll let you go look it up and see why you're wrong in terms of the rest of the D as well. Keep trying...you'll get it eventually...I guarantee it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 You should know by now WL, that the constant negative nature of your posts which are consistently laced with personal attacks is wearing real thin. I for one do not take any of your posts seriously. As far as who was available for under 3 mil this past summer that would have been a bigger,better, faster, defender to partner with the Canuck's stud Dman Hamhuis? There was a long list posted prior to the under achieving, career minus player with the perma-Sneer being re - signed. Sameer and you are either too feeble minded to remember or too lazy to look it up. The list was headlined with Montador. MG over paid for Bxa and screwed the Nucks for 5 yrs, with that NTC. Yeah? The list headlined by Montador? He averages 15minutes a night this season. Sounds like a true top pairing dman. And if you look at his past seasons, his highest average over his career was barely 19 minutes. Who's next on this amazing list? Please provide a Dman who averages at least 22 minutes. Also you are saying our powerplay might have been more successful if the Hoff wasnt injured, but our Powerplay without Hoff is STILL currently in #1 in the entire NHL at 25.7%. Thats actually 1.4% higher than the average of last year so far, and we seem to be getting better every game too! So how you going to spin this? ... .. .. Wait you just never answer when you got nothing. For once can you please just completely dedicate your post to absolutely refuting the points I made? don't go off topic. Just look at the points i made above, and give a response that properly refutes everything I said with pure statistics. No opinions or observations. PLEASE. I BEG YOU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 It's weird...it's almost like people make these claims and pull them right out of their arse. Well, it is where their heads are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeparrosesmustache Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Well, it is where their heads are. You're one to talk. *runs away* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 BTW, I think RandyLahey plusses his own posts, because I for one see no reason anyone else would + the above "contribution". You can't "plus" your own posts. The Canucks will be regretting Kevin Bieksa's contract for the next 5 years... guaranteed. Wow. You sure do hand out a lot of guarantees I love the one about your "guarantee" of a Boston-Vancouver final last year. You must be the Amazing Kreskin. You want to hear something funny? Your homey in this thread CANUCKELION "guaranteed" last year that Bieksa would be playing in Europe this season. (with Welly. Wrong again) HankandDan "guaranteed" that defending Bieksa last year would be "laughable" by the end of the season. I think it's fair to say that they both ended up looking foolish by season's end. (Not that you'd get either to admit it ) Now we have a whole new crop of clairvoyants, setting themselves up for failure. We'll see how your "guarantees" look when the postseason rolls around.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WL Canuck Fan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The Canucks would be doing better with Ehrhoff here... guaranteed. It's not a coincidence that the D looks like crap without Ehrhoff. The D certainly didn't look that bad last year. You missed this post TEE Ehrhoff averaged 14 goals, 47 points and a rating of plus-27.5 the last two years in Vancouver. He’s not going to get near those numbers this season as he has only two goals, 13 points and a minus-4 rating in 23 games. Ehrhoff was minus-6 in October and his only goal was an empty netter Oct. 18 in Montreal. He’s plus-2 in November and his ice time has picked up appreciably, especially in the wake of the injury to Tyler Myers. http://news.bostonhe...position=recent Ehrhoff is struggling right now. Why do you think he would not be struggling here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WL Canuck Fan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 1 bad playoff run because of an injury and he gets shipped out. Bieksa plays bad for 3 years (regular season and playoffs) and he gets a free pass. Sounds good. Not true. Ehrhoff's stats in the playoffs are abysmal career wise. His NHL total is (over 6 seasons) 73 games, 7 goals, 27 assists, 34 points, -12 rating Bieksa's are (over 4 seasons) 56 games, 8 goals, 15 assists, 23 points, +10 rating Projected, same amount of games, Bieksa would be 10 goals, 20 assists, 30 points, +13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Not true. Ehrhoff's stats in the playoffs are abysmal career wise. His NHL total is (over 6 seasons) 73 games, 7 goals, 27 assists, 34 points, -12 rating Bieksa's are (over 4 seasons) 56 games, 8 goals, 15 assists, 23 points, +10 rating Projected, same amount of games, Bieksa would be 10 goals, 20 goals, 30 points, +13 1) Yeah but those stats aren't fair cause most of Bieksas points in the playoffs are off the stanchion! 2) Yeah but Bieksa is really good at knowing when to get on the ice and when to jump off! 3) Ehrhoff was injured for the Bruins series but he's excused for his career playoff stats, Bieksa was also injured but it doesn't count cause he's Bieksa 4) If the Canucks had Steve Montador who averages 15 minutes of icetime instead of Bieksa, we would of won the cup! We need to get as many pucks in return for Bieksa now so the guys can take extra shots on Lu in practice. Having Bieksa at this high contract price is affecting us so badly that we don't have enough pucks in practice to keep our players sharp! It's all Bieksas fault Lu isn't playing well, we needed a lower contract in his place so we could afford more pucks! ... wow being a troll is funner than I thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyLahey Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Well, by saying "you guys", you are lumping him in with a select few people that just arbitrarily invent opinion-based arguments and subsequently present them as incontestable evidence. The point that you clearly can't understand is that he adds substance to his statements and doesn't appreciate being lumped in with that select few people. All you've done is paint him as a hater when he's contributing to the discussion. To say "Bieksa is underperforming" is a heck of a lot different than saying "Bieksa sucks, get rid of him". Do you understand the difference? The first quote is saying "Bieksa can play better than he is, and I'd like to see him do that". The second is just hateful diatribe. I, for one, agree that Bieksa can play better. I've seen him play better. I'm confident that he will play better again in the future. I believe that he will work to continue to improve. As such, at present he is underperforming, simply because he is capable of more. BTW, I think RandyLahey plusses his own posts, because I for one see no reason anyone else would + the above "contribution". Darn. You got me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.