Dogbyte Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Already have them. Higgins, Hansen, Booth and Burrows have all shown good chemistry with Kesler. Some kind of combination of those players on the 2nd should work fine. The real problem with the second line is that AV keeps both wing's position a revolving door, he juggles around with it too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead_82 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 We need goons just as much as we need character and skill, and if you have players that fit in multiple categories, so much the better. A diverse team is more likely to succeed as they can meet most challenges, provided everyone is pulling the same direction towards a common goal. Best example would be the Ducks the year they won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Outside of Vancouver, those aren't "character" guys, they're nuisances. -Nobody knows who Kassian is, so he shouldn't be on the list. -Bieksa's got a reputation as a spot-picker (well-deserved). -Lapierre might be the most universally despised (and least respected) player in the NHL. -Burrows has gotten better, but he's still well-known as a hair-pulling, finger-biting, diving, nuisance. When I think "character", I think Willie Mitchell. Jarome Iginla. Ryan Smyth. Guys who have been around, and who command RESPECT. The Canucks are still severely lacking in that department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertorama Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Character player doesn't mean skill that can't stand up for the team. Character player is Trevor Linden. Gino O or Stan Smyl. Players who carry the heart of the team, skill is a benefit but it's not a must. Regardless. We need skill all the way. We made the worst trade of the year trading for so called character in dealing CH. LA beat us because we couldn't control the play anymore. Not because our strength. I know I'm alone on that thought in many ways but if you truly watched the moment CH was gone chemistry was lost. Defense couldn't make a pass and the forwards just got out played. We also need a player to get the Canucks to stop thinking about the fear of loosing it needs to be a fearless rookie. That fear destroys all the skill and character you can have on a team. Maybe it's more coaching as much as I hate to say it. I'm not pointing the finger at AV, rather the coaching staff. If you are afraid of loosing.....you will loose.... The Canucks have been afraid of loosing the big one for three years now and it shows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawasaki bomber Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Burrows and Kesler and dirty and nasty players who are key players. Honestly, a team with Lucic, Carcillo, Kesler, Burrows, Brown, Marchand would win a stanley cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieCrumbs Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I wouldn't mind having a guy like Kaleta/Carcillo. Just to play against teams like Boston/L.A and take runs at their stars, when all other teams do is take runs at our stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotdawg Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I would rather lose with character than win with dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieCrumbs Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 That's a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotdawg Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 That's a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I would rather lose with character than win with dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryder1234 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 we need either 1)players without souls or 2)robots disguised as humans make it happen gillis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fakename70 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 While I certainly don't endorse the goon or thug type, I still think that the Canucks --- and especially a certain contingent at CDC --- are too focused and enamored by the gentlemanly "character" type. Particularly those who are "good in the community" (actual CDC quote from 2010-2011) and nice guys ON the ice as well as off it. Since when does being "good in the community" have anything to do with how well one performs in a game? I don't think that ANY Canuck fan wants to see someone from their favourite club out there running around like Marchand, but, the addition of a few well-placed deterrents and/or, for lack of a better word, villains (re-signing a healthy Volpatti was a good start. Would love to see MG make an offer to Subban, and, I still haven't given up on Doan, either) in place of the typical "nice guy" that hockey fans tend to associate with this team and its' perceived softness, while not a guarantee of a championship, wouldn't bother me a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fakename70 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 The trouble is, sport is stacked with teams who won with "dishonesty" What does it actually mean? Were the Bruins a dishonest team or a team who played to win, who targeted the opposition weaknesses when they felt they might lose playing them any other way. The way I see it, there are officials whose job is to decide what actions are punishable and it is any team intent on winning's job to play to the limit of these actions and occasionally over that limit when necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefCon1 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Just wondered about this and thought it'd be a good discussion to have on here so here it is: We all know the Canucks are keen on bringing in "character" players, by drafting, trading, signings...by any means of bringing in a player, our organization wants these type of players. You'll always here "he's a character player" when someone new is brought in, and Gillis and AV say it all the time when they describe the new guys. Check out when MG talked about drafting Gaunce and signing Garrison, they're both "character" players. MG describes it as a person who is a leader on and of the ice, can help teammates and try's his hardest. Well, I think there's a synonym for that: someone who has skill but can't stand up for players. Now don't take this is an insult, I love the character guys we have here but it seems all of them are afraid in getting in opponents faces. Brown is a leader too, but he isn't a character guy according to MG's description, but I think we need to move away from that a bit and get guys who are nasty and can take that side out when needed. Few players we have that are character players and can stand up are: Kassian, Bieksa. Lapierre, Burrows, Kesler do it at times and for depth players, we need our big players doing it. Our team seems to get manhandled in any series we play and most the guys watch our guys get hurt. It's not how the Cup is won now and you have to adapt to the play as time goes on and structure your team around current winners otherwise you'll be left behind when tw challenge approaches. Check out the past 2-3 winners, all the teams had skilled players but also had key players that were nasty and dirty. We need that to win otherwise we won't succeed much. The refs has also adapted and give lots of lee-way after a whistle and I find it funny when our players look at refs and say, "wtf, no call!? He clearly hit me illegally". The leagues changed, the refs changed and in overal, the games changed so I was wondering if you guys agree or disagree that we should step aside from getting "character" guys, aka, players that got skill but don't stand up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.