Daretodream Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 It's because gillis vision for the canucks future after 2011 playoffs was wrong. He and/or his team believed what the media and some fans were whining about. Lets get bigger but at what cost? When u have the best regular season team; the best pp and penalty kill then why change everything because one team beat u up? 2 big things happened during that run that hurt us badly 1. Torres hits seabrook and Chicago rallies and almost comes back and 2. Rome hits Horton and Boston does come back and wins. These were two borderline hits to say the least and in both cases they helped rally two great teams What we should have done...add even more skill and speed with brains. I know what ur thinking but ppl will run the sedins. So what if they do then they take penalties and we make them pay. It worked before so y would we stop? Cause we couldn't score on pp against Boston in that series? So what! We change our philosophy and team eg hodgson, erhoff, grabner and add meatheads? Erhoff was asking for too much $ but either sign him anyway or replace that one friggin guy. * U know the rest of the league was laughing their asses off when we decided to get tough rather then just play the way that worked. Of course, I am diehard Canuck fan; so I'm going to cheer and hope for the best anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 It's because gillis vision for the canucks future after 2011 playoffs was wrong. He and/or his team believed what the media and some fans were whining about. Lets get bigger but at what cost? When u have the best regular season team; the best pp and penalty kill then why change everything because one team beat u up? 2 big things happened during that run that hurt us badly 1. Torres hits seabrook and Chicago rallies and almost comes back and 2. Rome hits Horton and Boston does come back and wins. These were two borderline hits to say the least and in both cases they helped rally two great teams What we should have done...add even more skill and speed with brains. I know what ur thinking but ppl will run the sedins. So what if they do then they take penalties and we make them pay. It worked before so y would we stop? Cause we couldn't score on pp against Boston in that series? So what! We change our philosophy and team eg hodgson, erhoff, grabner and add meatheads? Erhoff was asking for too much $ but either sign him anyway or replace that one friggin guy. * U know the rest of the league was laughing their asses off when we decided to get tough rather then just play the way that worked. Of course, I am diehard Canuck fan; so I'm going to cheer and hope for the best anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Bellick^ Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 agreed that's what I said. If he would have at least modeled the team the same way and didn't worry about toughness, I truly believe the Canucks would have skated circles around LA. He didn't have to bring back the exact same players, just get similar players.. A powerplay quarterback in Ehrhoff (Streit? Visnovsky? Markov?), a 3rd line LW that can hit (Clifford?), and a 3rd line center with a great faceoff ability (Bolland? Talbot? KESLER?). A team built like that would have been perfect. Imagine a team consisting of.. Sedin Sedin Burrows Mayray/Higgins Hodgson Samuelsson Clifford Kesler Hansen Higgins/Mayray/Bitz Lapierre (Pinnizotto?) Hamhuis Bieksa Edler Salo Ballard Visnovsky Schneider Luongo Same kind of team that made the run in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 all the canucks need to do, is take the advice of cdc and they will win every game...gillis and torts know nothing....cdc yeah.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 If only other teams couldn't ever improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 r is not a word, it is a letter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 They're still my favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 get tough? what did we do to get tough? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daretodream Posted October 6, 2013 Author Share Posted October 6, 2013 I agree Brad! Ppl r prob going to focus on y would we pay erhoff that much? Have we seen him lately etc. but my point was that y mess with something that works. We were the cup faves. Teams chased us to get the puck. Teams that chase the puck get tired and get frustrated and take penalties. It really doesn't matter whom we got to replace maholtra or erhoff. What mattered was sticking to what our core was built for. Speed and skill. Clifford or someone who though defense first and was good on face offs could have replaced manny. Lots of fast and quick smart passers out there to replace erhoff. Players come and go but when u have a personnel built for speed and quickness why would u play to others strenghs? Maybe I'm wrong but our team doesn't scare anyone anymore. Sedins r pretty much counted on to score all the time. Grabs and Cody wouldn't have been traded if skill and playmaking ability were still our focus. Even if Cody was traded; it could have been for skill instead of kassian. He may b a great player (hopefully) but my concern is or rather was y did gillis who added important pieces to an already great 2011 team change his philosophy from what got us to game 7 of the finals? We can't go back in time I get it but I can still wonder wtf was gillis thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikal Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 I blame Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Marchand Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Here's one thing I can't stand about Canucks fans. A solid majority of this fanbase was tearing this team apart after the 2011 final for being too soft and having an offense that "doesn't work in the playoffs". The team needed to get bigger, play tougher, and all that jazz, because it didn't get the team the desired result. What happens? Gillis tries (albeit without the result any of us wanted) to change the makeup of our top 9 by trading more skilled, but less physical players (eg. Samuelsson and Hodgson) for bigger, grittier players like Booth and Kassian. The Bruins and Kings winning Cups in consecutive years only served to perpetuate the argument that this Canucks team did not have the right mix of players or the right style of play to succeed in the playoffs. Under those circumstances, what kind of GM wouldn't try to shift towards that style of hockey? What comes next? Chicago wins the Cup, the Canucks start off the season by scoring one goal in their first game, and people like you start clamoring for the team to play the same style of hockey that the Canucks played on their way to the Cup final. You know what Gillis should've done? Trade for players with elite size and skill, like the ones that Stanley Cup winners have. Because it's so easy, right? Every team in the NHL seems to have them... I am not defending Mike Gillis for the moves he made. For the most part, they haven't helped the team get anywhere closer to getting the elusive 16th win. What I am saying is that the fanbase here has such wavering demands for how the team should play that it's virtually impossible for Gillis to do anything without garnering massive complaints. In three seasons, the expectation has gone from play skilled hockey to play tough hockey to play skilled hockey again. Gillis can't predict what the dominant style of play in the NHL is going to be, only react to it. Long read made short: the same people who wanted the Canucks to get tougher after losing to Boston and start playing more like them are now the ones who are complaining that we can't score. This is the style of hockey you fans wanted this team to play, now you've got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 all the canucks need to do, is take the advice of cdc and they will win every game...gillis and torts know nothing....cdc yeah.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Bellick^ Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Here's one thing I can't stand about Canucks fans. A solid majority of this fanbase was tearing this team apart after the 2011 final for being too soft and having an offense that "doesn't work in the playoffs". The team needed to get bigger, play tougher, and all that jazz, because it didn't get the team the desired result. What happens? Gillis tries (albeit without the result any of us wanted) to change the makeup of our top 9 by trading more skilled, but less physical players (eg. Samuelsson and Hodgson) for bigger, grittier players like Booth and Kassian. The Bruins and Kings winning Cups in consecutive years only served to perpetuate the argument that this Canucks team did not have the right mix of players or the right style of play to succeed in the playoffs. Under those circumstances, what kind of GM wouldn't try to shift towards that style of hockey? What comes next? Chicago wins the Cup, the Canucks start off the season by scoring one goal in their first game, and people like you start clamoring for the team to play the same style of hockey that the Canucks played on their way to the Cup final. You know what Gillis should've done? Trade for players with elite size and skill, like the ones that Stanley Cup winners have. Because it's so easy, right? Every team in the NHL seems to have them... I am not defending Mike Gillis for the moves he made. For the most part, they haven't helped the team get anywhere closer to getting the elusive 16th win. What I am saying is that the fanbase here has such wavering demands for how the team should play that it's virtually impossible for Gillis to do anything without garnering massive complaints. In three seasons, the expectation has gone from play skilled hockey to play tough hockey to play skilled hockey again. Gillis can't predict what the dominant style of play in the NHL is going to be, only react to it. Long read made short: the same people who wanted the Canucks to get tougher after losing to Boston and start playing more like them are now the ones who are complaining that we can't score. This is the style of hockey you fans wanted this team to play, now you've got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAMBUTANS Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Calm down people. It's only 1 game. There's probably a grand plan for all this. Give the team 20 games to make adjustments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daretodream Posted October 6, 2013 Author Share Posted October 6, 2013 Mr Marchand, thank you for ur response. As I pointed out in this proposal...I didn't want us to change and go for size! I wanted us to stay the same, and maybe add 1-2 guys that also have skill. I think, that would have kept us at or very near the top of the league. It also would have probably kept most teams a little more worried about our speed and power play. All teams win by playing to their strengths right? Boston won by combining skill with intimidation. LA won by rolling 4 lines, a great forecheck, and wearing teams down. Chicago won with skill and smart play. Goaltending helped too of course with all 3 teams. I'm not complaining or whining about this. I'm just stating my opinion on a forum. Wow ppl saying their opinions on a forum. Go figure! That's not for u Marchand; that's for all the ppl that somehow find the time to not respond with what they think should have been done or a counter argument of some sort but worried about me using r in my proposal etc lmfao The bottom line is that I think they should have stayed their course but instead they changed and TRIED to add toughness but really didn't. No I'm not trying to pretend I'm a GM. Of course I wish I was like most of u. I'm just was hoping to have a good back and forth rapport with ppl that have similar interests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Calm down people. It's only 1 game. There's probably a grand plan for all this. Give the team 20 games to make adjustments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daretodream Posted October 6, 2013 Author Share Posted October 6, 2013 Exactly N7. I may b wrong in my thinking but 1 playoff win over the last 2 yrs sure doesn't look like the right plan to me. The good news is that 2 yrs ago, I didn't see LA winning the cup at all. We still have a chance ppl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Marchand Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Mr Marchand, thank you for ur response. As I pointed out in this proposal...I didn't want us to change and go for size! I wanted us to stay the same, and maybe add 1-2 guys that also have skill. I think, that would have kept us at or very near the top of the league. It also would have probably kept most teams a little more worried about our speed and power play. All teams win by playing to their strengths right? Boston won by combining skill with intimidation. LA won by rolling 4 lines, a great forecheck, and wearing teams down. Chicago won with skill and smart play. Goaltending helped too of course with all 3 teams. I'm not complaining or whining about this. I'm just stating my opinion on a forum. Wow ppl saying their opinions on a forum. Go figure! That's not for u Marchand; that's for all the ppl that somehow find the time to not respond with what they think should have been done or a counter argument of some sort but worried about me using r in my proposal etc lmfao The bottom line is that I think they should have stayed their course but instead they changed and TRIED to add toughness but really didn't. No I'm not trying to pretend I'm a GM. Of course I wish I was like most of u. I'm just was hoping to have a good back and forth rapport with ppl that have similar interests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Kelly Sutherland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Are they favorites again now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.