-Vintage Canuck- Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 This team is done. The body language says it all. No fight left. season is done. Someone has to go. GM, coach, core players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 John Tortorella discusses giving Eddie Lack the start in the Heritage Classic following the Canucks 4-2 loss to the Ottawa Senators on Sunday afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 you're delusional probably thinking Luongo would of pitched a shutout not playing for the last 2 weeks Great input. Head in the blender again? Lack did what he could with a slack ass team in front of him. The kid is all class and a great goalie. Luongo deserved the game as the official starting goalie of the team. He is a great goalie as well. Why you're mentioning a shutout is beyond me. Next time just do me a favor and press puree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Torts is simply being honest. He thought the team had a better chance to win with Eddie Lack. To some extent I agree with him, as Lack has been playing and Lou hasn't played hockey in a long time. If he is to be an effective coach, he needs to make decisions based on his coaching staff (including goalie coach Rollie Melanson, who Torts stated was a factor in his decision) and not let public opinion be the deciding factor in this game. Turns out, the Canucks couldn't score a goal after the first period, which is the same old story with this team. While Lack wasn't as great as he was the two previous games, 3 goals against is not exactly a blowout by NHL standards. In fact, there were at least 4 other goaltenders who played tonight in NHL games who gave up as many if not more goals. I want Torts to be making these decisions honestly, and not worried about making the fans butthurt because his choices aren't popular. He's a coach, not a goddamn politician. The whole point is I question why Torts thought Lack gave the team a better chance to win. And why he thought a slightly better chance to win a single game was so much more important than properly managing his players, which, in case you haven't noticed, is also a part of a coach's job. Instead, he set Lack up to fail, putting him in a high pressure situation I don't think he was really ready for and pissed off his starting goalie. That's not good coaching. Furthermore, I don't even get why he thinks Lack gives us a better chance to win for sure. Lou hasn't played since the Olympics so we don't know for sure how he will be playing. And comparing Luo's games before the Olympic break when the team wasn't playing well and Lack's 2 since the Olympic break when the team was playing well defensively and giving up few quality scoring chances according to Torts was never a fair comparison. And of course Luo is cold because he hasn't played. And he'll remain cold until he gets to play. Is it better to get your starter going now, or wait until the backup runs cold too? Or maybe after you've put him in enough high pressure situations he wasn't ready for yet and ruin his confidence? I agree, 3 goals against isn't a blowout and the team has to be able to win some of those games. But what I don't get is why often the same people who say Luo lost us a game when he allowed 3 don't think the same of Lack when it's him in net. Luo's allowed 3 or 4 goals (never more) in 15 of his 42 starts this season, or 36%. Lack has allowed 3 or 4 goals (never more) in 8 of his 21 starts, or 38%. Luo's allowed 4 goals in 8 starts, or 19%. Lack has allowed 4 goals in 5 starts, or 24%. Sure, more of Luo's have been more recently, thanks to Tort's suspension and the team's continuing abysmal play after his return, but how does that mean Lack gives the team a better chance to win? The problem isn't with either goalie, it's with the thinking that to have a "chance" to win they have go not with a good goalie better than most in the league, but with whichever they think might be more likely to get a shutout because they can't score. That's not really much of a chance at all. Torts might not make his decisions according to public opinion, but I don't get my opinions that way either. So if you want to agree with Torts' decision go ahead. But stop pretending like the rest of us don't have the right to our opinion. Otherwise, put your money where your piehole is and make sure YOU never speak out against any decision that you don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolwut? Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 you're delusional probably thinking Luongo would of pitched a shutout not playing for the last 2 weeks You, like nobody else, has any idea whether or not Lu would have pitched a shutout.. so why don't you put a sock in it instead of trying to call out someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Torts is a disrespectful Bostonian. This comes to no surprise. Wow Aquilini made the wrong move bringing in this coach. Let gm MG do his job and bring the right coach for his team. Let MG do his job? Really? And what, trade away all prospects for the Hanson brothers? I understand you're pissed that Luongo didn't play, as am I, but don't go having those misgivings now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87Crosby Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I was at the game and saw how jumbled the defence was when Ottawa was on the rush. I think we are in the middle of two types of hockey skill and grit. We aren't meshing like we should. Henrik has no one to pass to, Kesler's wingers aren't shooting, the third line disappeared in the 2nd and 3rd period. The 4th line was our best at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfruits Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 You, like nobody else, has any idea whether or not Lu would have pitched a shutout.. so why don't you put a sock in it instead of trying to call out someone else. because quite a few people on here whether they want to say it or not believe Luongo would of won this game just because he is the starter and he deserves this start the team has played like crap in front of both goalies the difference Lack gave them a slightly better chance to win in those games it's the reason he got the last 3 games end of story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Kenobi Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 The stats don't back that up, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 @patersonjeff: Heritage Classic day is done. #Canucks need to go 14-4-1 over final 19 to reach 95. Next stop PHX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Torts is simply being honest. He thought the team had a better chance to win with Eddie Lack. To some extent I agree with him, as Lack has been playing and Lou hasn't played hockey in a long time. If he is to be an effective coach, he needs to make decisions based on his coaching staff (including goalie coach Rollie Melanson, who Torts stated was a factor in his decision) and not let public opinion be the deciding factor in this game. Turns out, the Canucks couldn't score a goal after the first period, which is the same old story with this team. While Lack wasn't as great as he was the two previous games, 3 goals against is not exactly a blowout by NHL standards. In fact, there were at least 4 other goaltenders who played tonight in NHL games who gave up as many if not more goals. I want Torts to be making these decisions honestly, and not worried about making the fans butthurt because his choices aren't popular. He's a coach, not a goddamn politician. This couldn't be more true. I love how people come out and say this was the wrong decision. When you lose the game, which happens, you could always say the other goaltender might have won it. Flawed reasoning that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 @patersonjeff: It's been 8 games now since 2 different #Canucks forwards have scored in the same game. Oh my. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.