Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

DownGoesBrown - The Canucks are bad, but they're good enough


hatedkid666

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, The Bookie said:

As a long time McIndoe reader, trust me, he calls it like it is and rips his team, the Leafs, just as much - or more - as anyone else.

Aside from real insiders like Friedman and McKenzie he's the best writer working imo.

Great! So this guy's the best there is?.....

media-evolution-1-638.jpg?cb=1362578957

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

It's just a matter of time before they overtake the Canucks...The Oilers have a skilled group of players entering their prime...I fully expect the Canucks to be near to the bottom of the Western Conference by the end of this road trip (not through lack of effort,but a glaring lack of depth at key positions).

Yeah, they are basically tied with us without MickeyD in the lineup.
Worst case scenario that just might happen is that the Canucks do better in the second half, the home-heavy half, of the season and do well enough to just miss the playoffs and also have a low % lottery position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfstonker said:

If you "fully expect" that, why do you rip on them at every opportunity? That's like thrashing a horse with 3 legs because it doesn't win and that's what we are just now until we start getting injured players back.

"Rip on them at every opportunity'...nice try Alf...Speaking of horses..maybe you should take your blinders off and watch the games...

Sbisa will be back after Xmas,Sutter in February..Hamhuis is anybody guess..These are crippling injuries to a squad that is already challenged ...Edmonton and Calgary are on the ascendant...That's not ripping,these are undeniable facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Bookie said:

It's just like, my opinion, mannnn.

Serious question though - who do you prefer in hockey journalism right now?

To be honest, I don't listen to a lot of hockey journalism in general, at least not enough to really develop much of a liking to anyone in particular. However, to be fair, some journalists are better than others. Despite what people say about TSN and despite TSN evidently putting pressure on the analysts to increase their ratings, a couple of them actually do make sense most of the time. Of all people believe it or not, I actually think Button is okay, even though sometimes he tends to overhype a bit. At least he sounds exciting while doing it.

In the case of McIndoe, I didn't like this article from the get-go as I don't think there's a place in journalism for assuming everyone agrees with something. I don't want to read something and going "do I really think that?" lol I just hate that kind of journalism i general. Give me the facts and perhaps an opinion, but don't claim everyone else thinks the same way....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people are delusional, and if you encounter one you should simply ask them why the extra point column on the standings page has the word "loss" right in it and then run away while they're staring at it in confusion and trying to remember what words mean.)

 

This right here.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote
Quote

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Bookie said:

As a long time McIndoe reader, trust me, he calls it like it is and rips his team, the Leafs, just as much - or more - as anyone else.

Aside from real insiders like Friedman and McKenzie he's the best writer working imo.

 

I started reading his articles when Grantland was up, I find him to be quite knowledgeable about the game and its history, in addition to his sarcastic humor. Surprising that ESPN has him around, because their NHL material is horrible, absolutely trash. Gotta love his old school youtube clips and references to the 80's 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should be gunning for the 2nd or 3rd spot in the Pacific which may well also get us a top-10 pick in the draft. That would be the perfect situation. Get a shot at the Cup, but more importantly get vital playoff experience for Horvat, Hutton, Virtanen and McCann while also loading up with a very decent pick. That's how you rebuild on the fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TheOgRook said:

Is it only me that wants to wring the neck of this writer?  Could he sound any more like a Canuck hater?  Yeah we aren't the stacked Blackhawks, but cmon!  

How's about you wring his neck and I'll get my Louisville slugger and give him a tap on the forehead?

The guy is a total douchebag. The whole garbage article has a real tone of scumbag entitlement to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

"Rip on them at every opportunity'...nice try Alf...Speaking of horses..maybe you should take your blinders off and watch the games...

Sbisa will be back after Xmas,Sutter in February..Hamhuis is anybody guess..These are crippling injuries to a squad that is already challenged ...Edmonton and Calgary are on the ascendant...That's not ripping,these are undeniable facts.

What I said was we will not be back to our best until the injured return, then you say I should watch the games and proceed to list our injury schedule - uhhhh wtf?

If you know the facts about injuries (and you clearly do) what I'm saying is what good does it do to rip on the team. You are all over these boards doing it. It's pathetic and embarrassing.

If you are a fan you should be cutting them a break. They did a decent job regarding effort and compete against Chicago, look at the hits differential. Unfortunately they couldn't claw back the one goal deficit. They then lost another mid way through the 3rd and then an empty netter.

I am starting to wonder if YOU watched the game. It looks like you saw the score and decided it was one way traffic and that Chicago were all over them. It wasn't, they weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfstonker said:

What I said was we will not be back to our best until the injured return, then you say I should watch the games and proceed to list our injury schedule - uhhhh wtf?

If you know the facts about injuries (and you clearly do) what I'm saying is what good does it do to rip on the team. You are all over these boards doing it. It's pathetic and embarrassing.

If you are a fan you should be cutting them a break. They did a decent job regarding effort and compete against Chicago, look at the hits differential. Unfortunately they couldn't claw back the one goal deficit. They then lost another mid way through the 3rd and then an empty netter.

I am starting to wonder if YOU watched the game. It looks like you saw the score and decided it was one way traffic and that Chicago were all over them. It wasn't, they weren't.

If you read my post (the one that offends you)...I said that it's just a matter of time before the Oilers overtake us...they did last night..I also said that we will be near the bottom of the Conference by the end of the road trip (all the teams below us have games in hand and some of them are really coming on)...and you call that ripping the team?....These are not the RA-RA,waive the pom pom boards Alf,..its where folks come to discuss,debate issues surrounding the team (and the predicament they're in).

If you don't like my opinion..tough tittys..block me...:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2015 at 8:53 AM, hatedkid666 said:
  • mcindoe_sean_m.jpg&w=65&h=65&scale=crop
    Sean McIndoe, ESPN Staff Writer

So ... the Vancouver Canucks are bad. We all agree on that, right?

 

(Yes, some fans would insist that there's no such thing as a "loser point," and that the Canucks are really just earning a whole bunch of regulation ties and then merely failing to earn a bonus point for winning once the gimmicks kick in. These people are delusional, and if you encounter one you should simply ask them why the extra point column on the standings page has the word "loss" right in it and then run away while they're staring at it in confusion and trying to remember what words mean.)

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/14364357/nhl-vancouver-canucks-bad-everywhere-pacific-division

 

Too simple to realize that all those 'winner point', 'wins' that are actually gained in a shootout or 3 on 3 - in other words "loser" wins - prop up virtually every team's misleading "win" column.

Author is delusional and doesn't comprehend the extremely simple counterpoint.  Would love to see the look on his face when confronted with that simple truth.

Simpe fact/counterpoint is that the team was winning or tied at the end of regulation in 19 of 31 games.  If you assign so much meaning to overtime losses, you need to balance your analysis by qualifying shootout and 3on3 "wins" - points that are gained while not playing real hockey.

If the author wishes to de-delude himself, he should create himself an OTW column - take those Ws out of the "win" column and qualify them with shootout or 3on3 win, and he'll get a better, real estimation of how 'bad' or 'good' a lot of other teams actually are.

Until then, he's stuck in a delusional cherry-pick that he's assigned a great deal more meaning to than actual context would suggest.

The simple and obvious counterpoint to having a lot of 'loser' points is that other teams have their 'winner' points absorbed into the "win" column.

Where the Canucks actually sit - tied for 18th in the NHL - is a more accurate reflection of how good or bad they are than some moronic attempt to disqualify regulation ties.

18th overall - under the circumstances - no Sutter, Hammer, Sbisa, Virtanen....not that 'bad' really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Too simple to realize that all those 'winner point', 'wins' that are actually gained in a shootout or 3 on 3 - in other words "loser" wins - prop up virtually every team's "win" column.

Author is delusional.  

Simpe fact is that the team was winning or tied at the end of regulation in 19 of 31 games.

If the author wishes to de-delude himself, he should create himself an OTW column - take those Ws out of the "win" column and qualify them with shootout or 3on3 win, and he'll get a better, real estimation of how 'bad' or 'good' a lot of other teams actually are.

The simpe and obvious counterpoint to having a lot of 'loser' points is that other teams have their 'winner' points absorbed into the "win" column.

Where they actually sit - tied for 18th in the NHL - is a more accurate reflection of how good or bad they are than some moronic attempt to disqualify regulation ties.

18th overall - under the circumstances - no Sutter, Hammer, Sbisa, Virtanen....not that 'bad' really.

I would like to add that when teams are tied in the 3rd period, they change the way they play in order to preserve that 1 point. I agree that it is idiotic to dismiss that point as somehow unearned or undeserved. Every team operates under the same parameters and winning or losing in 3-on-3 doesn't reflect on regulation play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loser points are stupid.  Bettman is an idiot. Should have never given out points for regulation ties, or just never added the shootout and kept the structure as W-L-T

 

The new NHL tries way too hard, when the game was simple and way better before.  The only rule changes I like are the elimination of clutch n grab (dead puck) hockey and eliminating the 2 line pass. Everything else should have stayed the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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