Quoted Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 3 hours ago, Lord Wolf said: Basically, I concur with most of the posts on this thread. We don't need a goon who plays dirty and racks up needless penalties though. We need overall toughness along the boards. When the opposing players go into the boards after the puck, rather than getting it, they should be listening for the pitter-patter of skates as a Canuck prepares to paste him to boards. That can be quite a distraction. Right now, the opposition seems to win most of the puck battles.because there is no threat. And the front of the net is another area of concern. As it stands right now, the safest place for an opposing player to be is in front of Markstrom/Miller. Nobody will lay a glove on him. There's more risk from a shot than from a Canuck. Where is the mean mother defenceman who clears the crease, preferably administering a few bruises while he does so? Only Dorsett seems to get it, and perhaps Virtanen, who is not strong enough to really deliver a punishing check, although he tries. Besides, he should be scoring, not body checking. The rest of the team seems to prefer to steer clear of anything that might cause a boo-boo. Well, the cry of a Canucks fan: "wait until next year!" I think that's why the Canucks get hemmed in in their own zone too often or give the puck away. The other team's forecheck either intimidates the Canucks to make quick (bad) passes or they recover the puck in a battle. Having people that get separate the other team from the puck is one thing, but having people scared of hits or getting knocked off the puck is not going to do it once playoffs are in the forecast again. A bit oversimplified of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Quoted said: I think that's why the Canucks get hemmed in in their own zone too often or give the puck away. The other team's forecheck either intimidates the Canucks to make quick (bad) passes or they recover the puck in a battle. Having people that get separate the other team from the puck is one thing, but having people scared of hits or getting knocked off the puck is not going to do it once playoffs are in the forecast again. A bit oversimplified of course. Yes less soft players on your team and more aggressive, big, hard on the puck players to knock your opponent off the puck. Oversimplified of course but people get the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, EdgarM said: Having players such as Chara and Lucic doesn't hurt either. Yes, we need heavy players agreed, but we got screwed. I think Tampa Bay did too, FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Horvat is too heavy to play for the canucks. He better play for Boston where winning a bump is OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 On 2016-02-09 at 4:18 AM, ice orca said: Chicago and Tampa were in the finals last year without a bunch of fighters. You are going to get goonish teams in the playoffs like LA, Boston but they seem to be the outlier going forward. Staying healthy probably is better than having a goon or fighters with no skill. In fact Chicago and Tampa paly pretty much body contact hockey (i.e. no body checking). The league is getting faster every year and there is less and less room for even body checks, forget fighting. Maybe MMA or whatever it is called would be a better choice for the Don Cherry fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, coastal1 said: In fact Chicago and Tampa paly pretty much body contact hockey (i.e. no body checking). The league is getting faster every year and there is less and less room for even body checks, forget fighting. Maybe MMA or whatever it is called would be a better choice for the Don Cherry fans. yeah I guess we just wait for players like Kane,Gaudreau and Camalleri skate circles around us until they get tired eh? How stupid! Maybe this idea works on your xbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 15 hours ago, EdgarM said: yeah I guess we just wait for players like Kane,Gaudreau and Camalleri skate circles around us until they get tired eh? How stupid! Maybe this idea works on your xbox. I know what you are saying, little guys like Kane will never succeed in the NHL, especially not in the playoffs, no way. Look at the recent Conn Smythe winners that are not goalies: Keith, Williams, Kane, Toews, Malkin, Zettterberg... What do you notice about them besides the fact that they are tough as nails and always ready to drop the mitts? Did Keith make one body check in last year's playoffss? I didn't see it if he did. Who was the tough guy on Chicago last year? I think it was Shaw, right? That guy is a SOB, so tough he probalbly scares you as you watch him play! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
two drink minimum Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 8 hours ago, coastal1 said: I know what you are saying, little guys like Kane will never succeed in the NHL, especially not in the playoffs, no way. Look at the recent Conn Smythe winners that are not goalies: Keith, Williams, Kane, Toews, Malkin, Zettterberg... What do you notice about them besides the fact that they are tough as nails and always ready to drop the mitts? Did Keith make one body check in last year's playoffss? I didn't see it if he did. Who was the tough guy on Chicago last year? I think it was Shaw, right? That guy is a SOB, so tough he probalbly scares you as you watch him play! What in the world are you talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 17 hours ago, two drink minimum said: What in the world are you talking about This was a response to the following post that was made in justifying the need for toughness: "yeah I guess we just wait for players like Kane,Gaudreau and Camalleri skate circles around us until they get tired eh? How stupid! Maybe this idea works on your xbox" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I would like to see John Scott on our team. He was mvp in the all star game and he is in the AHL right now. He has more allstar game goals all time than Sydney Crosbey. Clearly john scott can put the puck in the net... He is also handy with his Hands if you know what i mean...... He would protect our rooks next season. I think we trade Burrows for John Scott right now. Get Burrows cap hit off our books as well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Luongo Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 This team is far too soft all around so not until the Sedins, Burrows are gone and the coaches add some real men not soft guys like Vey and little Friesens this team is always very over matched physically. The team needs to add at least a couple physical players and for me that would be Pedan, Zalewski and Gaunce big strong bodies who'll add to compete level on the boards and in front of the net. The other big reason and something very important about adding Gaunce and Zalewski is our abysmal faceoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
two drink minimum Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 7 hours ago, coastal1 said: This was a response to the following post that was made in justifying the need for toughness: "yeah I guess we just wait for players like Kane,Gaudreau and Camalleri skate circles around us until they get tired eh? How stupid! Maybe this idea works on your xbox" That was a rhetorical question. Is this a rhetorical answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 14 hours ago, two drink minimum said: That was a rhetorical question. Is this a rhetorical answer? it was a sarcastic response to a stupid question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 20 hours ago, The Big Luongo said: This team is far too soft all around so not until the Sedins, Burrows are gone and the coaches add some real men not soft guys like Vey and little Friesens this team is always very over matched physically. The team needs to add at least a couple physical players and for me that would be Pedan, Zalewski and Gaunce big strong bodies who'll add to compete level on the boards and in front of the net. The other big reason and something very important about adding Gaunce and Zalewski is our abysmal faceoffs. Pedan is right on the mark. I'd say Stewart and Tryamkin will be on the team within the next couple of years and will strike fear into the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeygod77 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 to coastal...its fans like you that cry when the sedins or virtanen or a skilled player gets a cheap shot..if you know hockey its about intimidation at the crunch..im not saying virtanen is weak and sedins they just not the guy to respond...virt is too young still but will be that tough skilled guy i think...he has to establish it early and show the rest he won't take it...ive seen it already...your saying kane and keith..well keith has the tough edge and so does kane..when was the last time you saw many cheap shots at them..end of comment bullhead coastal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeygod77 Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share Posted February 18, 2016 so coastal 1 thinks we have never lost a game cause the other team targets the star players....that type of hockey is whats entertaining and you can have all the skill but you cant buy character...you need that character team toughness or no cup...even the goalie would be good if he had a bit of an edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 5 minutes ago, hockeygod77 said: so coastal 1 thinks we have never lost a game cause the other team targets the star players....that type of hockey is whats entertaining and you can have all the skill but you cant buy character...you need that character team toughness or no cup...even the goalie would be good if he had a bit of an edge. Agreed 100 % . Canucks have not got enough toughness in their lineup up front of on D. Our team is the softest team in the league to play against. This will result most likely in 2-3 years less of a career for Hank and Danny as they just get run continually.... Very poor team composition in my opinion. Those that have played hockey definately know the imporantance of having a few enforcers on the roster.... Preferably a few forwards and a few D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Luongo Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 49 minutes ago, hockeygod77 said: so coastal 1 thinks we have never lost a game cause the other team targets the star players....that type of hockey is whats entertaining and you can have all the skill but you cant buy character...you need that character team toughness or no cup...even the goalie would be good if he had a bit of an edge. Exactly and that's why we got edged out for a cup against Boston the Sedins, Luongo and Edler were soft as butter the team of character we had just couldn't carry them over Boston. Our rebuild can't have too many soft players we have to count on either or we'll never win in the future either it's just the way it is. It's a man's game when it comes to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
two drink minimum Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 11 hours ago, coastal1 said: it was a sarcastic response to a stupid question. Good to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.