aGENT Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Nice icing call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2288 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 I like the effort in the game Once again we were shafted by the Mickey Mouse NHL quality officiating. I have said it before and will say it again....by far the worst officiating in all professional sports and what's worse is the NHL is so arrogant it refuses to address the issue and as such will always be a tier 2 pro sport. In yesterday's game it was the lineman's turn to be ridiculous. Some clown official gets hit by a shoot in and decides to impact the outcome of the game. Will there be any NHL disicipline against him? No of course no therefore the power will go to his head and he will continue with his unprofessional actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonoman Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 12 hours ago, oldnews said: folks here prefer self-hating. Not sure why it wasn't reviewable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 42 minutes ago, J.R. said: Nice icing call. Actually, Garrett was questioning about THREE non icing calls. Brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 34 minutes ago, sonoman said: Not sure why it wasn't reviewable? I guess they consider icing a judgement call, whereas offside if reviewable. Add in the too many men at the same time and it was a pair of blown calls on a play that changed the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 I don't like to be the "Refs cost us that game" guy, but...The refs cost us that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 3 hours ago, alfstonker said: Yes and these people are not worth listening to. They have no responsibility for the consequences, they would just be on here whining about the management, coaches and replacements when these vets were missed. They see everything in microcosm because they think everything they see only happens to the Canucks - in short they are ignorant of the wider game. Many don't watch the whole of Canucks games never mind complete games by other teams. A perfect example is their mindless abuse of Edler. I think you are taking the various opinions on trading vets and lumping them into a one size fits all argument though. I don't think it's fair to say people who want to see some veterans traded are not worth listening to. That implies that one way - namely a veteran heavy team - is the only proper way to build a team. There are different ways though and almost the entire NHL disagrees with you that vet heavy teams of players past their prime leading the charge is the way to go. The Canucks have started down this road to youth finally but along the way there was a lot of wasted opportunity. The reason we have few young replacement players is a combination of terrible drafting for years, trading picks/prospects for tweener players who we didn't end up keeping, and hanging onto some veterans too long so that they did not return those picks and young players needed to beef up the system. To rebuild you have to find a balance. Unfortunately, the Canucks ignored the piece of trading some of their veterans while they still had decent value, waiting until they had little value or were untradable, which has limited the quality of the players in the rebuild a bit. I think what you also miss is that the Canucks, with this particular group of veteran core players, has not really achieved anything since their cup run, and in terms of playoff success did not achieve much for years before that as well. They have had more than enough opportunities to prove they can still lead the way and quite frankly have failed to do so. Guys like Edler, Hansen, Burrows, the Sedins, etc. are still good players. Could they bring back long term assets that make this team a sustainable contender? I think they could and that needs to be a consideration. Letting vets leave as UFA for nothing is not a good asset management strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said: I think you are taking the various opinions on trading vets and lumping them into a one size fits all argument though. I don't think it's fair to say people who want to see some veterans traded are not worth listening to. That implies that your way - namely a veteran heavy team - is the only proper way to build a team. There are different ways though and almost the entire NHL disagrees with you that vet heavy teams of players past their prime leading the charge is the way to go. The Canucks have started down this road to youth finally but along the way there was a lot of wasted opportunity. The reason we have few young replacement players is a combination of terrible drafting for years, trading picks/prospects for tweener players who we didn't end up keeping, and hanging onto some veterans too long so that they did not return those picks and young players needed to beef up the system. To rebuild you have to find a balance. Unfortunately, the Canucks ignored the piece of trading some of their veterans while they still had decent value, waiting until they had little value or were untradable, which has limited the quality of the players in the rebuild a bit. I think what you also miss is that the Canucks, with this particular group of veteran core players, has not really achieved anything since their cup run, and in terms of playoff success did not achieve much for years before that as well. They have had more than enough opportunities to prove they can still lead the way and quite frankly have failed to do so. Guys like Edler, Hansen, Burrows, the Sedins, etc. are still good players. Could they bring back long term assets that make this team a sustainable contender? I think they could and that needs to be a consideration. Letting vets leave as UFA for nothing is not a good asset management strategy. Excellent post. Now if JB and owner would just listen to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Megna can really skate, but does he have enough hockey skills? or is he like another Mason Raymond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 15 hours ago, meh_wassup said: Either that or a broken stick. Ffs get a different flex on your stick already EDLER SHOULD BE FINED A $1,000.00 for all these OPPORTUNITIES BLOWN. no more little miss daisy fancy boy sticks for you! COME ON MAN! ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said: I think you are taking the various opinions on trading vets and lumping them into a one size fits all argument though. I don't think it's fair to say people who want to see some veterans traded are not worth listening to. That implies that one way - namely a veteran heavy team - is the only proper way to build a team. There are different ways though and almost the entire NHL disagrees with you that vet heavy teams of players past their prime leading the charge is the way to go. The Canucks have started down this road to youth finally but along the way there was a lot of wasted opportunity. The reason we have few young replacement players is a combination of terrible drafting for years, trading picks/prospects for tweener players who we didn't end up keeping, and hanging onto some veterans too long so that they did not return those picks and young players needed to beef up the system. To rebuild you have to find a balance. Unfortunately, the Canucks ignored the piece of trading some of their veterans while they still had decent value, waiting until they had little value or were untradable, which has limited the quality of the players in the rebuild a bit. I think what you also miss is that the Canucks, with this particular group of veteran core players, has not really achieved anything since their cup run, and in terms of playoff success did not achieve much for years before that as well. They have had more than enough opportunities to prove they can still lead the way and quite frankly have failed to do so. Guys like Edler, Hansen, Burrows, the Sedins, etc. are still good players. Could they bring back long term assets that make this team a sustainable contender? I think they could and that needs to be a consideration. Letting vets leave as UFA for nothing is not a good asset management strategy. We are not vet heavy though. The vets that we have are not replaceable just now and the vets I would like to replace will be here until they retire. The irony are those who call Edler and Burr useless and then say we can get a 1st etc for them. We need a new 1st line and I don't see us getting that calibre of player for these players. OK we may gat a POTENTIAL replacement but how does that help us now. No, I would rather keep these good seasoned players to bring on our rookies and wait until we can produce our own 1st line stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 51-88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, alfstonker said: We are not vet heavy though. The vets that we have are not replaceable just now and the vets I would like to replace will be here until they retire. The irony are those who call Edler and Burr useless and then say we can get a 1st etc for them. We need a new 1st line and I don't see us getting that calibre of player for these players. OK we may gat a POTENTIAL replacement but how does that help us now. No, I would rather keep these good seasoned players to bring on our rookies and wait until we can produce our own 1st line stars. Unless this team finishes bottom of the barrel for a few years though, there is not much opportunity to draft an immediate impact player. All the more reason they should have traded many more vets for those picks when they still had value, filled the spots with placeholder vets on shorter term deals, and finished low enough the last few years to actually get a player or two that could step in right away and quickly develop into top line talent. Pushing for the playoffs in two really strong draft years and bleeding 2nd round picks did not help the rebuild at all. I know many don't believe in tanking but honestly a one or two year bottom finish was the only way to do the quick turnaround people want. They needed to get a guy like McDavid, Eichel, Matthews, Laine, etc and add more picks in those drafts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.