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

Canucks leaders


CrosbyGold

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, alfstonker said:

Interestingly Lind, Gadj and Gaudette have all dropped the gloves. Now what I like about that is not that they fight - I really don't care if a player fights - but that they have "a line" and they will "push back" when challenged.

Bo finally showed this and give him his due it wasn't against a smurf. That to me is captain material as he showed he had "a line"

 

Virtanen, Hutton, Stecher and Gaunce have also shown it in the past.

 

What I am saying is we are gradually building a team who will back each other in a brawl. No more of these "perimeter skaters" who hover about trying their hardest to not get involved or look threatening while the rest of their team mates battle against the odds.

 

One guy who may surprise most of you, who in his younger days definitely had "a line" and a temper, is Brandon Sutter. He reminds me of Hansen in that once he gets going he is fully committed.

 

 

This is one area with the Twins we agree on. I love what they've done for us, but you have to have some sort of pushback in this league. Imo against Boston they were letting the roughing happen in order to try and get pps, because that was our bread and butter that year. It backfired on them. 

 

It will be sad to see them leave, but I won't be sad to have a new team full of youthful vigor and drive to push the play and push players when they stand in their way, and I think Benning has drafted players who will do just that. Exciting times ahead. 

 

And Bo as a leader.... Yes please. He already has respect around the league and he's a solid, tough mo fo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, alfstonker said:

 

Quite frankly when you have 2 guys like the Twins in your team you either accept that they can be intimidated by a team like Boston or you take steps to protect them.

 

I don't recall the Sedins ever being intimidated into not playing their game. Throughout that series they continued to battle along the boards and go to the net despite what the B's got away with. The abuse they took certainly hampered their opportunities and Thomas took care of the rest. But the Sedins never seem to get intimidated. Frustrated perhaps, but not intimidated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alfstonker said:

 

Quite frankly when you have 2 guys like the Twins in your team you either accept that they can be intimidated by a team like Boston or you take steps to protect them. Incredibly Tanner Glass played 20 games in that series and I don't recall him fighting anyone, maybe you can refresh my memory.

 

Having said that it's unfair to expect someone in Glass's weight class to take on the likes of Thornton, Lucic or McQuaid. The Canucks should have acquired a genuine heavyweight to  put the Bruins back in their box.

 

Can you imagine how that series would have gone if we had seen this in game one. How funny to hear the commentators low ball Scott when they root for a player like Marchand who speed bags a player he KNOWS won't hit him back.

 

 

We play Boston twice per year soooooooo.

 

 I don't recall the sedins being intimidated in any games vs Boston or any other team quite frankly.  Marchand vs Daniel was disappointing but that's the only tangible example of intimidstion, maybe.....personally I don't think Daniel was intimidated in that instance so much as he maintained his "refs will save us mindset" that really the whole team had.  otherwise you have no proof to back that claim up.

 

henrik and Daniel have the stats across the board that prove they are not intimidated in the NHL including henriks iron man streak at one point.

 

does part of their style lack aggression? Yes.  Do I like it? No.

 

but to say these guys are intimidated on the ice is a real long stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Baggins said:

I don't recall the Sedins ever being intimidated into not playing their game. Throughout that series they continued to battle along the boards and go to the net despite what the B's got away with. The abuse they took certainly hampered their opportunities and Thomas took care of the rest. But the Sedins never seem to get intimidated. Frustrated perhaps, but not intimidated.

 

They were put off their game. I don't see how you could say intimidation/physical play didn't have anything to do with it. What kind of message does it send out to constantly allow yourself to be bullied.

As I say 3mins of John Scott would have put that series back on an even keel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, riffraff said:

We play Boston twice per year soooooooo.

 

 I don't recall the sedins being intimidated in any games vs Boston or any other team quite frankly.  Marchand vs Daniel was disappointing but that's the only tangible example of intimidstion, maybe.....personally I don't think Daniel was intimidated in that instance so much as he maintained his "refs will save us mindset" that really the whole team had.  otherwise you have no proof to back that claim up.

 

henrik and Daniel have the stats across the board that prove they are not intimidated in the NHL including henriks iron man streak at one point.

 

does part of their style lack aggression? Yes.  Do I like it? No.

 

but to say these guys are intimidated on the ice is a real long stretch.

Unfortunately that is NOT what the scoreboard tells us.

 

What does intimidated mean? Does it mean a player who score 94 in the regular season,  22 in 18 playoff games but one single point in the 7 games of the finals was not intimidated off his game?

Or a player who scored 104 in the regular season, 16 in 18 playoff games but could only manage 4 points in 7 playoff games was not intimidated off his game.

 

You say they were not intimidated, I say they were influenced to play poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, alfstonker said:

Unfortunately that is NOT what the scoreboard tells us.

 

What does intimidated mean? Does it mean a player who score 94 in the regular season,  22 in 18 playoff games but one single point in the 7 games of the finals was not intimidated off his game?

Or a player who scored 104 in the regular season, 16 in 18 playoff games but could only manage 4 points in 7 playoff games was not intimidated off his game.

 

You say they were not intimidated, I say they were influenced to play poorly.

I think that we are on the same page here....I just wouldn't use the word intimidated....I would agree that perhaps they don't define playoff style hockey.

 

but if we stick to 2011 as the example, the team was decimated by injuries, the pp was in the gutter and playoff refereeing was in effect - as it should be imo.

 

i actually have no problem with how Boston won the cup.  If the Canucks bludgeoned their way to a cup I'd be more than happy.

 

whatever it takes: skill, snarl I don't care.

 

edit

 

after all the sedins have done I refuse to disrespect them in any way.  I recall several instances where they stood up to intimidstion.  They played through Ben eager, Dustin brown.  I believe it was in LA where Daniel had his teeth smashed out and bloodied in front of the net only to come back out and score.

 

im looking forward to a change in style here but the sedins are legendary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2018 at 1:59 PM, EdgarM said:

I am looking for a leader like this to lead our team to the Cup!! : 

Linden heroic in 1994 Stanley Cup Final

by John McGourty / Vancouver Canucks
December 15th, 2008
Share
After all these years, Cliff Ronning lets us in on a secret that speaks glowingly of Trevor Linden's competitiveness and tenacity.


"You don't know this, but Trevor Linden had cracked ribs and torn rib cartilage for the last four games of the 1994 Stanley Cup Final," Cliff Ronning said. "You can't imagine what it's like to hear your captain, in a room down the hall, screaming at the top of his lungs as they injected the needle into his rib cage. Knowing him, he probably thought we couldn't hear. He would then walk into our dressing room like nothing had happened. That was inspirational."

Ronning was remembering Linden dropping his right shoulder into Brian Leetch, pushing the defenseman to the side and scoring on Mike Richter to make the score 2-1 Rangers in Game 7 of the Final. Linden couldn't will his team to victory that night, despite his two goals, in the deciding 3-2 loss.

"I broke my hand in that game," Ronning recalled. "But how do I say I can't play when there's a guy who has played four games with broken ribs and torn cartilage and he's dropping his shoulder into guys to make plays?

"There's a famous picture of Trevor and goalie Kirk McLean standing in exhaustion and it exemplifies what everyone on our team gave that day. It was a sad day because we lost, but it was a great day in the sense of what we had accomplished. We were not as talented a team, but how close we came! And, how close we became as friends, to this day."

Ronning said the famous picture of Linden and goalie Kirk McLean, standing together in Game 7 in total exhaustion, captures the moment. The Canucks had beaten the Calgary Flames in seven games, the last three in overtime, before five-game series victories over the Dallas Stars and Toronto Maple Leafs. Linden was Vancouver's second-leading scorer in the playoffs, behind his right winger Pavel Bure, with 12 goals and 13 assists. Down 3-1 in the Final, the Canucks rallied to win Games 5 and 6.
  At one point in Game 6 in Vancouver, Linden crawled on the ice to get to his bench, he was in so much pain.

"Trevor and Kirk and the exhaustion in their faces exemplifies what everyone on our team gave that day," Ronning said.

"Pat Quinn was inspirational to the younger players and put us in situations that we'd be accountable to each other. That's where Trevor fit in. He showed us that his accountability as a player was to the team, not to Trevor. By playing on the defensive side of the puck and taking hits to make plays, to staying in the night before a big game, Trevor set the disciplinary tone by himself. That's why we saw him as a great leader.

"Quinn slowly groomed our team as he went along and he needed a captain who shared his philosophy of hard work," Ronning said. "Trevor never took a shift off. He sacrificed his body to block shots and did a lot of little things that some scorers won't do. That's what made him an excellent captain."

Ronning grew up in suburban Vancouver, in Burnaby, and was overjoyed to be traded from the St. Blues to the Canucks in 1991. He had a lot riding on winning the 1994 Stanley Cup but even more in seeing his hometown take the Canucks to their heart. He knows the role Linden played in making that happen.

"He's been great for this city from the day he got here until he played his last game," Ronning said. "It's not just what he did on the ice. He did so much for the community. I can feel that connection with the fans and you don't know how many sick kids he visited in hospitals. He brought this community together and I've always thought it would be interesting if he ran for mayor."
  The NHL honored Linden in 1997 as the 10th recipient of the King Clancy Memorial Trophy.

"Certain people have leadership skills in their makeup and it was abundantly evident in Trevor Linden," said Quinn, who named Linden team captain at age 21. "He had shown it as a young player and we were a team changing our ethic. We hadn't been a winning organization. He seemed the right guy to put in there to be our leader and captain.

"He was a high-level performer who brought his level up in the big games. He didn't make mistakes and he scored important goals. Even if he wasn't a prolific scorer, he was that good, solid, two-way player that coaches love to have in the lineup.

"Linden was big in that Game 7 and the whole series," Quinn continued. "There's no possible way to give more than he did. He led by example and was a monster in the final game. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but Vancouver should have won that series. We were better in four of the seven games."

Nice to reread that, Thanks! It is the reason why Linden was/is the greatest Canuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Baggins said:

I don't recall the Sedins ever being intimidated into not playing their game. Throughout that series they continued to battle along the boards and go to the net despite what the B's got away with. The abuse they took certainly hampered their opportunities and Thomas took care of the rest. But the Sedins never seem to get intimidated. Frustrated perhaps, but not intimidated.

 

Well with being held pointless in 5 of the 7 games in a Stanley Cup Final by 2 of the leading scorers on the team, something happened. Whether they choked or they were intimidated it doesn't matter either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I feel you "need" in the playoffs (in no particular order, but all are equally important in my view):

 

1.  Consist goaltending (I llied up there about importance...this is probably the most important factor)

2.  Everyone on board in an "all in" way.  No floating....every shift should be played like it's do or die with physicality and energy

3.  Scoring (duh) ... so, what I mean by that is, the capability to score.  Goal scorers, like Brock.

4.  Fair and consistent officiating (huge)

5.  Health and few injuries...losing key players at critical points can be a deal breaker.  At which point, #2 is even MORE amplified and the true warriors can carry things, but not all will step up in that.

6.  No egos ... again, ties in to #2.  Team first.

 

I feel that there are teams more "prone" to being there, but any team can be the surprise underdog that sneaks in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alfstonker said:

Unfortunately that is NOT what the scoreboard tells us.

 

What does intimidated mean? Does it mean a player who score 94 in the regular season,  22 in 18 playoff games but one single point in the 7 games of the finals was not intimidated off his game?

Or a player who scored 104 in the regular season, 16 in 18 playoff games but could only manage 4 points in 7 playoff games was not intimidated off his game.

 

You say they were not intimidated, I say they were influenced to play poorly.

Would be nice if Hockey was as simple as u put it.

There are many other factors other than intimidation that affects players' stats. 

And I disagree that Intimidation was the main factor that got Sedins off their games. 

They had tough match ups. 

 

They play soft. Yes.

But they don't play scared. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LowerMainLander18 said:

Would be nice if Hockey was as simple as u put it.

There are many other factors other than intimidation that affects players' stats. 

And I disagree that Intimidation was the main factor that got Sedins off their games. 

They had tough match ups. 

 

They play soft. Yes.

But they don't play scared. 

Maybe they plain old choked.B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Here's what I feel you "need" in the playoffs (in no particular order, but all are equally important in my view):

 

1.  Consist goaltending (I llied up there about importance...this is probably the most important factor)

2.  Everyone on board in an "all in" way.  No floating....every shift should be played like it's do or die with physicality and energy

3.  Scoring (duh) ... so, what I mean by that is, the capability to score.  Goal scorers, like Brock.

4.  Fair and consistent officiating (huge)

5.  Health and few injuries...losing key players at critical points can be a deal breaker.  At which point, #2 is even MORE amplified and the true warriors can carry things, but not all will step up in that.

6.  No egos ... again, ties in to #2.  Team first.

 

I feel that there are teams more "prone" to being there, but any team can be the surprise underdog that sneaks in.

I believe you can group a couple of your items into character and determination/drive with a lot of leadership. I respect a guy who shows his emotions in a game where you noticeably see him push harder than normal and make an extra effort he doesn't usually do in the regular season. I like to see a guy slam his stick after missing a goal or allowing a goal against. It shows how badly he wants to win. Somebody who will ignore everything around him including injuries and very bad officiating and perform anyway.

I believe if we have a core group of guys with these characteristics, we will go along way. We have gone with the super talented group before and it did not seem to be enough without that extra desire and determination to win at all costs. Kind of like or World Junior Players perform every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, alfstonker said:

They were put off their game. I don't see how you could say intimidation/physical play didn't have anything to do with it. What kind of message does it send out to constantly allow yourself to be bullied.

As I say 3mins of John Scott would have put that series back on an even keel.

I didn't see any difference to their game at all. As I said the still battled along the boards and still went to the net. Never saw them shy away. It was AV that preached discipline all through that season. AV's reasoning was don't retaliate and make them pay with our PP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

I didn't see any difference to their game at all. As I said the still battled along the boards and still went to the net. Never saw them shy away. It was AV that preached discipline all through that season. AV's reasoning was don't retaliate and make them pay with our PP.

I'm afraid I saw it slightly differently and the bare scoring facts speak for themselves imo. 

 

Go and watch game 3 and see how little the Twins wanted to get involved in the neutral and their own D zone. You can't play a team like Boston like that in the Stanley Cup Finals. When the refs give you no protection, LEADERS step up to the plate. Sadly the Twins are not made like that. Raymond was more involved in that game than either of the twins and give Kesler his due he was the most physically competitive Canuck forward - it sickens me how this fanbase treats him now. 

 

The Twins normal supply was choked off and when that happens elite forwards must physically track back, back-check and change the course of play. They were/are unable to, disinclined to or basically not tough enough physically do that. In short and this is their biggest weakness - they can only play one way.

 

You can go to the SC Finals EVERY YEAR but if your main scoring threat who are also your C and your A don't FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO PLAY you will be on the wrong end of it every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alfstonker said:

I'm afraid I saw it slightly differently and the bare scoring facts speak for themselves imo. 

 

Go and watch game 3 and see how little the Twins wanted to get involved in the neutral and their own D zone. You can't play a team like Boston like that in the Stanley Cup Finals. When the refs give you no protection, LEADERS step up to the plate. Sadly the Twins are not made like that. Raymond was more involved in that game than either of the twins and give Kesler his due he was the most physically competitive Canuck forward - it sickens me how this fanbase treats him now. 

 

The Twins normal supply was choked off and when that happens elite forwards must physically track back, back-check and change the course of play. They were/are unable to, disinclined to or basically not tough enough physically do that. In short and this is their biggest weakness - they can only play one way.

 

You can go to the SC Finals EVERY YEAR but if your main scoring threat who are also your C and your A don't FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO PLAY you will be on the wrong end of it every time.

Easy to say. The Sedins got scoring chances. Good ones. Their game didn't change. Chara's play on Henrik certainly reduced the number of scoring chances but the chances were there. You're among those that also fail to recognize just how good Thomas was.

 

That last bold part is rubbish. The Sedins, Henrik in particular, took an absolute beating from Chara and never changed their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alfstonker said:

I'm afraid I saw it slightly differently and the bare scoring facts speak for themselves imo. 

 

Go and watch game 3 and see how little the Twins wanted to get involved in the neutral and their own D zone. You can't play a team like Boston like that in the Stanley Cup Finals. When the refs give you no protection, LEADERS step up to the plate. Sadly the Twins are not made like that. Raymond was more involved in that game than either of the twins and give Kesler his due he was the most physically competitive Canuck forward - it sickens me how this fanbase treats him now. 

 

The Twins normal supply was choked off and when that happens elite forwards must physically track back, back-check and change the course of play. They were/are unable to, disinclined to or basically not tough enough physically do that. In short and this is their biggest weakness - they can only play one way.

 

You can go to the SC Finals EVERY YEAR but if your main scoring threat who are also your C and your A don't FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO PLAY you will be on the wrong end of it every time.

 

34 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Easy to say. The Sedins got scoring chances. Good ones. Their game didn't change. Chara's play on Henrik certainly reduced the number of scoring chances but the chances were there. You're among those that also fail to recognize just how good Thomas was.

 

That last bold part is rubbish. The Sedins, Henrik in particular, took an absolute beating from Chara and never changed their game.

The thing that stands out the most with the Sedins post season play is that it did not seem to change much from the regular season play and it certainly did not get raised to a higher level. I seen the same with Nazzy too. That's what made Linden stand out. He was well known for his leadership but he was no offensive threat as much as a Sedin or Bure was. He was not even a center in the beginning and he elevated his game to be more then what he initially was. For what type of player he was and to manage to score two goals in game seven while having many injuries such as broken ribs, speaks a lot about stepping up your game. I remember the Rangers taking liberties and handing out cheap shots while the Refs looked the other way throughout that entire series.

The same type of play can be said for Kessler as well in that he elevated his play during the playoffs. You could tell he hated to lose and gave that extra effort during the post season.

I beg to differ Baggins in your assessment that the Sedins never changed their game. They produced offense right up until the Final and then........................

Actually, you are kind of right in that the rest of the playoffs they did not "change their game" from the "regular season" anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Baggins said:

Easy to say. The Sedins got scoring chances. Good ones. Their game didn't change. Chara's play on Henrik certainly reduced the number of scoring chances but the chances were there. You're among those that also fail to recognize just how good Thomas was.

 

That last bold part is rubbish. The Sedins, Henrik in particular, took an absolute beating from Chara and never changed their game.

It's not rubbish, you need to re-read what I said. They took a beating where they always take a beating (in the last 20 feet of the ice) and that was the trouble - they needed to get more involved in the other 2/3 of the ice but that is not their game.

 

The truth was they were up against a team that was not only skilled, not only had an outstanding goalie but every man jack could play the type of physical game that the Twins didn't have and still don't have. Ironically the fact they were twins probably made the outcome more certain compared to most other front line pairings where one if not both can match up physically.

 

You can say all you like about the Sedins and Sedinary and don't get me wrong I have loved every minute of it but you don't win Cups playing like that when the refs allow the kid gloves to come off.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

Here's what I feel you "need" in the playoffs (in no particular order, but all are equally important in my view):

 

1.  Consist goaltending (I llied up there about importance...this is probably the most important factor)

2.  Everyone on board in an "all in" way.  No floating....every shift should be played like it's do or die with physicality and energy

3.  Scoring (duh) ... so, what I mean by that is, the capability to score.  Goal scorers, like Brock.

4.  Fair and consistent officiating (huge)

5.  Health and few injuries...losing key players at critical points can be a deal breaker.  At which point, #2 is even MORE amplified and the true warriors can carry things, but not all will step up in that.

6.  No egos ... again, ties in to #2.  Team first.

 

I feel that there are teams more "prone" to being there, but any team can be the surprise underdog that sneaks in.

4.  Fair and consistent officiating (huge) - but the ability to negate the officiating by imposing whatever type of game it takes to win on the opposition. We failed against Boston partly because of injuries but also because we did not have enough players who could fight for the right to play.

 

Any team we are building now in order to be contenders down the line must be built with the ability to play a team like Boston at their own game that is why I go on so much about push back, size and physicality. These attributes are not mutually exclusive from speed and skill - but sometimes you would think they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, EdgarM said:

 

The thing that stands out the most with the Sedins post season play is that it did not seem to change much from the regular season play and it certainly did not get raised to a higher level. I seen the same with Nazzy too. That's what made Linden stand out. He was well known for his leadership but he was no offensive threat as much as a Sedin or Bure was. He was not even a center in the beginning and he elevated his game to be more then what he initially was. For what type of player he was and to manage to score two goals in game seven while having many injuries such as broken ribs, speaks a lot about stepping up your game. I remember the Rangers taking liberties and handing out cheap shots while the Refs looked the other way throughout that entire series.

The same type of play can be said for Kessler as well in that he elevated his play during the playoffs. You could tell he hated to lose and gave that extra effort during the post season.

I beg to differ Baggins in your assessment that the Sedins never changed their game. They produced offense right up until the Final and then........................

Actually, you are kind of right in that the rest of the playoffs they did not "change their game" from the "regular season" anyway.

I know you don't like the Sedins' you keep repeating the same things over and over again.  I don't know why, I think they deserve the respect in every way possible.  But let me ask you this? If the refs had called penalties, like they had been the whole playoffs other than the SCFS, you don't think the Sedins' would of had more points than they did?  The refs changed the series, and unfortunately injuries and the style the canucks' were playing could not overcome the reffing.  Everything was going against the canucks' the whole series? Rome getting suspended for hitting Horton?  Are you kidding me?? That was biased, and the leagues disciplinarian being the father of a bruins player is totally wrong.  Mason Raymond getting hit from behind and the other player not getting a suspension?? Need I say more?? Everything was going against the canucks imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Viper007 said:

I know you don't like the Sedins' you keep repeating the same things over and over again.  I don't know why, I think they deserve the respect in every way possible.  But let me ask you this? If the refs had called penalties, like they had been the whole playoffs other than the SCFS, you don't think the Sedins' would of had more points than they did?  The refs changed the series, and unfortunately injuries and the style the canucks' were playing could not overcome the reffing.  Everything was going against the canucks' the whole series? Rome getting suspended for hitting Horton?  Are you kidding me?? That was biased, and the leagues disciplinarian being the father of a bruins player is totally wrong.  Mason Raymond getting hit from behind and the other player not getting a suspension?? Need I say more?? Everything was going against the canucks imo.

I never ever said I don't like the Sedins, on the contrary, they have provided entertainment for decades to Canuck fans. HOWEVER, when they had the BEST chance to bring Vancouver a Cup, they failed. They did not LEAD our team to the promised land and when we ever needed them to provide offense, it did not happen.

We had power plays in the Final. Do you remember when we were almost guaranteed a goal when ever we were on the powerplay? What happened in the finals?

I have heard the many many reasons why we lost but the bottom line was that they were on the ice and provided very little offense in that series. Period.

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...