Canucks leaders

[Viper007]

35 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

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.

Leadership does not equal offense.  Yes their production, and others, wasn't enough that we lost the finals, but it's not because of their leadership.

[alfstonker]

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.

You are missing the point. Leaders adjust. When the refs slackened the rules leaders don't just role over they adapt in the game (7 games in this case) 

You have to feel for Kesler battling on his own often with 3 Bruins in his face.

[chon derry]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎16 at 3:49 PM, coastal.view said:

you have a limited view of what leadership is i think

 

I agree with all that you say about the sedins and their leadership qualities ,theres always going to be some comparisons to 94 to  2011 , However there were NO players on the 94 team, ronning included ,would NEVER have allowed marchand to get away with what he did. and all the subsequent  disrespect that the sedins (endured afterwards) the fact that they DID endure is a testament to their leadership.however ,the burns hit  the the duncan keith thing, thortons face wash might not have happened with a different response of which marchand should have had coming.as a teammate of the 2011 canucks watching that go down without response had to be a little disheartening, i believe the sedins were alternate captains at the time but still..... how ever nobody on that team responed very well to marchand and everyone else on the bruins team, which is the separation of the 2 canuck versions.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, chon derry said:

I agree with all that you say about the sedins and their leadership qualities ,theres always going to be some comparisons to 94 to  2011 , However there were NO players on the 94 team, ronning included ,would NEVER have allowed marchand to get away with what he did. and all the subsequent  disrespect that the sedins (endured afterwards) the fact that they DID endure is a testament to their leadership.however ,the burns hit  the the duncan keith thing, thortons face wash might not have happened with a different response of which marchand should have had coming.as a teammate of the 2011 canucks watching that go down without response had to be a little disheartening, i believe the sedins were alternate captains at the time but still.....

@chon derry

ive heard Gino Odjik talking about the crap the Twins have taken over the years, and how much it upsets him the 

Canucks never got the Twins a proper “bodyguard”.  The ?Twins are tough in their own way, but ABSOLUTELY they should have had a really tough son-of-a-gun riding shotgun.  

[chon derry]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

@chon derry

ive heard Gino Odjik talking about the crap the Twins have taken over the years, and how much it upsets him the 

Canucks never got the Twins a proper “bodyguard”.  The ?Twins are tough in their own way, but ABSOLUTELY they should have had a really tough son-of-a-gun riding shotgun.  

which is still the current problem .........

[Viper007]

20 minutes ago, alfstonker said:

You are missing the point. Leaders adjust. When the refs slackened the rules leaders don't just role over they adapt in the game (7 games in this case) 

You have to feel for Kesler battling on his own often with 3 Bruins in his face.

Neither did the rest of the team.  Just saying it's the twins fault is passing blame on 2 people.  A team is not just 2 people.  Our depth was suppose to be better than theirs, but it was their 4th line that outplayed our 3rd/4th line.  I still believe that if Hamhuis wasn't hurt we would've won.

[EdgarM]

34 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

Neither did the rest of the team.  Just saying it's the twins fault is passing blame on 2 people.  A team is not just 2 people.  Our depth was suppose to be better than theirs, but it was their 4th line that outplayed our 3rd/4th line.  I still believe that if Hamhuis wasn't hurt we would've won.

We didn't win because we didn't score, with the exception of Lou's blowout game we were shutout a couple of games and our top point getters were rendered useless for the entire series. Losing Hamhuis didn't help but our point getters played the entire series where I think Hank had points in 1 of the 7 games and Danny had points in 2 of the 7 games. Not enough to win anything even if you had a hot goalie.

[Viper007]

1 minute ago, EdgarM said:

We didn't win because we didn't score, with the exception of Lou's blowout game we were shutout a couple of games and our top point getters were rendered useless for the entire series. Losing Hamhuis didn't help but our point getters played the entire series where I think Hank had points in 1 of the 7 games and Danny had points in 2 of the 7 games. Not enough to win anything even if you had a hot goalie.

Yes that is correct, but that isn't because of leadership, which this thread is about.

[EdgarM]

2 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

Yes that is correct, but that isn't because of leadership, which this thread is about.

Leadership is elevating your game and inspiring the troops to rally against all odds. How can this happen when you underperform yourself? When you allow your opponent to punch bag you and your "bread and Butter"(offense) dries up? I don't see the leadership in that at all.

[c00kies]

2 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

We didn't win because we didn't score, with the exception of Lou's blowout game we were shutout a couple of games and our top point getters were rendered useless for the entire series. Losing Hamhuis didn't help but our point getters played the entire series where I think Hank had points in 1 of the 7 games and Danny had points in 2 of the 7 games. Not enough to win anything even if you had a hot goalie.

Even with how well Thomas played, I think the Bruins could have won with almost any other goalie. Luongo was arguably more impactful in this series than Thomas, since he had to steal games to win, whereas Thomas just had to not $&!# the bed (game 7 was the closest win for the Bruins). The Canucks just didn't get enough offense, especially from the twins.

 

 

[Viper007]

1 minute ago, EdgarM said:

Leadership is elevating your game and inspiring the troops to rally against all odds. How can this happen when you underperform yourself? When you allow your opponent to punch bag you and your "bread and Butter"(offense) dries up? I don't see the leadership in that at all.

I think you're mistaking performance for leadership.  Yes they didn't perform like they should, but it's not because of their leadership.  Elevating your game has nothing to do with leadership, in fact, everybody should be "elevating" their game in the playoffs, but does it happen?  Nope.  In the punching bag situation, the Sedins' were damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Do I wish they did somethings sure (in hindsight), but going back at Marchand would show to the other team also that Marchand did get under their skin, and put them off their game.  Either way the Sedins' were in a lose-lose situation.  The Sedins' are never players that will attack somebody, so why do you think they would then?  The refs are the ones that are suppose to "enforce" the rules of the game, which obviously they didn't.  I'm sure in every other game if that happens, that would be a penalty, but for some reason, in that series that's not a penalty?  Give me a break.  Bunch of bs non-calls which caused the canucks' to be confused on how the game was to be played, which should be to punish teams with their special teams play, but in hindsight should have been, let's cheapshot these guys also, since the refs aren't going to call $#%#!.  

[EdgarM]

36 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

I think you're mistaking performance for leadership.  Yes they didn't perform like they should, but it's not because of their leadership.  Elevating your game has nothing to do with leadership, in fact, everybody should be "elevating" their game in the playoffs, but does it happen?  Nope.  In the punching bag situation, the Sedins' were damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Do I wish they did somethings sure (in hindsight), but going back at Marchand would show to the other team also that Marchand did get under their skin, and put them off their game.  Either way the Sedins' were in a lose-lose situation.  The Sedins' are never players that will attack somebody, so why do you think they would then?  The refs are the ones that are suppose to "enforce" the rules of the game, which obviously they didn't.  I'm sure in every other game if that happens, that would be a penalty, but for some reason, in that series that's not a penalty?  Give me a break.  Bunch of bs non-calls which caused the canucks' to be confused on how the game was to be played, which should be to punish teams with their special teams play, but in hindsight should have been, let's cheapshot these guys also, since the refs aren't going to call $#%#!.  

Speaking of "special teams" the PP went 2-33 in the series. Not sure how you  define "leadership" then. I thought it was "lead by example" at least.

[rekker]

1 hour ago, c00kies said:

Even with how well Thomas played, I think the Bruins could have won with almost any other goalie. Luongo was arguably more impactful in this series than Thomas, since he had to steal games to win, whereas Thomas just had to not $&!# the bed (game 7 was the closest win for the Bruins). The Canucks just didn't get enough offense, especially from the twins.

 

 

Chara should of been the  MVP.  In Boston where they could more easily line match. Between him and Bergeron they did a number on the twins.

[EdgarM]

1 hour ago, c00kies said:

Even with how well Thomas played, I think the Bruins could have won with almost any other goalie. Luongo was arguably more impactful in this series than Thomas, since he had to steal games to win, whereas Thomas just had to not $&!# the bed (game 7 was the closest win for the Bruins). The Canucks just didn't get enough offense, especially from the twins.

 

 

Especially when you go up 2 nothing in the series you would think they were on the ropes and all you had to do was put them out of their misery.

[Viper007]

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Speaking of "special teams" the PP went 2-33 in the series. Not sure how you  define "leadership" then. I thought it was "lead by example" at least.

Just because the results aren't there doesn't mean you're not leading by example.  The players all gave it their best shot, and unfortunately luck was not on their side that series.  Nothing to do with leadership.  If you want to go by the way you define leadership, that means every team who didn't win the stanley cup had bad leadership that year.  It was a great season that just came up short.  Unfortunately it didn't go the canucks way, but to keep undermining the leadership of the Sedins' is just not correct in my opinion.   

[alfstonker]

11 hours ago, chon derry said:

I agree with all that you say about the sedins and their leadership qualities ,theres always going to be some comparisons to 94 to  2011 , However there were NO players on the 94 team, ronning included ,would NEVER have allowed marchand to get away with what he did. and all the subsequent  disrespect that the sedins (endured afterwards) the fact that they DID endure is a testament to their leadership.however ,the burns hit  the the duncan keith thing, thortons face wash might not have happened with a different response of which marchand should have had coming.as a teammate of the 2011 canucks watching that go down without response had to be a little disheartening, i believe the sedins were alternate captains at the time but still..... how ever nobody on that team responed very well to marchand and everyone else on the bruins team, which is the separation of the 2 canuck versions.

Not quite true Don. Ballard waded into Marchand after Sedin was upended but the refs didn't let it go to a conclusion. I thought Ballard might have won that discussion based on his history.

 

[alfstonker]

11 hours ago, Viper007 said:

Neither did the rest of the team.  Just saying it's the twins fault is passing blame on 2 people.  A team is not just 2 people.  Our depth was suppose to be better than theirs, but it was their 4th line that outplayed our 3rd/4th line.  I still believe that if Hamhuis wasn't hurt we would've won.

The rest of the team made a a better showing than the Twins and Luongo that's for sure. Some even carried injuries which would probably have taken them out of the team in the the regular season.

Who said the Canucks had better depth? You are delusional.

ejci
2	Patrice Bergeron
3	Brad Marchand
4	Nathan Horton
5	Michael Ryder
6	Mark Recchi*
7	Chris Kelly
8	Milan Lucic
9	Rich Peverley
10	Dennis Seidenberg
11	Tomas Kaberle
12	Andrew Ference
13	Johnny Boychuk
14	Zdeno Chara
15	Tyler Seguin
16	Daniel Paille
17	Gregory Campbell
18	Adam McQuaid
19	Shawn Thornton
20	Shane Hnidy
21	Tim Thomas

[alfstonker]

12 hours ago, Alflives said:

@chon derry

ive heard Gino Odjik talking about the crap the Twins have taken over the years, and how much it upsets him the 

Canucks never got the Twins a proper “bodyguard”.  The ?Twins are tough in their own way, but ABSOLUTELY they should have had a really tough son-of-a-gun riding shotgun.  

Of course they should and many fans said as much at the time including me - just like I am saying it now about the team we are building. Softies are ok in the regular season but if they come up against a team say like Calgary or the Oilers and they suspect the Canucks can be bullied off their game (especially if the refs revert to their discretional rule book) they will go "raw meat" on us and that will be another run ended.

 

I always maintained that the Canucks were not basically "soft" but it comes down to what you are prepared to do to win. Players like Salo, Ehrhoff, Tambellini, Edler, Higgins, Oreskovich, Raymond, Tanev were all players the Bruins knew would never back their play. And then there was Burr, Manny, Lapierre, Hamhuis who had "a line" but were virtually no threat to the likes of Lucic, McQaid, Chara, Marchand, Horton, Seidenberg, Campbell, Thornton, Ference. and of course these guys made the likes of Bergeron, Krejci, Recchi, Ryder, Kelly, Seguin, Peverley feel they could bully us too because they always had their hard men to back them up.

 

This is what is not recognised about having a team with so many players who are not prepared to back their play. You find the players who are, are less inclined to play tough because they have no back up from the likes of the Sedins, Salo, Raymond, Ehrhoff, Edler, Oreskovich Tanev, Tambellini, or marginals like Lapierre, Higgins, Hamhuis. Go look at that series again and watch how many times absolute liberties were taken in the "scrums" even Thomas thought he was entitled to floor Henrik and hack Burrs leg off.

 

We were left with players who were game but generally outnumbered. Players like Hansen, Bieksa, Torres, Ballard, Alberts, Burr and Kesler.

 

That is why I said one player, a player who played fair but carried a "nuclear" threat like John Scott would have been a worthwhile investment at the trade deadline. He would have shut down McQuaid, Chara, Thornton and Lucic in the blink of an eye, the rest would have scuttled down their holes and we could all have got back to playing skilled hockey.

 

Whether we like it or not this is a "man's game" and the Canadian way is "back your play" It is only natural a team with so many players who were unable to or unwilling to "back their play" and fight for the right to play THEIR game would ultimately lack respect. We can go on and on all day long about what the Twins and the rest of that team were entitled to but the lasting image of that series in the mind's eye of most Canadians was Daniel Sedin being speed bagged by Marchand.

While many women probably looked at that and thought what a shame for the man in the beard - the men of Canada and indeed North America were standing at their TVs shouting "FFS banjo that little f-----r!!!"

 

The irony is and this is why I insist we build a team of players who "have a line" If the Canucks had, as a team, pitched in and started a line brawl once or twice where every man got involved, early in the series, the TV companies would probably have  insisted that the refs got back to calling the game properly and clamping down on the Boston intimidation.

[EdgarM]

13 hours ago, Viper007 said:

Just because the results aren't there doesn't mean you're not leading by example.  The players all gave it their best shot, and unfortunately luck was not on their side that series.  Nothing to do with leadership.  If you want to go by the way you define leadership, that means every team who didn't win the stanley cup had bad leadership that year.  It was a great season that just came up short.  Unfortunately it didn't go the canucks way, but to keep undermining the leadership of the Sedins' is just not correct in my opinion.   

Ok so now its because of bad "Luck"? That team on paper was built to win and dominated in the regular seasons with a few presidents cups to prove it. Did every team who didn't win the Cup have their Leaders "underperform" when they finally made it to the finals? I don't think anyone could say Linden DID NOT provide adequate leadership in 94 even though they lost. Even Bure did his job that year by providing 8 points in the 7 game series.

If the Sedins had provided their normal or even close to normal production in that series, I would not even be having this discussion with you,

[Viper007]

6 hours ago, alfstonker said:

The rest of the team made a a better showing than the Twins and Luongo that's for sure. Some even carried injuries which would probably have taken them out of the team in the the regular season.

Who said the Canucks had better depth? You are delusional.

ejci
2	Patrice Bergeron
3	Brad Marchand
4	Nathan Horton
5	Michael Ryder
6	Mark Recchi*
7	Chris Kelly
8	Milan Lucic
9	Rich Peverley
10	Dennis Seidenberg
11	Tomas Kaberle
12	Andrew Ference
13	Johnny Boychuk
14	Zdeno Chara
15	Tyler Seguin
16	Daniel Paille
17	Gregory Campbell
18	Adam McQuaid
19	Shawn Thornton
20	Shane Hnidy
21	Tim Thomas

So you're telling me if they redid that stanley cup finals with healthy teams (and unbiased reffing) the canucks wouldn't win?? I think you're delusional.