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

[Report] Eriksson “NOT” likely to be moved on


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

 

We have proved our points regarding eriksson, decides its hateful to bash on someone who is bad at their job.

 

Every post of mine and yours are met with confused emojis, isn't that a sign of hate?

 

I think I am developing a Ghost crush on silver, maybe we can make ghost babies?

“Hurt Feeling Reports” will be next in the workplace.

  • Cheers 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Silver Ghost said:

Two different styles of player though. I love Roussel and agree that he is awesome. But it would be like saying Roussel is not a solid offensive player because he doesnt play and produce like Petterssen.

You just contradicted yourself.  Petterssen is an offensive player placed in an offensive role who performs.

 

I compared Loui to a 3rd line player just like Loui - Roussel who performs I have played for over 40 years and coached my sons teams for more than 10.  No, I haven't played in the NHL or any professional league but this nuance you speak of that is missed by "non-professionals"  ( I am assuming you are one as you speak on behalf of them) is a stretch at least and a unicorn at most. 

 

He is a declining 3rd line NHL player at best who wants to be treated like a top six player and is able to get by because of some remaining skills - with minimal effort.  If you consider nuance 21 hits in 196 games so be it.

 

No excuses will change that. 

Edited by Borvat
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Silver Ghost said:

I cansee there is no point in trying to discuss Eriksson on this forum. I hope he gets traded soon. No player deserves this kind of hate.

Well I personally don't consider being unsatisfied with his level of play and critiquing it hate.  He plays a professional sport and is paid extremely well to perform.  If he doesn't perform part of the expectation going in is that if they do not perform they will hear about it - it is performance industry - it's how they get the tens of millions of dollars. That money is generated because people provide it via purchasing - advertising / tickets / merchandise etc.  If these providers of money for service or entertainment are happy they applaud if they are not they complain and or stop paying.  

 

When athletes or actors or any professional accept the accolades and money they know the converse can be a part of it.  He is experiencing the other side of the coin.  I do not correlate that with "hate". Using the hate word in a discussion is a cop out and offensive to people expressing a differing opinion.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Borvat said:

You just contradicted yourself.  Petterssen is an offensive player placed in an offensive role who performs.

 

I compared Loui to a 3rd line player just like Loui - Roussel who performs I have played for over 40 years and coached my sons teams for more than 10.  No, I haven't played in the NHL or any professional league but this nuance you speak of that is missed by "non-professionals"  ( I am assuming you are one as you speak on behalf of them) is a stretch at least and a unicorn at most. 

 

He is a declining 3rd line NHL player at best who wants to be treated like a top six player and is able to get by because of some remaining skills - with minimal effort.  If you consider nuance 21 hits in 196 games so be it.

 

No excuses will change that. 

Comparing Eriksson as a player to Roussel is BS as they are not remotely close to the same type of player. Where they play has no bearing on it as they play a different type of game.

 

I have coached for many years too, played competitively until my early 20's, and also know and talk to a lot of current and former NHL players, coaches, and executives. Not that it really matters since no one really needs to "prove" they know hockey tohave an opinion. But i am pretty comfortable with my understanding of hockey as a sport.  

 

EDIT: and before the inevitable suggestion that I must play like Eriksson, I was actually really into hitting and agitating. So I love that style of hockey too. Far more Roussel than Eriksson. But i also played with a lot of different types of players and could appreciate their style of play and the advantages it could bring to a team.

 

 

Edited by Silver Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

 

We have proved our points regarding eriksson, decides its hateful to bash on someone who is bad at their job.

 

Every post of mine and yours are met with confused emojis, isn't that a sign of hate?

 

I think I am developing a Ghost crush on silver, maybe we can make ghost babies?

Ewww no way. 

 

I respect your guys opinions, i just dont happen to agree with some of them. It does actually confuse me how people dont actually understand that you can do both.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Silver Ghost said:

Comparing Eriksson as a player to Roussel is BS as they are not remotely close to the same type of player. Where they play has no bearing on it as they play a different type of game.

 

I have coached for many years too, played competitively until my early 20's, and also know and talk to a lot of current and former NHL players, coaches, and executives. Not that it really matters since no one really needs to "prove" they know hockey tohave an opinion. But i am pretty comfortable with my understanding of hockey as a sport.  

 

 

Comparing Eriksson to Petterssen is not BS?  Loui and Roussel are in the same role - 3rd liner.  Much more of a comparison and yes Eriksson is nothing like Petterssen or Roussel.  Eriksson isn't capable of top six play on a decent team and doesn't want to play bottom six where he belongs yet wants to be left alone and paid.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Borvat said:

Comparing Eriksson to Petterssen is not BS?  Loui and Roussel are in the same role - 3rd liner.  Much more of a comparison and yes Eriksson is nothing like Petterssen or Roussel.  Eriksson isn't capable of top six play on a decent team and doesn't want to play bottom six where he belongs yet wants to be left alone and paid.  

Exactly, that was my point. Comparing different styles of players is not a real or reasonable comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

 Do you really think we'd be complaining about how many hits Loui had if he contributed offensively like those guys...

 

Well, Loui was a top 6 player in Vancouver pointwise while playing mostly defensively. How many points more would he got uf Green used him more on pp par example?

Edler was a top2d last season...

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Silver Ghost said:

Exactly, that was my point. Comparing different styles of players is not a real or reasonable comparison. 

My point is Erikssons "style" is not compatible with either role effectively top six or bottom six - in my opinion.  I don't call being a good stick checker a nuance.  I reserve that for someone like a Roger Federer - not a declining 34 year old 3rd liner who really doesn't want to be there.  

 

In my opinion Loui gets by relying on remaining skills without much engagement.  If that's nuance I am not a fan.  We will continue to disagree.  It's all good.

Edited by Borvat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Borvat said:

My point is Erikssons "style" is not compatible with either role effectively - in my opinion.  I don't call being a good stick checker a nuance.  I reserve that for someone like a Roger Federer - not a declining 34 year old 3rd liner who really doesn't want to be there.  

 

In my opinion Loui gets by relying on remaining skills without much engagement.  If that's nuance I am not a fan.  We will continue to disagree.  It's all good.

 

Thats a completely different argument though imo. 

 

Eriksson is and has been a pretty good defensive forward, with a the other fluff taken out of that argument. His style is fine if that statement remains true, which I would say it is. 

 

Like I said, I can agree to disagree regarding Eriksson. I am not naive enough to think i will change your opinion (or others on here), nor do I really care to tbh. And you arent going to change mine if this is your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Silver Ghost said:

Thats a completely different argument though imo. 

 

Eriksson is and has been a pretty good defensive forward, with a the other fluff taken out of that argument. His style is fine if that statement remains true, which I would say it is. 

 

Like I said, I can agree to disagree regarding Eriksson. I am not naive enough to think i will change your opinion (or others on here), nor do I really care to tbh. And you arent going to change mine if this is your argument.

No different argument from my perspective.  He doesn't fit top six or bottom six on this team in my opinion- and he doesn't want to.  Has been my argument the whole time.  If your nuance argument was he can still get by playing bottom six on minimal effort based on his declining skills with a stick and numerous NHL connections you have talked to.  Then yes we can agree.  Just not here please.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Silver Ghost said:

Again, imho anyone who sees absolutely zero value in any player is hating on him because its just not realistic. All players bring something to the table or they wouldnt be at the table. 

Well if someone sees zero value in a player, they see zero value in a player. 

 

If they say “I hope Loui Eriksson never plays hockey again and dies a miserable death”, that’s hate. An all consuming emotion reaction that is laser focused on its subject. 

 

Personally, I don’t know Eriksson, so I can’t hate him.

 

However, I do feel, having watched the majority of games last season, that he was a lackadaisical floater akin to an empty uniform on the ice. That’s not hating, merely an observation with negative connotations. 

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

Well if someone sees zero value in a player, they see zero value in a player. 

 

If they say “I hope Loui Eriksson never plays hockey again and dies a miserable death”, that’s hate. An all consuming emotion reaction that is laser focused on its subject. 

 

Personally, I don’t know Eriksson, so I can’t hate him.

 

However, I do feel, having watched the majority of games last season, that he was a lackadaisical floater akin to an empty uniform on the ice. That’s not hating, merely an observation with negative connotations. 

My only point though is that anyone who sees zero value in any player is not realisticor objective about that player. You guys can feel free to disagree with that opinion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Silver Ghost said:

My only point though is that anyone who sees zero value in any player is not realisticor objective about that player. You guys can feel free to disagree with that opinion though.

REALISTICOR.

 

I vote to change the C to a K. It’s way more bada$$

 

REALISTIKOR

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Me_ said:

To be fair, there’s a lot of hate going on on this board. 

 

A lot.

 

If you think what one says would stands as hateful speech to someone standing before you, it’s hate.

 

What hate is actually defined as versus what people are actually able to take is night and day. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Silver Ghost said:

My only point though is that anyone who sees zero value in any player is not realisticor objective about that player. You guys can feel free to disagree with that opinion though.

Playing the hate card in a discussion is not reasonable as an argument - only as verified fact.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Borvat said:

Playing the hate card in a discussion is not reasonable as an argument - only as verified fact.

Have you seen some of the comments about him? No one knows what his motivation is or what the organization thinks of him or wants for him at this point. Presenting as fact he is lazy, or disinterested, or garbage and a cancer as both as a player and as a person (for his pretty tame comments), is really just trying to justify hating the guy. 

 

No one except the Canucks and Eriksson really know their opinion or Erikssons motivation etc.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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