[PGT] Vancouver Canucks at Boston Bruins | Nov. 13, 2022

[Goal:thecup]

5 minutes ago, chon derry said:

Wut da hek?

Wut da hek you wut da hekking about Chon?

[chon derry]

Just now, Goal:thecup said:

Wut da hek you wut da hekking about Chon?

[Baratheon]

2 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

We have only had playoff success with tough teams: Smyl's, Linden's, and The Sedins' teams were all tough, and in Linden's and The Sedins' teams' cases, maybe just not quite tough enough.

 

Different kind of toughness and unfortunately not what most seem to be getting at when they talk about it.

The type of toughness that you’re talking about, I agree with.

[Goal:thecup]

7 minutes ago, Baratheon said:

Different kind of toughness and unfortunately not what most seem to be getting at when they talk about it.

The type of toughness that you’re talking about, I agree with.

You know, you're right: 'toughness' is whole lot of things.

For one thing, just to play pro hockey, let alone make it to the NHL, you have to be tough.

 

At the other end of the scale there are players like Gino Odjick who allow your Bures to perform.

I am of the opinion that you can only have a very few small (untough?) players on the team if you want success.

 

You have to save these spots for your Hughess and Petterssons; i.e. your very elite players.

I still see heavyweights on Stanley Cup Winners and a lot of tough customers throughout their lineups.

 

I do not mean goons (this is often misrepresented); I like smart, and really tough guys, who make the other team give up power plays.

I look at Las Vegas in the bubble and almost all of them could skate (you gotta get there) and hit hard, and it messed us right up.

 

When you play like that, you gotta back it up; you don't have to win every fight, but you have to stand up and much better to beat the Living Marchand out of the other guy.

I get a lot of flack for this opinion but I wonder, was there ever a Stanley Cup Championship team without it?

 

[Baratheon]

18 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

You know, you're right: 'toughness' is whole lot of things.

For one thing, just to play pro hockey, let alone make it to the NHL, you have to be tough.

 

At the other end of the scale there are players like Gino Odjick who allow your Bures to perform.

I am of the opinion that you can only have a very few small (untough?) players on the team if you want success.

 

You have to save these spots for your Hughess and Petterssons; i.e. your very elite players.

I still see heavyweights on Stanley Cup Winners and a lot of tough customers throughout their lineups.

 

I do not mean goons (this is often misrepresented); I like smart, and really tough guys, who make the other team give up power plays.

I look at Las Vegas in the bubble and almost all of them could skate (you gotta get there) and hit hard, and it messed us right up.

 

When you play like that, you gotta back it up; you don't have to win every fight, but you have to stand up and much better to beat the Living Marchand out of the other guy.

I get a lot of flack for this opinion but I wonder, was there ever a Stanley Cup Championship team without it?

 

There has to be a mix for sure.  All I'm saying is that when we've focused on fighting, we've had some pretty terrible teams.  The stats seem to verify it.

[Goal:thecup]

3 minutes ago, Baratheon said:

There has to be a mix for sure.  All I'm saying is that when we've focused on fighting, we've had some pretty terrible teams.  The stats seem to verify it.

As a fan, watching the games, if the team has difficulty winning, it feels better and is more fun if you win the fights and intimidate the other team.

They can point to the scoreboard (ala Gretzky) but if he didn't have Semenko et al, he would have had to do it with a broken nose.

 

So yeah, some of our worst lineups had a lot of tough guys who could really throw down.

When you have both talent and toughness, then you can consider winning chamipionships.

 

No more smurfs.  (We have more than enough.)

[Baratheon]

4 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

As a fan, watching the games, if the team has difficulty winning, it feels better and is more fun if you win the fights and intimidate the other team.

They can point to the scoreboard (ala Gretzky) but if he didn't have Semenko et al, he would have had to do it with a broken nose.

 

So yeah, some of our worst lineups had a lot of tough guys who could really throw down.

When you have both talent and toughness, then you can consider winning chamipionships.

 

No more smurfs.  (We have more than enough.)

Depends on the smurf!  Rypien was fairly small.

 

And yeah I agree.  You need balance.  It’s a team game after all.

[Goal:thecup]

8 minutes ago, Baratheon said:

Depends on the smurf!  Rypien was fairly small.

 

And yeah I agree.  You need balance.  It’s a team game after all.

Smurfs can't throw 'em like Ryp could.

You know what I mean, on our team we can (and should) keep Quinn and Petey, but not also Rathbone and Hoglander and Garland and anybody else who can't answer the bell for themselves.

[Goal:thecup]

2 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

I cannot listen to their shite anymore; yesterday they said, "Bo has to be traded, just has to!"

And with that 1 minute of radio time, I turned the radio back off.

(Donnie used to be so good; back in his one man late-night gig.)

Quoted myself because I meant to say "Schenn" not Bo and didn't want to just edit it out.

Point being they were determined that the only player we have who can get 'the job' done has to be traded.

How absolutely wimpy would this team be without Big Luke laying down the law every freak'n shift?!?

[Goal:thecup]

2 hours ago, chon derry said:

Wut da hek?

Yeah, sorry, I meant to say that they said, "Schenn had to be traded".

Sure, trade Schenn, "wut da hek?" indeed.

[Baratheon]

11 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

Smurfs can't throw 'em like Ryp could.

You know what I mean, on our team we can (and should) keep Quinn and Petey, but not also Rathbone and Hoglander and Garland and anybody else who can't answer the bell for themselves.

Yeah I here you.  Imo that's more of a cup contender type of conversation.  We aren't at the point where we can pick over why we aren't going deep in the playoffs.  We can't even get there to see how it goes 

[Goal:thecup]

Well, I always keep my eyes on the prize, and even when the team is not good, it helps to be tough.

[Harold Drunken]

20 hours ago, stawns said:

I do because the core emerging around Petey was always going to be the timeline.......everything else was just place holding until then.  My estimate, back when JB took over was that it was going to be a decade before there were enough good, young pieces in place that would emerge.  Last year JB said his timeline was about 2 years and that is exactly when Petey is going to be coming into his prime and also why the veterean, high priced contracts that JB signed were going to expire. 

 

He gets a lot of flak, but he understood who was going to carry this team into pplayoff contention........everyone else was just trying to put a decent product on the ice until that young core was ready.  The mess now lands on JR and PA for not seeing what JB had built

Ahhhh yes, the old "everyone else is to blame but the GM of the team the last 7 years" rhetoric. Again, makes no sense, and that argument is incredibly dishonest. Yes, lets not blame ownership, who's steered the ship or blame the GM for the better part of the last decade...let's blame the guys who just took over. And yes, the sample size is still small. The product on the ice would likely be the same if Benning was still GM. This is his core, as you said. Yes it was all part of Benning's triumphant 10-year plan to "eventually" build around these exact guys who he may or may not have even drafted yet...sure thing lol.

 

You can't put a good product on the ice and remain competitive while also rebuilding, it doesn't work that way. To build around a core, you NEED cap space, draft picks and great up and coming players in your pipeline.......the very fact that JB and ownership did the exact opposite of working it's way to building around this core completely disproves your theory. How do you build around our core while constantly spending to the cap and trading away picks and assets? It's impossible. They were always trying to win now, they were always trying to make the playoffs, they were always keen on playoff revenue and this did everything except  surround the young core with a strong supporting cast and put this team in a position to contend,......and here we are....nowhere near contending and not able to because we have a poor prospect pipeline and always pick outside the top 5.

 

Your point is a lazy excuse for the previous regime's failures for 7+ years  and trying to deflect the blame to the new regime only.

Edited November 15, 2022 by Harold Drunken

[stawns]

1 hour ago, Harold Drunken said:

Ahhhh yes, the old "everyone else is to blame but the GM of the team the last 7 years" rhetoric. Again, makes no sense, and that argument is incredibly dishonest. Yes, lets not blame ownership, who's steered the ship or blame the GM for the better part of the last decade...let's blame the guys who just took over. And yes, the sample size is still small. The product on the ice would likely be the same if Benning was still GM. This is his core, as you said. Yes it was all part of Benning's triumphant 10-year plan to "eventually" build around these exact guys who he may or may not have even drafted yet...sure thing lol.

 

You can't put a good product on the ice and remain competitive while also rebuilding, it doesn't work that way. To build around a core, you NEED cap space, draft picks and great up and coming players in your pipeline.......the very fact that JB and ownership did the exact opposite of working it's way to building around this core completely disproves your theory. How do you build around our core while constantly spending to the cap and trading away picks and assets? It's impossible. They were always trying to win now, they were always trying to make the playoffs, they were always keen on playoff revenue and this did everything except  surround the young core with a strong supporting cast and put this team in a position to contend,......and here we are....nowhere near contending and not able to because we have a poor prospect pipeline and always pick outside the top 5.

 

Your point is a lazy excuse for the previous regime's failures for 7+ years  and trying to deflect the blame to the new regime only.

Every gm makes mistakes, no one says otherwise.  But JB did a pretty good job of getting a young core together and his timeline was pretty dead on and his plan, had he recognized the coaching issue, probably would have unfolded pretty well.  

 

The current "regime" failed to see what JB was doing and made a huge mistake signing Miller.

[Harold Drunken]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

Every gm makes mistakes, no one says otherwise.  But JB did a pretty good job of getting a young core together and his timeline was pretty dead on and his plan, had he recognized the coaching issue, probably would have unfolded pretty well.  

 

The current "regime" failed to see what JB was doing and made a huge mistake signing Miller.

Yeah 100% no GM is perfect that's for sure. And I agree re-signing Miller was a mistake, it will be an even bigger mistake if Bo isn't re-signed....deepening on the trajectory of the team.

 

I do fear with Pettersson and Hughes on shorter bridge deals, will the current situation and lack of winning deter them from signing again? We are at risk of losing a big part of the core in a couple years if things don't change. 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Harold Drunken

[Goal:thecup]

2 hours ago, stawns said:

Every gm makes mistakes, no one says otherwise.  But JB did a pretty good job of getting a young core together and his timeline was pretty dead on and his plan, had he recognized the coaching issue, probably would have unfolded pretty well.  

 

The current "regime" failed to see what JB was doing and made a huge mistake signing Miller.

JB gets a fail from me for the dismal performances of his free agency signings and trade acquisitions.

I don't know where to start but how many went on to career-ending injuries or never played properly?

Correct as required:

Dorsett, Ferland, Poolman, Ericksson, Gudbranson, Rousseau, Sutter, must be more, but I'm getting sleepy (sobriety sucks).

And bad luck?  Juolevi, Virtanen, McCann, Boeser, again, must be more.

When Covid hit and crushed the salary cap structure, with all this dead weight hanging around, he was doomed.

Not making excuses for JB; I liked him; but even if Poolman and OEL had performed properly, this would be a better team, even now.

[Dannydog]

19 hours ago, Muttley said:

Yes. Do you get regular eye exams? 

Your ridiculous. 

[ABNucksfan]

On 11/15/2022 at 12:20 AM, Gawdzukes said:

Do you just jersey yourself when you get in a fight? 

I bet you’re a real cool guy… on the internet. But in real life nah ;)

[ABNucksfan]

20 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

We have only had playoff success with tough teams: Smyl's, Linden's, and The Sedins' teams were all tough, and in Linden's and The Sedins' teams' cases, maybe just not quite tough enough.

 

Now here is a fan with true knowledge. There are a bunch of jock strap sniffing idiots on these forums and it’s sickening. There is a reason I rarely come here any more. 
 

After 52 years there should only by players, management and owners who only want one thing. To win a cup in Vancouver. Simple as that.

 

If you’re ok to bronze Horvat’s cup and keep it by your nightstand after the abysmal seasons the canucks have had the last decade (Yes yes I know Bo has only been captain for a few years) then you will be disappointed with the years of mediocre hockey to come. 
 

hopefully craig button is correct