Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 Loves watching the Nucks Loss

 NOTICE!! This forum allows Anonymous Posting.
 Registered members please login above or input your User Name/Password before submitting!
Screensize:
Authority:  UserName:  Password:  (Member Only !)
  * Anonymous Posting please leave it blank. your temporary AnonyID is
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

  Check here to include your profile signature. (Member Only !)
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Guest2302 Posted - 05/04/2013 : 01:15:12
Go sharks go ..

Lou is such a Good Goalie .. Why in the Heck does he get left out to dry every night in the Playoff's .. If it wasn't for Lou that would have been a route tonight in Van city...

Good on Lou for getting out next season Why would i want such a brutall team Playing in front of me in the Playoff's...

Cancucks Suck.. The Twins are like stick man on Acid..
40   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Alex116 Posted - 05/11/2013 : 22:16:06
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9848

I agree with Beans on this one. The other night Bieksa gos out and says o well the Sharks are embellishing the calls, instead of saying our penalty kill needs to be better because their power play is strong. They make excuses instead of owning their mistakes and addressing them.



In fairness, Bieksa did both. Go back and listen to his post game interview and he gives a ton of credit to the SJ powerplay. He just doesn't agree with the way they're getting the PP chances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQRjbrT7phw

Best thing he said comes at 1:35 when asked about his team having a history of embellishment. He doesn't deny it. For anyone who doesn't know it, he called his own team mates out for it a couple years back!!! Thing is, he's talking about today (the other day).
Alex116 Posted - 05/11/2013 : 22:10:04
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6892

I apologize. I was referring to the players sucking it up. If Bieksa or AV came out and said we got beat by a team that out played us then i think people MAY start to look at this team differently. The organization players, front office and some fans have this sense of accomplishment


Personally, i disagree. I think it's gonna take more than that for this team to be looked at differently for the haters. As far as the team having some sort of "sense of accomplishment", i'm tired of asking for proof. I've heard this so many times yet every time i ask someone for examples of what any Canuck has said or done to imply this, i come up empty??? If you said Canucks fans (i'd prefer "some" Canucks fans) then i might buy it, but to accuse the actual team of portraying this ridiculous. Please feel free to prove me wrong!
nuxfan Posted - 05/11/2013 : 16:35:40
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

I'm biased but the Canuck fans are not? That's rich. Don't believe me? Here you go.


Headline, " Bieksa accuses Sharks of Embelishing"

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=669524

Bieksa does eventually say they need to be more disciplined but only after he says this:
"Five-on-five, we're the better team. Their power play's been hot. We've been giving them too many chances. There's guys on their team, two guys in particular, that are embellishing a lot of calls, making it tough on the officials."



and then further down the article:

"We absolutely have to be more disciplined," Bieksa said. "After the whistle, we can't have anything of that anymore. We have to have learned our lesson from there. This is a good power play, especially their first unit. They're going out there, they're getting a lot of chances, they're making plays. We can't give them more opportunities. We have to make them earn those chances. Obviously the onus is on us to be more disciplined."

Beans, I guess it depends on what you want to see. I see a guy that is frustrated by feeling his team is not getting a fair shake from the refs, but clearly acknowledging that his team needs to play better and take those chances away. You see a guy that is blaming his teams loss solely on the refereeing. There is a big difference between the two.

You mentioned you didn't seem much of the series. I watched every minute. The Canucks deserved (nearly) all of the calls that went against them, I'm not going to sit here and claim they were angels - they can play undisciplined hockey at times, and they get caught. However, SJ were also not angels, and deserved more than they got - IMO got away with enough to leave questions. Despite the sweep, except for game 3 this was a very tight series - 2 OT games and one won in the 3rd. I don't recall a penalty differential so wide in a series that was so close.

quote:
Originally posted by Duke
With regards to the goal-tending situation......how would you feel if you were one of the all-time greats ( which i think Luongo is )......you lead your team to the stanley cup finals ( game 7 was it ? ).....multi - division titles, year in and year out......and your reward is........

Every 2nd game a young kid takes your spot in all big games ???.....lmao.....unreal

Do you know how many times a great goalie will earn a shut - out after after having a bad game ??........i guess you don`t being a Canucks fan because they don`t get the chance.



Duke, I don't know what you're getting at here. Every second game? "The young kid" has been taking Luongo's spot all year long, because he is the starting goalie going forward, and Luongo is not in the long term plans of the Canucks. Luongo played because the starting goalie was injured - once healthy, the starting goalie took over, same as any other team.

I'm pretty sure Luongo's feelings had very little if anything to do with the series loss. However, they might have rushed Schneider back from his groin injury... game 3 was certainly not his finest moment.
Guest9808 Posted - 05/11/2013 : 11:42:59
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke

Alex and Nuxfan, the canucks are paying the Sedin twins to lead them in the playoffs. Leadership is not just putting some good numbers on the sroresheet.

These 2 are getting paid big $$$$$$ to fufill this role. In my eyes anyway, they are not the type of players to take a team by horns and push them ahead. ( that one year the canucks went to the cup, i thought kesler and Luongo were their leaders.....Kesler got hurt....the canucks fell apart ).

Maybe when people say the canucks core are losers, this is what they are refering to...i don`t know...this is just my opinion.

Oh the irony of a Leafs fan commenting on the lack of success by the Canucks due to leadership. You wrote this for comic relief right?
The Duke Posted - 05/11/2013 : 11:21:53
Alex and Nuxfan, the canucks are paying the Sedin twins to lead them in the playoffs. Leadership is not just putting some good numbers on the sroresheet.

These 2 are getting paid big $$$$$$ to fufill this role. In my eyes anyway, they are not the type of players to take a team by horns and push them ahead. ( that one year the canucks went to the cup, i thought kesler and Luongo were their leaders.....Kesler got hurt....the canucks fell apart ).

Maybe when people say the canucks core are losers, this is what they are refering to...i don`t know...this is just my opinion.

With regards to the goal-tending situation......how would you feel if you were one of the all-time greats ( which i think Luongo is )......you lead your team to the stanley cup finals ( game 7 was it ? ).....multi - division titles, year in and year out......and your reward is........

Every 2nd game a young kid takes your spot in all big games ???.....lmao.....unreal

Do you know how many times a great goalie will earn a shut - out after after having a bad game ??........i guess you don`t being a Canucks fan because they don`t get the chance.
Guest9848 Posted - 05/11/2013 : 10:01:22
Schneider, who was unable to even back up Luongo in the first two games, made the trip to San Jose, feeding the rumor mill that he would play in Game 3. "It may be a great thing for us. I think Luongo's been tremendous," McLellan said. "If they want to take that quality of a goaltender out of the lineup and go to the other one, we'll take our chances with that as well."
Guest9848 Posted - 05/11/2013 : 09:51:40
I agree with Beans on this one. The other night Bieksa gos out and says o well the Sharks are embellishing the calls, instead of saying our penalty kill needs to be better because their power play is strong. They make excuses instead of owning their mistakes and addressing them.
Guest6892 Posted - 05/11/2013 : 09:46:07
I apologize. I was referring to the players sucking it up. If Bieksa or AV came out and said we got beat by a team that out played us then i think people MAY start to look at this team differently. The organization players, front office and some fans have this sense of accomplishment
Alex116 Posted - 05/11/2013 : 08:50:49
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6891

Just another Canuck fan. Making up every excuse there is instead of sucking it up just winning a game.


WOW! You nailed it. I'm busted for my inpetitude. As a fan, i definitely ought to have "sucked it up and won a game" for the Canucks.

quote:
Originally posted by Guest6891
I think people are sick and tired of this organization ccomplaining about ref and bounces when they should be giving credit to the team that beat them .


Guest, by any chance, did you even read the posts above before making these comments? If you did, your reading comprehension needs work. You might notice Nuxfan's post about the comments made by the coach? You might notice the one where i said the better team won? I get it, many Canucks fans do just whine and complain, however, i don't think i'm one of them that you should be singling out as "Just another Canucks fan making up every excuse, blah, blah, blah......"
Guest6891 Posted - 05/11/2013 : 03:28:59
Just another Canuck fan. Making up every excuse there is instead of sucking it up just winning a game. Teams are defined by their success in the playoffs not the regular season.

I think people are sick and tired of this organization ccomplaining about ref and bounces when they should be giving credit to the team that beat them .
Alex116 Posted - 05/10/2013 : 15:13:51
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Honestly Alex, I didn't watch a pile of the series between San Jose and Vancouver. I don't know who got the calls and who didn't. I do know who was complaining about it the most. And it's hard for me to think that most of the penalties were not deserved when Vancouver is almost always the playoff penalty leader. Where there is smoke there is often fire.

I couldn't agree more. The Canucks complained more than the Sharks. However, the Sharks really didn't have a lot to complain about. I won't bother going into my reasons why i believe the Canucks get the "short end of the stick" on a lot of 50/50 calls. It's all in my posts above. I will not deny that some calls were deserved, but many, were very questionable and SJ did the job on the PP and won the games. The team that played better playoff hockey won. Simple as that. Even without ANY questionable calls, i think the Sharks win that series. They had the Canucks number all year, i just don't think they'd have swept them. Heck, i even picked Sharks in 6.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

As far as the division comments and they played in a weak division. Sure. I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that Vancouver was almost aways a top 10 team in the NHL as well. Plus a Pres Trophy winner twice. To only make it out of the 2nd round once in 10 years for a team as good as they should be is underacheiving.

Absolutely. I won't deny that they've underachieved. And yet again, i'll emphasise that my problem was with the way Willis portrayed them as "losers". It is implied that the core of the team hasn't, can't, never will, etc win at important times. If the Cup is the be all end all, there's a lot of so called "losers" out there! The other problem is, we'd be sitting here debating if the Canucks had gone to the semi's for 9 of the last 10 years, only you'd be saying they're losers because "they can't win when it matters most" or something along those lines!

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

As far as my bias, whatever. There is nothing I can do to convice you otherwise but I think that Vancouver does complain about the refs and the way they are treated more than most teams out there. I'm not saying bad calls don't happen and that teams (and fans) don't get upset with bad calls. I just think Vancouver complains about it more than most. I think their coach is one of the biggest complainers in the league. So when the leader is a complainer the followers think it's ok.

Once more, i won't deny this. But like i explained, i really believe the Canucks and the reputation they've earned, do tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to borderline calls, more often than most teams. I'm not alone on this btw, i've heard it discussed on "the panel", on radio and television sports shows, etc., and not just in the Vancouver market. This is why, i think they need to make a few big changes and shake up the roster to a point that it's a fresh start.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

We'll see what Gillis does in the offseason unless he is fired too.




Personally, i don't see Gillis going. AV for sure, but i think Gillis is in good with the owners and i don't think he'll be relieved of his duties. He's been pretty good at the contract end of things and he's made some good deals. Sure, there's some that don't look great right now, but every GM has some of those. Not to mention, most of those deals were considered good when they were made. Take Booth for example. Many call it a bust of a deal, but do they remember what the trade actually was? To refresh anyone who doesn't, it was Booth, Reinprecht AND a 3rd for Marco Sturm and Mikael Samuelsson. Today, many call Booth a "bust" and the trade "awful". Really? Cuz those same people are likely the ones who, like me, thought the trade was great at the time! Unfortunately for Booth, he can't seem to stay away from injuries and it's affected his development / success.
Ballard is another example. Personally i didn't love the deal, but many around here did. I didn't like the 1st rounder they threw in but had no problem with Grabner being dealt. Either way, whether it was the hip injury he brought to Vancouver or the coach just not liking his game, he's been virtually useless here. What i'm getting at is it's very easy to complain about dead weight on a team, but it's not really fair if the same complainers were applauding the aquisitions at the time.

Anyway, i'm off topic and should start a new "What will the Nucks (just for you) do now?" thread i guess?

I think i'll leave that for now........
Beans15 Posted - 05/10/2013 : 13:36:10
Honestly Alex, I didn't watch a pile of the series between San Jose and Vancouver. I don't know who got the calls and who didn't. I do know who was complaining about it the most. And it's hard for me to think that most of the penalties were not deserved when Vancouver is almost always the playoff penalty leader. Where there is smoke there is often fire.

As far as the division comments and they played in a weak division. Sure. I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that Vancouver was almost aways a top 10 team in the NHL as well. Plus a Pres Trophy winner twice. To only make it out of the 2nd round once in 10 years for a team as good as they should be is underacheiving.

As far as my bias, whatever. There is nothing I can do to convice you otherwise but I think that Vancouver does complain about the refs and the way they are treated more than most teams out there. I'm not saying bad calls don't happen and that teams (and fans) don't get upset with bad calls. I just think Vancouver complains about it more than most. I think their coach is one of the biggest complainers in the league. So when the leader is a complainer the followers think it's ok.

We'll see what Gillis does in the offseason unless he is fired too. As much as I hate the Canucks, there are some great fans of that team like Alex and Nux to name a few. Not until Slozo and Leafs81, I hope those guys see TO come back and win against Boston. I am not cheering for the Leafs but I want to see those guys get to see good things happen to their team. The same goes for Vancouver. I'd like to see Alex and Nux see the Canucks succeed. They are great fans and deserve it.

But that doesn't change my opinion that the team doesn't know how to win, which makes them losers by default. And, it doesn't change my opinion that their coach and players complain a lot more than other teams do.
Alex116 Posted - 05/10/2013 : 10:30:56
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

I'm biased but the Canuck fans are not? That's rich. Don't believe me? Here you go.


Headline, " Bieksa accuses Sharks of Embelishing"

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=669524

Bieksa does eventually say they need to be more disciplined but only after he says this:
"Five-on-five, we're the better team. Their power play's been hot. We've been giving them too many chances. There's guys on their team, two guys in particular, that are embellishing a lot of calls, making it tough on the officials."


Beans, where did i say anything about Canucks fans not being biased? I believe every fan is biased in some regard. Please feel free to explain to me how i implied that myself or any Canucks fans aren't biased. All i did was ask you to take away your bias for a minute and answer / comment on 2 things:
1. Take your bias / hatred out of the equation and you'd prob see a lot more borderline calls against the Canucks than the Sharks.
2. How about Bieksa's "crosscheck" errr, love tap that drew the penalty that led to the tying goal? Again, take away your bias and tell me what you think of that call.

Now remember, when answering this, assume this call (on Sedin) went against Jordan Eberle in the exact same situation. See what i was getting at now?
I don't recall ever saying, "Hey Beans, unlike us Canucks fans, you are totally biased", or anything even close.

Isn't implying that i said that crap one of those "strawman" things you and Slozo always throw out there?

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

And Alex, your literal take on these comments is laughable. I, nor Willis, did not name a single player on Vancouver as a loser. But, no different than Boston in the 80's, this Canucks team can't seem to find a way to win even though they should. Winning is a culture. Mark Messier won everywhere he went except for Vancouver. Gretzky only won in Edmonton.


Oh, so "technically", you're correct, but FYI, Willus stated "The Canucks core players are "losers". ".
Trust me, i know who the core of the Canucks is. I'm assuming Willis does as well. You too for what it's worth, though it wasn't your comment so it doesn't really pertain to you anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

I don't think you can name another team who has won 7 of 10 division titles and 2 President's trophy who lost in the first round three times and only made it out of the second round once.

Lol, this is so good! It is always pointed out, by you and many others, that the division titles the Canucks have won have a lot to do with the competition they play against within said division. Let's face it, it's not been a very difficult division to win. So, one one hand, their division titles are somewhat tainted (just picking a word here), but on the other, they're division champs and ought to have better results because of it. It all depends on what you're arguing is guess?
Lemme clarify, i think they should have made the 2nd and 3 round a couple more times, absolutely. I'm just pointing out how you're using the division title thing to your advantage when it's convenient for you.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Sorry guys, but you saying the Canucks are not losers is about as laughable as me trying to say the same thing about the Oilers. The Canucks should be better and they are not.

Again, i'm not saying they didn't "lose". However, and i made this clear, i took issue with the term "losers" as being more of an insult than a technical term. And i take issue with the fact that because they haven't won the cup, they're simply losers for life? What about all those other guys i mentioned who never "won the big one when it mattered"??? (i could name many more as well if you want?) I missed the part where you commented on that part of my post. Oh, right, you picked and chose the parts you thought you had a good retort for.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

But don't forget, it am the only biased one here.




Again there strawguy....i don't recall saying that.

Bottom line is, i've tried to take my bias out of the equation and see both sides. I have admitted that guys like Kesler and Burrows were bad for embellishment and though i feel Burrows has improved, Kesler has not (or did, and has relapsed to his old ways). I've given you my opinion that the Canucks have earned a reputation around the league and the makeup of the team needs to change. I have not sat here claiming that the league is out to get them or that the refs are out to get them or that there's some sort of conspiracy theory going against them. I've removed my bias and made my points. Time for you to do the same.

Here, try it with this.........Do you feel that Joe Thornton embellished the slashing call. *PLEASE NOTE*, i'm not asking you if you think it was a penalty, just whether or not he embellished the slash to make sure it was called?
Here, in case you wanna double check before you answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khCm7Ly0pjk


Beans15 Posted - 05/10/2013 : 05:09:05
I'm biased but the Canuck fans are not? That's rich. Don't believe me? Here you go.


Headline, " Bieksa accuses Sharks of Embelishing"

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=669524

Bieksa does eventually say they need to be more disciplined but only after he says this:
"Five-on-five, we're the better team. Their power play's been hot. We've been giving them too many chances. There's guys on their team, two guys in particular, that are embellishing a lot of calls, making it tough on the officials."


I'm not saying this is the end all be all but it is an example of what the rest of us see. After game one, AV complained about the Sharks cheating on face offs. It's just another example of the Canucks using excuses. I their losses to Chicago it was bad riffing. In their loss to Boston, the bruins we also getting favourable calls. The world is against me Canucks right? What a joke.

And Alex, your literal take on these comments is laughable. I, nor Willis, did not name a single player on Vancouver as a loser. But, no different than Boston in the 80's, this Canucks team can't seem to find a way to win even though they should. Winning is a culture. Mark Messier won everywhere he went except for Vancouver. Gretzky only won in Edmonton.

Groups of players can be in a culture of losing even thought they are excellent hockey players. The Oilers today are in that boat. As are Vancouver, and historically the Sharks have been too. I think for different reasons than the Canucks but they are all organizations that should have better results than what they get.

I don't think you can name another team who has won 7 of 10 division titles and 2 President's trophy who lost in the first round three times and only made it out of the second round once.

Sorry guys, but you saying the Canucks are not losers is about as laughable as me trying to say the same thing about the Oilers. The Canucks should be better and they are not.


But don't forget, it am the only biased one here.
leigh Posted - 05/09/2013 : 23:51:12
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0815

I saw a guy with a luongo jersey on and it had luongo crossed out and schneider written below it and that was also crossed out and below it was luongo again lol! true that.



So Brilliant!!!!!
Alex116 Posted - 05/09/2013 : 21:38:20
Willis (and Beans)....
Ridiculous. You gave a post with your opinion, mine is an opinion of your opinion. Now, lemme clarify. By "losers", i can't deny the Canucks lost. They lost this year, they lost last year, the year before, etc. I talk of the Stanley Cup of course. So, if that's what you're talking about, as "losers", i take it back. However, if you're implying "losers" in an insulting sort of way, ahem, the way it sounds like you are, then i take issue. "The core of the team" are losers eh? They all whine, cry, make excuses, etc huh? Sure, i won't deny some do and have in the past, but i'll also point out that it's not unusual at this time of year when things come under the microscope. You make it seem as though the Canucks aren't just the first to do this, but the only team!!!

FTR, Daniel Sedin "screamed at the ref" and later (following the game), apologized. Is this "crying"? Is this "whining"? Is this "complaining"? Or is this a frustrated guy, who's been called out in the past for having NO PHYSICALITY whatsoever to his game, who's upset and frustrated at what most would agree was an extremely borderline call to make in that situation? He showed emotion, something else he's been accused of in the past.

As far as Bieksa's comments, yeah he complained. Do i need to back over ever series over the past 5-10 years and show you examples of where this exact thing occurs by either players or management, cuz it happens VERY OFTEN. If you disagree, you're blind to it.

Here's the thing, the Canucks have gotten a reputation, somewhat deservedly so. Burrows and Kesler, a few years back, were two of the worst for embellishing and bending the rules. Both smartened up a year later, yet i'll admit, as did Kesler already personally, that Kesler relapsed and was guilty the last season or two of drifting back into the habit of embellishment. This reputation that the Canucks now have, leads to more calls against them, especially the borderline ones. Bob Mackenzie mentioned this today and referred to something Kerry Fraser admitted. A referee is a human being. The human element here causes refs to call more borderline calls against players they either dislike, or feel don't respect them and who have a reputation. Kerry Fraser openly admitted as much! Take your bias / hatred out of the equation and you'd prob see a lot more borderline calls against the Canucks than the Sharks. You need only look at box scores or have watched the games to notice the 24-10 margin in PP's. Tell me, do you thing Sedin's check gets called 100% of the time in that situation? How about Bieksa's "crosscheck" errr, love tap that drew the penalty that led to the tying goal? Again, take away your bias and tell me what you think of that call. Did he complain? YUP! Did you see the interview, cuz it sure as hell didn't appear as though he was "whining". He was stating, matter of factly, his opinion. You know, something many a greats have done in an attempt to subtly bring something to the attention of the refs so as to maybe get a payback call in the games following. If you know hockey as well as i think you guys do, you'd realize this sort of thing happens often in the playoffs, maybe even in more series than it doesn't happen!

Now, before you go calling me a conspiracy theorist, that's far from it. I don't think the league is out to get the Canucks, nor do i believe the refs are intentionally trying to screw them. I just agree with what Kerry Fraser said. THAT, is the number 1 reason i believe this team needs wholesale changes and it starts with AV, who i think has been a very good coach here. I just think they need a huge changeover and a fresh start sotospeak.

Getting back to the loser bit, how is it that "There are those players who lose when it counts their entire careers. It isn't just bad luck."? Where do you come up with such craziness??? If Ray Bourque hadn't gone to win a cup with the Avs in the twilight of his career, would he have been a loser? Are the Sharks, assuming they don't win this year, a bunch of LOSERS? They've been together as a core with high expectations and even worse results for a longer time than the Canucks. Is Joe Thornton a LOSER if he never wins a cup??? Are Pat Lafontaine, Ron Hextall, Mike Gartner, Adam Oates, Dale Hawerchuk and Marcel Dionne a bunch of losers. Last time i checked, they didn't "win when it mattered most" and you said it yourself, "It isn't just bad luck"!!!
nuxfan Posted - 05/09/2013 : 20:39:04
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

That is very true Willus. In most cases, losers make excuses and winner take responsiblities. This is perception but it always seems to be someone elses fault if the Canucks don't play well. The refs, the other team cheating, etc.

That starts with their coach. Maybe I am a bit biased but I recall very few, if any, situations where he took responsibility for a loss. I never hear him say his team needs to be better. It's always a reason why they lose and it's never about anything they did.



You are biased. And it is only your perception - don't confuse what the press may speculate or write about, and what the coach or players actually say. To counter your point, I had to go back exactly...one game:

http://video.sharks.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=245993&catid=-6

All I hear in the post-game press conference is:

- the team had to kill that penalty and did not
- the sharks were the better team and the canucks simply got beaten
- Canucks did well 5-on-5, but the SJ PP was better and VAN was not good enough killing
- VAN battled hard, SJ was the better team
- will need to move forward from this, look to next season
- Schneider was the MVP of the season, and should have started game 4

Nowhere did I hear anything like:

- the refs blew calls that cost us
- the team lost because of bad bounces
- SJ players cheated, causing penalties to be called
- VAN deserved better, but the refs hate us

Sounds like a lot of admitting that the Canucks didn't play well enough to win, and owning up to the loss. The press conference post-game 4 was eerily like most press conferences that AV gives. I cannot even think of a time when he has credited either a win or a loss to anything other than his team's play (or in this case, lack thereof).
Beans15 Posted - 05/09/2013 : 10:43:11
That is very true Willus. In most cases, losers make excuses and winner take responsiblities. This is perception but it always seems to be someone elses fault if the Canucks don't play well. The refs, the other team cheating, etc.

That starts with their coach. Maybe I am a bit biased but I recall very few, if any, situations where he took responsibility for a loss. I never hear him say his team needs to be better. It's always a reason why they lose and it's never about anything they did.

The Duke Posted - 05/08/2013 : 21:23:49
Willus, there is some truth in what you say.....some players are career losers / some players are career winners..

I`ll just simply pick out 1 player, and i hated this player, i really did....he pissed me off so much as a hockey fan ...BUT he always seemed to be on winning teams.....ANDalways seemed to be one of the main reasons that team won, so i guess he was a winner..his name is Claude Limeux...

There are more Claude Lemieux`s who have played the game ( winners ) and there are and were, many other players who always seemed to fall into the losers category, year in and year out.

Years ago I always said that the Leafs would never win the Cup with Sundin as their leader, as skilled as he was, he didn`t have the heart of a Gilmour.....

I`ve also always said the same thing of the Sedin`s, as skilled as they are, they don`t have the heart of a Linden.

Attitude is a major part of winning, having the guts and determination to go beyond your abilities, giving it all at all costs....these player types are your winners.
willus3 Posted - 05/08/2013 : 20:16:49
I can't say that I don't enjoy seeing them lose.
The question is, why do they continue to lose when it matters?
The answer in my opinion is simple. They are a collection of "losers". That may sound trite but in all sports there are "winners" and "losers". There are those players who lose when it counts their entire careers. It isn't just bad luck.
The Canucks core players are "losers". It's evident in their behavior every year. This year for example what did they do? After the first game the players complained that SJ was cheating on faceoffs. Then after game 3 they complained about SJ embellishing. Losers make excuses. It's embarrassing really. Whiners, crybabies, losers. The core of the team would rather run their mouths than put in the effort it takes to actually win.



Guest4178 Posted - 05/08/2013 : 13:41:37
I have no comments on the goaltending situation in Vancouver (many fine points have been made), but I would like to comment on the subject heading ("love watching the Canucks Loss") and the comments made ("Canucks suck," etc.)

live in Edmonton, and while I cheer for the home team, I consider myself more of a hockey fan than a fan of any particular team. (I grew up watching the Habs, and before the Oilers entered the NHL.)

When I was younger, I used to hate certain teams, but after watching players move around so much (and between teams I either liked or disliked), and realizing (after all) that no one team has a monopoly on just having "idiots" on their team, or conversely, no one team has a monopoly on just having "nice guys" (granted, some teams are classier than others, but it's by degree), I became less a fan of any particular team, but more a fan of the game, and the teams which played (or play) the game with the most skill and class.

To give you an example, I usually cheer for Montreal in most series, but this year, I prefer the Senators. While Ottawa has not handled themselves perfectly, the way the Habs played in game three turned me off. So I wouldn't be disappointed to see this year's "version" of the Montreal Canadiens lose. I don't hate the Canadiens for all time, but this year, I prefer the Senators a bit more.)

Getting back to the subject at hand ("happy to see the Canucks lose"), I just don't get it. I definitely understand rivalries in hockey, and fans who devote themselves to one team or another, but I just don't understand the degree to which the Canucks are vilified (may be too strong a word) by a large number of Canadian hockey fans. (Some would say more than any other Canadian team.)

Does it go back to 1972 when the Vancouver fans booed (some not all) booed the Canadian team for the way they played against the Russians in the Summit Series?

Does it have something to do with the ugly jerseys they wore for many years?

More recently, is it because of certain players, like Burrows, Kessler or Luongo, who seem to be despised by non-Canuck fans? (I could point out "unlikeable" players on most teams.)

Maybe it's because "we're" envious that Vancouver is such a beautiful city?

Or is it because of their success, or lack thereof (perceived) on the ice?

People can criticize the Canucks for not winning a cup with their lineup the past 5-6 years, but what other Canadian team has come close? Only Ottawa did in 2007, but they lost 4-1 in the finals to Anaheim. The Canucks were one goal from winning the cup in 2011.

In the past six seasons (not counting this year), the Canucks have won the same number of playoff rounds (six) as the other six Canadian teams combined! (Ottawa has three as noted, and Montreal has the other three playoff round victories.)

The Canucks are the best Canadian team since the 2004-2005 lockout no matter how you look at it. And if the remaining knock is the lack of a Stanley Cup, you have to take into account the parity in the NHL now. There are no dynasties anymore. There has not been a repeat winner in 15 years, and the last nine winners are nine different teams. (And very good teams, including Detroit, Anaheim, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston, etc.)

So if the knock on the Canucks is their record, I don't get it. But I'm sure whatever it is, someone will fill me in on what I'm missing! :)
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 05/08/2013 : 13:15:53
The following is an except from a debate about Cujo hall of fame worthy career.

"Curtis Joseph was brought in as an unrestricted free agent by GM Ken Dryden in 1998 after stints in St. Louis and Edmonton. At 32, Joseph was in the prime of his career and was coming off two seasons where he almost single handedly carried an underdog Oiler team to first round victories over Belfour’s Dallas Stars in 1997and over Patrick Roy’s Colorado Avalanche in 1998.

In his 4 seasons in Toronto, the Leafs reached at least the 2nd round of the playoffs every year. In his 1st season, a team that did not have a great deal of talent was able to defeat Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, mostly on the back of Cujo, but finally lost in the conference finals to Buffalo. In the 2nd and 3rd seasons, the Leafs defeated Ottawa in the first round, but the Leafs could not best the more-talented New Jersey Devils. The 4th season was perhaps the most trying, with the Olympic drama in Salt Lake City that raised discontent between Joseph and Coach Pat Quinn and an injury to his catching hand that made him miss the last 20 games of the season. The Leafs suffered a slew of injuries early in the playoffs(including Mats Sundin and Darcy Tucker) and had to rely on a skeleton crew, players like Travis Green, Alyn McCauley and Shayne Corson. This put more pressure on Joseph to carry the team on his shoulders and he did, defeating the NY Islanders in a brutal 7 game series and then upsetting the favored Ottawa Senators in 7 games, before finally succumbing to the Carolina Hurricanes. Mostly due his relationship with Pat Quinn, Cujo decided to leave Toronto and signed for big money in Detroit."


I don't see this Vancouver team as anything similar to the teams which Cujo played for. I would say Loungo benifited as much from being a Canuck as the Canucks have benifited from his steady play. And that just it, he's more steady than game stealing. Alas, the Loungo era is done in Vancouver me thinks.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 05/08/2013 : 12:55:37
Ok, Alex. Point made. I haven't seen the 1 game stealing game Loungo had that you pointed out, but game 7 SCF and the Canucks as the team in question, I guess Loungo can be or could have been considered clutch. I'd still take the standing on his head performance's Cujo did over Loungo in the playoffs, but thats because I witnessed the game stealing performances live. Just a question, but doesn't Cujo have a stanely cup ring. He might not have been healthy for the playoff winning game, but I thought he was on the Detroit roster.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
Alex116 Posted - 05/08/2013 : 12:28:46
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
And yet, I'd have to agree with yo that he's fallen a bit short, and until he has a game to win it all in the final, he won't be considered truly clutch.


WOW! Tough crowd. That's all he has to do to be considered "clutch"? So, Cujo's not clutch? I don't recall him having too many SCF wins?

So, if Luongo goes on to the 7th game of the SCF again and has 15 wins, all by shutout, but loses the 7th game in OT 1-0, he's STILL not clutch???
slozo Posted - 05/08/2013 : 05:12:49
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Ok, so to answer your question: Yes, Luongo has to be the REASON the team wins to be considered a goalie who WINS big games. That is my opinion of a goalie who WINS big games. Chris Osgood was in net for 3 Stanley Cups and I don't think that guy ever won a game. His team won the game. Same goes for Luongo.

As far as Cugjo goes, the guy has 30 win seasons with 5 different teams. The first goalie to to that. Look at the list of teams he played on?? Edmonton, St. Louis, Toronto, Phoenix, and Detroit. 4 of those 5 teams were below average. How about Cujo stopping 119 of 122 shots in back to back double overtime games against Chicago in 91?? Nothing like facing 60 shots a night and letting in 1 or 2 goals. What about Cujo backstopping the Oilers to huge upset wins in 97 and 98 against Dallas and Colorado?? What about Cujo being a key piece of TO making the Eastern Conference Final in 99 and 02??


Cujo was the REASON most of those teams did what they did. He was not part of the reason, he was the only reason. Take him out of net in those spots and it's likely his team losses.


I would argue that had another goalie been in net for the 'big games' that Luongo has been involved in and the result isn't different.



Can't disagree with what you've said here Beans. Luongo has been about as close as you can get to sealing the deal and being able to say he WAS that big game goalie . . . because he certainly has won some big games, that Game 7 in the first round against Chicago in particular, without him they don't win that game. And yet, I'd have to agree with yo that he's fallen a bit short, and until he has a game to win it all in the final, he won't be considered truly clutch.

Your Cujo example is excellent - I know from the Leaf part of that analogy, without Cujo, they probably don't make it past the first round even. On his own, he won two games for each series almost, especially on that one run (I think it was the first year).

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Guest4604 Posted - 05/07/2013 : 22:23:12
Thank god there done .....Dont have to hear no more BS from the dumb good for nothing Pinheads.....
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 05/07/2013 : 18:01:11
I enjoyed that article thanks. I guess I missed that game and that is something I would need to see to call him a big game goalie. From the games I have seen, I haven't actually witnessed him steal one. I am not saying he isn't capable, I have watched a lot of Canucks playoff hockey and I can always remember the ones that got away for the Canucks, but can't remember the ones he stole.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
Alex116 Posted - 05/07/2013 : 16:57:34
Hey, i'm not saying he's regularly stolen games his team shouldn't have won. I really don't think he's had as many opportunities as a lot of other goalies have.

My whole argument is twofold.

1, he can and has won big games. I don't consider big games to be ONLY those he's "stolen" on nights his team shouldn't have won, but if that's your idea, here's one: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/384464-la-kings-finished-canucks-roberto-luongo-steals-the-game

2, if you're gonna blame him for losses in big games, its only fair then to credit him with wins in big games even if he didn't "steal" the game (ex, gold medal win 2010)

JOSHUACANADA Posted - 05/07/2013 : 16:32:22
The last time I watched Cujo live steal a game in the playoffs was at the end of his career in Calgary when he relieved Kipper after he had a stinker, Cujo came in with his magic and lifted the whole team. You could feel it in the building like you were watching something special. It was only one game, but I swear I never thought I'd hear a Calgary crowd cheer out Cujo prior to that day.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 05/07/2013 : 16:27:11
Alex, Bean's has a point about Cujo being a big game goalie. He did steal games on a irregular basis, and could have a stinker every once in a while, but overall he is one of the better playoff goalies of recent memory. His teams in most cases shouldn't have won, but due to his incredible play won on his teams worst nights. I just don't see Loungo rising in the playoffs like some of the greats. He is a great regular season goalie and his career stats are amazing. He is proving me wrong about his team oriented nature and playing great hockey dispite a horrible situation in Vancouver, but he is not singlehandedly winning games like other great goalies have.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
Alex116 Posted - 05/07/2013 : 10:10:06
So, who's the judge of a goalie actually being the reason his team won a game? Is there a standard? Does his team have to be outshot at a 2-1 ratio? Does he have to make over 50 saves? Do 10+ have to be of the highlight variety? Let's face the reality here. NO GOALIE HAS EVER SINGLE HANDEDLY WON THEIR TEAM A HOCKEY GAME!!! It's a figure of speech really and nothing more. I'm absolutely certain that somewhere in all those Detroit "big" games that Osgood helped steal a game that perhaps Detroit maybe didn't deserve to win after being outplayed. Same goes for Luongo, though neither of these two really have had the number of chances as some other goalies seeing as they've played on some really good teams. Really not important anyway, my whole point was saying that i don't feel it's fair that a guy can be blamed for losing a big game, but not get credit for winning a big game unless he somehow steals it??? Game 7 in 2011 vs Chicago is a great example. Luongo stopped 31 shots in a 2-1 OT pressure cooker to get the win but he's still never won a big one? Why, because Chicago couldn't muster 50+ shots?

I won't waste our time arguing about Joseph, i already said they were very similar. But i will say, the 30 wins on 5 different teams doesn't impress me much at all. The reason more goalies haven't done that is because they're not usually expendable and get moved around the league like he somehow did.
Beans15 Posted - 05/07/2013 : 08:24:29
Ok, so to answer your question: Yes, Luongo has to be the REASON the team wins to be considered a goalie who WINS big games. That is my opinion of a goalie who WINS big games. Chris Osgood was in net for 3 Stanley Cups and I don't think that guy ever won a game. His team won the game. Same goes for Luongo.

As far as Cugjo goes, the guy has 30 win seasons with 5 different teams. The first goalie to to that. Look at the list of teams he played on?? Edmonton, St. Louis, Toronto, Phoenix, and Detroit. 4 of those 5 teams were below average. How about Cujo stopping 119 of 122 shots in back to back double overtime games against Chicago in 91?? Nothing like facing 60 shots a night and letting in 1 or 2 goals. What about Cujo backstopping the Oilers to huge upset wins in 97 and 98 against Dallas and Colorado?? What about Cujo being a key piece of TO making the Eastern Conference Final in 99 and 02??


Cujo was the REASON most of those teams did what they did. He was not part of the reason, he was the only reason. Take him out of net in those spots and it's likely his team losses.


I would argue that had another goalie been in net for the 'big games' that Luongo has been involved in and the result isn't different.
Alex116 Posted - 05/06/2013 : 14:42:48
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Hey Alex, before you get all excited about my comments, please read them at face value. I am not nor have I ever implied that Luongo is the reason his team may lose big games. Not in the least. In many cases he does his job and the blame is not his. However, I don't think you, or anyone else for that matter, can honest say he has been robbed of any credit for big wins.

He is not often the reason for the loss but also not the reason for the win. Great, elite, all time goalies found a way to WIN those games regardless of what happened in front of them. Luongo has never been that guy. That is why he won't go down in history with the likes of Broduer, Fuhr, Hasek, Joseph, Belfour et al. Even though Luongo is a better goalie than some of those guys. Those guys stepped up and won. Luongo didn't.



FWIW Beans, i wasn't getting "excited" whatsoever. I was simply pointing out that i don't think it's fair to say he can't win big games that he has, because he didn't totally dominate and steal them, but claim he can choke in big games because he gives up a bad goal? THAT, is what many try to claim, and it's silly. In Vancouver (Olympics), he was put in a situation to fail. Home town, many home fans, Canadian fans, great team in front of him, playing with Brodeur on the bench, all expectations of gold, etc. Did he go out and save 50+ shots and help win a game they didn't deserve to? NO. Did he let in soft goals and cost his team the gold? NO. So tell me, does a goalie have to steal a "BIG" game, to be considered to have won a "BIG" game? Example: If the Canucks somehow forced a 7th game vs SJ and won 5-0 (with Luongo in net for all 4 wins), would Luongo have "won a big game" seeing as he didn't "steal" it???

Either way, seems someone at the Associated Press has a similar "Luongo opinion" as i do. Here's a paragraph from an AP article after the gold medal game in 2010:
Luongo didn't outplay Miller, but still proved he is a big-game goalie -- something he has never been previously -- by making 34 saves in his own NHL arena. Luongo went 5-0 in the tournament and 4-0 after replacing Martin Brodeur following America's 5-3 win the previous Sunday.


As far as those other guys, you're right. Luongo is better than some of them ever were. I'm just wondering though, what's Cujo done than Luongo hasn't? They're very similar really. Vezina finalists, All Star selections, 0 Cups, Gold Medal wins, though he didn't exactly play much of a role in SLC. He played well in most of his stops, but he didn't take any of his teams deep that i recall? At least those others you mentioned have won cups? Again, Cujo was a great goalie, i'm not denying that, but i wouldn't put him "down in history" as being better than Luongo. It's funny though, even you'd agree that Luongo is better than some of those guys, however you can't compare them fairly when you consider the different teams, eras, etc that they played for/in. I don't for a second think Luongo would be "cupless" had he played on some of those Oilers teams that won all those cups!!!
Guest0815 Posted - 05/06/2013 : 12:34:09
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0815

AV kept messing with lines all year, he looked for instant results never gave players a chance to gel with each other. They should give Lindy Ruff call.



a call*
Guest0815 Posted - 05/06/2013 : 12:32:46
AV kept messing with lines all year, he looked for instant results never gave players a chance to gel with each other. They should give Lindy Ruff call.
nuxfan Posted - 05/06/2013 : 12:24:57
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Here are a few things to add to the fire:

I have said many times in the past that Luongo is an elite NHL goalie. Has been for a very long time. I am also one of the people who said he doesn't seem to be able to win key games. That's not a huge knock on him but it is a fact. I am also one of the people who don't think Luongo was a huge factor in the Gold Medal. I don't think Canada won in spite of him but they didn't win because of him.

Regardless, I think Luongo has been unfairly treated for a long time and it's not because he's a poor player. It's because he has a poor contract. Not unlike Horcoff in Edmonton or Redden in New York. Players who get over paid do not automatically become better players although fans often expect that to happen.

Now, to the 'Nuck losing. (PS, after 7-8 years I still have no idea what a 'Nuck" is.) Let's look back a little bit. Vancouver wins the President's Trophy and lose to the Bruins in the Cup Finals. They go out and add Hamhuis to their defensive group, win the President's Trophy again and lose in the first round. They go out the next season and add a Garrison and a goalie controversy and they are likely to get swept by the Sharks.

A question to Canuck Fans:

When will Mike Gillis be held accountable for this team?? Or, is this the fault of Alain Vignault for having the best team in the NHL in 2 of the last 3 seasons and the NW division winner in 7 of the last 10 seasons and have very little to show for it??


All due respect and something you likely know, the window for winning in Vancouver is closing and not opening. They are due for a re-tool and if they don't do that in the next few seasons it will likely be a full re-build.

Is AV and MG the right guys to lead this team??



(small correction for Beans - Hamhuis was actually acquired before the 2011 season, he was injured in game 1 of the finals)

I think at this point it is inevitable that VAN will lose in the first round - truth be told, SJ is simply outplaying them in nearly every regard. The forwards are faster, the defense is better, their goaltending is better. They have been taking away many of the abilities of the Canucks that have allowed them to succeed in recent years - shot blocking to take away the booming point shots, aggressively checking the Sedin's to take away the cycle, and big aggressive bodies to take away the speed. Unless VAN has a complete epiphany and SJ has a complete meltdown, this series is done, and a sweep is likely.

To answer Beans's specific question - I think this is the season that MG is held accountable, and my prediction is that both he and AV are fired after the season (I think AV is done for sure). MG has made some good deals for VAN and acquired some good players while here - but the killer for him will be the un-deals that have happened:

- Luongo had to be traded last summer, or this past season. It is unforgivable that it has not happened, both for Luongo and for the team. 5.3M in cap space could have gone a long way to helping the team in other ways.

- very little help at the trade deadline. As much as I like Roy, you only need to look at SJ, LA, STL, even CHI to know that in order to get through those teams you need size and lots of it. They failed to acquire what they really needed - rumours are they were in the hunt for both Clowe and Torres, and there were likely others.

While I think AV and MG will both be gone this summer, I don't think it will end there. Ownership has seen this team get badly outmuscled in 3 straight playoff series (2011 finals, first round in each of the last 2 seasons), and must be wondering if they have the right makeup to compete. They will have to look at dismantling some of their "franchise group" in order to get what they need. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Regarding Luongo - I do not buy that he is not a "big game" goalie, he has shown in the past that he can win big and important games in playoff series and the regular season. He certainly does not win them all, but who does? You can point at 17 GA in 3 games in BOS and 3 GA in the final game, I can point at a 2-1 OT win in a hugely important game 7 vs CHI, strong play in the NSH series, and 2 GA and 2 SO's in the 3 games won in the finals. He is inconsistent sometimes, but he is a very good goalie that still has game to give.

However, the problem with Luongo is not his play, it is his contract, and the fact that there is a younger, cheaper and for less years version of him in Schneider. If Schneider were not every bit the goalie that he is, there would be no controversy - Luongo would be the #1, and Schneids would have been traded at some point in the last 2 years. If Luongo had only 5 years on his deal instead of 10 years, I think the lineup of teams looking to acquire him would have been long. He has been unfairly treated by fans and media here, but mainly because he is constantly held to a contract that he can never justify. It is what it is, and I think this team as a whole will be better once they kill the controversy once and for all.

Meanwhile, its summer time in Vancouver, so at least something is going our way.
Beans15 Posted - 05/06/2013 : 12:21:18
Hey Alex, before you get all excited about my comments, please read them at face value. I am not nor have I ever implied that Luongo is the reason his team may lose big games. Not in the least. In many cases he does his job and the blame is not his. However, I don't think you, or anyone else for that matter, can honest say he has been robbed of any credit for big wins.

He is not often the reason for the loss but also not the reason for the win. Great, elite, all time goalies found a way to WIN those games regardless of what happened in front of them. Luongo has never been that guy. That is why he won't go down in history with the likes of Broduer, Fuhr, Hasek, Joseph, Belfour et al. Even though Luongo is a better goalie than some of those guys. Those guys stepped up and won. Luongo didn't.
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 05/06/2013 : 12:21:06
http://bluetoro.ca/2012/04/25/funny-pictures-about-the-vancouver-canucks/

A good site for Nuck's hater photo's. Love the new symbal for choking and the Nucks player laying head first in the ref's lap.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 05/06/2013 : 12:05:55
Love the visual. My favorite cartoon was a post of Loungo holding a beer up and doing the commercial for best man on the planet:

I dont always play like crap, but when I do its in the playoffs!

I was a Loungo basher, but thats rival team banter. He is an Elite goalie in a poor situation. I am not even gonna bash this team as they have good parts and pieces which may need to do some offseason tinkering. The Sedin's are an easy target for jokes, but most teams would love to have them in there lineup.

That being said I have another joke photo, which has the Canucks New syncronized swim team, heads of all the current Canucks on a womans syncro team photo.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
Alex116 Posted - 05/06/2013 : 11:52:43
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Here are a few things to add to the fire:

I have said many times in the past that Luongo is an elite NHL goalie. Has been for a very long time. I am also one of the people who said he doesn't seem to be able to win key games. That's not a huge knock on him but it is a fact. I am also one of the people who don't think Luongo was a huge factor in the Gold Medal. I don't think Canada won in spite of him but they didn't win because of him.


Ridiculous. Sorry, but that's my opinion. You don't get to game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals without winning key games. I'm not saying he stole every game on the way to the finals, but face the facts, he was a Conn Smythe trophy FAVORITE two games into that final series in '11. Now, as for winning a "key game", i won't argue and claim he won them the gold medal game, but, and you're smart enough to understand i'm sure, many of those who claim he can't win the big games, imply that he chokes/implodes, etc in the big games. He may not have won that game single handedly, but he sure as hell didn't throw it away and blow it by giving up a soft goal the a very strong American side. As far as winning a key game, how about game 7 vs Chi in '11? Again, i'm not saying he completely stole the game, but when Burrows took a holding penalty in the first minute of OT, he made a save that many consider the most important of his career off Patrick Sharp on a cross ice feed going post to post to stymie him. THAT save alone was as clutch as you'll ever see considering the circumstances!

Bottome line is this. What do you consider a "key game"? If it's game 7 of the SCF's, then i concede, he's 0-1.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Regardless, I think Luongo has been unfairly treated for a long time and it's not because he's a poor player. It's because he has a poor contract. Not unlike Horcoff in Edmonton or Redden in New York. Players who get over paid do not automatically become better players although fans often expect that to happen.

Great point, and i also believe it was timing due to the emmergence of Schneider, as i noted before.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Now, to the 'Nuck losing. (PS, after 7-8 years I still have no idea what a 'Nuck" is.) Let's look back a little bit. Vancouver wins the President's Trophy and lose to the Bruins in the Cup Finals. They go out and add Hamhuis to their defensive group, win the President's Trophy again and lose in the first round. They go out the next season and add a Garrison and a goalie controversy and they are likely to get swept by the Sharks.

First off, they had Hamhuis the year they went to the finals. He was hurt in game 1 when he delivered a hit on Lucic. The Canucks, not to make excuses, sorely missed him on the back end in that series.
On to the point you were making.......
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

A question to Canuck Fans:

When will Mike Gillis be held accountable for this team?? Or, is this the fault of Alain Vignault for having the best team in the NHL in 2 of the last 3 seasons and the NW division winner in 7 of the last 10 seasons and have very little to show for it??


All due respect and something you likely know, the window for winning in Vancouver is closing and not opening. They are due for a re-tool and if they don't do that in the next few seasons it will likely be a full re-build.

Is AV and MG the right guys to lead this team??


I like both Gillis and AV. However, AV is definitely gone after this sweep season. I was actually surprised he survived last year. Gillis, i'm not so sure. I think he's done a good enough job to supply the team with enough talent to produce better results than they have. Personally, i'd have Garrison on the first unit PP, but he's anchored on the 2nd? What do i know though? Little things like that i've tired of with AV, but overall, i've liked him.

As for the "window"? It's more closed than open at this point, and the rebuild/retool, i'll leave for another thread.....

In closing, i leave you this.....sad, but seems true:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s480x480/65685_10152819442575265_1212986153_n.jpg

Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page