HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Minnesota Wild (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   Gameday thread: Wild @ Canucks, Dec. 6 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=33867)

theo6060 12-06-2003 08:04 AM

Gameday thread: Wild @ Canucks, Dec. 6
 
Wild 9-13-4
Canucks 14-7-3-2

My prediction is 3-1 Vancouver. Minnesota goal by the Canuck-killer Marian Gaborik.

Thalia 12-06-2003 08:30 AM

A 3-2 win for the 'Nucks in a tough fought grinding (but not too physical) battle.

Blackadder 12-06-2003 09:21 AM

I'm with Theo, 3-1. 2 goals is just way too optimistic for the Wild atm.

ceber 12-06-2003 10:06 AM

Canucks 4, Wild 1. Even with Naslund out the Canucks will find a way to get 4. Too many of our guys down or sick to hold off the Canucks. Defense will have to be very, very good if we want a shot at staying in this one, I think.
Despite what Lemaire has said, I would really like to see Gaborik and Daigle on a line again. I think Daigle has been one of our best guys, if not the best guy, we've got when it comes to generating offense. Plus, he's been good on the backcheck, which apparently you really need when you skate with Gaborik these days.
It would be nice to see Bouchard back in the game, but based on what the Canucks usually do I think I'd rather see him rest up one more.

Kristofer 12-06-2003 04:01 PM

3-0 Nucks

ceber 12-06-2003 08:07 PM

Whew! Well, it wasn't pretty, but I'm pleased with the point. Considering the way this team's been playing, coming home with 3 of 6 points on a 3-game-in-4-day road trip through the Northwest has got to be looked at as a success, dotcha think? The loss to Calgary was a little tough to take, but they've been playing really well of late. Edmonton we hadn't beaten in regulation before. Vancouver's at the top of the division. To top it off, we did it without Mitchell, Bouchard, Chouinard, and with a handful of guys with the flu. All in all, a successful, if not overly entertaining, road trip.

I just hope the team can focus on the good and not the bad, because there's been a fair bit of bad if you want to look for it. :)

Edler Statesman* 12-06-2003 08:48 PM

http://members.shaw.ca/kmad/wildsleep.jpg

ceber 12-07-2003 04:31 AM

I'm not sure what these posts are getting at. Do you think fans in MN care if you're entertained? :)

CFABoy 12-07-2003 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceber
I'm not sure what these posts are getting at. Do you think fans in MN care if you're entertained? :)

ya, but its pretty sad to pay $80 for this type of hockey. I feel for season ticket holders for Miny...it was just very frustrating to watch and I am not blaming Lemaire for playing this type of system but rather the league for expanding into too many markets and diluting the talent to such a point that teams like Minny are forced to play defensive counterattack hockey....sigh

MN_Gopher 12-07-2003 12:54 PM

heck i am waiting to pay for season tickets its not boring its good hockey. i will take a 1-0 W any day of the week. a team may not always get the bounces but if you play hard D you make sure the other team isn't even getting a chance for a lucky bounce.

quat 12-07-2003 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MN_Gopher
heck i am waiting to pay for season tickets its not boring its good hockey. i will take a 1-0 W any day of the week. a team may not always get the bounces but if you play hard D you make sure the other team isn't even getting a chance for a lucky bounce.

Watching an exciting hard working game with lot's of scoring chances but just a goal or two is fine, but calling a game that is full of interference in the neutral zone, and all five players collapsing in front of the goal good hockey, then you don't know good hockey when you see it. Enjoying a game like that because your team wins is an entirely different statement. In the end, winning does matter a lot, but this style of hockey is dull. Interference does not make for good hockey.

MN_Gopher 12-07-2003 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quat
Watching an exciting hard working game with lot's of scoring chances but just a goal or two is fine, but calling a game that is full of interference in the neutral zone, and all five players collapsing in front of the goal good hockey, then you don't know good hockey when you see it. Enjoying a game like that because your team wins is an entirely different statement. In the end, winning does matter a lot, but this style of hockey is dull. Interference does not make for good hockey.

Its not interference, we keep our feet moving for the most part. We get in lanes, taking away passes, make little space, play a team game yes. Its not lazy hockey we dont stand around and form a soccer wall. Sorry we dont play a wide open game and loose 6-5 all the time. And yes i do know good hockey. Good hockey is a game played within your limits. We are not a flashy team with lots of stars. We play the game we need to play to win. And that is good hockey, playing with in urself.

ceber 12-07-2003 03:18 PM

How much of the Wild do you guys watch? Just when they come to town to play the Canucks? You're going to see a tight game whenever the Wild play the Canucks because the Wild have to play very tight to stay in the game. Sometimes it gets dull, but it's not always dull, and when it's dull it's not just because of the defensive style of the Wild. I make it to nearly all the home games, and a pretty good number of them are entertaining. Honest. And hockey fans in Minnesota have a pretty strong 100+ year tradition of the game in the state, so even if I didn't know good hockey if it bit me in the butt, someone would have clued me in by now.

What's your definition of interference? The penalty definition, or anything that slows down movement through the neutral zone?

DW 12-07-2003 03:37 PM

Why bother trying to converse with these guys. It's a waste of time trying to explain the Wild style of hockey to them. They use one word and it's all downhill from there. If they actually took off there blinders for once they would see the beauty of a trapping system. The fact the Wild don't generate a whole lot of offense is from the lack of having offensively gifted players, not the style of play. Unless someone thinks that Jim Dowd, Darby Hendrickson, Richard Park, and the like will someday become gifted playmakers and scorers. Which would shock the crap out of me.

theo6060 12-07-2003 04:03 PM

I think there may just be a misunderstanding here. Doesn't look to me like other team's fans said the Wild play a boring game. But what may be boring to one fan may be entertaining to another if that's the case. Lets chalk it up as a difference of opinion.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.