The Armchair GM Thread - XL
View Single Post
05-22-2013, 08:10 AM
Join Date: Nov 2011
Originally Posted by
No offense, but I find the bias officiating theory unfounded nonsense. I just tossed on Detroit/Chicago game two and the refs missed numerous calls and oddly seemed to favor Detroit. Somewhat amusing considering our issues with refs against Chicago. Simply put, if you fancy the blatant conspiracy angle, the league pushes for favorable matches or lengthily playoff series. Barring that, the refs are merely incompetent.
To give up a talented player like Burrows because of an assumption is terrible. Even had the refs called a perfect series, we were not beating San Jose. Perhaps it goes five but they were clearly the superior team. On the flip side, were we playing as we have in the past. San Jose would have been terrified of putting us on the powerplay just once.
1 - On the Burrows thing, the first thing I do is employ a recently retired veteran referee to discuss how to fix our referee situation plus help us deal with referee situations in the future. He'd also help with referee tendencies and things of that nature. If he says Burrows isn't a problem, then trading Burrows only becomes a questions of what we can get for Burrows vs Booth, if he says Burrows is a problem that will haunt us with the refs going forward, I'd trade Burrows immediately...the same applies to other players.
2 - Disagree about your point on the SJ series. The calls discrepancy was enough to change the series completely...I have the penalties as +15 for SJ which is crazy.
3 - Agree, our powerplay and penalty kill need to be better.
4 - We can agree to disagree on the referee thing. I have a guy that gives me betting tips that does a lot of research on referees as one of his main betting metrics which he uses to great success. There are biases in the referees and they are there to be taken advantage of and the anti-Canucks bias of some referees is so unlikely that it is almost impossible that it's coincidence.
5 - Look at the whole Auger incident (and this is not a discussion about fair or not, just a point of view). Taking calls out on a player for prior incidents (make up calls) is pretty common in the NHL. Auger hammered Burrows for a dive he made in a prior game. Burrows complained in the media which eventually resulted in Auger losing his job. If one of your buddies got fired because someone ratted on him for say, taking a nap at the office, how would you treat the person that ratted them out in the future...probably not too well. It only makes sense that Auger's buddies would treat Burrows and the Canucks poorly after the incident.
Last edited by 604: 05-22-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by 604