HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Game 67 - Canucks def. Ducks - 3-0

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2011, 10:27 PM
  #651
CanucksOo
Registered User
 
CanucksOo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 6,170
vCash: 500
Did anyone catch the post-game interview with Torres? Another player makes a guest appearance and offers him something....

http://video.canucks.nhl.com/videoce...=805&id=101530

CanucksOo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 10:30 PM
  #652
Treefingers
\_(ツ)_/
 
Treefingers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,468
vCash: 500
Someone is seriously suggesting that Luongo is to blame for the Ducks loss? Really?? He was the only reason we were even remotely in that series. And then to go on and say that the team not scoring wasn't a big deal?? Come on.

The Canucks had defensive meltdowns against the Hawks in both series. Yeah, Luongo should have been better, but so should the rest of the team.

No goalie is going to stop everything all the time. And yes, you actually need a competent team in front of him to win. You know, with the defense and the offense and the oh ah ah ah ah /billcosby

Anyway, I'm not trying to absolve Luongo of all blame, but let's be reality....he's not going anywhere, he's a great goalie, and we're going to win the ****ing cup with him.

Treefingers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 10:40 PM
  #653
timw33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
Are we seriously suggesting trading Lou... NOW. ...

Wow...

And back to the Cloutier days we go.
It's like people forgot what it was like before Luongo and after Mclean. Like there was no GAPING BLACK ABYSS in goal for 10+ years.

timw33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 10:46 PM
  #654
Runestone
Registered User
 
Runestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Country: Ireland
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksOo View Post
Did anyone catch the post-game interview with Torres? Another player makes a guest appearance and offers him something....

http://video.canucks.nhl.com/videoce...=805&id=101530
Check main board, page 2...

Runestone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 10:59 PM
  #655
Runestone
Registered User
 
Runestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Country: Ireland
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
I'm a bit surprised there's so much disagreement with that position.
That position is your position, and you're definitely in the minority here; and I've had my share of doubt in the past as well, but not to the point of considering trading him, but letting the team work on the weaknesses and "distractions" in his game - which they have and continue to do. All signs point to progress (look at the results this year), so I would not hastily throw the baby out with the bath water.

As for disagreement with an apparent majority, you remind me of the soldier that thinks he is in step, while the rest of the platoon is not. In your favour, you're obviously marching to the beat of a different drummer, and who knows, you may be right... Doubt it, tho'.

Runestone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 11:18 PM
  #656
JamesBond*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,944
vCash: 500
I am not saying for a second that the team should trade Luongo. I was only saying that Luongo did not perform well at key times in two separate playoff runs. The way I look at it, Luongo has played in 6 playoff series and been the MVP (or at least arguably so) in 4 of them. The Chicago series are what has marred his post seasons.

My point is that if Luongo turns in performances again in the post season this year like the ones he has against Chicago, it calls into question the usefulness of carrying a goaltender with a huge contract like he has. He was given the 12 year contract in order to consistently give the team a chance to win the cup. It's that simple. If it turns out that he is not going to consistently be able to do that, then why have a $5,000,000 goalie?

JamesBond* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:11 AM
  #657
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy Punch Clock View Post
What kind of wine do you serve with Coyote?
Something like Soju probably:


Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 12:34 AM
  #658
quat
intheDanRusseljungle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Something like Soju probably:

lol

quat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:41 AM
  #659
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanEric View Post
Ready to trade Kesler too if he can't score on a goaltender again?
nope. But if Kesler has three more playoffs where he can't score, would you then consider making a change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Luongo faced double the shots the opposing goalie did in that game. Anyone who actually makes this a part of their argument clearly has issues with Luongo that go beyond his on-ice play.
nope, no issues at all with Luongo "beyond his on-ice play". Seems like a pretty good person, willing to give back to his community, teammates seem to like him.

the point of the Anaheim example wasn't that Luongo single handedly lost the game. it was showing an example of the limitations of purely quantitative analysis. But I'm sure you and everyone else just shrugged that goal off and said, no big deal because he made some big saves earlier.

It's like if my wife tells me not to spend all my money, and I don't at the first bar I go to, or the second, or the casino, or the brothel at the end of the night. But then I forget my wallet in the men's room and it's gone before I get back. Is my wife going to say "great job not spending all your money"? Yours might, but mine sure wouldn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
Are we seriously suggesting trading Lou... NOW. ...

Wow...

And back to the Cloutier days we go.
nope. Nobody is saying we should trade Luongo NOW. What I'm saying is if we're out in the second round again, and Luongo has some inconsistent moments that cost us key games, then we need to see what we have in Cory Schneider before we trade HIM.

I'm not even saying we SHOULD trade Luongo if the playoffs don't go the way we all hope they do. I'm saying if there are still questions about Luongo's ability to put it together for two months of playoff hockey, we need to open up the competition next season between him and CS and let the best man win. and then IF Schneider ends up winning the job, go with the younger, cheaper option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by timw33 View Post
It's like people forgot what it was like before Luongo and after Mclean. Like there was no GAPING BLACK ABYSS in goal for 10+ years.
difference is, of course, we NOW have what looks to be a very good young goalie in Cory Schneider, and another one in Lack.

tell me, did Chicago make the right move when they traded Hasek because they had Belfour? How about when San Jose traded Kipper because they had Nabokov? We're not talking about dumping Luongo for a bag of pucks and getting an "Ellis type goalie". We're talking about giving a very promising young goalie a look so we make the right decision.

using Kesler, if he has another three playoffs like last year's, and then people start saying maybe it's time to let Hodgson take over at #2C, will everyone be up in arms? Or will they recognize that we have other options and don't have to throw all our eggs in one basket if that basket continues to be "inconsistent"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runestone View Post
That position is your position, and you're definitely in the minority here; and I've had my share of doubt in the past as well, but not to the point of considering trading him, but letting the team work on the weaknesses and "distractions" in his game - which they have and continue to do. All signs point to progress (look at the results this year), so I would not hastily throw the baby out with the bath water.
I agree with you here and have said as much already. I'm actually expecting Luongo to take his game to the next level this spring and show he belongs in the discussion with the truly elite goalies. If the team goes all the way, even say getting us to a game 7 vs San Jose in RD3 only to lose in OT on a great goal, then this is all moot, you trade CS to PHI at the draft for their #1 and a prospect, and we all live happily ever after.

but if he doesn't, then I'm not willing to move CS and just keep my fingers crossed that Luongo will someday put it all together. at the earliest, we'd be talking next trade deadline, more likely the following offseason. nothing hasty about that.

Quote:
As for disagreement with an apparent majority, you remind me of the soldier that thinks he is in step, while the rest of the platoon is not. In your favour, you're obviously marching to the beat of a different drummer, and who knows, you may be right... Doubt it, tho'.
of course the other side of the coin is being too loyal. that's why Burke stayed with Cloutier so long; why Nonis stayed with Naslund and Crawford too long, etc etc. Sometimes it just takes the masses longer to recognize that the drummer is actually playing a different beat.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:42 AM
  #660
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,821
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanucksOo View Post
Did anyone catch the post-game interview with Torres? Another player makes a guest appearance and offers him something....

http://video.canucks.nhl.com/videoce...=805&id=101530
Rather tempted to make a "I 8z ur pizza" "deal with it" avatar

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 02:26 AM
  #661
Type Not Specified
Part of the process
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
I do think he's a better passer than Ballard and that's part of moving the puck.
He's not as good of a passer as Ballard. That's why he often ends up icing the puck, putting it off the boards to nobody or just making a bad pass that trips up our transition.

Type Not Specified is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 02:32 AM
  #662
Type Not Specified
Part of the process
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
I've never seen a team filled completely with "puck possession" players. Its called having the right mix.
Right, and you have to manage that mix properly to make the most of your strengths and mitigate your weaknesses. That's what I feel they haven't been doing a great job of.

Type Not Specified is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 02:39 AM
  #663
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
the point of the Anaheim example wasn't that Luongo single handedly lost the game. it was showing an example of the limitations of purely quantitative analysis. But I'm sure you and everyone else just shrugged that goal off and said, no big deal because he made some big saves earlier.
Yes, the goalie that faced 58 shots while his teammates only generated 27 shots is the one to blame for losing that game, not the fact that none of his teammates bothered to put up a fight in an elimination game. He had an absolutely outstanding game, I don't care what kind of goal that game ended on, because it would've been over in regulation if it wasn't for him.

And I'm not even going to quote that analogy of yours, you should be embarrassed to have written up something so lame and completely not fitting for this scenario.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 10:43 AM
  #664
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,454
vCash: 500
It's more like if your wife asked you to make dinner after work, and you made her a 5-star meal, and she came home late when it was cold and complained that it tasted like #*&!. Then you'd be all, "Why didn't you show up sooner, for #*&# sakes!" and traded her for a bucket of Dan Cloutier from KFC.

/better analogy

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 11:34 AM
  #665
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Yes, the goalie that faced 58 shots while his teammates only generated 27 shots is the one to blame for losing that game, not the fact that none of his teammates bothered to put up a fight in an elimination game. He had an absolutely outstanding game, I don't care what kind of goal that game ended on, because it would've been over in regulation if it wasn't for him.
We would've never advanced beyond the 1st round either (with offensive support like Turco getting three shutouts - I don't care how inept the Stars offensive might have been; the Stars was still a playoff team not a lottery pick team then).

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.