Blah, blah blah. Did the Canucks get roughed up or not?
During the play when there was actually something at stake? No. The Canucks were the bigger, nastier, more physical team and took the punishment to the Bruins. After the whistle Boston landed more punches.
Did Lucic, Chara or Thornton prevent Rome from killing Nathan Horton? Did they deter Burrows from roughing up Bergeron and taking a bite out of him?
Tell me, do you think Brad Marcand punched Daniel Sedin because he didn't think there was a player on Vancouver's roster that could wipe the floor with him? The Canucks had 10 guys that could knock 10lbs of **** out of that little rat. They chose not to.
People who want more "toughness" on the team are like people who get excited over "torque" in cars.
They don't really know what it means, can't point to specific examples of where it helps them, but it sounds manly and makes them feel better to be on the "for" side of a motherhood/apple pie argument.
In that vein, I also think the Canucks need more "leadership" and "heart" and "determination" and "compete" and "clutch goals". So Gills should totally trade guys for 26.4 units of "leadership" and "heart" and "determination" and "compete" and "clutch goals". If he doesn't do it, that'll totally be the reason why they could only finish one game shy of winning a 30-team league.
quotes refer to dan tencer, but the same logic applies here
What did Tencer say now? I must have missed that.
EDIT: Never mind, found it. What a tool. The comments responding to his incoherent, rambling, double-spaced rant are much funnier than the rant itself, which, in typical Tencer fashion, is self-indulgent and shrill. Give him 20 more years and he'll be Edmonton's Dan Russell.
Last edited by Free Kassian: 06-21-2011 at 12:06 AM.
Having a consistent Raffi Torres would have helped, for sure.
Put your self in Torres' shoes. How the hell can he be consistent when he throws the hit on Seabrook and everyone calls for suspension, then his teammate stands a guy up at the blueline and misses the rest of the finals. He admitted that he wasn't himself until after round 2 when AV had a talk with him that he needed to keep throwing his body around. Which lasted until the Rome suspension which I believe made him think twice about throwing big hits.
I'm not sure I get what he's saying here....he wants more goons down in the bottom six or what? I don't really agree with that; maybe our fourth line could use some tweaking, but our third line was one of the better lines for us through most of the playoffs. If he's saying it's a 'team toughness' problem I might agree a bit more; our failure to win can be directly linked to the failure of our core players to show up at the right moments (getting pretty much rubbed out of the entire SCF). I don't think you can fix that though since all those guys are on long-term deals...you just have to hope they figure it out by getting ****-kicked repeatedly.
For me, the whole thing fell apart when Hamhuis went down; Hamhuis was for all intensive purposes our number one defenseman through the entire playoffs...other guys showed up intermittently, but with nowhere close to that level of consistency...it's pretty obvious our PK and defensive game went to complete crap once Hammer was out. When we had the concrete pairings through most of the playoffs we were winning on our ability to keep pucks out of our net through really strong defensive play; once that fell apart it was fairly obvious we were completely ****ed in retrospect because our offense had been totally unreliable most of the playoffs. And God forbid you have to lean on Luongo in the clutch; he's fine when the team in front of him is fine, but jeeze...he couldn't carry a pillow.
Just from an outsiders perspective not trying to troll,
I really think one of the main reasons the Canucks lost could be blamed on a lack of toughness in the bottom 6 but really I think it was Gilles who did you guys in. Even the quote in this thread, he just (again not to troll) sounds like a whiner plain and simple. When the head of the franchise is constantly complaining about the refs it sends a message to the roster and resulted in an unholy amount of diving and soft play.
Just classic example of Sedin being punched in the face 5 times and instead of standing up for himself and setting an example he just hangs on like a rag doll looking at the ref. I really felt that deflated the whole team. Especially no one really going after Marchand after that. Obviously you don't want to take a penalty but it would be worth it to salvage some dignity for your captain IMO.
Sure the next logical argument is oh well that should of been a penalty lots wasn't called blah blah blah the fact is earlier in the playoffs tons of people were complaining about the refs having too much impact on the games so they dialed it back considerably, which I thought left way better flow to the games. That said Van still had more PP's that Boston, I think like 33-27 for Van. So I think maybe the Canucks players subconsciously felt like the refs were against them (due to the Gilles comments) and thus lost a bit of a mental edge and weren't as willing to stand up for each other as I assume they were in the regular season.
Wow you guys. A lot of personal abuse directed at Cam Cole and almost no consideration of his thesis which is that the Canucks' skill game might have been allowed to be shown had the Bruins been deterred from cheap play the credible threat of being seriously rag-dolled and humiliated by a Semenko-level enforcer. Is there anyone of that ilk now -- muscle that can keep up?
We generated a lot against Boston - Thomas was simply fantastic.
I love your handle and Hank but... a lot? That's what you saw but honestly it was hard to see the sustained pressure. A good opening ten minutes or so but then the other team could push back, and the much-vaunted third period excellence was not really in evidence. I think the Western Conference might overestimate itself. The East's ridiculed in our media, that's my feeling.