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 31: Canucks 3 - Hurricanes 4

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2011, 10:06 AM
  #76
Carl Carlson
Registered User
 
Carl Carlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
Very worried Sedin is injured. Back spasms? MMhhmm...
These days back spasms = concussion. At least that's what if feels like this week. Hopefuly it really is just a simple case of back spasms and not some issue that will be long lingering with his back.

Carl Carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 10:07 AM
  #77
Eddy Punch Clock
Gold Jerry!!!
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,008
vCash: 500
FFS I hate waking up in the morning and my first thought is "The Canucks lost a game last night that they should have won... again."

Crappy way to start the day.

Eddy Punch Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 10:08 AM
  #78
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hipster View Post
Wow, didn't read the GDT, but judging from this thread it must have been brutual. Just to add to the constructive conversation I would just like to point out that we are still in 6th place and 6 pts out of the NW division lead despite playing a heavy road schedule so far (the worst of all western teams in fact).

Once the home/road schedule starts to balance out we will have a far better idea of where this team is at in relation to last year and other teams.
We weren't that bad. People just have insane expectations.

Potatoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 10:25 AM
  #79
dingdong
Registered User
 
dingdong's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoe1 View Post
We weren't that bad. People just have insane expectations.
Agreed. It was a less than stellar game but they still looked strong out there. There were a lot of great offensive chances that, on another night, could've given us a 7-4 win.

dingdong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 10:58 AM
  #80
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoe1 View Post
We weren't that bad. People just have insane expectations.
I don't think expecting to beat cellar dwellers like Carolina and Columbus could be considered "insane expectations". These are games they are expected to win. Obviously you don't always win the games you are expected to, but let's not think people are being out of line for being disappointed that we didn't play at a level befitting a supposed cup contending team.

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 11:29 AM
  #81
dingdong
Registered User
 
dingdong's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 802
vCash: 500
I have a theory about these games against bottom feeders.

My theory is that in the bottom feeder's dressing room before the game they tell each other "Vancouver almost won the cup last year. If we can beat a top team in the league, maybe we can turn this around!" in the delusional hope that one big victory will start a cascade of wins for their sorry franchise. Meanwhile, in the Canucks' dressing room, they're playing Angry Birds and eating twizzlers, unconcerned about the game. When the two meet on the ice, the bottom feeders come alive with desperate energy while the Canucks are still trying to shake the twizzler hangover. The intensity mismatch paves the way to an embarrassing loss.

dingdong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 11:31 AM
  #82
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,149
vCash: 500
You can "expect" them to win those game. It doesn't mean they will win every single one of those games.

Next week a bad team will beat a good team or two. The same will happen the week after that and then the week after that and then.....

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 11:39 AM
  #83
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I don't think expecting to beat cellar dwellers like Carolina and Columbus could be considered "insane expectations".
The better team doesnt always win. Last night the Canucks were better then the Canes but the reffing was awfull, the other teams goalie was fantastic, and we were very unlucky.

That is going to happen 5 to 15 times a year to every team in the league.

Expecting to not have nights like that over 82 games is insane.

People expect us to match last years regular season which is insane.

People expect them to virtually always beat bad teams which is insane.

People expect them to give 100% every night, which is insane.

No teams do these things so expecting the Canucks to be the one team that does makes zero sense.

Potatoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 11:58 AM
  #84
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoe1 View Post
The better team doesnt always win. Last night the Canucks were better then the Canes but the reffing was awfull, the other teams goalie was fantastic, and we were very unlucky.

That is going to happen 5 to 15 times a year to every team in the league.

Expecting to not have nights like that over 82 games is insane.

People expect us to match last years regular season which is insane.

People expect them to virtually always beat bad teams which is insane.

People expect them to give 100% every night, which is insane.

No teams do these things so expecting the Canucks to be the one team that does makes zero sense.
I guess you only read the line you quoted.

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 12:13 PM
  #85
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
I apologize for being wrong on how our team this year is doing compared to last, thought I had read someone in this thread who stated that and took it for fact.

I absolutely realize why the team gets compared to the Habs team, I just think it's complete BS. Honestly the Habs team was dominant, the Canucks team was pretty good but not nearly that good (and finishing first in PTS, GF, GA, and PP% - margin of win 10PTS, 10GF, 9GA) doesn't show the dominance that would put us in the same league as the Habs team (margin over 2nd - 20 PTS, 64GF, and 22GA).

It's like saying Wayne Gretzky's 85-86 season is the same as Henrik Sedin's 09-10 season, they both won the scoring title, lead the league in assists, and put up about three times more assissts than goals.

That being said, Gretzky (215PTS/163A) outscored the rest of the league by 74 points and Henrik (112PTS/82A) did it by 3 points, so there is no comparison at all.

As a diehard Canucks fan, I appreciate what we have which is a great team that wins most nights, that being said, let’s not overstate how good we are/were. We didn't win the Cup and were are not head and shoulders above the rest of the league the way the Canadians were. While there is statistical proof that we were very good, by saying that we were dominant in any way comparable to that Habs team is ludicrous.

What about comparative stats don't you understand? I understand full well the disparity that exists in player quality in the different eras. Also, there is a disparity between team strength across eras. That said, it does not change the fact that statistically, in this era, the nucks were very close to matching a feat that hadn't been accomplished since the 76-77 Habs. They were set to match the feat _in_their_era_. Do you understand?


We both know eras cannot be analyzed in the same manner. It goes without saying. However, statistically, the Habs feat of 1sts across the board had not been seen until last year (almost). Doesn't mean the nucks were as good. Just means the nucks were good enough to almost match the feat in _their_ era. The extent of the separation doesn't matter. The fact that it was almost achieved after 35 yrs does.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 12-16-2011 at 12:31 PM.
Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 12:15 PM
  #86
Huntershin Karuk
Horvat is Horfat
 
Huntershin Karuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,531
vCash: 500
In any case, they'd better beat the ****ing Leafs tomorrow.

Huntershin Karuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 12:18 PM
  #87
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDK View Post
In any case, they'd better beat the ****ing Leafs tomorrow.
They always do.

VanEric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 12:19 PM
  #88
flack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDK View Post
In any case, they'd better beat the ****ing Leafs tomorrow.
Not happening... leafs are much better than canes, whom we struggled to beat. Unless the defense wakes up there is no chance.

flack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 12:24 PM
  #89
flack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanEric View Post
They always do.
Which is precisely why we will probably lose tomorrow.

flack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 01:05 PM
  #90
flack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,366
vCash: 500
http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Ca...366/story.html

flack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 01:51 PM
  #91
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,489
vCash: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by dingdong View Post
I have a theory about these games against bottom feeders.

My theory is that in the bottom feeder's dressing room before the game they tell each other "Vancouver almost won the cup last year. If we can beat a top team in the league, maybe we can turn this around!" in the delusional hope that one big victory will start a cascade of wins for their sorry franchise. Meanwhile, in the Canucks' dressing room, they're playing Angry Birds and eating twizzlers, unconcerned about the game. When the two meet on the ice, the bottom feeders come alive with desperate energy while the Canucks are still trying to shake the twizzler hangover. The intensity mismatch paves the way to an embarrassing loss.
The first part isn't really a theory at all. Listen to any pre game show against us, Boston or Detroit and every team says the exact same thing. These are "measuring stick" games. Everyone gets up to play the SCF teams, Detroit, and whatever the flavour of the month is.

AndyPipkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 01:56 PM
  #92
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flack View Post
Not happening... leafs are much better than canes, whom we struggled to beat. Unless the defense wakes up there is no chance.
Yes you're right.

If we lose to a team on any given night it automatically means we are worse then the team we lost to and are incapable of beating anyone better.

We are now the worst team in the league and are going to get pounded by a very mediocre leafs team.

Potatoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 02:15 PM
  #93
thepuckmonster
Moderator
on the decline
 
thepuckmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoe1 View Post
Yes you're right.

If we lose to a team on any given night it automatically means we are worse then the team we lost to and are incapable of beating anyone better.

We are now the worst team in the league and are going to get pounded by a very mediocre leafs team.
The slippery slope fallacies in this thread are shocking. I bet I can go look at our losing record last year and point out where we lost to bottom feeders at the time as well. I mean, we lost to Edmonton twice last year in a row after they had pretty much solidified their basement standing.

45 16 Jan '11 MIN L 29-10-06 64
46 18 Jan '11 COL O 29-10-07 65
47 20 Jan '11 SJS O 29-10-08 66
48 22 Jan '11 CGY O 29-10-09 67

San Jose at this time was just picking it up and starting to play okay, but before that they were abysmal. That's 4 loses in a row.

18 17 Nov '10 PIT L 10-05-03 23
19 20 Nov '10 CHI L 10-06-03 23
20 21 Nov '10 PHX L 10-07-03 23

Three loses in a row. We haven't gone on an epic losing streak yet. The most we've done is lose 2 in a row, and other than that we've either gone .500 or higher.

thepuckmonster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 03:24 PM
  #94
Wheatley
We Rabite You
 
Wheatley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,230
vCash: 500
Pretty disappointed in my fellow Canucks fans right now. Some of you seem cool, but the rest of you seem to have extreme short term memory when it comes to the Canucks. Apparently we didn't lose to any bad teams last year? Honestly, if I reacted to a game in December the way some of you do, I would seriously think about giving up watching hockey.

I'm too lazy to check, but I bet you it's the same people who were bemoaning our slow start, even though we do it every year. And the same people who were ready to jump off the bridge early last month when you didn't think the team had it in them to fully turn it around.

It seems these people will never be content unless we're winning 9 of 10 games and blowing opponents out 6-0. Actually screw that, I'm sure you'd find something to complain about concerning the one loss, like "THIS TEAM CAN'T PUT IN A CONSISTENT EFFORT!! WE'RE ONLY A 6TH TO 10TH PLACE TEAM IN THE WEST!! TROLOLOLOL!!!!!"

Get a grip. I watch the Canucks because they're a good team who plays good hockey and they're fun to watch. It's called entertainment. Not so I can go slash my wrists after a loss in December to a meaningless Eastern Conference team. And if some of you claim to be hardcore Canucks fans, why do you act like you've never followed them through the ups and downs of a season before? Even casual fans know this time of year is basically meh. Just keep things in perspective and you'll be much better off.

Wheatley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 03:26 PM
  #95
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,332
vCash: 500
So it really doesn't concern you guys that we haven't put in a consistent 60 minute effort more than a handful of times in the last two months? I'm looking at the game calender here and all I remember is a bunch of meh games. Pretty much the entire Schneids run he carried the team, and lately we've been lackadaisical but still managed to beat some poor teams.

It's very difficult to just 'turn it on' for the playoffs. Again, it's a good sign that they can beat CGY COL and OTT with less than their 'A' game but the last two games they just didn't get away with it.

We all talk about how injured they were last year, both in the regular season and the playoffs. The number one way to overcome injuries is with a healthy dose of effort and hustle throughout the lineup. The guys who are actually playing have to be able to prop each other up to get over the adversity of guys being injured, and I don't think we've seen any of that.

Remember, defence is the easiest style to play as long as the whole team is on the same page. You don't need players who are as skilled. Therefore, I don't think it's unrealistic to expect to see the team's effort and cohesiveness come together at this time.

mossey3535 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 03:35 PM
  #96
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sullivangran View Post
Pretty disappointed in my fellow Canucks fans right now. Some of you seem cool, but the rest of you seem to have extreme short term memory when it comes to the Canucks. Apparently we didn't lose to any bad teams last year? Honestly, if I reacted to a game in December the way some of you do, I would seriously think about giving up watching hockey.

I'm too lazy to check, but I bet you it's the same people who were bemoaning our slow start, even though we do it every year. And the same people who were ready to jump off the bridge early last month when you didn't think the team had it in them to fully turn it around.

It seems these people will never be content unless we're winning 9 of 10 games and blowing opponents out 6-0. Actually screw that, I'm sure you'd find something to complain about concerning the one loss, like "THIS TEAM CAN'T PUT IN A CONSISTENT EFFORT!! WE'RE ONLY A 6TH TO 10TH PLACE TEAM IN THE WEST!! TROLOLOLOL!!!!!"

Get a grip. I watch the Canucks because they're a good team who plays good hockey and they're fun to watch. It's called entertainment. Not so I can go slash my wrists after a loss in December to a meaningless Eastern Conference team. And if some of you claim to be hardcore Canucks fans, why do you act like you've never followed them through the ups and downs of a season before? Even casual fans know this time of year is basically meh. Just keep things in perspective and you'll be much better off.
The difference is last season was an upward swinging work in progress. New guys in the lineup in key roles (Ballard and Hamhuis). It was a process that you could see improving game by game. Guys were working hard, playing structured hockey for the most part and coming up short. This year's team has relied on its forwards (and to a lesser extent, goaltending) to do everything. The defense has looked questionable, and the progress they've made since the beginning of the season sort of jumps back and forth-- doesn't exactly inspire confidence for down the road. Personally, I don't think the record (which is progressing well) has been indicative of the team's play so far. We relied on great goaltending for a stretch, and we won games against weak teams for another stretch, but otherwise have not played all that well.

This team as it is could dominate the play and hem the opposition in their own end for entire games and it wouldn't surprise you if they still come out with a loss due to spotty defense.

I wouldn't encourage people to lose their **** over it either, but to expect everyone to not be the slightest bit concerned about the team's chances in the playoffs because everything will just work themselves out because they always do (in different circumstances) is dumb.

Unless someone in the bottom 3 step up and play like a legitimately solid top 4 defenseman and actually support Salo, Hamhuis, and Edler, I think Gillis needs to bring in a piece for the back end.


Last edited by Shareefruck: 12-16-2011 at 03:42 PM.
Shareefruck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 04:17 PM
  #97
Zippgunn
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lhuntshi
Country: Bhutan
Posts: 235
vCash: 500
Brutal defence again in this game. Schneider was solid; can't understand why anybody would rag on him for his performance tonight. The save on Ballard was a great one but I guess AV won't ridicule him publicly because his name isn't Kyle Wellwood. People whining about the refs have already forgotton the non-call on Higgins in CBJ that allowed us to escape there with a point. People complaining about non calls to the Canes are directed to the game against Ottawa where diving basically won us the game (Burrows, Kesler). I say blame the Bruins, Hawks and the CBC. That's what all the "true Canuck fans" seem to be doing.

Zippgunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 04:32 PM
  #98
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post

Unless someone in the bottom 3 step up and play like a legitimately solid top 4 defenseman and actually support Salo, Hamhuis, and Edler, I think Gillis needs to bring in a piece for the back end.
Not sure what you are talking about here.

Bieksa has been excellent for well over a month and Ballard has been good for the past 10-12 games as well (this while mostly playing on the right side with a crap partner).

The team is 7th over all on the PK and over all goals against, and that's with absolute crap goaltending for the first 10 games of the season. I'm sure we have been top5 in both categories over the past 15 games.

As far as the team making "steady progress" aren't they 9-3-2 in their past 14, or 8-2-2 in their past 12?

Again... insane expectations.

Potatoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 04:42 PM
  #99
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zippgunn View Post
Brutal defence again in this game. Schneider was solid; can't understand why anybody would rag on him for his performance tonight. The save on Ballard was a great one but I guess AV won't ridicule him publicly because his name isn't Kyle Wellwood. People whining about the refs have already forgotton the non-call on Higgins in CBJ that allowed us to escape there with a point. People complaining about non calls to the Canes are directed to the game against Ottawa where diving basically won us the game (Burrows, Kesler). I say blame the Bruins, Hawks and the CBC. That's what all the "true Canuck fans" seem to be doing.
You can't blame the refs for the loss, but you can blame them for being absolutely incompetent. There were terrible calls and non-calls ,both ways, all night. If you are satisfied with the way they do their job then your standards for supposed "professionals" is extremely low.

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2011, 05:00 PM
  #100
Zippgunn
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lhuntshi
Country: Bhutan
Posts: 235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
You can't blame the refs for the loss, but you can blame them for being absolutely incompetent. There were terrible calls and non-calls ,both ways, all night. If you are satisfied with the way they do their job then your standards for supposed "professionals" is extremely low.
So then you'll admit that it was the refs incompetence that helped earn us a point in Columbus the other night by refusing to call Higgins on his blatant trip which resulted in him setting up Lappy for the tying goal, right?

Zippgunn 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 10:46 PM.

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.