To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).

Does anyone care about the Canucks?

edited April 2008 in General
Is anyone on here sad that the Canucks didn't make it to the playoffs? It really doesn't seem like it... Personally I'm more worried about final exams then I am about the Canucks, but I still feel bad for em ahha
«1

Comments

  • edited April 2008
    we kinda sidetracked in the other thread and got to it, but yes, im kinda choked the nucks didnt make it, but not surprised
  • edited April 2008
    They didn't deserve to make it.

    They needed a good kick in the ass, hopefully this will be it. Next season they better get their act together. It's not like they don't have the talent. They just have to start playing to their potential. If they'd squeaked in, they would have continued to lie to themselves about their performance. This should open their eyes.

    I hope they don't go and do anything stupid like firing Vigneault.
  • edited April 2008
    Last year I was pretty bummed after Game 4 vs. Anaheim (I'm an emotional person, I cry, haha), but this season I didn't really care after the 82nd game. All I was concerned about was Linden -- favourite player in the league growing up, and likely always will be. The ovation and respect from the fans/Flames was unbelievable.
    I think after all the changes in the off-season, we'll see a stronger team up-front. I hate to say it, but Luongo obviously wasn't as keen on playing into the Spring as he was last season. That was a difference maker right there.
  • edited April 2008
    Morro;26355 said:

    I hope they don't go and do anything stupid like firing Vigneault.
    Im all for firing vigneault, crawford did a much better job at being a coach. How can some1 who made Linden a healthy scratch most of the season deserve to stay? This team need to be totally rebuilt around sum key players.
  • edited April 2008
    not anymore.. i've lost much of the respect i have for them after seeing them play like sh*t this season.. but i (we) still love linden.. =)
  • edited April 2008
    lazyGUY;26359 said:
    Im all for firing vigneault, crawford did a much better job at being a coach. How can some1 who made Linden a healthy scratch most of the season deserve to stay? This team need to be totally rebuilt around sum key players.

    You don't go from being Coach of the Year to being fired. He made mistakes but he admitted to them (Luongo, in particular). I wouldn't fire Vigneault at this point, at least he's not causing a fuss in the locker room like Crow did.
  • edited April 2008
    i never liked vigneault from the beginning..i was a huge fan of crawford

    but as for luongo, i think hes leaving in 2 years unless the canucks have a good playoff run next season
  • edited April 2008
    Don't really care about them. They didnt really try.
  • edited April 2008
    Vigneault makes the Canucks play boring hockey. I would almost rather have a coach like Crawford and lose every game than watch another season of dump and chase.

    This is part of the reason Naslund sucked so much in the last few seasons.
  • edited April 2008
    Crawford is a joke lol
  • edited April 2008
    Ether;26381 said:
    Vigneault makes the Canucks play boring hockey. I would almost rather have a coach like Crawford and lose every game than watch another season of dump and chase.

    This is part of the reason Naslund sucked so much in the last few seasons.
    That's a ridiculous thing to say.
  • edited April 2008
    Triple;26383 said:
    Crawford is a joke lol
    haha u realize that wen crawford was the coach, the canucks were almost as good as they were back in the Bure era?? I agree with ether, there new style is sooo boring
    I only watched like half of this seasons games. I like the way montreal plays. There games are always more exciting.
    O ya.. are they finally switching the retarded scheduling or wut??? im sik of watching canucks vs. minnesota every week
  • edited April 2008
    hockey what ??????

    i wonder if we had a team that actually got far in the finals or won often if i would be interested in hockey, but even then probably not
  • edited April 2008
    nicole;26384 said:
    That's a ridiculous thing to say.
    Is it?

    I'm serious. I would rather see the team play a wide open, fun style of hockey. The most exciting games this season were the ones where the players got physical and stopped playing "the system". Sure, the scores were high on both sides and Luongo's precious save percentage probably took a hit, but it was entertaining.
  • edited April 2008
    I suppose you're in favour of larger nets? Smaller goalie equipment? Hey, if more goals add that all-important entertainment factor, I guess we should change the game entirely.

    I'd rather see this team succeed playing a tight, defensive-style game. I completely understand that there were a lack of goals, but if a team also lacks in goal-scorers and has, what should have been, one of the best defensive cores in the league, you don't have much of a choice but to play defensively.

    The only thing I couldn't stand about Vigneault was when he chose to defend the lead and play the trap. Otherwise, I have no complaints. This core group had a pretty great work ethic last season, and for most of this season.
  • edited April 2008
    I think pad size shud be reduced as it wudnt be as drastic as makin the nets smaller. Goalies would be have a small increase in speed/agility so the increase in goals wont be a huge difference.
    I don't like Nonis much either but i hate the ppl that criticize him over not gettin a "goal-scorer" b4 the deadline. If we wanted to aqquire Richards or Hossa, we would have to give up sum of our players too. Ppl dont seem to understand...
  • edited April 2008
    I suppose you're in favour of larger nets? Smaller goalie equipment? Hey, if more goals add that all-important entertainment factor, I guess we should change the game entirely.
    No, of course not. I think you misunderstood me. It's not really the number of goals that are scored that makes the games fun to watch. It's the open style of play that provides the entertainment when teams are going on end to end rushes and getting good scoring chances.

    The way I see it is this: A hockey team has two obligations to me as a fan.

    1. To win
    2. To provide entertainment

    Personally, I value the second one more. (and right now, the Canucks can't seem to fulfill either)

    Remember back when we had a "big line", when Crawford was coaching? Every time we got around to playing Minnesota, people would groan and complain because the games were boring. The Wild were a defensive, trapping team that was just not fun to watch. Now, the Canucks are probably not as bad as Minnesota was, but you can see where I'm going with this. I just want to watch some entertaining hockey.
  • edited April 2008
    Ether;26381 said:
    Vigneault makes the Canucks play boring hockey. I would almost rather have a coach like Crawford and lose every game than watch another season of dump and chase.

    This is part of the reason Naslund sucked so much in the last few seasons.
    naslund's decline was attributed more to his obvious lack of confidence and eroding skill set, than the style of play vigneault preached
  • edited April 2008
    lazyGUY;26399 said:
    I don't like Nonis much either
    care to elaborate? given the hand he was dealt i think he's done a pretty good job, not perfect but still pretty good imo
  • edited April 2008
    imelting;26404 said:
    care to elaborate? given the hand he was dealt i think he's done a pretty good job, not perfect but still pretty good imo
    He seems like a manager thats afraid of change. Hes gunna eventually find 1 formula and stick to it.
  • edited April 2008
    Ether;26402 said:
    No, of course not. I think you misunderstood me. It's not really the number of goals that are scored that makes the games fun to watch. It's the open style of play that provides the entertainment when teams are going on end to end rushes and getting good scoring chances.

    The way I see it is this: A hockey team has two obligations to me as a fan.

    1. To win
    2. To provide entertainment

    Personally, I value the second one more. (and right now, the Canucks can't seem to fulfill either)

    Remember back when we had a "big line", when Crawford was coaching? Every time we got around to playing Minnesota, people would groan and complain because the games were boring. The Wild were a defensive, trapping team that was just not fun to watch. Now, the Canucks are probably not as bad as Minnesota was, but you can see where I'm going with this. I just want to watch some entertaining hockey.
    And I think you misunderstood me as well. The argument for larger nets and smaller goalie equipment is that they will provide more entertainment...wasn't the greatest example, but you see my point.

    I do remember when we had the "big line", but I also remember when we had Cloutier. Sure, it was fun to watch, but did we ever have a strong chance of making it the finals? This team has areas it definitely needs to address, but with a legitimate centre or two, I have no doubt that they could get deep playing this style. You start from the back end, and we have a star...defense is fantastic when hot, and this off-season will be about finishing the forwards off. Entertaining or not, winning comes first and foremost for me. I rarely saw people complaining last season when they were winning...just all of a sudden emerges when we don't make the playoffs.
  • edited April 2008
    lazyGUY;26409 said:
    He seems like a manager thats afraid of change. Hes gunna eventually find 1 formula and stick to it.
    He fucking traded away Bertuzzi for Luongo. Blockbuster trade of the off-season = not afraid of change.
  • edited April 2008
    nicole;26411 said:
    He fucking traded away Bertuzzi for Luongo. Blockbuster trade of the off-season = not afraid of change.
    and considering the asking price on guys like richards, jokinen and what not this past season, im glad he didnt make a move

    i think they reported that teams were askin for both sedins + kesler + edler kinda package
  • edited April 2008
    nicole;26410 said:
    I do remember when we had the "big line", but I also remember when we had Cloutier. Sure, it was fun to watch, but did we ever have a strong chance of making it the finals? This team has areas it definitely needs to address, but with a legitimate centre or two, I have no doubt that they could get deep playing this style. You start from the back end, and we have a star...defense is fantastic when hot, and this off-season will be about finishing the forwards off. Entertaining or not, winning comes first and foremost for me. I rarely saw people complaining last season when they were winning...just all of a sudden emerges when we don't make the playoffs.
    i :heart:
    well said

    and the whole net/equipment situation, having more strict rules in place is prob the next step in regards to equipment sizes, but the nhl shouldnt mess with the net sizes
  • edited April 2008
    nicole;26411 said:
    He fucking traded away Bertuzzi for Luongo. Blockbuster trade of the off-season = not afraid of change.
    LOL.. who wasnt expecting Bertuzzi to leave.. I thought it was a pretty fair trade considering Bertuzzi was at a highpoint in his career b4 the whole spine-breaking incident.
    .....and i'm a fan of luongo, he's wuts anchoring the team rite now but he isnt the best goalie in the league either
    all in all.. i though it wasnt that much of a blockbuster trade as a lot of teams wud have wanted Bertuzzi.
    Now wut was a blockbuster trade was Washington acquiring Huet.. That was one hell of a deal on Washingtons side.
  • edited April 2008
    I'm not sure if you understand the term blockbuster.

    Who would you say is the best goaltender in the league? All stats aside.
  • edited April 2008
    fair trade? lol dude.. we stole luongo from florida, by packaging media circus/cancer away
  • edited April 2008
    Ya i get wut a blockbuster trade is but im just saying that Bertuzzi on our team was kind of the equivalant of havin luongo on our team now.
    Wen we had Bertuzzi we did hav one of the best scoring lines in the league, which obviously was a benefit to the team. Now we have Luongo and we have one of the best goalies in the league which is also a benefit. but can i not say that the benefit Bertuzzi provided was greater?? Our team did great with that lineup, even though we had a mediocre goalie in Cloutier.
    Now the trade was big but im just saying it was fair as no team really benefited from each player.
    And a side note, u guys think that the canucks ownership can be fan-based? like Real Madrid in soccer
  • edited April 2008
    nicole;26457 said:
    I'm not sure if you understand the term blockbuster.

    Who would you say is the best goaltender in the league? All stats aside.
    brodeur
  • edited April 2008
    Triple;26470 said:
    brodeur
    Ya i was gunna say that too..clearly Brodeur is the best in the league
    Id even put Hasek in front of Luongo

Leave a Comment