| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Guest4306
( )
|
 Posted - 11/20/2011 : 10:53:54
|
In a recent interview, Marc Recchi had this to say about the Bruins opponent in last season's Stanley Cup Final, this opponent being the Canucks of course.
"In 22 years, they are the most arrogant team I played against and the most hated team I've ever played against. I couldn't believe their antics, their falling and diving. It was very frustrating, but at the same time as the series wore on we knew we were getting to them and we knew our physical play and our skating (would too). I think it caught them off guard a little bit."
|
|
|
Guest9184
( )
|
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 14:27:53
|
| well sounds like that loser recci is even more arrogant! |
 |
|
|
Guest8032
( )
|
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 18:16:25
|
| GO NUCKS!!!! |
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 18:34:25
|
| people hate canucks fans, some of them(not all) are just so god damn arrogant. |
|
|
|
Guest6318
( )
|
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 18:39:35
|
| The Canucks are the best team! They will rebound from this rocky start, every Canucks fan must believe!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest4779
( )
|
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 02:44:56
|
the comment above mine is [Mod Edit-Please watch the language] hilarious if he was sarcastic. But if he was serious he is a delusional person. This is assuming that he is a he and not a woman.
But being from Vancouver, I must say Vancouver fans ([Mod Edit-Offensive Language]as I call them) are the most entitled fans ever. They act as they won 7 cups in the last 8 years, and that they are a dynasty. The truth is the overall track record of the Canucks is failure, in 40 make it to the cup finals twice (as the Canucks) and fail both times. Vancouver fans have a delusion of grandeur and I have no idea where it comes from.
So seeing what Recchi said about them is totally understandable, and for some people who think Recchi is whining or a wash up...He won the cup and the Canucks didn't. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/21/2011 08:22:29 |
|
|
|
Guest2292
( )
|
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 05:25:24
|
s I canuck fan where I live, not in Canada, I take a lot of flack for being a fan. I have always been a fan and have seen just as many other people love and care about their teams as I do for the canucks. I'm not sure why people say we are arrogant. I have followed the team through countless s***ty teams and what seemed like 100's of goalies that came thru between McLean and luongo many of which were major letdowns. But no one can deny that the canucks have been one of the most dominant teams in hockey in the last few years. Back to back art Ross trophies and hart plus many more.
Also if you are going to call us [Mod Edit-Offensive Language]and use "facts" to back up your opinions then get them right:
"The truth is the overall track record of the Canucks is failure, in 40 make it to the cup finals twice (as the Canucks) and fail both times. Vancouver fans have a delusion of grandeur and I have no idea where it comes from."
The canucks have made the finals 3 times 1982, 1994 and 2010 of which two of those went 7 games. Despite the losses there are not many teams in recent years that can say they have been to the cup finals twice in 20 years and I am pretty sure they will do it again this year!
Go Nucks!
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/21/2011 08:23:18 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 08:41:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2292
Also if you are going to call us [Mod Edit-Offensive Language]and use "facts" to back up your opinions then get them right:
"The truth is the overall track record of the Canucks is failure, in 40 make it to the cup finals twice (as the Canucks) and fail both times. Vancouver fans have a delusion of grandeur and I have no idea where it comes from."
The canucks have made the finals 3 times 1982, 1994 and 2010 of which two of those went 7 games. Despite the losses there are not many teams in recent years that can say they have been to the cup finals twice in 20 years and I am pretty sure they will do it again this year!
Go Nucks!
I won't call you names but I will call you on this. If you want to challenge someone for not using facts, you should use facts yourself. There have been 10 teams that have made the finals at least twice in the past 20 years and would be 12 teams if we look back 21 years. It's not as if going to the finals twice in 20 years is an elite action. Detroit(6), New Jersey(4), and Pittsburgh(4) have been in 14 of the last 20 Cup finals combined. That is impressive. The list of teams with 2 apperances include Anaheim, Carolina, Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, and Philly along with Vancouver. And as I said, if you look back just one more year you could add both Edmonton and Boston as 2 time Cup appearance teams. That's very close to 1/2 of the league.
Again, if you want to challenge someone for not using facts, be sure to use them yourself. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 11:03:23
|
Getting back to Recchi's comments, I was a bit surprised to hear his comments about the Canucks. Players (even when retired) usually do not speak so candidly.
But Recchi made some controversial comments last season when his teammate, Zdeno Chara, put Habs players Max Pacioretty into the turnbuckle. Here's an excerpt of Recchi's comments afterwards: “When there’s an injury that’s… You know he does have a fractured vertebra, but the concussion was obviously really a non-factor. I believe, yeah, they were trying to get Zdeno suspended and they embellished it a little bit.”
These comments seem(ed) a bit out of character for Recchi, but I think his more recent comments (made about the Canucks) are interesting.
I will say this about arrogant teams, and I don't really know the extent of the Canucks' arrogance as described by Recchi, but I believe it exists to a point. You never want to give your opponent additional motivation to beat you! And I do believe Recchi's comment that the Bruin players hated the Canucks.
I was a big fan of the Oilers in the 80's, but in looking back to their early years (before they won their first cup), they believed their own press clippings. (That they were a great team already.) The truth is that they whined a bit too much on the ice, and they were arrogant at times. Imagine booing another team's power play? They did this with LA in the 1982 playoffs, and LA went on to win their best-of-five series, staging a miracle comeback in game 3. (Down 5-0 by the end of the 2nd period, and coming back to win 6-5.)
I believe the Oilers were a bit arrogant coming into their first cup final. The Islanders absolutely despised them. The Oilers lost this series 4 games straight, and learned lessons in defeat. (One lesson was learned when they walked by the Islanders dressing room after the cup finals, and found little celebration, but lots of players nursing wounds.)
The Oilers matured after that, and they won 5 cups along the way! Sure, some teams hated them (the Flames for sure), but they respected them too, and the Oilers early swagger turned into a more understated confidence.
There's a saying in football which goes something like this, "when you catch a touchdown pass, act like you've been there before." And this applies in all sport. Confidence and celebration are one thing (actually two things), but there's a lot to be said about being humble. There's enough motivation in sport to beat the other team, but there's no need to give your opponent extra motivation. And if you don't believe it's a factor, ask the 1982 LA Kings, or ask the 80's Islanders. Or you can ask Mark Recchi, because sure enough, he will tell you! |
|
|
|
mandree888
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
400 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 13:23:00
|
i hae no problem with the canucks. i do however think they are very boring to watch..... feel free to rip me apart for that canuck fans..... just one persons opinion...
i was and am embarassed to be a canadian after the display their fans put on after loosing the cup though..........
i am a real leaf fan. i know they wont win a cup i like em anyway! ~true leafs fans |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 14:08:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by mandree888
i hae no problem with the canucks. i do however think they are very boring to watch..... feel free to rip me apart for that canuck fans..... just one persons opinion...
I've heard a lot of things said about the Canucks, but "boring to watch" is not one of them. They're one of the fastest and most offensively dynamic teams in the NHL right now. What exactly do you find "boring" about them? |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 14:19:24
|
Ho hum , heard all this stuff before. Could care less what other teams think of the Canucks really. I didn't see any players from other teams throwing the Bruins any parties for their cup win, did you? lol.
I'm not even sure how a team can be "arrogant". What exactly did the Canucks do to be "arrogant"? I'd love to know exactly what Recchi means by this? Were the Canucks texting him when they were up 2 games to none and rubbing it in? Surely we'd have heard about this? I can accept the fact that the Canucks were despised for some/many of their antics (biting, diving, etc), but i really don't get how that translates to arrogance? |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 14:23:37
|
Oh no Nux, I completely agree with Mandree on this one and I have said it in the past. The Canucks are one of the most boring teams in the league to watch play. They play a hybrid trapping system that stiffles the neutral zone and really slows down the play. Further, unless the name Sedin on Kesler is on the back of the jersey, there is little to no creativity on the ice with or without the puck. Offensively dynamic?? Get the puck to a Sedin and get out of the way is far from offensively dynamic in my opinion.
Nope, the Canucks are not an exciting team to watch at all. Very painful to watch in fact, unless you are a fan of that team. Just to make certain I don't get attacked by all those fickle Canuck fans, up until this season I would have also said the Oilers are one of the most boring teams to watch play as well. They are just my team so I watch them. I am calling a spade a spade. I know that not every team can be Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, San Jose or Washington, but Vancouver is in the same place in my books as Montreal, Nashville, and Minnesota as the worst teams to watch for entertainment value.
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 20:59:50
|
don't worry beans, no one is going to attack you - everyone is entitled to an opinion. Still, I believe that this is the first time I've ever heard the Canucks style of play characterized as "boring".
It is certainly not to me - a team that breaks out of their own end with speed, utilizes the defense extensively to attack, creates plenty of scoring chances, and is able to backcheck effectively in order to create turnovers and use a very quick and effective transition game to create more offense - is fun to watch. |
|
|
|
FutureKesler
Rookie
Canada
122 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 21:30:44
|
I personaley feel that most teams in the NHL are against the Canucks because they aren't that physical, yet teams like Pitsburgh get plenty of love because of their skilled players. Why is it not the same for teh Canucks? Perhaps Jealousy of our great team?
Ryan Kesler is a BEAST! |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 00:45:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
They play a hybrid trapping system that stiffles the neutral zone and really slows down the play.
Lol....i think i need to go back to "hockey school" to even understand what this is? "Hybrid trapping system"??? WTF? C'mon Beans, really? The HIGHEST scoring team in the league last year? 2nd highest the year before? What in the world is a hybrid trap, cuz i'd say a few more teams should consider it, if that's the results.
Sorry, but hate a team, then throw in a "my team is boring too" comment, doesn't have me fooled. Your Canuck hatred shines thru....but nice try. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 09:27:36
|
C'mon Alex. WTF?? You are smarter than that! You, as a bright and knowledgable hockey fan should realize that the trap has nothing to do with offensive output! You should be smart enough to know that another highly offensive team has been a proponent for a type of trap for years, that team being the Detroit Red Wings and the left wing lock system. Who cares where the Canucks were in scoring?? That has nothing to do with a trap. The fact that Vancouver transitions the puck better than other trapping teams and, as Nux stated, use their defensive stops to convert to offense very well does not mean they do not still use a form of the trap. Where was Vancouver in the defensive catagories last season???
Watch your next Vancouver Canuck game and tell me how often you see a 2 skater forecheck when they have a 1-2 goal lead?? Tell me when that have that 1-2 goal lead how often they have 4 players in the neutral zone. Then, tell me they do not use a form of the trap.
This has nothing to do with my hatred of the Canucks. They are not exciting to watch. That's my opinion. It has nothing to do with who I like or who I don't like. I personally like Nashville, Minnesota, and New Jersey but I hate watching all of those teams as well.
But, nice try. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 14:17:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
C'mon Alex. WTF?? You are smarter than that! You, as a bright and knowledgable hockey fan should realize that the trap has nothing to do with offensive output! You should be smart enough to know that another highly offensive team has been a proponent for a type of trap for years, that team being the Detroit Red Wings and the left wing lock system. Who cares where the Canucks were in scoring?? That has nothing to do with a trap. The fact that Vancouver transitions the puck better than other trapping teams and, as Nux stated, use their defensive stops to convert to offense very well does not mean they do not still use a form of the trap. Where was Vancouver in the defensive catagories last season???
Watch your next Vancouver Canuck game and tell me how often you see a 2 skater forecheck when they have a 1-2 goal lead?? Tell me when that have that 1-2 goal lead how often they have 4 players in the neutral zone. Then, tell me they do not use a form of the trap.
This has nothing to do with my hatred of the Canucks. They are not exciting to watch. That's my opinion. It has nothing to do with who I like or who I don't like. I personally like Nashville, Minnesota, and New Jersey but I hate watching all of those teams as well.
But, nice try.
Clearly then, i'm not what you think i am, that being "a bright and knowledgeable hockey fan".  I did ask you what you meant by "hybrid trap", showing further my lack of knowledge in regards to hockey. In all seriousness though, what team consistently employs 2 forecheckers in the offensive zone when up a couple goals? I can only argue that 99% of the teams in the NHL play some sort of "hybrid trap", especially when up a goal or two, even more so, when leading late. My argument was actually to do more with the comment that they are "boring to watch". I simply don't understand how one of the highest scoring teams in the league can be "boring to watch".
If you can use your brightness and knowledge to explain that, fire away! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 14:51:50
|
Before I easily answer your question, I would like to ask you what your intended your the following statement to mean. To mean, you are implying that because the Canucks are a high scoring team they do not employ a trap. If I am wrong, please correct me:
"Hybrid trapping system"??? WTF? C'mon Beans, really? The HIGHEST scoring team in the league last year? 2nd highest the year before?
Secondly, to answer your question. I personally do not think that 'high scoring' equals 'exciting.' I enjoy low scoring games as much as high scoring games. What I like watching is creative play, risk taking both offensively and defensively, and talented players. With the exception of the Sedins and Kesler, I don't see much of that with Canuck players. I also don't see that in many NHL teams.
Without getting into a debate about who is more exciting that who, I personally prefer to watch a team like Chicago or San Jose who have unique offensive systems that often include pushing a 4th player (a defenseman) into the rush. This produces more offensive chances and also opportunities the other way. I like watching teams like Washington, Philly, and Pittsburgh who have talent all the way though their line-ups and are incredibly creative with the puck. Believe it or not, I like watching Toronto play because they are (to me) the team who take more risks offensively and defensively than an other team in the NHL. Los Angeles is also a fun team to watch because of they risks they take in their game.
I don't like watching teams like Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Minnesota, Nashville, etc. They play canned hockey. They are pedestrian. I am not arguing if it is effective or not. I am arguing the entertainment value. I don't think they are entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Guest0065
( )
|
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 15:48:12
|
| Well vancouver had one of the highest scoring defences last year due to the fact their d men jumped into the rush so you clearly dont watch enough canucks games.. Maybe they dont do that against the oilers but for the most part our dmen jump into the rush alot which is areason why we were the highest scoring team.. If you beleive they are boring that is fine but your facts dont back it up.. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 19:53:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0065
Well vancouver had one of the highest scoring defences last year due to the fact their d men jumped into the rush so you clearly dont watch enough canucks games.. Maybe they dont do that against the oilers but for the most part our dmen jump into the rush alot which is areason why we were the highest scoring team.. If you beleive they are boring that is fine but your facts dont back it up..
Weak. You are going to talk facts without any of your own?? Do you have proof on how may points the Canucks defenders had from 2nd assists our of their end vs goals or assits from scoring in the offensive end?? How about how many of those points were produced on the PP??
I never used facts. I used my eyes to tell me my opinions. Where are your facts?? Due to the fact the jump up in the play. What makes that a fact?? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 21:21:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I never used facts. I used my eyes to tell me my opinions. Where are your facts?? Due to the fact the jump up in the play. What makes that a fact??
Which is really why arguing this point is fruitless, and why I didn't bother trying - its entirely opinion based. There are very few (easily obtainable) facts here either way, we all watch games and appreciate different things. Beans thinks the Canucks are boring, others think they're exciting to watch. Nuff said.
I do believe (as Alex says) that most teams employ some form of neutral zone trap - you can argue the varying degrees of that trap, but frankly, I don't think that the Canucks are amongst the worst offenders in the NHL in that group - they are an extremely tenacious forechecking team with at least one and often two players forcing the opposing team out of their end. They are also defensively responsible, which means lots of bodies in the neutral zone when they lose possession in the offensive zone and come back to defend/force a turnover. They are a fast team, so full trapping does not serve them well.
quote:
I personally prefer to watch a team like Chicago or San Jose who have unique offensive systems that often include pushing a 4th player (a defenseman) into the rush. This produces more offensive chances and also opportunities the other way
What is unique about CHI or SJ offensive systems? Especially adding defensemen to the rush - the Canucks play this way as well, and often employ a trailing defenseman to create a 4-on-2 or 3-on-1, many a goal is scored out of that play. You can argue about goals vs first assists vs second assists, but the fact remains that they had one of the highest scoring defensive groups in the NHL last year - which would indicate that their defense get involved in the play quite often. VAN, SJ, and CHI defensive group scoring differed by less than 10 points last year. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 11/22/2011 22:35:23 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 21:36:55
|
Beans, obviously we're dealing with a difference in opinions as far as what is exciting hockey. I too enjoy a skilled, well played, close game, even if it were 1-0 with a bunch of outstanding saves. However, if that EXACT same game were offered to me where there were 8 less saves, but still the great playmaking, end to end hockey, etc, with a 5-4 outcome, i'd be more entertained still. But, maybe that's just me?
As for your question, i'm not about to say the Canucks never employ a trap, but certainly not to the extent of the Lemaire coached teams in Minny and NJ in past years. In fact, as i eluded to, i think you'd be hard pressed to find any team that "never" uses the trap. Case in point, tonight's LA / St Louis game. I was lucky enough to get home in time for the 3rd period and even more lucky to see the Kings get a lead early in the period AND another lead with just under 5 mins as well (after the Blues had tied it). You'd never guess what i saw! One forchecker, and three guys in the neutral zone! Surprise surprise, both times they employed "the trap". Or maybe it was a "hybrid trap", though i still haven't been taught what exactly that is. |
|
|
|
Guest4115
( )
|
Posted - 11/23/2011 : 17:18:01
|
| People hate them because there one of the best teams in the nhl |
|
|
|
Guest4306
( )
|
Posted - 11/23/2011 : 19:52:51
|
Guest4115 makes a very interesting comment, that people dislike the Canucks because they are one of the best teams in the NHL.
I've watched hockey for decades, and while the "home team" bias exists (I.e. fans of the Leafs, despite lack of success), I've rarely met a hockey fan (a real fan of the game) who likes bad hockey, or bad hockey teams.
Looking back at the past 30-40 years (not a small sampling), there are a number of teams which qualify as great (or very good) teams! The 70's Bruins and Habs come to mind, and so do the early 80's Islanders! And the Oilers of the 80's must register as one of the best teams of all time! Thereafter, the Penguins were a good team (with Lemieux et al), as were the Av's, Wings, Devils in the 90's and early 00's.
And in the new millennium, and after the lockout (with better league parity), the new Penguins (with Crosby and cast), and Chicago are two of many very good teams, but we're not talking dynasties here.
And getting back to the Canucks - they've been a very good team the last 3-4 years, but until they win the big prize, they're not in a category of the great teams envied by fans who despise (for whatever reason) teams which exhibit greatness on ice!
And my last point - why (except for home town bias) would anyone watch a sport, and believe "their" team is the best of all teams? I understand and appreciate fans who stick with "their" team through thick and thin, but if you're a fan of the game, you gotta take the blinders off sometimes. I have no problem whatsoever with fans who say they love this team or that team, but when you say "people have it in for your team," or that "your team is the best," your objectivity is suspect.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2011 : 21:15:56
|
Great post 4306 (you really ought to sign up, it's pretty easy)
I don't think for a second that the Canucks are hated by very many due to them being one of the better teams. Sure, there's prob a handful of people out there who's team constantly loses to the Canucks (in the past 4 or 5 years lets say?) but you make a great point with the fact that they've never won the big prize! As a Canucks fan, i hated the Oilers of the 80's, mostly because of their continued success! As a hockey fan, i did, and still do respect how talented they were as a team and admire the success they had, but i HATED them! Lol.
I def think it's got a lot to do with their players, both past and present. First and foremost, they've had their share of "pest like" players / agitators. Matt Cooke and Jarko Ruutu are / were two of the most hated players in the league for a time, and possibly still are! Burrows is a funny one. I know for a fact that some non Canuck fans hate him partially because of the success he's had. As a pest, he was just that, but now that he's found success and put up decent numbers, some hate him more!!! Add Lapierre into the mix.....see my point?
It doesn't stop there either. It's hard for many, especially Canadian hockey fans, to embrace the Canucks due to the lack of Canadian stars on the team. The Sedin's are great, and i'm sure the Canucks are prob popular in Sweden because of them, but Canadian hockey fans don't identify with them. That issue has been brought up in other posts like the recent one regarding the lack of Canucks jersey's you see with Sedin on the back!
That brings us to Luongo. Although he backstopped Canada to a gold, he's not an easy guy to love. Be it the "C" he wore, or just his general attitude, he's a guy who's easy to love when he's winning games, but quite the opposite when he's not playing well. This guy could have his own personal bandwagon for crying out loud!!!
Add in a hate for Kesler, be it fair or not, that many have, and you quickly see how this team is not loved outside of BC by many, except for the transplants you see in Phoenix!
Back in '94, i'm guessing there was a higher percentage of Canadian hockey fans behind the Canucks in the final than there was this year. Simply put, Linden, Bure, Maclean, etc, were far easier to like! Of course, many cheer for the underdog, which obviously fit them that year, as well.
As far as the whole "my team is best" thing, it's like an opinion. Well, actually, fact is, it is an opinion. Really, who was the best team last season? We all know who won the Cup, but were they necessarily the best team? No. But it's tough to prove. You'll find many Canucks fans claiming Vancouver was the best team by finishing first overall over 82 games. It's a fair argument, but there's far too many intangibles. Did Boston or Washington or any other team play the exact same teams as Vancouver? Of course not. From a Canucks standpoint, did Boston, etc have to travel as much? No, of course not. What i'm trying to say is, it's impossible to say who the best team was. Well, last year anyway. I'm not gonna deny the 70's Habs and 80's Oilers and Isles the fact they were the best!  Another analogy would be this.....until his wife went after him with one of his clubs, Tiger Woods was undeniabley the best golfer on the planet. BUT, he didn't win every time he played, right?
Anyway, i've babble enough.... Like i said, you (guest 4306) should sign up! |
|
|
|
Guest0829
( )
|
Posted - 11/23/2011 : 21:16:12
|
beans you are an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2011 : 21:17:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0829
beans you are an idiot.
Clearly you should NOT sign up, if that's all you have to contribute.  |
|
|
|
mandree888
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
400 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 05:52:23
|
| i admit i havent watched to many games that the canucks play. as a leafs fan i dont tune in to very many other games. in fact i primarily only watch the leafs but when i was watching the cup sereies last year i found it very hard to pay attention it was borring as crap. but what realy makes me not want to be fan of the nucks is the way SOME of the fans reacted to the losss of the cup. i have no interest to be associated with that kind of shinanigans. so its not the i hate the players they are incredibly talented. Boring to watch..........but talented. i guess what im triing to say is the fans that rioted and destroyed vancouver have a left a sour taste in my mouth. i'm not saying all fans of the canucks or hooligans. but the ones that are have ruined any chance of me being a fan of the canucks. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 08:28:20
|
mandree....this sort of reprehensive behaviour, which was discussed at length here following the riots, is a very unfortunate event that put a very bad black mark on the Canucks team/organization, and their fans. It's not at all fair to blame all Canucks fans for this and it's especially not fair to blame the team. For one, this stuff was gonna happen win or lose, so how could the team have prevented it. Second, even if it weren't to happen with a cup win, is it fair to blame the Canucks cuz they lost???
This event and the blame for it, after all i've read and has been reported around here, falls on the city of Vancouver and it's police. They were simply unprepared and had a "no way this could happen, look how awesome the Olympic celebrations were" kind of attitude. The police force was ridiculously undermanned and there was little they could do when things escalated to the point it did.
To try to get back on topic, it's your right / opinion to hate/dislike the Canucks for whatever reason you may so i can't take that away from you, but to hate a team because of a bunch of hooligans, many of which were but many of which weren't hockey fans, is a little unfair.
Vancouver is not the only city this has happened in and i guess we'll need to wait for the Leafs to have some playoff success to see if anything similar happens in Toronto. As a hockey fan AND a Canadian citizen, i don't wish this on ANY city! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 08:51:21
|
Couple of things and I am trying to answer a few recent comments at one time. Firstly, as much as higher scoring does equal exciting, higher scoring does not equal boring either. I don't agree that a 6-5 game with everything I like in a hockey game is any better than a 2-1 game. But, to each their own.
To this trap question, perhaps I see things differently. What I see is the Canucks using a 2 and sometimes 3 player forecheck when they are down. What I do not see is a 2-3 player forecheck if they are up or even. On of the biggest strengths of the Canucks is their patience in their system. They do not sway from what works for them hardly at all. What works for them is jumbling up the neutral zone to force the other team to into turnovers or for the opposition to have to play dump and chase. This plays to the other incredible strength of Vancouver which is their ability to transition from defense to offense anywhere on the ice. Finally, their 3rd largest strength is their ability to cycle the puck which is the most common offensive strategy I see the Canucks employ.
Not saying any of those things are not effective. However, I personally believe that is very boring hockey to watch.
Finally, I agree that Vancouver's defense was high scoring last season. That is a fact. However, you can not statistically relate that to how often Vancouver's defensemen jump into the play. In fact, I think looking at defensive scoring last season it would be interested to see how many of those defensive points were produced on the PP and where Vancouver ranked on even strength points from the defense. However, that still would not indicate if the defensemen actually jump up in the play as one of Vancouver's strengths is how well they transition from their zone, which would also likely lead to defensemen getting assists on the breakout.
So, the fact that Vancouver had a high scoring defensive core proves nothing on how often they jump up in the play. It is purely visually where I see specifically San Jose and Chicago use one of their defensemen much like a forward on the rush. Visually, I see those two teams do that more than any other team, not just more than Vancouver.
|
|
|
|
mandree888
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
400 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 09:31:20
|
alex i agree it was going to happen wether they won or not. and fair enough i may be one of the biased people who were disgusted and emarassed to be canadian and i dont want to go around saying i am a fan and get labeled into that catagorie because i have seen it so many times with this situation. i have family who live out there who watch the games in secrete because they fear they will be labeled as hooligans. I did not mean to offend anyone with my post and if i did i am truly sorry. i did not mean to imply that all canuck fans are hooligans i did say it was SOME.
i also agree that IF (and its a big if) the leafs some how win a cup. there would most likely be the same kind of thing and then i would probably not watch another game because that kind of behaviour disgusts me with a passion. |
|
|
|
Guest7543
( )
|
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 09:52:56
|
| hockey fans in vancouver have alot of growing up to do. when your team looses have some dignity and don't trash your city like a bunch of spoiled children having a freak out tantrum. its happened twice now. you've lost alot of respect in canada and the world. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 10:09:20
|
Mandree....no offense taken. I def wasn't saying that you were lumping all of us Canucks fans into one, so no worries. Trust me, there's no one around here who i know, who's proud of what happened! My whole point was you're saying that you find it hard to be a fan of the Canucks because of "those", or as you put it "some", fans. I guess it makes sense in a way. No matter how much i liked, or didn't dislike, a team, i prob wouldn't be a fan if their fan base drove me nuts or annoyed me in some way!
Beans...
I'm not sure i agree / understand everything you're saying. The Canucks forecheck with 2 and sometimes 3 guys when they're down but only 1 when they're up? Again, i'm pretty sure this is the norm. Like i stated, i watched that LA game when they had the lead and they did exactly that. And they were one of the teams you said you enjoy watching? What i'm getting at is that i still think 99% of teams will alter their forechecking style depending on what point of the game it is and what the score is! Show me a team that sends 2 and 3 guys deep constantly when up a goal or two, especially late! And, not just once in the game because maybe the d was a little sloppy and didn't make a good pass in their zone! I just don't see ANY team doing this!
As far as their dmen jumping up into the rush, it does happen. Not always, but if you were the coach, would you encourage Andrew Alberts to be jumping up into the rush??? What i'm saying is, sure Chi, SJ and others have dmen jump into the rush as a forward, but so too do the Canucks, however, like all teams, they pick their spots. There's NO teams out there who have a dman as a 4th forward on every rush! Edler and Bieksa do this quite often, as did Ehrhoff last year! Ballard has been doing this this year, although last year he not only played sparingly, he didn't play well and was on a short leash, therefore took fewer chances offensively. The Blackhawks and Sharks have guys who do this fairly regularly as well. Guys like Keith, Seabrook, Campbell (last year) for the Hawks and Boyle, Demers and to some extend Vlasic for the Sharks would be these guys. But you're not gonna try to convince me that guys like Leddy, Hjalmarsson, Murray and Wallin are regularly doing this as well? Even if these guys did do this regularly, i'm not sure it'd be entertaining!
Every team has it's offensive and defensive dmen. On pretty much every team, the guys know their limits and their roles and play them pretty consistently. If you really don't see Bieksa, Edler, Ballard, Ehrhoff (last year) doing this, then i'm not sure what you're watching. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 11:55:28
|
Anyone that thinks the 2011 riots had anything to do with hockey probably does not live here. Vancouver has (perhaps more than any other city I've lived in) a very strong undercurrent of discontent and disenchantment running through it, and it takes any chance it can get to surface itself while in view of the world. We saw it early during the Olympics, but it was crushed pretty quickly then. We saw it again after game 7 - which was a riot that was going to happen regardless of the outcome of that game - that took longer to get under control. If you're a "professional rioter", or activist, when you have 100,000 passionate people crammed into a contained space, you'd be a fool not to take advantage of it. And they did.
@ Beans:
quote:
I don't agree that a 6-5 game with everything I like in a hockey game is any better than a 2-1 game. But, to each their own.
I agree, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. Exciting can come with lots of scoring or a little.
quote:
What I see is the Canucks using a 2 and sometimes 3 player forecheck when they are down. What I do not see is a 2-3 player forecheck if they are up or even
I don't see any team do that. What team is going to put 2 or 3 players into the offensive zone when they're up and don't have to score? And please don't say CHI or SJ, because they don't do it either. That would be irresponsible hockey, no coach is going to get their team to do that.
quote:
Finally, their 3rd largest strength is their ability to cycle the puck which is the most common offensive strategy I see the Canucks employ.
I agree, they do cycle the puck alot. This year I see them trying to get away from it a bit as its become predictable, but the Sedin's still employ a very effective cycle as their "go-to" play. However, I don't think that this is particularly boring, a good cycle that results in a scoring play is pretty nice to watch. However, you're entitled to your own opinion on the matter.
What I find interesting is how many other teams I now see employing a cycle out of the offensive corner. I don't know if teams saw the Sedin's do it and saw it could be effective, or it just evolved, but the cycle is not going away.
quote:
So, the fact that Vancouver had a high scoring defensive core proves nothing on how often they jump up in the play. It is purely visually where I see specifically San Jose and Chicago use one of their defensemen much like a forward on the rush
No, it does not - however, for a defensive group to get that many points, they have to be doing something other than feeding breakout passes to a forward and collecting a second assist.
I know you don't see many Canucks games, but you probably see enough to have an opinion of value in this regard, so I'm surprised that you don't see more of the Canuck defensemen joining offensive rushes. It happens so frequently that I notice when one of the rushers is NOT a defenseman. Very much like CHI.
And as for the PP, I think VAN has one of the most mobile PP units in the NHL today - they move the puck well, but they also move positionally during the PP, and its not uncommon to find a forward on the point because one of the dmen has pinched to keep the puck in or has moved in close for a backdoor goal. They get goals from a booming slapshot from the point, but they get a fair number of defenseman goals from side of the net tap-ins and faceoff-dot shots as well. Their defensemen have a permanent green light to play this way, and they do it well.
|
|
|
|
Guest4070
( )
|
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 13:06:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2292
"Despite the losses there are not many teams in recent years that can say they have been to the cup finals twice in 20 years
That is true...except for Pittsburgh (4X), Detroit (6X), NJ (3X, Boston (2X), Philly (2X), Chicago (2X), Dallas (2X, #x if you count the Starts when they were in Minni), Anaheim (2X), and Carolina (2X).
But - Vanloser does hold oen exclusive claim in the above category - they are the only team not to have won at least once. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 14:42:19
|
To Nux and Alex. You guys both clearly missed was:
What I do not see is a 2-3 player forecheck if they are up or even. Do you see he even part there? Vancouver is one of the few teams that do not focus on a multi-player forechecking at the start of the game with the attempt to get a lead. The will be patient with their trap and use their transition to score.
Secondly, I think it I'd very unfair to make a comment that I don't see many Canuck games. I don't watch all of their games bug I will watch about 20-25 a year not counting playoffs. Not only games against the Oilers but also late weekday games on Sportsnet Pacific.
Finally, it seems to me that you are both trying to justify Vancouver as an exciting team. I simply do not see it. I don't enjoy watching Vancouver play and often do watch their games based on who they are playing. I am not arguing how effective it is or how much better or worse their system is compared other teams. I simply do not find their brand if hockey exciting. Is that ok? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 15:39:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
To Nux and Alex. You guys both clearly missed was:
What I do not see is a 2-3 player forecheck if they are up or even. Do you see he even part there? Vancouver is one of the few teams that do not focus on a multi-player forechecking at the start of the game with the attempt to get a lead. The will be patient with their trap and use their transition to score.
Secondly, I think it I'd very unfair to make a comment that I don't see many Canuck games. I don't watch all of their games bug I will watch about 20-25 a year not counting playoffs. Not only games against the Oilers but also late weekday games on Sportsnet Pacific.
Finally, it seems to me that you are both trying to justify Vancouver as an exciting team. I simply do not see it. I don't enjoy watching Vancouver play and often do watch their games based on who they are playing. I am not arguing how effective it is or how much better or worse their system is compared other teams. I simply do not find their brand if hockey exciting. Is that ok?
In regards to the forecheck - the Canucks certainly play a different game for the first 5-7 minutes than they do later on, and you probably have a point regarding the forecheck in those first minutes. They take longer to "get into" the game than other teams IMO, and they are generally sluggish in those opening minutes. This probably bleeds into the forecheck. However, as the game wears on - unless they're ahead, they are a pretty hard forechecking team.
My comment around your viewing was purely relative - while you clearly don't see as many as I (or other Vancouverites) see, you obviously see more than easterners due to being in the same division and region - certainly enough to have (IMO) a valid opinion. Which is why I'm surprised that you don't see many of the same things that I see on a nearly nightly basis. I probably watch 70-75 Canucks games per year myself.
I'm not trying to change your opinion of Vancouver play - everyone has their own opinion, and this discussion is not heavily based in fact. However, you have indicated that you do like the play of CHI and SJ (and others), and have mentioned specific reasons for finding their play exciting - and I don't see their play as being much different than that of VAN, so I was curious as to what it is about VAN that you find so boring while CHI and SJ are very exciting. For me, I like the play of all 3, for many of the same reasons as you have mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 17:26:29
|
Fair enough Nux. To the defense of the Canucks, I have not watched much of them this season. Maybe 2 games. I will make a point of watching some Canucks games over the next few weeks for the sake of objectivity on this season. We can pick up this debate at that time?
I better make sure I have a lot of beer on hand to get through those dry boring games.  |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 18:55:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
To Nux and Alex. You guys both clearly missed was:
What I do not see is a 2-3 player forecheck if they are up or even. Do you see he even part there? Vancouver is one of the few teams that do not focus on a multi-player forechecking at the start of the game with the attempt to get a lead. The will be patient with their trap and use their transition to score.
Secondly, I think it I'd very unfair to make a comment that I don't see many Canuck games. I don't watch all of their games bug I will watch about 20-25 a year not counting playoffs. Not only games against the Oilers but also late weekday games on Sportsnet Pacific.
Finally, it seems to me that you are both trying to justify Vancouver as an exciting team. I simply do not see it. I don't enjoy watching Vancouver play and often do watch their games based on who they are playing. I am not arguing how effective it is or how much better or worse their system is compared other teams. I simply do not find their brand if hockey exciting. Is that ok?
Beans, obviously i watch mostly games involving the Canucks, but i do see others. I don't see many teams forechecking with 2 or 3 guys at any point of a game, UNLESS they're down.
As far as justifying the excitement level of a Canucks game, maybe that is true? It wasn't so much my point, as in, i'm not trying to change your opinion as much as i am trying to justify mine. To some, watching the Sedin's (and others) cycle like they do may be boring. To me, it's magic! I'm amazed everytime i watch them with just how good they are in this phase of the game. Some of the sneaky passes they get through the oppositions legs from such a close range is unbelievable to me. The way they use their skates to deflect / pass the puck is another part of their game which i've come to appreciate. There are very few guys in the NHL past or present, who i've seen be able to use their skate as well as they do to make a pass or settle the puck. No, it's not end to end rushes, but i enjoy this part of their game! Clearly you don't and that's fine. I will say though, that i was trying to justify / argue that the Canucks D does in fact join the rush more often than you seem to see. I can appreciate that you're going to watch in future games, but to not have seen that last year, especially with Ehrhoff / Bieksa / Edler is surprising. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2011 : 19:15:48
|
Beans..... I hope you're watching the Canucks / Coyotes game!!! I've been watching closely and even after going up 1-0, the Canucks have had 2 guys in the Phoenix zone forechecking. I even just saw a Coyote behind the net with the puck and 2 Canucks, one to either side of the net, trying to force him out! They just went up 2-0 and i was gonna watch closely to see if this continued, but just 40 sec's later, they made it 3-0. I will watch for signs of the trap now.
FWIW, i also saw part of the Det / Bos game earlier and saw very few occasions where there were two forecheckers, unless you count when the offense is already in the zone, either on a dump in or a turnover.
Either way, i'll be interested to hear your comments if you are in fact watching tonight. Of course, it is Fri night, so if you're out having a couple cold ones and not really paying attention, i understand.
*ETA..... If you saw the whole play that led to the Burrows goal (the 5th Canucks goal), you'd have noticed a forechecker (D. Sedin) going in, chasing the puck and the defender going to it. He forces the dman to play the puck up the boards blindly and it goes right onto the stick of the second, yes, second Canuck inside the line (Hodgson) who ends up setting Burrows up for the score. Maybe this is going against what you're used to seeing, but i don't see any trapping, although i'd like to in an effort to preserve Schneider's SO (oh, oh, i said it....he'll prob lose it now) which will set up some obvious goalie controversy with the Canucks having another game tomorrow night and Schneid's coming off possible back to back SO's (after a 1 goal game the game before those!). |
Edited by - Alex116 on 11/25/2011 21:17:40 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Canucks Most Hated Team 
