It's all over in Vancouver

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Luanne7. Show Luanne7's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    Don't laugh too soon...maybe after tomorrow your team will be playing golf...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    I waited till today to post -- and yes, indeed, the sun did rise this morning.  In fact, it's quite a nice day.

    I was concerned about this matchup right from the start.  I was hoping for the Sharks, but when we drew the Kings, I thought "oh no, another red-hot goalie", and this time without Daniel (at least, to start).  And it the end, it was thus;  flameouts on offense, a goalie who stops everything, and a team playing its best at the right time. You gotta hand it to Lombardi; that bold move at the deadline seems to be the big piece in the puzzle that turned an underachieving team into a solid defensive squad that can score key goals at key times.  They now have a very deep set of forwards, a highly effective 4th line, and a defense which can do the job, thanks to a good system where the forwards know their roles.  Not to mention a goalie who may very well be this year's Vezina winner.

    All credit to the Kings -- they were the better team than the Canucks, and are playing their best hockey at the right time.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from schlich. Show schlich's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    Null is setting up a new account on the LA Times.  I'll miss her.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]I waited till today to post -- and yes, indeed, the sun did rise this morning.  In fact, it's quite a nice day. I was concerned about this matchup right from the start.  I was hoping for the Sharks, but when we drew the Kings, I thought "oh no, another red-hot goalie", and this time without Daniel (at least, to start).  And it the end, it was thus;  flameouts on offense, a goalie who stops everything, and a team playing its best at the right time. You gotta hand it to Lombardi; that bold move at the deadline seems to be the big piece in the puzzle that turned an underachieving team into a solid defensive squad that can score key goals at key times.  They now have a very deep set of forwards, a highly effective 4th line, and a defense which can do the job, thanks to a good system where the forwards know their roles.  Not to mention a goalie who may very well be this year's Vezina winner. All credit to the Kings -- they were the better team than the Canucks, and are playing their best hockey at the right time.
    Posted by 49-North[/QUOTE]

    Nice objective-sounding post but you're still a troll. lol

    The Kings remind me a bit of Boston in their 4 line depth, defensive responsibility and very solid goaltending. Seems to be a formula worth imitating.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    The question for Vancouver now becomes the extent of the changes they are going to undergo in the offseason. Viigneault will likely stay. I am assuming, based on his lack of playing in the playoffs, that Gillis will try his best to unload Luongo. What else I wonder?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from alldaypowerplay. Show alldaypowerplay's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    The only hope for that team to build any character is to ship Maxine LaPierre, Alexandra Burroughs, and Roberta Luongo to other destinations.  Toronto would be nice, so the Bruins could wale on them six times a year.

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]The question for Vancouver now becomes the extent of the changes they are going to undergo in the offseason. Viigneault will likely stay. I am assuming, based on his lack of playing in the playoffs, that Gillis will try his best to unload Luongo. What else I wonder?
    Posted by jmwalters[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    Yeah, it was fun to watch. I am with you 49, I thought it was a bad matchup for the Nucks from the start. Quick is becoming one of the premier tenders in the league. I think the Canucks having to deal with the fact that they dumped their franchise goalie (for a better goalie) was a big distraction for them. Of course they missed Daniel. I really think them getting rid of Hodgson was a terrible terrible move by that team. As noted on other posts and blogs, they tried to build a team to beat the Bruins instead of trying to build themselves. Kesler was a ghost. Honestly, I think Gillis and Vigneault (Mr. Smug) are the main reasons they lost. Poor approach from the top down.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]The only hope for that team to build any character is to ship Maxine LaPierre, Alexandra Burroughs, and Roberta Luongo to other destinations.  Toronto would be nice, so the Bruins could wale on them six times a year. In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver :
    Posted by alldaypowerplay[/QUOTE]

    It does seem kind of redundant to have Burrows, Kesler, and Lapierre all on the same team. All three are agitators. Lapierre is the least skilled of the three so, yeah, I could see him moving on. Ballard too if they can find any takers on a $4million 6-7 defenceman (good luck with that). Malholtra too has not been the same since his eye injury.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from alldaypowerplay. Show alldaypowerplay's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    Good points.  I also agree that AV is probably the source of the team's compromised personality and should be sent packing.  If anyone wants a primer on why the Bruins are who they are compared to who the Canucks are, simply check the playoff sound bites from CJ versus AV.  The B's are all about taking full responsibilty for their own success or failure.  More than any other sport, character matters in hockey.

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver : It does seem kind of redundant to have Burrows, Kesler, and Lapierre all on the same team. All three are agitators. Lapierre is the least skilled of the three so, yeah, I could see him moving on. Ballard too if they can find any takers on a $4million 6-7 defenceman (good luck with that). Malholtra too has not been the same since his eye injury.
    Posted by jmwalters[/QUOTE]
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]Since null isn't here I suppose to it's up to me to reveal that Campbell's step son (same mother different father) is playing for the Kings. So there you have it. I'd reveal the name but I've been sworn to secrecy
    Posted by skater68[/QUOTE]

    You're very welcome.  My pleasure.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver : There's been an out roar by th Canuck fans blaming Bettman and the refs , I hope it wasn't because of the last play on the ice.  Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    No!  That's not possible!!!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    NBC is in LA you morons...you know Gregory's Daddy and the Network Execs are behind this. Bettman was seen shining a laser pointer into Schneider's eyes just prior to the goal.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mannyortez3424. Show mannyortez3424's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    I will reserve my jeering until I see what happens to the Bruins on Wednesday...

    It's almost the exact same situation...
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from stan17. Show stan17's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    Stoll's goal was like an early birthday present
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]In Vancouver I don't see how Kesler and Vigneault can be on the same team. Vigneault called him out in the media numerous times this season and at the beginning of the series. Kesler just was not the same guy I saw in the past giving it his 100%.  Maybe our resident Canucks fan can elaborate what he thinks.
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    49 what about this above ?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver : 49 what about this above ?
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    I don't think it's an issue.

    Kesler knows that he's one of the leaders on the team, and I think he'd be the first to say that going without a goal in 16 games is unacceptable.  As a leader, you stand up and take the criticism when the team is struggling, just as you accept the accolades when the team succeeds.  I hardly think he's going to be made the scapegoat.  There were plenty of poor performances to go around.

    I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Kesler's hip surgery needs a revisit in the off-season.  I don't think he ever looked 100% during the season, what with missing training camp, and coming in late.  That explosiveness that we saw last year was absent, and he's not the same without it.

    I think there will be a lot of soul-searching about the amount of 'fight' in the Canucks in this round, but in the end, I think it comes down to the fact that they were outplayed by a hungrier team, a deeper team, and when you look at the play of guys like Richards, Kopitar, Brown, et al, a team where the stars stepped up and performed when they needed to.

    The Canucks were more competitive with Daniel in the lineup in Gms 4 & 5, and things might have turned out differently had he been there for the first 3.  But, that's the way things go, eh?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver : I don't think it's an issue. Kesler knows that he's one of the leaders on the team, and I think he'd be the first to say that going without a goal in 16 games is unacceptable.  As a leader, you stand up and take the criticism when the team is struggling, just as you accept the accolades when the team succeeds.  I hardly think he's going to be made the scapegoat.  There were plenty of poor performances to go around. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Kesler's hip surgery needs a revisit in the off-season.  I don't think he ever looked 100% during the season, what with missing training camp, and coming in late.  That explosiveness that we saw last year was absent, and he's not the same without it. I think there will be a lot of soul-searching about the amount of 'fight' in the Canucks in this round, but in the end, I think it comes down to the fact that they were outplayed by a hungrier team, a deeper team, and when you look at the play of guys like Richards, Kopitar, Brown, et al, a team where the stars stepped up and performed when they needed to. The Canucks were more competitive with Daniel in the lineup in Gms 4 & 5, and things might have turned out differently had he been there for the first 3.  But, that's the way things go, eh?
    Posted by 49-North[/QUOTE]

    Okay thanks,  I still didn't like the way Vigneault called him out in the media.
    He's done that with Luongo in the past also.
    This morning I heard Leo Luongo on the radio and he was saying that for certain Roberto wants clarification for his future as a Canuck or not.
    He also added that he would like to come out East but doesn't see a team or teams in need of a no1 .

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    Not to raise any bad memories for Sox fans, but, isn't the question for Vancouver...

    Now who's your "Gregory's Daddy?"
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kitchener. Show kitchener's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]I will reserve my jeering until I see what happens to the Bruins on Wednesday... It's almost the exact same situation...
    Posted by mannyortez3424[/QUOTE]

    No it's not because the Bruins beat them we won the cup,what do they got the president;s trophy again,wow
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    Canucks really could have used some legitimate depth in Hodgson with the absence of Daniella during those key early games.  Trading for Kassian, who didn't even dress in Game 5, was probably the dumbest move done at the deadline.  Gillis deserves some of the fire that is going on in Vancouver. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    In Response to Re: It's all over in Vancouver:
    [QUOTE]Canucks really could have used some legitimate depth in Hodgson with the absence of Daniella during those key early games.  Trading for Kassian, who didn't even dress in Game 5, was probably the dumbest move done at the deadline.  Gillis deserves some of the fire that is going on in Vancouver. 
    Posted by lucdufour[/QUOTE]

    In some ways, the Kassian trade surprised/upset me, because I was a huge CoHo fan.  The guy sees the ice very well for a young guy, lays down beautiful passes, and has a major league shot.  However, he's currently a defensive liability.  So, as a natural center, he wasn't going to get #1 or #2 ice-time, as long as Hank and Kes are there.  And he doesn't have the grit to play on the 4th line, so the default position was the 3rd (checking) line. He wasn't a good fit there because his defense is so bad (he was a -7 in only 20 games with the Sabres). So essentially, the Canucks knew he would never develop into his potential as a likely #2 center, while he was in Vancouver.  So the Canucks dealt him for something they didn't have in their farm system, and an asset which is tough to deal for -- a budding power forward (he's only 21, but he's already 6'4, 214).  I don't think you can properly evaluate this trade until at least this time next season (and even that's probably a bit early).  Aslo, I think they see M-A Gragnani as a guy who could develop into an Ehrhoff-type offensive d-man, so we'll see how that progresses next season.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: It's all over in Vancouver

    Luongo to the Leafs please.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share