Vancouver Canucks Fanclub

[digitalmonkey 929]

It wasn't a tap but I don't think it was any worse then most two handed slashes that occur during a course of the game. Burrows didn't take much of a shot but I have no problem in what he did. You gotta send a message that no one is gonna get away with hitting you after the whistle even if its not a major blow or hit.

And Edmonton fans (and many others) would argue that the exuberant celebration of an empty net goal is grounds for a shot after the whistle.

[Fubar The Sperm 1]

And Edmonton fans (and many others) would argue that the exuberant celebration of an empty net goal is grounds for a shot after the whistle.

The celebration wasn't too bad. He pushed it a little but he hardly acted like a moron.

[digitalmonkey 929]

The celebration wasn't too bad. He pushed it a little but he hardly acted like a moron.

And the bump wasn't that bad either.Your ball.

[Fubar The Sperm 1]

And the bump wasn't that bad either.Your ball.

A slight over celebration to a goal does not equal nor deserve physical violence. If it did then Alex Ovechkin would have 48 fighting majors this year.

[sennin 0]

And Edmonton fans (and many others) would argue that the exuberant celebration of an empty net goal is grounds for a shot after the whistle.

3-2 game and his goal put it out of reach with 40 seconds left, can he not be the least bit happy? It's not like he did a lap around the ice and jumped into the crowd

[digitalmonkey 929]

A slight over celebration to a goal does not equal nor deserve physical violence. If it did then Alex Ovechkin would have 48 fighting majors this year.

If a bump after the whistle is "physical violence" what would you call Burrows' slash?

[sennin 0]

If a bump after the whistle is "physical violence" what would you call Burrows' slash?

Justified.

[Fubar The Sperm 1]

If a bump after the whistle is "physical violence" what would you call Burrows' slash?

More severe physical violence of course.

[digitalmonkey 929]

3-2 game and his goal put it out of reach with 40 seconds left, can he not be the least bit happy? It's not like he did a lap around the ice and jumped into the crowd

Did you watch the game? If you had you would have noticed a little bad blood between the teams during the whole game. Can Burrows be a little happy? Sure, he can. Did he need to swing his stick around and slash the Oilers player? NO!Why didn't he just turn around and do what Ryan Shannon did to Khabilbulin after the shootout goal? The correct answer: Alex Burrows is a turd.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Justified.

You're a Canucks fan right?

[digitalmonkey 929]

I guess Matt Cooke's check from behind was okay too. Yeah, Roy put himself in a vulnerable position...so give Cooke a penalty for checking from behind and Roy a penalty for stupidity...oh wait, there is no penalty for stupidity.

[Fubar The Sperm 1]

I guess Matt Cooke's check from behind was okay too. Yeah, Roy put himself in a vulnerable position...so give Cooke a penalty for checking from behind and Roy a penalty for stupidity...oh wait, there is no penalty for stupidity.

Cooke should have received a penalty and so should Greene on his hit on Kesler.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Cooke should have received a penalty and so should Greene on his hit on Kesler.

Dirty hit by Greene on Kesler. Thankfully hes not hurt. Can't beleive there was no penalty on the play. Blatently threw his elbow in Keslers chops. Those are the kind of hits that players should receive a 4 or 5 game suspension for.

A definite elbow and he may get a suspension.It's understandable that the refs missed it though as it happened so fast.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

I think Dale needs a new hobby now that even Serge admits that the Leafs are out of it. I guess coming into the Canuck thread and antagonizing is his new hobby.After watching the replay, I guess it can be argued that Burrow's celebrated too much. The Canucks have had a lot of trouble winning anything during regulation, I just saw his celebration of the goal as nothing more than excitement for finally putting away a feisty Oilers team. I can see why the Oilers would be pissed off, given the intensity of the game. Obviously I was exaggerating about the love tap, but it wasn't nearly as bad as a lot of slashes you see. I thought it was ridiculous to make a fuss over that considering he did get hit by Stoll before he threw it. It was a very chippy and dirty game. Hemskey high sticked Kesler in the face earlier, Kesler took a running charge at one of the Oilers D, Staois and Isbister exchanged elbows to the face. It just seemed like trolling to whine more about Burrows.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I think Dale needs a new hobby now that even Serge admits that the Leafs are out of it. I guess coming into the Canuck thread and antagonizing is his new hobby.

Antagonizing? I simply stated that Burrows should take off his visor if he wants to be a tough guy and that he was up to his shit again last night. You disagreed mostly because you are a Canucks fan.

After watching the replay, I guess it can be argued that Burrow's celebrated too much. The Canucks have had a lot of trouble winning anything during regulation, I just saw his celebration of the goal as nothing more than excitement for finally putting away a feisty Oilers team. I can see why the Oilers would be pissed off, given the intensity of the game. Obviously I was exaggerating about the love tap, but it wasn't nearly as bad as a lot of slashes you see. I thought it was ridiculous to make a fuss over that considering he did get hit by Stoll before he threw it. It was a very chippy and dirty game. Hemskey high sticked Kesler in the face earlier, Kesler took a running charge at one of the Oilers D, Staois and Isbister exchanged elbows to the face. It just seemed like trolling to whine more about Burrows.

Trolling to whine about Burrows...LOL. Take off your Vancouver blinders. They're almost as bad as Serge's.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

Antagonizing? I simply stated that Burrows should take off his visor if he wants to be a tough guy and that he was up to his shit again last night. You disagreed mostly because you are a Canucks fan.

Go back and look at your posts before this 2 page argument started. You came in here and ripped into a Canuck player in multiple posts. At no point did you come here and comment on any nice plays a Canuck made, or even any nice plays the Oilers (or any opponent) made. Almost all of the posts you have made in this thread (and last years thread) have been "the Canucks have no forwards, the Canucks bore me etc.". I would describe you as the Alex Burrows of this thread.

[grocery_mony 8]

Wow that game brought me back like 20 years when hockey was played with emotion and heart. To tell you the truth I didnt think the Canucks of this year had a game like that in them. Ive been so frustrated with the lack of the team sticking up for each other over the last couple years. Someone would run Luongo and go unscathed.I have no problems with any player choosing to wear a visor. Just look what happened to Berard to see how your whole career can been changed with one split second. One day a superstar will lose an eye then they will be mandatory.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Go back and look at your posts before this 2 page argument started. You came in here and ripped into a Canuck player in multiple posts. At no point did you come here and comment on any nice plays a Canuck made, or even any nice plays the Oilers (or any opponent) made. Almost all of the posts you have made in this thread (and last years thread) have been "the Canucks have no forwards, the Canucks bore me etc.". I would describe you as the Alex Burrows of this thread.

Are these the multiple posts you're referring to?

Hey Burrows, if you wanna be a tough guy take off your visor.

A definite elbow and he may get a suspension.It's understandable that the refs missed it though as it happened so fast.

You go back and read the thread. I'm fairly certain everything I've posted in this thread hasn't been a negative toward the Canucks.You are unable to look at the Canucks without being biased.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Wow that game brought me back like 20 years when hockey was played with emotion and heart. To tell you the truth I didnt think the Canucks of this year had a game like that in them. Ive been so frustrated with the lack of the team sticking up for each other over the last couple years. Someone would run Luongo and go unscathed.I have no problems with any player choosing to wear a visor. Just look what happened to Berard to see how your whole career can been changed with one split second. One day a superstar will lose an eye then they will be mandatory.

I didn't say I had a problem with anyone wearing a visor. I do have a problem with a player choosing to wear a visor and taking on a tough guy/fighting role.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

Are these the multiple posts you're referring to?You go back and read the thread. I'm fairly certain everything I've posted in this thread hasn't been a negative toward the Canucks.You are unable to look at the Canucks without being biased.

Post 231, 233 and 239 all had negative tone. My point was you never post anything with a positive tone, and instead choose to antagonize. You do it to Serge, and now you are doing it here. In fact, even reading the above response, I felt very antagonized. Show me any post prior to this Burrow's argument where I talked about something with a "Canuck bias".

[Fubar The Sperm 1]

I didn't say I had a problem with anyone wearing a visor. I do have a problem with a player choosing to wear a visor and taking on a tough guy/fighting role.

Lol. I think think this statement is stupid on so many levels. First, just because a guy is concerned with protecting his eyes he can't fight? I see fights all the time against players with no visors where the players are throwing punches that are landing on the top of the helmet or the back of the helmet and guys clearly don't care at the time that they are making contact with it. Lets get mad at those guys for not taking off their helmets before instigating or engaging in fights. Actually, when two guys decide to fight they should go to the dressing room and put on boxing gear and then fight. Second, don't instigate a skirmish with a player wearing a visor if your so concerned about it. Third, even though he might be wearing a visor there are times when the situation will call for you to take on a tough guy/fighting role. Burrows is hardly what I would called a tough guy/fighter but if the situation warrents it then go for it. Why don't you go rip on Sam Gagner for instigating a fight/acting like a tough guy with Kesler while wearing a visor? Probably because there are more people to stir the pot with in this thread and your bored today looking for something to keep you entertained.You can respond to my post but i'd suggest not doing so as i'm finished replying. You either are looking at the Canucks through your "anti-canucks" lenses or just intentionaly creating an argument.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

You either are looking at the Canucks through your "anti-canucks" lenses or just intentionaly creating an argument.

Bingo.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Post 231, 233 and 239 all had negative tone. My point was you never post anything with a positive tone, and instead choose to antagonize. You do it to Serge, and now you are doing it here. In fact, even reading the above response, I felt very antagonized. Show me any post prior to this Burrow's argument where I talked about something with a "Canuck bias".

Here are the posts you mentioned...

Hey Burrows, if you wanna be a tough guy take off your visor.

LOL

No checking from behind penalty for Cooke? Ridiculous!

"LOL" ? Is that really antagonistic? Really? And earlier you mentioned that all my posts in this thread were negative yet you mention only 3 that I made since I brought up Burrows.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Lol. I think think this statement is stupid on so many levels. First, just because a guy is concerned with protecting his eyes he can't fight? I see fights all the time against players with no visors where the players are throwing punches that are landing on the top of the helmet or the back of the helmet and guys clearly don't care at the time that they are making contact with it. Lets get mad at those guys for not taking off their helmets before instigating or engaging in fights. Actually, when two guys decide to fight they should go to the dressing room and put on boxing gear and then fight. Second, don't instigate a skirmish with a player wearing a visor if your so concerned about it. Third, even though he might be wearing a visor there are times when the situation will call for you to take on a tough guy/fighting role. Burrows is hardly what I would called a tough guy/fighter but if the situation warrents it then go for it. Why don't you go rip on Sam Gagner for instigating a fight/acting like a tough guy with Kesler while wearing a visor? Probably because there are more people to stir the pot with in this thread and your bored today looking for something to keep you entertained.You can respond to my post but i'd suggest not doing so as i'm finished replying. You either are looking at the Canucks through your "anti-canucks" lenses or just intentionaly creating an argument.

Hey look another Canucks fan with blinders on.Yeah, my post was ridiculous but your boxing comment is a highly intelligent and well-presented counter argument.It seems like you and Rmunro have an issue because I ragged on a Canucks player and not any Oilers players. Have you forgotten that I agreed with you that Greene deserved an elbowing penalty? You guys really are funny. Someone comes in here with something that doesn't sound like a Canuck fanboy comment and you get all upset and start the antagonizing or trolling comments.LOL!

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

"LOL" ?

In the context in which you typed Lol, yes, it is antagonistic. Very clearly actually. The fact that you are acting aloof as to why that could be antagonistic is pretty funny. It seems like something a pest like Alex Burrows would do when they are trying to draw a penalty. What is your motivation? Did the family go away for the weekend and you want some negative attention?The reason I picked those three comments is because they were three negative comments that you made that were very close to each other. I was showing that you were clearly trying to get a reaction, especially with the third one.I am still waiting for you to find some posts before this Burrows argument where I show "Canuck bias".