Vancouver Canucks Fanclub

[digitalmonkey 929]

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".

No, the family didn't go away for the weekend. How very antagonistic of you. I noticed the last few Canuck games that Burrows was acting even more like a punk than usual and then when he jumped Rolston (yeah Brian Rolston that goon) I simply made the statement that I thought he should remove his visor if he wants to be a tough guy.I really do find it hilarious that you get your panties in such a knot when I question something as simple as why there was no penalty called on Cooke. You call me antagonistic and try to justify Cooke's actions by stating that Roy put himself in a bad position. Does that qualify as an example of your Canuck bias? It's nice to see you've moved on from the antagonistic/trolling angle and are now onto the attention-seeking angle.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

No, the family didn't go away for the weekend. How very antagonistic of you. I noticed the last few Canuck games that Burrows was acting even more like a punk than usual and then when he jumped Rolston (yeah Brian Rolston that goon) I simply made the statement that I thought he should remove his visor if he wants to be a tough guy.I really do find it hilarious that you get your panties in such a knot when I question something as simple as why there was no penalty called on Cooke. You call me antagonistic and try to justify Cooke's actions by stating that Roy put himself in a bad position. Does that qualify as an example of your Canuck bias? It's nice to see you've moved on from the antagonistic/trolling angle and are now onto the attention-seeking angle.

Can you read? I said Cooke should have held up. I never said it should not have been a penalty. At the time I wasn't aware you were going to act like a complete dick, so I made the comment that Roy didn't position himself well. I wasn't expecting a 2 page flame war, so I made that comment thinking it would not be taken out of context to make what ever dumb ass point you were trying to make.Fact: Cooke has delivered a lot of dirty hits over the years. He delivered a very dirty one against Langkow earlier in the year. I'm pretty sure I commented about it at the time.Fact: Roy didn't prepare himself well at all for the hit. The only reason I made that comment was because he got injured on a very similar play in the preseason.Fact: Just because I said Roy didn't prepare himself well doesn't mean I think it was a legal or clean hit.I wasn't trying to antagonize you by asking if your family went away. I was only trying to figure out why you are acting like even more of a jerk than you usually do.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Can you read? I said Cooke should have held up. I never said it should not have been a penalty. At the time I wasn't aware you were going to act like a complete dick, so I made the comment that Roy didn't position himself well. I wasn't expecting a 2 page flame war, so I made that comment thinking it would not be taken out of context to make what ever dumb ass point you were trying to make.Fact: Cooke has delivered a lot of dirty hits over the years. He delivered a very dirty one against Langkow earlier in the year. I'm pretty sure I commented about it at the time.Fact: Roy didn't prepare himself well at all for the hit. The only reason I made that comment was because he got injured on a very similar play in the preseason.Fact: Just because I said Roy didn't prepare himself well doesn't mean I think it was a legal or clean hit.I wasn't trying to antagonize you by asking if your family went away. I was only trying to figure out why you are acting like even more of a jerk than you usually do.

Namecalling now, bravo.LOL.Why was my comment about no penalty being called on Cooke antagonistic to you then?

[digitalmonkey 929]

When is he trying to be a tough guy? When he jumped in after Mitchell got gooned from behind?

Here's another example of your Canucks bias. Mitchell got "gooned"? That's too funny.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

Namecalling now, bravo.LOL.Why was my comment about no penalty being called on Cooke antagonistic to you then?

You seemed to indicate that I thought Cooke did not deserve a penalty, or that I was somehow defending Cooke. I merely made a comment about Roy that I thought would not be twisted into defending Cooke. This was before I realized Dale was lonely for the weekend so he needed to troll on the internet all day.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

Here's another example of your Canucks bias. Mitchell got "gooned"? That's too funny.

He got hit from behind. Maybe it wasn't a gooning, but it was a hard hit to a freshly injured player. I usually try to add some funny, over the top adjetives when I am describing things in a Canuck game. I would be very surprised if anyone took that seriously at the time I wrote it. Now you are using it to try to prove I am some half wit Canuck fan. If you want, I can go back and find a lot of quotes where you complain about the reffing in Habs games. You obviously weren't that serious at the time, but if I were to just paste them now, out of context, they would make you look like an ass as well.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Here's your comment regarding the Greene elbow. Notice how Greene is labeled a clown by you with no mention of the Vancouver player (Kesler I think) and how he could have kept his head up while skating through the middle. Now I'm not saying Greene didn't elbow him and is or idn't deserving of a suspension but how come all the blame is placed on Greene here but when it comes to the Cooke incident you share the blame with Roy.

Green is a clown.This is a feisty game.

Yes, Cooke should have held up. He didn't and should have been penalized like I said in my original post.

Also, Cooke should have held up, but Roy needs to learn how to take a hit. This is the second time I can remember where he had time to prepare himself for a hit and he didn't. Cooke should have held up though.

Here's your "lovetap" comment which I'm sure you'll pass off as a joke now.

Do you see me making clownish statements like your Burrows ones?Burrows is an effective, heart and soul player saddled with an undeserved reputation of being a) a non fighter and B) dirty. If anyone else delivered that slash*, you would not have said a word.*By slash I mean a lovetap that had no chance of doing any damage.

These are some more examples of your Canucks bias.

[digitalmonkey 929]

You seemed to indicate that I thought Cooke did not deserve a penalty, or that I was somehow defending Cooke. I merely made a comment about Roy that I thought would not be twisted into defending Cooke. This was before I realized Dale was lonely for the weekend so he needed to troll on the internet all day.

You need to backtrack a little more accurately.I made the comment:"No penalty on Cooke for hitting from behind. Ridiculous!"And later in the thread you cited this comment by me as being antagonistic. Again, how was that comment antagonistic? Because it was something against one of your beloved Canucks?

[Zach6668 513]

This thread sucks balls.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

You need to backtrack a little more accurately.I made the comment:"No penalty on Cooke for hitting from behind. Ridiculous!"And later in the thread you cited this comment by me as being antagonistic. Again, how was that comment antagonistic? Because it was something against one of your beloved Canucks?

1) I really don't think I labeled that comment as antagonistic. If I did, it was by mistake. What I found antagonistic was you coming into the thread, after the dirtiest game I can remember, and just bashing Burrows again. There were all sorts of exciting and dirty plays in that game, and I just found it irritating that you just decided to once again talk about Burrows.2) I don't actually think Green is a clown. Seriously. I didn't at the time, I don't know. I guess I can understand how it looks when comparing my comments about Cooke and him. Cooke's hit was worse, but they are both dirty plays. I can tell you my Green comment wasn't suppose to be taken that seriously. You can believe it if you want, but you can ask anyone I talk to in the FCHL. I jokingly refer to anyone that does anything against the Canucks as a clown. I have never defended the way Cooke plays, I think he plays a dangerous style. I have defended him not fighting in the past, but that has more to do with my belief that a physical player shouldn't be obligated to fight simply because they throw a body check.3) If you can't see the lovetap comment was intentionally over the top, I don't think there is any point in talking to you.4) If you can't admit that you have intentionally contributed to keeping this silly argument going as much or more than I or Fubar, then once again there is no point in talking to you.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

This thread sucks balls.

You're right. His posting style has just annoyed me since the forum opened and I picked now to let it all out. I think I am done here.

[digitalmonkey 929]

If you want, I can go back and find a lot of quotes where you complain about the reffing in Habs games. You obviously weren't that serious at the time, but if I were to just paste them now, out of context, they would make you look like an ass as well.

I invite you to do this. In fact, after a quick read I found all the posts where I complained about the reffing. #500 - This is where I complained that Boston shouldn't have been allowed to pull their goalie. The refs hand had gone up allowing the home team to make one more change. Boston made that change. Then the linesman fiddled around and THEN Boston decided to pull their goalie.#567 - I complained about Sundin getting away with holding down low. He does it all the time.#593 - This is where I complained about a tripping call on Komisarek. He dove at an opposing player on a breakaway and did trip him but only after he knocked the puck away. This should not have been a penalty.#663 - The complaint here was that a Philly player got away with slashing the stick out of a Montreal player's hands (a call made all season) and then Hamrlik got a cheap call against him to put Montreal 2-men down.If you want to read the thread you will find many posts I've made where I talk about Montreal not playing well and stealing points, or individual Montreal players not playing well and/or taking stupid penalties.If anything I try to be objective even when it comes to the Montreal Canadiens. You should try it sometime.

[digitalmonkey 929]

You're right. His posting style has just annoyed me since the forum opened and I picked now to let it all out. I think I am done here.

Posting style? Are you referring to objectivity?

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

To clear something up, I meant post 240, not 239. I never saw anything said about Cooke as being antagonizing.Back to the Canucks. That spirited win (along with players coming back) might give the Canucks the jolt they need to secure a playoff spot. Tuesday's game against the Wild has potential to be just as intense as Saturdays game. There is still bad blood because of Ohlund's slash, and Derek Boogard always seems to stir things up against Vancouver. A win would move Vancouver within 4 points of the Wild for top spot in the NW division. First place may be out of reach, but it is crazy to think that things are even that close considering the last month or so.Bourdon has looked very good in his recent call ups. If Krajicek gets healthy before the deadline, I would love it if he was packaged with Schneider to finally get a solid top 6 forward. i think Krajicek has a decent amount of potential, but here is how a healthy Canucks defense would look without him:Ohlund - SaloMitchell - BieksaEdler - Miller/WeaverBourdon and Mciver as callups in case of more injuries. Edler would probably get Bieksa's minutes at least until Bieksa gets in game shape.Maybe Krajicek doesn't have that much trade value, but it seems like he should be able to help teams that are thinner on defense. He also has a good contract.

[nell789 0]

Digital Monkey does not get nor appreciate Rmunro's subtle humor, but I can see how it might not translate well over a forum to people you've had little to no contact with.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Digital Monkey does not get nor appreciate Rmunro's subtle humor, but I can see how it might not translate well over a forum to people you've had little to no contact with.

This is probably true. Mine does not come across over the internet well either.

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

Staois receives a fine, no suspension for slash on Burrows: http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=229985&hubname=

[serge 904]

bad news for the canucks..Krajicek gonehttp://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=230042&hubname=

[Tosh 0]

Huge 2 points well done to pull that out nucks the sendins dominated agin and got us the win a slick goal by Nazzy in the third to get us in OT

[WestcoastCanuck 0]

What a team.

[Fubar The Sperm 1]

Huge win. Too bad Nashville still got a point. Lets not have Luongo facing that many shots again though.

[Derswick 0]

Big one tonight.

[Reelishymn 0]

Alright, my first hockey post since the summer here on FCP (been busy with school and new job). I'm sure no one has missed me or even know me, but I've been a Canuck fan for 15 years.To sum up the season so far:-not the first 1.5 months of the season we expected (aside from the great start vs the division)-very nice run in November and solid December, while battling injury bug and some inconsistency-January was ugly, February has been very good (only 1 game without a point earned)My thoughts and grades on individual players up to now:-Kesler; was the best/most consistent skater on the team for the first 1-2 months, playing his role ot perfection. Looking for 20 goals this season. B+-Burrows; also playing his role to perfection, so many people hate him right now. Also, chipping in here and there (21 pts for a 3rd liner is solid). B+-Raymond; man, can he fly. Struggled at first because of the learning curve but fitting in nicely now, IMO. Averaging a point every other game is fine. C-Sedins; leading the team offensively as expected, no disappointments there. A-Naslund; battling some inconsistency, still an alright season but not for $6 million. I hope he takes a pay cut to stay with the team next year, he's kind of said he would. B--Pyatt; working his ass off all season, snake bit on some chances. A--Morrison; the ironman streak is over, I can understand how his play this season has been affected by that injury and tons of line juggling. Hopefully, he comes back 100% ready for the playoffs. Like Naslund, he might have to take a pay cut which he has said that he will take a hometown discount. N/A-Cooke; I'm not really a fan but he's someone you'd rather have on your team than play against. He's doing what he's supposed to be, but I doubt he'll be here next year. C--Isbister and Ritchie; lunch box guys, not making much impact IMO. C--Linden; you know why he's there, as their real leader. Typical 4th liner now. C-Shannon; I like his game for what it is, him and Raymond look good together. I would throw in Morrison with them and that might be a solid and speedy 2nd line. B--Defencemen; At one point, they were missing 4 of their top 6 D-men. Salo is starting to look great after not being 100% until now. Ohlund and Mitchell are doing what you expect from them (ie. shutting opponents down). Edler has been amazing, I love his poise; he could be the next Lidstrom (probably not, lol). Nasty injury to Bieksa, can't really judge him yet. Miller has been okay, and Weaver has been a pretty good reserve player for who he is. I've been disappointed at Krajicek at times because I expected more. When this whole group is healthy (ie. now), good luck on scoring on them. A-Prospects/Call-ups; Brown was good for what he did for the team. Bourdon looking better than last year, but still needs more work. Jaffray was okay, but won't be more than a reserve forward. C+-Luongo; no words needed. A+-Sanford; solid backup. BOverall, I'd give the team a B+ because of how they've battled through the tough times. I love the blue collar/lunchbox approach they've taken, it's a style made for the playoffs IMO.

[grocery_mony 8]

Alright, my first hockey post since the summer here on FCP (been busy with school and new job). I'm sure no one has missed me or even know me, but I've been a Canuck fan for 15 years.To sum up the season so far:-not the first 1.5 months of the season we expected (aside from the great start vs the division)-very nice run in November and solid December, while battling injury bug and some inconsistency-January was ugly, February has been very good (only 1 game without a point earned)My thoughts and grades on individual players up to now:-Kesler; was the best/most consistent skater on the team for the first 1-2 months, playing his role ot perfection. Looking for 20 goals this season. B+-Burrows; also playing his role to perfection, so many people hate him right now. Also, chipping in here and there (21 pts for a 3rd liner is solid). B+-Raymond; man, can he fly. Struggled at first because of the learning curve but fitting in nicely now, IMO. Averaging a point every other game is fine. C-Sedins; leading the team offensively as expected, no disappointments there. A-Naslund; battling some inconsistency, still an alright season but not for $6 million. I hope he takes a pay cut to stay with the team next year, he's kind of said he would. B--Pyatt; working his ass off all season, snake bit on some chances. A--Morrison; the ironman streak is over, I can understand how his play this season has been affected by that injury and tons of line juggling. Hopefully, he comes back 100% ready for the playoffs. Like Naslund, he might have to take a pay cut which he has said that he will take a hometown discount. N/A-Cooke; I'm not really a fan but he's someone you'd rather have on your team than play against. He's doing what he's supposed to be, but I doubt he'll be here next year. C--Isbister and Ritchie; lunch box guys, not making much impact IMO. C--Linden; you know why he's there, as their real leader. Typical 4th liner now. C-Shannon; I like his game for what it is, him and Raymond look good together. I would throw in Morrison with them and that might be a solid and speedy 2nd line. B--Defencemen; At one point, they were missing 4 of their top 6 D-men. Salo is starting to look great after not being 100% until now. Ohlund and Mitchell are doing what you expect from them (ie. shutting opponents down). Edler has been amazing, I love his poise; he could be the next Lidstrom (probably not, lol). Nasty injury to Bieksa, can't really judge him yet. Miller has been okay, and Weaver has been a pretty good reserve player for who he is. I've been disappointed at Krajicek at times because I expected more. When this whole group is healthy (ie. now), good luck on scoring on them. A-Prospects/Call-ups; Brown was good for what he did for the team. Bourdon looking better than last year, but still needs more work. Jaffray was okay, but won't be more than a reserve forward. C+-Luongo; no words needed. A+-Sanford; solid backup. BOverall, I'd give the team a B+ because of how they've battled through the tough times. I love the blue collar/lunchbox approach they've taken, it's a style made for the playoffs IMO.

Good summary just have one issue. Naslund has been very dissapointing. He only scores when playing with the Sedins and they have proven in the past that playing with them inflates your stats by close to 50%. I give him a C maybe even lower considering his salary which you have consider in the days of the cap. If Pyatt had played with them all year his stats would be similar for about 1/4 the salary. I give him a take it or leave it 2 million offer for next year. Kesler may even be an A.

[Reelishymn 0]

I agree, I was a little biased as a Naslund (of the old) fan. Realistically, he's more like a C/C+. But I also considered how the team's playing style has changed from high-scoring to defence-oriented, and he's made an alright transition in that manner. No player within this type of system will ever consistently score 90+ points (see the NJ Devils'/Elias' past stats as an example).