Mike Gillis Talks To Media About His Canucks At Quarter Point of Season
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 16, 2009 8:22 PM PST
in The Gillis Era
Email
Print
I'll keep this brief.
-"We are going in the direction that we want with a lot more speed and a lot more intensity but when you have a lot of injuries you have to go backwards from that."
-"I think that we have a really good team here and I think that once we get everybody back in the lineup and healthy we'll have a really balanced scoring lineup."
Gillis then talked about Daniel Sedin's injury and how the evaluation process of his return is determined.
About Kyle Wellwood: "I think in the last few games we've seen Kyle begin to pay attention to detail a lot more. He's winning faceoffs, he's carrying the puck, he's more involved in the play and when he plays that way it's only a matter of time before he starts producing." Gillis mentioned that with illness and the injury that Wellwood got off to a rough start and his confidence took a bit of a beating. Gillis mentioned that he's confident in Wellwood.
The Mike Gillis interview can be found here.
181 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’d say Gillis is on par there..
Doesn’t help that the schedule is pure bullshit.. and its not gonna get any better. If everyone is healthy, and Kesler, Johnson, Bernier and co can keep producing, were going to have one dangerous team.
But god damn.. im not looking forward to that olympic road trip
13 road games in row with an Olympic break in between. Sounds great! Where do I sign up?
Hopefully we’re 10 games above 500 by then.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 12:22 AM PST up reply actions
Funny how
a vet who should be producing gets a 20 game pass, and even praise and encouragement, but a 19 y/o bluechip prospect with a back injury could not even be given a chance and was instead publicly disparaged and basically accused of faking.
Brilliance.
I agree that the Canuck management misplayed this one and came across as being coldly corporate and I have developed a kind of queeziness about how negatively toward the organization the Hodgson family might be feeling.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 17, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
I agree that the Canucks Management came across harsher than they could have, but why should Hodgeson be on the Canucks right now, injured or not?
Not the point
The main thing is whether the Canuck-Hodgson relationship is stable after the team pooh pooed the injury and implied that CoHo was a wuss.
by Bobby Canuck on Nov 17, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions
I can’t believe people are still asking this question. He was and is our TOP prospect. He should have been given EVERY opportunity to get healthy and cement a place on this team. You can’t say he wasn’t ready if he wasn’t healthy enough to show what he can do. I mean you ask why should he be on the team right now but the real question is how do we know he shouldn’t be on this team?
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
You can’t say he wasn’t ready if he wasn’t healthy enough to show what he can do.
Sure I can. And I do.
What I think is really bothering you, if I may read between the lines, is “was it fair?” Nope, it wasn’t, but that was the fault of neither Hodgson nor of the Canucks, just bad luck on the timing. He went to camp to compete for a spot – and if you’re not up to that then you shouldn’t even go – and was treated exactly the same as any other prospect.
As for the “EVERY opportunity” part … is he even skating yet? Where exactly does “every” end?
It ends when he is ready to go at 100%. Why can’t we wait? He didn’t have to get sent down right away.
See you can say he wasn’t ready to try and make this team. Sure cause he was hurt. But you can’t say he wasn’t ready to play at this level. Like in terms of his development and his game and how good he is right now, or when healthy, we have no idea if he was good enough to play at this level cause he wasn’t given the chance to prove it. And boy could we use a dynamic young forward this season since we have had injury problems that look likely to continue for a while and with that long ass Olympic road trip some fresh young legs would sure be nice.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
Still can’t use him, even if you want to, he’s still not healthy. In the meantime, that’s a roster spot tied up all this time, in an injury-plagued year, by a non-playing player who may or may not be ready even when healthy. When’s that gonna be? Christmas, literally?
Plus he’d get the “teacher’s pet” label from the special treatment. For contrast, ask Grabner if the team cut him any slack when he underperformed or if they just said “play better!” Or Shirokov. Or Cory Schneider. You step on the ice to compete, you do so w/out excuses. By being there you are stating that you’re ready.
But Hodgson hasn’t underperformed. Cause he isn’t healthy. Dude. What is wrong with you?
By being there you are stating that you’re ready.
By being there he showed he is a competitor and the team let him down not the other way around. They should have had him on LTIR until he could compete for a job. Teacher’s pet? Who fucking cares? Just ice the best team possible. And we will never know if Hodgson could have made this team better cause he wasn’t given a fair shake at it.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
And we’d know? How? Is he even skating? Can he even participate in a contact drill, much less a game? Will he be able to before the season ends anyway?
Yes, he is a competitor, and a true competitor knows that there are no excuses. You can’t blame your slow reflexes if you’re old, or your lack of speed if you’re slow, or your bad eyes if you can’t see the puck, or whatever. You gotta produce.
But Hodgson hasn’t underperformed. Cause he isn’t healthy.
That should instead read:
But Hodgson has underperformed because he isn’t healthy.
He hasn’t underperformed. He didn’t get the chance to PERFORM. Don’t you see that or are you too blinkered to see beyond what Mike Gillis tells you?
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
I’ve never spoken to Mr. Gillis, actually.
And yes, Cody did get a chance to perform. I saw him, you did too – his name was right there on the back of his jersey – on the ice doing his best and it wasn’t good enough.
Maybe that was because he wasn’t healthy; I’d like to think so cuz he seems like such a good kid and I was rooting for him. But who can tell for sure in that situation? All we know is that, for whatever reason, he didn’t perform well enough on the ice to win a spot .
You are equating his injury with a complete excuse for not performing well, and even trying to redefine the plain meaning of the word “perform” in furtherance of that.
Shall we play him as is, then, and ask the other teams to go easy on him cuz he’s hurt? Well,that’s just a ridiculous idea, reductio ad absurdum, to make a point, that it won’t work, will it? Why not? Cuz you gotta perform, no excuses, that’s why. Either you can contribute or you can’t.
I don’t want to argue about this anymore. But I will say this. Stamkos, Schenn, Doughty, Bogosian, Pietrangelo, Filatov, Boedker, Del Zotto are all current NHLers drafted the same year as Hodgson. All of them are impact players and a couple of them are on contenders. Hodgson has been as good as these players his whole life. So why would you think he couldn’t be having a similar impact on our roster this season once healthy?
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions
OK clearly you aren’t getting my point so I will stop trying to make it. Either Hodgson could or couldn’t perform. Absolutely. You are saying based on what you saw he wasn’t good enough. Fine. BUT HE HASN’T PLAYED SINCE. He is TOO HURT to play hockey. So he wasn’t good enough to play at the NHL level because he was hurt. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be good enough to make an impact or play at this level when healthy. He IS good enough but we will never get the benefit of his impact because of short sighted management. That’s all I will say because as I said you clearly are set on the he didn’t perform stance and since you don’t care he was too hurt to play then I can’t make you see why you and Gillis are wrong.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions
Think what that means. He’ll still be easing into a much lesser league by Christmas (best case). You wanna do a stretch run w/a raw, currently fragile rookie, who’s never played at the NHL level, and drop him into the toughest, baning-est part of the season w/no prep time other than practice drills? Kinda like Kessel meets Ohlund, only worse.
So if he is healthy after Christmas he has what 35 games to get used to the NHL level? And if at any time during that process he isn’t good enough you let him go back to the minors. Nothing lost. Only you had the chance to be much better this year at no risk. Why wouldn’t you do that?
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions
Cuz he’s not even gonna be healthy enough to try a junior game (NHL’s tougher) till December, for starters.
Why, oh why, won’t the Brampton Battalion give this kid a chance to perform today! Bastards.
Dude. I am saying that he is hurt so he should have been given the time to heal before he was tried at the NHL level. That is the only way we would ever have known if he was good enough. What is so hard to understand about that? When he is healthy he will be dominating the CHL again and at roughly the same time the Canucks will be on a long ass road trip with tired legs and not scoring much and you are going to be WISHING we had waited for Hodgson to be healthy to play him at this level.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
He is being given time to heal. He was given a year.
And no, I won’t be wishing we had him at that pt. I’ll be glad we have him for the future.
Why can’t we have him later this season when healthy and in the future? WTF kind of reasoning is that?
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
He is being given a year sure. But he can’t help us this year now and we might need him. Plus by treating him the way we did there is a chance he will be unwilling to sign with us long term after his entry level deal is up therefore costing us his services long term.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
None of whom would have made their team if they played like Hodgson did. But they performed well enough.
Plus they were healthy enough to do so, instead of being off their skates for months on end and still not playing cuzza that.
If any of the players yaota and I had mentioned had been too hurt to play in preseason they would be rehabbing right now with the big club and then given their shot. Can’t you see that is the right thing to do with a potential high impact prospect?
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
Out of args? You have yet to comprehend any of the 15 different “args” we have brought up.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:33 PM PST up reply actions
You said
Hodgson has underperformed because he isn’t healthy.
So does the same apply across the board or just in this case where Gillisgan made a complete ass of himself?
Didn’t Gillis make the excuse that Wellwood hasn’t been playing well because he is hurt? I mean if Wellwood, a decent journeyman, gets that treatment why wouldn’t your top prospect?
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
Unless
you are Kyle Wellwood?
Or Raymond or Bernier up until recently?
Or Hordichuk?
Or even Ryan Johnson?
Did I leave anyone out?
yoata there is no point arguing this anymore. He won’t budge from his view that Hodgson didn’t perform well enough. There is no way to make him see that he shouldn’t have been on the ice to begin with. He NEVER should have been playing let alone criticized for that play at the time or even now as casual is doing. So what’s the point of arguing? I will admit he didn’t play well enough to make the team in preseason all I am saying is he is good enough to play at this level based on everything we have seen OTHER than preseason when he was TOO injured to be playing. If the guy can’t understand that. Can’t wrap his head around that then there is no piont arguing anymore.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
he is good enough to play at this level based on everything we have seen OTHER than preseason when he was TOO injured to be playing.
Yup, but he still has to prove he can up it to NHL level where the game is quicker. Doug Wickenheiser and Alexander Daigle stand as examples to the difficulty.
And Cody didn’t perform, and he’s still injured, and he won’t even be able to try junior hockey till almost Christmas.
As for being on the ice, hey, he’s a kid in lingo only; he’s also a man who knows that if he’s on the ice, he has to deliver. He can’t underperform and then ask for handicap points. Doesn;t work that way. If he himself chooses to be there, he chooses to compete, straight up.
Fuck me. Dude, the guy should have been forced to heal up. He wanted to play which is great but he WAS TOO HURT TO BE OUT THERE. I can’t make it more simple than this. HE WAS TOO HURT TO PLAY. Yet they let him play anyway and then you say he isn’t good enough. It makes ZERO sense.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
heh
easy bud, go two posts up and read your own advice.
I know it’s frustrating believe me, but it ain’t worth gettin bent out of shape over.
The Fuck Me part was just me being mad at myself for continuing to try to get through to this guy.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
No no yoata see you have to earn your spot in the preseason. But once the season starts you are fine. Can’t go anywhere. Unless you are a rookie.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
Nothing wrong with taking our team and it’s future seriously.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 12:59 PM PST up reply actions
You can’t say Hodgson didn’t get a fair shake when he was playing injured. If you’re injured, you don’t play. End of story. How is that not fair? I’d rather him start next season fully rested, fully healed, and play a full NHL season. I think we all know he’s a good hockey player.
Well first of all “fair” shouldn’t come into the equation. We are trying to win cups not be “fair.”
He played hurt because the medical staff blew it. Then the coach and the GM and now the fans piled on because he wasn’t good. Well geez do you think the injury had anything to do with him being bad?
I’d rather him start next season fully rested, fully healed, and play a full NHL season.
Well that’s fine. I would rather see this team be as good as possible and win this year than worry about next year but to each their own.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
I’d just rather him heal himself up this year and take it easier than last year rather than rush him into the NHL and have him reinjure himself. Everyone will be in mid-season form by the time he comes back and he might not be able to adjust. I think it does him and the team a favor if we give him a shot next season.
That’s fine but keep in mind the Canucks didn’t know he was hurt until he went back to junior. Or they didn’t care. They let him play anyway. So they did in fact rush him in preseason. They also called him out about his play. So they risked him this preseason, they risked angering him to the point that he won’t want to play here and if all those guys his age or similar age are contributing our management also cost themselves a potential contributor down the stretch that may have made the difference between a long play off run and a short one.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
You think sports injuries are that cut and dried? Man, that’s not what my doc tells me. Nor what Demitra’s surgeon said, for that matter. Nor even the great Bobby Orr when he tried to come back on wonky knees. Guess they just don’t know sports medicine as well as the experts here do.
Yup, with Cody begging for a chance the team shouldda said instead “no way. Even tho Cody says he can do it, and even tho our med staff say he has a chance, we just don;t wanna even try. Trust us.” For sure then you guys wouldda approved, cuz otherwise you’d just be knee-jerk oppositional to either fork in the road.
The medical staff blew it. He was too hurt to play. Everyone knows that. He hasn’t played since so clearly he shouldn’t have gone. There is nothing else that needs to be said.
by Section 312 on Nov 17, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
Ah, so you wouldda refused him then, over his own objections, in the face of ambiguous evidence (had to be ambiguous to have gotten us here), and not let him even try out for the team? I’m sure Cody wouldda loved the team for that, and other players around the league, all of whom play hurt at times, wouldda said, “Wow, Vancouver is the place for me! The city where you can’t even try!”
See where that approach leads?
‘night. Mayhaps in the morn you and yoata could tell us what, specifically, you would have done differently. I’ve asked that before, but it’s always gone unanswered.
So far you have stated that Hodgson never got a chance to perform, and also that he shouldn’t have been allowed to play. I look fw to hearing you resolve those two seemingly contradictory ideas in a manner leading to a different path from the one that was actually taken.
Horseshit again
I’ve said from the get-go that they had to give him a real opportunity and the confidence to go out and do his thing without being afraid to make a mistake.
Since he was obviously (to anyone who watched him play in the WJC and then in the preseason) that begins with making sure he’s healthy before pushing him to “perform”. If that means exercising the team’s option to keep him for 9 NHL games without obligation, then by all means exercise that option, declining is just bush and seemingly out of spite, especially since it was coupled with disparaging public remarks about his character and integrity.
THEN, when he’s healthy, give him a real shot, with significant minutes in a role that will provide him an opportunity to display his abilities.
But no wait, you and Gillisgan are right, doing the exact opposite of all of that sounds like a much much better plan. :dizzy:
I’ve said from the get-go that they had to give him a real opportunity and the confidence to go out and do his thing without being afraid to make a mistake.
That’s vague; let’s be clear instead. Are you saying that you’d have had him on the roster, LTIR, all this time? Is that your position?
Mr. Obtuse strikes again.
that begins with making sure he’s healthy before pushing him to "perform". If that means exercising the team’s option to keep him for 9 NHL games without obligation, then by all means exercise that option
There anything vague about that?
That’s Mr. Abstruse to you, padnuh,
And yes, your previous answer was vague, so I repeat: you’d have had him on the roster, LTIR, all this time? A simple y/n answer will do.
No it’s not been answered at all. I saw zero yes/no answers from you, merely dissembling on vague generalities. Oh do bear with us, master (gollum gollum) and answer our wee riddle directly before proceeding:
Are you saying that you’d have had him on the roster, LTIR, all this time? Is that your position?
y/n?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Answer (once again):
that begins with making sure he’s healthy before pushing him to “perform”. If that means exercising the team’s option to keep him for 9 NHL games without obligation, then by all means exercise that option
Again, if they’d handled him properly to begin with, he’d likely have healed a lot sooner, perhaps in time for the season, but they didn’t.
Do you get it yet?
y/n?
Nope, I still don’t know your y/n answer, nor does anyone else here, cuz you haven’t given one.
But we can all watch you squirm…one…more…time!
Are you saying that you’d have had him on the roster, LTIR, all this time? Is that your position?
y/n?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Just having fun watching you avoid answering. Gonna be quite a climbdown for you when you have to admit that Gillis was right and you were wrong, won’t it? Unless that’s not the case, and you can put forth a stronger argument for keeping Cody.
By dodging the q, you imply that Gills was right, you were wrong, and you’re simply too prideful to come out and admit that you wouldda done the same thing. Plus, you get to face the same q every time you bring the subject up. Gonna be a great year!
Oh that won’t happen, will it? Surely yoata will answer a simple y/n question and put such mistaken rumor to rest. Maybe he just didn’t hear it the first dozen times.
I know! Let’s ask him again!
Are you saying that you’d have had Hodgson on the roster, LTIR, all this time? Is that your position?
y/n?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
You need to grow up
So your answer is yes, you have a comprehension problem, good, that’s what I thought.
You are no one to talk about answering questions, I have answered far more of yours than you have mine.
Like Wellfed for example?
Wow, still no answer, just high-school attitude and an attempt to change the subject.
But I grew up in a big family, so I know how to handle attitude … I use “focus power!” Here, watch it in action:
Are you saying that you’d have had Hodgson on the roster, LTIR, all this time? Is that your position?
y/n?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
LMAO
just high-school attitude
You need to look at your last however many posts to me you sad little twit.
Try contributing something to the discussion for once, aside from pathetically immature personal rhetoric.
Sure, I’ll ask you a pertinent question:
Are you saying that you’d have had Hodgson on the roster, LTIR, all this time? Is that your position?
y/n?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
casual dude yoata and I have both said this over and over. Yes. We would have kept Hodgson around until healthy enough to compete and then seen if he was good enough for the NHL level. How many times do we have to say that for you to understand it?
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions
Thx Section 312. I’d completely disagree w/that position, but at least you stake it out openly.
And btw, yoata has never said as much. He’s talked around the topic, mentioning 9 games trials and such, but he has not yet come out and said that he’d have kept Hodgson on the roster on the LTIR.
I’ll ask him again, just so we know if he agrees with you or if he agrees with Gillis.
yoata, are you saying that you’d have had Hodgson on the roster, LTIR, all this time? Is that your position?
y/n?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
OK casual let’s talk about this then. Can you tell me why you wouldn’t have kept him around until he was healthy and then seen what he can do? I mean I know you have already said you know he isn’t good enough based on preseason but you must understand that he was slowed down by an injury so we can’t be sure how good or bad he would have been. I think he was and is good enough to contribute when healthy but I will admit that is more based on hunch then fact. But you must admit your position that he isn’t good enough right now is based on a bad preseason that was influenced by injury. Where is the risk
I guess my point is I think he could have helped at some point and maybe helped push us to another level. He is that good that if he adjusts to the NHL game he is a huge asset. And to me there was ZERO risk keeping him here, getting him healthy and then seeing what he can do. Maybe we burn a year of his contract but maybe we go on a long playoff run and he is contributing. Would you trade that year off his contract for a long playoff run? I would and that is why I think there was little risk to keeping him here versus sending him to Brampton.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
1. He takes up a roster spot
2. He can only play at best a part of the year and might not play at all. How’s he gonna develop that way?
3. He’s still not proved himself at the NHL level, only junior. Shirok, for ex, proved himself at higher levels than that – KHL and NHL Exhibition – but that last step has so far eluded him. It’s tougher than it looks, even for talented kids and there are no guarantees.
4. We burn a year of his entry level. In the salary cap world, having talented entry-level guys makes a big diff. Ask Chicago.
5. He starts out cold in the middle of a season so he’s that much farther behind in development and is playing in games that mean that much more. He’ll be less ready than ever. Mr. Kessler, meet Mr. Ohlund. Over and over.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Ok fair points. We are obviously never going to agree on this. But here is what I think.
1. His salary is pretty low and if he hadn’t been healthy in the first week or two of the season, assuming playing in preseason did more damage hence why he is still out, then you could LTIR him. Not a big deal either way since we had early injuries keeping us under the cap.
2. He isn’t developing now anyway. So why not wait until we can see if he can play at this level. Then is he can sweet our team is better. If he can’t no worries he goes back to junior where let’s be honest not much developing is going to happen anyway. (He has as they say already done everything he can at that level)
3. You are right he hasn’t proved he can play at this level. But because of injuries he hasn’t proved he can’t either. That’s why I think you wait for him to be healthy and then see if he can play at this level.
4. Yeah and ask Chicago what happens after those three years are up and you have to move 3 or 4 guys to get under the cap. They are probably going to have to buy out Campbell at a high cost to the owners. Not to mention Huet’s contract being a albatross. The contract thing doesn’t worry me as much as I have explained before. If we can win now and Cody had helped us make a long playoff run, which I don’t think is TOO far fetched, it is worth that year of his deal. Again, to me, it is about being the best team we can this year and Hodgson could have helped us once healthy.
5. AHL rehab assignment is allowed even if you are 18 so he can get back up to speed with 5 or 6 games on the farm. Then try him out in the NHL see how he adjusts if he can’t compete send him down.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions
He'll never get it Section
he doesn’t want to get it, it will mess too much with his fantasies about how perfect and wonderful and infallible his coach and GM are.
You can listen to it over at TEAM 1040 I would imagine, but MG was on for a whole hour with P&T.
He talked about a bunch of things…but said Cody was a victim of bad timing more than anything else.
And that he was cleared to play, but not 100%.
Which…quite honestly, makes me doubt our medical staff more than anything else.
MG did answer the questions in what at least seemed like an honest manner.
Didn’t find it on their site just now, but I am sure you could find it there.
Sorry Cas’, I agree with both sides in that “Cody” debate somewhat.
Bottom line is, yes, he wasn’t 100%.
But Section Y’…just a thought, is it soooo bad that he didn’t burn a year in a season he would have been struggling to perform in? He is not 100% even now, but the sawbones on the team said he could play then. So, we would have been getting a look at “damaged goods” in those 9 games.
Yes, lots of good players have made their mark in different ways. Some benefited from that last year of junior.
Some didn’t need it.
So what? Comparing Cody Hodgson to other drafts and their path is not fair, simply because every player walks that path in their own way.
If the end result is that we have him on the E.L deal for 3 instead of 2 years, and he is healthy for the start of next year…(or even at the end of junior when he CAN be called up when the roster gets expanded)…and how many “stars” got their big break in the league in the playoffs?
Lastly, this talk of the “slight” somehow affecting a future relationship is pretty wrong headed. They are all professionals. If we have miread Cody so much that his character is such that at the first sign of adversity he wants to cut and run.
Fuck em.
Now…maybe the Canucks need to look at changing the HMO, but not in how they handled the situation.
I agree with you in the end Cas’. I really don’t see how they could have done it differently.
And no, I ain’t asking to pick up the debate.
I see both sides points…but really, what else would we do? Give him preferential treatment and take a roster spot from someone that deserves to play?
Might cost the team a guy like say…Hansen…that still OK with you guys?
Just asking…in the most respectful way of course!
;-)
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Preferential treatment?
Allowing a young player with a back injury the opportunity to heal completely before being pushed to “preform” = preferential?
There’s little doubt in my mind that he was pushed to return too soon and that obviously set back his rehabilitation. If he hadn’t been, he very likely would have been ready to play much sooner and you’re damned right I think a year in the NHL at this stage in his career would be far more beneficial to him than another year of junior.
The yoata pre-season chant:
Give Cody a chance! Don’t let him play!
Give Cody a chance! Don’t let him play!
(now we just gotta teach it to the organist at the games for next year)
The chant summarizes what you have stated quite clearly you think the team should have done w/Cody in pre-season: not let him play in order to give him a chance.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
You really do
think a lot of your lame little quips don’t you? Hope you amuse yourself as much as you amuse me with those sad little examples of pseudo-intellect.
You can lead a donkey to logic, but you can’t make him think.
Dan my point is and always will be that the Canucks as an organization need to do their utmost to try and win this year. Sure, you need to plan for the future but this is the year we need to focus on winning. And having a young gifted forward who can put the puck in the net and is very good in his own end, and always has been, would have helped us have the best team possible. But instead of letting him get 100% healthy and then see what he can do our management called him out for not being good enough. I am not saying injuries are an excuse. If a guy comes to camp hurt who is on the bubble of making a team and can’t go then he misses his chance and goes to the minors. I get that. But not with a TOP prospect who doesn’t have the option of going to the AHL. You have to give that kid the time to get healthy, then see what he can do, then decide what to do with him.
And I would have been willing to burn a year of his contract to do it and here is why. If he burned a year of his contract this year and didn’t do much for us it’s not that big of a deal because in his second year he would have put up decent numbers, most likely, but not spectacular ones, again this is based on what I think he is capable of and what guys of his talent level usually do in their second year. So after his second season we are looking to re-sign him long term he will be cheaper because he hasn’t had a break out year yet. So maybe you can get him for 3 million or something instead of 5. If he plays well next year, lights out the next year and we are looking to resign him long term we will pay more for that opportunity. I hope that makes sense. Plus, there is a good chance in 3 years Gillis, AV and company won’t be around. The average life span of a coach and GM indicate that they are long shots to be around in 3 years. So why worry about what will happen with Hodgson in 3 years? I say try to win this year and I maintain that Hodgson could have had an impact on this team once healthy. He is a guy who can PK, who plays good two way hockey, as mentioned above he has always been known as a two way guy it wasn’t until the last 2 years that the offense really took off, and he is a beast on the PP. He could have been a very good third line player capable of putting up 40-50 points IMHO and we could use that kind of player.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
Hope I am adding something here
During preseason I thought Hodgson had a back injury. Mostly because I have had one too. His complains lack of ability to push off immediately and react to the play mirrored my own experience.
SO I was a little surprised when the Canucks medical staff cleared him. However I was not totally surprised because it is hard to differentiate between an injury and natural anomaly in the spine. That is why there are high priced back specialists.
So by now it is obvious to everyone that Hodgson was hurt through training camp. The Canucks would have been wise to put him in on IR and keep him around. Having said that doing so would have been expensive. Canucks management had credible medical advice (wrong but credible) so I can see why they did what they did.
For me end of story we all make mistakes and good luck to Cory this year in junior. He will be awesome for us if and when he can completely recover.
If he is willing to play for Gillis and AV. I mean it wouldn’t be the first time a kid has held out to avoid playing for a certain organization. I don’t think it will happen because I think Hodgson has too much character for something like that. But it does worry me a little the way he was treated this preseason and how he will react to it.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
I hope you are right
but the other thing I worry about is his confidence even if he does stay with the org, he damn near made the team at 18, but had his heart broken twice now and this time he’s been blamed and accused of what? Malingering? Because he was truly injured with a bad back? I mean that’s pretty hard to take, especially at that age, young kids need enouragement and to be told they are allowed to go out and make mistakes, not be browbeat and held down under someone’s thumb because they aren’t healthy and therefore don’t fit some neanderthal idea of someone’s definition of “tough”. I honestly worry that they may have seriously damaged this kid’s self-confidence and self-esteem and that to me would be a bigger shame than if he left the team forever.
Yes, do it for the children! O the compassion! O the humanity!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Too bad somebody
didn’t do more for your self-esteem when you were a child (last week?) then perhaps you’d have a little more maturity and class.
The thing is yoata most Canucks fans don’t really understand how to properly nurture and develop talented players. You can’t really blame them though they have been watching this organization botch talented players careers for damn near 30 years. Other than Ohlund, which they almost screwed up by not signing, the Sedins, and Bure who else is a top prospect that turned into a top player?
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe that’s why they changed GMs? Part of the reason at least. Kesler is developing just fine now, Raymond too, Grabner’s promising, Edler … great till recently, hope he’s just hiccuping. Hansen’s gonna have his breakout later this year, I hope, the tools are there and so is the attitude.
I’ve noted before that I thnk the RedWings, famed for their drafting, are even better at player development and that the Canucks needed to follow suit. Under Gillis, I see more of that – the fitness regimens, for ex, it’s a start – and we’ll see where it goes from here. Kesler and Grabner were both high picks, IIRC, so … so far, so good. Next up, a healthy Hodgson and a speedy Schroeder! Oh, and a retooled (for the N.A. game) Shirok, too!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Sorry but I don’t consider Raymond, Grabner, Edler or Hansen top prospects nor do I consider them now to be top players. Solid NHLers? Maybe. In come of those cases almost certainly. But stars? No. Sorry I forgot Kesler. But he was given a chance under Crawford and Burke to begin with more out of necessity than anything. He played his first few NHL games cause there was literally no one else good enough to call up. But he counts so sorry I forgot him. And obviously there are other older examples including Linden. But in the last 10 years it has been bad. As for Gillis he does seem to be doing a better job with developing players although it is a little early to tell for sure but so far I am encouraged. Except for Hodgson. And if I were you I would try to avoid getting too excited about Schroeder until he has made this team. He seems to me to be a high risk guy, could be very good could just as easily be very bad.
And Burrows doesn’t count for anything in this debate because he wasn’t drafted, was never a top prospect and will never be a top player. The Bieksa and Burrows of the world are just luck. The top ten pick type guys are the guys you have to build your team around and stake your reputation to.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
Kesler we agree on. Grabner was also a high pick and a top prospect at the time of drafting and should be counted as such. If he failed to bloom under the previous GM but blooms now, maybe it’s just maturity, but maybe it’s that he’s being developed better, too.
I still note that players develop better under the Canucks than under the Moose and have to wonder about that. Hopefully it’s just a blip in my observations.
As for the other players, it’s not just top picks that make up a team, it’s depth and development across the board. All those guys seem to have blossomed more under Gillis than under Nonis, and I kinda liked Nonis too so I have no axe to grind with him. But the blossoming of those guys, all of whom were kinda meh before, into solid NHL’ers, that says good things.
Agreed too that we can’t count on Schroeder yet, but I am hopeful. I mention him as our newest top pick, one we can watch from start to finish under Gillis, and see how he does. The only immediate risk in the kid that comes to mind is his size; everything else about him looks good so far.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I agree with most of that I guess my feeling is every team gets lucky with a 5th or 6th round guy like a Bieksa every couple years and I don’t think that is a sign of how a team develops players. To me it is the top players, the first round and high second round picks that matter. Like I am super happy with Yann Sauve and can’t believe I questioned that pick at the time. Shame on me. But in terms of drafting and developing top guys, first round guys we have been crap no matter who the Gm for a long time.
As for Grabner I have to admit I don’t think he is developing the way a 14th overall pick should develop but then looking at that draft it seems pretty weak. Only Foligno, Berglund and Giroux went after Grabs in that first round that I would rather have. So that isn’t as bad as I thought.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
The trend is now – or was, till he lost a fight with a soccer ball – Grabner’s friend. My point is just that he has developed more under Gillis than he did under Nonis. My concern is that his best steps fw were under Vigneault, not Arniel, and I hope that’s just coincidence.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Yeah and like I said I am encouraged by Gillis and the player development under him. Just not in the case of Cody Hodgson.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 1:47 PM PST up reply actions
Too early to tell. Cody had a sore back but wanted to try out for the team anyway and as discussed earlier, with backs you play the odds. Even when they’re in your favor, you’re gonna get caught once in a while: just ask any professional russian roulette player, they’ll tell ya.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Well I think the medical staff should have held him out until healthy. There is literally no risk in doing that. There is a tonne of risk in sending him out there hurt to see what he can do. But I know we disagree on this point.
Worst case scenario if you hold him out of the preseason and let him get healthy is…?
Worst case scenario if you let him play hurt in preseason is…..?
To me I will take the answer to the first one every time.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions
Worst case? A kid dying to make the team, a top pick, who says he’s ready and is chomping at the bit … is denied a chance to even try because of a percentage chance that some backs might get worse even tho most don’t?
Re-read Cody’s own initial comments about his back; he downplayed it and, I think, believed it was fine, too.
On a tangent, I still wonder if it’s actually a lesser physical injury than it’s made out to be, but if it got into his head as he struggled in camp. Yeah, it slowed him down, but did it then become his bete noire only after the slowdown turned out to be a difference maker in his career at that pt? Did he doctor-shop a bit in an attempt to assuage his fears?
That’s all speculation, for sure, but it fits the facts, too, better than the usual explanations. And it’s hardly damning of anyone, even Cody. Kid came in full of p&v and his confidence took a body blow. Having a horrible, nasty, no-good, very bad back helps him salvage his confidence for round 2 next year, where I hope he blows the doors off.
I’d love to get some of the Canuck trainers drunk and hear the inside scoop. Wouldn’t you?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
The thing is it isn’t 1975 anymore. If a guy is too hurt to go you don’t let him go. The medical staff needed to hold him out until 100% healthy. The whole play through the pain thing is fine but not when dealing with a young kid with high end potential. That’s how I feel anyway.
To be honest I couldn’t care less what Hodgson said about his back. It shouldn’t have been his call. He is 18. Obviously he is going to lie to get on the ice. Hell who wouldn’t?
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions
All season long, guys play thru the pain, top prospects, rookies, vets, 1st liners or 4th. ’Tis what ’tis.
And what Hodgson says matters in terms of clinical diagnosis. Docs gotta go w/what you tell them; e.g. balancing a med is still done largely by guess and by golly, and reluctant patients (that’s what my doc friend calls them) are the hardest to treat.
Plus it’s not always a cut-and-dried situation, which is why, for ex, Demitra is still out even after the best guys worked on him in the best facilities with x-rays and everything else to guide them.
Sometimes, you just play the odds. Usually that works but, by definition, not always. If we wanted to avoid all risk, however slight, we’d never get outta bed or drive a car, ever.
Like I said, I think Cody had a sore back and it slowed him down. Maybe it slowed him down a lot more than he expected or maybe just a little but enough to take a kid who’s used to being a superior athlete and make him ordinary and unable to crack the lineup.
But did it get into his head, too? I gotta wonder. That’s not a show-stopper; heck, it might even help him bounce back. It’d explain some things, too, a lot better than conspiracy theories do, anyway.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Conspiracy theories? He still isn’t playing right? Cause of his back? Not too much of a conspiracy theory there. Those sound like facts to me. his back was bad enough that as soon as he got to BRAMPTON they realized he was too hurt to play and he is still out. So why is a Junior team keeping a guy out until he is ready to play but an NHL team didn’t have the sense or good enough medical staff to do the same thing?
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
Plus there is a HUGE difference between playing through pain and playing injured. Playing through pain means it hurts but isn’t affecting you. It sucks and you tough it out but you can still help the team. Playing injured, to the point where you can’t compete the way you want to and you can’t help the team AND you might and probably will suffer more injuries by playing is stupid. Yet we let this kid do just that. And you think it is OK because you have to be tough? Come on. That’s just some outdated hockey macho bull shit.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
Can you casual at the very least admit that the coaching staff shouldn’t have called him out over his level of play because he was playing injured? Or is that OK too because you have to be mentally tough too?
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
Whoa, down tiger! Down, I say!
Once Cody decided to try out for the team, the coaches treated him the same as they treated everyone else there. Yeah, that’s fair.
Here’s the alternative: “Cody sucked out there but he says he’s hurt. Not too hurt to play, but he says it’s j-u-s-t bad enough that it makes him look like he’s not ready yet. But he deserves to make the team anyway even if his play doesn’t merit it. We’ll just take up a roster spot with him for a few months, then hope he can lead us thru the playoffs – not like those other guys we got – cuz he was good in junior, y’know.”
Or worse: “Cody did everything right out there, what a player! Man, he looked good.” Followed by his release with no idea why, not after comments like that.
It was a tough set of options that was faced. Rock, meet hard place. But it’s no one’s fault, and from the menu of lousy choices, the selections made (1. let him try, 2. send him back to Brampton based on his play) were the best of a bad lot.
That’s why it’s like pulling teeth to get yoata to answer my q, why he still dodges answering: cuz he’d have to either agree with Gillis or admit that the selections in that restaurant were all bad and how can you blame the team for that?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
No no no no no. The best option was let him get 100% healthy. Then see if he is good enough. Why is it so impossible for you to admit that we had the option to wait on him to be 100% healthy before trying him out? Why can’t you see that?
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Thus my “yoata chant”
Give Cody a chance! Don’t let him play!
That is what you are advocating. Why can’t I see that? Actually, I see it very clearly.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with letting a guy get healthy and then see what he can do?
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
Why is it so impossible for you to admit…
Cuz I don’t agree with it. If I did, it would be very easy to “admit” (i.e. say) it.
Or to rephrase your q: Which of your opinions are wrong ?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I fully admit and have admitted more than once to you that I understand your stance and in most cases it is probably the right way to go. This isn’t most cases. This is a potential Toews type player that could help us win a cup as early as this year. Special circumstances if ever there were.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
btw, when the coaches were asked for a fair assessment of Cody’s play … Cody, the much-hyped rookie that everyone was watching … what do you think they should have said? No comment?
Seriously, what would you, as coach or GM, said at the time when asked to critique Cody’s play, just as you had been asked to critique all the other players? Critiquing players is your job, after all.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
The coaches wouldn’t have had to say anything about his play if you listen to what I am saying. He wouldn’t have been playing cause he was too injured. So no need to comment on his play cause he wasn’t out there.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
Or you could say, “It looks like his back is worse than he let on. He wanted to play and you have to respect that but he is injured so we are going to shut him down. When he is healthy again we will give him every chance to make this team since he is our top prospect.”
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
Even if Cody wants to try AND your med staff clear him AND it’s a percentage thing anyway, as many injuries (e.g. Dank’s recovery time, Demo’s shoulder) are?
“90% chance it’ll be fine, sir. Think we should let the kid try?”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Yeah after the first game it was clear he wasn’t right. He admitted he didn’t have any explosion. So shut him down get him healthy.
You keep going on this stance that he played and wasn’t good enough. But he most likely would have been and is good enough when healthy. Admit that you think he is a good enough player when healthy to play at this level this year and I will leave to your opinion. But it is incredibly obtuse to continue saying he isn’t good enough based on evidence that is obviously tainted.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
BTW – last comment, really gotta go walk the dog – I don;t nec disagree that Cody will be a good player. I just don;t think he’s shown it yet. My biggest concern is not his health, but his speed; even when healthy, he could use a little more and I hope he works on that before next year, cuz the NHL is just such as fast league these days. And getting faster every year.
Bye.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
So you must be concerned with Tavares then? He is a worse skater than Hodgson.
by Section 312 on Nov 18, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
No, I have no concern about a NY Islander; hardly even notice him out here. I just think that any player should address his biggest weakness first. For Hodgson, that’s his speed.
If you were to coach Hodgson, what would you have him work hardest on? Which part of his game? I say speed, so I’d have my guys analyze and work w/him on his technique, his mechanics, and maybe on some workouts to add more fast-twitch explosiveness to his first three strides. I’d still work w/him on all the other aspects of his game, too, but speed would get a little more attention in his case.
What would you prefer?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
speed was his potential issue going into preseason, but with a back issue how is he supposed to showcase it?
I know I should stay out of the argument, but I’ll throw in my 2 cents.
If it is absolutely true that Hodgson’s back was fucked, then the Canucks medical staff and AV have some explaining to do, rather than how it was explained by AV.
Could we have let Hodgson sit on the sidelines until he was healthy and then given him the 9 game tryout? Sure, why not? Unless I’m missing out on some financial obligation with that, I don’t see how that option could hurt at all.
Man, I’d love for somebody to ask Gillis about this right now, or even AV for that matter. They’d probably say Hodgson’s doctor back east is full of it. I dunno for sure.
At one point I thought Cody deserved to be sent down. But after hearing about the 2nd opinion from his docs back east I changed my mind.
Somebody is full of shit here. And some questions need answering.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 18, 2009 6:07 PM PST up reply actions
Not a big fan of Gallagher,
But maybe re-read this article he wrote about Hodgson-Gillis-AV in October.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 18, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting TG article. Didn’t know that Cody had to try more than one doc before he found one who disagreed w/the team, tho I’d suspected it.
Disagree w/TG’s tone: Vigneault, to me, tried his best to say, “Hey, Cody, we still love you and you’ll be back. Don’t let that hired sawbones mess w/your mind, man.” It might have been a situation where the best thing to say was nothing at all …but the team had to say something.
I do agree that MG would never play a seriously injured player. Bumps & bruises, sure, but nothing serious. And as we thought, Cody himself first told the team he felt fine.
Honestly, I think he just had a bad camp and the back might, might have contributed to that. But I also think that to some degree, it became his psychological crutch … and maybe that’s a good thing, if it helps motivate him.
Remember his first go-around w/camp, two years ago? I think it was him, iirc. And he had apparently told his friends that he thought he was making the team for sure.
And then he didn’t. So this year had to be doubly crushing to his hopes. If it wasn’t the back, then maybe he might not ever be good enough (he’s still way too young to say that, but at 19 one gets impatient and one’s perspective on time is a lot different, too).
But if it was all in the back, then he’s still got a chance. And I hope he works toward that and makes it.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Honestly, I think he just had a bad camp and the back might, might have contributed to that. But I also think that to some degree, it became his psychological crutch … and maybe that’s a good thing, if it helps motivate him.
Wow, you could get a job as the parrot to AV’s pirate.
He barely missed making the team in 2008, and was head and shoulders a better player than then, CLEARLY it was the injury that held him back, especially since how many players he was voted better than at the end of last season (not to mention at the WJC) are now productive NHLers???
Oh but there’s that logic stuff again that casual has no use for, especially when it contradicts the great gods AV and Gillis…
Why would you ever say a thing like that about any of your players, no matter whom they might be, let alone the most promising draft pick this team has had since Mattias Ohlund?
Hmm, that all sounds strangely familiar…
Hodgson was probably thinking if he didn’t play, his chances of making the team and realizing his childhood dream this year were kaput, so he told the GM what he had to in order to get on the ice.
The question is why? Why would they not have told him, relax, don’t worry about it, you’re ready, we want you here, get healthy and you will have every opportunity to spend the year with us.
Why not?
This is bang on yoata. It all boils down to this for me.
The question is why? Why would they not have told him, relax, don’t worry about it, you’re ready, we want you here, get healthy and you will have every opportunity to spend the year with us.
Why not?
There is absolutely ZERO risk in handling your top prospect this way. The fair argument doesn’t work because this is profesional sports and fairness shouldn’t be a consideration. So no risk and potentially high rewards. That’s why I think we both agree Hodgson should have been kept around. You risk nothing but could get so much.
by Section 312 on Nov 19, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
My best guess, Sean is this: Hodgson had a sore back but wanted to tough it out and the med staff said, yeah, why not, most backs like this just recover anyway.
I dunno if it got worse or stayed the same thru camp. Nor do I know how much it held him back – i.e. whether it was a little problem or a big one.
He was then treated the same as any other rookie, which is fair … and had a lousy camp.
Was the back the difference maker? Can’t tell. Did it get into his head? Maybe. Did he go doctor shopping afterward, not cuz he’s a finger-pointer or a anything (he isn’t) but cuz it’s a natural reaction to failure to look for a reason that you can actually deal with? Maybe.
He might still be sitting on the sidelines to this day, tho. And “getting to the bottom of this,” if it turns out that the back was not the bigger problem, would humiliate the kid.
More likely, even if you lined up all the docs in the world, they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion. Medicine is not always so black and white.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I found it interesting that Gillis had said that Hodgson told him he was fine.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 18, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions
btw, my above comments were posted in reverse order, presumably because this thread is so deep we’re w-a-y over on the right hand side of the page now and there’s no more room to indent.
So if it looks like I was regressing … well, that’s always possible! … just not in this case.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
They should have
had the sense to realize he wasn’t healthy and therefore questioned the diagnosis before even putting him on the ice.
Oh ffs
now Gillis gets credit for Grabner?
Grabner developed in Manitoba, and is shining now not because anything Gillisgan did, but because he’s getting a real chance due to the injuries.
Player development has improved under Gillis. Burrows & Kes came of age under him whereas before they hadn’t. Raymond – you remember, the guy you recently said couldn’t score enough – too. Edler matured last year in the Gillis era. And Grabner, a guy written off as a bust by many, is now part of that pack as well.
Them’s the facts; we all watch ’em play.
Oh, and Jannick Hansen, too. Jeez, I almost forgot about him, but he’s a real solid player.
Think of their development every time you cheer one of those guys. All of them were also-rans a short while ago. None of them are now.
[They’re all fast, too, as is Gillis’ first first-rounder, Schroeder. Perhaps Gillis thinks speed is especially important these days. Would you agree?]
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
BS
Kes & Burr hit their stride the last half of the last year Nonis was there.
Just because players start to play well at a certain time does not mean current management is the cause, that’s an extreme oversimplification, which isn’t surprising coming from you.
Squirm all you like. Every Canuck who develops well under Gillis’ watch counts as a positive for him and undermines your witch hunt (and your judgment). All those guys I named are better under Gillis than they were under Nonis, sometimes by wide margins.
You can’t blame him when things go wrong … e.g. injuries! we have injuries! Grabner broke an ankle playing soccer! Blame Gillis! … and absolve him when things go right.
Well, you can, I guess, but that’s the nature of a witch hunt mentality. See the bind it puts you in? And your constant rudeness about it only tightens its grip, cuz now – warning, I’m gonna switch metaphors here – it’s a bigger hole than ever you’ve got yourself in. Dig, baby, dig!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I guess
Nonis gets credit for the twins, Bieksa, Kesler, Burrows, oh and let’s not forget Luongo, all of whom progressed hugely while he was here…
And again, pay attention, Kes and Burr started playing like this in ’07.
He gets credit for acquiring them, but not for developing them.
Is it more that teams with a bad draft history, like the Canucks, draft poorly as compared to, say, Detroit? Or is it more that they don’t develop the draft choices they do make?
Kes & Bur, btw, came alive last year. Prior to that they were 4th liners and checkers. Now they’re much more; that’s development for ya.
Sure is nice to finally see the Canucks developing so much young talent.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Never-ending BS with you
You need to pay better attention,
Kes & Burr were playing together and doing great work throughout the spring of ’07.
Sedins, Bieksa, Luongo, etc, all took big steps forward while Nonis was here, so by your “logic” he gets the credit.
Nonis gets credit for the steps taken in his time; Gillis gets credit for the steps since then.
Add it up if you like. We are developing young talent faster under Witch Gillis than we did under Nonis Of Olde.
And now you’ve painted yourself into a corner – that’s a new metaphor, btw – so that the better they play, the more your ego will suffer. Have fun watching the games.
Go Raymond!
Go Kes!
Go Hansen!
Go Grabs!
Go Burrows!
Go Edler!
See? I can enjoy watching them develop. Same w/Shirok when he returns, and he will, as a better player. Same w/other young players. Go Canucks!
All you got is a bitter taste in your mouth.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Clueless
and lost in your own fantasies.
Not to mention after all your big talk about proving me wrong, when I clearly do so to you in the other thread, you don’t have the integrity to admit it, you just disappear.
Therefore you have zero class and zero credibility which makes it pointless to have anything to do with your sad pathetic posts any longer.
The only bitter taste is that you get sucking on Gillisgan’s pipe, enjoy!
Speaking of squirming
notice you haven’t got anything to say in the schedule thread any more, BSd your way into an embarrasing little hole there eh?
Trudat
Not only have the Nucks historical not known how to assess young talent and therefore draft well, when they ever have gotten lucky (Bure) (Neely) (Sedins don’t count as luck, Burke knew what he was doing) they’ve managed to bugger that up as well.
I was hoping with Gillisgan’s drafting of talent instead of some “intangible” like most other Nuck GMs, we had a brighter outlook on building from within, but then he goes and pulls a Souptin with their best prospect in years.
Let’s not forget that Cody himself wanted to play, you know he did. Medical advice is mostly based on clinical observation, which means the tough kid who wants to play anyway can tell you he’s hurting but not enough for him to quit. And he means it.
No way the Canucks were gonna take an ambiguous diagnosis – and backs are like that, unfortunately – and cancel Cody’s tryout over it, nor would Cody have wanted that. He wanted to be treated like everyone else and to take his best shot, even if it meant playing thru pain and/or with some percentage chance of aggravating it.
Pretend for a moment that the med advice was, “the back is close to alright and most guys manage to play thru this, but there’s a 10% chance he’ll just aggravate it and have to sit down for a couple of months. It’s a luck-of-the-draw kinda thing”.
Do you let him try? I sure do. Roll dem bones.
Pretend for a moment
that AV and Gillisgan as is evidenced by their words and demeanor towards Hodgson all camp said to him “well if it’s close we think you should try because your opportunity is running out”
He’s looked pretty lost out there. It’s almost as if he was a better player when he was fatter. I hope for his sake that he can start to find the back of the net.
He looks a little lost in the offensive zone, but not in the defensive zone. They’ve obviously dedicated themselves to Welly being a work in progress.
by Sean Zandberg on Nov 17, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions
That’s an angle I hadn’t thought of!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I think I am going to be Captain Obtuse for Halloween next year.
by Section 312 on Nov 20, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Nucks Misconduct Store
Your clothing sucks. Go fix it.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
