Festivus For The Rest Of Us
by Yankee Canuck on Dec 9, 2009 11:04 AM PST
in Incessant Bitching
Email
PrintThe holiday includes novel practices such as the "Airing of Grievances", in which each person tells everyone else all the ways they have disappointed him or her over the past year.
I've abused this Seinfeld plot at least once a season for the past four years because sadly, once every season Vancouver looks so adrift and uninterested in playing up to the level of the best teams (to speak nothing of playoff bound teams) that I need Frank Constanza to get involved.
Botchford touches on a lot of the recent spat of weaknesses the team has shown, among them are poor defensive reads and horrific penalty killing. We may as well add in a snake-bitten power play and questionable shot decisions. Or, as Vigneault put it, the lack of timely goals. Or, as Sean said this week, Vancouver is the only team without a loser point in overtime. And how bad does this truth sound -
"I’m a goaltender, I can’t score," Roberto Luongo said.
No he can't. Bottom line - though the record may not reflect it, Vancouver is barely a .500 team and there's a lot in there to be concerned about.
They'll eventually string together a winning streak here and there, but they are setting themselves up to need exactly what they did last year: an unbelievable second half to narrow the gap between them and the elite Western teams. Only now they'll have to do it with less star power, an epic road trip and under the assumption they can stay healthy from here on out, including their best players laying it on the line in the Olympics.
It's tough to go from such a high (overpowering NJ and Philly in back to back games) to such a low like the past two losses, so perhaps this airing of grievances if premature. But after watching Nashville - a team they need to beat in order to get to the playoffs - not just be better on the puck at both ends of the rink but flat out dominant, my Constanza voice started screaming.
So I'm curious, what grievances might you have?
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Frustrating yes….but I have to disagree Yank, about the Preds being dominant on the puck….they were good, and deserved the win, but they were hardly dominant.
They left several Canucks wide open for great chances that were just missed. They didn’t play THAT much better…but once again bad breaks and shitty decisions cost them the game.
That one was frustrating as hell because the difference between winning and losing it was so close…
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"
Agree to disagree Dan. Vancouver put up good pressure, especially in the first. But the pace was lopsided after Erat’s second goal and they looked lost (to me) out there the rest of the way. They had some good stretches, but even after Sedin scored any chance of clawing back into that game was going to because on a Nashville mistake. It’s the turn overs and poor defensive decisions that did them in (again).
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Dec 9, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
They are still looking for an identity..
…whick is alarming, so late into the season. Either have a tight, shut-down defence, and try to win low-scoring games. They have done successfully this in the past.
Or, if they prefer a risky style, then they better outscore the opponent in high-scoring games.
Right now, they have the worst of both worlds: a risky defense and inability to score.
It was a very frustrating game to wathch. The worst of all, those lazy, stupid penalties.
Los Angeles, CA
Yep…thats what I was saying. Not taking away from Nashville at all, but they were playing a passive game.
The only times they were getting real opportunities was off of turnovers and when the faceoff was in the Canucks end.
I thought the Canucks inability to get the puck out of their own end like we know they can was the reason they lost this game. Nashville played well, because that passive play was backed up by pretty good defense in their own end. The home team seemed to know the Canucks M.O of getting it out along the boards and read it quite often and easily…keeping them in…
But the Canucks could have won this game with just a couple breaks.
Ahhhh well…time to go on a run at home…8 games at GM place…better go at least 6-2!
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"
Yes, I noticed that. There was so many times that they couldn’t get to puck out, it was as if they were playing scared. Nashville kept thowing the puck back at them.
Where is that aggressive forechecking in the offensive zone, and in the middle, that we have seen them playing a few times this season? Isn’t that something they could do every game?
Los Angeles, CA
Is AV the right personality for this team at this time? He’s a good coach and a good man, but is he the right fit for a team that wants to increase its offense in order to become a contender?
No one likes mistakes, but a constant emphasis on blunder-free hockey can also lead to an overly tight style of play, where “blunder-free” translates, as an example, into a cycle game that at times never leaves our end because no one will make any pass that might conceivably be intercepted. That style carries its own systemic risk, especially against hard-forechecking teams. Plus, when the puck is forever in your zone, let’s face it, the other guys are pros too and will eventually get chances no matter how determined you are, and you will make a dreaded mistake.
Ryan Kesler called it “rock bottom” to be scoring almost a point a game as a 2nd liner! That’s the sound of a player putting too much pressure on himself and if it’s indicative of rest of the team, it’s no wonder they can’t maintain focus: that sort of pressure drains you over time.
We came into the year saying we were gonna balance out our D with more O. To help with that, we even went out and got a puck-moving D-man in Ehrhoff and he’s been all that we had hoped for in that role. Our other D-men ain’t exactly chopped liver, either. Given all that, moving the puck outta our zone should be a strength, but it doesn’t look that way to me, it looks more like a weakness.
I’ve said before that AV’s fatal flaw might be his desire for, and belief in, mistake-free hockey. Man, that’s tough in an era where you can get 2 minutes for so much as touching a guy. To be sure, the balance will not be found in going to the other extreme and playing pond hockey, but if we really want and need a better balance … and I think we do … well, is he the right man to make that change?
He preaches shutdown defence, but we keep blowing leads and losing too many close games. We have outscored (+/-, goal differential) most of the teams ahead of us in the standings, yet here we are.
We can blame the players for their mistakes on the ice, but I see no signs that of all the teams in the NHL, we just happened to be the one to end up with a singular collection of lazy and unfocused guys. More likely, they are responding in predictably human manner to the instructions and attitudes from their coach, and the result is an overly tight attitude, not “in the zone” at all.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Is AV the right personality for this team at this time?
Just like Festivus, I ask this nearly every season too. And no I don’t think he is, but sadly, if he was canned back when he should have been (last January) there were some decent replacements out there. Now? Maybe you try Scott Arniel, but I don’t know anyone who’s going to get better results.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Dec 9, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
I think I’m mostly at a loss for words. What a depressing loss. This team is failing and has no excuses, or, at least, I don’t want to hear them or make any for them. AV will be axed if they don’t turn it around soon. I believe that, and hope that would be the case. I do think Scott Arniel is being groomed to replace him. But we just have to wait and see what the team does on this huge home stand.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 9, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
As we say on the stock-market, “we are sinking on the slope of hope”. There is always the next big homestand, or the next challenging roadtrip, to raise hope and postpone a decision.
But I understand, Gillis needs to give him a fex extra chances before all hell breaks lose.
Los Angeles, CA
I think Gillis, when he first got to know AV, liked and respected him and still does. The only q was, and still is, is he the right guide to take us on this path?
This year was was when that q was to be answered; Gillis had had a year to watch the team in regular season and in the playoffs, and he had set a direction and acquired key pieces such as Ehrhoff to help out with that. Now what we are seeing is if AV is a good fit, given the changes.
So far, I’m overall leaning against him cuzza that fatal flaw of his, but I will say that I have seen some movement for the better at times … just not enough. Is he adapting and it’s simply a case of “faster, please?” That would be a best case, and I guess we’ll see.
p.s. Attila, I really liked your “slope of hope” metaphor, had’t heard that one before and it sums things up pretty well. If we were to adopt a more aggressive approach to moving the puck outta our zone, one that looked more dangerous (and occasionally was) but was overall more effective, would that constitute “climbing a wall of worry?”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
“If we were to adopt a more aggressive approach to moving the puck outta our zone, one that looked more dangerous (and occasionally was) but was overall more effective, would that constitute "climbing a wall of worry?”
That’s right, the “wall of worry” would mean that we take some chances with changes that can takes us in the right direction. There is always a risk involved, but no risk means no gain.
Los Angeles, CA
The thing is the talent pool is clearly there. If you get someone like Grabner back in the mix producing, he and Raymond can be this year’s Kesler and Burrows with their stand out play. Maybe.
But not getting it done on the ice is one thing, it’s the way they are doing it: the uninterested, lazy, penalty-filled losses. At some point that’s not the players fault, it’s the guy behind the bench. And if AV had been canned last year, I would have felt sort of bad even though it would have been the right thing. Now I see a coach who has struggled to get the best out of his guys in three straight seasons (that second half tear last winter saved him) and he can’t use the Nonis and the purse string excuse anymore.
Now…all of that said, these guys have to get better. Each and every line doesn’t have an excuse for losses like the last two.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Dec 9, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
I was really excited about Grabner, when he got hot. This kid has some great offensive talent.
Los Angeles, CA
I’m glad they didn’t give up on him. He’s got a bright future, hopefully here. That injury was frustrating, just as kid was getting his game sense in tune.
Damn you soccer!
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Dec 9, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
Lots
of time left in the season and I suspect they will turn it around, but as it should be when the guy makes as much as he does, it will probably require a more consistent performance level from Lu.
Still think this team has a lot of the right pieces, just hoping Gillis will take his balls out of his pocket by the deadline and trade some surplus (D) to fill some holes (O), and another SC vet wouldn’t hurt either.
I actually think part of the problem is the D not getting the puck up to the forwards early enough and with speed. With Kesler and Raymond on a line the neutral zone should be nice and open. I say that because if our D are hitting those two guys in stride coming out of the zone the other teams D will have to be backing up early to cope with them and we would then have an easier time getting through the neutral zone and into the offensive zone. I don’t see us doing that consistently. Why aren’t our speedy forwards able to get the other teams D to turn? Cause they aren’t getting the puck in full flow. We would be so much more dangerous if that was the case. We do need another top 6 forward but I would love to see another really good puck mover too. Not sure where one could come from but that is what I would like to see.
by Section 312 on Dec 9, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions
No one can make those passes if they only stay on the boards, as we usually do. We need to use outlet passes and/or skate the puck out more often. That means taking a chance at turning it over and looking like fools in the process, which’ll happen at times for sure. The q is, on balance, will the benefits outweigh the costs?
Canucks are hardly the only team that does this, either. Most teams stick to the boards to varying degrees. I just think that we do it more/too often, doubly so given that we have the personnel to break out more effectively and get the puck either to our speedy fw’s in flight (Kesler’s lines, for ex) or to our wend-and-weave guys (Sedin line, for ex) with some room to gain the opposing zone.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Yeah it is clear AV would rather have a guy chip it out off the boards than reverse it to his D partner in the middle of the ice who can then make a nice outlet pass. The benefits obviously outweigh the drawbacks. You think your goalie is one of the best you have to be willing to let him bail you out. Trying to get more offense will lead to more offense. It might also lead to more chances against but not necessarily. We should have the personnel to be more risky on the breakout and do so effectively.
by Section 312 on Dec 9, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t see the Red Wings playing the board too often. That’s why they are such a tremendous puck-possession team (though lately they have their own troubles). Playing the boards is like playing pinball, you never know where the puck is going to end up.
Los Angeles, CA
I agree although like anything in life there is a time and a place for it. Late in a game up two goals? Just get the puck off the glass and out of the zone and regroup. 5 minutes into the first period in a tie game? What is AV trying to achieve? I just don’t think AV can coach offense. And he does seem to beat down young talented players to the point where they are scared to do what they do best, like Grabner, which is put up points.
by Section 312 on Dec 9, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions
I endorse Section 312 to be coach.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Dec 9, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions
Seconded.
If we were a young club starting out, AV would be a great choice; teach the kids the basics, keep us close and steal a few, all the usual stuff. Maybe that’s his niche in the league, his comfort zone where he would excel.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
You have to think with our personnel we could be playing a much more uptempo and aggressive offensive style and still be good in our own zone. Why play sooo defensively all the time when you have a very solid group of D men and a very good goalie? Doesn’t make much sense. The coach should coach to his teams strengths/
by Section 312 on Dec 9, 2009 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
It might be that he is deliberately coaching the guys to be so cautious … or it might be that, even when he tells them they’re allowed to use more of their own discretion on the ice, they are nonetheless “conditioned” to make the safe play by the emphasis on not making a mistake.
It really is a balancing act and it’s awfully easy for you & I to sit here and debate it in the abstract; the real world is always tougher. But I’d at least like to see us try skating and outletting the puck out of our own zone more often, see how it goes.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I will only be coach if yoata is my assistant. I need someone to keep me in line and on my toes.
by Section 312 on Dec 9, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
I still cringe remembering our series against Anaheim a coupla years back. The Ducks just let Pronger and Niedermayer et al hold the puck in at the pt – they’re really good at that – and it seemed like the games were one long cycle against us.
Let ‘em cycle it, they’ll generate some chances. Give ‘em enough chances, they’ll score some goals.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
All about
puck support. Wings teams since Bowman ALWAYS give the puck carrier at least one safe outlet option. Not a 60 ft pass through 3 other players, a 10-15 ft pass to an open, preferrably but not necessarily breaking skater, and often with another player in that same pass line so if it gets past the first guy, another is there to pick it up. Protect the puck first, even if it means retreating back to set the rush up again and again, and when you don’t have the puck, for fuck sake get yourself in a position to accept it that offers as high a probability for success as possible.
But then that all requires a coach with some clue about offense and how to generate it, not one who just wants to do whatever it takes to keep the puck to the outside as if his players are all peewees incapable of making a good pass more than 1/2 the time.
Protect the puck first, even if it means retreating back to set the rush up again and again
Nail on head.
Puck possession is about recycling the puck when the breakout isn’t available. And that means taking the “risk” of having the puck in your own zone at times. Rather than chip the puck out and invite pressure back onto yourself you keep the puck until the right pass is available. And it will be available if you are patient. AV doesn’t let his guys do that because he is afraid they will make a mistake. As a coach you have to trust your players. They are on this team for a reason.
by Section 312 on Dec 10, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions
They had better
give Arniel a shot soon or someone else will.
At least he has shown that he can get the young talent to produce.
I agree
yes, that’s right, very much in fact.
That sort of undue pressure for “perfection” I think is evident in how Hodgson was handled, as well as Shirokov, Grabner, and Hansen, not to mention Naslund, and probably even Wellwould.
And are we seeing it again with Sammy being demoted to the 3rd line? Edler’s lack of confidence to start the season?
Demanding effort and attention to detail is one thing, but publicly preaching more O but then clearly showing only ineptitude in extracting it from the available talent is another entirely. Do they have a lot of offensive talent? Not of the elite variety no, but there are gifted young players on the team and in the system.
Not saying anyone will ever recapture what the soil had, but Sather knew one thing, you’ve got to let your young ponies run, fill their lungs and find their legs, “break” them before they have any confidence at all at this level and they may never find it.
Kind of like saying AV has them playing not to lose rather than playing to win?
by Section 312 on Dec 9, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
Ehh, things will even out. I wouldn’t focus on the negatives…every hockey team has under-performing players, players that are in slumps right now, etc. Look at it this way: the Nucks have one more win than Boston (Boston has one game in hand)…and they’re 3rd in the East. And, they only have three fewer wins than the Caps, and they’re tops in the NHL. Yeah, a couple OTL points would be nice, but if a couple extra loser points is the reason you get into the playoffs in the first place… you’re probably not going far anyway.
Except for Edmonton in 2006 of course… but fuck Edmonton.
Exactly…thanks for the perspective.
I am not sure if AV is the problem. Its a bit of both…coach’s system is a little to defensive and cautious, and the players not being loose and having fun.
I heard a radio show caller say that this team plays to the media in this town a bit. Maybe they get too high from good games, and too low from the bad ones.
We see in T.O what happens when the media gets too much attention, and I don’t want to see that tail keep wagging the dog.
This home stand, if they do what they are supposed to, should put them out on the road again with at least 4-5 games over .500.
Lets not write ANYONE off yet…though I am getting closer on Bernier.
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"
I would hope the media isn’t an issue. If they are being distracted by what the media is saying then they aren’t doing their jobs. I mean the kids I cover in Junior B don’t like to listen to what we say about them and they try not to read about themselves in the local paper.
by Section 312 on Dec 9, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, that sounds like groping for an answer in the wrong place. It’s not the media. Montreal’s media, for ex, was tough both when they had dynasties and today as they struggle. I highly doubt that the players are thinking about the media when they’re on the ice, be it practice or a game.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
The Junior B is a far cry from a team that gets dissected on every level for every thing.
I agree, it shouldn’t matter. Human nature being what it is…they are affected.
The thing that kills me in Vancity is that some of the most critical and supposedly all knowing about the game are guys that never came close to playing, and work out their passive aggressive tendencies in public about it. (looking at you Tony G)
I am not saying that it is…just quoted the radio guy to give some perspective and keep the convo lively.
Most of them SAY they never pay attention…but when you go for coffee, pick up your dry cleaning, and go to the store, and every wag you meet is reminding you of it…it might be hard to get away from it.
its the flip side of having a team so diefied in a Cdn. market
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"
Gotta agree Dan, but still say it doesn’t matter. They were abysmal at one point last year, couldn’t win a game, then turned it around and couldn’t lose one. Same media throughout.
Is it always fair, the way players get treated sometimes? Nope. Still not a bad job for a young man, tho….
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Casual…did you read some of that crap last year? I agree wholeheartedly that it shouldn’t matter.
I disagree with your assertion that it doesn’t matter. Its human nature. Everyone wants to be liked.
The things that kill me is the passive aggressive crap people like Tony G and Eddy Willes come up with. I know that they are just filling space sometimes, and are finding their very existence being threatened by the internet and places like where we are right now.
I don’t know how many times I have read an article from either one and went…“WTF game were YOU watching Tony”?
Bottom line? This team is better than their record, and can still get the job done. I think they need a couple personnel changes though.
As much as I have been defending them, I think those two changes should be Welly and Bernier, and would expect just those two gone when Demo and Grabner return.
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"
I never read Tony G or Eddy Wiles. Never even heard of Eddy Wiles, actually. Who? I get my news from a set of online sources and long ago weeded out the crap. I gave up on tv news and on newspapers. The occasional time that I do watch/read, I am astounded by how bad they are.
I do know the kind of persons you refer to, tho, the ones who get their rocks off by tearing others down. It’s the same mentality as those who burned witches long ago; doesn’t have to make sense, it just makes them feel good. God help them if they were ever to be judged by the same standards by which they judge others.
Welly’s job is on the line, I agree. Not so sure about Bernier, cuz he might still be a keeper. I only half-saw about half of last nite’s game, so I can’t comment much on it, but in general Bernier seems to be streaky. And I remember that he played up to a higher level in the stretch for us last year. So I’m kinda “hmmm” about him at this point. Do I need more “cruel to be kind” in me?
Anyway, for all the proposed changes, if AV were to be replaced, I’d first wanna see how these guys performed for the new coach. Maybe he could bring out something better in them. Both of the guys you singled out have shown tantalizing flashes in the past, but couldn’t sustain it. Might a new coach and a new system change that, bring out their best?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Losing
those two would require Gillis admitting two double mistakes (both his hires and re-hires) so not likely imo, especially in light of the other failed acquisitions he’s had.
Wellfed might be impossible not to move, unless the endless chances finally pay off, but I doubt Bernier gets moved unless it’s for a big upgrade and that ain;t likely.
Our play this year kind of reminds me of Calgary’s play last year. For whatever reason, we are just so inconsistent and unstructured. I like what AttilaS said about not having an identity; a couple times this year I’ve heard mixed messages coming from the team. Louie is usually saying we need to be better defensively, then you have guys like Kesler saying we need to open up offensively. It doesn’t seem like the team is pulling in the same direction.
I don’t what the answer is, but I am fearful of switching to a more offensive system. Every year you hear about how you need great defense in those tight playoff games. I’ve had my reservations about AV for a while, but at the same time I’d kind of rather deal with the evil I know as opposed to the evil I don’t know. I think AV might be able to do a better job if he just went with his usual defence-first high forecheck game, but it could be that Gillis is pressuring him to mix it up.
Will be interesting to see how things unfold. We definitely need to find an identity and find structure and stick with it. Kind of wish we had gotten Brent Sutter in the offseason haha, seems to have done wonders for Calgary’s consistency and Kipper’s confidence.
Maybe…I am far less willing than a bunch of people here to throw AV under the bus.
I think he is still a good coach, and the team is playing for him still.
Bernier is tantalizing…but damn…how many more wide open chances can the guy miss. It cost us a chance to tie last night.
Though, we all know what happens in hockey…you can’t fire all the players, so you fire the coach.
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"
Bernier is tantalizing
Nothing tantalizing about him as far as I am concerned. He is exactly what he looks like. I have never watched him play and thought that he has all kinds of potential. He misses a lot of chances, doesn’t skate that well and isn’t nearly as physical as he should be with that size. He is exactly what he looks like he is and to me anyway there is nothing there to suggest he will ever be more.
by Section 312 on Dec 9, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions
I like AV, and like I said above, I’ve seen glimmers of change, but overall I still wonder if he’s the right guy for the direction that we’re taking. If a suitable candidate were available – like if Morrow fired Babcock today, uh huh – I’d probably say, “yeah, make the change.”
If we want a cup, we need to make some changes to our team; the Chi series hilited that for us last year. We have good talent, but overall aren’t quite achieving.
We’re not in a bad position to improve. Our core guys are locked up (Kesler soon, too, I hope), and we’ve kept contract lengths reasonable so we get a chance to replace others fairly frequently: Demo, Wellwood, Johnson, Mitchell, M. Schneider are all UFAs next year, for ex. Bernier’s a RFA the year after that.
But whoever is on the team, the coach sets the direction. If I thought the players were at fault, I’d prob lobby to replace as many of them as soon as possible, and we could do a lot of that, too, starting at the end of this year. But I don;t think they’re the prob. Nor is Gillis. That leaves AV. Too bad, seems like a good guy. On the other hand, I suspect he’d be scooped up pretty quick by a rebuilding team somewhere, were we to let him go.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Other...and I will explain with gusto in the comments
As slow and out of shape as he was, Mats Sundin’s presence last year was a big, positive intangible (not only for Kes but for the entire team) which they are missing this season. So I’m thinking a superstar stud sniper (ala Heats, Kovs, Gabs)
Another huge reason is something that Gillis insisted on from the beginning of his tenure, which seems to have disappeared this season: CHARACTER, the lack of which has been evident on many occasions.
I guess I’m saying that maybe some of Gillis’s personnel decisions leave something to be desired. I also think Cory Schneider would be a positive addition to the team.
There is no Sundin-type coming for Xmas. Only a Demitra in the new year.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 9, 2009 8:06 PM PST up reply actions
I think the team as-is has no excuses. I think it should be good enough to have won at least 3 of 4 on that road trip. I feel like a schitzoid following these guys this season.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 9, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions
I know he’s not your fave, Sean, but he ain’t chopped liver, either. It could give us Sedin/Kesler/Demitra as our top 3 centers and maybe then we can get scoring from all three lines.
If Grabner sticks around as part of a Raymond-Kesler-Grabner line again, then is Welly the odd man out?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Nah, you misunderstood me a bit and I didn’t elaborate. Demitra will be a pleasant addition when he returns no doubt. But no, I don’t like him regardless ;)
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 9, 2009 9:53 PM PST up reply actions
My biggest grievance with this team (both from last night and over the course of most of the season) is the general lack of emotion.
After Smithson took a head shot at Burrows there was basically no response. Last years team would have stood up and started to pound the Predators but I was shocked that no one stood up and fought.
They seem so passive this year, and if there is one thing that makes a team hard to play against its an emotionally charged physical team. Last years playoff series against St. Louis comes to mind as a team with a lot of grit and a lot of smack talk. They have to start being hungrier right from the beginning of the game, and not be afraid to establish a physical presence early on.
Other
Beginning quarter of the season:
“Holy shit . Half the team is injured…even Lou! I guess we’ll have to bust our asses to keep enough air in this turd to keep it from sinking to the bottom of the bowl. Hey look…even the Moose callups who may never even play another game in the NHL are doing whatever it takes to keep us alive. As soon as we get healthy, we should be alright.”
Now:
“Perfect. Almost everyone back now. Thank God! I was killing myself to get those wins. Now that we’re alot more healthy, everything should fall into place perfectly.”
Okay. A little melodramatic. But the inability lately to do the simple things like identify the person you have to cover defensively, and bust your ass to get to said player has been invisible. Guys are just running around with no idea who they are responsible for. It looks like Father’s Day in Surrey and it’s a far cry from what we were seeing earlier in the season.
I have no doubt this thing can be turned around. Right now I just think it comes down to work ethic and the simple realization that just because you made through a horrendous run of injuries, other teams won’t hand it you.
P.S. Thanks for not including “Lack of Cody Hodgson” in the poll.
by kesrows on Dec 10, 2009 10:35 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
“I’m a goaltender, I can’t score,” Roberto Luongo said.
Just saw this, once again, Luongo excuses himself from a loss, blames his teammates.
Call it “truth” if you want, there’s plenty of “truth” that could be spoken of him by his teammates quite often, but they are better teammates than to throw him under the bus they way he does them regularly and any of them are more worthy of being called captain that he is that is for sure.
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.
