Canucks Army Postgame: Canucks Show They Certainly Don’t *Lack* Guts

Say what you will about the Vancouver and their performance during the 7-game roadtrip (and about people who begin sentences with "say what you will.."), but a 5-1-1 record all things considered is more than impressive. Especially considering the way they capped it off against the Blues with a 3-2 overtime victory. The operative term here is "gutsy", which I’m sure you’ll see bandied about on your Twitter timeline, deservedly so.

Read on past the jump for a recap of what went down.

The Story

"Obviously given everything I’ve just mentioned, it’s easy to see why the Blues are considered to be heavy favourites to take care of business in this game. However, let me just say that I wouldn’t exactly be stunned if the Canucks put up a better fight than you may think they’d be capable of.. it’s sports, and sometimes when something seems to be way too good to be true, it usually is. I’m just sayin’".

That was from the preview of the game which I posted this afternoon. As someone who has followed a variety of sports very closely for years now, I tend to get spooked when everyone and their grandmother talks about how lopsided a game is going to be. I wouldn’t have put money on the Canucks winning or anything, but I just put it out there that I could definitely envision a scenario where they surprised people with their showing. I’m glad they made me look like I kinda sorta know what I’m talking about.

At the bottom of that preview was also a recommendation for a bet that would give you 6-to-1 if Ryan Kesler scored a goal and the Canucks won. Well.. he scored two of them (including the power play tally in OT that won the game), giving him 7 on the year now. That means he’s now on pace for 44 goals, which would certainly make me (and many others) look silly were it to happen. I was fairly vocal in my opinion that he was more of a 25-goal guy this preseason, pleading with people to temper their expectations and settle down.

Obviously I didn’t anticipate that he would be routinely playing in the mid 20’s per game, with 54 shots on goal in 13 games to his name. I also didn’t expect him to play with the Sedins at 5v5 like he has over the past handful of games. He has been ridiculous, and it’s hard to even imagine what kind of shape the Canucks would be in right now wihtout him. I think it speaks to the mentality that has accompanied being a Canucks fan for life that I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop with him. But for now, there’s nothing we can do but enjoy the ride..

Before the game I joked that it would be awesome to see John Tortorella pull a Gregg Popovich and send his stars home, conceding the loss in this one. I thought the Sedins actually had their least effective showing of the season in this game heading into the overtime period. I can’t remember them generating fewer promising scoring opportunities than they did here, failing to ever really even sustain pressure with the puck possession we’ve come to expect from them. Hard to blame them though since they played 24 and 25 minutes respectively tonight after having topped 25 minutes last night as well. They must be exhausted. Plus, they played a part in setting up Kesler’s winner with just 15 seconds left to go.

What followed the goal was one of the more bizarre endings to a game I’ve seen in some time.. as soon as Kesler scored David Backes went after Daniel Sedin (while Barrett Jackman went after Kesler), and a scrum ensued. Backes, ever the classy gentleman, finally received some penalty minutes with his misconduct and roughing penalty after it seemed like he could do as he pleased without the worry of a whistle throughout the game.

He blatantly went after Tom Sestito following a whistle in the 3rd period, and went down like a sack of potatoes to draw a penalty on Bieksa (which led to the 1st goal for the Blues) late in the 2nd. I’d love to hear what was going through his head when he went after Daniel on that play, but I doubt we’ll here from him since he probably had to rush home to check on Kelly following the conclusion of the game. After all, Ryan Kesler is in town..

As for the newcomers, Pelletier and Archibald, I thought they were as effective as you could have hoped for in their season debut. That 4th line along with Yannick Weber actually had a couple of decent shifts, which pretty much instantly makes it the best showing from a Canucks 4th line that we’ve seen all year. Burrows is set to come back so we’ll probably see one of them get sent back down, and I hope it’s not Archibald, who I think has the potential to be a very serviceable depth forward at the NHL level.

The Numbers


Image via Extra Skater.

As you see by the shot attempt totals the Canucks were actually more than holding their through, oh I’d say, the first 30-35 minutes of the game. After that their heavy legs decided to really show, and by the end of the game you could tell they were just trying to hang on for dear life.

Which brings us to Eddie Lack, who was once again very solid. He stopped 22 of 24 shots he faced, and is surely showing both the Canucks brass and their fans that he can be relied upon to spell Roberto Luongo from time to time and avoid forcing the 34-year old to start more than somewhere between 60 and 65 games. 

As for the power play opportunity situation, the Canucks only drew 2 of them again in this one (one of which was a 4-minute minor that drew blood on a high stick). I highly doubt that the league is "against them", but it’s hard not to take issue with the 2 infractions they were whistled for themselves late in the 2nd period when they’re not getting any of those calls themselves. 

My one issue with Tortorella coming out of this game is why he didn’t utilize the Higgins-Santorelli-Kassian combination more throughout the game. He started the game with Richardson on that line, but by the 2nd period Kassian was back up there and they were back to getting up to stuff. I really like that combination and think they have a chance to be effective. Kassian needs to stay out of the penalty box, and getting into a fight doesn’t exactly help with that. Burrows’ return to could put a wrench in those plans, though. Oh well.

    • DCR

      Dominating, as in being hemmed in their own end repeatedly by a scratch fourth line of two AHL’ers and a fringe NHL D-man?

      St. Louis dominated parts of the game, but you can’t justifiably argue that it was a “dominant performance.”

    • orcasfan

      That was true as far as zone time was concerned. But, given how the shots were almost level, I wouldn’t call the St Louis performance exactly dominating. I think Vancouver played perfectly to the game plan laid out by Torts, and pounced on their opportunities.

    • andyg

      I think I’d see it as more dominating if Lack had to stand on his head to win this one for the Canucks. For the first 40 minutes St. Louis looked rusty, as most teams with a week off might. Not particularly dominant, especially against the semi-NHL team Vancouver iced.

      • andyg

        True.

        But if we’re going to praise the performance against Pittsburgh (without Letang, Neal and Bennett by the way), the performance by St Louis also deserves praise…

        • NM001

          Oh we were clinging by a thread in the third. I’m not praising anything but the end result. 11 of 14 points on this trip is all I care about because it shocked me in a good way.

          I didn’t think you were in the business of praising the mediocre. The Blues actually only showed up for a period, maybe a period and a half. Nothing that blew my socks off for a supposed elite team playing a wounded, tired, old, average, fading team, with all of that window closing stuff to boot. They couldn’t even beat our rookie Backup. Winning is fun.

    • pheenster

      So when the Canucks beat the Oilers, you were quick to jump on them beating a ‘depleted Oilers squad’ (or something to that effect). But when the depleted Canucks squad beats a well-rested, fully manned STL (considered by many to be an elite team), it’s a “dominating performance by St Louis…”

      A dominating performance by St Louis would have been a 6-2 STL win. Call this what it was. A decent performance by VAN, finding a way to win a game they probably shouldn’t have won.

      Personally, I think coaching played a big role in this win and the record on the road trip.

      • acg5151

        It’s called ” hypocrisy “…something the fanboys here have in abundance. But if you counter their argument, they will call you a “troll” or an ” Oilers fan “. The fanboys will look for anything to blame for their teams ailments. It’s the refs faults, Bettman, the rules, the big bad Bruins, the schedule, the Oilers. It’s never the team, their fat useless GM, the Sedins, Luongo, the scouts.

        Just look at ‘No standards Teddy’, he’s the epitome of low self esteem and low aim. These folks aim for nothing, and are proud of everything.And Rogers Arena is full of these failure appreciating and failure deserving tools. Mark your calender. The Canucks will reach 50 years without having won anything. People who plant crap will always harvest crap.

      • acg5151

        There’s a pretty big difference between Edmonton without their top 2 centres (and Ottawa for large stretches of last year, for example) and the Canucks without three top 9 wingers.

        And where exactly did I “jump” on the Canucks for the performance against Edmonton?

        I suggested people calm down after the Canucks were dominating play against the Oilers and Calgary and, you know, wait until their is some better comp…

        St Louis controlled play at 5 on 5 against a tired/thin Canucks group.

        Vancouver (without Burrows) controlled play at 5 on 5 against a Penguins team without Letang, Neal & Bennett last Saturday.

        A performance for which I gave the Canucks full marks, by the way.

        Shockingly, the groupthink homers on here can’t stop foaming at the mouth long enough to see the parallels between the St Louis game and the Pittsburgh game…

        The Canucks won a game last night in which they were outplayed.

        Last Sunday the Blue Jackets won a game in which they were outplayed.

        So it goes…

      • acg5151

        “Personally, I think coaching played a big role in this win and the record on the road trip.”

        Personally, I think luck played a big role in this win and the record on the road trip.

        And by ‘luck’ I mean the fairy dust that Tortorella found just in the nick of time for these last three OT/shootout victories…

    • acg5151

      In the 3rd period yes. But the Canucks did what they had to do to win. These 5-3 killed their moment but they had owed play to that point. Yeah they were holding on for dear life in the 3rd (and Lack very impressive). Say anything you want but this was just a gutsy win.
      During this trip they showed they can roll with the big boys, outplaying Pitt and gutting this one out on the end of a ridiculous road trip.

      Admit it, youre impressed

      • acg5151

        Yeah, man, just admit that you’re impressed when you’re not impressed. Hahahahahaha! He wants you to admit that this regular season win is the rule, not the exception. Cause we all know the Canucks are as reliable in the post season as a broken condom.

      • acg5151

        “the Canucks did what they had to do to win.”

        You mean show up to the rink for a scheduled work day?

        “Say anything you want but this was just a gutsy win”

        I didn’t know ‘gusty’ was a synonym for ‘luck’.

        “Admit it, youre impressed”

        The only impressive performance the Canucks have had this season was last Saturday afternoon.

        We are all Canucks…

        • NM001

          @ Cancer00

          Loving your posts! It’d be nice if you became a ‘fan’ of some other team so you can spread your ‘cheer’ to them. It’d be nice to see an idiot like you spew his B.S. elsewhere. We cheer for our local team. We know the Canucks aren’t great but that’s cool. Idiots like you who know nothing and talk like you know it all are fun to watch for a little while…you say such stupid things and it is entertaining. However, it is getting to the point where you should just go crawl back under Surrey Bob’s trailer at the park.

          WE, not you, are all Canucks 🙂

        • NM001

          How is it luck? The Canucks controlled play for 2 periods, and then the Blues were given a 2 man advantage on 2 calls that shouldnt even have been called. So if anyone was lucky it was the Blues.
          Without that 2 man advantage the Canucks win this game regulation by 2.

          They did what they had to do to win. Weathering the storm through a 3rd period where they looked totally gassed, and then taking over play in overtime.

          All of this on the tail end of a brutal road trip, missing what would constitute a 2nd line, with a 4th line of AHLers, and their back up goalie.

          You can be as pessimistic as you wanna be. Disappoint will do that to a guy. Im just going to sit back and enjoy this one.

          • asdf

            It be flattering if he was just a pessimist. NoMind00 is a negative bitch and I don’t think life has been too kind to him. I just hope he goes off and becomes a ‘fan’ of some other team. He claims to be a Canucks fan – the Canuck haters are more positive than turd00.

          • JCDavies

            I feel like making a test post with all sorts of irrelevant and extremely offensive stuff, but I’d rather not have my IP banned or something.

            I’m curious about when St Louis plays in Vancouver if Roy will get booed or not. He was so underwhelming here he might here one or two. I doubt I’d boo him, but I couldn’t help but quell a little rage every time I heard his name last year. He just looked like he checked out so early…

          • pheenster

            Moderation? why, has someone been stalking you or cyber bullying you?

            Or is it because you don’t like someone elses opinion and you want to put a stop to it? Is it because other people have views that may be drastically opposite to your own view and you don’t like that? Or is it because someone else has a view that you don’t agree with, like in some way, shape or form and you feel that because it’s not your view, then it should be censored?

          • JCDavies

            Good old ” No Standards Teddy”. With people like him in the world, there are no winners and no losers. A world were everyone holds each others hands and talks about their feelings and how good the Canucks are, like a bunch of women.

            It’s not bad enough ‘no standards teddy’ is a cool-aid addict, but what’s worse, he wants everyone to have no self pride and no standards just like him. No Standards Teddy loves losing and wants everyone to enjoy it as much as he does. He probably gets turned on when he watches the Sedin punching Marchand’s glove with is face.

  • antro

    @NM00:

    Given that the Canucks had played the night before, and have 4 regular forwards injured, including 2/3 top 6 (depending on how you count), it was a piss-poor performance by St. L. They couldn’t get on the board until they were gifted a two man advantage. They only opened up a fenwick advantage in the third. I don’t know if anyone is counting scoring chances, but I don’t think they got as many as they should have given the Canucks’ fatigue. No doubt Backes’ shenanigans at the end were motivated by his embarrassment.

    Btw, when do we get to dig up what you wrote over the summer about Gillis’ moves with guys like Santorelli and Stanton?

    Probably not a dominant performance… 😉

    • andyg

      “Btw, when do we get to dig up what you wrote over the summer about Gillis’ moves with guys like Santorelli and Stanton?”

      You may dig it up now.

      And while you’re at it, dig up where you thought those guys were going to play big roles…

      I’ll gladly give Gillis credit for those moves, though.

      At the least, hopefully the Canucks won’t have to trade assets for a rental on the way to a 1st round loss vs LA or SJ…

      • NM001

        Guys I agree with NM00. Clearly as he has put it several times we will probably make the playoffs but be out of the first round. We would lose to any elite team like:

        SJ

        Stl

        LA

        Chi

        Ana

        Pit

        Bos

        Det

        I mean we have no hope of beating these guys in the regular season so no way we could beat them in the first round of the playoffs. Might as we’ll give up hope now, fire Gillis, get rid of the twins and Kesler, and blow the whole team up.

  • andyg

    No David Booth, no problem. Another win?

    And Santorelli once again looked great. I also felt that Kassian had a really good first half of the game but faded as the game went along. Forgiveable under the circumstances.

    A win is a win. Especially after a long road trip against a great team, in a building most aren’t expecting you to win in.

  • JCDavies

    The Canucks could have won this game 2-1 but the spirit of AV still haunts them. They have choked under Av for so many years, it’s almost second nature for most of these guys to quit and play like crap when they have the lead. This is what happens when you have a lousy coach like AV for all those years. This is what Torts has to clean up. Meanwhile AV’s genius is once again showing through in New York. Av won’t make it past two years. On the upside, once AV gets done with making the Ranger into a joke choke team like he did here, the Canucks will get their revenge on Messier Keenan’s Rnagers after all.

    • JCDavies

      I wouldn’t call it “choking”, so much as “gutting out a win even though your legs refuse to move because you’re playing your third ot game in the last four days and the guys you’re playing have had six days worth of rest and this run-on sentence stopped making sense like fifteen words ago”.

      Seriously, I’d straight up call it that.

      • pheenster

        And the Blues don’t have to move their legs too? You make it sound like the Canucks are doing daily marathons or triathlons. If they can’t or won’t hang on to a lead, or know how to, then they should learn how to or don’t bother get a lead to begin with

          • asdf

            He also has very intelligent and witty responses. Ha!

            What I find amusing is that for someone who hates the canucks and all of their fans so much, this TPT spends an awful amount of time watching the games and reading and replying to our comments. Must be pretty lonely over there in his trailer. Wait… holy crap, they have Internet in the trailer parks now too?

  • JCDavies

    The Canucks need to realize that the Blues are good but not quite there yet. The real standard lies with teams like Chicago, Boston, LA, San jose, Avs, Pens. The bar is much higher than what I see coming from the Canucks. If you can’t beat those teams convincingly , you got no chance to win the cup. There’s no such thing as a lucky champ.

      • JCDavies

        Why? Because the Av’s won two Stanley Cups before and they have a better record than the Canucks so far? I lost credibility with you? Hahaha. You lost all logic with me with that reply.

        It’s funny how so many of you say that it’s not the whole time the franchise but the current standing that counts. Well, had I said the Canucks have been bad since they came into the league, I’m sure you would say ” it’s a new management, you can’t count all those other years Canucks have sucked.” Ok, now when the AV’s are playing better than the Canucks since the start of this season somehow that don’t mean the AV’s are any good? Shall Say that the AV’s have two cups and the Canucks have none? Or will that make me lose credibility with you? The Canucks have sucked since 46 years ago, and they still suck now. Can you understand that or do I have to make a chart for ya?

      • asdf

        Because the Av’s have won TWO Cups in their short history in Colorado and your Canucks have won…..NONE? Give it up man, those Canuck pom poms and that skirt makes you look like an ugly Bon Jovi groupie.LOL

        • asdf

          The Avalanche won the cup 12 and 17 years ago…. Outside of having Roy and Sakic as coach and GM, and the uniforms, I’m going to say there’s basically nothing connecting these Avs to those Avs.

        • pheenster

          I’ll say hi the next time I see you at the Tim Horton’s drive thru. Do me a favour though, make it a bit snappier, OK? I’m a busy guy. Congrats on the Employee of the Month, by the way; your parents must have been proud.

          • pheenster

            LOL. I don’t go Timmy Ho’s lady. Too many snooty fat delusional retards there that enjoy paying 10 dollars for a cup of coffee…folks kinda like you. though, if I did work there and you pulled up, I’d open the lid to the molten hot drink you would order and serve it to your face and watch you cry the same way you cry after watching your Canucks choke.

            Denial and delusion go hand and hand, don’t they, lady?

          • pheenster

            Hey by the way, Spleenster, the Av’s are now 10-1 with Roy. I guess having a winner and a guy who hates losing makes no difference at all. Let get
            AV back and give he and Gillis a lifetime contract, just to teach you a lesson…because you so richly deserve the LOSING CULTURE you enjoy and promote.

    • pheenster

      Actually that is completely untrue. Luck plays a big part in winning the cup, or even getting there. Injuries, having your team hit its stride at the right time (see LA), getting lucky enough to win a round you probably shouldnt have (see Boston vs Tampa and Toronto).

      I love how all of the sudden the Avs are elite. 10 games into the season and they are the team to beat? The Blues are probably the toughest team in the league to play against. They wont over power you with offence but their team defence transition game is excellent.

      Considering the Canucks were on the end of a ridiculous road trip, being short an entire line, having a 4th line made up of AHLers (who played great), and it took the Blues a 2 man advantage to get back into the game, this was easily the Canucks most gutsy effort this season.

      Good teams find a way to win. Its that simple. It doesnt need to be pretty all of the time, but you dont go 5-1-1 on a road trip just being lucky.

      • pheenster

        You read way too much into the regular season, man. I gave the Av’s some credit because they got much better with Roy and a few additions. I also would rate their chances higher thant he Canucks for those reasons. If the Canucks history wasn’t so..well…very bad, I’d give them more credit. But I didn’t make their history, they did.

        If the Avs are suddely elite they’re elite, what’s so hard to fathom? Boston suddenly won the cup a few years ago , didn’t they? Before that they were a team of chokers…well until they met the Canucks in the finals. do I think the Av’s will win the cup this year, probably not, but I’m more inclined to say the Av’s are more dangerous than the Canucks in the post. The Canucks are sometimes good for one upset, but usually as their history shows, they don’t win when when it counts.

        • asdf

          So the Avs history of being a bottom rung team over the last 5 years isnt part of history. And I would be a seasoned playoff team over the Avs anyday, including the Canucks.

          We are 10 games in and the AVs are elite? Thats your reasoning? Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word ‘fathom’? How can you be inclined to say the Avs would be better in the post when they havent even made it there. You are clueless if thats your reasoning.

          If anyone is reading into the regular season to much its you, bud.

      • asdf

        And no, luck doesn’t play a part in winning the cup. You make your own luck. You are obsessed with luck. What is luck? You see luck as the goal that went in for a team, but do you stop to think that ” luck ” happens all over the ice all the time? Do you stop to think that luck can come in any form? How do you know that the other team that lost didn’t have more puck luck? luck is not just the puck crossing the goal line. Your idea of luck in pro sports as a big reason why the cup is won is false and it cheapens their accomplishments. There is no such thing as a lucky punch that wins the boxing match. If you get KO’ed by a lucky punch, it’s because you were not skilled enough or trained enough to avoid the punch.

        Do you think the oilers and islanders dynasties for example were luck? The best team for whatever season always wins the cup. If Vancouver was worried about Boston blowing them out in the 7th game, then they should have won the games in Boston to begin with.

        Pros hold skill as value. You also cannot make it to the pros on luck either. Don’t get fixated on luck. Or you will have an impression that luck is what it takes to win. And if that is so , how can you train for luck? Have the Canucks been unlucky for over forty six years? Unworthy is a better answer.

        • asdf

          Well you are simply wrong if you think luck does not play a part in winning a cup. Completely and utterly.
          You think you understand what Im talking about but you clearly are missing the point. Ask any NHL coach or player and they will tell you there is luck involved in winning a cup. I have heard it thousand times.
          Key players get injured, team doesnt gel, a team rides an all of the sudden how goalie to wins over a superior team, bad penaity calls costing a team games, In playoffs anything can and does happen, and not all of it is related to how skilled the two teams facing considered before it started.

          Luck isnt the be all end all, and I never implied it was. Of course it takes skill to win the Cup, thanks for pointing that out Capt Obvious. But there is luck involved whether you think so or not

          “Your idea of luck in pro sports as a big reason why the cup is won is false and it cheapens their accomplishments. ”

          What the hell does this even mean?

          • JCDavies

            What 5minutesinhisbutt is trying to say or imply is that every single Stanley Cup winner won on luck…and the Canucks have been just “unlucky” for the past 45 years.

            what does he mean? He means you’re talking out of your ass again, kid. You and your luck this, luck that. Face the facts, wake up and smell the turd, the Canucks have accomplished NOTHING. The Canucks don’t even have enough skill or luck to win the cup. Heck, they’re even too cheap to buy their way to the cup. Too dumb to see, too stupid to learn.

            Don’t waste your time with lucky the kid, S and M, he lives in his own rosy little Canuck world. LMFAO

          • pheenster

            Thats funny because I actually stated just the opposite in my post, but once again your comprehension skills are failing you.
            Hell I never even said anything about the Canucks being ‘unlucky’. They simply werent good enough to beat Boston.

            I love how you continually talk out that hole is your face that looks like an ass and you expect someone on here to actually care about your so called opinion.
            So far we have learned that you dont know the difference between junior and minor hockey, you dont know who was actually traded, and you have no clue what the Canucks spend on players on a yearly basis.

            You are clueless, and I will continue to run you off this board by making you look like an idiot. not that you need the help.

          • pheenster

            Hahahahahahaha…very fuunny “lucky Lucy “. Y=I love how you keep making EXCUSES for the club. EXUSES EXCUSES EXCUSES.

            Talk is cheap pal. Save it for when they win a cup. Can’t? It’s cause you’re s shill. I seriously don’t know how Gary Valk keeps himself from punching your face on that crappy show of yours.

          • asdf

            You claim to know sooo much, 45yearsinthbox, and YEt you still don’t know why your team sucks. You STILL don’t know why people don’t see your team as anything more than MEDIOCRE. Yet you still keep yapping your mouth, all the while your team keeps on SUCKING. Nes flash buddy boy, your TEAM has sucked for 45 years. $% YEARS. Go on, start the excuses again. Tell me how the cup isn’t everything in the NHL. Tell me how your SUCKY team is better than the suckier teams in the league. Tell me how LUCK plays a major part in winning. Tell me all those LOVELY EXCUSES you love to use again and again.

            Run me off the boards here? LOL. Every year your team doesn’t win the cup is a clear validation of my opinion. and any excuse you make about not winning the cup is another validation of what a LOSER mentality you have. Even if I wasn’t here, know that by the end of this year, you team will still have no Stanley Cup. Don’t cry because other people can see fats, even if you can;t or won;t , shill-boy.

          • pheenster

            Hey yo, and before you reply, I did you a favor and made a list of your typical EXCUSES for Canucks Failure. See how nice I am? You will no doubt say-

            1- The canucks aren’t bad…compared to really bad teams like Buffalo and the Jets.

            2- Luck plays a major role in any championship…and the Canucks have just been unlucky for 45 years.

            3- The Canucks came within one game of winning the cup, even if they didn’t score ONE goal in the 7th game.

            4- It doesn’t matter that the team has been a loser for 45 years, it’s different management, so what counts is the current year, so that means that failure is always relegated to one years time.

            5- We can’t draft well because it’s too HARD. And teams who have won a cup or two with real stars have been sucky for a period of time…so it’s better for the Canucks to be mediocre forever than to try and do something in the draft. Besides, it’s too hard.

            6- We need to keep the core even if they haven’t done anything for 13 years, because if someone hasn’t done anything in 13 years, they will most likely do it on the 14th year.

            7- You must be an Oilers fan if you say the Canucks are mediocre.

            8- All we need is a center, this and that ans this and that. That’s all we need.

            9- Coaches don’t matter, if monkeys coached every team in the NHL, their would still be a cup winner every year, even if the Canucks will never be that team.

            10- Coaches don’t matter, so let’s keep AV, cause he’s the BEST coach we ever had here in suckville.

            11- The coaches can’t play, it’s up to the players. So if the players fail, than trade everyone who’s gotten the least amount of ice time while keeping the useless ice time hogging core.

            12- It’s never the goalies fault or the teams fault. It’s the Boston Bruins fault.

            13- It’s Shanahans fault this team is useless.

            14- It’s the refs fault this team is useless.

            15- It’s Bettmans fault this team is useless.

            16- Forget about hiring winners, we’ll take our chances with unproven hacks, especially in the GM position.

            17- You can make an opinion about the Canucks so long as you doesn’t call the team what it is…MEDIOCRE and a 45 year FAILURE.

            18- The Canucks played well enough to win, even though they didn’t. So we are all winners cause we are all Canucks.

            19- There’s always next year, cause real fans keep coming back for more pain and misery, like some sick sadist.

            20- The Canucks don’t deserved to be bagged on because they been 45 year failures. They deserve praise and celebration.

            21- The Canucks don’t lose, the just can’t win when it counts.

            22- The Canucks have good draft picks and potential stars…all YEARS away from playing in the pros. Refresh for the next 45 years.

            23- True fans support the team even if the team is below average, cause the organization will build a winner for its fans because it cares…just not in the last 45 years.

            24- I’d rather the team not win the cup if it means the team won’t have the two nicest guys in the world, the Sedins.

            25- The Sedins are not invisible in the play offs, it’s that the other teams check the too much and too hard.

            26- If the Sedins or Kesler scores, all credit to them. If they don’t score, then it’s the other players fault. We need more support.

            27- A true fan knows how much they spend a year on players , on food, on foot care etc, everything is important except the fact that the team can’t win when it counts and hasn’t won a thing in 45 YEARS.

            28- The Canucks have never won the cup, so it’s best to imply that ” LUCK” has a huge part in winning it, that way, it diminishes the victory for real winners and lessens the failures of the Canucks.

            29- Going on a lucky run to the finals is good enough for me, who needs to win the cup?

            30- Anyone who faults the Canucks for their failures is a poopy-head. We can still win with mediocrity, you’ll see.

        • asdf

          Strictly speaking, the Oilers dynasty wasn’t a true dynasty. As dominant as they were, they never won more than 2 Cups in a row.

          Of course they would have probably won 4 in a row, but in 1986 Steve Smith tried to make a hard rinkwide pass from beside his own net. The puck hit Grant Fuhr’s leg and bounced in for the deciding goal of the series.

          But you’re right; dumb luck never plays a role in hockey.

          As for the Bruins/Canucks final, should Seidenberg or Chara be injured in Game 3, and Hamhuis play the entire series healthy, I suspect that the end result would differ from the reality.

          • asdf

            EXCUSES EXCUSES EXCUSES. Thanks for number 33

            #33- The achievements of other teams in the league are not true achievements, because what this and what if that were different, than things would be different…DUH.

  • asdf

    Question, When is Tom Sestito gonna get some love on this site??

    I was somewhat vocal in the comments a few weeks back about how i thought people were being too quick to write him off as an AHL plug.

    He easily had his best game as a Canucks last night. He played over 11 minutes, threw some hits (1 massive hit on Oshie), pushed play forward all game with good dump ins and board play, and of course got in a fight (with Ryan Reaves no less).

    With the 4th line in flux the Nucks really needed him to step up and play with some purpose, like an NHL hockey player, and he did that last night.

    I think it’s time for some people to eat their words a bit.

    Against a big tough St.Louis team, Sestito looked great. I think he provides some real bite in these types of “gutsy” games.

  • asdf

    Impressed with Lack. Tracked the puck well all game and was in good position for the most part especially considering he hasn’t played much hockey in the past year and this season.

    Blues controlled the play for the most part, and had a couple of lucky bounces go our way, but considering the circumstances, a gutsy effort to get the two points. Really thought we could get blown out considering how the Blues have been playing.

    Certainly not our best effort, but glad with a 5-1-1 road trip.

  • asdf

    Probably should talk about Kesler as a RW. Torts clearly did not like Kesler’s tendency to go one on one (or one on two often) by himself as a centre to get a shot way on the rush. If you rcall, AV also expressed this somewhat impetuously in a media scrum, prompting Kesler to retort that AV should tell it to his face.

    By moving Kesler to the wing, Torts is effectively taking that out of that individual game, forcing him to use his strength as a puck retriever, protecting the puck, playing around the net and getting in position to shoot, rather than creating by himself.

    Granted AV probably couldn’t do this due to lack of depth in the middle (not that this team is deep in the middle), but having Santorelli and Richardson certain helps.

    Canucks brass often reminisced about that time when Kesler played wing to Sundin, so I’m sure they welcome this change.

    It will be interesting to see what happens when Burrows comes back. Will Torts go back to one of the best lines in the NHL with Burr and twins or stick with BeastModo? I tend to think the latter, but it probably depends actually on not Kesler or Burrows play, but Santorelli’s.

    For all of MG’s mistakes in the past, add Santorelli and Richardson to the good side of his resume. But it’s still too early to see if either or both could bring their game consistently. I have been quite skeptical of Santorelli so far, but certainly looks to be a Wellwoodian find.

  • NM001

    The Canucks certainly didn’t play that well throughout every game of the monster trip, but the important thing is that they found ways to win games they shouldn’t have.

    Going 5-1-1 on the trip, with the injuries and PP differential, etc., and grinding out a win against the well-rested ‘elite’ Blues (despite being outplayed in the third) are all good signs. And things are only going to get better from here on, with the players coming back from injuries and fully adjusting to Torts’ system.

    I’ve never put a lot of stock into the first 20 games of any season, but the points we’re picking up here certainly won’t hurt.

  • NM001

    The negativity here, except for a few,is ridiculous. The Canucks gutted out a win, ugly or not, at the end of a long road trip. StL was well rested and we were playing back to back games. We gave up a 2 goal lead but managed to get the second point in overtime. End of story. Sad how many of you twist everything around to seem hopeless. Your wives must love it when you come home, at least those that don’t live in your mother’s basement.

  • NM001

    I don’t mind Kassian fighting. I believe at this point in his career it gets him into games and sometimes guys need to hate their opponents to get fired up. I thought the Canucks would go about 4-3 on this trip so I am pleasantly surprised! I have said all along that this has been a better road team than home team. It’s time for Torts to put a BIG emphasis on being a tougher team at home.

  • asdf

    I think it’s time for Torts to take a fine from the league and blow up at the refs for their calls vs the Canucks and non-calls for their opponents. Every time I watch an opposing teams broadcast they talk about the Canucks “reputation” for diving and cheap shots…. It’s bS and it seems the refs have bought into it. Take the fine and put a spot light on the refs. The retribution won’t be much because the opposition has double the PPs already. Guess with all that puck possession time the Nucks never get held tripped or interfered with. Ridiculous!

    • NM001

      Not while we’re winning. Besides, it’s fruitless to take your gripes with the league out through the press and has historically done more bad for teams than good. Send a tastefully packaged video to prove your case, ask them to look into it and move on. We earned the reputation, now we have to earn our way out of it. From what I’ve seen this year I think we’re well on the way to doing that.

    • JCDavies

      Mr. Roy came to the Av’s this time as a coach and changed the culture of the team. As a player, Roy could not stand losing, he wants his players that way as well.

      The Canucks, on the other hand and their fanboys don’t mind losing, make excuses for losing, compare themselves to crappier teams whenever they lose, blame someone else when they lose or simply ignore the fact that they lost because they won;t do what it takes to win. The Canucks simply don’t care if they lose, they CAN stand it, their fans tolerate it, they brush it aside, accept it and are proud of it. The Canucks are a ‘brand’, a mascot..anything but a real competitive team that hates losing.

      • JCDavies

        The best part about being a Canuck fan is they are nothing like that team you cheer for. You know, the team that’s so pathetic that they drove you here for kicks, because they can’t provide you the entertainment and excitement that cheering against the Canucks provides. The team that makes you waste your time here daily, the team that disappointed you sooooo much that you had to go underground acting like a 12 year old under the guise of Hard Puck City…..Just so everybody is clear here and you have the opportunity to show you have a spine, WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT TEAM AGAIN?

        • pheenster

          The team I cheer for has won at least one cup. And you cheer for a team that will never win one. Competitive team? You’re not talking about the Canucks, are you? Cause what they do can’t be considered competitive, it is called
          ” wasting people’s time”.

          • asdf

            Just as I figured…again. No answer, nothing of substance just hiding behind insults and name calling, pure cowardice. Let me know when you are at least brave enough to admit to all of the people you take pleasure in annoying here who you cheer for. Until then, I know you, I’ve met you many times and it’s always an exercise in tolerance.

            That’s about the last you hear from me kid, unless you want to come over to the Island and have a beer and watch a game and jaw a little at a real person.(OPEN INVITE FOR YOU ONLY) Or you surprise everybody and come up with something intelligent to discuss. Maturity comes a little later for some. But, good luck to that team you cheer for…that nameless team that has won a cup at least once, the one so proud of cheering for you always forget the name and find yourself back here. LOL, LOL, LOL.

          • asdf

            Thanks for EXCUSE # 34

            34- Anyone who doesn’t like the Canucks must be a fan of another team. ( Even if the leafs have won ONE cup and the Canucks have NONE )

    • pheenster

      I bet you everything you have the Canucks won’t win the cup this year.

      Say goodbye to everything you have. You will never be a Canucks fan again after this season.

      I’ll remind you next year.

      • pheenster

        instead of telling us who wont wont in the Cup, why dont you tell us who will smart guy. I mean since you have it all figured out.

        The highest rated team in the league only has about a 13% chance of winning the cup at best. So whose bandwagon are you jumping on this year?

        • pheenster

          Every team has a 1% chance at the cup this year. Your Canucks have 0% chance at the cup this year.

          And yes, I see you’re making excuses again. Read what I wrote. Canucks-ZERO chance. ZERO %. that’s all you need to know Don, and I will be right again at the end of the season. I’ll be sure to remind you, as you have a selective Canuck memory.

          • pheenster

            I couldn’t resist — so according to your math 30 teams (“every team” I think you said) have a 1% chance at winning the cup except the Canucks (clearly NOT part of “every team”) who have zero% chance. So there’s a 29% chance that an NHL team will win the Stanley Cup this year (and obviously not the Canucks as you’ve pointed out)? I am absolutely fascinated by this, which non-NHL teams have a 71% chance of winning the Cup this year? This is the kind of riveting information that I am really glad to see you’re providing.

          • asdf

            So…with all your TALK…where’s your cup then? Mathematical chances…LOL. Yeah, and you have aChance to make the NHL next year too. LOL. Thanks for number 32

            32- use math to falsely hype up and make EXCUSES for the Canucks.

          • asdf

            Excellent answer Surrey Bob! Just so that I can understand, can you walk me through the math again? I think you brought up the chances that different teams — but of course not the Canucks who as you so assiduously point out have a zero percent chance — have of winning the Cup. Let’s forget about the Canucks — could you please explain again since 29 teams have a 1% chance of winning the Cup who you see as being 71% more likely to do so? Again, I completely accept your premise that the Canucks have 0% chance of winning. Just explain for those of us not nearly as erudite as yourself who has this better chance. Is it an AHL team? A KHL team? Perhaps one from the British Hockey League.

            With much respect,

            PB

          • asdf

            Are you sure you know what the word “excuse” means?

            Just to refresh your memory, here’s what you wrote:

            “Every team has a 1% chance at the cup this year. Your Canucks have 0% chance at the cup this year.

            And yes, I see you’re making excuses again. Read what I wrote. Canucks-ZERO chance. ZERO %. that’s all you need to know Don, and I will be right again at the end of the season. I’ll be sure to remind you, as you have a selective Canuck memory.”

            As I said, I am more than willing to stipulate to all that you suggest about the Canucks. Just asking you to clarify this excellent prediction you are making regarding the Cup winner this year. Just explain your fancy math as I’m sure we’re all dying to know what exactly it means.

            And enjoy the game! Clearly you’re waiting for the drop of the puck, it’s good to see you choose to follow the Canucks as closely as the rest of us.

          • asdf

            Same old Math excuse. You are quite mentally slow, aren’t you? Refer to the list again. I’ll make another list of excuses for you in case you’re dyslexic.

          • asdf

            Oh, you got a new excuse, let me put it on the list for you, kiddo.

            Excuse # 31- Talk about things other than the Canucks having NEVER won a cup so as to deflect attention away from that fact.

  • asdf

    Just when you think the EXCUSES woulndn’t get any longer, the fanboys will always find a new one. Thanks fanboys! LOL

    1- The canucks aren’t bad…compared to really bad teams like Buffalo and the Jets.
    2- Luck plays a major role in any championship…and the Canucks have just been unlucky for 45 years.
    3- The Canucks came within one game of winning the cup, even if they didn’t score ONE goal in the 7th game.
    4- It doesn’t matter that the team has been a loser for 45 years, it’s different management, so what counts is the current year, so that means that failure is always relegated to one years time.
    5- We can’t draft well because it’s too HARD. And teams who have won a cup or two with real stars have been sucky for a period of time…so it’s better for the Canucks to be mediocre forever than to try and do something in the draft. Besides, it’s too hard.
    6- We need to keep the core even if they haven’t done anything for 13 years, because if someone hasn’t done anything in 13 years, they will most likely do it on the 14th year.
    7- You must be an Oilers fan if you say the Canucks are mediocre.
    8- All we need is a center, this and that ans this and that. That’s all we need.
    9- Coaches don’t matter, if monkeys coached every team in the NHL, their would still be a cup winner every year, even if the Canucks will never be that team.
    10- Coaches don’t matter, so let’s keep AV, cause he’s the BEST coach we ever had here in suckville.
    11- The coaches can’t play, it’s up to the players. So if the players fail, than trade everyone who’s gotten the least amount of ice time while keeping the useless ice time hogging core.
    12- It’s never the goalies fault or the teams fault. It’s the Boston Bruins fault.
    13- It’s Shanahans fault this team is useless.
    14- It’s the refs fault this team is useless.
    15- It’s Bettmans fault this team is useless.
    16- Forget about hiring winners, we’ll take our chances with unproven hacks, especially in the GM position.
    17- You can make an opinion about the Canucks so long as you doesn’t call the team what it is…MEDIOCRE and a 45 year FAILURE.
    18- The Canucks played well enough to win, even though they didn’t. So we are all winners cause we are all Canucks.
    19- There’s always next year, cause real fans keep coming back for more pain and misery, like some sick sadist.
    20- The Canucks don’t deserved to be bagged on because they been 45 year failures. They deserve praise and celebration.
    21- The Canucks don’t lose, the just can’t win when it counts.
    22- The Canucks have good draft picks and potential stars…all YEARS away from playing in the pros. Refresh for the next 45 years.
    23- True fans support the team even if the team is below average, cause the organization will build a winner for its fans because it cares…just not in the last 45 years.
    24- I’d rather the team not win the cup if it means the team won’t have the two nicest guys in the world, the Sedins.
    25- The Sedins are not invisible in the play offs, it’s that the other teams check the too much and too hard.
    26- If the Sedins or Kesler scores, all credit to them. If they don’t score, then it’s the other players fault. We need more support.
    27- A true fan knows how much they spend a year on players , on food, on foot care etc, everything is important except the fact that the team can’t win when it counts and hasn’t won a thing in 45 YEARS.
    28- The Canucks have never won the cup, so it’s best to imply that ” LUCK” has a huge part in winning it, that way, it diminishes the victory for real winners and lessens the failures of the Canucks.
    29- Going on a lucky run to the finals is good enough for me, who needs to win the cup?
    30- Anyone who faults the Canucks for their failures is a poopy-head. We can still win with mediocrity, you’ll see.
    31- Talk about things other than the Canucks having NEVER won a cup so as to deflect attention away from that fact.
    32- use math to falsely hype up and make EXCUSES for the Canucks.
    #33- The achievements of other teams in the league are not true achievements, because what this and what if that were different, than things would be different…DUH.
    34- Anyone who doesn’t like the Canucks must be a fan of another team. ( Even if the leafs have won ONE cup and the Canucks have NONE )Excuse

        • asdf

          No seriously. Why do you spend so much time on a team you despise?

          For the record, I don’t make excuses for the canucks. I enjoy hockey, and I find it more favourable when I have a team to follow and root for. I don’t give a rats ass whether the canucks win the cup or not – who cares it’s just a game (sure it’d be nice if they did, but I have more important things in my life to really care).. Something to keep me entertained during the winter months… And I’m certainly not going to hop on the bandwagon to follow a winning team.

          Should Gillis be fired? Maybe, probably, don’t really care. Do I see some positive things happening so far this year? Absolutely. Do I think they’ll win the cup? Doubtful, but it’s pretty easy to guess who’s not going to win.

          Maybe some ppl just enjoy the game and like the Canucks (for whatever their own reasons are). Therefore it doesn’t mean that they are ‘fanboys’, kool-aid drinkers etc.

          What it does mean is that YOU, who apparently does not cheer for a team (excuse #34), spends his time watching and paying attention to the team and then goes and hangs out on the Canuck blogs spewing the same message over and over.

          This is a clear indication that nobody loves you and that you are very lonely in your trailer park. I wish you the best and hopefully we don’t read about you in the papers. Probably a good idea to stay away from bridges or tall buildings, medicine cabinet, etc. don’t do it man, it’s not worth it.

          • asdf

            Same excuse , refer to list. You’re not adding any new excuse. Maybe that is your new excuse.

            excuse 35- If you run out of Canucks excuses, use the same old excuse over and over and try to make it sound like a new excuse.

            Well done ,son. You’ve come up with a new excuse.