# 2011 NHL Playoffs



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Montreal is in, and Toronto is out. The universe is unfolding as it should.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Must be spring...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hockey? Meh. National Hokey League. AKA World Wrestling Entertainment. 'Bout the same cred, head butts, fights and all.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Oh sorry, I misread the thread title. I thought it said _layoffs_.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Must be spring...


Yes ......... the snow is melting and the Leafs are out.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Kazak said:


> Montreal is in, and Toronto is out. The universe is unfolding as it should.


For that to happen, we shall have to wait and see if the NY Rangers make it this year .......... at least for me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Golf, Leafs, golf!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Golf, Leafs, golf!


:lmao::clap::lmao:

Still, they had a good season overall.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

lol I agree! Mtl could be out and I wouldn't care as long as the Leafs are out.

Although I don't think the Habs will be in it long - especially if they play Boston 1st round.
I personally don't think Jacques Martin is the right coach. He's had a history of not being able to keep the locker room together and motivated. 

Overall, it should be a fun playoffs to follow. I'm hoping the final will be better than last year. Where are those 2 goalies now from Chicago and Philly? Not even around I don't believe. Wow!

The parity is great so let's hope for lots of game 7 OTs and nailbiters.

My guess for a final would be Vancouver - Boston, but who knows.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not a devoted hockey fan, but my hierarchy generally works like this:

Any Canadian Original Six Team
Any U.S. Original Six Team 
The Buffalo Sabres
All other expansion teams, in the order of expansion.

Takes the guesswork out of team support.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I'm not a devoted hockey fan, but my hierarchy generally works like this:
> 
> Any Canadian Original Six Team
> Any U.S. Original Six Team
> ...


Macfury, we are very similar in our wishes. Of course, growing up in New York City, the Rangers are always my #1 team. Then comes Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, Edmonton, Ottawa and Vancouver. Then would come the Buffalo Sabres, the NY Islanders and Atlanta.

After this list, if none of these teams are in the playoffs, I don't really watch or care much. We shall see.

As I asked in a previous posting in another thread, is it my imagination, or are we agreeing upon more things these days??? :clap:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Golf, Leafs, golf!


Don't forget the Oilers. Expect the Flames are already polishing the clubs as well despite the thin thread of hope.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, we are very similar in our wishes. Of course, growing up in New York City, the Rangers are always my #1 team. Then comes Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, Edmonton, Ottawa and Vancouver. Then would come the Buffalo Sabres, the NY Islanders and Atlanta.
> 
> After this list, if none of these teams are in the playoffs, I don't really watch or care much. We shall see.
> 
> As I asked in a previous posting in another thread, is it my imagination, or are we agreeing upon more things these days??? :clap:


Historic convergence, Dr. G!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

keebler27 said:


> Although I don't think the Habs will be in it long - especially if they play Boston 1st round.


I know. I don't expect them to repeat last year's miracles. I would also be happy if they slipped to 7th or 8th to avoid Boston. They're in it, and that's the main thing.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I'm more a hockey fan than a Flames fan, so once my home team is out, I usually just watch the games, hope for good games and no bad sportsmanship, and no games lost due to poor officiating.

I'd cheer for the Canucks this year (once the Flames are eliminated), as they have an exceptional team and are well positioned to go all the way, except their fans are 'Canuck' fans only and not really hockey fans, which makes it difficult to cheer for the team when I'd have to be associated with such idiots. But watching the Sedin/Burrows line is a thing of beauty.

(When confronted by a typical ignorant Canucks fan, I usually say "Tell you what, I'll put on my Flames Stanley Cup shirt and you can put on your Canucks ... oh, wait, you don't have one." I'd sorta hate for that to change  .)

We're updating our earthquake kit for all the bandwagon jumping that will be happening out here. I'm sure people jumping on or off (whatever the Canucks' fortunes) will cause an earthquake.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Historic convergence, Dr. G!


Welcome to the sunny side of the street, Macfury. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

go flyers go!!!!


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

I hate the flyers...always have so I'm looking forward to seeing them fall. Also can't stand Leaf fans...or Burke so was happy to see them not make it either. Mtl I respect though can't see them doing that well as they really aren't built to be a playoff team. Boston and Vancouver should do well...and who know's what to think of Washington these days. Ought to be fun


----------



## lookitsmarc (Feb 2, 2008)

I've been a Canucks fan since I was 8 years old, despite having never been to Vancouver. I am not missing a single Canucks playoff game this year. However, I do not have cable - does anyone know if CBC will be streaming the games online?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

CBC streams ALL their games online. However if the game is being broadcast on TSN, you're out of luck.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

keebler27 said:


> Overall, it should be a fun playoffs to follow. I'm hoping the final will be better than last year. Where are those 2 goalies now from Chicago and Philly? Not even around I don't believe. Wow!


Umm, Anti Niemi's played 58 games for San Jose and won 34 of them. San Jose is currently 2nd overall in the Western Conference. Part of the housecleaning that happened because of the salary cap.

Michael Leighton wasn't as fortunate. He had back surgery in October. While he was off, Philly had two rookie goaltenders that played very well leaving Leighton the odd man out after he recovered from the surgery. He's playing for the Flyers farm team.

Not sure what playoffs you watched last year but I thought that they were fantastic. I'm biased as I've been a Blackhawks fan since the early 70's but the run of the Canadiens, the run of the Flyers, Sidney Crosby's performances. 

And how can you not like a final that ends in overtime? Yes it was a weird ending, but it wasn't a garbage goal, it was a good shot.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm not a devoted hockey fan, but my hierarchy generally works like this:
> 
> Any Canadian Original Six Team
> Any U.S. Original Six Team
> ...


• Vancouver Canucks
• Any remaining Canadian team - _except the Leafs_
• Whatever team is left that emphasizes skilled offensive style play over defensive or gooning-it-up style play.

The Canucks have had an awesome year, so of course being a longtime Canucks fan, I'm worried this means they'll fold during the first round. These last two games against Edmonton were horrific, but I'm not sure it's a cause for concern. We'll see when the real season starts.

Yes MLeh, you have your Stanley Cup shirt. It requires extensive carbon dating to determine it's antique vintage though. The children of the players on that team are now playing in the league. 

But, I guess if that's all you have to hang on to ... well it's better than seeing where your team has been at for many years. Maybe once you rid that franchise of any trace of the Hillbilly Sutters you'll have some luck. 

I'm not sure which of the Sutters is actually more intelligent looking though ... 

















Edit: Oh and MLeh, I don't consider it bandwagon jumping to constructively criticize the Canucks. It's backseat driving ... "Hey Idiot! You're gonna drive us all into the dit ..... ahhh nevermind."


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> <typical>


You _did_ read my post where I said I like the Canucks, it's just their rabid fans I dislike, didn't you?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Oakbridge said:


> Michael Leighton wasn't as fortunate. He had back surgery in October. While he was off, Philly had two rookie goaltenders that played very well leaving Leighton the odd man out after he recovered from the surgery. He's playing for the Flyers farm team.


Leighton was put on re-entry waivers yesterday and cleared today at noon... I expect he will reassigned to the big club shortly, if not already.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, we are very similar in our wishes. Of course, growing up in New York City, the Rangers are always my #1 team. Then comes Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, Edmonton, Ottawa and Vancouver. Then would come the Buffalo Sabres, the NY Islanders and *Atlanta*.


Looks like you might have another Canadian team to support for Atlanta next year, in either Winnipeg or QC! The more teams in Canada the better for the game, IMHO.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MLeh said:


> You _did_ read my post where I said I like the Canucks, it's just their rabid fans I dislike, didn't you?


No I didn't read it, I'm incapable of reading due to the rabies. It's carried by the seagulls here (or tourists from Calgary, nobody is really sure.)

You _do_ realize I was indulging you in your stereotype, regarding a form of entertainment that carries no importance in the real world, didn't you? --->


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> Looks like you might have another Canadian team to support for Atlanta next year, in either Winnipeg or QC! The more teams in Canada the better for the game, IMHO.


Would love to see a team back in Winnipeg. It is a fine city. Not sure about Quebec City, however.

Looks like the Flames are officially out of the playoffs. Such is Life.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> No I didn't read it, I'm incapable of reading due to the rabies. It's carried by the seagulls here (or tourists from Calgary, nobody is really sure.)
> 
> You _do_ realize I was indulging you in your stereotype, regarding a form of entertainment that carries no importance in the real world, didn't you? --->


It was the amount of effort you expended that deceived me, going to the trouble of getting the pictures of the Sutter boys and all.

I'm still updating my earthquake kit though.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MLeh said:


> I'm still updating my earthquake kit though.


In all my years I've haven't seen the Canuck bandwagon so packed. Fortunately I'm old and all the younger folks give up their seat to me. If the bandwagon crashes there will definitely be a noticeable Richter reading. I'll keep my seat as usual, waiting patiently while they tow it out of the ditch and try to get it back on the road.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The Canucks and their fans had better hope Chicago moves up (or down) a position or two in the last couple of games. That team is pure Kryptonite for Vancouver, and Luongo in particular. I admit I've never had much fondness for the Canucks, but of all the Western teams that's the one I'd support this year if I had to, and will support them if the Habs don't go far.

Habs are almost certainly meeting Boston, which is just fine by me. A repeat of the 2009 drubbing is not to be expected this time around, IMO.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

The Canucks wouldn't be the first President's Trophy winner (I'm think San Jose here) to be disappointed in the early rounds by a choaking goalie.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Interesting stats on 'President's Trophy Winners' who actually do win the Stanley Cup. 

Doesn't really guarantee anything but home ice advantage.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

More than a few President's Trophy winners have either peaked too early, or learned the hard way that you need to play differently for playoff vs. regular season success. I don't think either issue is likely with Vancouver this year, just that Chicago is simply a rival that usually finds a way to beat them, and thus the worst possible opponent for them in any round.

On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken no team that finished lower than fourth in its conference has won the Cup since the current playoff format was introduced. From that, I take away a couple of things: home ice does matter; and a weaker club that "gels" and goes on a good run will tend to peter out due to having to battle so hard to win the earlier rounds.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Oilers drained, Senators hung, Leafs out, Flames extinguished. 

Iggy and the rest can go ahead and book those early tee times.beejacon


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Interesting stats on 'President's Trophy Winners' who actually do win the Stanley Cup.
> 
> Doesn't really guarantee anything but home ice advantage.


I believe I heard it was around 30%. That's not bad odds compared to the odds of all teams in general who get a playoff berth. It actually means that the President's trophy winner is generally in a stronger position than most teams. But the trophy means nothing if the team can't adjust to the playoffs where the style of play and enforcement of the rules always changes.



iMatt said:


> On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken no team that finished lower than fourth in its conference has won the Cup since the current playoff format was introduced. From that, I take away a couple of things: home ice does matter; and a weaker club that "gels" and goes on a good run will tend to peter out due to having to battle so hard to win the earlier rounds.


Good observation Matt. I think you're on to something.

And as you said earlier upthread, Chicago is worrisome and the thought of a series with Chicago has everyone here in Canuckland a little freaked out. 

Luongo will perform much better this year in my opinion. He has had a banner year and has been extremely consistent. He has worked with a new goalie coach this year and his positional play is much improved, so he doesn't always have to rely on his insane reflexes. He's staying deeper in the net which might solve some of the goalie crashing that Chicago indulged in to get under Lu's skin. And they no longer have Byfuglien who really caused huge problems with Luongo.

That said, there's something about Chicago's attitude that just seems to work against the Canucks. Maybe it's that stupid song they play every time they score a goal. I hate that song.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Oilers drained, Senators hung, Leafs out, Flames extinguished.


Oilers drained, Senators prorogued, Leafs fallen, Flames flambéed? (extinguished is good though)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Oilers drained, Senators prorogued, Leafs fallen, Flames flambéed? (extinguished is good though)


....... and my NY Rangers hanging in there by a thin thread. :yikes:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> ....... and my NY Rangers hanging in there by a thin thread. :yikes:


If the season ended today: 

Hurricanes blown away
Thrashers trashed
Devils damned
Islanders sunk
Panthers skinned

Stars dimmed
Blues played out
Wild tamed
Blue Jackets unravelled
Avalanche buried


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Oilers drained, Senators prorogued, Leafs fallen, Flames flambéed? (extinguished is good though)


Wish I'd thought of the prorogued one. :clap:


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> That said, there's something about Chicago's attitude that just seems to work against the Canucks. Maybe it's that stupid song they play every time they score a goal. I hate that song.


You mean this one:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> You mean this one:
> 
> [Stupid video]



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! [GA runs screaming from the room ...]


----------



## spudmac (Aug 23, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I believe I heard it was around 30%. That's not bad odds compared to the odds of all teams in general who get a playoff berth. It actually means that the President's trophy winner is generally in a stronger position than most teams. But the trophy means nothing if the team can't adjust to the playoffs where the style of play and enforcement of the rules always changes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Chelsea Dagger" by The Fratellis. I Love it! As a Hawk's fan who had his childhood dream come true last year, I'm hoping Chicago gets the opportunity to defend. Need to take 2 points from Detroit this weekend. A first round matchup against Vancouver would be a great series. I think that Vancouver has all the assets to win it all, but they'll have to get by the Blackhawks first!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If the season ended today:
> 
> Hurricanes blown away
> Thrashers trashed
> ...


:lmao::clap::lmao:

You left out the Rangers on their way to winning the Stanley Cup. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

spudmac said:


> "Chelsea Dagger" by The Fratellis. I Love it! As a Hawk's fan who had his childhood dream come true last year, I'm hoping Chicago gets the opportunity to defend. Need to take 2 points from Detroit this weekend. A first round matchup against Vancouver would be a great series. I think that Vancouver has all the assets to win it all, but they'll have to get by the Blackhawks first!


STOP!!!!!

I'm also a Hawks fan, but I am also a former goalie and as part my makeup, I've got certain traits that might seem strange to the average sports fan. I will say that you're killing me here. Never never never never talk about one task until you complete the first task. 

We need *3 points* to clinch a playoff spot, 2 isn't enough on it's own. Calgary has now been mathematically eliminated. Los Angeles, Detroit, Vancouver, and San Jose have clinched spots. 

Nashville, Phoenix, Anaheim, Chicago, and Dallas could possibly all be tied at the end of the season. Only 4 of the 5 would get in. I understand some of the tiebreakers, but I couldn't even begin to sort through that mess. 

There is to be no, I repeat absolutely NO talk of anything past Sunday until the remaining regular season games have been played.

Now go and get your luckiest socks and underwear and put them on. I hope they are clean because you'll need to keep them on until Monday morning.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! [GA runs screaming from the room ...]


You've got company. There are a few others who don't want to listen to it (watch to the end) and who leave the room when it comes on.




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Oakbridge said:


> ... you're killing me here ...


We have socks we throw at the TV when the TV commentator says the 'S' word prior to the end of a game. Also if they start saying "Well, it looks like [team] has this game well in hand with a 3 goal lead and only two minutes to play" we pretty much know the gods will laugh and it'll be into overtime ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> Now go and get your luckiest socks and underwear and put them on. I hope they are clean because you'll need to keep them on until Monday morning.


You WASH your lucky socks and underwear??? You see, that's a problem right there. You'll just be washing away or diluting the luck particles that cling to fabric at a microscopic level.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MLeh said:


> We have socks we throw at the TV when the TV commentator says the 'S' word prior to the end of a game. Also if they start saying "Well, it looks like [team] has this game well in hand with a 3 goal lead and only two minutes to play" we pretty much know the gods will laugh and it'll be into overtime ...


This is a well-known scientific fact.

I remember that Tom Larschied (formerly on the radio broadcast) used to say the "S" word as much as possible when the team opposing the Canucks looked like it was heading for one. I think he was the biggest homer in sports broadcasting.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I remember that Tom Larschied (formerly on the radio broadcast) used to say the "S" word as much as possible when the team opposing the Canucks looked like it was heading for one. I think he was the biggest homer in sports broadcasting.


No, that would be Dick Irvin. (Jr.)


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is a well-known scientific fact.
> 
> I remember that Tom Larschied (formerly on the radio broadcast) used to say the "S" word as much as possible when the team opposing the Canucks looked like it was heading for one. I think he was the biggest homer in sports broadcasting.


Errr... by the logic of jinxes, as an intentional attempt to jinx, wouldn't this be a reverse jinx, helping the opponent get that shutout?


----------



## spudmac (Aug 23, 2002)

Oakbridge said:


> STOP!!!!!
> 
> I'm also a Hawks fan, but I am also a former goalie and as part my makeup, I've got certain traits that might seem strange to the average sports fan. I will say that you're killing me here. Never never never never talk about one task until you complete the first task.
> 
> ...


Oakbridge... sorry my good man... thought 2 points got us in... realized today when I read a Blackhawks Blog that we needed 3. I thought we had the tie-breaker with more wins than Dallas, but forgot about new tie breaker rules regarding regular wins versus shootout wins.

Also, I LOVE your post. As a defenceman (and an under-average one at that), I know too well the quirkiness of goalies. I hope you didn't get the impression that I was looking ahead (although re-reading my post it seems as I am - I hereby retract the part about if we play Vancouver.... ). All my attention is focused on tonight's game... got my Chicago Toque, Scarf, Toews away jersey, lucky underwear, lucky socks, and am going to eat and drink exactly what I did the other night when we beat St. Louis!. Kane is due for a breakout game.... I hope it's tonight!

Cheers to all my ehMac readin', Blackhawk lovin' buddies!

spudmac


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

iMatt said:


> Errr... by the logic of jinxes, as an intentional attempt to jinx, wouldn't this be a reverse jinx, helping the opponent get that shutout?


Oh yes, I agree. The Gods of Hockey (Blessed be Their Names), are not idiots. They know if you're trying to intentionally mess with them.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Looks like Dallas is now SOL, as they are two points back and I see no way they could win a tie-breaker against either Chicago or Anaheim.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Looks like Dallas is now SOL, as they are two points back and I see no way they could win a tie-breaker against either Chicago or Anaheim.


They can't catch Anaheim. If Dallas wins their last game (non-shootout), and Chicago loses their last game (in regulation), both teams will have 38 regulation and overtime wins. The next tiebreaker is the season series between the teams, which Dallas won 3-1.

Chicago can clinch by making it to overtime, regardless of whether they win or lose after that. If they lose in regulation, Dallas can clinch by winning in regulation or overtime. If Dallas goes to a shootout, they're out of the playoffs, even if they win.

Remember when this used to be simple?


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

I'd love for someone to crunch the numbers and produce a set of standings from before the days of overtime.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

So what do Leaf fans do when their team makes the playoffs .... they turn off their Playstation.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> I'd love for someone to crunch the numbers and produce a set of standings from before the days of overtime.


Not sure what you're asking.

1. Somehow convert this year's stats into a pre-overtime/shootout format?

2. Post actual standings from pre-overtime/shootout seasons (these will be widely available on the internet)?

I'd be game for #1, but I'd rather wait until after the weekend, when the season's done.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> So what do Leaf fans do when their team makes the playoffs .... they turn off their Playstation.


tptptptp:-D


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Okay. If the shootout had never been introduced, and games that were tied after overtime were recorded as ties (as they were until after the lockout), the standings, as of this afternoon, would look like this:






​
In the East, you see some slightly different positions. The biggest difference is that Carolina would have already clinched a spot, and the Rangers would be out (sorry, Dr. G.).

In the west, things are a bit more jumbled. Note that Los Angeles, 6th in reality, would be in 9th, and hanging on for its playoff life.

At the bottom, you see the number of games that went to a shootout this year (222), compared to the number of tie games in the last season before the shootout (170). This suggests that teams have indeed learned how to "play for the single point."

Remember (always) that the '76-'77 Canadiens amassed 132 points in 80 games without overtime or the "3rd point."

Note, too, that the Leafs would still have sucked.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"In the East, you see some slightly different positions. The biggest difference is that Carolina would have already clinched a spot, and the Rangers would be out (sorry, Dr. G.)."

:--(

The Rangers are alive -- for now. Chris Drury scores in his return to help them beat the Devils 5-2. New York must now wait for Carolina to lose to Tampa Bay to secure the eighth and final playoff spot in the East. We shall see.

Never say never ........... at least not if you are a Rangers fan. :love2:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Well, it looks like the NY Rangers made the playoffs. Next stop, defeating the Washington Capitals. No easy task, but the Rangers are up to it. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Good Canucks-Flames game tonight. I feared it could be a snoozefest because it didn't mean anything to either team, Flames being out of the post-season and the Canucks clinching first place quite a while ago.

Too bad the Flames just fell short of making it this year, I wouldn't have minded another Canadian team in the second season.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Looks like we might have a repeat of the 1994 Stanley Cup final with the Rangers and Canucks going to 7 games once again ............. with the Rangers again bringing the Cup to NYC. We shall see. 

If the Rangers don't win, I would like to see Vancouver win Cup #1 for their fans. We shall see. 

The CBC broadcast of Game 7 back in 1994 attracted an average Canadian audience of 4.957 million viewers, making it the most-watched CBC Sports program in history to that point (now second behind the men's ice hockey gold medal game at the 2002 Winter Olympics).


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Here are the standings revised for different point scenarios:

Different points, slightly different standings


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Here are the standings revised for different point scenarios:
> 
> Different points, slightly different standings


...which should come with one big BUT: provide a different points system, you wind up with different incentives and different game results.

I thought a 60-minute game, which the teams could win, lose, or tie, was just fine. It also made overtime in the playoffs that much more special.

Adding regular-season overtime (which initially kept the same points system, no "loser point") proved to be a slippery slope to where we are now: 4-on-4 OT, the shootout, the third point, increasingly complicated standings and tie-breakers... and the only real effect appears to be that a couple more teams have the illusion of being in the playoff race a little longer. Feh, I say.

Originally the idea was to add some excitement and reduce the number of ties, and that seems to be the purpose of every subsequent change. Well, newsflash: you still have teams playing for the single point, or even playing to get to a shootout, and you still have plenty of unexciting games. 

What dulls the excitement of an NHL game is not the possibility of playing for a tie, it's the shortage of top-end talent, rashes of long-term injuries to said talent, stifling defensive systems, general lack of scoring despite umpteen changes designed to increase it, half-full arenas in markets where hockey is less popular than high school football... just about everything but the points system.

Ugh. I watch this sport in spite of its boneheaded powers that be, that's for sure.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks Go!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

iMatt, that was an excellent summation of much of what's wrong with the NHL today.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gmark2000 said:


> Go Canucks Go!


Yes, they are on a roll. Imagine a Canucks vs Habs Stanley Cup final???? What a series that would make. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

iMatt said:


> ...which should come with one big BUT: provide a different points system, you wind up with different incentives and different game results.
> 
> I thought a 60-minute game, which the teams could win, lose, or tie, was just fine. It also made overtime in the playoffs that much more special.
> 
> ...


the inconsistent 3-point game is the problem. Some games are worth 3 points, others worth only 2. thats what throws the numbers off.

If the NHL insists on having the shootout, and still giving the loser 1 point, then it needs to start rewarding 3 pts for regulation wins.

The added bonus of this would be that teams would actually push to win games in the last few minutes of regulation for the extra point, meaning less ties.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> the inconsistent 3-point game is the problem. Some games are worth 2 points, others worth only 2. thats what throws the numbers off.
> 
> If the NHL insists on having the shootout, and still giving the loser 1 point, then it needs to start rewarding 3 pts for regulation wins.
> 
> The added bonus of this would be that teams would actually push to win games in the last few minutes of regulation for the extra point, meaning less ties.


So three points for win, two for OT win, one for OT loss. If you must have OT a good idea. Personally I favour ditching regular season OT altogether. 

BTW Ditto the above remarks for the CFL.

For me I will start paying attention part way into round three. Hard to get really excited when we are still 1/4 of a season away from the final outcome.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Montreal: 2 & 0
Vancouver: 2 & 0

I'm pressing the "Like" button.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Kazak said:


> Montreal: 2 & 0
> Vancouver: 2 & 0
> 
> I'm pressing the "Like" button.


But there shall always be tears for my Rangers, down 0-2. :-(


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

It may be some consolation that the Rangers' younger players are acquiring experience that will serve them in future playoffs.

Or they may come back. Remember Washington last year?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Kazak said:


> It may be some consolation that the Rangers' younger players are acquiring experience that will serve them in future playoffs.
> 
> Or they may come back. Remember Washington last year?


True. I never give up on my teams. At least I am able to say that I was able to see my team in the various sports I follow (i.e., the NY Rangers, the NY Knicks and the SF Giants) win the respective titles in my lifetime. Just think if I was a Chicago Cubs fan?

Still, if it came down to the Habs and the Canucks, I would like to see Vancouver get their first Stanley Cup. This is their year. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> So three points for win, two for OT win, one for OT loss. If you must have OT a good idea. Personally I favour ditching regular season OT altogether.
> .


yes, that's the point system i'd like to see in place.

I actually like OT, but i hate the shootout. changes the whole dynamic of the sport.

My preference would be to have a 5 min 4 on 4 OT, and then a 5 Min 3 on 3 OT, and then a 5 min 2 on 2 OT. by that time i doubt any game would still be tied. If it was then you could do a shootout, or just give the tie. I doubt fans would be upset after 15 mins of crazy OT action.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Vancouver is really starting to pick up momentum and they look like real winners. We shall see.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

we have seen the Canucks do this before. Play well in the first round, then bomb after that. Toronto pulls that stunt too when they make the playoffs...ouch


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

imactheknife said:


> we have seen the Canucks do this before. Play well in the first round, then bomb after that. Toronto pulls that stunt too when they make the playoffs...ouch


When did the Leafs last make the playoffs? I know when they last won the Stanley Cup, but am unsure as to their last shot at rewinning the Cup by making the playoffs.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I have a soft spot for the Coyotes/Jets. I hope they come back to win the series, too bad they don't have the luxury the Oilers had in 2006 when the Wings had Legace in net.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Don Cherries jacket tonight was something else. Reminded me of a slice of pizza that had been under the heat lamps all day.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> When did the Leafs last make the playoffs? I know when they last won the Stanley Cup, but am unsure as to their last shot at rewinning the Cup by making the playoffs.


In 2004, they beat Ottawa in seven games, then lost to Philadelphia in six. Tampa Bay won the Cup that year.

Spring 2004, when your iPod choices were 3rd Gen. or the 1st Mini, both with b&w displays.

Spring 2004, when Canada was preparing for a federal election (Martin would win).

Spring 2004, when an NHL lockout seemed possible next season.

Spring 2004, when Sidney Crosby won the scoring title - in the QMJHL.

Spring 2004, when Steven Stamkos was 14 years old.

_That_ was the last time Toronto made the playoffs.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Kazak said:


> In 2004, they beat Ottawa in seven games, then lost to Philadelphia in six. Tampa Bay won the Cup that year.
> 
> Spring 2004, when your iPod choices were 3rd Gen. or the 1st Mini, both with b&w displays.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Kazak. Strange, but I can remember the last time the Leafs won the Stanley Cup, but not the last time they were in the playoffs. Such is Life.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks go!


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

KC4 said:


> View attachment 19411


Good one, KC4. :lmao::clap::lmao:

Of course, one can only cast praise and admiration upon the fine play of the Sedin brothers, Henrik and Daniel, and their taste in dogs.


----------



## spudmac (Aug 23, 2002)

gmark2000 said:


> Go Canucks go!


Go Blackhawks


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

It's like somebody finally told the Hawks they were in the playoffs!?

In a series winning game, Luongo gets lit up for 6.

Where have these Blackhawks been all series?? Did it really take an un-punished Torres hit on Seabrook to wake them up?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

eMacMan said:


> Don Cherries jacket tonight was something else. Reminded me of a slice of pizza that had been under the heat lamps all day.


It's Don Cherry. If the jacket belongs to him it's Don Cherry's.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> It's like somebody finally told the Hawks they were in the playoffs!?
> 
> In a series winning game, Luongo gets lit up for 6.
> 
> Where have these Blackhawks been all series?? Did it really take an un-punished Torres hit on Seabrook to wake them up?


Nah, Canucks' management just wanted an extra 'home' game and all the revenues associated with it.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

That was a bad goal Bryzgalov just let in. Poor Coyotes.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

Lunogo is done. Vancouver is done. Blowout on Luongo- worst case scenario for Van going forward. An overtime win/loss in each game would have been better than a blowout. Even if they win the series, they are done, again. Doubt and uncertainty with Luongo, again. Go with Schneider, hope for a rally and a breakout. they have to win it with Schneider now.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks! Go Canadiens!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

fellfromtree said:


> Lunogo is done. Vancouver is done. Blowout on Luongo- worst case scenario for Van going forward. An overtime win/loss in each game would have been better than a blowout. Even if they win the series, they are done, again. Doubt and uncertainty with Luongo, again. Go with Schneider, hope for a rally and a breakout. they have to win it with Schneider now.


Oh crap this is bad. I've been watching hockey for a loooong time and I still don't understand how this kind of stuff can happen. Well, my lingering fear as the Canucks looked so unbeatable during the regular season was that they wouldn't be able to do this in playoff games. And there it is.

I don't think Vigneault will start Schneider. I was screaming "Pull him!" after that first bad goal, but he waited for 4. I don't think this is all Luongo's fault though. Based on what I'm seeing since the second period of the last game, Chicago should have no problem winning two more games. The Canucks look like they've just given up.

Ugh ... the hockey Gods are cruel.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Oh crap this is bad. I've been watching hockey for a loooong time and I still don't understand how this kind of stuff can happen.


After game 3, I really thought they were (finally) on their way. Now.. not.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

An ugly week for fans of Canadian teams.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

As a night shift transit worker, I get to see the commuters leaving Rogers Arena after the game. Last night most of them looked like they'd just seen a ghost.

Should the Canucks go on to lose this series, Alain Vigneault will likely be done as coach, and Luongo's reputation as a playoff capable goalie will be destroyed.

But if they pull it together and rally to win this series, it might give them enough of a boost, and be enough of a lesson, to allow them to go deep in the playoffs.

This is the kind of drama that makes me love playoff hockey.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Good goalies rally after bad games. Luongo is a good goalie. So I am thinking some sort of injury here. Still against Chicago, Vancouver is not gonna go much further if they continue to leave it all up to the goalie as in the last two games.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gwillikers said:


> As a night shift transit worker, I get to see the commuters leaving Rogers Arena after the game. Last night most of them looked like they'd just seen a ghost.
> 
> Should the Canucks go on to lose this series, Alain Vigneault will likely be done as coach, and Luongo's reputation as a playoff capable goalie will be destroyed.
> 
> ...


I thought I saw a ghost last night. It was the ghost of the Canucks-Hawks series from the last two years. With that stupid Fratellis song echoing in my head. :-(

I think Vigneault and Luongo would be done as well if the Canucks lose. Good thing they didn't trade Schneider away this season -- they just might need him as the starter next year.



eMacMan said:


> Good goalies rally after bad games. Luongo is a good goalie. So I am thinking some sort of injury here. Still against Chicago, Vancouver is not gonna go much further if they continue to leave it all up to the goalie as in the last two games.


In an interview after game 4 Luongo said that his awkward fall in that game wasn't an injury. But right after the fall is when he got lit up for 4 goals until he was pulled and then 4 more the next game.

Either A) he's actually hurt, B) he's more of a fragile mental case than anyone ever imagined or C.) he's had the Mafia threaten him to throw the series. Whatever happened, I think they would be crazy to risk starting him in the next game. But I suspect he will start. If he does start and starts letting in goals and Vigneault lets Luongo stay in until the game is out of reach, the coach should be fired.

But it's also difficult to understand what happened to the team that steamrolled almost everyone this season. Chicago's playing with a ton of confidence and they're playing loose, because not long ago they thought they would be golfing soon, but that doesn't explain this sudden collapse of scoring and a defence that's disappeared. I really don't get this.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Whatever happened, I think they would be crazy to risk starting him in the next game. But I suspect he will start. If he does start and starts letting in goals and Vigneault lets Luongo stay in until the game is out of reach, the coach should be fired.


No need to speculate...
Vigneault says Luongo to start Game 6 in Chicago


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks! Go Canadiens!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Alexandre Burrows scored his second goal of the game 5:22 into overtime as the Vancouver Canucks beat the Chicago Blackhawks 2-1 in Game 7 to advance to the second round of the playoffs! Go Canucks!


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

gmark2000 said:


> Alexandre Burrows scored his second goal of the game 5:22 into overtime as the Vancouver Canucks beat the Chicago Blackhawks 2-1 in Game 7 to advance to the second round of the playoffs! Go Canucks!


Crawford was incredible in goal for Chicago, but it's nice to see the Canucks get that monkey off their back. People went nuts last night, horns honking, people going bonkers, almost as if it was a cup win. This city sure is desperate for a champion.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gmark2000 said:


> Go Canucks! Go Canadiens!


Amen, Brother. They both got wins last night. :clap::clap:


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> Crawford was incredible in goal for Chicago, but it's nice to see the Canucks get that monkey off their back. People went nuts last night, horns honking, people going bonkers, almost as if it was a cup win. This city sure is desperate for a champion.


I feel for those same Canucks fans. I think many are losing sight over the fact that their team, which was built to not just make the playoffs, but to win the Stanley Cup just got taken to sudden death in game 7 by a team that is only 2/3 of last year's Stanley Cup Champions. 

The difference in last night's game was depth. As a Blackhawks fan, what I watched last night was a far cry from the team I watched last year. I was away so I missed games 2 thru 5. The Blackhawks team I saw last night looked tired and drained. They were certainly missing Byfuglien, Ladd, Sopel, Versteeg, Burish, Eager, and Madden. Seven players that made significant contributions to last year's Stanley Cup Championship who are now gone mainly due to the salary cap era of hockey. Hence 2/3's of last year's team.

Yet Vancouver could only just barely squeak by them. How will Vancouver be able to compete against the likes of San Jose and Detroit? Vancouver is supposed to be a team that was built up after playoff disappointments of the last two years. The Canuck fans were celebrating like they won the conference, not the first round. 

I'm sorry but Luongo is not a championship goaltender. He flopped around last night, he was swatting at pucks and he made blunders handling the puck behind his net. Compare his play to that of the Blackhawks rookie goaltender's play at the opposite end.

I thought that the Canucks had a set of twins playing on their team? From what I saw, they were completely missing. Yes Toews got shut down too, but he kills penalties, something that the Sedins don't do. If I want a team leader, I want a Jonathan Toews (23 in a few days), not a Henrik Sedin (30 years old). 

I realize that the Calder Cup voting is for the regular season, but Corey Crawford certainly looked like Rookie of the Year throughout the playoff games that I saw. 

Unlike a certain Blue & White team, I can certainly look forward to the future of hockey in Chicago. 

I wish Vancouver success, but logically I just don't see it happening.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> I wish Vancouver success, but logically I just don't see it happening.


Fortunately for Canucks fans, logic does not necessarily apply.

True, the deck now seems stacked against them: going to 7 games in the first round has to hurt a team's overall chances. (I don't have stats on that, but I'm pretty sure a 7-game first round is a strong predictor of failure to win the Cup.)

Equally true, Luongo has yet to live up to his hype.

But you know... maybe a very difficult first-round struggle against its nemesis is what that team needed to get their heads together. Wouldn't write them off just yet.

Likewise, I'm not ready to write off the Habs, though for different reasons. 

They were absolutely pathetic 5-on-5 last night, but managed to steal the win, after two losses that could just as easily have been wins (game 3 was a well-deserved loss). Nothing comes easy for this team. 

You look at their roster and you wonder how they even made the playoffs. Yet there they are, going to game 7. And if they win it, who knows what happens vs. Washington? On paper, Washington should steamroll them, but that was supposed to apply to Washington and Pittsburgh last year... one of the great things about the playoffs, you get some terrific surprises sometimes.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> Likewise, I'm not ready to write off the Habs, though for different reasons.
> 
> They were absolutely pathetic 5-on-5 last night, but managed to steal the win, after two losses that could just as easily have been wins (game 3 was a well-deserved loss). Nothing comes easy for this team.
> 
> You look at their roster and you wonder how they even made the playoffs. Yet there they are, going to game 7. And if they win it, who knows what happens vs. Washington? On paper, Washington should steamroll them, but that was supposed to apply to Washington and Pittsburgh last year... one of the great things about the playoffs, you get some terrific surprises sometimes.


Well having an obvious valid goal stolen away from you by a blind referee is bound to take a little wind out of a team's sails in a game like this. They didn't look great at all but they did hang on. Hopefully they will have some **** and vinegar back for game 7.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

screature said:


> Well having an obvious valid goal stolen away from you by a blind referee is bound to take a little wind out of a team's sails in a game like this. They didn't look great at all but they did hang on.* Hopefully they will have some **** and vinegar back for game 7.*


Here ya go ....


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

screature said:


> Well having an obvious valid goal stolen away from you by a blind referee is bound to take a little wind out of a team's sails in a game like this. They didn't look great at all but they did hang on. Hopefully they will have some **** and vinegar back for game 7.


Yeah, that early whistle was complete bull. But them's the rules... once the whistle is blown the play is dead, period, because there's no way to know how it would have unfolded without the whistle. 

It seemed an obvious goal to me and all the other Habs fans in the room, and I don't blame any of us for bitching about it, but I expect the millionaires I cheer for to put something like that behind them more or less immediately.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> Yeah, that early whistle was complete bull. But them's the rules... once the whistle is blown the play is dead, period, because there's no way to know how it would have unfolded without the whistle.
> 
> It seemed an obvious goal to me and all the other Habs fans in the room, and I don't blame any of us for bitching about it, *but I expect the millionaires I cheer for to put something like that behind them more or less immediately*.


I agree but they are only human and very young male humans at that... not always the most mature and level headed of creatures.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

screature said:


> I agree but they are only human and very young male humans at that... not always the most mature and level headed of creatures.


True, but on the other hand, one of the strengths of this Habs team is supposed to be that it's loaded with past Cup winners like Gomez, Gionta, Gill, Moen, Sopel... Not the most talented players, but guys who are supposed to be able to lead their less experienced teammates through adversity. 

If that play really was so demoralizing that it kept them on their heels most of the game, those guys are not doing their job.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

*go flyers go!!!*


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> *go flyers go!!!*


I agree, Go Flyers.... straight to HELL. beejacon


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMatt said:


> True, but on the other hand, one of the strengths of this Habs team is supposed to be that it's loaded with past Cup winners like Gomez, Gionta, Gill, Moen, Sopel... Not the most talented players, but guys who are supposed to be able to lead their less experienced teammates through adversity.
> 
> If that play really was so demoralizing that it kept them on their heels most of the game, those guys are not doing their job.


I agree. Hopefully they will shape up for game 7.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Oakbridge said:


> I'm sorry but Luongo is not a championship goaltender. He flopped around last night, he was swatting at pucks and he made blunders handling the puck behind his net. Compare his play to that of the Blackhawks rookie goaltender's play at the opposite end.
> 
> I wish Vancouver success, but logically I just don't see it happening.


Unless Luongo's inconsistencies are bolstered by the very good backup goalie, Schneider. And, unless the Canucks learned a valuable lesson after stupidly letting Chicago off the ropes in games 4 and 5.

These things will be known, very soon.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Damn! Just one Canadian based team left.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

gwillikers said:


> Damn! Just one Canadian based team left.


It sucks... :-( Go Canucks go...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

That was a very good game of Hockey, IMHO. Sad that the Habs lost, but they can hold their heads high for having played a good game and a good series. To be fair, I think the Bruins were a better team, but I was pulling for the Canadiens to the bitter end.

Go Canucks!!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Kazak said:


> I don't expect them to repeat last year's miracles. I would also be happy if they slipped to 7th or 8th to avoid Boston.


I would have been happy to be wrong. Sigh.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

gwillikers said:


> Damn! Just one Canadian based team left.


Canadian based, but not Canadian content!


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Canadian based, but not Canadian content!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks go!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

gwillikers said:


>


After the Leafs or teams that can help the Leafs, I support Canadian content.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> After the Leafs or teams that can help the Leafs, I support Canadian content.


I have various Canadian players that I support and follow, but I want the Canadian teams, their fans and local businesses to benefit and prosper from playoff excitement. Heck, I'll even include the many Canadian sports broadcasters in that equation. Canadian NHL viewership blows the US out of the water, but when the Canadian teams are gone, it drops right off.

It's bad for the game, the league, and all of Canada to have no Canadian based teams in the playoffs. This is our game, the more revenue and excitement generated in our country, the better. Montreal getting knocked out tonight was bad, bad, bad.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Interestingly, in both conferences the first, second, third and FIFTH teams advanced.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks go!



CanadianPress said:


> *Star goalies Luongo, Rinne are back on track after rough first rounds*
> 
> (The Canadian Press)
> VANCOUVER — After shaky starts to the Stanley Cup playoffs, goaltenders Roberto Luongo and Pekka Rinne seem to have returned to their stingy selves.
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Great game by Luongo .


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Tampa just owned the Capitals last night. The Sharks had way more shots than the Wings and deserved that OT win.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Loss in second overtime. Pekke Rinne is proving to be a tough nut to crack. This is shaping to be a battle of the leagues two best goalies.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Another goalie battle. Vancouver really ratchets the offence and gets the deserved OT win. Go Canucks go!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Tampa knocks out the Caps. Whodathunk?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I predicted Tampa would go all the way to the finals. ROLI! ROLI! ROLI!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Woot! Go Canucks go!












> *Kesler king again as Canucks down Predators 4-2*
> 
> Vancouver can wrap up series in Game 5 on Saturday at Rogers Arena
> 
> Ryan Kesler did it all again on Thursday for the Vancouver Canucks: He helped to kill a 5-on-3, drew a penalty and then scored the game-winning goal on the ensuing power play for the second straight game. It all spelled a 4-2 victory for the Canucks against the Predators at Bridgestone Arena, as Vancouver took a 3-1 lead in the Western Conference Semifinals.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

On to the Stanley Cup ........... Go Canucks!!!!!!!


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

It's really nice to see those last 2 posts on ehMac, but I have to tell you... if we (Canucks) get by Nashville, San Jose has me very concerned. They seem to have found their playoff temperment, and even Joe Thornton is buying into it! :yikes:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gwillikers said:


> It's really nice to see those last 2 posts on ehMac, but I have to tell you... if we (Canucks) get by Nashville, San Jose has me very concerned. They seem to have found their playoff temperment, and even Joe Thornton is buying into it! :yikes:


One game at a time, gw ....... one game at a time. Excelsior!!

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> On to the Stanley Cup ........... Go Canucks!!!!!!!


Takes 16 wins to win the Stanley Cup. They've won 7.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

gwillikers said:


> It's really nice to see those last 2 posts on ehMac, but I have to tell you... if we (Canucks) get by Nashville, San Jose has me very concerned. They seem to have found their playoff temperment, and even Joe Thornton is buying into it! :yikes:


The Sharks, Thornton included, have looked great through one or two rounds many times, and always managed to choke.

It's interesting that half of the remaining teams carry a "choker" reputation -- Vancouver, San Jose, Boston, Philly. Will one of them shed it? At this point, I'd have a hard time betting against Tampa going all the way...


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Well, last year, the Canucks hardly choked. They were defeated by the eventual Stanley Cup winners. It's not like the Washington Capitals.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Would Bettman be happy with a Vancouver Tampa final?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Nice to see Detroit squeak out a win against San Jose in game 4. The longer this series goes the better.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

arminia said:


> Would Bettman be happy with a Vancouver Tampa final?


Nope, but I bet he's praying for a Nashville Tampa final.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Boston sweeps Philly.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

gmark2000 said:


> Boston sweeps Philly.


And looked really good doing so.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Tim Thomas has the Vezina wrapped up.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

gmark2000 said:


> Boston sweeps Philly.


The only two teams I wished to be eliminated are now gone. I am now cheering for Boston or Vancouver. Nice!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Interesting . . .

The Canucks are NOT Canada's team


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

SINC said:


> Interesting . . .
> 
> The Canucks are NOT Canada's team


In my case, I'm not cheering for Vancouver as a "Canadian option". More so, I am living vicariously through the excitement of friends who dwell there. 

I don't cheer for Canadian teams in the playoffs out of some sort of nationalistic pride. In fact, I often cheer against certain Canadian teams.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> Well, last year, the Canucks hardly choked. They were defeated by the eventual Stanley Cup winners. It's not like the Washington Capitals.


True, they're not the biggest or most notorious chokers, but they have lost enough series they "should" have won to get the label. 

Right now I'd tag San Jose, Washington, Boston and Philly as the teams with the most "choker" stigma to shed. Boston and San Jose are doing a good job of peeling off the label... so far.



gmark2000 said:


> Tim Thomas has the Vezina wrapped up.


Probably, but you know the playoffs don't figure into voting for the individual awards, right? (Except the Conn Smythe, of course.)


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> Interesting . . .
> 
> The Canucks are NOT Canada's team


Good article. And that's surprising, because such articles are an annual ritual, and they rarely dig much deeper than a headcount of the number of Canadian players on the various remaining teams.

This is the bit that most applies to me:



> My theory is that it's now gone on so long that fans of the other Canadian clubs are now willing to wait until it's their team that finally becomes the glorious team to win it again.


...because I've found, since the Habs were eliminated, and contrary to a post a couple of pages back, that I have no particular urge to cheer for the Canucks. They're like most other teams to me: not my team. Not a hated rival like some, but just another team.

In years when I join a playoff bandwagon, I don't consciously pick the team, I just find myself cheering for somebody. So far this year it's the Lightning and/or "anybody but Boston", but it's pretty half-hearted at this point.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Are the playoffs still going?

As a Blackhawks fan, I had my fun last year. But I don't see the compelling stories this year like we had last year: Montreal's stunning upsets of both the Capitals and Penguins, 3 of the top 4 seeds in the East being upset in round 1, the Flyers making the playoffs on the last game of the season, losing the first 3 games against Boston before winning the next 3 to force game 7, and then being down 3-0 in game 7 before coming back and winning 4-3, then going to finals, and having the 7th and 8th teams play in the Eastern final. 

I'm sure I would have felt different had the Blackhawks won in OT against the Canucks but I haven't really had any interest in watching any of the other series this year. Last year I watched a lot of games of all of the series, even when the Blackhawks weren't playing. 

Anyone else feel that this year isn't matching the drama of last year's playoffs?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Oakbridge said:


> Anyone else feel that this year isn't matching the drama of last year's playoffs?


Nope.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I was hardly into the playoffs last year. This year, I've been following the eastern matchups. Very good hockey this year.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I was hoping for a rematch of the 1994 Stanley Cup final ............. along with the same result. Such is Life. I hope Vancouver wins this time. We shall see.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> I was hoping for a rematch of the 1994 Stanley Cup final ............. along with the same result. Such is Life. I hope Vancouver wins this time. We shall see.


A lot of those players came down from my team Dr.G which is the Oilers. In 1994, The moose (Messier) and other ex oilers + many other great players put on a great show that year for the Rangers. I would love to still watch that team play hockey, well I would still love to watch the Dynasty Oiler team still kicking but more though


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

imactheknife said:


> A lot of those players came down from my team Dr.G which is the Oilers. In 1994, The moose (Messier) and other ex oilers + many other great players put on a great show that year for the Rangers. I would love to still watch that team play hockey, well I would still love to watch the Dynasty Oiler team still kicking but more though


Very true. I recall the glory days of the Oilers and the Islanders, with consecutive Stanley Cups year after year. Those were the days for those two teams ........... sadly, they have both fallen on hard times lately.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Ugh. So many mistakes made in the second half of the game, including the own goal and those last two giveaways in the zone. The defence is too sloppy and not giving Bobby Lu the chance to stop goal suck Cam Ward.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gmark2000 said:


> Ugh. So many mistakes made in the second half of the game, including the own goal and those last two giveaways in the zone. The defence is too sloppy and not giving Bobby Lu the chance to stop goal suck Cam Ward.


Well, it shall have to be Vancouver in six now. We shall see.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> Ugh. So many mistakes made in the second half of the game, including the own goal and those last two giveaways in the zone. The defence is too sloppy and not giving Bobby Lu the chance to stop goal suck Cam Ward.


I blame the press and the team for believing the press.

After game 4, with the Canucknuckleheads up 3 games to 1, the press essentially said "well, the next game is a shoe-in for the 'nucks", and apparently they believed it.

I keep saying "Don't mess with the hockey gods", but they never learn. 

You have to win FOUR to advance to the next round. FOUR.


----------



## spudmac (Aug 23, 2002)

gmark2000 said:


> Ugh. So many mistakes made in the second half of the game, including the own goal and those last two giveaways in the zone. The defence is too sloppy and not giving Bobby Lu the chance to stop goal suck Cam Ward.


Joel Ward scored the goals (Cam Ward is the Carolina Hurricane's Goalie) and he is a graduate of the University of PEI (Go Panthers ). I remember when he made it into the Minnesota Wild organization - lots of Islanders were cheering for him. It's a great story about how with hard work, dedication, and a belief in yourself you can realize your dreams. While Vancouver is by far the deeper team with more high profile players and should win the series, I'm hoping Joel scores a few more against them (you know - just to keep Canuck fans honest and to give the good folks from PEI more opportunity to cheer on one of their adopted sons). I'm also still smarting from my Blackhawk game 7 overtime loss to Vancouver  .

Cheers,

Spudmac


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vancouver isn't going any further in the playoffs unless and until the Sedins start playing like they did during the regular season.

What are they now, -7 and -9 ?!? Kesler isn't supposed to have to carry the whole team.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

Actually they're both at -7 and tied with Ehrhoff for the team worst +/-

2010-2011 Playoffs Stats - Plus/Minus - Vancouver Canucks - Statistics


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Happens every time they make it to the playoffs. The Sedin brothers are thinking golf, or something other than hockey.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

*Canucks take series in six games, beat Preds 2-1*









_Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin, and Ryan Kesler celebrate after a goal against Pekka Rinne of the Nashville Predators in Game Six of the Western Conference Semifinals at the Bridgestone Arena on May 9, 2011 in Nashville, Tennessee._

Whew!! Rinne is definitely a Vezina nominee. Go Canucks go!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Let's Go Canucks!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> Rinne is definitely a Vezina nominee.


Definitely a spectacular and almost unbeatable goalie when he's not rattled, but he seemed very nervous last night; two goals on 19 shots isn't that remarkable. I think he's going to get better as he matures.

My pick for the Vezina would be Tim Thomas.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Hoping that the battered veterans of Detroit extend the series against the Sharks tonight.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Whaddaya know???

*Wings rally back from 3-0 deficit to force Game 7*












> The Red Wings moved one victory away from hockey history tonight.
> 
> They needed nearly 40 shots and more than 50 minutes before finally burying one of the dozens of great scoring chances they had on Antti Niemi, but Henrik Zetterberg and Valtteri Filppula’s third-period goals propelled the Wings to a 3-1 victory at Joe Louis Arena and forced a Game 7 Thursday in San Jose.
> 
> A week ago, the Wings trailed the second-round series, 3-0. Now they’re on the cusp of becoming the just the fourth team in NHL history to overcome such a deficit.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

*Sharks avoid collapse, close out Red Wings in Game 7*












> SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — Patrick Marleau got his first point of the series when he knocked home a rebound with 7:47 to play and the San Jose Sharks finally managed to knock out the Detroit Red Wings on their fourth try with a 3-2 victory Thursday night in Game 7 of their Western Conference semifinal series.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

The Canucks are going to have their hands full with the Sharks (same could've been said of the Red Wings), but if the Sedin's get rolling, and Luongo is sharp in every game, they are capable of getting to the final.

Lot's of "if's" eh? :lmao:


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Judging by this thread, it's as if Central and Eastern Canada don't care about a Canadian team in the Pacific time zone.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> Judging by this thread, it's as if Central and Eastern Canada don't care about a Canadian team in the Pacific time zone.


It was ever thus.

The Centre of the Universe has little concern for the extreme hinterlands.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gwillikers said:


> The Canucks are going to have their hands full with the Sharks (same could've been said of the Red Wings), but if the Sedin's get rolling, and Luongo is sharp in every game, they are capable of getting to the final.
> 
> Lot's of "if's" eh? :lmao:


I couldn't bring myself to watch much of that last series after the Canucks caved so badly to Chicago and only got by them by the skin of their teeth. But they put in a good show against a frustrating Predators team. The 2 games I did partially watch were not entertaining.

Like most others I think that at least a Canucks-Sharks match will be entertaining hockey. Possibly more room out there for the Sedins to shine. And I hope Kesler can keep up the magic he has managed to conjure up in the last series. If both top lines are going strong and the Canucks can keep their defence working and healthy, and Luongo doesn't fall apart, I would give them an advantage. But the Sharks have much talent on their own and are similar to the Canucks in that they are skilled and have some playoff proving to do, being taken out earlier than expected in years past. I think this series could go either way.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Opinion: Dear rest of Canada - please get your own hockey team


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

arminia said:


> Opinion: Dear rest of Canada - please get your own hockey team


I believe that tongue-in-cheek article was written partly in response to this: Canucks as Canada’s team? No thanks | National Post


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I believe that tongue-in-cheek article was written partly in response to this: Canucks as Canada’s team? No thanks | National Post


For all of that will be rooting for the Canucks in this series, mainly due to the misery the Sharks have caused our Flames.

Don't think Iggy et al should have been so anxious to polish the clubs this year as some golf courses are just now emerging from that blanket of snow.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I'd like to see a Sharks vs Bruins final, with Joe Thornton sticking it to his old team.

(a Bruins appearance in the Stanley Cup finals will also yield an extra 2nd round pick for the Leafs from the Kaberle deal... which is basically the only thing the Leafs have to look forward to from these playoffs).


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

i-rui said:


> (a Bruins appearance in the Stanley Cup finals will also yield an extra 2nd round pick for the Leafs from the Kaberle deal... which is basically the only thing the Leafs have to look forward to from these playoffs).


Go Leafs, err Bruins, Go!!

(I think the Bruins, having given up so much, have to resign Kaberle, which would also deliver the Leafs the same 2nd round pick.)


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Amunsgt all the Cup drama... http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/94858-rip-derek-boogaard.html


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Haz said:


> Here's a pretty good video of how the rest of Canada seem to feel towards the Canucks.
> 
> http://www.sportsnet.ca/video/latest/Brunt-Essay-Canadas-team


That's a good report. Underlines my view that most Canadians are asleep when the Canucks play.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> That's a good report. Underlines my view that most Canadians are asleep when the Canucks play.


Sometimes it seems like the Canucks are asleep when the Canucks play.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Sometimes it seems like the Canucks are asleep when the Canucks play.


Yeah, that's how they got 117 points this season and are in the third-round of the playoffs.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> Yeah, that's how they got 117 points this season and are in the third-round of the playoffs.


Well, actually I was thinking that's how they got to game 7 versus Chicago (see games 4, 5, & 6) and to a lesser extent game 6 versus Nashville.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Go Leafs, err Bruins, Go!!
> 
> (I think the Bruins, having given up so much, have to resign Kaberle, which would also deliver the Leafs the same 2nd round pick.)


yes, if boston signs Kaberle the Leafs will get that same pick.... but the way he's played for them i don't think that'll happen. The Boston GM has already publicly criticized him. Plus he's a UFA so he can sign wherever he likes and will be looking for a pay raise.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

That was quite the spanking Tampa gave the Bruins last night ... you sure didn't want to get up and out of the room for 2 minutes halfway through the first period (like I did) and come back and "What just happened?"


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks go!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Go Lightning!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Game is in an hour. I can't decide whether I should watch or not. I **think** the Canucks record is better when I watch the game (haven't crunched the numbers). The season could hinge on my decision.

Then I have to decide whether to wear my Canucks ball cap or not. The last time I wore it they melted down against Chicago. And then there's the question of cheezies, chips or veggies and dip, I don't know which snack food carries the bad karma. The stress is enormous!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

*Canucks bite the Sharks in Game 1*












> Henrik Sedin scored an enormous goal Sunday to help the Vancouver Canucks get a leg up in the Western Conference final. Sedin beat Sharks goaltender Antti Niemi midway through the third period to complete a comeback and give the Canucks a 3-2 victory in Game 1 of the best-of-seven series. It was a perfectly executed power play, as point man Christian Ehrhoff patiently waited for Sedin to get open, then fed him a pinpoint pass in the slot.


Go Canucks go!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> *Canucks bite the Sharks in Game 1*
> 
> Go Canucks go!


I guess no Canucks cap and a bag of chips was the way to go. Pheww. That first goal had me worried. I'm sure me and a million others were thinking "Oh no, not again!" But after that they looked like winners. I love how they didn't try and protect the one goal lead, they just kept pouring on the offence.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Wow. Wasn't that an exciting game!


*Seguin leads Bruins to win to even series*












> BOSTON — A star was born and an NHL playoff series was ratcheted up Tuesday when rookie Tyler Seguin chipped in two goals and two assists to spark the Boston Bruins to a 6-5 win against the Tampa Bay Lightning in Game 2 of the Eastern Conference finals. Seguin, benched for Boston's first 11 playoff games, now has three goals and six points in his past two games, including a memorable goal when he split two defensemen to burst in alone 48 seconds into the second period and beat goalie Dwayne Roloson with a high shot.
> Before the period was over, he had all four of his points to tie the Bruins' record for points in a period, set by Barry Pederson in 1982 against the Buffalo Sabres, and then tied by Peter McNab in 1982 against Buffalo and by Ken Linseman against the Montreal Canadiens in 1985.
> In second period, Boston fans started to chant, "Tyler Seguin. Tyler Seguin. Tyler Seguin."


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I guess no Canucks cap and a bag of chips was the way to go.


I'm glad you're in control of whether they win or lose, because I don't think I could afford to be out of the country seven more times.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Woot! Go Canucks go!


*Canucks seize control of NHL West final, rout Sharks 7-3

Vancouver scores four power-play goals, takes 2-0 series lead*









_Vancouver's Kevin Bieksa, left, celebrates his second period goal. (Rich Lam/Getty Images)_



> VANCOUVER — There's blood in the water as the NHL's Western Conference final shifts to The Shark Tank, and it doesn't belong to the Vancouver Canucks.
> 
> It's the San Jose Sharks who are wounded as the series moves to the Silicon Valley for Games 3 and 4.
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Kazak said:


> I'm glad you're in control of whether they win or lose, because I don't think I could afford to be out of the country seven more times.


Do it for the team, man! 

Yep, went with the same formula last night. It appears to be appeasing the Hockey Gods -- blessed be their Holy names. Geez, I wonder if I have to go with the same brand of chips next game. Tell me, O Hockey Gods, what do you wish of your humble servant?

It was refreshing to see a team that wasn't named the Vancouver Canucks, do a playoff meltdown for once.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

The other story of the game was the woman who flashed Ben Eager when he was in the penalty box.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

gmark2000 said:


> The other story of the game was the woman who flashed Ben Eager when he was in the penalty box.


That is awesome.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Of course the question is: Would she have still done that if the glass wasn't there?


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Bruins are up 2-1 in their series now. Sure doesn't seem that anyone cares or is watching hockey anymore? No one seems to posting about the games here as much.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I'm still watching the games, but spending less time on the interweb. (It's spring you know ... )

Boston seems to have recovered their composure after that first game.

Canuck's breakout game is looking spectacular against San Jose. Is it because it's that good or is San Jose's defence that slow?


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Well the Shark Tank proved to be a tough place to play for the Canucks tonight. The first period went to the Sharks easily.

The last period sure was all about the Canucks. If the penalties are managed better then the Canucks will have a better chance next game. It's hard to win when you are short handed for the good part of a period in a game. 

Exciting hockey for sure.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Canucks started believing their press again. Can't believe I heard one 'professional' sports commentator mention 'sweep' before the game last night. What were the shots on goal in the first half of the first period? 12 to 1 or something ridiculous like that. 

(I hate the sports coverage out here, and the play by play guy for CBC is HORRIBLE. I could do a better job.)

I knew the Canucks were going to lose the game when they couldn't score on that 4 minute 5 on 3. (If you can't score with a two man advantage you might as well just hit the showers.)


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Of course the question is: Would she have still done that if the glass wasn't there?


Would Eager have been happier if the glass wasn't there?


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Tampa comes back from a 3-0 deficit, unlike the Canucks to win against the Bruins. Series tied 2-2 now.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Canucks started believing their press again. Can't believe I heard one 'professional' sports commentator mention 'sweep' before the game last night. What were the shots on goal in the first half of the first period? 12 to 1 or something ridiculous like that.
> 
> (I hate the sports coverage out here, and the play by play guy for CBC is HORRIBLE. I could do a better job.)
> 
> I knew the Canucks were going to lose the game when they couldn't score on that 4 minute 5 on 3. (If you can't score with a two man advantage you might as well just hit the showers.)


I don't think the Canuck players seriously listen to what sports commentators think. The loss yesterday wasn't so much due to the Canucks playing badly as it was to San Jose playing amazingly well with all cylinders firing and with their goalie coming up with an incredible performance. But that started to fade towards the end of the game as the Canucks shook off the onslaught and started to assert themselves again. But it was too little, too late.

I don't think anyone except idiots were expecting anything from San Jose but the kind of effort they put up last night, after being embarrassed badly in the previous game. When a good team plays with that kind of intensity it's difficult for any team to hold them back. It didn't help that the Canucks got caught with that 4 minute penalty off an unlucky inadvertent high stick in the first period.

I think the Sharks deserved their win, but almost let it slip towards the end. I expect now that the Canucks have seen what the Sharks are capable of delivering, it is now up to them to come up with a similar intense effort to not let the series be evened up.

As a Canucks fan the positive for me in the last game was seeing how the Canucks didn't melt down after the initial onslaught from the Sharks. I don't see them falling apart like they did with Chicago. I thought it was an incredible battle last night and great hockey, I'm looking for it to get even better next game.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Canucks take a 3-1 series lead in the Western Conference Finals! Go Canucks go!

*Canucks hook Sharks with 4-2 victory in San Jose*









_Daniel Sedin and Alex Burrows of the Vancouver Canucks celebrate teammate Sami Salo's first of two second period goals in Game Four of the Western Conference Finals against the San Jose Sharks during the 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs at HP Pavilion on May 22, 2011 in San Jose, California.
Photograph by: Thearon W. Henderson, Getty Images_



> Sami Salo scored twice and Ryan Kesler added a goal as the Vancouver Canucks capitalized on three two-man advantages in the second period to beat the San Jose Sharks, 4-2, on Sunday and take a 3-1 series lead.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't think the Canuck players seriously listen to what sports commentators think.


No, but it's fun to watch the fans who do. I like the team. I think they're good. I despise the fan-bois. 

Recap of today's game: another bunch of 5 on 3s made the difference today again, only this time they didn't suck at it. Apparently they practiced that particular drill and scored with the 2 man advantage, which was the difference in the game. Offensively, aside from the 5 on 3s, the Canucks were mundane at best, and their defence shutting down the Shark's power play and some timely plays by Luongo kept them in the game. (Canucks had 13 shots on goal in the _entire game_) 

It's quite obvious that overall the Canucks are the better team, especially with Thornton out now, but the Sharks shouldn't be discounted completely, especially if the Canucks don't give 110% every game.

Remember: you have to win FOUR to advance. They've only won three in this round so far. That's all that matters. Four is what it takes. Did they learn from Chicago?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Remember: you have to win FOUR to advance. They've only won three in this round so far. That's all that matters. Four is what it takes. Did they learn from Chicago?


This is true. I'm hearing these guys on the radio tonight saying "5 wins away from the Cup!"! 

Shut. The Hell. UP! Morons. They might never win another game this season.

While it might be true that the Canucks are a deeper and more talented team, talent means zero without motivation. I suspect that the differences in talent are only marginal, even the worst teams in the NHL are full of very talented hockey players.

A slightly talented person with a ton of motivation will beat out a very talented person with low motivation every single time. It's true in hockey and life in general.

It's difficult to imagine that the Canucks will not win the series, San Jose is in deep trouble, but they could easily lose the remaining 3 games, if they haven't learned the lessons of the previous 2 series. I suspect they have, but this team has surprised me in a not very pleasant way several times this season. I hope they are smart enough to not let the Sharks up off the mat, like they did with the Hawks.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

*Thomas hero in game five win*



> Tim Thomas' fabulous clutch performance was made all the more impressive in that the Lightning beat him on the first shot of the game and never again, as Thomas stopped 33-straight including a near impossible save on Steve Downie's wide open shot with a backstretched blade of his stick.
> 
> The Bruins win the game with a 3-1 score and take a 3-2 series lead.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks go!


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Goal tending was definitely the difference in the Bruins/Tampa Bay game. Thomas made a couple of spectacular saves. 

Tampa Bay seemed to lose a lot of their hustle towards the end of the game. I think both teams were tired, but Boston was beating them to the puck for the last 5 minutes when they needed to get control so the goalie could be pulled.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

*Canucks beat Sharks, advance to Stanley Cup final*









_Vancouver Canucks center Ryan Kesler celebrates his goal to tie the San Jose Sharks in the final seconds in Game 5 of their NHL Western Conference Final hockey playoff game in Vancouver, British Columbia May 24, 2011.
ANDY CLARK/REUTERS_



> VANCOUVER—The Vancouver Canucks are one series away from ending Canada's Stanley Cup drought.
> 
> Kevin Bieksa scored in the second overtime and the Canucks beat the San Jose Sharks 3-2 on Tuesday, taking the NHL's Western Conference final in five games.
> 
> ...



*Go Canucks go!*


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

That was quite the blooper of a goal!

Congratulations to Vancouver Canucks. Good luck in the finals. 

Anyone with great photoshop skills care to attempt to edit the ehMac logo to put a Vancouver Jersey on our mascot?


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

17 years ago on Tuesday May 24th the Canucks won in double overtime of game 5 to advance to the Stanley Cup Finals... What are the odds of it being on the same day, same game of the series & in double overtime...


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

I'm liking the series lengths: 7 games, 6 games, 5 games . . .


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr_AL said:


> 17 years ago on Tuesday May 24th the Canucks won in double overtime of game 5 to advance to the Stanley Cup Finals... What are the odds of it being on the same day, same game of the series & in double overtime...


Quite odd that it happened that way. I hope history doesn't repeat also in the final series.

I was in Toronto 17 years ago when Vancouver beat the Leafs to win their way into the Stanley Cup Final. Hard to believe it's been so many years.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ehMax said:


> That was quite the blooper of a goal!
> 
> Congratulations to Vancouver Canucks. Good luck in the finals.
> 
> Anyone with great photoshop skills care to attempt to edit the ehMac logo to put a Vancouver Jersey on our mascot?










*Larger image*


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

^^^ Wow! Nice work GA!! :clap:


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


>












It's Johnny Canuck! Great job!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

The flukey, lucky bounce for the win...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Quite the entertaining game. Not too many penalties, and the ones that were called were real. Niemi made some great saves and so did Luongo. Obviously the Sharks outshot the Canucks again.

What is it with Luongo dropping his stick all the time? He must have dropped it three times last night.

I still think the play by play guy sucks. The goal was such a surprise to TV viewers because he had no idea where the puck was and neither did the camera man. Bieksa obviously did!

Looking forward to the Eastern series wrapping up quickly, and then a good final series filled with excellent hockey. May the better team win!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Party on Vancouver!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Well, the last time the Canucks were in the Stanley Cup finals I had to root for my team -- the New York Rangers. Now, 17 years later, I am able to root for the Canucks. Let's hope for a good final that brings the Cup to Vancouver.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

*Lightning Beats Back Bruins, Bringing Series to a Tie, Force Game Seven*









_Tampa Bay's Martin St. Louis scored the first of his two goals on a powerplay in the second period._



> TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Martin St. Louis and Teddy Purcell each scored twice, the resilient goalie Dwayne Roloson weathered a hat trick by Boston’s David Krejci, and the Tampa Bay Lightning stayed alive in the Eastern Conference finals with a 5-4 win over the Boston Bruins in Game 6 on Wednesday night.
> 
> Game 7 is Friday night in Boston. The Bruins are seeking their first trip to the Stanley Cup finals in 21 years, and the Lightning will try to clinch their first appearance on hockey’s biggest stage since they won their only N.H.L. championship in 2004.
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> *Lightning Beats Back Bruins, Bringing Series to a Tie, Force Game Seven*
> 
> _Tampa Bay's Martin St. Louis scored the first of his two goals on a powerplay in the second period._


So which team matches up better for the Canucks? Who would they rather meet in the Final? I've heard decent arguments for both Boston and Tampa.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So which team matches up better for the Canucks? Who would they rather meet in the Final? I've heard decent arguments for both Boston and Tampa.


Flip a coin. I've been going back and forth on that question lately, and I can't make up my mind. Let the chips fall where they may I guess.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

From what I see the Bruins are being held by their goalie, whereas the Bolts are relying on their speedy offensive players like Lecavilier, St.Louis and Purcell. I think Boston would be a better (easier) opponent. They would be scrambling with the four healthy, rested Canucks lines. Malhotra and Erhoff could return for the finals. Meanwhile the Canucks are healing in their hyperbaric chamber.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So which team matches up better for the Canucks? Who would they rather meet in the Final? I've heard decent arguments for both Boston and Tampa.


I agree. Flip a coin. At least they don't have to face the NY Rangers once again in the finals. No need to bring back the ghosts from 1994.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

For entertainment value, I favour a Canucks v. Lightning final

For maximizing the chances of a Canuck win, I favour a final with the Bruins. While I don't think the Bruins will go down without a fight, they've got a lot less firepower than the Lightning, and Thomas can only hold them up for so long.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> *Larger image*


Hey GA, sorry, I forgot to check back in this thread. 

That's amazing!!!!  :clap: :clap:

Will modify the ehMac logo to get this design in if that's ok!

Thanks very much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ehMax said:


> Hey GA, sorry, I forgot to check back in this thread.
> 
> That's amazing!!!!  :clap: :clap:
> 
> ...


You're welcome. I enjoyed making it. Please use it as you wish.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

*Malhotra cleared for light contact in practice*

I don't know if the powers that be are as picky as they used to be, but I think a player still has to make at least one playoff appearance to get his name on the Cup. In that context, this is good news indeed.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)




----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I rooted for the Flames in the Finals in 2004.
I rooted for the Oilers in the Finals in 2006. 
I rooted for the Senators in Finals in 2007.
I rooted for the Canadiens' run last year. 

This year I am absolutely rooting for the Canucks to bring the Stanley Cup home to Canadian turf. The Canucks were the number one team in the regular season. They've worked hard assembling the core of this team over the last 7-8 years. It's a shame that Markus Naslund and Trevor Linden can only watch from the sidelines but this team has great history from their Finals runs in 1982 and 1994 and so many from those teams are still involved with the Canucks organization to this day. They are Canada's team.

Oh, and I've been a Canucks fan for 40 years, knowing players' names from my childhood and even attending one of the Roger Neilson towel power games against Chicago in 1982. Not a bandwagon jumper at all, sometimes a fair-weather fan when all the goals were garbage goals prior to the teams run by Pat Quinn with the exciting Pavel Bure and gritty Trevor Linden. This has been a long road for the Canucks after overcoming their playoff nemesis Blackhawks finally after three consecutive tries. It's now Vancouver's turn.

Go Canucks go!


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

They're Canada's team now:





​


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

you are all aware that here are more canadians on the bruins than the canucks, yes?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

broad said:


> you are all aware that here are more canadians on the bruins than the canucks, yes?


Ah, that old gem. I was wondering when that would surface.

The difference is what... maybe a player or two at the most? Is this somehow a big deal?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

MannyP Design said:


> Ah, that old gem. I was wondering when that would surface.
> 
> The difference is what... maybe a player or two at the most? Is this somehow a big deal?


Boston has 5 more Canadian players on their roster.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

broad said:


> you are all aware that here are more canadians on the bruins than the canucks, yes?


You are all aware that there's one team representing a Canadian city, right?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Boston has 5 more Canadian players on their roster.


Are you going by Wikipedia or the official team's roster?

Again… DOES IT *MATTER*? Does this somehow invalidate the Canucks?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

What's next, Trump asking for longform birth certificates? :lmao:


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

MannyP Design said:


> Again… DOES IT *MATTER*? Does this somehow invalidate the Canucks?


i just think its silly this groundswell of bandwagon support for the canucks as "canada's team" when in fact there are more canadians playing for boston. if boston wins the cup more canadian cities and towns will be visited by the cup this summer, where more canadian kids will see it at parties and parades etc. 

cheer for vancouver all you want but saying its "canada's team now" is a fallacy.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

I'm really liking what our mascot is wearing today! Go Canucks go! 
What fun, team spirit! 
WOOT!
(Thanks G.A!)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Let's hope that Winnipeg get the Trashers today .............. with St.John's, NL getting the Manitoba Moose. We shall see.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

To be perfectly clear, I'm supporting the ehMacians who are supporting the Canucks. 

The Mayor himself is *NOT* supporting the Canucks. 

It's part of my Dutch heritage and soccer mentality. You support your home club team and only your home club team. I support Toronto and only Toronto. 

In all honesty, I will be glad to have a Canadian team holding the Stanley Cup as opposed to a US team, but I won't be happy until that team is Toronto. The centre of the universe. 

Until then, consider the ehMac mascot wearing a Canucks Jersey a very nice gesture and *VERY* hard thing for the Mayor to do. If a Canucks fan was running ehMac, I doubt they'd put a Leafs jersey on the mascot.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ehMax said:


> If a Canucks fan was running ehMac, I doubt they'd put a Leafs jersey on the mascot.


I wouldn't want to doom a nice web site like this to failure by putting a Leafs jersey on it beejacon


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

broad said:


> i just think its silly this groundswell of bandwagon support for the canucks as "canada's team" when in fact there are more canadians playing for boston. if boston wins the cup more canadian cities and towns will be visited by the cup this summer, where more canadian kids will see it at parties and parades etc.
> 
> cheer for vancouver all you want but saying its "canada's team now" is a fallacy.


People used it against Ottawa when they were in the playoffs as well (and I'm sure other Canadian teams when _they_ were in the playoffs.)

It should be no surprise that whatever team is left in the playoffs is bestowed the honor of becoming "Canada's team". That's just the way it is. The Canucks are a Canadian-owned/Canadian Based team. End of story.

The fallacy lies in the masturbatory exercise of counting maple leaf flags on Wikipedia. Both Boston and Vancouver's rosters (on their site) show the same number of Canadians on the team (approximately; not accounting for injured players).

And let's be honest, you're not really _that_ concerned about the little kids. Lots of Canadian children will still be able to see the Cup, regardless if the Canucks win. :lmao:


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

There's only one "Canada's Team" and they won at the Olympics last year.

Actually let me edit that. 

There's two "Canada's Teams", and both of the won at the Olympics last year.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Thumbs up to the mascot's new set of threads. Ehmaccian Canuck fans appreciate the gesture, Mr. Mayor.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The only down side to the Canucks being the team I'm pulling for in the finals is that their home games generally start so late at night that I can't watch 'em.

I hope they'll schedule these finals earlier in the day so that those of us out east don't have to stay up past midnight to see how they turn out.

Cheers


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

ehMax said:


> To be perfectly clear, I'm supporting the ehMacians who are supporting the Canucks.
> 
> The Mayor himself is *NOT* supporting the Canucks.
> 
> ...


I understand the Chicago Cubs could use a few more fans. Sounds to me you have what it takes to qualify, though moving to Chicago might prove painful.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The only down side to the Canucks being the team I'm pulling for in the finals is that their home games generally start so late at night that I can't watch 'em.
> 
> I hope they'll schedule these finals earlier in the day so that those of us out east don't have to stay up past midnight to see how they turn out.
> 
> Cheers


i think the game starts at 8pm(eastern time zone) tomorrow night. The NHL always schedules the finals to be viewer friendly for the east.

i guess i'm reluctantly cheering for the canucks....but only because the Leafs get Boston's first rounder (which will be 30th overall if they win the cup vs 29th if they don't  )


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm not a Canucks fan but I hope this tradition continues. Question though, what happens when two Canadian teams go head to head?? lol.

I rooted for the Flames in 2004 as well, and then the Flames fans rooted against the Oilers in 2006. I'm never cheering for those jerks again.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Flames fans bite the big one...respectably yours, Oilers fan in Ontario


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

broad said:


> cheer for vancouver all you want but saying its "canada's team now" is a fallacy.


Vancouver IS A CANADIAN CITY FOR 125 years. The Vancouver Canucks are a team representing that city for 40 years.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

ehMax said:


> If a Canucks fan was running ehMac, I doubt they'd put a Leafs jersey on the mascot.


You know it!

I'll never forget going overland through Africa for 11 months a number of years ago. I was in a group of mostly Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Dutch and Germans. About 7 months in we ran in to another overland tour at one village stop. We were all hanging around drinking warm tins of Guinness when I met a fellow Canadian. First Canadian I had spoken to in 7 months. We got talking and asked where each other was from, he said Vancouver (some suburb of) and when I said Toronto he said "Toronto sucks." First fellow countryman I'd spoken to in 7 month. "Toronto sucks." I went back to the Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Dutch and Germans. I later learned he'd never even been to Toronto. This is the impression I've had from many Vancouverites (and many other Canadians not from within the Golden Horseshoe) over the years.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

gmark2000 said:


> Vancouver IS A CANADIAN CITY FOR 125 years. The Vancouver Canucks are a team representing that city for 40 years.


Yet, most people I know are going for Boston (or just don't care about the playoff anymore).


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

dona83 said:


> I'm not a Canucks fan but I hope this tradition continues. Question though, what happens when two Canadian teams go head to head?? lol.


Surely the sign of the end of times. I think Canada would either implode or explode with glee. :lmao:


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Nice to see EhMax is cheering for Vancouver! I like the new look of ehMac.ca!

I'll be cheering for Vancouver as well.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Nice to see EhMax is cheering for Vancouver! I like the new look of ehMac.ca!
> 
> I'll be cheering for Vancouver as well.


Not really, but he's being nice to the few Canuck fans on ehMac instead...



ehMax said:


> To be perfectly clear, I'm supporting the ehMacians who are supporting the Canucks.
> 
> The Mayor himself is *NOT* supporting the Canucks.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

A last second win for Vancouver! Hooray! 1 down 3 to go.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Three more wins.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> Three more wins.


My heavy build-up of emotional scar tissue from being a Canucks fan for so long won't allow me to imagine them winning this.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Worth another look. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXWfgJzWSJo


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> My heavy build-up of emotional scar tissue from being a Canucks fan for so long won't allow me to imagine them winning this.


I sort of fall into that category too. 
I know they're capable, it's just that I fear something will occur to mess it all up.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Canucks are not Canada's team, eh? Check this out, 17,000 singing O Canada in full voice.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

*WARNING!! This video contains very foul language!*

...but I got a laugh out of it anyway...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

gwillikers said:


> I sort of fall into that category too.
> I know they're capable, it's just that I fear something will occur to mess it all up.


Well, losing by one goal in game seven in the 1994 Finals can do that. Mind you, a Buffalo Bills fan could be more jaded.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The Canucks are not Canada's team, eh? Check this out, 17,000 singing O Canada in full voice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the requirement for being Canada's team?

Toronto FC does that pretty much every week with regular season games with over 20,000 people with scarfs raised high and flags waving. I guess we're Canada's team? 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.










+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ehMax said:


> That's the requirement for being Canada's team?
> 
> Toronto FC does that pretty much every week with regular season games with over 20,000 people with scarfs raised high and flags waving. I guess we're Canada's team?


By default, I guess. When they make it to _their_ finals… sure. :heybaby:


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> By default, I guess. When they make it to _their_ finals…*sure. :heybaby:


Ya, the mayor has other thoughts. But he's sometimes a good guy too. A sheep in wolve's clothing, as it were. But not a Canucks fan for sure. :yikes:


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

gwillikers said:


> Ya, the mayor has other thoughts. But he's sometimes a good guy too. A sheep in wolve's clothing, as it were. But not a Canucks fan for sure. :yikes:


Just pointing out that there is no club team in any sport that becomes a national team. That's just silly. Canada has a national team, and a very good one at that. 

I propose that anyone who suddenly flips to another city's club team is a band-wagon fan. A glory hunter as we say in football. 

I enjoy hockey and watching the Stanley Cup finals and I want a Canadian team to win, but I'm not by any means a Canucks fan. Of course not, I'm not from Vancouver. Am I happy for my fellow ehMacian Vancouver fans. Yes! Would I be if they were playing Toronto. Heck no!  Do I think we have to worry about that anytime soom with MLSE running the Leafs and TFC... NO!   :-( :yikes:

Anyways, enough of that. I'm not trying to take anything away from any of the Vancouver fans, I'm genuinely happy for you guys and our mascot shall wear the jersey right until Vancouver wins the cup this year. 

PS... the Boston "fan" video is really funny.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Just pointing out that there is no club team in any sport that becomes a national team. That's just silly. Canada has a national team, and a very good one at that.
> 
> I propose that anyone who suddenly flips to another city's club team is a band-wagon fan. A glory hunter as we say in football.
> 
> ...


I agree with almost everything hizzoner is saying here. Especially the 'band wagon' jumpers. Pretty sad that so many people have such low self esteem that they feel the need to associate themselves with other people's accomplishments through rabid instantaneous 'fan-dom' and feel the need to assert that 'their' team is 'Canada's' team. No, it's not. Vancouver is Vancouver's team, and maybe whoever else chooses to cheer for them, but don't tell me they're 'my' team just because I'm Canadian. It's attitudes like those that make me think I'd cheer for the Taliban if they were playing the Canucks if it would make the bandwagon jumping 'fan-boys' shutup. It would also be nice if a lot of a fans would actually learn the rules of the game so they don't get all upset when what they consider to be a 'breakaway' gets blown down because it's actually OFFSIDE. Sheesh. 

I enjoy watching the Canucks play (their breakout game is phenomenal to watch), but I doubt I will ever be a 'fan' in the Vancouver fan-boy sense of the word. It'd be too embarrassing to associate myself with such ignorance.

I've been enjoying watching the playoffs this year, and so far they've been really entertaining. There have been a few bad calls, a few missed calls, but overall I think the better team in each series has ultimately prevailed. My guess is that Vancouver is the better team on the ice right now, but the hockey gods may have other ideas ...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

You had me but you lost me at Taliban. 

That would be a really crappy hockey game. 

I would love to see a Vancouver player jersey the taliban though.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FWIW the first game may not have been the greatest display of hockey skills ever. That flashy dresser called it the worst game in the history of the finals, or words that left that impression. Still the goaltending was spectacular and that is where the cup will be won or lost this year. 

Through out the playoffs both Goalies have kept their teams in it, even when most of their team-mates were secretly polishing the golf clubs.

Personally I like both clubs this year so I can and will just enjoy the games.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

This has nothing to do with self-esteem, and the last time I checked, the Olympics are finished. It's all good fun, FFS, people! Get the stick out of yer arse.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

ehMax said:


> You had me but you lost me at Taliban.
> 
> That would be a really crappy hockey game.
> 
> I would love to see a Vancouver player jersey the taliban though.


Well, I said _*if*_ it would make the newly converted fan-boys shutup, but I doubt it would work. 

eMacMan: agreed on the goalies. (I don't mind either club winning, as long as they're good games and nothing stupid determines the series winner, like bad calls.)


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Maybe "hizzoner" should reconsider calling ehMac "Canada's Mac Community", it's not even _hosted_ in Canada. :lmao:


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Where'd that come from?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MLeh said:


> Where'd that come from?


T'was a joke.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MannyP Design said:


> This has nothing to do with self-esteem, and the last time I checked, the Olympics are finished. It's all good fun, FFS, people! Get the stick out of yer arse.





MannyP Design said:


> Maybe "hizzoner" should reconsider calling ehMac "Canada's Mac Community", it's not even _hosted_ in Canada. :lmao:


^ Lame attempt at jab pointing out where pixels sit on a hard drive. :lmao: Doesn't make ehMac any less Canadian than the fact the site is based on a computer designed in the US and actually made in China. 

Don't blame you for not grasping local team support or getting upset. I mean what local team to NB have to support? :heybaby: 

An who said anyone wasn't having fun?  Club teams are about supporting your team, your tribe and the rivalries with other tribes. (And making fun of people who defect over to other tribes)

Irony is that almost everyone *IN* Vancouver understands this. Ask any Vancouver fan if any of them would EVER support Toronto if they were the only Canadian team in the playoffs. Ask them if they would cheer for Calgary if they were in the finals. As I said, if ehMac was run by someone who lived in Vancouver, I doubt there would be a Toronto jersey being warn on the mascot of Toronto was in the finals. (If anyone could get past imagining Toronto in the finals)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MannyP Design said:


> T'was a joke.


Don't worry... I know. Me to. 

Remember everyone. I have Vancouver Canucks Jersey on ehMac's mascot. Not just day of the game, but entire finals. That should say something.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Howsabout another lame attempt at humor: Is it even hosted on a Mac? beejacon

Methinks I'm going to back off. It seem someone is getting their feathers ruffled. Have a great weekend.



ehMax said:


> ^ Lame attempt at jab pointing out where pixels sit on a hard drive. :lmao: Doesn't make ehMac any less Canadian than the fact the site is based on a computer designed in the US and actually made in China.
> 
> Don't blame you for not grasping local team support or getting upset. I mean what local team to NB have to support? :heybaby:
> 
> ...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MannyP Design said:


> Howsabout another lame attempt at humor: Is it even hosted on a Mac? beejacon
> 
> Methinks I'm going to back off. It seem someone is getting their feathers ruffled. Have a great weekend.


Apple makes a server?   Unix - Mac OS, same thing. 

Feather's ruffled? I'm not a Chicago fan










Just some leafs rustling is all. That won't change no matter who is having a run at the cup.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Oh well, in my naiveté I thought posting the O Canada singing video might be a positive thing. I think it was pretty impressive ... speaking as a Canadian, ... not as a lowly Canucks fan. 

There has been a tradition for the last several years of the fans at the Canucks games loudly singing the anthem, but this one was bigger than them all. The TFC video was pretty impressive as well, I hadn't seen that before.

No the Canucks are not equivalent to Team Canada and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Canadian players are on teams throughout the league and the hero for the Canucks, USian Ryan Kesler was enemy number one in Vancouver during the Olympic Gold medal game. 

Many Canadians believe that hockey is our special sport and the idea of the Stanley Cup being won by a Canadian-based team is something that captures the imagination of many Canadian hockey fans regardless of their previous rooting team. But I wouldn't suggest that those who can't bring themselves to root for the Canucks necessarily should if they don't feel like it. I rooted for the the Senators, Flames and Oilers when their teams made it to the finals, but that was just me.

I think the thing being lost here by some is that watching extremely talented multi-millionaires skate around a frozen rink is all strictly entertainment. I know a group of young people that are having tremendous fun with all the crowds and public celebrations around the Canucks games. Normally they don't even follow hockey. They are called bandwagon jumpers, ... so what? They're having fun, it's a game. Enjoying the game and the celebrations around it don't mean that you have low self-esteem or anything of the kind Mleh, sheesh. 

Watching a sport like hockey is immensely more fun if you play at having a team that you root for and that you're emotionally invested in. A few take that to the point where they forget that it's just a game, but most people put it perspective. It's just entertainment, folks, please lighten up.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I'm light. I agree - it is 'just a game'. There are far more serious things in life. 

But I live on the west coast and so have to put up with these 'Johnny-come-lately' Canuck fans who think that they have bragging rights and suddenly profess an intimate knowledge of the sport after watching a few games on the telly. Suddenly they're all 'Canucks fans', and according to them we should all be Canucks fans. Whereas I prefer 'hockey fans'. 

Sure, cheer for your team. Go for it. But don't diss me when I'm merely looking for a good game between competitive opponents. 

There has been some inference that cheering for the Canucks or any 'Canadian based' hockey team is somehow 'more Canadian' (or conversely, that not cheering for them is somehow 'unCanadian'). That is what rankles. There's more to it than just where the home ice is located, unless, of course, you're just a 'Canucks' fan. 

Remember, the Canucks fans are the ones the police have to beef up their services for. I remember 1994 when the Canucks lost. Those are the kind of fans that no sport needs. I just hope they've grown up a bit, because it makes real hockey fans look bad.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

When the Calgary Flames were playing in Atlanta, a friend of mine in the Univ. of Georgia doctoral program, who is from Montreal, would go and see all of the games in Atlanta when the Montreal Canadians or NY Rangers played. When they played O Canada at any of the games against the Habs, he would sing at the top of his lungs. Luckily, he has a very good voice, and a very loud voice, and it drew the attention of many in our section of the Omni. On the way home after the first time he did this, he taught me the words, and we sang together the next time they played the Habs. We did this for nearly three full seasons.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

ehMax said:


> Anyways, enough of that. I'm not trying to take anything away from any of the Vancouver fans, I'm genuinely happy for you guys and our mascot shall wear the jersey right until Vancouver wins the cup this year.


I think the new jersey on the mascot is a very nice gesture. :clap:
Maybe it'll provide some good luck too! The Canucks need all the help they can get, this Boston team is much better than some tend to realize. The blind optimism and over-confidence that some fans are displaying in this city is driving me crazy. I tend to look at that type of cockiness and sense of entitlement as bad karma. Thankfully most fans are cautiously optimistic and respect the ability of the other team.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gwillikers said:


> I think the new jersey on the mascot is a very nice gesture. :clap:


I agree. :clap:



gwillikers said:


> The blind optimism and over-confidence that some fans are displaying in this city is driving me crazy. I tend to look at that type of cockiness and sense of entitlement as bad karma. Thankfully most fans are cautiously optimistic and respect the ability of the other team.


Anyone who didn't realize that Game 1 could have easily gone either way is either an idiot or wasn't watching the same game I was. 

On paper the Canucks are deeper, but the games aren't played on paper. The Canucks out-played the Bruins in the 3rd period of Game 1, but that also means nothing. A brilliant play by a single Bruins shift or a lucky bounce could have negated the Canucks effort. Do these cocky fans even watch hockey?

I also believe that you shouldn't tempt the hockey gods with such talk. Even mentioning winning the Cup is jinxing behaviour in my book of superstition. A true Canucks fan should rightly be in a state of extreme anxiety until it's all in the books. beejacon


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)




----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think the thing being lost here by some is that watching extremely talented multi-millionaires skate around a frozen rink is all strictly entertainment.


For Billions of people on the planet, their club team and the support of them means a lot more than just "strictly entertainment". That's a fact. 

We can get into the psychology for sport and all kinds of theories. There's not one definition to fit all. For a lot of people, it is _just_ entertainment to watch and participating is for exercise and stress relief. These are all good things. 

On the other end, team sport is an emulation of tribal war and rivalry. I'd say at the heart, that's what it really is... why humanity has sport. It's in our blood to be part of tribes and to compete...to do battle. A more civilized way to feed that desire is do it without actual spears and killing is to emulate it through skillful athleticism. The spectators watching live vicariously through the participants in the battle. We get that adrenaline rush. We clap, we cheer, we chant. We done the colours, put on the badge / crest, we wave the flag. 

For many, that connection with that local team is like a connection to your tribe. Win or lose, you stick with your tribe and battle. There's an inherent resentment to those who are local who "defect" to the enemies tribe. 

It's not the way everyone thinks, but it's the flat out truth.  It can be somewhat cultural as well. In North America, I'd say there are a lot more people who view sport as strictly entertainment and exercise. To the very extreme, it makes me upset. When you have guys in suits at the Air Canada centre in their box seats conducting meetings and work networking during a game. Some of the owners, like Maple Leafs sports and ENTERTAINMENT only focus on the entertainment aspect. They should take the word sport out of their name. 

For many other countries, especially for soccer fans, support for the club takes on a more tribal feeling. Because of closer geography to rival cities, there are much more "Derby's" as they're called or here we'd call them "Cross-town" rivals. You don't support the other clubs. Period. This is from kids to folks in their 90's. 

At times and in some countries, it goes to far when it gets to violence between fans. Much of that is in the past and there are many ways to avoid that now. Usually that is just specific groups though. In North America, I see all too often violence from "drunken frat-boys" where you get idiotic mob violence or fights in the stands from random idiots. 

Anyway, sorry to take off track again. It's an interesting subject.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks go!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gmark2000 said:


> Go Canucks go!


Amen, Brother gmark2000. Let's see a sweep .......... :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I never even watch the NHL until the Stanley Cup series. Once the stupidity of head butts, injury causing checks and nasty business quits and real hockey begins, I can stand it. (Always GLAD TO SEE THE END OF THE NATIONAL WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT HOCKEY LEAGUE). An entertaining first period has Vancouver ahead.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Say what you want about Alex Burrows, but the guy has scored so many important goals. He just never gives up. :clap:

Two more wins. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

ehMax said:


> For Billions of people on the planet, their club team and the support of them means a lot more than just "strictly entertainment". That's a fact.
> 
> We can get into the psychology for sport and all kinds of theories. There's not one definition to fit all. For a lot of people, it is _just_ entertainment to watch and participating is for exercise and stress relief. These are all good things.
> 
> ...



I find that your post is also applicable to politics in Canada (and the the world)

Many people blindly vote for their tribe. They vote following the path of their forebears, because of their self identification with that so called tribe.

Very interesting.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Go NUKS!!!!...


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

*Burrows Strikes In Overtime To Put Canucks In Command*












> VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Alexandre Burrows, who escaped suspension in the wake of a biting incident in Game 1 of the Stanley Cup finals, scored two goals, including the winner 11 seconds into overtime, and gave the Vancouver Canucks a 3-2 victory here on Saturday night and a 2-0 series lead over the Boston Bruins.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Two down ....... two to go. Let's go Canucks.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

It appears that with that quick goal, Burrows really ... ahem ... took a bite out of the Bruins.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I was worried that GA would have to fly from west coast to east coast to kick Dr. G for typing the 'S' word when they'd only won one game and were winning the second game by a mere goal. It was shortly after that was posted that Boston scored two goals. Is Dr. G secretly a Boston fan?

Anyway, a good game although again I still dislike the play by play guy a lot. Most of the time I'm "What game are _you_ watching?" It was especially irksome to hear him ragging on Chara for a 'lazy play' on the winning goal by Burrows when it was, in my opinion, simply 'out-hustle' by Burrows.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MLeh said:


> I was worried that GA would have to fly from west coast to east coast to kick Dr. G for typing the 'S' word when they'd only won one game and were winning the second game by a mere goal. It was shortly after that was posted that Boston scored two goals. Is Dr. G secretly a Boston fan?
> 
> Anyway, a good game although again I still dislike the play by play guy a lot. Most of the time I'm "What game are _you_ watching?" It was especially irksome to hear him ragging on Chara for a 'lazy play' on the winning goal by Burrows when it was, in my opinion, simply 'out-hustle' by Burrows.


A "secret Boston fan"????? No way!!! I rooted for the New York Rangers ever since I was a boy and went to the old Madison Square Gardens to see the Toronto Maple Leafs (circa 1959) destroy my beloved Rangers.

I have to admit that I rooted for the Rangers over the Canucks back in 1994, but am pulling for the Canucks to go all the way this year. We shall see.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Interesting the amount of people who are normally Leaf fans that have embraced the Canucks as Canada's team. As a Blackhawks fan, my interest in this year's playoffs basically ended when they were eliminated. I've followed the scores, watched bits of games but I don't believe that I've sat down to watch a game from start to finish. 

I suspect that the fans of the Flames, Oilers, Canadiens, Senators, and heck even the Jets (welcome back) aren't as eager to throw their support behind the Canucks as those Leaf fans that have suffered for the past 34 seasons. 

If you're not normally a Canuck fan, but are supporting them as Canada's team, which team do you regularly support?

If you truly support a team that has been eliminated, did your interest in the playoffs drop once your team was knocked out?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Oakbridge said:


> If you truly support a team that has been eliminated, did your interest in the playoffs drop once your team was knocked out?


I'm a hockey fan first and foremost, but my favourite team is Calgary (and my second favourite team is whoever is playing Edmonton), so once the Flames (and the Oilers) are out of contention I just sit back and enjoy 'good hockey'. Obviously I'd prefer it if my team were in contention, but ... 'Hockey' fan, not 'Flames' fan. (See previous rants on 'Canucks' fans).

I'm not rootin' for the Canucks, but neither do I wish them ill. I think they're a very good team and on paper should win the series quite handily. On paper. However the games actually have to be played, and that's where the hockey gods come into play. Can't discount Boston completely - they've been very close in both games and it's just been one play difference in determining which team has prevailed in the first two games. Once the series moves back to Boston, and the Bruins get the advantage of 'last change', it may change who gets the bounces or the extra stride to reach the puck first.


----------



## rocket (Apr 21, 2010)

Living on Vancouver Island and watching the Canucks play this season, can't help but root for the Canucks , in fact if you are a Canadian why would you root for any team but the Canucks. I am a Canucks fan but if say Toronto was playing against Boston I would be cheering for Toronto for sure.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

rocket said:


> , in fact if you are a Canadian why would you root for any team but the Canucks


Please see the previous posts in this topic.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> Please see the previous posts in this topic.


If being honest, I'm a Habs fan first as they were the reason I started watching hockey in the late sixties, (because my Mom was a rabid Habs fan) a hockey fan second, as I also love to watch the Junior Worlds and the Olypmics and then after that I am any Canadian based hockey team fan.

But I totally get where you are coming from MLeh, as the way you view hockey is how I view football having played it. I cheer for good play and often the underdog just 'cause it makes it more exciting.

You don't have to logically justify who you cheer for, that is what being a "fan" (fanatical) is all about... it isn't supposed to be rational.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> . . . Leaf fans that have suffered for the past 34 seasons.
> 
> If you're not normally a Canuck fan, but are supporting them as Canada's team, which team do you regularly support?


I've been a Habs fan all my life, but the Canucks have been my second favourite team for almost as long. With Montreal gone, it's been easy for me to root for the Canucks, especially against the vile team that ousted Montreal.

Oh, and it's 44 years for Toronto, not 34. The last time the Leafs won the Cup was the spring before I started kindergarten. The last time the Leafs won the Cup, there were new episodes of _Star Trek_ on TV. The last time the Leafs won the Cup, there were six teams in the NHL. I could go on all day . . .


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Game one had the highest ratings for viewership for both HNIC and NBC, I don't think people are tuning out except Blackhawks fans.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks go!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gmark2000 said:


> Go Canucks go!


That picture must be atop of the Canadian Embassy in Washington. :clap:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Rome hit on Horton was despicable. One of the worst hits I've seen, nearly a second late and a head shot at that. He should be suspended the rest of the playoffs, and a significant portion of next season; I know Shanahan wouldn't blink to do it, hope Murphy is as tough.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Luongo lit up for 8 goals. 3 in the last two minutes of the third.

GA now: Thomas: 5, Luongo: 10

I don't understand the Vancouver coaching staff. They stood by Luongo when the team had quit and they should have pulled him. Now he's lit up and let in some weak goals, he's demoralized and the Bruins have momentum.

Game 4 should be interesting!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Ugh. Less than 40 hours to re-tool and re-group. Not sure what happened. (And actually thankful I didn't watch the second and third periods.)


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I didn't see the game - was traveling and only got near a television for the 3rd period, by which time it was over. I'd been watching the news earlier in the day and someone was going on about Luongo's GAA, and how he was 'going to set a record if he continues this way', which I guess the hockey gods didn't like.

But the true test of team is how they react to adversity. Have to win four in a every series, including the finals.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Rome hit on Horton was despicable. One of the worst hits I've seen, nearly a second late and a head shot at that. He should be suspended the rest of the playoffs, and a significant portion of next season; I know Shanahan wouldn't blink to do it, hope Murphy is as tough.


I beg to differ. His injury is unfortunate but why is Rome taking flack simply because Horton got caught not looking where he was skating? First rule of hockey is KEEP YOUR HEAD UP! Look for the pass but keep your head on a swivel! He didn't and unfortunately paid for it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

dona83 said:


> I beg to differ. His injury is unfortunate but why is Rome taking flack simply because Horton got caught not looking where he was skating? First rule of hockey is KEEP YOUR HEAD UP! Look for the pass but keep your head on a swivel! He didn't and unfortunately paid for it.


His head was up but he was looking to his left when he got hit from his blind side.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

While technically because he was looking away it was blindside in that he couldn't directly see him, but as far as rule 48 goes, this was not a blindside hit. It was a north south hit and if you watch the NHL videos showing hits that are ok, this looks just like a lot of them.

The problem with the hit was that it was really late. 1 second is quite a long time in that scenario. It is hard to say when exactly Rome left his feet for the hit, if you slow it right down it looks as though it was right after contact. If he has left his feet before contact I would definitely expect a suspension. If the NHL wants to be consistent with the calls they have made throughout the year, namely lucic and chara hits on canadiens, then I would say there should be no suspension. It is hard to say what Murphy will do, I think there will be a one game suspension because of how late it was, but if Horton had had the puck, that wasn't even a penalty.

I would like to qualify what I said, this comment is based on the current NHL rules. These rules need to be seriously looked at and they need to get rid of all hits where the primary contact is the head. Having said that, it looks like Horton's head hit the ice and that caused most of the damage


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The sooner checking is outlawed altogether in NHL hockey, the sooner it will regain hundreds of thousands of fans who abhor the game for its violence and fighting and quit watching years ago.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

That's going a little too far SINC, checking has always been part of the game, it has its purpose. Certainly violent checks in dangerous situations need to be dealt with, but if you remove checking from the game it will slow down and no one will watch it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I only saw the video once but it did look like a head shot. I too would go with at least a one game suspension.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

dona83 said:


> I beg to differ. His injury is unfortunate but why is Rome taking flack simply because Horton got caught not looking where he was skating? First rule of hockey is KEEP YOUR HEAD UP! Look for the pass but keep your head on a swivel! He didn't and unfortunately paid for it.


it was a dirty hit. Lucic already had the puck over the blueline and Horton has every right to be looking to the left to follow the play. Sometimes you can blame a player for not being aware, but that wasn't the case here. It was just far too late of a hit.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

Yes, eMacman, it was a headshot, but as far as NHL rules go, it was a legal headshot (outside of being a very late hit of course)


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

That was a horrendous game last night. Boston started playing more aggressive and physical, and it looks like Vancouver was shocked by Boston actually playing. Vancouver made too many mistakes with dropped passes and just wasn't playing their best. Poor Luongo had nobody to help him. I hope Vancouver gets their act together for Wednesday's game.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

It's official. 4 game suspension for Rome.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jwootton said:


> That's going a little too far SINC, checking has always been part of the game, it has its purpose. Certainly violent checks in dangerous situations need to be dealt with, but if you remove checking from the game it will slow down and no one will watch it.


That's an odd outlook indeed. International and Olympic games are much faster with checking curtailed. I bet more who have left the game would return than those who would leave due to no checking.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

Therre is certainly checking in internaltional and Olympic hockey. The only hockey without checking is the women's.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The problem with some legal hits and "hockey plays" in the NHL today is that in many cases they have little or nothing to do with the ostensible purpose of checking: separating the opponent from the puck. 

One simple rule is behind a lot of the hits that upset so many people: the fact that puck possession belongs to the last player to touch the puck. That means you can "finish your check" (crunch the guy, but good) even after the objective of separating the man from the puck is moot. 

Over the long run, the obsession with finishing a hard, clean hit on the man with official possession, combined with bigger, faster, fitter players wearing rock-hard body armour, has led to legal hits regularly producing very ugly results. And the league, players, coaches and many fans defend all this as "just hockey", a "man's game" that's always been that way. However, if you tune in to vintage games occasionally (NHL Network, ESPN classics, etc.), you'll quickly see that the game is now much faster and tougher than ever.

As for Rome's hit on Horton: this one to me falls into the absurd but widely accepted category of "late but clean", even though I personally believe such a hit should be unequivocally banned. 

In the regular season, there is no suspension for that hit. It is justified as a "hockey play" in "our physical sport" and perhaps Horton gets scolded for not keeping his head up. But in the SCF, with more people watching, the ugliness of a borderline hit by a scrub on a first-liner is suspension-worthy. Double standard? Nah, there are too many standards to count.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

This hit by Michael Ryder of the Bruins in the game 5 of the ECF received no penalty nor suspension.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






I have no qualms about the penalties and suspension on Rome's late hit, but the NHL really needs to work on consistency on its officiating. What about Lucic cross-checking Burrows in the back of the head later in the game? No suspension for that?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

In the "logic" of NHL discipline, the fact that Michael Ryder has a reputation as a soft, gentlemanly player means he will probably never even make it to "first offender" status unless he does something really egregious, like baseball-swinging his stick into somebody's face. He basically gets a pass.

Also, Burrows has a reputation as a pest and a diver, and a history of run-ins with officials, so in the "logic" of NHL discipline, other players get a pass to abuse him.

(I am assuming for now that NHL "discipline" will not change significantly in the post-Colin Campbell era. I very much hope I'm wrong.)


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Well that Ryder hit was more brutal in a sense that the player never had the puck and Ryder's feet definitely lifted before the hit. With the Rome hit, his feet left the ice AFTER due to the collision. Horton's head was more likely concussed when it hit the ice than with Rome's initial hit. 

Let's not forget Chara's hit on Pacioretty who didn't have the puck either.

Pacioretty 'disgusted' by lack of suspension: TSN


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

totally disagree that the Ryder hit should be a suspension. i don't even think it is a penalty. Ryder turned to go up ice to break out of his own zone and Jones cut across the ice to pressure the other defencman after it appeared he was going in to pressure Chara. it was just a collision. 

i do agree about Chara's hit on Pacioretty. this is where the NHL dropped the ball. it was clearly a late hit and it could have killed the player. i was shocked when he didn't get at least 5 games. should have been 10.

unfortunately the NHL's track record on consistency is disgraceful. there simply is none. regardless, the Rome hit was terrible, and he deserves to be out for the remainder of the final.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Apparently someone forgot to tell Boston that the Canucks are pre-ordained to win the cup. Two very close games in Vancouver followed by a blow out and a semi-blow out. Game five, back in Vancouver, should be interesting.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I hope this is a homer series then. Otherwise this is disintegration at its worse.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks go!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gmark2000 said:


> Go Canucks go!


Amen, brother. It's do or die tonight. We shall see.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Phew! My nerves can't take much more of this! 

You have to think that there'll be a game 7 back in Vancouver.

Downtown Georgia Street, Game 5...


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Amen, brother. It's do or die tonight. We shall see.


Umm ... no. That comes when the other team has won 3 games.

So ... it's do or die for Boston next game. Should be a good game.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

*Canucks one win away*












> VANCOUVER—It was a bounce off the boards and walk along the seawall that has put the Vancouver Canucks one win away from the hoisting the Stanley Cup.
> 
> It was Maxim Lapierre — perhaps Vancouver’s least liked player in 29 other hockey cities — who jumped on the good bounce to give the Canucks the 1-0 win in Game 5, with Game 6 — and a chance to win it all — set for Monday in Boston.
> 
> ...


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Go Canucks go!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Come on Bruins! Make it a series... Game 7. Do or die. Seven games is all I ask for!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lookin' good for that 7th!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

what time is it in Boston?

15 past Luongo.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

i-rui said:


> what time is it in Boston?
> 
> 15 past Luongo.


Hehehe. 16 you mean.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

jawknee said:


> Hehehe. 16 you mean.


Ooh wait. -1 tonight, gotcha.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vantoast is playing again tonight I see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Vantoast is playing again tonight I see.


Van-coulda!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Game 7. Winner-take-all (as it should be!).


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Honestly, Boston seems the better team to me. Great goaltending, more than one player putting pucks in the net. Vancouver is looking tired. I was hoping for a Canadian team to win it...but like Dr.G says, " We Shall see"... Not holding my breath


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

The home teams have been winning, thus home ice on Wednesday favours the Canucks. The 40 shots on Thomas but no lucky bounces. Vancouver have the hockey gods at home.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

imactheknife said:


> Honestly, Boston seems the better team to me. Great goaltending, more than one player putting pucks in the net. Vancouver is looking tired. I was hoping for a Canadian team to win it...but like Dr.G says, " We Shall see"... Not holding my breath


I still think that Vancouver shall come to the forefront with their "A-Game" and pull out another home-ice victory.

Yes, we shall see.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> I still think that Vancouver shall come to the forefront with their "A-Game" and pull out another home-ice victory.
> 
> Yes, we shall see.


Hope you're wrong, but it's looking like the this may be the case.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Games 1, 2 & 5 in Vancouver were completely different games than 3, 4, & 6 in Boston. (I know that's pretty obvious.)

But the games in Vancouver could have gone either way - decided by only one goal, while the games in Boston were pretty decisive victories for the Bruins.

So, game 7, in Vancouver ... could go either way. Depends on the hockey gods.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

No review nor penalty on Boychuk's playoff ending hit on Mason Raymond (intent to injure?). Daniel Sedin gets 10 minute misconduct for complaining about being hit five times in the head by Marchand without retaliating (yes Marchand got the 2 minute roughing penalty).

In the previous game, Chara knocks his own player and Canucks get the penalty.

The Hockey Gods have no control over this refereeing. The so-called diving reputation is preventing calls. Yet the Bruins do know wrong with their after-whistle crosschecks and slashes. 

Bettman doesn't favour any team but certainly wanted seven games for the ad revenue.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Did you actually _watch_ the game or just listen to the play by play and colour commentary and make your comments based on what you heard rather than what actually occurred on the ice? Totally different. 

The Sedins do 'embellish', and they should stop.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Again will probably come down to the goalies. Thomas has been on his game all six times. Luongo superb for three and a bum in Boston, if he fails to show in Vancouver it's lights out!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Mason Raymond has a fractured vertebrae and is out 4-6 months. The Bruins fans were jeering that he was embellishing. Classy.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> Mason Raymond has a fractured vertebrae and is out 4-6 months. The Bruins fans were jeering that he was embellishing. Classy.


Again, you were watching a different game than me ... I don't think anyone watching him thought he was 'embellishing'.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

mleh said:


> did you actually _watch_ the game or just listen to the play by play and colour commentary and make your comments based on what you heard rather than what actually occurred on the ice? Totally different.
> 
> The sedins do 'embellish', and they should stop.


+1



mleh said:


> again, you were watching a different game than me ... I don't think anyone watching him thought he was 'embellishing'.


+1


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

The Boston fans *were* jeering Raymond. I understand why, since the Canucks definitely do have a reputation of embellishing things to get a call. It was unfortunate though as it quickly became apparent that he was seriously injured.

Having said that i don't think there was any malicious intent by Boychuk. He was simply finishing his hit. It was just that Raymond was in a terribly awkward position and a serious injury occurred.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Again, you were watching a different game than me ... I don't think anyone watching him thought he was 'embellishing'.


The crowd *was* cruelly chanting _"flopper, flopper"_ until he was lifted off the ice.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Hockey players need to learn to embellish. They suck at it. In soccer, it's an art form. 

If a NHL referee ever reffed a soccer game, their heads would explode.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

In my opinion, there is diving and there is embellishing and they are separate things. Diving is when no infraction occurred and the "dive" is intended to draw a penalty when none is warranted. I will not comment to who has done this, but this certainly should be dealt with with extreme prejudice as it has no place in the game.

I don't think embellishing should be in the game either, but they are significantly different things. Sometimes they call diving when the player falls awkwardly or a head comes back quickly when a stick contacts the head. These are often called on players that have a history of "diving" not embellishing. 

I have a hard time criticizing officiating as they must make calls without replay or even seconds to contemplate the decision. They make the calls when they see them instantly. Having said that, there is a great divide in consistency across the league. 

Well I seem to be rambling without coming to a point and maybe that's because I don't really see an alternative or solution to this. Unless you think the refs are told to influence the game one way or another.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> The crowd *was* cruelly chanting _"flopper, flopper"_ until he was lifted off the ice.


That was disgusting. Anyone who would chant something like that at a downed player has no class.

At the very least Boychuk should have had an interference penalty. Raymond didn't touch the puck. That was not "finishing his check" since there should have been legal no check allowed. Based on the criteria that refs and league used for penalizing and then suspending Rome, Boychuk should have been gone for the game and suspended for as many games. Boychuk flew in and crunched a smaller man down into the boards, compacting his spine and breaking a vertabrae, who never had the puck. A dangerous and aggressive play like that gets no penalty or no suspension? Raymond's injuries could have easily resulted in lifetime paralysis.

There is a serious problem with consistency in NHL officiating and league discipline and I'm not just talking about things that go against the Canucks. Of course hockey is a blazingly fast game and the refs can't see or catch everything. But when standards of what constitutes a penalty changing from official to official and game to game and affecting outcomes, the league has a serious problem. There's supposed to be a rule book, but it seems like it all just up to the mood of the refs.

I'm not sure how this could be done but I've heard people talking about having an off-ice full official with access to video and I think it may be a good idea. They could catch the stuff that the on-ice refs miss, whether it's dives, embellishments or sneaky spears and slashes. They could be in constant radio communication with the skating refs. They could be very experienced older refs who can no longer keep skating with the game. It would have to be done in a way that wouldn't slow down the game, but I think it could be tweaked in such a way to accomplish this.

Well I hope we have a good game tomorrow and the officiating, or lack of it, doesn't interfere with the game.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There's supposed to be a rule book, but it seems like it all just up to the mood of the refs.


Well, the mood of the refs, the score of the game, what period it is, whether it's the playoffs, and the reputations of the players involved in the play. Not to mention the mood of the chief disciplinarian, reputations of the parties and severity of any injuries when it's time to decide whether to issue a suspension. The rule book is clearly applied "flexibly" to account for all of those variables and probably more.

I was surprised to learn that the *minimum* penalty for spearing is a double minor -- for making a spearing gesture (jabbing the tip of the stick toward the opponent) with *no contact*. Once contact is made, 5 minutes and a game misconduct is the minimum penalty. But when Chara does it to Lapierre, well you have a Norris D-man vs. a well-known agitator and embellisher, so there's no call at all even though the spearing motion alone is supposed to be worth 4 minutes in the box. 

This kind of stuff (there are so many more examples it isn't funny) is quickly turning me from an avid fan to casual/bandwagon fan. I just can't justify investing a significant chunk of my time in a sport that refuses to seriously deal with its bush-league ways. I probably watched around 80 games this year, including playoffs. Unless the Habs give me some great reasons to climb on the bandwagon, next season I think I'll be watching mostly on Saturday nights from January to April, playoffs only if my team is alive.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Noted by a commenter on the Globe and Mail website:

"...on the surface it doesn't appear to be a vicious attack.

But using the ACTUAL verbage of the league itself when handing out suspensions;;


According to current NHL policy, Boychuck should be suspended:

1. Over 0.5 seconds after Raymond touched the puck.

2. Injured player was in a vulnerable position.

3. The play resulted in an injury.

Of course, NHL policy is nothing if not inconsistent. 

THESE ARE THE RULES.

Rome - late hit resulting in serious injury (no headshot) -> 4 games

Boychuk - late hit resulting in serious injury -> no review"

Actually many good points about the NHL's officiating inconsistency in these playoffs: Boychuk escapes suspension for hit on Raymond - The Globe and Mail


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> The crowd *was* cruelly chanting _"flopper, flopper"_ until he was lifted off the ice.


I saw the replay, and indeed they were. Bad form.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Well I hope we have a good game tomorrow and the officiating, or lack of it, doesn't interfere with the game.


Agreed. 

Although, what about that 6 on 3 at the end of game 6 (and they still couldn't get it behind Thomas)?


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Can we just have a good well played game with the outcome being decided by a good or even better great goal. 

I think that both teams need to step up their games. Yes this is game 107 for both, but there won't be a game 108. 

When it is all over, I hope we can all say: "that was one of the greatest games I've ever seen."


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> At the very least Boychuk should have had an interference penalty. Raymond didn't touch the puck.


technically you're right, but the puck was certainly in a position to be played and went through his legs. the defenceman has to go on the presumption that the attacking player will play the puck and try to separate him from it.



gmark2000 said:


> 1. Over 0.5 seconds after Raymond touched the puck.


contact is initially made when the puck goes through Raymond's legs. The rest of the play is Boychuk riding him in to the boards.

The problem really is that Raymond was in a terribly awkward position. I suppose in hindsight we'd all want Boychuk to let up, since Raymond was in that awkward position, but it was such a strange play that I have a problem blaming Boychuk for the injury.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

i-rui said:


> technically you're right, but the puck was certainly in a position to be played and went through his legs. the defenceman has to go on the presumption that the attacking player will play the puck and try to separate him from it.


I don't know what the current rulebook says, but I would doubt there is a provision for not calling an interference penalty if the checker has reason to presume the checkee will play the puck. I have seen many interference penalties called in a similar situation. It's the inconsistency of the application of rules that is the problem. Possibly the ref didn't see the hit, the league could have made up for that later.



i-rui said:


> The problem really is that Raymond was in a terribly awkward position. I suppose in hindsight we'd all want Boychuk to let up, since Raymond was in that awkward position, but it was such a strange play that I have a problem blaming Boychuk for the injury.


I'm sure Boychuk didn't want to break Raymond's back, as I'm sure Rome didn't want to concuss Horton. But both plays were risky and dangerous. The point is that when players break rules and/or put other players at risk of injury, there should be consequences, whether or not they wanted to hurt anyone. Also the league brought the severity of the injury into play with the Horton hit, setting a precedent, then ignored that precedent in the Raymond hit.

I hear commentators all the time talking about "whistles in their pockets", "even up", "that player won't get that call because of who he is" or prior style of play. Or talking about the refs "letting them play", meaning not calling obvious penalties. The commentators often tend to be ex-NHL so I assume they know how things work. None of this stuff should be a part of the referee's decision making.



Oakbridge said:


> Can we just have a good well played game with the outcome being decided by a good or even better great goal.
> 
> I think that both teams need to step up their games. Yes this is game 107 for both, but there won't be a game 108.
> 
> When it is all over, I hope we can all say: "that was one of the greatest games I've ever seen."


Completely agree.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I hear commentators all the time talking about "whistles in their pockets", "even up", "that player won't get that call because of who he is" or prior style of play. Or talking about the refs "letting them play", meaning not calling obvious penalties. The commentators often tend to be ex-NHL so I assume they know how things work. None of this stuff should be a part of the referee's decision making.


You can't always listen to the commentators. Don't judge their veracity just because they're ex-NHL. Some of them are so biased it's ridiculous, and others are just watching a completely different game.

The difference between watching a game on TV and seeing it live is that there are a lot of plays that go on in the background that form the overall basis for a referee making a call. What they don't show on TV is the refs cautioning players, the slashes away from the play, all the other general stuff & mayhem that goes on. No matter what, you are seeing an 'edited' version of the game on TV - what you see is determined by the director and where the cameras happen to be pointing at the time.

We watch the games on TV, and many times I'll point out a penalty, the refs arm will go up at the same time, and then that penalty will be called, while the play by play and colour guys have missed it completely and need to see the replay to point out the penalty. (Generally they'll say "oh, it looks like an interference penalty" or something and I'll say to the TV - much to my husband's amusement "It was a CROSSCHECK IN MID-ICE you moron.", and which time they'll say "Oh, it was a crosscheck. Let's look at what happened." and then replay what actually happened.)

This batch of commentators doing the Canucks are such homies it's ridiculous. Turn the sound down, watch the game.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm sure Boychuk didn't want to break Raymond's back, as I'm sure Rome didn't want to concuss Horton. But both plays were risky and dangerous. The point is that when players break rules and/or put other players at risk of injury, there should be consequences, whether or not they wanted to hurt anyone. Also the league brought the severity of the injury into play with the Horton hit, setting a precedent, then ignored that precedent in the Raymond hit.


I completely agree that the NHL is terrible at being consistent. On ice I can (somewhat) excuse that because the refs are human and have split seconds to get the call right, but the head office has the luxury to watch slow motion replays from multiple angles to get the decision right, yet they still often botch the ruling.

However, i disagree that the Rome hit set a precedent for the Boychuk check. They are completely different plays. The Rome hit was something that has plagued the NHL for the last few years and is a problem that has been getting worse. So in that case the league is right to hand out a suspension.

The Boychuk hit is pretty much a one off. I haven't ever seen a play like that resulting in that type of injury. But if you want to look for a precedent you can see that the NHL didn't suspend Torres when he hit Seabrook behind the net. On that play Seabrook never touched the puck (but the puck was there to be played). Having said that IMO he should have received a suspension because it was a blindside head shot.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

3-0 Bruins...bye Canucks..thanks for coming out...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MLeh said:


> You can't always listen to the commentators. Don't judge their veracity just because they're ex-NHL. Some of them are so biased it's ridiculous, and others are just watching a completely different game.
> 
> The difference between watching a game on TV and seeing it live is that there are a lot of plays that go on in the background that form the overall basis for a referee making a call.


Thanks, I've been to more than a few live games and know the difference between watching it on TV and watching it live.



i-rui said:


> I completely agree that the NHL is terrible at being consistent. On ice I can (somewhat) excuse that because the refs are human and have split seconds to get the call right, but the head office has the luxury to watch slow motion replays from multiple angles to get the decision right, yet they still often botch the ruling.
> 
> However, i disagree that the Rome hit set a precedent for the Boychuk check. They are completely different plays. The Rome hit was something that has plagued the NHL for the last few years and is a problem that has been getting worse. So in that case the league is right to hand out a suspension.
> 
> The Boychuk hit is pretty much a one off. I haven't ever seen a play like that resulting in that type of injury. But if you want to look for a precedent you can see that the NHL didn't suspend Torres when he hit Seabrook behind the net. On that play Seabrook never touched the puck (but the puck was there to be played). Having said that IMO he should have received a suspension because it was a blindside head shot.


I agree, they were completely different plays, as was the Torres/Seabrook incident. The precedent was that with the Horton hit, for the first time the league in part based their suspension on the severity or the player's injury. It wasn't the type of hit that the NHL had sanctioned as a head shot according to their announcements earlier this season. It was a late hit for sure. 

Hockey is over, I always like watching the handshaking at the end of a series. You can see the real respect the players have for each other, even when they are fierce competitors on the ice.

Congratulations to the Boston Bruins. They won it through incredible determination and having an amazing goalkeeper.

I'm hoping the Canucks can get to the final again sometime before I die, but not counting on it.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Well done Tim Thomas.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

And the riots begin....


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

John Clay said:


> And the riots begin....


lol
hope it doesn't get worse than that burning car.

Vancouver started great, but when that second goal went it i knew it was over.

congrats to the Canucks for a good season. was hoping you'd pull it off tonight to help the Leafs get a better draft pick from the bruins... now we'll get a 30th & 60th overall for Kaberle (who i was happy to see win it).


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

i-rui said:


> lol
> hope it doesn't get worse than that burning car.
> 
> Vancouver started great, but when that second goal went it i knew it was over.
> ...


Leafs second round pick from the Bruins is for 2012, not this year. Could be 31... No one knows yet.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

It's like the G20 all over again. Except over a hockey game. How low mankind has fallen...


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

The great Canucks season ends until they had nothing more to give. Cheers to the victors.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Lars said:


> It's like the G20 all over again. Except over a hockey game. How low mankind has fallen...


+1. Time to break out the tasers, tear gas and flex cuffs.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Vancouver is not like that. Drunken idiots from outside of the city are the culprits in the rioting. Unless you are from the Lower Mainland, you'd never understand the dynamic of crowds there. They aren't real fans, just drunken hooligans.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gmark2000 said:


> The great Canucks season ends until they had nothing more to give. Cheers to the victors.


True. Still, cheers to the victors and to the Canucks for making it to the finals.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> Well done Tim Thomas.


Agreed. He played a great game and a great 7 game series.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Lars said:


> It's like the G20 all over again. Except over a hockey game. How low mankind has fallen...


Lordy, you talk like this is the first time it's ever happened… in any sport. :lmao:


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I just survived it. I'm okay physically, but mentally I'm a bit messed up, despite the fact that I predicted all of this. (including the loss to the Bruins)

More than 2 decades as a transit operator, and I still can't get used to the waste of oxygen that these rioters represent. Their numbers increase every year, and sure enough they've made 1994 look like a walk in the park.

After 18 years as a night worker, I've signed a day shift for the summer. Too bad I took so long to do that. I feel like a Viet Nam war veteran at this point.

Very sorry for the good people of Vancouver right now. I love the city, but right now, I miss the prairies where I came from. I grew up in Regina when you didn't even need to lock your door. But that was another lifetime.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I took a look at the crowd photos wreaking the destruction. A lot of the bastards were posing for the camera as they wrecked buildings and looted.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Look at the picture here. What an embarrassment.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/15/canucks-fans-flood-downtown-vancouver


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I am so disgusted.

A lot of Canucks fans are saying that the riot wasn't really 'Canucks fans', but just hooligans there, wearing Canucks jerseys and looking for any excuse to cause destruction. Unfortunately that IS what most 'Canucks' fans are - not really hockey fans. Bandwagon jumpers. Figuring that buying a $200 jersey gives them rights and privileges to wreck destruction just because a bunch of millionaires got outplayed by another bunch of millionaires wearing different jerseys.

The real hockey fans in the arena cheered the Bruins (although they did boo Bettman). 

Vancouver has a black eye this morning because their fans SUCK at being true sportmen/women. Every year there is a loser of the Stanley Cup final. How come it's only Vancouver that has to have a riot?

Many people are saying "it was only a few who ruined things", but I'm saying the cops told the crowds to disperse and they didn't, instead standing around, watching the destruction and actually encouraging it. All those 'fans' taking pictures: if you're not part of the solution you're part of the PROBLEM.

Dear Vancouver: This is why you're not allowed to have nice things (like the Stanley Cup). You need to grow up.

gwillikers: Glad you survived. Transit operators in Vancouver work in a war zone, not just last night, but just about any night in Vancouver. 

----

Now, as far as the GAME went ... Canucks were simply outplayed. Boston beat them to the puck on a regular basis. The better team won last night.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Now, as far as the GAME went ... Canucks were simply outplayed. Boston beat them to the puck on a regular basis. The better team won last night.


I can't disagree that Boston was the better team. Indeed, I thought they were the better team throughout the series, and that they deserved to win. But I don't think it was really because they beat the Canucks to the puck more often; the Canucks had great offence, and pretty solid defence. The difference was goal tending. Luongo was good, but Thomas was fricking phenomenal.

Cheers


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> I am so disgusted.
> ----
> 
> *Now, as far as the GAME went ... Canucks were simply outplayed. Boston beat them to the puck on a regular basis. The better team won last night*.


The better team over the course of the series won the series, in fact they creamed them and I was pulling for Vancouver. But the fact is the Buins were in every game they lost and trounced the Canucks in the games they won. I am am big time Boston hater (and don't even get me started on Don Cherry) going back to the 70's because of my being a Habs fan but the fact is they showed up for every game unlike the Canucks. They had no real offence despite the big names and Luongo sucked while Tomas was amazing.

The right team won, regrettably.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

The most frightening aspect of this is if people are prone to this kind of behaviour over a bloody hockey game, how much worst would their behaviour be in the event of a real crisis like a food shortage or an economic collapse? We shouldn't kid ourselves that this type of criminal behaviour is somehow limited to a handful of hoodlums pretending to be hockey fans in Vancouver. This same behaviour has reared its ugly head in many other Canadian cities in recent years. I recall watching something similar in Montreal a few years ago over a hockey game. Pathetic!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

There was no rioting in Edmonton in 2004
There was no rioting in Calgary in 2005
There was no rioting in Ottawa in 2007*

*Actually there were plans for a riot but since it was Ottawa, they didn't have time to do the environmental impact study, economic report, parliamentary vote and translate all the riot signs into french so it got canceled


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Last night's riot is nothing compared to soccer riots in Europe. Get a grip, folks. It's nothing new -- there are a-holes in every crowd. Stop pretending Canucks fans decided to riot en masse; anybody can buy a jersey.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Interesting post by Damien Cox of the Toronto Star this morning. Not sure if the link will hold up over time and my apologies if it doesn't.

I picked on the comment by Alain Vigneault in his post-game interview last night. As a former coach, I thought it was a terrible display of sportsmanship, or lack thereof. The series was over.



bryanc said:


> I can't disagree that Boston was the better team. Indeed, I thought they were the better team throughout the series, and that they deserved to win. But I don't think it was really because they beat the Canucks to the puck more often; the Canucks had great offence, and pretty solid defence. The difference was goal tending. Luongo was good, but Thomas was fricking phenomenal.
> 
> Cheers


I disagree that the Canucks had great offence. They scored 8 goals in a 7 game series!!! That is not great offence. During last year's final, Jonathon Toews was criticized for being "non-existant" during the finals because he was held off the scoresheet. But that was because the Flyers set up their defensive strategy to contain him. The benefit that last year's Blackhawks team had was that they had a second, third, and fourth line that could outperform any of the Flyer's other lines. In other words they had a supporting cast. I'd say that Boston had the same advantage this year. 

People lose sight of the fact that Boston was close in every single game that they lost. Losing by 1 goal in each of the games on the road clearly shows that you're playing at your best when you're at a disadvantage. On the other side, Vancouver was horribly outplayed when they didn't have their home ice advantage. 

For those that aren't aware of the rules, home ice, in addition to having the tremendous support from your fans, also gives you last change. The visiting club has to put their line out first whenever there is a whistle (except for icing) and then the home team puts out their line. You hear the term 'matching lines', this is where the home ice advantage comes into play.

I was in Vancouver for the last few days of the Olympics last year with my teenage kids. I'll admit that I was a little worried after we left the Closing Ceremonies due to the bad history that Vancouver has had during big events like this (i.e. 1994 Stanley Cup). It was a joy to realize that all of the celebrating was happy and peaceful. I was proud of the way Vancouver behaved during the entire Olympics. Looking at last night, I'd hate to think of what might have happened that same night if Canada had lost the Gold Medal hockey game.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oakbridge said:


> I was proud of the way Vancouver behaved during the entire Olympics. Looking at last night, I'd hate to think of what might have happened that same night if Canada had lost the Gold Medal hockey game.


But nobody "lost" the Olympics.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> The most frightening aspect of this is if people are prone to this kind of behaviour over a bloody hockey game, how much worst would their behaviour be in the event of a real crisis like a food shortage or an economic collapse?


This is an interesting point. How much of the hooliganism is a function of 'sports' and how much is just an indication of the erosion of social order? I have always thought that professional sports brings out an ugly aspect of tribalism in otherwise civilized people, but it may not be true.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Some of these troublemakers were going to be out in downtown Vancouver win or lose. Again, those drunken hooligans are not Vancouver Canucks fans. They are young, opportunistic misfits from outside the city who do not represent the character of the City that wonderfully hosted the world last year.

At the Toronto G20, the same demographic of troublemakers came. Unemployed rabble-rousers from Windsor and Chatham were the idiots burning Toronto police cars. They were the white trash from outside of Toronto. It would certainly happen in Toronto, but not by Torontonians.

In Vancouver, it's the same. Young idiot rowdies from out of the city - the same drunkards who cancelled the Kelowna Regatta, Penticton Peachfest, Vancouver Seafest, Vancouver First Night, White Rock Sand Castle Competition.

This would not have happened during the Olympics with the known police and anti-terrorism presence, so Oakbridge is exaggerating in his statement.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Oakbridge said:


> I disagree that the Canucks had great offence. They scored 8 goals in a 7 game series!!! That is not great offence.


Give credit to Tim Thomas and the defence for shutting down the highest scoring offence and best PP in the league and facing the most shots in all NHL playoff and Finals history. Game six and seven, Thomas faced 77 shots.

The Canucks were worn down defensively with the loss of Hamhuis and Rome and the possible injuries to Erhoff, Eldler, Alberts and Tanev. Luongo, while competent, was not consistent as opposed to Thomas.

That being said, any team that makes it to Game Seven of the Stanley Cup Final was great enough to get to that point. Two teams demonstrated the mettle to reach this precipice. The Bruins were the better team in the final match, but don't take away any of the skill and effort that Canucks had to reach this point. This Championship is the most physically gruelling in all of sport and is the bloodmatch of modern day gladiators.

To take pot-shots at the Canucks' great season and effort is needless derision for what was accomplished.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

For the conspiracy theorists:

Bruins captain, Zdeno Chara was given an exemption on stick length and has a 1.8m stick. NHL regulation is 1.6m. Couple that with his reach from his 6'9" frame, he has an advantage beyond other players.

Coincidentally, the NHL Board of Governors Chair is Bruins' owner Jeremy Jacobs.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

gmark2000 said:


> Some of these troublemakers were going to be out in downtown Vancouver win or lose. Again, those drunken hooligans are not Vancouver Canucks fans. They are young, opportunistic misfits from outside the city who do not represent the character of the City that wonderfully hosted the world last year.


No doubt those troublemakers do exist.

But as in similar (equally shameful and embarrassing) incidents in Montreal, I think there are unquestionably some "real" fans who play an enabling role and even get caught up in the excitement and start breaking things, getting into fights and looting stores. Can you look at any photo of a crowd of people tipping a car and tell me they're all the suburban misfits? 

The instigating few, the ones who come equipped with balaclavas, rocks, crowbars, etc., do not do their dirty work in a vacuum. No, the photos of the riots clearly show many young people, who are probably quite "normal" most of the time, forming crowds instead of going home, smiling as cars burn, etc.

Plus, I don't think there's any denying that the hardcore troublemakers, regardless of where they've come from, are also fans of the home team, even if they are not the kind of fans with whom you would like to watch the game. The fact that most fans are good doesn't negate the existence of the horrible fans.

I don't think this is just a Vancouver thing, and it shouldn't be used for tarring the whole city with the same brush. But by the same token, it seems naive to deny that fandom has something to do with it. All around the world, some people (mainly young men) take their pro sports way too seriously, and trouble follows big games no matter who wins. I don't see how this is any different.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

bryanc said:


> This is an interesting point. How much of the hooliganism is a function of 'sports' and how much is just an indication of the erosion of social order? *I have always thought that professional sports brings out an ugly aspect of tribalism* in otherwise civilized people, but it may not be true.


Bryanc touched upon it, and what I said earlier:



ehMax said:


> On the other end, team sport is an emulation of tribal war and rivalry. I'd say at the heart, that's what it really is... why humanity has sport. It's in our blood to be part of tribes and to compete...to do battle. A more civilized way to feed that desire is do it without actual spears and killing is to emulate it through skillful athleticism. The spectators watching live vicariously through the participants in the battle. We get that adrenaline rush. We clap, we cheer, we chant. We done the colours, put on the badge / crest, we wave the flag.
> 
> For many, that connection with that local team is like a connection to your tribe. Win or lose, you stick with your tribe and battle. There's an inherent resentment to those who are local who "defect" to the enemies tribe.
> 
> ...


I personally LOVE the feeling of being in a crowd a large group where you feel like a large collective for a cause. Everyone know's that feeling, if you see a stadium where everyone is wearing the same colours, waving a big display of towels or whatever. Or the pride you feel as a National team. In soccer, it can be much more elaborate displays and much more elaborate singing and chanting besides "Go Canucks Go"

However, there is that problem of it spilling over from "simulated" tribal war into real violence. 

I don't know what the answer to it is. 

Lots of people are able to make that distinction between simulated and doing things for enjoyment vs regressing into a neanderthal. 

There is a group / demographic that I can't stand who have this idiotic "frat-boy" spring break mentality. They view sport as just an excuse to get drunk, make pseudo gangster signs, scream "Whooooo" at the camera and think it would be "bitch'n" if stuff started to go down, and they couldn't wait to tell their other frat-boy buddies how wicked and wild it was. Seems to be the same group of 18-25 year olds on the out-skirts of cities in lower income brackets. 

In soccer, stadiums have gotten much better at handling incidents. There's often very strict protocol for fans. The reason its often not as big of a problem is North America is the huge geographical distance between cities of often small size of arenas and allocation of tickets. If you could imagine if there was an enormous contingent of Boston Bruins fans at Vancouver. 

In large 80,000 seat soccer stadiums in Europe, you often have the stadium split of 1/4 to 3/4 of opposing fans.

Anyways, I'm not stating very much in terms of solutions, but just a matter of fact of certain things.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

All valid points, Mr. Mayor.

The largest crowd I was ever in at a sports event was at a University of Georgia football game at Sanford Stadium in Athens, GA. There was a capacity crowd of 82,000, with about 2000 Univ. of Alabama supporters and 80,000 students, faculty, staff, alumni, et al, wildly cheering for Georgia. The cries of "Beat Bama" was deafening. When they finally did beat Alabama, the place went wild .......... with cheering. The worst thing that happened in the town of Athens was horn honking up until midnight.

I attended a soccer game in Athens, Greece, with almost as many people in the stands. It was so close and so hard fought, with the crowd evenly divided supporting each team, that one thought that there was going to be a reenactment of The Peloponnesian War at the end of the match. Luckily, it was a 0-0 tie. Still, outside the arena there were fights between supporters of each team.

Thus, I am able to also see both sides of bryanc's excellent points as well.

Still, in the final analysis, the fans in the stadium did cheer for both their Canucks and for the Bruins, showing their class. As for booing Bettman, I might have done the same as well.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MLeh said:


> I am so disgusted.
> 
> A lot of Canucks fans are saying that the riot wasn't really 'Canucks fans', but just hooligans there, wearing Canucks jerseys and looking for any excuse to cause destruction. *Unfortunately that IS what most 'Canucks' fans are - not really hockey fans.* Bandwagon jumpers. Figuring that buying a $200 jersey gives them rights and privileges to wreck destruction just because a bunch of millionaires got outplayed by another bunch of millionaires wearing different jerseys.
> 
> ...


I was disgusted too. But your simplistic analysis of what happened and blaming large groups for the actions of very few is very wrong. The police were saying during the height of the mess that there were maybe 1000 or 1500 people on the streets. Somehow the 100,000 plus or the 18,000 at the game are to blame for that?

Well, I'm a Canucks fan so I guess I'm to blame for that crap as well, according to you.



bryanc said:


> This is an interesting point. How much of the hooliganism is a function of 'sports' and how much is just an indication of the erosion of social order? I have always thought that professional sports brings out an ugly aspect of tribalism in otherwise civilized people, but it may not be true.


I think the larger point is that sports tribalism is just a spark for a subset of humanity that is stupid, selfish and believes that if they can get away with something it is good. A subset of these types are criminals, but most of them walk among us as the complete arseholes who make having faith in human beings difficult. These are the jerks who speed and run red lights because they can, cheat on their partners because they can, steal from work or wherever because they can, and basically don't understand the first thing about having morals or values. Pretty much every jerk that I've seen caught in the many photos looks like the kind of stupid arsehole who I normally see acting out their arseholism whenever I go to the city. Give 'em a few too many drinks and off they go, making life difficult for everyone else.



Macfury said:


> I took a look at the crowd photos wreaking the destruction. A lot of the bastards were posing for the camera as they wrecked buildings and looted.


There's a few websites that popped up where people have been posting photos of some the worst behaviour. Beyond that the public is being encouraged to send any photos or video to [email protected] I hope the police are very successful in finding and prosecuting as many of these morons as possible.

They took what was a bad night for Canucks fans and turned it into an embarrassment for the whole city in the eyes of the world. I can't think of curse word bad enough for them that sums up my absolute disgust at these types of people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> I personally LOVE the feeling of being in a crowd a large group where you feel like a large collective for a cause. Everyone know's that feeling, if you see a stadium where everyone is wearing the same colours, waving a big display of towels or whatever. Or the pride you feel as a National team. In soccer, it can be much more elaborate displays and much more elaborate singing and chanting besides "Go Canucks Go"


Interesting. The same situation fills me with apprehension. It taps into the mob mentality, and even though it may be positive for the moment, I can see how crowd-think can become destructive in an instant. It's too primitive for my liking.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

gwillikers said:


>


This is a total Photoshop job by the way. This skyline is about eight to ten years old.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Interesting. The same situation fills me with apprehension. It taps into the mob mentality, and even though it may be positive for the moment, I can see how crowd-think can become destructive in an instant. It's too primitive for my liking.


 +2!

The whole situation just makes me ill. 

And this poor guy tried to stop the hooligans and look what he got for his trouble...

Thestar.com - VideoZone

I just don't understand this kind of sheer, unadulterated stupidity:



> One young woman last night who jumped on a trashed police car to flash her breasts replied when asked by the Toronto Star why she did it said: “My friends told me to. It’s all fun.”
> 
> Dozens of people took her picture on their camera phones while she posed on top of the vehicle.


And would she go jump off a bridge if her "friends told her to"? (And who needs enemies with friends like that?)



> Later in the night, rioters smashed a Bank of Montreal window and vandalized a police cruiser.
> 
> “This is releasing tension, man,” said a man in his twenties who set a garbage can on fire. “What else are you going to do when you lose the Stanley Cup? You riot.”


Really? That's the_ only_ thing you could think of to do??? Absolutely mind boggling. 

One has to assume that not only is there a basic lack of real intelligence here, but also an alarming lack of conscience. Makes one wonder how many of these thugs have criminal records or are well on their way to acquiring them.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

From the Toronto Sun article that _Joker Eh_ posted on the previous page, an actual photo of the Vancouver skyline:



There are 40 photos in a gallery at the bottom of this article, in case you didn't bother to scroll down. Amazing, stupid images. Just stupid.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

looks Ike social media is good for something after all! :

Vancouver 2011 Riot Criminal List


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I was too tired to notice last night, but thanks, fixed that.



dona83 said:


> This is a total Photoshop job by the way. This skyline is about eight to ten years old.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Oakbridge said:


> People lose sight of the fact that Boston was close in every single game that they lost. Losing by 1 goal in each of the games on the road clearly shows that you're playing at your best when you're at a disadvantage. On the other side, Vancouver was horribly outplayed when they didn't have their home ice advantage.
> 
> For those that aren't aware of the rules, home ice, in addition to having the tremendous support from your fans, also gives you last change. The visiting club has to put their line out first whenever there is a whistle (except for icing) and then the home team puts out their line. You hear the term 'matching lines', this is where the home ice advantage comes into play.


I was already thinking about this, and it led me to wonder if Julien had out-coached Vigneault. I'm not sold on the idea, but I think it might be worth some discussion.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)




----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

Lol!


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gwillikers said:


>


Well, they got to the finals. Only two teams can claim that this year, or any year. Maybe next year. We shall see.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Why make fun of the Sedins? While they didn't do anything against Boston, Vancouver would not have made the Final without them. They ended up 2nd and 4th in playoff scoring. As for liam from Toronto when was the last time the Leafs made the playoffs never mind playing in a final?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 26, 2010)

arminia said:


> Why make fun of the Sedins? While they didn't do anything against Boston, Vancouver would not have made the Final without them. They ended up 2nd and 4th in playoff scoring. As for liam from Toronto when was the last time the Leafs made the playoffs never mind playing in a final?


It's all in good fun... No need to be so sensitive.

It's not to take anything away from the Sedin's, they are great regular season players, but, when they didn't score they were missing for huge parts of the playoffs and all of the final series. They had no physical game, which the playoffs really demand these days. They just don't come across as playoff hockey players. That should be a concern for Vancouver going forward.

The Leafs should have made the finals in 1993 (and by rights should have won the cup), but they were cheated by incompetent refereeing (Kerry Fraser). That's one year before the Canucks made their last Cup appearance. I believe they lost that too and there were riots in Vancouver... Seems making the final -- and losing -- doesn't bring out the best in Canucks fans!!?


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> The Leafs should have made the finals in 1993 (and by rights should have won the cup), but they were cheated by incompetent refereeing (Kerry Fraser).


The rights to which you refer must be COTU rights, because it's hard to make a convincing argument that a team that finished 3rd in its division, 8th overall, and didn't make the finals should have won the Cup.

Could: yes. Should: that's a big reach.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, they got to the finals. Only two teams can claim that this year, or any year. Maybe next year. We shall see.


Reaching the rarified air of the final after playing two months of gritty hockey, reaching the seventh game demonstrates mettle.

Judging from the released injury list, the Canucks were struggling in this regard. 

Certainly kudos for a great season.

DANIEL SEDIN: nominated for Hart, Ted Lindsay, NHL Foundation Award; won Art Ross
HENRIK SEDIN: nominated for NHL Foundation Award
ROBERTO LUONGO: nominated for Vezina; won Jennings 
CORY SCHNEIDER: won Jennings 
RYAN KESLER: nominated for Selke
AlAIN VIGNEAULT: nominated for Jack Adams
MIKE GILLIS: nominated for GM of the Year
CANUCKS: won Presidents' Trophy, Clarence Campbell Bowl; made it to Game 7 of SCF


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Claiming injury can sound like an excuse, but in the Canucks case it's really rather alarming. Ten of their starters had serious injuries. It's actually amazing that they got to game 7 with that MASH unit.

Reasonably good chance they'll be back in the next couple of years though.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

gwillikers said:


> Claiming injury can sound like an excuse, but in the Canucks case it's really rather alarming. Ten of their starters had serious injuries. It's actually amazing that they got to game 7 with that MASH unit.
> 
> Reasonably good chance they'll be back in the next couple of years though.


I think you need to look at the list of upcoming free agents. They may not be able to keep the team the way it is.


----------

