nucks/ducks - 7 PPV

omega_image · #1 (**permalink**) Nov 30, 06

i hate games like these, it could very well put an end to a positive note.

i always want the nucks to do well but i don't see this game ending in their favour. so with belief on my side, i'm going to say 3-2 nucks in OT or SO.

Pennywise · #2 (**permalink**) Nov 30, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsnet.ca

Luongo had a rough night against Anaheim earlier this month, allowing three goals on nine shots before being replaced in net by Dany Sabourin.
.

A note to take into consideration.^

edit: 2-1 ducks lol

Grapes · #3 (**permalink**) Nov 30, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by omega_image

i hate games like these, it could very well put an end to a positive note.

When you say "games ilke these", you mean games against opposition over .500?

esoter1c · #4 (**permalink**) Nov 30, 06

this is painful.......:031:

Chewy · #5 (**permalink**) Nov 30, 06

they have no finish in this game, just like most others

1-0 ducks

cheeseburger · #6 (**permalink**) Nov 30, 06

just so you guys know.. its on tvuplayer for FREE

find adams thread if you wanna download it

Goodfellow · #7 (**permalink**) Nov 30, 06

yeah dude that's where Im watchin it ^ haha gotta love it.

Kenny · #8 (**permalink**) Nov 30, 06

2-1 nucks

Edit : 3-2 nucks

Goodfellow · #9 (**permalink**) Nov 30, 06

EDLER FTW LOL

tie game bitches

omega_image · #10 (**permalink**) Dec 01, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapes

When you say "games ilke these", you mean games against opposition over .500?

no, just huge games that come off right after we do something good.

its like one step forward, two steps back. we just need like a a few easy games under the belt to get some goals going, then work with that.

ppcock · #11 (**permalink**) Dec 01, 06

score one goal and everything falls apart.

holy fuck what a terrible game.

Antenna_Boy · #12 (**permalink**) Dec 01, 06

^the canucks HAVE to stay OUT of the PENALTY box if they are to have a CHANCE at WINNING any GAMES! nuff said :mexitoke:

Grapes · #13 (**permalink**) Dec 01, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by omega_image

no, just huge games that come off right after we do something good.

its like one step forward, two steps back. we just need like a a few easy games under the belt to get some goals going, then work with that.

We had two easy games in a row, against St Louis and Chicago. We struggled to beat them, then got creamed by Nashville.

It's going to be one step forward, two steps back all year. We just don't have enough depth on this team.

Grapes · #14 (**permalink**) Dec 01, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antenna_Boy

^the canucks HAVE to stay OUT of the PENALTY box if they are to have a CHANCE at WINNING any GAMES! nuff said :mexitoke:

Actually, killing penalties is one of our best attributes. Not that you ever want to go out of your way to end up in the box, but still.

If we want to win games we either need to score more, or play airtight defense and have Luongo step up. Option 1 would be more fun, but with this lineup option 2 is more likely and gives us a better chance of winning.

omega_image · #15 (**permalink**) Dec 01, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapes

We had two easy games in a row, against St Louis and Chicago. We struggled to beat them, then got creamed by Nashville

yes, but what if we played someone like the two you mentioned last night? 3 game win streak, and maybe 2 or more goals scored in last nights game. something to work off of.

the nucks need a stepping stone.

Grapes · #16 (**permalink**) Dec 01, 06

They had two and they fell in the drink!

You're reaching.

omega_image · #17 (**permalink**) Dec 01, 06

a stepping stone being more than 2 games.

you're saying that if the canucks had played a team like PHI, FLA, CBJ, PHO, LA that it wouldnt have made a difference?

lol yes this convo is going in circles, but i want my point to be clear.

if the nucks had played a team (mentioned above), they would have won. had a chance at getting more than 1 goal and would have had some confidence knowing that they had won 3 straight (even if they had to battle). they would have been more adapt to play the ducks.

regardless, hind sight is 20/20 and i'm not expecting much from them this year. I just think that they are better than this.

Grapes · #18 (**permalink**) Dec 01, 06

I guess your suggesting that if we were able to string a bunch of wins together against weaker teams then we would gain momentum and confidence and start being able to compete against the big boys.

I can see where you're coming from, I guess. But also... it sounds kind of gay. Like something that a team of gays would say, to a reporter after a loss. "Geez if we just didn't have to play these good teams for a while..."

And then the headline the next day would read "Canucks Gay" with the subheader "Team Reveals Itself to be Basically a Bunch of Whining Babies"

Quote:

a stepping stone being more than 2 games.

Do you know what stepping stones are? Like, in the literal sense? They are little stones you step on one at a time. Therefore, 2 games are two stepping stones, because each is its own little entity floating seperate from each other, that are tackled one at a time.

DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT STEPPING STONES, I KNOW MY STONEOLOGY K??

omega_image · #19 (**permalink**) Dec 02, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapes

I guess your suggesting that if we were able to string a bunch of wins together against weaker teams then we would gain momentum and confidence and start being able to compete against the big boys.

I can see where you're coming from, I guess. But also... it sounds kind of gay. Like something that a team of gays would say, to a reporter after a loss. "Geez if we just didn't have to play these good teams for a while..."

And then the headline the next day would read "Canucks Gay" with the subheader "Team Reveals Itself to be Basically a Bunch of Whining Babies"

Do you know what stepping stones are? Like, in the literal sense? They are little stones you step on one at a time. Therefore, 2 games are two stepping stones, because each is its own little entity floating seperate from each other, that are tackled one at a time.

DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT STEPPING STONES, I KNOW MY STONEOLOGY K??

and i was expecting to read something a little more interesting this morning.

listen. first of all the stepping stone was to be thought of in a relative sense, being that 1/2 game winning 'streaks' don't really mean anything. if it were a 3 game streak, it would then be the start of something, hence a stepping stone.

i could have named a bunch of other mid level teams to replace the bottom feeders. would it have really mattered? as long as the canucks weren't playing the best team in the league.

also, this is all hypothetical. i'm not trying to make excuses, but am thinking of different situations in which i could see the canucks doing something.

Antenna_Boy · #20 (**permalink**) Dec 02, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapes

Actually, killing penalties is one of our best attributes. Not that you ever want to go out of your way to end up in the box, but still.

If we want to win games we either need to score more, or play airtight defense and have Luongo step up. Option 1 would be more fun, but with this lineup option 2 is more likely and gives us a better chance of winning.

Grapes..your response to my post was a little off..I said

Quote:

the canucks HAVE to stay OUT of the PENALTY box if they are to have a CHANCE at WINNING any GAMES! nuff said

I do not doubt their penalty killing role as being bad, they are good. I am saying that a hockey club should be focussed on finding ways to score goals (including a powerplay), rather than being proud of killing penalties and being in the top 10 for it.

Furthermore, as much as I agree with you on canucks scoring more goals, the key to winning a game is having the opposition scoring less on you than you score on them. One goal wins the game (or...2...or...3...or...4...or...5...or. ..6...or...7...or...8...or...9...or...10 ...or...as much as 11 goals to infinite~!) I just want to see the canucks blow out a team by like 11 goals with their 40 shots on goal per game, like Buffalo blitzed Philidephia 9-1 on October 17, earlier this season
Buffalo tools Philly

Goodfellow · #21 (**permalink**) Dec 02, 06

There's some talk about Nonis tryin to get Bondra.. I haven't really been payin attn to his points lately, but I think he'd be the type of player that would be wicked with nassy.. you know, somebody that has talent to put the puck in the f'n net when given golden opportunities. Then put pyatt back out with the sedins.

esoter1c · #22 (**permalink**) Dec 02, 06

It's gonna take at least a year for nucks to "click".

KenJi · #23 (**permalink**) Dec 02, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antenna_Boy

Furthermore, as much as I agree with you on canucks scoring more goals, the key to winning a game is having the opposition scoring less on you than you score on them. One goal wins the game (or...2...or...3...or...4...or...5...or. ..6...or...7...or...8...or...9...or...10 ...or...as much as 11 goals to infinite~!) I just want to see the canucks blow out a team by like 11 goals with their 40 shots on goal per game, like Buffalo blitzed Philidephia 9-1 on October 17, earlier this season
Buffalo tools Philly

Too bad the way our team is built. The system is mostly based on defense first/offence secondary.

We went from a run and gun team to this.

KenJi · #24 (**permalink**) Dec 02, 06

p.s: seriously you ain't gonna that many games if u can't score more than 1 or 2.

Even calgary score 2 goals a game. man

Grapes · #25 (**permalink**) Dec 02, 06

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3507321C

It's gonna take at least a year for nucks to "click".

Are we getting some competent forwards in a year?