[PGT] Canucks @ Senators

[Bob Long]

10 minutes ago, John.Tallhouse said:

The Jordan Peterson quotes are so cringe . Oiler fans down Superbad. 
 

 

[Bure10Kuzmenko96]

Not related, but Zadorov has requested to be traded

[Hairy Kneel]

2 hours ago, Artemus said:

 

I'm also not a fan of Shorthouse.  

Guess that I was spoiled by listening to Jim Robson and Jim Hughson.

 

Question: What would be the alternative?

My only pet peeve with Shorthouse is that he always edges his call of plays as to call penalties on us, on the Canucks. 

It bugs me.

[Captkirk888]

45 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Yeah they were never as embarassing as Jack Edwards for the Bruins (my opinion).

Or when Dennis Potvin was doing colour for the Panthers the night the Nucks broke their 12 game win streak.

He called Daniel a ‘low life’ and also said, when a line brawl erupted at the the end of the game, that the Sedins were pointing fingers - “they usually only use those fingers for licking peanut butter off their bread”. Lol.

He later made a public apology for that nonsense. Respected him as a player, but what a goof…

[Rip The Mesh]

Edited November 11, 2023 by Rip The Mesh

[MattJVD]

11 hours ago, Attila Umbrus said:

 

Lol yup, it's actually a bit silly. Usually it's not that bad. It was very noticeable last night. Homer running the shot clock...some barns are like that.

Yeah it was a bit funny in the Ottawa game because of the time going back on the clock when Boeser's goal was reviewed. Shots were 4-0 Canucks when they finally made the decision, gave us the goal, and put the clock back to 19:45. The shots the Canucks had after the Boeser goal were then taken off the clock too. So we did "lose" 3 shots there.

[Hairy Kneel]

Shot clock tech's

[Sharpshooter]

1 hour ago, Bure10Kuzmenko96 said:

Not related, but Zadorov has requested to be traded

Request approved 

[CanucksJay]

7 hours ago, -dlc- said:

The puck was bouncing all over on both teams.

 

And "the bad habits" used to end up in losses...we're winning. So not quite the same.

 

When we do grab 2 points, at the end of the season when they add them up no one cares if they were pretty or not.

 

I'm sick of the "they'd run over us" crap. Big bad Vegas stuff. In the last 5 times we've played them we're up 3-2 on them.  Vegas has lost their last 2 games. They're not invincible.

 

We've played some good teams and....a close game (loss) to Tampa. Top team. They didn't "run over us". Stars..."top team", we beat them. 

 

Some of the teams that were touted as "top teams"? Beat them and are part of the reason they're currently not.

 

Games aren't always "clean" and perfect. But the ones you can grind out count just as much as the others.

 

This just sounds like many of our fans who want to armchair coach and are waiting for the shoe to drop. That's your deal, not ours. I feel some don't give credit where it's due with this team...it's never good enough. Now they're getting results but they're not "clean" enough. Seriously?

 

You fix mistakes by working through them (as the team is), not by being scared of making them again. They're learning how to adjust even when they let down a bit. All teams do at times.

Thats funny because when we played Tampa, even though we lost, I was happy about the way we played. We played a much cleaner game and got beat that night by a good team. Check the pgt... 

Some thought the world was falling as that was our second consecutive loss as we were now 2-2. I said it's ok, we played well and if we keep playing like this, we'll be fine. I even went further and said we could pull off wins in Florida and Nashville and come back from the road trip with a 4-2 record 

Im sorry I'm calling it as it is. When the team plays well but loses, I still give credit to the team. When they don't play well and win, although I'm happy, I'll acknowledge we didn't play well but won. 

Some of you that just look at the record, why do you even bother watching the game? Just read the scoreboard after the game if you aren't interested in watching how the game was actually played. 

 

. 

[Metal Face Doom]

3 hours ago, Captkirk888 said:

I grew up listening to Jim Robson. No one called the Canucks games better. I do prefer Shorty over Hughson tho, probably because he’s been calling the games for so long now.

To each his own.  I prefer Hughson much more than Shorty.  

[CanucksJay]

2 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Yeah they were never as embarassing as Jack Edwards for the Bruins (my opinion).

I hate that guy

[spook007]

15 hours ago, stawns said:

Aa much as it pains me to say this, Ferraro had a good point last night.  If your best game isn't there on a given night, you better have a backup that you can land on that still gives you a good chance to walk away with points that night.  

 

Clearly they didn't have their A game, maybe not even their B game, but they had a good defensive style they could fall back on that kept them in until they could rally.  If they can keep that up through the season, they are in very very good shape.

 

Vegas is as good as I've seen at that

This.... this is what winners do....

 

As Sean Connery said.... loser whines about doing their best, winner takes home the prom queen...

 

 

[4petesake]

 

[Ghostsof1915]

1 hour ago, 4petesake said:

 

We're Australian?

[filthy animal]

8 hours ago, Artemus said:

 

I'm also not a fan of Shorthouse.  

Guess that I was spoiled by listening to Jim Robson and Jim Hughson.

 

Question: What would be the alternative?

 

To think we had Huey here full time in the early days of sportsnet. Boy were we spoiled

 

[Ghostsof1915]

4 minutes ago, filthy animal said:

 

To think we had Huey here full time in the early days of sportsnet. Boy were we spoiled

 

Well Robson was a pretty tough act to follow. Hughson was a natural successor.

[filthy animal]

7 hours ago, Captkirk888 said:

I grew up listening to Jim Robson. No one called the Canucks games better. I do prefer Shorty over Hughson tho, probably because he’s been calling the games for so long now.

 

Rick Ball was very underrated when he called Canucks games. Def prefer him over Bachelor

[filthy animal]

1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Well Robson was a pretty tough act to follow. Hughson was a natural successor.

 

Absolutely, Hughson did fill in admirably. He idolized Jim Robson. Nothing better though than hockey in april may, with Huey calling Canucks vs Blackhawks back in the day

[tas]

5 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

Thats funny because when we played Tampa, even though we lost, I was happy about the way we played. We played a much cleaner game and got beat that night by a good team. Check the pgt... 

Some thought the world was falling as that was our second consecutive loss as we were now 2-2. I said it's ok, we played well and if we keep playing like this, we'll be fine. I even went further and said we could pull off wins in Florida and Nashville and come back from the road trip with a 4-2 record 

Im sorry I'm calling it as it is. When the team plays well but loses, I still give credit to the team. When they don't play well and win, although I'm happy, I'll acknowledge we didn't play well but won. 

Some of you that just look at the record, why do you even bother watching the game? Just read the scoreboard after the game if you aren't interested in watching how the game was actually played. 

 

. 

some of us are content with being fans, not critics. we realize that no team plays a perfect, game. ever, and we don't feel the need to critique a team that has already taken accountability. 

 

I used to do the whole "must be objective, don't be a homer" armchair analyst thing, but it got really old when a bunch of us made a career out of it by starting godawful, oblivious blogs like canucks army and canucks way, creating a constant black cloud around the team.

 

I see all the same mistakes and bad play that you do, without feeling compelled to yak about it in the public sphere, which only serves to foster negativity.

 

being a homer is literally our only job. 

[tas]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Well Robson was a pretty tough act to follow. Hughson was a natural successor.

most markets have never had someone as good as rick ball, let alone jim hughson, john shorthouse or jim robson.

 

gratitude, folks. I've said it many times before: canucks fans have been absolutely blessed with broadcasters. 

[PeteyBOI]

23 minutes ago, tas said:

some of us are content with being fans, not critics. we realize that no team plays a perfect, game. ever, and we don't feel the need to critique a team that has already taken accountability. 

 

I used to do the whole "must be objective, don't be a homer" armchair analyst thing, but it got really old when a bunch of us made a career out of it by starting godawful, oblivious blogs like canucks army and canucks way, creating a constant black cloud around the team.

 

I see all the same mistakes and bad play that you do, without feeling compelled to yak about it in the public sphere, which only serves to foster negativity.

 

being a homer is literally our only job. 

well said... and we could definitely do without the constant shitting on our under preforming players... we dont need the media shithawks spreading those idea's... let them come up with it on their own... 

[CanucksJay]

3 minutes ago, tas said:

some of us are content with being fans, not critics. we realize that no team plays a perfect, game. ever, and we don't feel the need to critique a team that has already taken accountability. 

 

I used to do the whole "must be objective, don't be a homer" armchair analyst thing, but it got really old when a bunch of us made a career out of it by starting godawful, oblivious blogs like canucks army and canucks way, creating a constant black cloud around the team.

 

I see all the same mistakes and bad play that you do, without feeling compelled to yak about it in the public sphere, which only serves to foster negativity.

 

being a homer is literally our only job. 

 

What you are saying makes no sense. You are essentially saying that there is no place for analytical discussion on a Canucks discussion board if it is negative. There's only room for  positive talk highlighting good things and just ignore / refrain from writing anything else. 

 

Firstly, I don't agree with your take on what a message board should be. That seems borderline communist if you want to control the narrative of a message board. 

 

Secondly, your view of what a negative post is highly subjective. 

 

My example of the Tampa game highlights that. While even @-dlc- was critical of Myers' gaffe costing us a goal, I immediately followed her post to say the guys played a really good game against a contender and we'll be fine if we play that way more often than not. 

 

Now juxtapose that to the game against the Sens. Canucks didn't play their best but still won. Some of us said it like it was and said, "hey, happy we won. We didn't bring out A game and still pulled it out. Gotta bring out A game against better teams though because they'll pounce on turnovers and make us pay" 

 

Funny enough, players also agreed with that take and said they weren't happy with their game and could do better. 

 

If I was a Canuck player reading both PGTs, who is the real fan? Which post would I prefer to read? 

Fan A: Calls out one of their own players when the team lost in a well played hard fought game against a really good team.

Follows that up with telling other fans to stop being negative after they win a game in which even the players admit to not being happy about their game and they can do better... 

or

Fan B

The one that stuck up for the team in a loss and spoke up saying the team played well despite the loss and they'll be fine if they continue to play that way. 

Followed that up in a game the canucks win but not necessarily played their best and say it like it was. 

 

I know if I was a player, I would rather Fan B. A lot easier to digest an analytical view of the game after a win where even I admitted we didn't play well rather than a fan who failed to see that our team played well in a hard fought loss and calls out my teammate for a mistake while happily waving their pompoms after a win in a game I felt like we didn't play our best and and telling others to stop being negative. 

 

The ironing is delicious indeed... 

[CanucksJay]

1 hour ago, Dankmemes187 said:

well said... and we could definitely do without the constant shitting on our under preforming players... we dont need the media shithawks spreading those idea's... let them come up with it on their own... 

Well they did try with Pius Suter. Luckily, our fan base was knowledgeable enough to say Bailey is an idiot fire wiring that article

It was nice that Pius followed up with a 3 game scoring streak

Edited November 11, 2023 by CanucksJay

[-dlc-]

1 hour ago, CanucksJay said:

 

What you are saying makes no sense. You are essentially saying that there is no place for analytical discussion on a Canucks discussion board if it is negative. There's only room for  positive talk highlighting good things and just ignore / refrain from writing anything else. 

 

Firstly, I don't agree with your take on what a message board should be. That seems borderline communist if you want to control the narrative of a message board. 

 

Secondly, your view of what a negative post is highly subjective. 

 

My example of the Tampa game highlights that. While even @-dlc- was critical of Myers' gaffe costing us a goal, I immediately followed her post to say the guys played a really good game against a contender and we'll be fine if we play that way more often than not. 

 

Now juxtapose that to the game against the Sens. Canucks didn't play their best but still won. Some of us said it like it was and said, "hey, happy we won. We didn't bring out A game and still pulled it out. Gotta bring out A game against better teams though because they'll pounce on turnovers and make us pay" 

 

Funny enough, players also agreed with that take and said they weren't happy with their game and could do better. 

 

If I was a Canuck player reading both PGTs, who is the real fan? Which post would I prefer to read? 

 

Fan A: Calls out one of their own players when the team lost in a well played hard fought game against a really good team.

Follows that up with telling other fans to stop being negative after they win a game in which even the players admit to not being happy about their game and they can do better... 

or

Fan B

The one that stuck up for the team in a loss and spoke up saying the team played well despite the loss and they'll be fine if they continue to play that way. 

Followed that up in a game the canucks win but not necessarily played their best and say it like it was. 

 

I know if I was a player, I would rather Fan B. A lot easier to digest an analytical view of the game after a win where even I admitted we didn't play well rather than a fan who failed to see that our team played well in a hard fought loss and calls out my teammate for a mistake while happily waving their pompoms after a win in a game I felt like we didn't play our best and and telling others to stop being negative. 

 

The ironing is delicious indeed... 

No, I'm saying pick your spots. We're currently on a win streak and that's likely a time to celebrate the team (too). But, in looking back further, I see you have and it maybe doesn't apply to you.

 

I was critical of Myers and feel it was well deserved. That tackling of Petey really was the final straw for me in how he needed to focus and be more aware of what he was doing out there. I'm happy he's seemingly doing so.

 

This stuff just gets kind of tiring:
 

Quote

 

They got away with it last night but if you play that way against a good team

 

 

 

 

[Jester13]

58 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

Well they did try with Pius Suter. Luckily, our fan base was knowledgeable enough to say Drance is an idiot. 

It was nice that Pius followed up with a 3 game scoring streak

What did Drance say about Suter?