Blues vs Canucks - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-17-2003, 12:29 AM   #136
Blue Crack Addict
 
MissVelvetDress_75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: basking in my post-concert glow still mesmerized by the orbit of his hips..Also Holding Bono Close as he requested.
Posts: 25,776
Local Time: 03:22 PM
chizip be nice now.


angel, hun i am sorry
__________________

__________________
MissVelvetDress_75 is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 12:16 PM   #137
Elvis' Naughty Angel
 
Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: not here
Posts: 4,609
Local Time: 04:22 PM
Angel's puking her brains out. I can't believe the Canucks have done this to themselves. There is no way they'll take the next three games. Not the way they have been playing.
__________________

__________________
Angel is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 01:50 PM   #138
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 03:22 PM
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 02:21 PM   #139
Blue Crack Addict
 
MissVelvetDress_75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: basking in my post-concert glow still mesmerized by the orbit of his hips..Also Holding Bono Close as he requested.
Posts: 25,776
Local Time: 03:22 PM
that is a great action photo!
__________________
MissVelvetDress_75 is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 02:55 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel
Angel's puking her brains out. I can't believe the Canucks have done this to themselves. There is no way they'll take the next three games. Not the way they have been playing.
Logic dictates that they won't win 3 in a row against the Blues. However, IF (and a big if) they win the next game back in Vancouver (a distinct possibility - one last hoorah at home), they will be quite pumped to play for their lives in St. Louis. IF they pull that game off (once again, a big if, but a distinct possibility since they outlplayed the Blues last night on the road) - they will be going back for game 7 in Vancouver, where you KNOW the Blues do not want to be (either for game 5 or a possible game 7).

I strongly feel the Canucks will win game 5 in Vancouver. Why? Because the Canucks have not lost 3 in a row all season long. The rest could fall into place if they make it happen.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 03:17 PM   #141
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 03:22 PM


i appreciate your homerism, and that is what a good fan is supposed to have. if we were down 3-1 i'd be saying the same things. but the fact is the Canucks choke under pressure. That was evident in the late season collapse, as it was last night in what was as close to a must win game as you can have. The way the Canucks are talking they sound like a defeated team, I highly doubt they will even win game 5.

What's even more amazing about this domination is that the Blues have done it without this year's Norris winning defenseman Al MacInnis, and 2 other key pieces Mellanby and Cajanek. If everybody can get healthy I really think this is a team that could win the Cup, especially now that Detroit is gone.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 04:23 PM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:22 PM
Even the Blues and the Canucks agree with me (see bold)...


http://www.tsn.ca

Blues put Canucks in a hole

Associated Press

4/16/2003

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Trailing early is no big deal for the St. Louis Blues.

Martin Rucinsky had two goals and an assist as the Blues, the best comeback team in the NHL during the regular season, rallied after a slow start for a 4-1 win over the Vancouver Canucks on Wednesday night.

The Blues were a league-leading 22-15-3-6 when giving up the game's first goal in the regular season, falling behind in more than half of their contests.

``As soon as they scored, you're taking the most positive thing out of anything,'' said Blues centre Doug Weight, who had two assists. ``Hey, we've proved all year that we're good coming from behind and it's something we definitely talked about.''

Dallas Drake and Chris Pronger scored in the second period after the Canucks opened the scoring. Then Rucinsky scored twice in 1:37 late in the third as the Blues took a 4-1 lead.

``They came out hard, that's what we sort of expected,'' Rucinsky said. ``We stayed with the game plan.''

St. Louis, which got a strong game from goalie Chris Osgood to offset a 33-20 shots deficit, took a 3-1 series lead and can close it out Friday night in Vancouver. The Blues have won all six series in franchise history when taking a 3-1 lead.

The Canucks were second in the NHL with 264 goals in the regular season, trailing only the Red Wings. But Vancouver has been outscored 14-4 in the first four games.

"It may sound funny, but if we play like that, more times than not we're going to win,'' Vancouver captain Markus Naslund said. ``I don't think the series is over.''

Neither did coach Vancouver Marc Crawford, who noted improved play by his team.

``I thought it was our best game of the series,'' Crawford said. ``Sometimes, you get beat by the goaltender on the other side and I think that's what happened tonight.''

The Canucks outshot the Blues 12-5 and took a 1-0 lead in the first period as Naslund, the NHL's second-leading scorer in the regular season with 104 points, registered his first goal of the playoffs.

A strong first period by Osgood, who made a sprawling save on a break-in by Trevor Linden, kept the deficit from growing. Osgood also stopped a second-period break-in by Brandon Reid.

``He seemed so composed,'' coach Joel Quenneville said. ``Ozzie kept us in the game.

``We were fortunate only being down 1-0.''


Pronger, who missed the first 77 games of the season with wrist and knee injuries, tied it with his first goal of the playoffs on a floating wrist shot from just inside the blue-line that eluded Dan Cloutier at 4:35 of the second. En route to the net, one Canucks player ducked the puck and another flailed at it.

Drake capitalized on strong plays by his linemates to make it 2-1 on a 2-on-1 break at 15:07, also his first goal of the playoffs. Rucinsky started the play by outfighting two Canucks for the puck at centre ice, and Weight fed Drake in the slot for his team-leading sixth point of the postseason.

Rucinsky got his first goal of the playoffs with 5:51 remaining on a 2-on-1 break with Drake. He scored again with 4:14 to play, beating Cloutier with a backhander from the right side of the net.

The Canucks broke up their No. 1 line of Naslund, Todd Bertuzzi and Brendan Morrison, which was throttled in the first three games. Naslund, held to one assist previously, scored on a high wrist shot at 11:57 of the first.

The shot deflected off Weight's glove for Vancouver's first goal at even strength in the series.

``It definitely didn't help,'' Weight said. ``But my linemates made it all better as the game went on.''

Bertuzzi, one of the NHL's top power forwards, let his emotions get the best of him on a couple of occasions. He retaliated to a slash by Barret Jackman that wasn't called in the first and got caught spearing Jackman.

Bertuzzi also took a double-minor for roughing after another skirmish with Jackman in the second. Jackman was sent to the penalty box for two minutes.


NOTES - Blues forward Scott Mellanby, one of the team's three alternate captains, was scratched with the team described as flu-like symptoms. He was replaced by centre Steve Martins . . . The Blues played their second game without captain Al MacInnis, expected to be sidelined two-to-four weeks with a separated right shoulder . . . None of the Canucks have more than two points in the series . . . The Canucks were 0-for-5 on the power play and are 3-for-29 in the series.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 04:34 PM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 03:22 PM
The Red Wings outshot and outchanced the Ducks every game, yet the Duck's won 4-0, I would call that domination for the Ducks. A goaltender is part of the team, and he can be responsible for the domination.

And Quennville was talking about the 1st period, where Ozzy made a few great saves to keep it a 1 goal game, but that is what you should expect with a Stanley Cup winning goaltender. After the 1st period, we outscored the Canucks 2-0 in the last 2 periods, anyone who doesn't think we deserved to win the game is fooling themselves.

To say the Blues got dominated last night is just foolish. If it is domination then I hope we get dominated for the rest of the playoffs, we would end up with the Stanley Cup. The Canucks are a broken team, I could see game 5 not being a very close game. I'll say another 4-1 or 5-1 win for the Blues.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 04:59 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:22 PM
A disection of your argument:

Premise a) anyone who says the Canucks dominated is foolish

Premise b) you said the Canucks dominated

Conclusion: Therefore, you are foolish.

hahaha! Tell me another one, Chizip. You're too much.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 05:03 PM   #145
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 03:22 PM
when did i say the canucks dominated? i said they dominated the first period, and then the blues dominated the last 2, so add those up and that means for the overall game the domination edge went to the blues.

you are the foolish one my canadian friend.

there's nothing left but the crying.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 05:07 PM   #146
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:22 PM
No, you misread my post. The argument was from *your* point of view, so the word "you" was actually you referring to *me*. I said the Canucks dominated, not you.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 05:10 PM   #147
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 03:22 PM
right, so you are foolish, i thought we had determined that long ago.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 05:12 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:22 PM
I just thought it was funny that your essential argument was was based on a biased premise, and that it took you 3 whole paragraphs to state it.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 05:16 PM   #149
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 03:22 PM
my essential argument wasnt that you are foolish, i mean i think everyone already knows that, so no reason for me to argue it. my argument is that there is no way the canucks will win this series. only a biased, blinded by fandom homer would think it is possible. the same type of person that would think the Canucks played well last night.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 05:20 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:22 PM
The proof was in the chances, the shots, the hits, the face-off wins. The only aspect that the Blues beat them in was goaltending and getting the breaks. That takes luck. It takes luck to win in the playoffs, granted. However, the fact the Canucks didn't have any luck themselves doesn't show that the Canucks didn't play well. Sorry, but you have a weak argument.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com