Blues vs Canucks

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i am not dismissing everything between the face off and final buzzer. i am taking into account the goals, the only stat the counts in determining the victor. im not saying you cant win and play badly, i am just saying, whoever wins, outplayed the other team. This is because the goal of any hockey game is to score my goals, and whoever does this has done a better job than the other team. You cant deny that.

in other words, the object of the game of hockey is to score more goals. i think we can agree on that. thus playing the game of hockey is trying to score more goals. we should be able to agree on that too. thus, whoever scores more goals, has outplayed the other team. i dont see why we cant agree on that.
 
Last edited:
Chizip said:
This is because the goal of any hockey game is to score my goals, and whoever does this has done a better job than the other team. You cant deny that.
Actually, yes, I can deny that. To score more goals requires a full set of variables. Sometimes the goals will occur despite not fullfilling those variables as well as the other team. If you define number of goals scored to be more important than anything else in deciding who played better, than by definition, nothing else matters. However, my point is that the ultimate objective (scoring more goals than the other team) is contingent on many other factors.

What if, for the sake of argument, a team scores 3 goals in very lucky fasion. Let's suppose the first goal went in off the ref, the 2nd goal bounced off three players' butts, and the 3rd goal was kicked in and allowed, but shouldn't have counted. Now let's say the other team scored 2 beautiful goals (end to end rushes and incredible passing plays), and outworked, outchanced, outshot (by a margin of 55-10), and played better than the other team in every aspect of the game, but for whatever reasons, couldn't buy a third or fourth goal. The only thing was, they didn't get a lucky goal and an illegal goal to count. Now, would you still say that the winning team outplayed the losing team? If so, you really have no leg to stand on. But if you were to say that in this case you have to concur, then you will have to retract on your retraction. Which will it be Chizip? :wink:
 
Last edited:
if goals come by illegally, than that is different.

but if they are all legal goals, than i will say the team who scored more goals, no matter how they came by, outplayed the other team. because, as i stated before, the only goal of hockey is to score more goals, thus to play hockey is to try to score more goals, thus, whoever scores more goals has outplayed the other team. if you wanna call it luck or whatever, thats fine. a team may not deserve to win, but if they scored more goals, than they outplayed the other team. end of story.
 
So you concede that a team may not deserve to win, but even if they don't they have still outplayed the other team because they have scored more goals no matter how lucky. Riiggghhht. Can you pass over whatever it is your smoking? ;)
 
yes

to play hockey is to try to score more goals

to outscore an opponent is to outplay your opponent

you make your own luck, people who blame losing on luck are just bitter whiners
 
it's a gambling movie with matt damon and john malkovich (sp?)

since you havent seen it, i wont really get into it much with you, but damon lost 30 grand on a hand of poker to john, where john had the only 2 cards in the deck that could have beaten damon. now this would be considered "lucky" to you, but damon realized it wasnt luck, he told someone, "it wasnt luck, i got out played", and once he realized this he was then able to finally beat him. the point i was gonna make was that people tend to use the "luck" card a little too much, instead of putting the blame on themselves. so maybe bouncing a puck in off the ref can be considered "lucky", or maybe it wasnt luck, maybe you were just outplayed.

but anyway, i dont think we are gonna agree, so we can just agree to disagree.
 
See, that's not the type of luck I was referring to in my argument

i know, i was just being facetious.


although there are some people that would say they got unlucky because the refs screwed them in a game. isnt the argument that refs made more bad calls against you saying that you got unlucky?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree that people do play the luck card too often, but luck wasn't the real essense of my argument. It was one aspect among many others that I used in order to show that teams can lose and still outplay their opponents.

As for officiating, yes, sometimes teams do get more bad calls against than others. I concede that it is up to every team to over-come such obstacles, and not to use them as excuses. However, in such cases, they may still lose, and I wouldn't say they were outplayed necessarily. On this last point is where you and I differ, because we define "outplayed" differently. You define it as scoring more goals than your opponent, regardless of any other factors whatsoever (with the exception of illegal goals, it turns out), where as I prefer to define it within the entire framework of the game. That's fair enough.
 
alright, i think that is enough of that topic. i think the only thing i was really trying to say is i hate whiners, if you lose, be man enough to admit you were outplayed and dont blame it on other things. whiners suck. (i am not saying you are a whiner, i respect you and think you are a good fan, even is sometimes you are blinded by your homerism :wink: )

well here is the pre game info on the last canuck game of the year:


GAME: St. Louis Blues at Vancouver Canucks.

PLAYOFF SERIES: Western Conference quarterfinal; Blues lead 3-1.

TIME: Friday, 9 p.m. EDT.

Even their best game of the series wasn't good enough for the Vancouver Canucks.

Chris Osgood and the St. Louis Blues look to finish off the Canucks and advance to the Western Conference semifinals when the teams meet in Game 5 at GM Place.

An outstanding 32-save performance by Osgood and two goals and an assist from Martin Rucinsky sent the Blues to a 4-1 victory in Game 4 Wednesday, and pushed the Canucks to the brink of elimination.

Dallas Drake and Chris Pronger each added a goal and an assist for St. Louis, which can secure a place in the conference semifinals for the third straight season with a victory Friday.

"If they lose, they are done," Pronger said. "We need to put a dagger in them quick, because there's nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal."

Osgood continued his superb play, offsetting a 33-20 advantage in shots for Vancouver.

"He was the best player on the ice, hands down," Drake said. "Some of those saves were unbelievable."

While Anaheim's Jean-Sebastien Giguere and Colorado's Patrick Roy have gotten most of the notoriety during these playoffs, Osgood has done everything the Blues could have hoped for when they acquired him from the New York Islanders at the trade deadline.

Osgood has stopped 86 of 90 shots in the series for a .956 save percentage.

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

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

Vancouver, a better road team during the regular season, hopes a return to home ice for Game 5 will help it avoid a first-round exit for the third consecutive year.

"I think it will make all the difference in the world," forward Trent Klatt said. "You saw what a boisterous crowd can do, and I think our crowd will be even louder."

Already playing without defenseman Al MacInnis, the Blues were without right wing Scott Mellanby on Wednesday. Mellanby was scratched with flu-like symptoms.

MacInnis is expected to be sidelined at least two weeks and Mellanby's status for Friday is uncertain.

The only good news for the Canucks from Wednesday's loss was the first-period goal scored by captain Markus Naslund - the first goal in this series from Vancouver's top line, which scored 119 times during the regular season.

The goal staked Vancouver to a 1-0 lead, but St. Louis was a league-best 22-15-3-6 when giving up the game's first goal during the regular season.

"You're not going to keep Naslund and those guys off the board for seven games," Blues center Doug Weight said. "This team has gone through so much adversity this season, and to get down like that, it can put a dagger in your heart. But we always believe we can come back."

While Osgood has been St. Louis' best player in this series, Weight has been the team's best forward. He leads the Blues with three goals, four assists and seven points after totaling just two points in 10 playoff games last season.

Should the Canucks avoid elimination, Game 6 would be Sunday at the Savvis Center.

HOW THEY GOT HERE: Blues - 99 points; 5th seed. Canucks - 104 points; 4th seed.

PLAYOFF TEAM LEADERS: Blues - Weight, 3 goals, 4 assists and 7 points; Keith Tkachuk and Barret Jackman, 10 PIM. Canucks - Four with 1 goal; Todd Bertuzzi and Daniel Sedin, 2 assists; four with 2 points; Bertuzzi, 24 PIM.

PLAYOFF SPECIAL TEAMS: Blues - Power play: 19.4 percent (6 for 31). Penalty killing: 90.0 percent (27 for 30). Canucks - Power play: 10.0 percent (3 for 30). Penalty killing: 80.6 percent (25 for 31).

GOALTENDERS: Blues - Osgood (3-1, 1 SO, 1.00 GAA); Brent Johnson (no appearances). Canucks - Dan Cloutier (1-3, 3.26); Alex Auld (no appearances).

REGULAR SEASON SERIES: Canucks, 2-1-1. The teams combined for 33 goals in four games. Vancouver went 2-0-1 in the first three meetings before the Blues posted a 6-4 victory at home March 18. Brendan Morrison had four goals and six points for the Canucks.
 
Last edited:
well the 'nucks may have a chance tonight. the whole blues first line has the flu. mellanby, demitra, and tkachuk all have the flu and may or may not play tonight. and if they do play they may not be very effective. not good news, not good at all.
 
That's no excuse! They need to be held accountable. If they don't score more goals than the Canucks, they may as well pack it in. You create your own luck afterall. ;)

But seriously, you should be thanking your lucky stars that Weight doesn't have the flu. He's easily been their best player the entire series. Looks kind of like Gretz out there actually. You can tell he's been totally influenced by #99. Sweater tucked in, his skating style (always hunched over), his passing style. It's as though he watched numerous Gretzky tapes as a kid or something. Doesn't get the numbers Wayne did, but there again, who does?
 
well there is one difference, weight actually plays defense. he, drake, and rucinsky have shut down the big line of the canucks, and then also been our primary scoring line, which is pretty amazing. and to think, weight is our second line center, now thats depth :wink:
 
I wouldn't be calling Weight a second line center. Their first two line centers are pretty much interchangeable. IMO, Weight's the best they have. I really enjoyed watching him when he played for the Oilers. That's where he officially began his Gretzky impersonations.

As for Gretz not playing much defense, he was so smart that he didn't really need to. He picked his spots, knew when to "cheat". He could read the play 3 or 4 moves ahead, so he was able to get away with it. Plus, when he scored 3, 4, 5 points a game, it kind of made up for it. Do you know what his plus/minus was during his Oiler years? It was obscenely high. In '84/85 he was +98!! In 81/82, he was plus 81. In fact, from that year until 87, he never once fell below +60. His career plus/minus is +503!!! Yeah, I think people could overlook his backchecking with those kind of numbers. Chances were he would far more likely create goals than allow them.

Now a days, people win the plus/minus by, what, a +16 or so?
 
Last edited:
Actually, what makes those stats even more remarkable is that plus/minus does not include the powerplay, where Gretzky would get a TON of points. If you took away all his powerplay points, he's still a +503! That's unreal. And people thought he was a liability! :wink:
 
weight plays on the second line though, so that makes him a second line center. our first line, of demitra, tkachuk, and mellanby has been our only stable line the pst 2 years, so they are always together unless there is an injury. or if they all get sick, like they are now. weight has had many different players play beside him, which makes his feats more remarkable, since he cant really ever get a flow going with 1 or 2 wingers. he has turned a rookie eric boguneki into a 20+ goal scorer, as well as cory stillman, and ruckinsky. whoever he plays with just automatically gets better. thats probably the best attribute of a center.

on gretzky, i was watching espn classic the other day and they were showing the game were he broke the record for most goals scored, number 802 or whatever. it was against the Canucks, and it was just pretty funny to see that they stopped the game right there, and all these reporters came running on the ice. it was funny seeing reporters interviewing somebody on the ice during the middle of a game.

the canucks ended up winning the game, and they scored an empty net goal, and when they did, all of their players jumped off the bench and onto the ice to celebrate the goal. they did this to make fun of the kings who all jumped on the ice after gretzky's goal. man, talk about sore losers, they gotta make fun of the guy who just broke the record for most goals scored? pretty sad.
 
I wasn't a fan of that Canuck team, actually. I didn't start cheering for them until 3 years ago, when I moved to Vancouver. Before then, I was a big Habs fan until they traded Patrick Roy. I then cheered for the Avalanche and the LA Kings (since I was a huge Gretzky fan). The only player that is still with wth the Canucks since that game you mentioned in '94 is Trevor Linden. And he's a class, class guy.
 
something else i really noticed while watching the game was how many odd many rushes and great scoring chances there were. it was really a wide open style of play that i really think is missing from the game today. there will never be another star like gretzky, or even hull who scored 80+ goals, because the defensive style of play, the traps and clutching and grabbing, really wont allow it. its a big deal if someone scores 50 goals these days, imagine if someone got into the 70, 80, or 90 range. i think that is one thing that could bring the popularity back to hockey in the states, but as it is right now, scoring 35 goals is like having scored 50 those days. the blues are as guilty as anybody for this defensive type of play, but i really think it hurts the sport.
 
Chizip, I totally agree with you. I used to love watching Gretz play when he was on LA because of the offensive style of play in the NHL at the time. When he finished in New York, he had to start dumping the puck in, had to start backchecking. All his talents were wasted. It was sad to see. I remember watching the Penguins and Lemieux in the early 90s. Man, that was entertaining! There used to be such finesse and artistry in the game. Those guys, Gretz and Mario, turned the game into an art-form, almost like basketball in some ways. It's too bad things have changed so drastically. The Canucks, actually, were really entertaining this year. But look where it gets them once they hit the playoffs? They can't play that style anymore. It's sad to see. Even in the playoffs, back in the day, there was flow. It was tight flow, but the flow was still there. Do you remember the '93 playoffs when the Kings went to the finals? That was amazing hockey throughout the entire playoffs. The Vancouver and Toronto series against LA were especially good.
 
Last edited:
yeah, it really was more of an art form back in the day, i dont know if there is anyway to get back to that style of play either. i dont think taking the red line out, or making the rinks or goals bigger would help much. and they tried calling more penalties, but that never helped either, its just a completely different style of ockey now and until someone can win with a wide open style of play, we just wont see it again. and i dont think anyone can win with that style of play, so it is kind of sad.
 
Well, the one thing going for a ruturn to a wide open style of play is history. Back in the 70s, it was the same thing as it is now. The Canadians were the dynasty in the late 70s, and even when the Islanders won 4 in a row in the early 80s, defense was at a premium. And then the Oilers came along and changed everything. One example: before Glen Sather's team came along, no star players EVER killed penalties. Not Mike Bossy, not Marcel Dionne, not Guy Lafleur. So what does Sather do? He uses Gretzky and Kurri on the penalty kills. And what does that do? It causes scoring threats against the team on the powerplay. It changed the game. Suddenly, the short handed goal was invented.

That, and many other factors went into revolutionarizing the game in the 80s. The Oilers proved that you could win championships with an offensive brand of hockey. Now, the cycle has dipped back into the defensive. These things always turn around. They always go in cycles.
 
Chizip - I vaguely remember that game where Gretz broke the record. If I remember, he didn't play that well that game, did he? Did he do anything exceptional? (Well, beside scoring the most goals ever?)
 
no, not really. he scored the goal on his first shot of the game, and it was on the power play. he brought it in over the line, passed it to the right, just kept skating down the left where, for some reason, he was left completely alone. the guy passed it back to him and he pretty much had an empty net to shoot at.

there was seriously, no one within 5-10 feet of him, i couldnt believe it. the announcers were like, thays classic gretzky, he is able to find the open ice and get off a clean shot. i think that is one of the differences of today, i dont think teams would just let the greatest scorer of all time wander around freely. like the blues have jackman cover bertuzzi this series, his job is to make sure he is never alone and cant get off a clean shot, and so far it has worked perfectly. you would have thought they would have tried the same strategy against gretzky, but i guess not.

but back to your original question, i think they ended up losing 6-3, and i dont recall gretzky's name coming up on the other goals. so breaking the record was about it.
 
I like how the Oilers played this year....kind of an open ended hockey of old, unless they were playing a team who used the trap (Wild, Stars). End to end hockey all the time with chances left and right. Maybe the game is changing before our eyes guys, but this time it won't be just one or two guys on a team, it will be the entire team chipping in. Teams that use all 4 lines to score, like the Oilers (ond other teams I'm not aware of).
 
Back
Top Bottom