Canucks fans would be smart to stop defending this garbage. You're like a bunch of senile old people refusing to accept evolution as a legitimate explanation.
Canucks fans would be smart to stop defending this garbage. You're like a bunch of senile old people refusing to accept evolution as a legitimate explanation.
And yes, it's that bad.
If you look at my posts before that you'll see what I was going for.
And in the event you didn't feel like looking, it could have been in green text.
Last edited by Hockeyguy15; 04-12-2012 at 01:54 PM.
Unfortunately for H. Sedin, along with several other Canucks, he has a reputation. That very probably could have been a lost edge, but he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from me. He felt a stick and went down, too bad the stick was no longer anywhere near him.
For those fans that are saying the Kesler penalty shouldn't have been called and it has never been called ever.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs. If you're going to predict a Canucks loss, at least wait for a team that has a decent shot.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to squiggs96 For This Useful Post:
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but Vigneault this morning said he doesn't know about the Kesler-Richards matchup going forward. Sounds like he doesn't know if Kesler can handle Richards.
Also said that the powerplay looked better with Edler off of it
he does that sometimes in the media to get a message across to players, if he actually thought Kesler couldn't handle it he wouldn't have said anything he would have just moved him off that matchup
not saying he's right about it, Richards clearly won game 1, but I would be surprised if after what he said he doesn't give Kesler another chance in game 2
Yet you keep telling people they are reaching saying it was a dive...Now you are saying maybe it was a dive.
The latter statement in no way contradicts with the former.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15
You can't have it both ways. Either we are all out to lunch and thus the reaching comment, or it maybe was a dive and you screwed up telling everyone how wrong we were.
I can have it both ways, because you are drawing a false dichotomy. The fall was not clearly a dive and very reasonably could have been a fall. I concede that there is a chance it could have been a dive, but that is far from obvious. The simplest explanation still stands: Sedin most likely lost an edge and fell. Could I be wrong? You bet. But it is far from obvious that I am.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
The latter statement in no way contradicts with the former.
I can have it both ways, because you are drawing a false dichotomy. The fall was not clearly a dive and very reasonably could have been a fall. I concede that there is a chance it could have been a dive, but that is far from obvious. The simplest explanation still stands: Sedin most likely lost an edge and fell. Could I be wrong? You bet. But it is far from obvious that I am.
Or the simplest explanation is that Sedin dives very frequently and therefore it was most likely a dive.
It might be the simplest explanation to you, but that does not make it the right.
Everyone else believe it was a clear dive and you do not. To tell everyone else they are reaching when no one agrees with you makes it seem like you are the one reaching.
The latter statement in no way contradicts with the former.
I can have it both ways, because you are drawing a false dichotomy. The fall was not clearly a dive and very reasonably could have been a fall. I concede that there is a chance it could have been a dive, but that is far from obvious. The simplest explanation still stands: Sedin most likely lost an edge and fell. Could I be wrong? You bet. But it is far from obvious that I am.
Same here. I do believe that he may have embellished the fall after losing his edge, but he had absolutely no reason to dive there. He was getting the puck out of his own zone it would have been a great scoring chance for the Kings if he didn't get it out.
If it was in the neutral zone and the same thing happened, of it was Kesler falling, then it would very likely be a dive, but given the circumstances, I have trouble believing it's a dive, as the Sedins are usually pretty smart about when they dive (unlike Kesler and Burrows).
Also said that the powerplay looked better with Edler off of it
he does that sometimes in the media to get a message across to players, if he actually thought Kesler couldn't handle it he wouldn't have said anything he would have just moved him off that matchup
not saying he's right about it, Richards clearly won game 1, but I would be surprised if after what he said he doesn't give Kesler another chance in game 2
Who do you think he does put out against Richards next game? I don't think Sedin/Burrows would be a good match up for Van.
I'd like to see some evidence of H. Sedin falling down just because he lost an edge. The guy only seems to mysteriously "fall down" when it's likely to draw a penalty. Simplest explanation indeed.
Same here. I do believe that he may have embellished the fall after losing his edge, but he had absolutely no reason to dive there. He was getting the puck out of his own zone it would have been a great scoring chance for the Kings if he didn't get it out.
If it was in the neutral zone and the same thing happened, then it would very likely be a dive, but given the circumstances, I have trouble believing it's a dive, as the Sedins are usually pretty smart about when they dive (unlike Kesler and Burrows).
Like this smart?
There is more too if you want to look.
Last edited by Hockeyguy15; 04-12-2012 at 02:09 PM.
I'd like to see some evidence of H. Sedin falling down just because he lost an edge. The guy only seems to mysteriously "fall down" when it's likely to draw a penalty. Simplest explanation indeed.
The biggest evidence is the situation. If Sedin turned the puck over without getting it out of his own zone it would have resulted in a great scoring chance for the Kings and as such it makes no sense for him to do that there. If it was in the offensive zone, or he tripped over the red line in the neutral zone or something like that then I'd agree that it's pretty obviously a dive, but in the situation, it looks like he simply lost an edge. He may have embellished after losing his edge, but it doesn't make sense for him to purposely fall in that situation.
Those basically prove what I'm saying. 2 of those happened after the whistle and one in the neutral zone. Neither of them was going to result in an immediate and great scoring chance for the other team if he took himself out of the play on purpose. The one time he did fall with the puck, he still made sure he passed the puck off before/as he went down. Again, more evidence he's smart about when he dives.
The biggest evidence is the situation. If Sedin turned the puck over without getting it out of his own zone it would have resulted in a great scoring chance for the Kings and as such it makes no sense for him to do that there. If it was in the offensive zone, or he tripped over the red line in the neutral zone or something like that then I'd agree that it's pretty obviously a dive, but in the situation, it looks like he simply lost an edge. He may have embellished after losing his edge, but it doesn't make sense for him to purposely fall in that situation.
I see it as he lost a puck battle and was a little off balance after losing body position. Instead of fighting to get the puck back he bails and ends up on his back with his feet in the air. Definitely going for a call there after being beat cleanly.
__________________ Go Flames Go!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rhettzky For This Useful Post:
I would love to see the Kings win game 2, but I don't see it happening. Will probably be a very close game but Van will squeak out a win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhettzky
I see it as he lost a puck battle and was a little off balance after losing body position. Instead of fighting to get the puck back he bails and ends up on his back with his feet in the air. Definitely going for a call there after being beat cleanly.
