WQF (3) Vancouver Canucks vs (6) San Jose Sharks (Sharks win 4-0!!!!).

[Captain_Obvious]

I have VFF on ignore but I can only assume that thinly veiled Vancouver defending is aimed at me...

Their lack of offense stems from a low compete level. Their low compete level is a direct correlation to their lack of heart / character. I clearly said their number one problem is their lack of character / heart.

When you're in the playoffs it's a battle. When your first instinct is to embellish rather than battle, your compete level is low. When your compete level is low you lose battles. Battles create offensive chances.

The Canucks have looked lackadaisical in every game. One of the Sedins was quoted after the last game as saying "Well I don't think we're playing our best..."

If you're not playing your best in the playoffs what are you saving it for?

The team lacks character, and everything else stems from that. Couldn't be more simple.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Why did I think a hockey discussion with Captain Obvious was possible without a quick personal jab out of nowhere?

Dude, I got no issue with you, but clearly you're holding a grudge. I'll talk hockey with others interested in doing so.

For the record, I'm still not buying their lack of execution has anything to do with their antics. I understand your argument, but I'm not on board with it. The Canucks are competing, but aren't executing and are losing to a better team. They competed in Game Two and were within an inch of an empty netter of being right in this series. That's lack of execution. Their diving and/or embellishment has nothing to do with it.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by spuzzum

Has a coach ever quit a game before they know they are going to be fired?

Not when they have two years left to collect on a contract.

[dying4acup]

I might be wrong, but I don't think anybody is claiming that the Canucks diving is costing them right now. The Canucks are playing poorly and complaining that the officiating is poor. Bieksa has brought the diving into the discussion. And the Canucks lost all benefit of the doubt from officials around 23months ago.

You reap what you sew.

[whosurnabby]

Sharks fan dropping some insight here...just want to remind everybody that this isn't over yet. I've seen Thornton and Co. take a commanding 3-0 lead against the Detroit Red Wings 2 years ago and look how that turned out...the boys managed to eliminate Detroit in 7 games only to be routed by this same Canucks team in the 2011 WCF. I am not saying that we'll blow the lead again in this series, but you know what, if there ever was a team that all hockey fans would think was capable of coming from a 3-0 margin, it had to be the Red Wings. On the other side of the fence, if there ever was a team capable of losing a 3-0 lead, it was the 2011 San Jose Sharks.

But, watching this series, I honestly think that this playoffs is folding to be the "passing of the torch" kind of run/transition period for SJ. I can see it in the way the team plays. This is no longer Patty, Boyler, and Jumbo's team...this is now Couture, Burnsie, and Pavelski's San Jose Sharks. The good news for us Sharks fans? The next core of Sharks are $$$ when it matters the most. The better news? My oh my, if there ever was a team that you'd like to be in that 3-0 grip, it's gotta' be the Vancouver Canucks. I'll take my team's sweet revenge...payback is going to get served soon. Go Sharks!

[Jets4Life]

Sharks will easily win tomorrow. Vancouver just can't win the big games.

[dying4acup]

I actually wouldn't mind if the Canucks won a "token" game. Their tv and radio hosts would get hope, and be encouraged, only to have it taken away.

But I would like to open my annual bottle of champaign tomorrow

[the2bears]

Canucks have them right where they want them. Time to *really* activate beast mode.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

I actually wouldn't mind if the Canucks won a "token" game. Their tv and radio hosts would get hope, and be encouraged, only to have it taken away.

I don't know about that. I have been listening to a lot of Vancouver radio this past week, and it's pretty safe to say that the only ones currently fooled by the Canucks are a handful of delusional fans. A perfect illustration of this point:

In the lead-up to Game #3, colour man Dave Tomlinson rather matter-of-factly predicted that the Canucks would rally and win the game to get the split and send the series back to Vancouver. He was met by an awkward radio silence, as both John Shorthouse and Blake Price were very perceptibly dumbfounded. Price finally—barely able to stifle his own incredulity—half chuckled and pointed to the statistical improbability of any sort of a comeback, and Shorthouse also had no choice to concede that the team appeared in no way poised to mount any sort of comeback.

A Stanley Cup Finals meltdown, an embarrassing collapse against an eighth seed, and a repeat performance against a very average Sharks team isn't fooling anyone any more. The Vancouver media is returning to the same position of jaded disbelief that characterised this market for the better part of three decades between the seventies to the nineties.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by memphusk

And I should add ignorant.

No. I'm pretty sure he's aware of the suckage.

[dying4acup]

Funny thing is that this could have been the kings again, had the sharks won the final game on the season. And the result would have been the same.

If a few pucks bounced a certain way, the Canucks could have played the blues, and I firmly believe the result would be the same.

And if the Wild had been able to win 2 or 3 games down the stretch, they could have been playing the Canucks. Based on how they have played, they would have at least been up 2-1.

My point is that the results are a direct result of how poor a team the Canucks are. Maybe blaming the refs is fun for the fans, and a ralleying point for the Canucks players, but I find it comical to see the Canucks unravel so badly.

And as well as the sharks have played, and how the media claims they are a new team under couture's leadership, would anybody be stunned if they lost to the hawks, or ducks, or blues, or kings, or wings in the next round?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

A Stanley Cup Finals meltdown, an embarrassing collapse against an eighth seed, and a repeat performance against a very average Sharks team isn't fooling anyone any more. The Vancouver media is returning to the same position of jaded disbelief that characterised this market for the better part of three decades between the seventies to the nineties.

I would hardly call losing against the Stanley Cup Champions embarrassing. The Kings managed to streamroll through everyone on their way to the cup last year, that was a solid hockey team and not the typical 8th seed.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I would hardly call losing against the Stanley Cup Champions embarrassing. The Kings managed to streamroll through everyone on their way to the cup last year, that was a solid hockey team and not the typical 8th seed.

The Canucks scored a total of eight goals in five games and failed to win at home. They could have been playing the 1976–77 Canadiens, and this would still be considered embarrassing.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by zamler

This has to be one of the greatest embellishments of all time.

If he takes a couple more steps it is a near perfect Flair flop.

[bubbsy]

it is SO funny bieksa complaining about other team's embellishment.

suck it up loser, your team has perpetuated this style of play for years.

How embarassing for the canucks and their fans. Loving it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Gillis is not arrogant. He is just terrible at his job.

No. He is arrogant. That was apparent the day he was introduced as Canucks GM badmouthing Nonis. Being terrible at his job is something he's worked hard for over the years. AV is going to pay the working under a GM that is in over his head as he assumed a very good roster and his lone decent addition was landing Christian Ehrhoff and it's been all downhill since. If there was an award for worst GM in the league Gillis would win for the 2013 season.

[bubbsy]

good article on the gillis era:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2013/03...n-a-free-pass/

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by zamler

This has to be one of the greatest embellishments of all time.

It's kind of subjective, but to me, that isn't embellishing. That is straight up diving.

An example of embellishing to me would be if a player was highsticked in the face and then headsnapped or put their hands up to draw attention to it. It was a legitimate penalty and probably hurt like a bitch. Could they have ignored it and playerd through it.... probably. But the sad thing is, the way the refs work these days, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Another one you see a lot of is if a player puts the can openner on someone. It is obstruction and "should" be called, but half the time unless the player falls, the refs let it go.

Diving on the otherhand is when a player tries to draw a penalty by making it look like something happened that didn't happen. For the former, I think there are times when it is called for (unfortunately though). For the latter, I cannot respect it under any cirumstances.

Just my take as these things are subjective.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

If he takes a couple more steps it is a near perfect Flair flop.

hahahahaha

Woooooooooooo

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's kind of subjective, but to me, that isn't embellishing. That is straight up diving.

An example of embellishing to me would be if a player was highsticked in the face and then headsnapped or put their hands up to draw attention to it. It was a legitimate penalty and probably hurt like a bitch. Could they have ignored it and playerd through it.... probably. But the sad thing is, the way the refs work these days, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Another one you see a lot of is if a player puts the can openner on someone. It is obstruction and "should" be called, but half the time unless the player falls, the refs let it go.

Diving on the otherhand is when a player tries to draw a penalty by making it look like something happened that didn't happen. For the former, I think there are times when it is called for (unfortunately though). For the latter, I cannot respect it under any cirumstances.

Just my take as these things are subjective.

IMO, embellishment should be a penalty...but diving should be a suspendable offense.