ForecheckBackcheck
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2019
- 668
- 1,040
We’ve had literally this exact conversation that sports is good again and she was like ‘why did you spend the last 10 years watching then?’ and … I don’t know.
We’ve had literally this exact conversation that sports is good again and she was like ‘why did you spend the last 10 years watching then?’ and … I don’t know.
There’s a couple of noticeable posters, some that I actually like a lot, that were very upset about the direction of this time that haven’t posted in quite a while. Just an observation.
My partner and I got together in 2013 and when I’m yelling at the TV or whooping goals during a Canucks game she’s like ‘Who the hell are you?!?’ because I’ve she’s had to suffer through like 800 games in the last decade of my just LOLing at how shit my team is and not being emotionally invested at all in them succeeding.
You’ve watched two games but you’ve bitched nonstop about Filip Hronek for 13.Same experience here!
Also the two games that me and my brother have been able to watch this season are just so light hearted affairs now.
I just got tickets for the game on Thursday lmao.
MAN I LOVE THIS TEAM.
To be fair, this is an overly simplistic view point for many posters who were critical of the Canucks' direction. For my part, my preference was always a longer term rebuild (notwithstanding that I appreciated that this likely wasn't realistic because of our ownership), but I have never said or thought that a short term compete now retool couldn't work. I just thought, and still think, that the long term rebuild gives you the highest chances of developing a sustained Stanley Cup contending team and that's what I want.Yeah, it’s unfortunate. I honestly think that the Benning era was so bad for so long that people forgot how to enjoy sports and either just checked out or got locked into a negative mindset they couldn’t get out of. Like, I had to consciously do a huge reset post-Benning and make sure that I was looking at different things done by different people through a different filter.
Anyhow, yay for people who have said ‘I was wrong’ and are having fun. Because this is fun. It’s the most fun since the SJ series in 2011.
I mean, I think wanting a rebuild was completely fair, but there were a ton of people confidently proclaiming that this team was just going all-in for a wildcard appearance and that it would be impossible to take a significant leap forward (even though there are several examples of this happening). And I think the argument that they had been "retooling for 10 years" or whatever was ridiculous. If I'm a hockey fan, I want to see my team make smart moves to give them a window to contend like the 2016 Bruins or whatever.To be fair, this is an overly simplistic view point for many posters who were critical of the Canucks' direction. For my part, my preference was always a longer term rebuild (notwithstanding that I appreciated that this likely wasn't realistic because of our ownership), but I have never said or thought that a short term compete now retool couldn't work. I just thought, and still think, that the long term rebuild gives you the highest chances of developing a sustained Stanley Cup contending team and that's what I want.
The fact that the Canucks may pull off the short term compete now retool doesn't make my view wrong. As an extreme example, if my wife tells me that we should withdraw our life savings and put it all on green on the roullete table, I could rightfully tell her that's a terrible idea, and if she does that and wins it doesn't mean I was any less right, but you bet your ass I am going to still enjoy spending all that cash and living like a king. And right now, I am loving the Canucks success and 100% enjoying it. But that doesn't mean I was wrong.
Of course I don't mean to say that I haven't been wrong about anything. I am wrong all the time. As you had stated earlier in response to that guy dunking on people being critical of Miller, most of us are wrong a fair bit. Hockey is generally pretty unpredictable.
To be fair, this is an overly simplistic view point for many posters who were critical of the Canucks' direction. For my part, my preference was always a longer term rebuild (notwithstanding that I appreciated that this likely wasn't realistic because of our ownership), but I have never said or thought that a short term compete now retool couldn't work. I just thought, and still think, that the long term rebuild gives you the highest chances of developing a sustained Stanley Cup contending team and that's what I want.
The fact that the Canucks may pull off the short term compete now retool doesn't make my view wrong. As an extreme example, if my wife tells me that we should withdraw our life savings and put it all on green on the roullete table, I could rightfully tell her that's a terrible idea, and if she does that and wins it doesn't mean I was any less right, but you bet your ass I am going to still enjoy spending all that cash and living like a king. And right now, I am loving the Canucks success and 100% enjoying it. But that doesn't mean I was wrong.
Of course I don't mean to say that I haven't been wrong about anything. I am wrong all the time. As you had stated earlier in response to that guy dunking on people being critical of Miller, most of us are wrong a fair bit. Hockey is generally pretty unpredictable.
I've always hated playing against teams like this current Canucks - hard to beat the goalie, and a split second miscue on the defensive side and the puck is in your net.And of course the Pettersson goal was just nasty. Two seconds was all it took to put the game away.
The biggest difference I find with Tocchet is that our defensive end isn't a fire drill when we're sitting on a lead. We're playing much more structured and with better habits, with great stick pressure. And of course the timely saves make us look better. The fact we didn't give them any powerplays in the 2nd or 3rd makes this feel like a gritty "identity" kind of road win. We got the goals we needed, bent-but-didn't-break, and quietly slipped out of town. Ottawa can hang their hat on the moral victory but for the Canucks it was a very encouraging W, to me at least
JohnHodgson took 5 or 6 different viewpoints, lumped them into an amalgamated strawman, and then categorized anyone who identified with one of those viewpoints as someone who identified with all of them.To be fair, this is an overly simplistic view point for many posters who were critical of the Canucks' direction. For my part, my preference was always a longer term rebuild (notwithstanding that I appreciated that this likely wasn't realistic because of our ownership), but I have never said or thought that a short term compete now retool couldn't work. I just thought, and still think, that the long term rebuild gives you the highest chances of developing a sustained Stanley Cup contending team and that's what I want.
The fact that the Canucks may pull off the short term compete now retool doesn't make my view wrong. As an extreme example, if my wife tells me that we should withdraw our life savings and put it all on green on the roullete table, I could rightfully tell her that's a terrible idea, and if she does that and wins it doesn't mean I was any less right, but you bet your ass I am going to still enjoy spending all that cash and living like a king. And right now, I am loving the Canucks success and 100% enjoying it. But that doesn't mean I was wrong.
Of course I don't mean to say that I haven't been wrong about anything. I am wrong all the time. As you had stated earlier in response to that guy dunking on people being critical of Miller, most of us are wrong a fair bit. Hockey is generally pretty unpredictable.
A lot of what John Hodgson said was correct..imo..His delivery though,was unsubtle..like a ball peen hammer (I was on the other end of it a few times..lol)JohnHodgson took 5 or 6 different viewpoints, lumped them into an amalgamated strawman, and then categorized anyone who identified with one of those viewpoints as someone who identified with all of them.
There's a lot of that going around.