Player Discussion Erik Gudbranson

[Megaterio Llamas]

I do think Erik is really tough. One of the best fighters in the NHL even. He's just not a good team guy. And he's a shitty hockey player.

But he'll give you a couple of very good fights a year if he's challenged or someone tries to run him.

 

[JuniorNelson]

Gudbranson would be okay if there were other physical guys.

 

[Zippgunn]

However, if Green told him not to do anything, the blame lies with him. Gudbranson has to listen to his coach or he won't be playing, of course he isn't going to take Matheson's head off as it likely means a major penalty and possibly losing the game. And then getting into his coach's bad books.

This cannot be emphasized enough.

 

[Cheeks Clapinski]

Gudbranson would be okay if there were other physical guys.

So now we need face-punchers to protect our face punchers? Will we need additional tough guys to back up those tough guys?

 

[pgj98m3]

This cannot be emphasized enough.

Yep....screw over your team-mate to stay in your coach's good books.
That's how you build a winning culture.

Give your head a shake.

 

[pgj98m3]

So now we need face-punchers to protect our face punchers? Will we need additional tough guys to back up those tough guys?

We must not have a tough guy gap!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Zippgunn]

Yep....screw over your team-mate to stay in your coach's good books.
That's how you build a winning culture.

Give your head a shake.

How exactly is Guddy "screwing over" Pete? By not exacting the revenge that YOU selfishly desire? If so I have news for you; what the coach thinks of Guddy trumps what you think of him 100 times out of 100.

 

[pgj98m3]

How exactly is Guddy "screwing over" Pete? By not exacting the revenge that YOU selfishly desire? If so I have news for you; what the coach thinks of Guddy trumps what you think of him 100 times out of 100.

Have you ever played a team sport???
If by ‘trumps’ you mean it’s correct then you have drunk too much Kool-aid my friend.

 

[Zippgunn]

Have you ever played a team sport???
If by ‘trumps’ you mean it’s correct then you have drunk too much Kool-aid my friend.

Yup I have and what my coach said ALWAYS trumped what the yahoos in the stands said. Every. Single. Time.

 

[opendoor]

Gudbranson's response is really just a side issue, because according to Benning and many others his mere presence on the roster prevents things like this from happening. Benning himself said that the Canucks needed Gudbranson to be there because they "want [their] young players to play and develop without getting picked on." So the justification for him failed the moment Pettersson was slammed to the ice. He is a deterrent who deters nothing.

 

[pgj98m3]

Yup I have and what my coach said ALWAYS trumped what the yahoos in the stands said. Every. Single. Time.

So you didn't care about your team-mates?
Must have been loved in the locker-room.

 

[MS]

This isn't a choice between 'do absolutely nothing' and 'go batshit crazy and put your team SH for 5 minutes'.

You can make a point by smashing a Panther with a clean hit. You can make a point by getting in Matheson's face in a scrum. You can challenge Matheson to a fight in a way that doesn't generate an instigator. And so on. Hamonic didn't put his team SH when he challenged Gudbranson.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

This candy ass hormonal pregnant moose is our enforcer?

 

[y2kcanucks]

I don't have the energy, nor do I care enough at this point, to go back and quote everyone who defended this trade and eventual re-signing by saying that Gudbranson will protect our kids and that he'll make it a safe workplace environment. I'll just say this: you were all wrong.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

Spend Five years building a team founded on grit and character.
Your team has neither grit nor character.

 

[RobertKron]

This isn't a choice between 'do absolutely nothing' and 'go bat**** crazy and put your team SH for 5 minutes'.

You can make a point by smashing a Panther with a clean hit. You can make a point by getting in Matheson's face in a scrum. You can challenge Matheson to a fight in a way that doesn't generate an instigator. And so on. Hamonic didn't put his team SH when he challenged Gudbranson.

Furthermore, the idea that players don't understand their roles, and that they only go after an offending opponent when the coach literally tells them to go do it is so hilariously stupid that it could only come from the posters who are pushing it.

Also, the idea that Erik Gudbranson can trundle around being f***ing terrible for however long, and get a goddamn raise, but the thing that will get him cut from the team is going and facewashing the guy who injured the team's franchise player.

 

[Nucker101]

If Green told his guys specifically not to retaliate then my anger is mostly directed towards him and not Gudbranson

 

[Diamonddog01]

This isn't a choice between 'do absolutely nothing' and 'go bat**** crazy and put your team SH for 5 minutes'.

You can make a point by smashing a Panther with a clean hit. You can make a point by getting in Matheson's face in a scrum. You can challenge Matheson to a fight in a way that doesn't generate an instigator. And so on. Hamonic didn't put his team SH when he challenged Gudbranson.

This cannot be emphasized enough. Some sort of response is warranted, even if, heaven forbid, it results in a 2 minute penalty.

 

[RobertKron]

If Green told his guys specifically not to retaliate then my anger is mostly directed towards him and not Gudbranson

Bullshit. Telling the team something along the lines of "okay, boys, focus on the game. Lets not get running around here: we have a job to do" is pretty much standard operating procedure for a coach in that situation. You only get a very few tantrums as a coach before you're just a yeller, and if you're not going to go Patrick Roy bonkers, you definitely can't be calmly telling your players to exact retribution on an opponent because that puts you and the team in a terrible position if things go sideways, and also creates a situation where the players that you don't want to have playing that type of game feel like they need to go do something to prove a point.

You tell the team to focus on hockey and getting the two points, and then you smile to yourself when the guy whose role it is to go out and take care of things goes out and puts someone through the boards or whatever the next shift.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

You want a team leader and a veteran who has been here for years to go out there and hurt his knuckles and risk injury for some dumb cocky kid who's only been here for five games? Gudbranson is a team leader and one of the highest paid players on the team. A literal multi-million dollar a year asset to this billion dollar corporation, The man is practically a goddamn institution in Vancouver and a role model for all of Canada. Elias Petterson is some dumb foreigner who's the size of a paper weight. Gudbranson did the right thing. We got the two points because of Gudbranson's steady influence. Quit crying like that scrawny Euro.

Love,
Jim Benning

 

[Zippgunn]

So you didn't care about your team-mates?
Must have been loved in the locker-room.

Don't be stupid, of course I did but if the coach said "cool it" I did...

 

[Zippgunn]

Gudbranson's response is really just a side issue, because according to Benning and many others his mere presence on the roster prevents things like this from happening. Benning himself said that the Canucks needed Gudbranson to be there because they "want [their] young players to play and develop without getting picked on." So the justification for him failed the moment Pettersson was slammed to the ice. He is a deterrent who deters nothing.

So he has to deter EVERYTHING? Not realistic I'm afraid.

 

[Zippgunn]

Bull****. Telling the team something along the lines of "okay, boys, focus on the game. Lets not get running around here: we have a job to do" is pretty much standard operating procedure for a coach in that situation. You only get a very few tantrums as a coach before you're just a yeller, and if you're not going to go Patrick Roy bonkers, you definitely can't be calmly telling your players to exact retribution on an opponent because that puts you and the team in a terrible position if things go sideways, and also creates a situation where the players that you don't want to have playing that type of game feel like they need to go do something to prove a point.

You tell the team to focus on hockey and getting the two points, and then you smile to yourself when the guy whose role it is to go out and take care of things goes out and puts someone through the boards or whatever the next shift.

Not if you have any aspirations of a long career you don't. It suggests that you don't have control of your team.

 

[TruKnyte]

Not if you have any aspirations of a long career you don't. It suggests that you don't have control of your team.

I don't think any coach would have objected to some good, clean hits.

 

[Pavel96]

You want a team leader and a veteran who has been here for years to go out there and hurt his knuckles and risk injury for some dumb cocky kid who's only been here for five games? Gudbranson is a team leader and one of the highest paid players on the team. A literal multi-million dollar a year asset to this billion dollar corporation, The man is practically a goddamn institution in Vancouver and a role model for all of Canada. Elias Petterson is some dumb foreigner who's the size of a paper weight. Gudbranson did the right thing. We got the two points because of Gudbranson's steady influence. Quit crying like that scrawny Euro.

Love,
Jim Benning

way too many big words to actually be written by jim. plus no plural last names of players? psh please