Rate the teams toughness

goodluckchuck

Registered User
Apr 22, 2012
601
43
I honestly think the Canucks are soft as cookie dough

- They rarely fight back when a teammate gets drilled (legally or illegally) and they even fail to protect the goalie
- They succumb to pressure pretty quickly
- Sedin twins
- Dive bombs
- Lack of intimidation

Skills wise, the Cancuks are great. But toughness wise, they got rid of the only player that actually played with an edge, that if you did something to a teammate he would go to war with you.

Ya outside the locker room, these guys seem like the best of friends, but on the ice they show otherwise.

Is it because they have fallen into the myth that the referres are out to get them? Well, that's dumb, because most games canucks receive bad calls by the refs all the time. This is nothing new. Might as well put some bodies in the stretcher if the refs calling it one-sided.

Anyways, vote.
 

BoHorvat53

Crabs!
Mar 29, 2010
2,050
0
British Columbia
6.5, potential to be a 7.

Not the most soft team anymore, but Canucks aren't a team that scream fear or toughness.

Kassian is tough, but needs to he needs to be emotionally engaged.
Weise is decent, but usually ends up losing the fight.
Volpatti is decent.
 

Aphid Attraction

Registered User
Jan 17, 2013
5,064
1,699
6.5, potential to be a 7.

Not the most soft team anymore, but Canucks aren't a team that scream fear or toughness.

Kassian is tough, but needs to he needs to be emotionally engaged.
Weise is decent, but usually ends up losing the fight.
Volpatti is decent.

I Was actually impressed by Weise against Bolling. Not saying he won but he got jumped by a goon that sucker punched him then held his own, didn't really lose.
 

Smokey McCanucks

PuckDaddy "Perfect HFBoard Trade Proposal 02/24/14
Dec 21, 2010
3,165
283
There's a lot of toughness on this team, but not the kind of aggressively violent toughness people associate with a "tough" hockey team. A lot of that is intentional. I think it's pretty obvious that Vigneault, Gillis, the Sedins and other leaders actively discourage the kind of instant retaliation and goonery that people think is "toughness."

However if it comes down to it I'm not sure there's even one player on the team you could objectively say is "soft," nobody who avoids the tough areas or avoids battling along the boards. Even the Sedins, who get hit with that label the most, take a ton of punishment without batting an eye and rarely miss a shift, let alone a game. That takes more toughness than dropping the gloves after taking a clean hit. Having the willpower not to take a dumb penalty retaliating for something, that takes mental toughness.

The Canucks have learned after getting burned by it before, there's too many officials, both on-ice and off, and too many agents of influence who will bend the direction of or actively work for Toronto, Boston, Chicago, LA and the big-market American/eastern teams, for us to play the rambunctious and physical style of play. It's really not even possible to get in a scrum with this team right now unless you want to come out killing a penalty, that style isn't an option.

This team is more than capable of holding its own when push comes to shove, but it's not in our best interest to seek out that sort of game.
 

TheDiver*

Guest
I think it's improved. Volpatti stood up for Burrows two games ago. Weise and Volpatti as well as Kassian will drop them. Bieksa will too.

I think our D is a little soft. Bieksa is the only one with some jam.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
25,152
10,130
I honestly think the Canucks are soft as cookie dough

- They rarely fight back when a teammate gets drilled (legally or illegally) and they even fail to protect the goalie
- They succumb to pressure pretty quickly
- Sedin twins
- Dive bombs
- Lack of intimidation

Skills wise, the Cancuks are great. But toughness wise, they got rid of the only player that actually played with an edge, that if you did something to a teammate he would go to war with you.

Ya outside the locker room, these guys seem like the best of friends, but on the ice they show otherwise.

Is it because they have fallen into the myth that the referres are out to get them? Well, that's dumb, because most games canucks receive bad calls by the refs all the time. This is nothing new. Might as well put some bodies in the stretcher if the refs calling it one-sided.

Anyways, vote.

Weird ranges on the poll. 7-10 is a huge range.

Regardless, i think the Canucks 'toughness' is fine. In fact, if anything i'd say it's the pure 'skill' that is lacking at times.

We finally have some 'grit' sprinkled throughout the lineup. Maybe we're short of knucklehead 'goons', but that's bully mentality stuff and not real toughness. This isn't a team that's going to get pushed around anymore, and that's good enough for me. I'd rather watch them play hockey than pick fights.

And the bolded attitude is absolutely despicable. That is the kind of headhunting garbage mentality that is extremely destructive to the actual game of hockey. I want to watch guys play hockey, not go out and try to seriously injure other people because they feel the refs have done them wrong.

If you want to watch a bunch of goons pummelling each other, consider switching to MMA instead of hockey. :shakehead
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
These things are hiliarious. Lose to a toughness team, fans demand more toughness. Lose to a skill team, fans demand more skill over toughness.

It's like what ever happened yesterday is all that matters.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
I think our team toughness is still lacking. For example, a couple games ago when Luongo was run over by David Backes, not a single person stood up to Backes. We've had a number of our stars take beatings that have gone unspoken for. This is an area where I really hope we upgrade at the deadline.
 

Fat Tony

Fire Benning
Nov 28, 2011
3,012
0
These things are hiliarious. Lose to a toughness team, fans demand more toughness. Lose to a skill team, fans demand more skill over toughness.

It's like what ever happened yesterday is all that matters.

We didn't lose to a tough team yesterday.
 

ruiner

Registered User
Feb 20, 2013
127
0
I think our team toughness is still lacking. For example, a couple games ago when Luongo was run over by David Backes, not a single person stood up to Backes. We've had a number of our stars take beatings that have gone unspoken for. This is an area where I really hope we upgrade at the deadline.

After how they've actually been standing up for each other this year I couldn't believe they just ignored Backes and went back to that stupid hoping for a penalty mentality they have.

I can't vote but so far they've been a lot better this year than in the past couple of years.
 

jigsaw99

Registered User
Dec 20, 2010
5,660
217
we didn't lose to hawks due to toughness we lost to them due to skills. you don't get out shot with that many odd man chances with out speed and skills. I thought we out hit them too.
 

jigsaw99

Registered User
Dec 20, 2010
5,660
217
pretty much everyone in our lineup are physical players except for Sedins/Schreoder/Raymond/Tanev

We have Volpatti and Weise as our fighters and that's all u need. Kassian, Bieska, Kesler can drop the gloves if needed but who cares about fighting we can lay them out with big hits.
 

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,797
4,012
I won't rate the team's toughness... because toughness is overrated. :p:
 

LiveeviL

No unique points
Jan 5, 2009
7,106
249
Sweden
Oh great, another referendum on "team toughness" that doesn't include a coherent definition of that term.

Yeah, especially as the OP mention the Sedins as soft. Then toughness probably means something like "testosterone flowing out of the ears", which is a definition I do not care about and do not vote on.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->