There is something seriously wrong with the culture of this team.

[Svencouver]

For some reason somebody keeps pointing out that the team didn't say it was a dirty play. Amazing take. Does this mean something?

Botchford and Paterson outline the non-straight up actions involved in said play. Listen to the latest PatCast. Do they not know about the team's classy statements?!? How dare they!

I especially adore the act of pointing out a classy statement, while proceeding to make a very tasteless statement. Gives me a chuckle. HF is awesome.

Because it goes beyond whether it was clean or not. It wasn't even intentional. Weber doing a large, but clean, check would have been more worthy of retaliation than this.

In order to stand up for our star players there needs to be some slight to them in the first place. A big hit could be considered as such. Getting tangled up doesn't.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Because it goes beyond whether it was clean or not. It wasn't even intentional. Weber doing a large, but clean, check would have been more worthy of retaliation than this.

In order to stand up for our star players there needs to be some slight to them in the first place. A big hit could be considered as such. Getting tangled up doesn't.

Answer me this: Does a big clean hit warrant a retaliation? You said big hit, you didn’t say it had to be dirty. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Also a request: Please prove to me how you know Kotkaniemi’s intent. What was in his mind at the time?

 

[Svencouver]

Answer me this: Does a big clean hit warrant a retaliation? You said big hit, you didn’t say it had to be dirty. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Also a request: Please prove to me how you know Kotkaniemi’s intent. What was in his mind at the time?

I think a big clean hit could absolutely warrant retaliation. A big clean hit indicates that someone on their team is trying to assert themselves physically over someone on our team. Fighting back, then, with physicality of our own, is totally warranted and should be expected. Dirtiness excascerbates this retaliation, as you need to communicate that malicious intent against our players will not be tolerated.

The thing is with the Kotkaniemi incident is that its not a matter of it being dirty or clean. It's about whether or not it was even intentional. As far as we know, Kotkaniemi didn't even mean to run into Pettersson. He wasn't even looking at him. I assume that he thought Pettersson would keep moving forward, ran into him, and then, in a natural response to falling over, grabbed onto Pettersson and they got tangled up.

While you're right in saying I can't assume JKs intent, I think that's missing the point. Saying that this team is in the wrong for not retailating is assuming JKs intent was to even make contact with Petey in the first place. That, and the fact that literally everyone on the Canucks assume no malicious intent. They were there, and in Peteys case, hes literally the one ditectly affected by it, so I'll take their word for it. Why should I not believe Pettersson himself?

If it wasn't intentional then this entire thread is pointless. It'd be like getting mad at the team for not getting physical with the Zamboni driver if Petey tripped and fell on the ice and sprained his wrist. There is literally nothing to retaliate against.

 

[Intangibos]

Retaliation for clean hits is fine as long as it's a clean retaliation.

If Quinn Hughes steps into the league and just happens to get someone good I don't mind someone going after him a bit, but Lucic shouldn't grab him and drive his fist through Hughes' face. I didn't mind people going at Ballard so much after he made a clean hipcheck, but there is a line it shouldn't cross. I also think that those "clean" retaliations should be penalized depending how far they go. Someone steps up on Boeser and makes a huge clean hit and Virtanen goes after the guy past a shoves and face washes or whatever, good for Virtanen. Then Virtanen can go sit for two minutes, feel pride, and then he get free.

It's all in theory though, in practice it's way harder to just decide how clean or dirty something was and how much of a response is warranted. I don't really believe that Virtanen or anyone would be a deterrent for someone going after Pettersson, but that kind of incident absolutely deflates the fans and professional hockey is entertainment for the fans. When Pettersson goes down like that and we're not in an important playoff game or something it's time to step up and give the fans something to watch.

Did the guy deserve any retaliation, maybe not, but the fans deserved some entertainment for their time and money and turning the game into a shitshow would have accomplished that rather than quietly losing 2-0.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Answer me this: Does a big clean hit warrant a retaliation? You said big hit, you didn’t say it had to be dirty. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Also a request: Please prove to me how you know Kotkaniemi’s intent. What was in his mind at the time?

Since we can't, I'm prepared to accept the best guesses of Pettersson, Green and every other player who offered an opinion, which were uniformly that Kotkaniemi did not intend to jnjure Pettersson.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

My God, FINALLY somebody who gets it. I am sure that the whole Canucks team is secretly infuriated by this incident but are loathe to express their anger pubilcly because if they do then EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE WILL BE TAKING RUNS AT PETE knowing full well that it will throw us off of whatever game we possess currently. Even a return to the glory days of mighty Bertuzzi will not stop this if we make it clear that any attempt to mess with EP will derail us mentally. We MUST let it pass or it will consume our team and make us easier pickings than we already are. The Canucks (or at least their more militant fans) are historically hyper sensitive about their fragile Swedish duperstars, the whole league already knows that. It is up to the present caretakers of this franchise to convince the rest of the league that we cannot be sidetracked by bad fortune or dubious hits. If the hits are bad enough the league will deal with it but losing our collective minds over what was at best an interference penalty shows the rest of the league that we can be had for as little as a 2 minute penalty. Remember the 7 minute PP's, all because some big guy ATTEMPTED to hit a Sedin. Such suckers we were then and, it seems, still are, at least many fans here.

I appreciate the sarcasm. Was pretty good.

It's obviously really easy for us to strawman each others points an opinions on this topic, I just hope we don't have to keep revisiting this issue again anytime soon.

 

[xtra]

So if a big clean hit doesn’t have an intent to injure and it’s ok to push back on why isn’t an attempt to harass Peterson (which was holding and hooking him on the backcheck) which causes an injury not something that requires a pushback?

 

[nucks88]

I 100% agree with this statement...you don"t have to go nuclear on someone for taking liberties but for "Pete's" sake show that you have the guy's back ...this shit will never end until someone makes a statement...as I said before at least Kadri will not get a chance to dummy him tonight while the veterans play with their iPads on the bench and the League does f*** all..

 

[mathonwy]

People love to champion this idea that speed + skill > all and thus it's necessary to eject all physicality from the game to make it better and more pure. But the reality is...Gretzky wouldn't have been the GOAT if he'd gone down in a heap and died every time someone 18 year old punk tugged at him a bit. Transcendent skill will always rise above, and i think it speaks deeply to a lot of people's insecurity that they're incessantly lobbying to get any and all physical play or intimidation out of the game of hockey anyway.

It does.

It speaks to their own lack of insight into what actually happens in the game within the game.

The Sedins, god bless their souls, didn't actually need to endure all the punishment that they did.

One good two hand forearm breaking slash after a cheapshot is all that was needed to stop the rat f***ery that was going on.

But of course, they weren't the team's sole source of offense in their formative years. They were sheltered from that role by the WCE until they got the chance to grow into their bodies and was able to exact their own type of retribution which was on the scorecard.

Petey doesn't have this luxury because management are morons and have done such a crap job that Linden and the Sedins both bailed at the same time.

The best thing that can happen right now is Petey gets a long 2 month rest while the rest of the league make their playoff push and this team tanks itself into the cellar once again.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The Sedins, god bless their souls, didn't actually need to endure all the punishment that they did.

One good two hand forearm breaking slash after a cheapshot is all that was needed to stop the rat ****ery that was going on.

in the early days the team had their back, and i don’t think they would have stayed in the nhl for contract #2 if it hadn’t. remember burke’s rant, or bertuzzi (yes, foolishly) taking it out on chelios every chance he could.

in most respects i preferred gillis’ approach to brian burke’s but burke was right to keep a guy like brad may around, and instill the kind of culture where bert, jovo, and guys like that let teammates know they had their back. obviously, with tragic results in bertuzzi’s case (not just moore, but the jovo/parker incident, losing his spit against cheli, jackman, and mitchell in successive playoffs) but he was an extreme example of a guy who, while meaning well, could not for the life of him see the forest for the trees.

think back to rich clune running around in the first LA series. don’t forget, we were also getting eaten alive with big bodies like modin and handzus and fearless relentless guys like simmonds and smyth and brown crashing luongo. rypien tunes him up (sad, in retrospect, knowing what we now know about both guys) and luongo has all the space he needs in game six, series over.

that 2011 team needed a cut the crap guy though i get why for the room they didn’t want to “replace” rick.

if i pin any of this on mg it’s that he overrelied on a guy like bieksa, who was great but not a heavyweight, and had too many of his own gudbrandons (sob, pyatt, bernier). after getting rid of those guys, glass was too unplayable to be useful, oreskovich was a disgrace, and then you’re asking keith ballard to fight your battles. sure you can abuse a clown like ben eager on the PP until they stop playing him, but lucic is going to play and you have no one who’s even going to stand up to him to salvage morale with a face-saving moral victory, let alone deter him.

 

[Svencouver]

So if a big clean hit doesn’t have an intent to injure and it’s ok to push back on why isn’t an attempt to harass Peterson (which was holding and hooking him on the backcheck) which causes an injury not something that requires a pushback?

When was the last time you saw a hooking call retaliated against lol

 

[ErrantShepherd]

When was the last time you saw a hooking call retaliated against lol

I honestly would have ZERO problem with a big hit clean or not, a slew foot, a cross-check, a boarding, a headshot, a bad high stick, goalie interference or slash being retaliated against tbh...

But yeah, come on.

 

[biturbo19]

You think it was completely an accident, I don't. There's the difference.

I don't know where you're going with the rest of this. Hooks and holds are penalties in the NHL, no?





Cool, what does this have to do with perceiving that play as an accident or not an accident?

Further, if speed and skill reigns supreme, why are the Canucks signing meat heads to prepare for team toughness?

I'm sorry you can't actually grapple with some other idea, but please stop trying to force your dumbass "skill > all other hockey" diatribe into places where it does not fit.

 

[racerjoe]

Love him or more likely hate him, Torts was right. You need to play “stiffer”. This doesn’t mean fighting. It just means responding.

I don’t care if you think this is a hockey play or not, I also don’t think in the end it matters if it was EP or Granlund, you respond. You show everyone on the team has each other’s back.

This doesn’t mean fighting, or even taking a penalty, but you step up and engage. You get in his face.

 

[Intangibos]

Honestly what bothers me most is that the 2010/11 team was far tougher than this team, and even when they didn't respond physically they responded on the scoreboard with a record-setting powerplay. It dried up due to injuries and we lost in a close series, but that approach is a significant part of why we were there in the first place. Gillis was vilified for the soft team in the press and the whole thing had to get torn down to play Bruins/Kings tough hockey.

Even that team had more grit than this team. Burrows, Kesler and Hansen weren't fighters but they would get involved as would Ballard when he was in, Torres was Torres, Lapierre, Bieksa and Glass would go as would Rome and Alberts if they were in. Even guys like Higgins, Samuelsson, Hamhuis, Edler and Malhotra would engage in scrums even if they wouldn't drop them. I remember one time Ehrhoff got knocked down and came up swinging. Hell I remember one playoff game Daniel went at Bolland and the linesman was literally holding Daniel back. This was met with "Sedins need to not engage and play whistle to whistle", but obviously the following year they were too soft and need to stand up for themselves.

This team has nothing, and the worst part is they should.

I love Hutton but come the f*** on man. He has 3 NHL fights, 2 of which I believe were him getting engaged on and one where he aided Boeser. Do something.

Gudbranson is our tough-guy D who, unlike Hutton, is actually marketed as a tough guy and just like Ben only seems to fight when someone on the other team wants to go.

Roussel I kind of like, but again he falls short. I have no problem with him "attacking" people like he is doing. Someone has a problem with him and goes to engage with him, well I don't think they should be complaining when the other guy drops em. If I go up to someone, especially behind the play, and start shoving a guy in my mind I may as well be asking if he wants to go. I would rather he grabs them by the jersey and gives them a moment to prepare to defend themselves but whatever. Anyway, while I like that he not only stands up for himself but aggressively does so, not once this year has he stood up for anyone else.

We try to play the same f***ing "punish them on the PP" type game that got so much shit from our fans and stupid clueless media except this time we're not even contenders and can't even deliver. We must be the softest team in the NHL without even having the ability to score despite our near-championship team getting blown up to try to reinvent themselves as a tough team. It's just so f***ing frustrating that not only do we have to see absolutely no response from this team but to know the sad f***ing state of this franchise is the result of people demanding toughness and this is what the Canucks delivered.

The fans do not enjoy watching this. Make them pay on the PP instead of retaliating? Sure. Do it. Score the goal, win the game, and play like an elite competitive team. You can't do that? Then turn the physical play up to give the fans who feel sick and dejecting watching Pettersson leave the game something to enjoy about the game. Not winning a cup, not winning games. Entertainment. Entertainment isn't a byproduct of your job, winning games/championships is a byproduct and method of entertaining your fans.

It almost certainly will not deter anyone from going after Pettersson, but at least it will be a spectacle and putting on a show, though if I were a dirty player playing for say Buffalo I may think twice about body slamming Pettersson if it mean Torres was going to just chase Dahlin all night. Accidental injury from an accidental play? Pettersson got hit by a shot and it broke his foot? Oh well, don't head hunt anyone but your job is to entertain your fans so go do it. Finish every check and start scrums in front of both nets and between whistles.

Dance monkey dance, entertain us. You get paid 7 figures to do so.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

Love him or more likely hate him, Torts was right. You need to play “stiffer”. This doesn’t mean fighting. It just means responding.

I don’t care if you think this is a hockey play or not, I also don’t think in the end it matters if it was EP or Granlund, you respond. You show everyone on the team has each other’s back.

This doesn’t mean fighting, or even taking a penalty, but you step up and engage. You get in his face.

Every time I hear that, I die a little inside...

But anyways now that some time has passed, and Elias is in a better state, I agree with the premise. My issue lies more with that going further than it should, because then it just gets into a case of escalation that we don't have the horses for imo.

Stecher getting hit vs Tampa Bay showed that the team at least has the potential to play stiffer... getting that more consistently sounds good.

 

[82Ninety42011]

He's not younger but would love to have Ryan Reeves

Micheal Ferland is another guy I'd love to have. He can score and fight if need be loves to hit to from what I remember when he was a Flame.

 

[xtra]

When was the last time you saw a hooking call retaliated against lol

Straight up are you happy that no one hit kotokemi or threw a gloved punch after the incident or not?

A pushback doesn’t have to be a bertuzzi incident or a fight but something...

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'm sorry you can't actually grapple with some other idea, but please stop trying to force your dumbass "skill > all other hockey" diatribe into places where it does not fit.

That "some other idea" has no relevance. Does it help us determine accident or no accident here? No, so who cares?

You think that the crackdown on physicality has led to this "hooky holdy nonsense". Ok. You say it's a problem. Alright. Then you call this play an accident. Huh? How is it both hooky holdy nonsense and completely incidental?

It almost seems as if you interpret this play as the last vestige of physicality in the game. Your 'solution' is to see this play as benign so that more drastic physical play can be re-introduced to the game, eventually leading back to the days of old. Have I got you right so far? If so, isn't it a weird contradiction to refuse additional physicality due to your interpretation of just/unjust while at the same time calling for more physicality yourself?

Just before you last fled this sub-forum (welcome back BTW), you had a penchant to ramble on in your posts. Perhaps 10% of the content was relevant and the source point was often misinterpreted. Here, you've widened the lens on this topic to the point of contradiction. You then incorrectly interpret my position to be about skill above all else [read back at who is calling for a reaction here]. At least you're consistent?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Since we can't, I'm prepared to accept the best guesses of Pettersson, Green and every other player who offered an opinion, which were uniformly that Kotkaniemi did not intend to jnjure Pettersson.

If you're going to make it a point to be precise, and hold others accountable for their missteps, please follow your own method. You should have stopped at the first phrase in bold.

I think a big clean hit could absolutely warrant retaliation. A big clean hit indicates that someone on their team is trying to assert themselves physically over someone on our team. Fighting back, then, with physicality of our own, is totally warranted and should be expected. Dirtiness excascerbates this retaliation, as you need to communicate that malicious intent against our players will not be tolerated.

The thing is with the Kotkaniemi incident is that its not a matter of it being dirty or clean. It's about whether or not it was even intentional. As far as we know, Kotkaniemi didn't even mean to run into Pettersson. He wasn't even looking at him. I assume that he thought Pettersson would keep moving forward, ran into him, and then, in a natural response to falling over, grabbed onto Pettersson and they got tangled up.

While you're right in saying I can't assume JKs intent, I think that's missing the point. Saying that this team is in the wrong for not retailating is assuming JKs intent was to even make contact with Petey in the first place. That, and the fact that literally everyone on the Canucks assume no malicious intent. They were there, and in Peteys case, hes literally the one ditectly affected by it, so I'll take their word for it. Why should I not believe Pettersson himself?

If it wasn't intentional then this entire thread is pointless. It'd be like getting mad at the team for not getting physical with the Zamboni driver if Petey tripped and fell on the ice and sprained his wrist. There is literally nothing to retaliate against.

Ok, so a big clean hit warrants a retaliation. Why? Why is a clean hockey play deserving of retaliation? This is the hypocrisy I find with the "deserves" portion of this argument. A clean hit does not deserve retaliation. It is a hockey play. If you want to call the Kotkaniemi/Pettersson play a hockey play, an accident that is just part of the game, then you must relinquish your fervor if/when Pettersson gets absolutely demolished by a hockey hit... But we know this to be near impossible to do. You have highlighted this yourself. This is why "deserve" has very little to do with the expected reaction.

If you can't assume Kotkaniemi's intent, stop doing so.

I don't care about Kotkaniemi's intent. I will never know it, and neither will you. Hell, Matheson says that his intent was not to harm Pettersson. You believe him? Your interpretation of intent is irrelevant. Intent does not matter. This isn't a murder trial, it's hockey. If the action is perceived to be dubious or overt in any fashion, this team must act.

Some parts of this team are built to retaliate. If those parts do not react, these additional aspects like leadership, toughness, etc... are of no tangible value in the game. Get rid of them for this reason. On the other hand, I'm perfectly content watching a team that chooses to turn the other cheek every time, like the 2011 Canucks. Just build the team accordingly. That is my frustration.

 

[Kimota]

So the Canucks need a culture change cause the Canucks players did not attack another 18 years old kid?

 

[Zippgunn]

I appreciate the sarcasm. Was pretty good.

It's obviously really easy for us to strawman each others points an opinions on this topic, I just hope we don't have to keep revisiting this issue again anytime soon.

No sarcasm. Dead serious. No team in the league is easier to knock off their game than the Canucks. Been like that for a decade now...

 

[pgj98m3]

So the Canucks need a culture change cause the Canucks players did not attack another 18 years old kid?

No....because their response was to give up a goal.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If you're going to make it a point to be precise, and hold others accountable for their missteps, please follow your own method. You should have stopped at the first phrase in bold.

If we can't make an assumption about what happened based on what literally everyone involved on all sides agrees happened, then what standard do you propose we use? We're making the assumption because it's reasonsble. You're objecting on the weakest grounds possible; the fact that no one is able to conclusively, absolutely prove they are correct.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If we can't make an assumption about what happened based on what literally everyone involved on all sides agrees happened, then what standard do you propose we use? We're making the assumption because it's reasonsble. You're objecting on the weakest grounds possible; the fact that no one is able to conclusively, absolutely prove they are correct.

You are proceeding to beg the question your way through this. It's simple, when someone makes the claim, "we know X player's intent was to...", they are wrong. I'm addressing the claim here. You're not wrong, but you aren't referencing the initial claim.

So the Canucks need a culture change cause the Canucks players did not attack another 18 years old kid?

What does Kotkaniemi being 18 have anything to do with this?

And "attack" is a broad term. Is a face wash an attack? Jersey grab? Scrum? No one is advocating taking a two hander to his head. Well most aren't, anyway.