Dan Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 Ehehhehe, that goal should've been counted. Pooor Dallas cowboys.. Oooops, I mean Stars. The Canucks lost. YIKES!!!!!!!!! But we still lead the series 3 - 2!!! Note: If anyone checked out the NHL website right after the game, there was a note saying the Wild have forced game 6 and 7. Apparently, NHL is hopeful for a Wild comeback. That explains the horrible officiating. After all, it's the NATIONAL (as in American?) hockey league, right? Man, Azat, the Ducks' logo sucks. GO CANUCKS GO!!!!GO SENS GO!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 Man, Azat, the Ducks' logo sucks. Elvis is coming back after the ducks kick some Canadian butt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 Wait wait, we're still not through yet. We gotta kick some more Wild butt, and then we'll kick the Ducks out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 Actually I haven't yet been abel to figure out the canucks logo. What is that? A fish? What do fish have to do with Canucks?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 I think it's a mixture of fish, snake, and dragon's head. LOL. But it's a cool logo (regardless of the fact that it doesn't really relate [as far as I know] to the Canucks' history/team). It's just a 'C' for Canucks, with a fancy angry fish-head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 Ugh! 7-2 and now 5-1 - it's just disgusting. How has this happened...?? Let's keep our fingers crossed for tomorrow night.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 (edited) Vava, If history is about to be made, the Canucks usually help.... No team in NHL has ever come from a 3-1 deficit more than once in the playoffs. Now the Canucks have helped the Wild make history. If you ask me, I'd say GOLF NUCKS GOLF!!!!!! At least the Leafs had CONSISTENT goaltending in their last game vs. Flyers. Sheeeeeeeeeesh. Cloutier has got to go. He honestly sucks (lately). Maybe he needs some smelling salt to wake up. That was one stupid game. Not to mention the obvious offside that wasn't called, and which resulted in a goal. The dude was wayyyyyyy ahead of the blue line. In leaps and bounds. Whoooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I'm impressed. And the bogus calls... wow. Man, ya gotta love the refs. They simply don't wanna see an all-Canadian final. Yea, and when a team sends a player who is wearing a full-face mask to hit others (taking advantage of the full face mask), I lose all respect I had for that team. Willie Mitchell. And they pretended he was injured. False news spread from the Wild team. All the time, I knew he wasn't injured. It was a mind game. I think the Canucks got a bit cocky about their 3-1 lead, and they fully deserve what they got in the last 2 games. Never underestimate your enemies. The Canucks lost the series in game 5. Period. Kudos to Sens. That's one consistent team. Roloson was amazing, by the way. So is Lalime. I just want to watch good hockey from now on, not a poor performance like the Nucks' last 2 games. So if they're not gonna friggin pull themselves up, they better leave the playoffs and go home. Edited May 8, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Like I said, GOLF CANCUKS GOLF!!!!!! The Wild were really solid in the last 3 games. Good for them. I'm looking forward to a Sens vs. Wild final. That should be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 What about the Duckies, they have no chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Well, Azat, it's a $ game. So I can't tell. Giguerre is amazing, but I'm still gonna go with a Sens vs. Wild final. I want to see those two play against each other. That would be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Wild vs. Ducks. Hmmm - i really have no idea... Both are 'underdogs' and both have succeeded against tremendous adversity - I like'em both. Kudos to the Wild - Vancouver should have put forth a better effort; but i think under the circumstances, the better team won. Now I can only cheer on the Great Canadian Hope: the Sens, who are bankrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Now I can only cheer on the Great Canadian Hope: the Sens, who are bankrupt. LOL. Yea, well, they're bankrupt, but they're really brilliant on the offence, and they have an open play, unlike the Wild in games 1, 2 and 3 vs. Canucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 Now I can only cheer on the Great Canadian Hope: the Sens, who are bankrupt. I always am amazed that a team that can sell few tickets and $10 watered down beer and a TV contract that pays almost the entire payroll for a team. Kings owners announced that this year they lost $11 million dollars with the accounting done by one of the big six firms. After LA Times reviewed the numbers they found out that the Kings team payed $35 million in rent to the Staple Center Corporation. Guess who owns the Staple Center? Yes the same guys who own the Kings. And initially everyone just though that it was all okay, that they had just moved money from one pocket to the other, but after further review they discovered that the City of Los Angeles had given the corporation that built the Staple Center special tax breaks so they were just trying to pass as much money as possible thru that corporation. Don't know why I am telling you guys this but I guess I am not a firm believer that they are bankrupt. But who knows, I may be completely wrong. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by the way Dan, I did watch the 3rd period and Vancouver really lacked energy. I am not even sure if they took any decent shots at the goal after the 2 goals. The Wild were much better.(from what I can understand) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 by the way Dan, I did watch the 3rd period and Vancouver really lacked energy. I am not even sure if they took any decent shots at the goal after the 2 goals. The Wild were much better.(from what I can understand) Yes, you are right. First period, Canucks dominated, but there were no goals. Second period, the Canucks scored two goals 1 minute apart, and after that, halfway through the 2nd period, they lost hold of it. The Wild started creating amazing opportunities to score, and the PP gave them the chance. Their first goal, though, I must say, was a bit of a lucky strike. The rest of the goals were beautiful. Well done. The Canucks lacked energy and spirits. It was as if they wanted to be done with the playoffs and just go home and rest, they didn't care much if they advanced. All they wanted to do was rest. But I still think their defeat was mostly Crawford's fault, because he refused to put in the substitute (and better) goalie, Alex Auld for game 7 (as well as at the end of game 6)... A team that is scared of substituting its main goalie (i.e. scared of taking chances) is a team that will surely lose. What would you rather do - you're losing anyway, would you rather change your goalie and try your substitute, just in case he does better, or leave the same goalie, and go on losing anyway? What will you lose if you substitute the goalie? That's what I don't understand... Why the Canucks didn't change their goalie, I don't understand, and that's mainly why I'm finding it really hard to believe that this game didn't have any $ play in it... I don't know. The Wild definitely deserved to win, but whether it was $ that caused the Canucks to lose it, or not, I don't know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 It wasn't the goalie's fault. The team had no heart - no energy, and no motivation/confidence. The canucks lost the series in game 5, not in game 7 - and this has NOTHING to do with Cloutier. This is a pure lack of leadership... Blatant giveaways in the neutral zone, absence of defensive discipline, and zero support for the goalie... If a goalie starts to doubt the efforts of the guys in front of him, he may not be able to handle all the pressure of the series by himself. Cloutier got hung out to dry by his teammates and the Wild took advantage of everymistake - THEY had HEART and a GREAT LEADER (Lemaire).... The wild deserved to win (sadly, this is true... ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 You can't blame the Canucks defence in game 7. They had a good defence. It was their goalie that caused those give-away goals. Cloutier has been inconsistent almost all season. He plays well in one or two games, then relapses into some sort of a trance. Games 5 and 6, the Canucks defence SUCKED, but you gotta give the guys credit for game 7. They didn't play all that bad, not in period 2 and the first half of period 3 anyway, when the important goals came... Cloutier and Crawford were the ones that caused the loss in game 7 (and thus the series, as we had a 2 goal lead to which we couldn't hold on, due to Cloutier's stupidity). Especially Cloutier. He SUCKED in game 7. Period. No goalie in the history of NHL has ended up with a stat of 3.5, except for Cloutier. There must've been other teams in NHL history whose defence fluked (yet there's no goalie that has ended up with 3.5)... Sad to say and put the blame on one person in the entire team, but that's the truth of it. Cloutier caused our defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 Sorry Dan - we disagree. A goalie does not make a 'team'. When a team loses - it's the whole team. If there are little breakdowns in defence, if there is no offense, bad goaltending, or ineffective coaching - ultimately the entire team is responsible. Vancouver had, at some point in the series, all of these flaws. So the canucks lost the series as a team. Don't make cloutier the scapegoat - it wasn't ALL his fault. Anyway, no use in lamenting over what should have been, right? Let's cheer on the Sens! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 11, 2003 Report Share Posted May 11, 2003 (edited) The Sens got 2 goals in. And by the way, I disagree that it takes the entire team to make mistakes for the team to lose. It takes only one person to cause defeat, but it takes the entire team to win. That's why it's always easy to lose, but difficult to win. Man, the Ducks really have no offensive play whatsoever. I was wondering why they went into 5 OTs on one occasion. Edited May 11, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted May 13, 2003 Report Share Posted May 13, 2003 GO DUCKS GO. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 14, 2003 Report Share Posted May 14, 2003 Azat, really, they weren't all that great. They're winning those games cos of Guigerre. Especially the first game, the Wild played wayyyyyyyyyy better, and deserved that win. Do I need to remind you that the Wild were down 3-1 to the Canucks in that series and the Canucks were eliminated? I don't see why that can't happen to the Ducks as well. I love the Wild team. They're brilliant. And they're not cocky. Actions, not words, is their motto, unlike the Canucks ... The Senators lost 4-1 vs. Devils. Really, it was such a stupid game.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted May 14, 2003 Report Share Posted May 14, 2003 The Senators lost 4-1 vs. Devils. Really, it was such a stupid game.. <_< Phooey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 It is amazing to me how little these Canadians know about hockey. hahahahaha Go Ducks Go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 (edited) It is amazing to me how little these Canadians know about hockey. hahahahaha Go Ducks GoWhat are you talking about? We created the game?! Maybe you should do a history check. You seem to forget that your mighty Duck goalie is a Canuck himself. So is Martin Brodeur. So is half of the Minnesota Wild team. So what were you saying? Edited May 17, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 (edited) Sens lost the game 5-2. Only comment: Lalime sucks, and that's no rocket science. http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs213198/posticons/icon16.gif Get the guy some smelling salts!! Don't they have that in Ottawa? Maybe they should order them from Minnesota... Edited May 17, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 "these Canadians" = you and Vava. hahahahahahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.