Would you believe ... HOCKEY?

Pictures taken from my front row seats last night.  Unfortunately the Canucks are now 0 - 2, but it's early in the season so I'm not freaked out yet.

Would you believe... HOCKEY?

With the NFL playoffs being over I am now getting pumped for Canucks hockey.  I thought Seattle did pretty good for a really young team and a rookie QB so I'm up for next year.  Now, though, it's time for HOCKEY!

http://canuckshockeyblog.com/?p=11197

#hockeyisback

A little over half a season.  48 games is what they are saying.   I can live with it.  Better than nothing.

A couple fun links:

hockeywilderness.com Boycotting without boycotting

Yahoo Sports Blog: hockey roundup

Canucks: The old schedule would have them opening at home to the Ducks, but I've heard that there may be some schedule adjustments (almost have to be, don't there?).

How about the Canucks hockey blog?

So Bummed I Have No Words with Which to Express My Feelings

No, really. I don't.

PS Having watched the news one word does come to mind. Jackasses.

Speculation on a time of madness

Now don't get upset, I'm not predicting this will or even might happen, but what if...

What if the Canucks, having been blown out three games in a row in Boston, actually drop game seven and lose the cup at home? I grant you, it's a big what if.

Hard to say what the real issue would be. One could argue that Zdeno Chara cross checking Henrik Sedin to the ice, waiting until he got up, and then hitting him in the chest was one root problem. Why is that a problem? Well, normally it wouldn't be, except that the net result of that particular play was four-on-four hockey as the refs correctly called Chara for interference, but then evened it out by calling Henrik for the dive. Hard to play skill hockey when you are lying on your back or in the sin bin for a BS call like that.

One might also argue that Roberto Luongo is the root cause of the problem. I was a staunch defender after games three and four. The team played like crap in front of him. So he gave up a couple soft goals. When you lose eight to one, a couple soft goals don't really matter in the overall scheme of things.

That brings us to tonight. I am currently not watching hockey. It is game six of the Stanley Cup Finals. I have been waiting thirty five years for the Canucks to even look like they have the remotest possibility of actually being good enough to win the cup. Bobby Lou gives up not one, not two, but three soft goals in the space of about two minutes. I shut off the game. I can't stand the stress. I love sports, I love hockey, and I love the Canucks, but I couldn't stand it. I will check the score in a while to see if I should turn it back on again.

So, why the blog post to admit to the world that I am not watching my Canucks in the Cup finals? My question is, should the unthinkable happen, should the Canucks somehow lose in seven, and should Luongo not play unbelievably well in game seven (ie win the game for them) what do you do as an organization? Luongo has a giant contract. If he loses game seven for them by giving up soft goals, he will also have proven that he is not a world class goaltender. Do you sit a guy making millions and start Schneider next year, an up and coming goaltender who has already demonstrated that he has the talent to be a number one goalie anywhere other than on a team with Roberto Luongo? Do you go to the well one more time and hope that, like he finally conquered the Blackhawks after three years, that he will finally conquer the Cup finals in another couple years?

Hey, I'm just asking? I hope they win the cup in seven (or six although I'll be sitting here pointedly ignoring the TV downstairs) and he proves once and for all that he is one of the best goal tenders in the league. In the meantime, he has given up sixteen goals in three games in Boston and sure doesn't look like world class from the cheap seats.

Physical play in hockey

I understand it's a physical game. I played a bit in college and have been a fan for many, many years. But when does the physicality cross the line? Maybe I'm just feeling sour grapes but is it really OK for Tim Thomas to take a two handed swipe at the back of Burroughs' legs and then punch him in the face with his blocker? Is it OK for Henrik to take a stick across the back of a knee he injured during the San Jose series? Ben Eager takes a run at one of the Sedins and knocks him headfirst into the boards, no suspension. Biexa gets driven headfirst into the boards during the San Jose series, no suspension. Aaron Rome makes a stupid, dangerous hit on Nathan Horton and gets four games (five if you include the ejection), more than anyone has ever received for similar plays.

I understand that the NHL needs to crack down on hits to the head. I applaud that effort. But I don't know that during the Stanley Cup finals is the time to start making a stand, and I would love to see some consistency.

The Bruins have managed to take the Canucks completely out of their game through their physical play and I applaud them for that. They've done a good job of dictating the play. But at what point does the physical play cross the line, and at what point should the refs step in after the whistle has blown and make it clear that the behavior is unacceptable. The after the whistle cheap shots are wrong by both teams, the refs need to stop it somehow, and yes, I do believe that although the Canucks are not blameless, the Bruins are guilty of far more in this regard.

Thoughts on fan emotion/loyalty.

Well, over the past 96 hours the mood in Vancouver has gone from "We are finally going to win a Stanley Cup" to "We will probably never win a Stanley Cup". So what changed. Four days ago we had a 2-0 lead on Boston in the finals. The way both teams were playing it seemed like Boston would be lucky to win one at home, forcing a game five in Vancouver on Friday. The the wheels fell off the Canuck train and they lost two games by a total score of 12-1. It was an epic team collapse. Now the announcers are criticizing fans and wondering how they could be so negative when the series is tied 2-2. Theoretically the Canucks are still the better team and just have to win a three game series in which they have home advantage. Those are the facts.

Here's my take on the mood of fans. It isn't that we lost, it's how we lost. If we had gone to Boston and lost two games the way we won two in Vancouver, I'd still be feeling pretty good. We would have played a decent game, got a few bad breaks, their goaltender would have outplayed ours (slightly), and we would still be feeling good about our chances. The problem is the epic collapse. So far the Canucks have played 23 playoff games this year. We have won 14/23. Only one game have we won by more than two goals. Four of our losses have been by four goals or more and two of them were by six or more. Even understanding that we still came back to win those series, I feel like the team is living on the edge. One goal by Chicago in overtime of Game 7 and we aren't in the Stanley Cup. A couple bounces Boston's way in Games 1 & 2 and they swept us for the Cup. It almost seems like the best team in the regular season has had to be somewhat lucky to advance as far as they have in the playoffs this year. Add to that the lack of production by the best offensive players in hockey (the Sedins have a combined 11 goals and 39 points in 23 games) and the future doesn't look promising.

That being said, I still think they can win the first cup in Canucks history but I'm not as confident as I was four days ago. Of course, there's always the 1915 Vancouver Millionaires. It's not like we've never won.

Hockey playoffs and the law of averages

Well, I went to bed after the first overtime because I was exhausted and I need sleep in order to be an effective teacher. Woke up at 9:48 when my roommate yelled "GOAL" from his room.

Some observations.

a) That was a cool goal. Dump in ricochets to Biexa, everyone else is looking in the corner, he slaps it in for the win. Still not sure who or what it ricocheted off.

2) People keep talking about how this is the first time in 17 years we've gone to the Finals. True enough. But with 30 teams in the league, shouldn't each team, on average, go to the Cup Finals every 15 years? So we are right on schedule if you want to be fair about it.

c) Who the hell wants to be fair? I say we go for the next four in a row!