My apologies for probably rehashing some of what has been said (after the Super Bowl gong show, I couldn't take watching anymore and tried to find the highest cliff - fortunately I was talked down by a sympathetic bilingual moose who actually had money on the game (Seattle).

I just wanted to get a very quick poll so please kindly bear with me. The question :

Was that the most blatantly ugly sports mistake ever made - not only on the gridiron - but with respect to all sports?

I confess I'm not a huge football fan but I love the playoffs and the drama - and even don't mind the spectacle that is the Super Bowl. However, I don't think I've ever in my life seen a situation even remotely similar to what happened yesterday. It's just completely unfathomable.

In any event, I don't want to dwell but just wanted to get your brief comment or even a yay/nay on my question. Danke.
- Zogg

Too much too soon? lol

Too much too soon? lol
- Zogg

You mean like on purpose?

And game call?[/img]

We gotta face the facts, and the fact is that this team is too slow now. Keeping the Sedins together is pointless because they're our slowest players. Keeping them together means that we have the slowest first line in the entire NHL, and it makes it easy to shut them down. They need to be split up, surrounded by young, fast players, and need to be kept that way for the Canucks to be exciting again. Compounding our speed woes is the fact that we still have Burrows, Bieksa, and Sbisa on the roster.

I can almost guarantee that Sbisa and Burrows are gone within a year. I can also say with some confidence that we trade Miller within the year as well. It's obvious that this teams problem isn't goaltending. Because we've been getting average goaltending, and are still a playoff hopefull. We need more speed upfront, and our slower players need to be insulated at all costs for this team to win.

Too much too soon? lol
- Zogg

I would have replied but I didn't see the game and I am too young to have many examples of poor coaching calls

Too much too soon? lol
- Zogg

I don't watch football, and even I was flabbergasted by that play. Why not hand it off to the guy you call "beast mode"? Makes zero sense.

I don't watch football, and even I was flabbergasted by that play. Why not hand it off to the guy you call "beast mode"? Makes zero sense.
- Gullzy

That's precisely the point - I'm not a football (armchair quarterback or otherwise) but I do really enjoy the playofffs and have seen my share of Super Bowls. So, I don't have have a vault of comprehensive information and/or historical situations which might be similar to this.

However, as someone noted, throwing the ball in that situation belies all logic and is akin to taking a slapshot from centre ice on a shoot out These are obviously professionals (so you would think), so how is it possible that there could be such an incredibly erroneous - to the point of ridiculousness - decision, more so given what was at stake and the situation itself (ball literally on the goallline with several chances to push through, using one of the top runners in the game.

Do you feel the coach is just taking the heat or was it the offensive co-ordinator or was it in fact Wilson who changed the play at the last moment? I am just completely blown away (and as I said, I''m not even a football afficianado).

Hence, just thought I"d get some further input from the good ole hockey buzz Vancouver crowd, whose opinions are almost always spot on (ok, let's not get carried away here, I know lol)

That's precisely the point - I'm not a football (armchair quarterback or otherwise) but I do really enjoy the playofffs and have seen my share of Super Bowls. So, I don't have have a vault of comprehensive information and/or historical situations which might be similar to this.

However, as someone noted, throwing the ball in that situation belies all logic and is akin to taking a slapshot from centre ice on a shoot out These are obviously professionals (so you would think), so how is it possible that there could be such an incredibly erroneous - to the point of ridiculousness - decision, more so given what was at stake and the situation itself (ball literally on the goallline with several chances to push through, using one of the top runners in the game.

Do you feel the coach is just taking the heat or was it the offensive co-ordinator or was it in fact Wilson who changed the play at the last moment? I am just completely blown away (and as I said, I''m not even a football afficianado).

Hence, just thought I"d get some further input from the good ole hockey buzz Vancouver crowd, whose opinions are almost always spot on (ok, let's not get carried away here, I know lol)
- Zogg

I have heard the argument made that throwing it on 2nd would have either meant a TD or an incomplete pass which would stop the clock and give them a chance to run it again. Failing that 3rd down run they could take a time out and run on 4th down. If they run on 2nd and don't score then they have to use their time out and likely only get one more crack at the play

Shattenkirk is out for the blues, sell them stanton for a 4th

Shattenkirk is out for the blues, sell them stanton for a 4th
- manvanfan

Rather keep Stanton

Shattenkirk is out for the blues, sell them stanton for a 4th
- manvanfan

Wouldn't weber be the guy consider Shat is a pp QB?

Rather keep Stanton
- bezz44

Yep, and ship off Sbisa. Canucks can retain half of his Salary for the remainder of the season. I'm guessing it would be around 500-600 K.

Wouldn't weber be the guy consider Shat is a pp QB?
- Bieksa#3

I'm not even sure if he'd get claimed on waivers...

Shattenkirk is out for the blues, sell them stanton for a 4th
- manvanfan

Or Weber... Whomever has the most value.

I'm not even sure if he'd get claimed on waivers...
- Nucker101

I don't disagree. But of all our d weber is the worst

Ok.

I guess I see worst case scenario, Clendening isn't good enough for the NHL, I don't see him a a guarantee to be a #6 PP guy. I don't necessarily see it as a bad trade but do think its a risky one and would prefer to wait and see how Clendening does before calling it a win?

You see the worst case scenario (you are a pessimist, among others). You already believe Clendening is at best a number 6 PP specialist ( he has instantly become our best D prospect, blowing our best forwards out of the water in points at the AHL level). You lack the moral fortitude to label a trade a win or lose at the onset, thus waiting for the benefit of hindsight to bless us with your insight.
- Whiskey-Tango

Not quite, some had posted that worst case scenario clendening turns into a pp specialist, I responded worse case is he isn't good enough to be a nhler.

And I think you are missing my larger point of today where I essentially am saying it's too early to call bennings moves a success yet as what we have received has been either underwhelming or is too early to judge.

Not saying forsling for clendening is a lose, I'm saying it's a risk and yet most here have decided already that forsling never had a chance and clendening is a sure fire nhler.

I don't disagree. But of all our d weber is the worst
- Bieksa#3

9 dmen- If we don't move one by the time Bieksa returns, we have to expose one or send Corrado down...

Tanev
Edler
Hamhuis
Corrado
Clendening
Bieksa
Sbisa
Weber
Stanton

9 dmen- If we don't move one by the time Bieksa returns, we have to expose one or send Corrado down...

Tanev
Edler
Hamhuis
Corrado
Clendening
Bieksa
Sbisa
Weber
Stanton
- hillbillydeluxe

Clendening is waiver exempt, no?

Yep, and ship off Sbisa. Canucks can retain half of his Salary for the remainder of the season. I'm guessing it would be around 500-600 K.
- Gullzy

Yea I'd do that

Not quite, some had posted that worst case scenario clendening turns into a pp specialist, I responded worse case is he isn't good enough to be a nhler.

And I think you are missing my larger point of today where I essentially am saying it's too early to call bennings moves a success yet as what we have received has been either underwhelming or is too early to judge.

Not saying forsling for clendening is a lose, I'm saying it's a risk and yet most here have decided already that forsling never had a chance and clendening is a sure fire nhler.
- belcherbd

That's not really a fair assertion. Nobody is saying Forsling never had a chance but Clendening is near if not already NHL calibre, and carries much less risk than keeping Forsling. Worst case scenario for Clendening is that he never makes the NHL sure. Worst case scenario for Forsling is that he never even makes the AHL. It certainly is too early to fully judge any of his moves but a first impression can be made. First impression of Garrison, Pedan trades for me were negative. This one I view positively because as it stands now, I believe we got the better, more developed player, who stands a better chance of making it as a full time player simply because much of the work has already been done and he has not fallen off the map.

Clendening is waiver exempt, no?
- Bieksa#3

He was pissed that CHI sent him down after his season in the AHL last year and some were suggesting that it negatively effected his play so I don't think he's getting sent down in VAN unless he really poops the bed.

We gotta face the facts, and the fact is that this team is too slow now. Keeping the Sedins together is pointless because they're our slowest players. Keeping them together means that we have the slowest first line in the entire NHL, and it makes it easy to shut them down. They need to be split up, surrounded by young, fast players, and need to be kept that way for the Canucks to be exciting again. Compounding our speed woes is the fact that we still have Burrows, Bieksa, and Sbisa on the roster.

I can almost guarantee that Sbisa and Burrows are gone within a year. I can also say with some confidence that we trade Miller within the year as well. It's obvious that this teams problem isn't goaltending. Because we've been getting average goaltending, and are still a playoff hopefull. We need more speed upfront, and our slower players need to be insulated at all costs for this team to win.
- Gullzy

Lots of merit to this post. The Sedins do need to be split up or at the very least tried that way. And putting Burrows back on the Sedin line is NOT the answer. We literally cannot afford that line to be any slower than it already is. If Daniel and Henrik are surrounded by the right speed they can be given a chance to succeed very much in the same way as Bonino. Bonino lacks speed but with the right wingers and open space he can accomplish good things. Look at Bonino last year with Winnick and Cogliano...Winnick with brute force and some speed and Cogliano is a rocket out there...all part and parcel to Boninos' 50 pt season last year in ANA plus all the PP time with Getzlaf/Perry. That Winnick/Bonino/Cogliano line was considered to be the best third line in hockey last year.

I agree with Burrows he should be gone soon but I'm willing to bet Sbisa gets a bit of a longer leash. Our defensive woes run deep into the 3-4-5-6 slot now and are basically up for grabs other than Tanev/Edler. Hamhuis is showing his age now and while I really like Hammer he is becoming a liability with each passing year.

Miller will be here for at least two seasons or at the very least TDL next year. With Lack on the trade block we can ill afford to move Miller anytime soon and go with Markstrom. I like Markstrom alot and for all intensive purposes he and Demko appear to be our future but even that is up in the air.

But you are bang-on...this current roster need to be 'insulated' with speed somehow to contend vs the top 20 teams. If we aren't going to be a 'truculent' team then speed is where the game is going and we'd better get on board...and quick.

3rd rounder for Dorsett
- SMP8719

You are way behind... we dealt with this.

Man, posters on Carols blog have been getting extra heated over the last week.

Why you heff to be mad...
- vancity787

Havent seen a single miffed post before your post yet. Why are you getting upset?

Honestly, the best discussions happen here when people really get into it. Much better than the usual "let's trade for another team's good young player for our spare parts!" or "let's trade everyone with a NTC somehow and still get good value back!"
- Nucker101

Ikr, I get criticized for not participating in these fantasies and female doged at for talking about real stuff. People on here are pretty whacked...

I agree Forsling is a long shot and likely never plays in the NHL but Clendening is far from a sure thing himself. The difference is that Forsling has ~ 6 more years to learn his trade and get to the next level, Clendening has only a couple and is up for a contract this year. If he can't crack the nucks, does he get resigned? Is he willing to sign a 2way contract? He either needs to be in the NHL or be exempt for waivers for this to be a success.
- belcherbd

At least they can develop Clendenning hands on. We have to let Forsling develop in Europe and that hasnt been working out for the Canucks the last decade.