absary@watrose.UUCP (Al Sary) (09/29/85)
> > Why does everybody keep putting down the Vancouver Canucks? Recently, > > on TSN sport news, one of the reporters made the following comment: > > > > The only reason the L.A. Kings are safe in the Smythe division is > > the Vancouver Canucks. > > > > Statements like this are not only offensive,............ > ................... > > I think you gave justification to this kind of statement in the > remainder of your article. Based on past performance, (last year) and the > displayed coaching and playing talent, the Canucks ARE gawdawful! I may have not made myself clear. What I was trying to express was that a 59 point season was quite unexpected after years of being close to 80 (which is not great with Edmonton standards, but many teams in the last few years would have been happy with that kind of production, including a sure playoff spots). The point I was trying to get through was that they had just about the same players last years as previous years (and some of these players are not so bad, which you may not know), so who knows, with the same players they may actually get 80 points this year (although this is just a hypothetical suggestion because they probably are going to make a lot of player changes, but I don't really know how much). I know, someone from Edmonton would say that 80 points still suck, since Gretzky gets more points alone (I don't mean scoring, I mean team points). When you say "Based on the previous performance, (last year) ..." it seems to me that you again base your opinion on their performance last year. By the way, I said that the reporters statement was offensive. I thing it was just a moment of anger, because it probably isn't offensive, it's more along the line of untrue (which is obviously a personal opinion). So, how about those Lions.
dyck@alberta.UUCP (Terry Dyck) (10/01/85)
> > > Why does everybody keep putting down the Vancouver Canucks? Recently, > > > on TSN sport news, one of the reporters made the following comment: > > > > > > The only reason the L.A. Kings are safe in the Smythe division is > > > the Vancouver Canucks. > > > > > > Statements like this are not only offensive,............ > > ................... > > > > I think you gave justification to this kind of statement in the > > remainder of your article. Based on past performance, (last year) and the > > displayed coaching and playing talent, the Canucks ARE gawdawful! > > I may have not made myself clear. What I was trying to express was that > a 59 point season was quite unexpected after years of being close to > 80 (which is not great with Edmonton standards, but many teams in the last > few years would have been happy with that kind of production, including a > sure playoff spots). The point I was trying to get through was that they > had just about the same players last years as previous years ........... > ........................ If the team is playing to the best of their abilities, the Canucks are in big trouble again this year. If they have more talent than last years performance indicates, they are either lazy, poorly coached or both. In either case the Canucks will end up on the bottom if they don't make major changes. > When you say > > "Based on the previous performance, (last year) ..." > > it seems to me that you again base your opinion on their performance last year Even though I am a bit fanatical about the Oilers, I do realize that teams do go down hill in time. In time the Oilers will start to slide and that will show in how they played in the LAST YEAR, not 2 or 5 years before. Last years performance is the only one that is valid. If the talent and or drive starts to go, looking back to the 'Good Old Days' does not make the team any better. Last year the Canucks were rotten, and until proven otherwise they will be expected to be rotten again this year. Bemoaning the fact that most hockey fans and sportswriters expect a team to prove its abilities EVERY year is like burying your head in the sand. Terry Dyck
absary@watrose.UUCP (Al Sary) (10/03/85)
From article 614: > If the team is playing to the best of their abilities, the Canucks > are in big trouble again this year. If they have more talent than last years > performance indicates, they are either lazy, poorly coached or both. In > either case the Canucks will end up on the bottom if they don't make major > changes. What kind of changes do you mean? You say poorly coached. I don't know if you realize but they had major coaching problems last year (firing their new coach after about ~20 games, most of which resulted in losses). So, as I said before, you never know with their new coach (Tom Watt, you may have heard of him), they may perform better this year, at least, I expect them to do so (but they may not; it may be kind of hard to recover from a season like they had). > Even though I am a bit fanatical about the Oilers, I do realize that > teams do go down hill in time. In time the Oilers will start to slide > and that will show in how they played in the LAST YEAR, not 2 or 5 years > before. Last years performance is the only one that is valid. I am not sure what you mean by valid here. Does that mean the Montreal Canadians' Stanley cup wins are no longer valid. Well, I guess what you mean here is that a team's current ability should be based on their previous year's performance. I don't know if I agree with that totally. Sure the previous year indicates something. However, I think a team's past few years may give you a better indication of what you can expect from a team. I think the Canucks' last year is a good example, but I don't want to argue about this, because it is not easy to recover from a year like the one they had (especially psychologically), so they may actually have just as bad a year again. However, if you take a look at other teams. The Rangers are a good example. Last year they didn't have a very good year. The previous years they have proven that they had a good team. I would expect a better performance from them this year, even though this may still leave them with the last playoff spot. On the other hand, Pittsburgh Penguins or New Jersey Devils' performance has not been changing very much in the last few years, so I won't expect them to make the playoffs. But you can never tell. A few years ago the Capitals were just like the Penguins or Devils now. > If the talent and or drive starts to go, looking back to the 'Good > Old Days' does not make the team any better. Last year the Canucks were > rotten, and until proven otherwise they will be expected to be rotten In my first posting I was trying to explain that they have not made many changes from 84 to 84-85, so they had just about the same talent to work with. I think the ~20 point drop was quite unexpected. A couple of years is no 'old days' (I left off the good intentionally). If the Oiler's had won their first Stanley Cup last year, finishing last a year before, I'd have doubts if they could repeat again this year. > again this year. Bemoaning the fact that most hockey fans and sportswriters > expect a team to prove its abilities EVERY year is like burying your > head in the sand. I agree, but the above is only easy to say if you are an Oiler fan.
absary@watrose.UUCP (Al Sary) (10/03/85)
From article 216: > Look, not every city has the Edmonton Oilers!!!!! The Canucks did have a > TERRIBLE start last year, which did cost the coach his job (I can't > remember his name -- he coached Kamloops of the WHL the previous year). Finally someone understands me. (Well, someone from Washington may know more about a West Coast team.) The coach's name was Bill LaFroge. He was about 32 years old, which made him the youngest coach in the NHL. It is probably not easy to coach people who are the same age or older than you are. I also heard he had strange coaching which may be successful in junior, but not as much for grownup players who get paid for playing. He was quite successful in junior, and almost as soon as he was fired, he got a job to coach the Hamilton Steelhawks (the name might be wrong, but it isn't Tigercats I am sure), who also had a dismal start; I think he did pretty well after taking over. > As I recall, the Canucks dug themselves a 4-21-2 hole by mid-December > and played .500 hockey (or better) the remainder of the year. Also Good memory. They were indeed 4-21-2 (I checked). I don't think they made .500 hockey after that, but they were close -- what can you expect after a start like that; any team would fall apart. (I think they were 5 games below .500 the rest of the season.) > remember -- the Oilers were 0 for 4 (2 losses, 2 ties) at the Pacific > Coliseum last year. I guess the Canucks just have to learn to play > 6 months of hockey instead of 4. > > I'm *not* flaming the Oilers. I hope they make it 3 in a row this year. > > Paul Brownlow > -- > ...."You're never alone with a schizophrenic." The Oilers were really winless in Canuck land. (Just to set the record straight, they were 1-3-0 in Edmonton. I'd rather not mention the scores.)
mcdonald@sask.UUCP (Shane McDonald) (10/08/85)
Short summary of what was going on: (Names removed because I deleted them by mistake) A guy says, > > > Why does everybody keep putting down the Vancouver Canucks? Recently, > > > on TSN sport news, one of the reporters made the following comment: > > > etc. Another guy replies, > > ... And the first guy says, > ... And he ends with > So, how about those Lions. Now, Shane McDonald says, I gotta agree with you completely. They can't do any worse than the Canucks. -- Shane McDonald (ihnp4!sask!mcdonald)
dyck@alberta.UUCP (Terry Dyck) (10/08/85)
> Short summary of what was going on: > (Names removed because I deleted them by mistake) > > A guy says, > > > > Why does everybody keep putting down the Vancouver Canucks? Recently, > > > > on TSN sport news, one of the reporters made the following comment: > > > > etc. > > Another guy replies, > > > ... > > And the first guy says, > > ... > And he ends with > > So, how about those Lions. > > Now, Shane McDonald says, > I gotta agree with you completely. > They can't do any worse than the Canucks. > -- > Shane McDonald > (ihnp4!sask!mcdonald) You sure you're not from Edmonton Shane? You sure sound like you have a true appreciation of Lotus Land. Terry Dyck ihnp4!alberta!dyck
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (10/08/85)
> Well, I guess what you mean here is that a team's current ability > should be based on their previous year's performance. > > I don't know if I agree with that totally. Sure the previous year indicates > something. However, I think a team's past few years may give you a better > indication of what you can expect from a team. I disagree. When a team has a year like the Canucks or Rangers had last year, a lot of people will say, "they had a bad year; they're really a much better team than their record last season indicates. They'll return to their previous level this year." However, it just doesn't work that way. The record over an 80 game season is a pretty good indication of the direction in which the team is heading. The Chicago Black Hawks were a great team in 82/83, but they followed it with a terrible 83/84. Everyone said, "they were just unlucky. They had a bad year and a lot of injuries. They'll be great again in 84/85." Well, they were better, but nowhere near as good as in 83/84. I'm sure I could think of several other examples, and the only exception I can think of is the Montreal Canadiens. But their quick recovery was due to the fact that they started a rebuilding program, whereas most of the teams that have a big sag in one season don't make many player changes because they figure they still have the people that got them where they were two years ago, so those same people can get them back there again. Getting back to the Canucks, sure Tom Watt is a great coach, and they may be slightly improved, but it's going to take a big sag by the Kings or the Flames to get the Canucks back in the playoffs. And I don't care how much Ranger fans think Don Maloney's absence hurt the team, they won't be much better this year either. I know not everyone agrees with me, and we could argue back and forth about it forever, so if anyone disagrees, there's no need to say anything unless you can name some teams that have come back to their former level after one bad year. -- Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073 {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
absary@watmath.UUCP (Al Sary) (10/12/85)
> > Well, I guess what you mean here is that a team's current ability > > should be based on their previous year's performance. > > > > I don't know if I agree with that totally. Sure the previous year indicates > > something. However, I think a team's past few years may give you a better > > indication of what you can expect from a team. > > I disagree. When a team has a year like the Canucks or Rangers had last year, > a lot of people will say, "they had a bad year; they're really a much better > team than their record last season indicates. They'll return to their previous > level this year." However, it just doesn't work that way. The record over an > 80 game season is a pretty good indication of the direction in which the team > is heading. The Chicago Black Hawks were a great team in 82/83, but they > followed it with a terrible 83/84. Everyone said, "they were just unlucky. > They had a bad year and a lot of injuries. They'll be great again in 84/85." > Well, they were better, but nowhere near as good as in 83/84.[you mean 82/83] I think you are saying the same thing as I was. Where were the Chicago Black Hawks in the years previous to 82/83 (just as an aside, they finished behind the Canucks in 82, which tells you the story). The Hawks have not been performing too well for years, so I am not surprised that they could not keep up their one year good performance. (but again, the reasons are arguable) > I know not everyone agrees with me, and we could argue back and forth about it > forever, so if anyone disagrees, there's no need to say anything unless you > can name some teams that have come back to their former level after one bad > year. Or after one good year. You just gave an example of that above. I know somebody has already said this, but I don't expect the Flyers to do as well as they did last year (although I hope I am wrong, and they win the Stanley cup because I really like Bobby Clark). Anyways, this is a discussion group (I think) so why not exchange ideas (but some people may not agree with this either).