absary@watrose.UUCP (Al Sary) (09/28/85)
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, but simply not true. I think a sportscaster should know more about a team than that (or not say anything). Even though last year the Canucks really sucked, you can't disregard the fact that in the previous two years they finished third in their division, and in 1982 they finished second. The 59 points they got last year is about 20 point below their usual (mediocre) performance (which may still have left them in last place in their division, but at least they would have been competitive, not to mention avoiding a lot of embarrassment). Last year they had a bad start (the reason may or may not be their new coach), and after loosing 20 or so games in a row, it is hard to recover for a mediocre team (let's face it, the Canucks were never great, except maybe in the 1982 playoffs). The team didn't change much from 1983-84 to the 1984-85 season, except for the coach, so the big letdown of last season can't really be explained just by saying they didn't have good players. I don't really know how much changes are being made for the upcoming season, but I don't think you can count them out like the statement above (and similar statements I've read in newspapers). What I am trying to say here is that even though they may suck even more than last year, their previous history does not place them in the same category as New Jersey (Colorado when the playoff birth for the other four Smythe division team was assured before the season), Pittsburgh (although they seem to be improving slooowwwly), Hartford (well, maybe not any more), or Toronto (in the last few years); these teams start out each year, year after year, looking at the best draft choices from the next amateur draft. (This may sound a bit offensive to these teams; sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Also, notice that Edmonton used to be in this group just a few years ago, and so did Winnipeg).
dyck@alberta.UUCP (Terry Dyck) (09/28/85)
> 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! The statement made by the reporter would be offensive only if the season was at least half over, and the Canucks were showing a vast improvment over last season. As things stand right now, I guess the old saying still holds true. THE TRUTH HURTS! Terry Dyck Univ. of Alberta, Dept. of Comp. Science ihnp4!alberta!dyck
paul@helens.UUCP (Paul Brownlow @ Data I/O -- Redmond, WA) (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! > > The statement made by the reporter would be offensive only if the > season was at least half over, and the Canucks were showing a vast > improvment over last season. As things stand right now, I guess the old > saying still holds true. > > THE TRUTH HURTS! > > > Terry Dyck > Univ. of Alberta, Dept. of Comp. Science > ihnp4!alberta!dyck 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). 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 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."