+1 but I hate our depth defense this year. Our 3rd string in Alberts and Rome is just decent "at best." But for every good plays Alberts make, he makes just an equal amount of bad plays that may or may not cost the team.

I'm still waiting for Alberts good plays to signifcantly outweigh his bad ones. Right now it feels just about half and half.


If that's not corrected by the post season, that line is going to get raped by any coach that can manage to line match their best offensive line to our 3rd string D

Alberts is already producing better than o'brien, cAn you really ask more from a 6th-7th dman?
Posted via RS Mobile

my only beef with alberts now is the stupid penalties he takes.

talking about defense... wat about Bieksa?

Alberts is pretty legit. Can't really ask more from him. He's plays pretty solid D IMO.

+1

remember guys.. his pay cheque is only ~1M..

don't have super high expectation for him.

I wasn't home and streaming the game online.
When I stream the game, I have the game on one monitor, and spamming on Canucks thread in my 2nd monitor.

My bad.

Actually yeah. Like I mentioned earlier, its not like the dude is not without upsides. But defensively, he has still a lot of room for improvement.

The guy still has wayyyy too many cringe-worthy moments for a pairing whose job is only to "shut-down" and hold the fort until the first 2 pairings come back. Right now, it's pretty much only decent at best but in the bigger picture, decent's not going to get you past the 2nd round post season; not when you're anticipating injuries in the top 2 pairings which seems like an annual occurence for the Canucks post-season.

Do you only know how to argue in extremities?

"You can't expect Seabrook or Lidstrom for $1M"
"No point having 1st impressions on Hamhuis, ask again in 2011"

Nice try being relevant, you're not fooling anyone. :rolleyes:

edited.. want to keep this thread clean....

orange7 has some pretty good points to say when hes not trolling. Sorry Noir he owned u...

:troll:

:lol

I see what you did there...

Alberts is playing good, the only reason i believe hes taking those bad penalties is that hes a tall guy, so most of those attended shoulder to shoulder hits, look like hes hitting high. And it doesnt help with the guy receiving the hit tends to duck alil bit and makes it look like a headshot

1. It was not that long ago. Its not like I went back years or months; just weeks ago, which means in hockey, a handful of games ago. :rolleyes:

2. I wasn't jumping to conclusions about Hamhuis, I was asking what everyone's opinion of him thus far.

3. yes I am expecting more from Alberts despite his salary of $1M (but not in the department of scoring but "just of" defensive stability).


Don't be such a drama queen. It seems like everything you read, you read in extremity. I already have alluded that Alberts is decent and has his upsides, but the point is that there's still so much room for improvement. But for you, you take it as, "Did he just say Alberts suck/is terrible? Or, is he asking for him to be Bobby Orr 2.0? Oh noes! I must reply to save Canuck-face."

Yes, my statement was in a negative light but not overly extremely; So name dropping Lidstrom or Seabrook on an Alberts conversation is just WTF???

^ just ignore the troll

Another Canucks fan and twitter user interviewed me last night for an article in the Province.

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/wi...337/story.html

If anyone is interested in coming out to these, they're a lot of fun and there are quite a few cool prizes you can win just by knowing some trivia.

Glad we killed the Sharks last night and picked up two huge points.

fuk.. nvm.. gonna stop explaining shit. cause I'm just looking dumb.

^ sigh. :facepalm:
Posted via RS Mobile

heheh... i'll give you credit orange7. you have been giving more effort in your posts. it's just that your reputation precedes you so it's hard for others to accept your opinions.

remind me when the next one comes up, i'll try to make it

I didn't catch this post before edit but I got your PM and saw your FC thread. FYI, it wasn't about winning dude. It's all just about hockey.



This goes for other fans out there, not just you. There's a certain contingent of Canuck fans that think they do service by pimping their team's grandieur.

Yes, the above will earn nothing but "brownie points" from other non-hockey knowing Canuck fans but in hockey perspective IMO, it's doing the fanbase a huge disservice when the opinions I find pimped at times are so biased that it holds little to no actual merit.

Better to be called a bandwagoner but your opinions have some hockey merit because they actually reflect what's on the ice, rather than earn props as a blind-devotee but one who's opinions rarely reflect what occurs on ice.



With hockey talk, there's nothing I find more silly (and presses my buttons more which gets me into conflict a lot) than the rules that seem to govern Canucks discussion. The rules I found being Pro opinions = "good opinions" and Con opinions = "bad opinions".








And BTW, I thought I was igNOIRed?

Lol more like you pimp your own view of grandeur all over this forum in every single post, just saying.
Posted via RS Mobile