AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 09/10 (II): We're very perverse

[Asher]

Oh, Ben, you are the typical Canucks fan.

This is why you guys were voted the worst fans in the NHL. I'm serious, too.

You stayed far away from this thread the vast majority of the season til now. We all know why. Just be a man and admit it.

Going by the stats in the game (the Flames outshot the Canucks by more than 2-1), and judging by the final score, it looks like the Flames were the better team. As we all knew this season, anyway.

BTW, I'm not sure you know this...but Kiprusoff has better stats this year than Luongo so far. It's true.

[Ben Kenobi]

You stayed far away from this thread the vast majority of the season til now. We all know why. Just be a man and admit it.

It's called NFL season. Yeah, I'll be a man and admit I don't watch much hockey until after the new year and the NFL is done.

Flames were the better team. As we all knew this season, anyway.

Which is why they won in the SO after 3 periods and OT were inconclusive?

If the Canucks had won in a SO, I'd not be saying they were the superior team. We don't know yet who's better. Personally I regard the loss to Columbus as more telling of current form than an inconclusive head to head tilt.

[Asher]

It's called NFL season. Yeah, I'll be a man and admit I don't watch much hockey until after the new year and the NFL is done.

Yeah, I can see that. There's so many ****ing NFL games on every day of the week that it's hard to do anything else like even CASUALLY CHECK THE SCORES AND STANDINGS once a week. What a joke.

Which is why they won in the SO after 3 periods and OT were inconclusive?

Which is why they outshot the Canucks and which is why they won the game, yes.

Calgary is higher in the standings and Calgary's record is 3-1-0 vs the Canucks. It's clear who the better team is.

[Flubber]

Which is why they won in the SO after 3 periods and OT were inconclusive?

.

What game were you watching? The one I watched saw the Flames dominate territorally and physically but unfortunately the Flames hit two posts and couldn't do better than a tie.

And ben I have been consistent on this going back years-- I am happier to see my team play well and lose than to play poorly and win ( bad goaltending on the other side for example). Because all this regular season stuff is really mainly to position yourself for the playoffs. The Flames played well last night, better than the Canucks and I would maintain that even if the Canucks scored late in regulation.

[Flubber]

If the Canucks had won in a SO, I'd not be saying they were the superior team. We don't know yet who's better. Personally I regard the loss to Columbus as more telling of current form than an inconclusive head to head tilt.

Taking any one match as a sign of a team's form is stupid. But, I attended the Columbus game and the Flames sleepwalked and yet still had the better of the play. Also looking at a team's body of games, its more important how they react against the good teams than it is whether they can pound some weak sister. Think about it-- If Team X beat Chicago, San Jose, Calgary and Vancouver, all solid wins, before playing a stinker and losing to Carolina, what would be your estimate of that team?

On the recent record, the Flames won five then lost two and now have won one in a row.

[Asher]

The Canucks lost to the CBJ 5-3 this season once too -- they got spanked far worse than the Flames did recently, which was actually a close game. They're obviously the barometer of the league, Flubber.

[Flubber]

It tells me that the team with the greater differential is the superior team, especially over the course of the season. I agree that the stat is meaningless early on, but halfway through the season, I think we can see which teams are doing well. .

No BK, the teams with more wins is the superior team

The top team is the Blackhawks. Points for and points against, the differential has the largest correlation to wins of any other stat. Are you arguing that the Hawks are not cup contenders?

LOL-- You are absurd. Do you read at all before you reply?

WTF? It's always better to have a higher goal differential. A team like Colorado who has an even goal differential, and a slew of OT and SOL keeping them afloat tells me that the team is weak, and will slide over the course of the season. Same with the Flames as we are starting to see now.

Ya are 6-3-1 in their last 10-- real big slide --

oN GOAL DIFF-- Its idiotic to try to make it seem I am arguiing aginst wanting a good goal differential. Goal differential on a per game basis determines the winner of the game after all. But again you don't seem to have read anything I said previously. I cautioned against getting too caught up in goal diffrential as a meaningful stat by iteslf-- You have to look at it in conjunction with the record


Bottom line is that if two teams have the same record, the team with the worse goal differential is winning more games by smaller margins or losing by larger margins. Eiither way its not unabashedly a good thing for the big differential team. Why isn't their big goal differential overall translating into more wins?

Washington is a good team but was their extra 4 3rd period goals in an 8-1 win really that meaningful in assessing how good a team they are? they counted every bit as much to goal differential as hard fought goals in a close game

[Flubber]

Luongo vastly outplayed Kipper. Pity the game had to end in a SO.

LOL

Ben you are hilarious-- IN assessing the teams as a whole your analysis is that it must be inconclusive because it was a tie on the scoreboard without anything else considered. Why not do the same analysis on the keepers? Each let in two goals over 65 minutes so it must be inconclusive right?


My assessment was that Luongo faced far more good scoring chances than Kipper did but that the the two goals against Luongo were more capable of being stopped than those scored on Kipper-- That Sedin passing play was really NICE

[Flubber]

Damn you Craig Anderson

Flames outplay the Avs throughout but lose 3-2 in a shootout. Exceptional effort though-- Anderson made 44 saves amd was simply amazing

[Asher]

Yeah, it was frustrating to lose the game but Anderson was incredible in net. Certainly far better than Luongo was the other night. Anderson even stopped a puck in the shootout!

[Asher]

True story: Yesterday, about half-way through the 3rd of the Canucks/Nashville game, I was explaining to my SO how much of a douche Alex Burrows was. Within SECONDS, he elbowed a Nashville player in the face off a face-off then incredulously protested. At the end of the game, he got a 10 min misconduct and unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for throwing his temper tantrum. THEN he went to the locker room and "unloaded" on the refs and basically blamed them for everything. It's the #1 story right now on globeandmail.com: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1427877/

What a ****ing *****. Holy **** -- the Canucks are so incredibly despicable. Not just the fans, but the players too. Not too long ago they had cheap-shot-artist Matt Cooke on the team too, what a bunch of upstanding characters they have.

If it was a reputable player making the claims he is, they may be sensible. But the fact is Burrows has a reputation as a poor man's Sean Avery, so his word means jack ****.

Will he get suspended for this, or just a fine?

"I think he should stay out for the rest of the year making calls like that that are making us look bad. Every two points are so important in this league. We just blew two points because of his officiating tonight."

Jesus christ. Maybe it had more to do with Dan Ellis outplaying Roberto Luongo, and maybe it had something to do with Nashville's special teams being much more productive. Just a thought, douchebag.

[Asher]

FWIW, the most egregious penalty last night was the roughing call on frickin DAN ELLIS...goaltender. A Canuck bumped into him, Ellis got called for 'roughing', then ALEX ****ING BURROWS scored a powerplay goal on the play.

[Asher]

Speaking of classy Canucks players and fans, here's what Ryan Kesler had to say about the Canucks fan shining laser pointers in the eyes of Kiprusoff:

http://www.faceoff.com/hockey/teams/vancouver-canucks/story.html?id=2430154&add_feed_url=http://www.faceoff.com/scripts/SP6Atom.aspx%3Fid%3D894638

"I've never seen anything like that before and good for our fans - they want to win as bad as we do," chuckled Kesler.

Douchiest team and fans in the league.

[Asher]

Oh, classic.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/?id=305809

MCKENZIE: THE BURROWS-AUGER SAGA IS GOING TO GET MESSY

This Alexandre Burrows-Stephane Auger situation is going to get messy. It's the proverbial can of worms for everyone involved – the league, the NHL Officials' Association, referee Auger, player Burrows and the entire Vancouver Canucks' organization – and it's a story that is not likely to go away any time soon.

If the events of last night unfolded as Burrows has alleged – and there is plenty of evidence, circumstantial and otherwise – to suggest they did more or less, then the NHL will have no choice but to take some form of disciplinary action against Auger, be it a reprimand, a fine, a suspension or an evaluation that could go into his file and cost him playoff games and/or money along the line or maybe even his job.

And the NHLOA, the refs' and linesmen's union, will no doubt have no choice but to do everything possible to protect Auger, who by the way was the official who assessed Shane Doan a 10-minute misconduct that led to a major brouhaha over whether player uttered a cultural slur.

So you see where this is headed, eh? Nowhere good.

For those who may have missed it, here's the long story-short version of what went down:

In a Dec. 8 game between Vancouver and Nashville, Predator player Jerred Smithson was assessed a five-minute charging major and a game misconduct by Auger for a hit on Burrows. Nashville won the game 4-2, but in the aftermath of the game, the NHL rescinded the major/game misconduct against Smithson because the video evidence strongly suggested Burrows embellished the hit and faked an injury.

Fast forward to last night's game between the same two teams in Vancouver.

Burrows alleges that Auger came up to him in warm-up, before the anthem, and there is video showing the two having a conversation.

''A ref came over to me and he said I made him look bad in Nashville on the Smithson hit and he said he was going to get me back tonight,'' Burrows said after the game.

Auger called a diving penalty on Burrows early in the third period and then called him for an interference penalty in the last five minutes of the third period. Shortly after that, Canuck forward Henrik Sedin was assessed a tripping minor and the Predators scored what turned out to be the game-winning goal in the third period. In the final seconds of the game, Burrows received a 10-minute misconduct from Auger for telling the ref what he thought of him. Burrows, by the way, scored both Canuck goals and came close to getting a third hat trick in four games.

After the game, a distraught Burrows fired both barrels at Auger.

''He got me on the diving call, I didn't think I was diving,'' Burrows said. ''He got me on an interference call that I had no idea how he could call that. It changed the game. It sucks right now for teammates who are battling for 60 minutes to win a hockey game because every two points are so huge, are so important. And because of a guy's ego, it just blows everything out of proportion and the refs – they're making bad calls and the fans are paying for it and we're paying for it.

''He comes into the game and he knows he going to make a call against me to give Nashville an advantage and I don't think that's fair for my teammates and the fans. After my second penalty, I skated by him and he said, 'If you say a word, I'm going to kick you out,' so I didn't say a word because I still thought we could come back and win the game. But with three seconds left and a faceoff outside the zone, I thought I could tell him what I thought about him.''

When Burrows was asked how this 'personal' thing originated, he replied:

''When Smithson hit me from sideways and (Auger) said, 'I saw the replay, you had your head up, you weren't really hurt and you made me look bad so I'm going to get you back tonight' and he did, and he cost us two points.''

If the allegations are true – and Burrows has far too much detail and at the very least a compelling case of circumstantial evidence (the video of the pre-game conversation, the diving penalty, the interference penalty and the misconduct penalty) – then the league has no choice but to discipline Auger in some form.

We will, of course, have to get Auger's account of what did or didn't happen between him and Burrows, but the optics at this point are not great for the ref.

Burrows could also conceivably get dinged in the way of a fine for his post-game comments.

Here's my take on it:

While there is bound to be great outrage in Vancouver and from the Canucks' organization, the biggest mistake seemingly made was if Auger verbally suggested anything, including retribution, to Burrows.

If Auger was going to put the screws to Burrows, he should have just done it. One and done. Score evened. No words would need to be spoken. Everyone starts with a clean slate after that.

I know that view will outrage many and there will be talk about how officials should be above that and the integrity of the game and all.

But the NHL has, to some extent, always been a self-policing league. It happens on the ice between players and it happens on the ice between refs and players and it always has.

Is it conceivable that Auger was embarrassed and maybe even criticized for assessing a major penalty against Smithson on Dec. 8 because of Burrows' acting job? Referees are only human. If a player makes a monkey of a referee, there is going to be a price to be paid. It could come in the form of that player not getting a call when fouled or maybe getting whistled himself on a marginal call. Or both. And maybe for a good, long time. But as long as the game of hockey has been played, there's been a give and take between the players and officials that goes beyond the 'official' channels.

There is a lot to admire about Burrows as a hockey player. He's a self-made man, a player who was never drafted. He worked his way up from the East Coast Hockey League to be quite a good player. At one point last season, I ruffled a few feathers when I suggested he was the Canucks' MVP. Everything he has, he has earned although that probably includes the perception and reputation of being Sean Avery Lite, a motor mouth who instigates and antagonizes and acts to get every edge he can get.

But Burrows needs to understand that if he's going to do something – embellish a hit and/or fake injury to draw a major penalty – that ultimately embarrasses the ref, there's going to be payback at some point. That's hockey. And while the Canucks can be outraged, and rightfully so at how last night's game went down, it wouldn't be a bad idea for someone from management or another veteran player on the team to take Burrows aside and explain that refs are only human and if you rub their nose in it, you're going to get it back.

The league tried to deal with the broad issue of embellishment and fakery awhile back, but it was one of the biggest messes it has ever had. The league tried fining players for diving/embellishing/faking and the NHL Players' Association was up in arms over that. Then the league started making the names public of guilty parties and that didn't go over too well. Now, outside of the odd phone call/warning/reprimand that goes on behind the scenes, there's not an awful lot the league can do to combat it.

In theory, a referee should be above evening the score or settling personal vendettas, but hockey is anything but a theoretical exercise.

Bottom line, if the Burrows-Auger situation went down as Burrows outlined it last night, the league has no choice but to discipline Auger.

But if ever there were a time for the NHLOA to show its teeth in support of one of its members, this is likely it.

And if Burrows and the Canucks think they will ever come out ahead on this one – if they intend to play the 'victim' card with gusto – there is the potential for a lot of really ticked off NHL referees who don't like seeing one of their brothers hung out to dry for trying to teach a player a lesson about what happens in the old school when you embarrass or humiliate an NHL referee.

And that, like I said, is a real can of worms for everyone.

I hate both Auger and Burrows, so this is all ****ing fantastic stuff to me. Best case is Auger gets fired and Burrows just multiplied the size of the target on his back for other refs. Great stuff.

Best quote:

''He got me on the diving call, I didn't think I was diving,'' Burrows said.

He didn't think he was diving. Classic.

Burrows is the most blatant ****ing diver in the league. He should get called MORE for his crap.

[Ben Kenobi]

And ben I have been consistent on this going back years-- I am happier to see my team play well and lose than to play poorly and win ( bad goaltending on the other side for example). Because all this regular season stuff is really mainly to position yourself for the playoffs. The Flames played well last night, better than the Canucks and I would maintain that even if the Canucks scored late in regulation.

As I said Luongo outplayed Kipper and almost stole one away. Flames really came to play, but the result was inconclusive.