Why do people hate the Canucks?

[woody31 1]

I have an Honest question for the hockey world today and it's fairly simple. why does everybody hate the CanucKs so much? First off I'd like to say that I don't want some all caps response calling the Canucks a bunch of (insert your choice expletive here). If you hate them because they win a large sum of regular season games, that fine by me, but it's been made pretty clear that winning regular season games doesn't win championships. If you hate them for winning, did you hate the early 2000's Devils, or the Avalanche in their championship years. I doubt it. They won by hard work and good chemistry, just as the Canucks are doing today. I will give credit where credit is due, The Bruins are a great hockey team, and it's great that some of you were diehard fans before they won the Cup, and I fully respect the opinions of that group of fans. What I can't stand is the huge group of bandwagon fans that are still riding the Cup win and saying that they wanted them to win the entire time. There is just a double standard in this argument. For example Marchand defends himself or clips Salo depending on the side of the argument you are on, Bruins fans continuously rip on Salo for getting a concussion, but we eventually move on. The other side of the coin is the Tim Thomas situation. He get's invited to the White House for winning the biggest trophy in hockey and just refuses to go. The response from the Canucks fans, barely a whimper. I'd like to thank those who took the time to read this and I honestly look forward to hearing what others have to say on the subject.

[steelnation248 101]

I used to like them and respect what they can do on the ice but after last years playoffs, I don't like them anymore. All the diving they did. It was ridiculous. You know it's bad when your own player publicly told them to stop. There was also the Burrows incident which has no place in the game. I also just straight up don't like some of the players: Lapierre, Kesler, Rome, Burrows... It also gets annoying listening to their games because the fans have their LUOOO cheer. I can understand doing it on big saves but it can be a little chip in that he holds and you hear it.

That being said, I do like some players: Malhotra, Hodgson, Edler, and what the Sedin twins can do on the ice. Overall, I'm not a fan of the team.

It doesn't really matter what you can argue because it won't change peoples minds. Sometimes, people just don't like teams. I'm a Wings fan and tons of people hate them.

[woody31 1]

If this means anything at all to any Wings fans, I was happy that the Canucks won, but I strongly believe that Burrows stick break celebration was a but overboard. I personally like the Wings because, in all honesty, it's hard to cheer against a team that wins games with hard work.

[Chadd 916]

I don't like the Canucks because of the cheap shots, dives and antics of some of their players over the years. As great as the Sedins are to watch, the rest of the antics overshadow them to me. As for the other teams you mentioned; I didn't enjoy the Devils because of Scott Stevens headhunting and the fact that they tried to suffocate the life out of the game.

[hockeymass 11]

I can't stand Burrows and Lapierre. Not at all. Say what you will about Marchand (he needs to learn how to throw a proper hipcheck) but I think Burrows and Lapierre are far worse. Their antics take away from what the truly talented players on the team are doing.

[SuperMan3 1]

I hate their fans, so I've eventually started hating the team itself, definitely got worst over the last couple of years for all their non-sense diving, the green men, and when that whole laser pointer fiasco against the Flames. Finally after last seasons playoffs everyone saw them for what they really were.

[lassek20 1]

i hate em cause thier colors are stupid. im thinking seahawks

[cooperalls 4]

i hate em cause thier colors are stupid. im thinking seahawks

those are fightin' words...also, the Seahawks haven't used that color scheme since 2001.

[Steve_v3 275]

#1 There diving & other antics.

#2 The fact they think they are superior to everyone else.

[noodle3872 40]

#1 There diving & other antics.

#2 The fact they think they are superior to everyone else.

I don't see the Canucks diving or pulling shit on the ice more or less than any other team. I do believe the Canucks are driven to get possession of the puck and with that come penalty calls against their opponent. When I look around the league at other games with other teams, there are some weak penalty calls, some blown calls and some deserved calls. The team that is out worked normally takes bad penalties. The Canucks normally out work their opponent thus get their share of calls.

With 87 points, the Canucks are superior to everyone else in the league. The expectations for the Canucks are extremely high and at this point they are living up to them. I will admit, the team does have a certain "swagger" but I feel that is just the confidence they've acquired thru winning. It seems to me that winning tends to cause a certain steely resolve in a team. Granted, they haven't won at the big dance (yet) which for some hockey fans is reason enough to be anti-Canuck. But what I find truly odd is how people bash the Canucks for the way they carry themselves but if you look back thru history of elite hockey teams during their best times, teams like the Oilers, the Rangers and the Red Wings, most of them have some degree of arrogance about them.

Mike

[hockeymass 11]

I don't see the Canucks diving or pulling shit on the ice more or less than any other team. I do believe the Canucks are driven to get possession of the puck and with that come penalty calls against their opponent. When I look around the league at other games with other teams, there are some weak penalty calls, some blown calls and some deserved calls. The team that is out worked normally takes bad penalties. The Canucks normally out work their opponent thus get their share of calls.

With 87 points, the Canucks are superior to everyone else in the league. The expectations for the Canucks are extremely high and at this point they are living up to them. I will admit, the team does have a certain "swagger" but I feel that is just the confidence they've acquired thru winning. It seems to me that winning tends to cause a certain steely resolve in a team. Granted, they haven't won at the big dance (yet) which for some hockey fans is reason enough to be anti-Canuck. But what I find truly odd is how people bash the Canucks for the way they carry themselves but if you look back thru history of elite hockey teams during their best times, teams like the Oilers, the Rangers and the Red Wings, most of them have some degree of arrogance about them.

Mike

Mike

I see them pulling a lot more crap than other teams, especially in the playoffs last year.

There was also the brawl in the game this year that started with Burrows spearing Thornton in the throat after trading ankle slashes with him. In the same game, Dale Weise goaded Thornton into dropping the gloves and then backed down (still got called for a penalty).

I also believe popular opinion of their fans has soured with the riots and the subsequent crap (vandalizing Lucic's parents' church). Really unfortunate stuff.

[Chadd 916]

With 87 points, the Canucks are superior to everyone else in the league.

Playing in the same division as three of the five worst teams in the west certainly helps their point totals. Detroit is only two points behind them but they have St Louis, Chicago and Nashville in their division along with the worst team in the west. Many people would argue that Detroit's performance is superior to that of Vancouver, despite having two fewer points.

[woody31 1]

You can't say that the Canucks don't deserve to be a top team just because of the division they play in. They still have to win the games. Teams can beat teams that are superior, like that Canucks did last Thursday (yes that was me saying that the Wings are better) but they can also lose to teams far worse. The Wings have lost to the Jackets and the Canucks have lost to the Oilers. No matter how bad a team is, they can have games where they can seem like a solid team, along with some games where their play is downright disgraceful and pitiful (Ex. Games 3-4 of the Cup finals for the Canucks) Now I'm not gonna be the guy who says the Canucks are perfect because the fact is, they aren't. Lapierre needs to go, and Burrows needs to stop being so heinous. That being said, the Canucks aren't the only team that has Goons and Pests, they just were exposed by the fact that they had moderate success in the playoffs. Do you think people would love Steve Ott if the Stars made the finals? Doubtful. Every team, successful or not has their share of goons. The Rangers, Avery (AHL level or not) Boston, Marchand and Thorton, Detroit, Bertuzzi, they all have them.

[hockeymass 11]

You can't say that the Canucks don't deserve to be a top team just because of the division they play in. They still have to win the games. Teams can beat teams that are superior, like that Canucks did last Thursday (yes that was me saying that the Wings are better) but they can also lose to teams far worse. The Wings have lost to the Jackets and the Canucks have lost to the Oilers. No matter how bad a team is, they can have games where they can seem like a solid team, along with some games where their play is downright disgraceful and pitiful (Ex. Games 3-4 of the Cup finals for the Canucks) Now I'm not gonna be the guy who says the Canucks are perfect because the fact is, they aren't. Lapierre needs to go, and Burrows needs to stop being so heinous. That being said, the Canucks aren't the only team that has Goons and Pests, they just were exposed by the fact that they had moderate success in the playoffs. Do you think people would love Steve Ott if the Stars made the finals? Doubtful. Every team, successful or not has their share of goons. The Rangers, Avery (AHL level or not) Boston, Marchand and Thorton, Detroit, Bertuzzi, they all have them.

I don't agree that Thornton is a goon or a punk. He's a fighter that is moderately gifted offensively. He doesn't generally make bad hits or go out of his way to start trouble (like Ott). He also hasn't ended anyone's career with a suckerpunch and generally approaches the physical game with an old time attitude. Marchand does need to clean up his game, I won't disagree there. Avery is one of, if not the, most hated players in hockey. It's not like the Canucks have the only hated players in the league, they just (to outsiders) seem to have a disproportionate amount of crap in their game, coupled with an unwillingness to engage physically.

[Chadd 916]

You can't say that the Canucks don't deserve to be a top team just because of the division they play in.

I didn't say that. I was simply disputing the notion that they were superior to every other team based on their point total.

[nickerjones 8]

In addition to the diving and crap mentioned... Most of their fans are ridiculous, know nothing about hockey, and for pets sakes they tried to burn down their city because they lost.... all ridiculous. Notice I said most fans , not all. Don't get your panties in a wad over it .

[noodle3872 40]

Here's the what I find ironic about threads like this; for every Canuck example posted there are counter examples for every team in the NHL. Are the Canucks all angels? No, of course not but is ANY NHL team? Just like Burrows biting incident, there was taunts from Boston player in the following games. The NHL has a game within the game; players like Burrows or Marchand or Prust or Ott can all play the game and chip in points but they also play on the edge physically and with their mouths/antics. I don't endorse the brutal hardcore trash talking but it is part of the game. From Brad Richards (a supposed lily white player) telling Sesito his call-up is like a fantasy camp to Rupp (an enforcer with some skill) telling Shelley he's irrelevant, the trash talk happens and by all accounts isn't going anywhere.

You guys can piss and moan about everything and anything Canucks all you like. The Canucks win games, play an entertaining style of hockey and have enough toughness to not be door mats. Time to get over it y'all!!!

[hockeymass 11]

Here's the what I find ironic about threads like this; for every Canuck example posted there are counter examples for every team in the NHL. Are the Canucks all angels? No, of course not but is ANY NHL team? Just like Burrows biting incident, there was taunts from Boston player in the following games. The NHL has a game within the game; players like Burrows or Marchand or Prust or Ott can all play the game and chip in points but they also play on the edge physically and with their mouths/antics. I don't endorse the brutal hardcore trash talking but it is part of the game. From Brad Richards (a supposed lily white player) telling Sesito his call-up is like a fantasy camp to Rupp (an enforcer with some skill) telling Shelley he's irrelevant, the trash talk happens and by all accounts isn't going anywhere.

You guys can piss and moan about everything and anything Canucks all you like. The Canucks win games, play an entertaining style of hockey and have enough toughness to not be door mats. Time to get over it y'all!!!

Trash talking and some between the whistle stuff is ok. Hacking at an opponent's goalie behind the play, biting someone, or spearing a guy in the throat is not. That's part of the problem, conflating the inexcusable crap with chirping and taunting.

Also, we don't actually have to get over anything... I'm sure you don't really like the Blackhawks or the Flames very much.

[Gr8erade 1]

Here's the what I find ironic about threads like this; for every Canuck example posted there are counter examples for every team in the NHL. Are the Canucks all angels? No, of course not but is ANY NHL team? Just like Burrows biting incident, there was taunts from Boston player in the following games. The NHL has a game within the game; players like Burrows or Marchand or Prust or Ott can all play the game and chip in points but they also play on the edge physically and with their mouths/antics. I don't endorse the brutal hardcore trash talking but it is part of the game. From Brad Richards (a supposed lily white player) telling Sesito his call-up is like a fantasy camp to Rupp (an enforcer with some skill) telling Shelley he's irrelevant, the trash talk happens and by all accounts isn't going anywhere.

You guys can piss and moan about everything and anything Canucks all you like. The Canucks win games, play an entertaining style of hockey and have enough toughness to not be door mats. Time to get over it y'all!!!

Perhaps it is all the hypocritical claims to the media that they "play the game the right way" when, (as you claim) they play the same game everyone else does. I've watched enough Canucks games to know that they instigate, they give plenty of cheapshots, they dive, they embellish, and they whine. And with a team with players named Laperriere, Burrows, Kesler, Rome, and last year, Torres, it just doesn't wash that anyone could claim that this isn't they way they play. That's a QUARTER of their players that are known for cheap shots and being dirty. Add in the Sedins, who are prone to embellishing and taking a dive, and that's a big chunk of the team who I wouldn't say "play the right way." It isn't honest hockey. And they act like they have a huge chip on their shoulder and they just exude arrogance. And it is unfortunate, because all this really distracts from a highly skilled level of play. I guess that's why they live and die with their powerplay. I suppose that they dive to get the PP because 5 on 5, they aren't better than most of the better teams. And even putting aside fans who riot in response to a loss (and a series loss that really had their team outplayed by Boston), there is an arrogance and sense of entitlement that seems to ooze out of the city of Vancouver that I personally find pretty unappealing.

I suppose that this is why I enjoy when they lose. If you ask the Canucks, or a Canucks fan, they never get outplayed. There's always some other reason why they're cupless.

[noodle3872 40]

I think you've not understood my "get over it" comment; every team has their good attributes and bad attributes. In my opinion, there are no angelic teams in the NHL so why bash just one team?

For the record, there's "something" about every team in the NHL that I like. And there are players on every team which I like to watch play. That is why I love watching hockey; I can find something to appreciate no matter what two teams are playing. I don't know if that makes me a truer hockey fan than some of you that have love for one and only one team.

[hockeymass 11]

I think you've not understood my "get over it" comment; every team has their good attributes and bad attributes. In my opinion, there are no angelic teams in the NHL so why bash just one team?

For the record, there's "something" about every team in the NHL that I like. And there are players on every team which I like to watch play. That is why I love watching hockey; I can find something to appreciate no matter what two teams are playing. I don't know if that makes me a truer hockey fan than some of you that have love for one and only one team.

...what?

Just because someone doesn't like the Canucks, that somehow means that it's impossible for them to like other teams? There are no angelic teams, that's certainly true, but on balance I find the Canucks to be the worst in the areas I previously mentioned. Prior to last years SCF, I really didn't have much opinion of the Canucks, since the Bruins only really see them once a year. After the SCF, however, I really came away disliking them intensely. In addition, most of the United States population's exposure to the Canucks is watching videos of rioting. Even non-hockey fans heard about that.

[mug25 2]

I don't like the Canucks because they made the 1994 finals go to 7 games.

[noodle3872 40]

...what?

Just because someone doesn't like the Canucks, that somehow means that it's impossible for them to like other teams? There are no angelic teams, that's certainly true, but on balance I find the Canucks to be the worst in the areas I previously mentioned. Prior to last years SCF, I really didn't have much opinion of the Canucks, since the Bruins only really see them once a year. After the SCF, however, I really came away disliking them intensely. In addition, most of the United States population's exposure to the Canucks is watching videos of rioting. Even non-hockey fans heard about that.

We could go back and forth forever more arguing why one team is worse/better than another.

[hockeymass 11]

We could go back and forth forever more arguing why one team is worse/better than another.

Yes, which is why this thread is pointless and somewhat illadvised to begin with.

[JohnnyCanuck 0]

I get that a lot of fans of hockey in general and other teams more specifically don't like members of the Canucks, notably Kesler, Lapierre, Burrows, and sometimes Bieksa. They have large portions of their game, either previously and/or currently that includes a large amount of agititation with little answering of the bell. I don't get painting the entire team with that brush, and specifically the Sedins who are tough (they are very durable and rugged regardless of the style they play) make others around them better (Whoda thunk Burrows would ever be a 25 - 30 goal guy!?) and awesome community guys (donating hundreds of thousands + to local charities and hospitals) essentially the Sedins do very little not to endear themselves to ALL hockey fans. Imho of course.

I'm in no way excusing Daniels hit on Keith. Henrik's comments, following his accusation about Keith uttering a threat, essentially said the media or other player perceptions are: "Keith is a "good canadian kid" (inferring toughness) and that we are the "diving whiner Swedes" (inferring lack of toughness) These comments sum it up perfectly imho. If it was a point producing guy like Iginla or Lecavalier or some other guy who scores a lot but plays a much more "tougher" brand of hockey I doubt there would have been as much moaning about it. Keith was probably a little put off/embarassed that it was Sedin hitting him. he'd likely have played that play after the pass a little harder/more aware had The Nucks 3rd liners been out there.

If it was Burrows hitting him (Or Kesler or Lapierre) it would have been a "rat play" If it was a David Booth or someone with a recent headshot injury issue it would have been "hypocrisy" If it was a Power forward type who did that It would have been "A tough Canadian/American kid" and Keith is probably less incensed about it, and likely doesn't go for revenge (Allegedly)

If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was Bieksa who'd been kit by Patty Kane, and he gets Kane with an elbow to the chops later in the game the outcome would likely have been similar. A 5 game suspension and Hawks fans saying it was too little of a punishment and the Nucks fans would be saying 5 games is too much, and Kane shouldn't have finished his check on Bieksa high/to the head.

If it was a tougher/bigger player like a Bolland or even a Hossa (who finishes a lot more checks than the Sedins) it probably would've illicited a reaction more akin to "Bieksa needs to be more aware" and Bieksa is probably less embarassed than he would've been by getting hit by a small skill guy like Kane.

If any of that rambling makes any sense. I'm just trying to be analogous and unbiased in my comments if you catch my drift.