Lionbackers.com

bclions16 wrote:

Lionheart wrote: It's not really that hard.

The thing is there are many on this board who resent (and therefor hate) the Canucks because they garner the majority of media attention in this city. So, whenever a thread about the Canucks happen along it's all those people who will bash at whatever is/was announced. Whether it be naming of the new Captain Luongo, switching practice times.. switching airlines...socks.. trades whatever. Just the same *poop*.

For sure, I agree. I'm not a Canuck basher, but gotta call this one they way I see it. I still believe if a CFL team wanted to do something equally weird, tons more people would say the familiar "only in the CFL," calling it hokey or bush league.

You are right about that.

Soundy are you feeling okay.

The guy can be captain but not perform any of the duties???!!

What the Canucks are doing is a joke. It makes a mockery of the rules.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Luongo being a team leader and not wearing anything. I had such a situation with a former national team player on my team who didn't want a title and wasn't Captain - he didn't want that - but he directed play on the park to ensure that we did what we had to do.

I think not many CFL starting QBs are Captains for exactly the reason Luongo shouldn't be. There are team leaders in the huddle and have enough to worry about.

Quite frankly, Luongo played too many games last year appearing to be in charge of that - not his coach. It killed the Canucks in the end as he was too tired to win less a handful of games down the final stretch that would have put them in the playoffs. This makes it harder to sit the guy so he can be fresh at playoffs.

bclions16 wrote:In the past several teams have gone without a captain, and in this case the league is accepting the Canucks as a team without a captain, Luongo has absolutely nothing to do with it as far as the league is concerned. I say this because a team is allowed one captain and two alternates, or three alternates and no captain. The Canucks have named three alternates, AND a captain? So two choices:

a) The Canucks are cheating by having one more alternate than is allowed by the NHL, or;
b) The Canucks do not have a captain.

I very clearly and obviously know how to count alternates and captains better than AV. I also understand the rules better too!

I make some generalizations for humour, but there is no generalization when it comes to the FACT that by rule, Luongo is not the captain.

Perhaps you should be speaking to Mr. Bettman then, rather than posting your concerns here, since you obviously have a far better grasp of the rules than the league does. It's pretty clear, since they haven't stepped in yet, that they don't recognize the problem - it's up to you to open their eyes!

And as for Toppy, I've come to the conclusion that you don't actually have any thoughts of your own on anything, you exist simply to contradict and argue with everyone. If I was arguing against Luongo being Captain, I'm convinced you'd be all for it, at least in your posts. And since your reaction to this tidbit will no doubt be another personal attack along the lines of "nothing but sound, blah blah blah", I'll no longer be responding to you. Kthxbye.

Soundy wrote:Perhaps you should be speaking to Mr. Bettman then, rather than posting your concerns here, since you obviously have a far better grasp of the rules than the league does. It's pretty clear, since they haven't stepped in yet, that they don't recognize the problem - it's up to you to open their eyes!

The league has no concern about this, and I didn't say they did. The NHL lets the Canucks say whatever bunk they want to their fans, but when officially recorded with the league, the Canucks have three alternates, and do not have a captain. It's a gimmick.

By the Canucks' logic, by having the maximum number of lettered players (the three alts) they could name anyone captain! It's the next step in absurdity, but why not name a fan, coach or mascot as the captain? JUST LIKE LUONGO, IT TOO WOULD BE UNOFFICIAL AND MADE UP, BECAUSE JUST LIKE "CAPTAIN LUONGO," YOU CAN'T NAME A CAPTAIN WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE THREE ALTERNATES.

I've spent way too much time making my point. I'm fine with fans of Luongo and the Canucks celebrating the move. I just think it's really goofy, and this ownership regime is starting to have some circus-like qualities about it. You disagree, that's cool. I hope Luongo wins 50 games this year.

Yet you keep bringing up the rulebook in support of your position... if the league rule was relevant to the situation, the league would say something about it. They haven't, thus your bringing up the rulebook is irrelevant.

Soundy wrote:Yet you keep bringing up the rulebook in support of your position... if the league rule was relevant to the situation, the league would say something about it. They haven't, thus your bringing up the rulebook is irrelevant.

The relevance is that the rules make it quite clear that Luongo IS NOT the captain of the Canucks, therefore the Canucks saying he is the captain, is a lie and makes no sense at all. Hence this whole thing is a silly silly gimmick.

Again, the Canucks are not breaking any rules, the have three alts but do not have a captain.

My two earlier options were to illustrate the absurdity, in that either they are breaking the rules or they don't actually have a captain. The evidence is crystal clear.

Luongo is the designated "leader" of the team, absolutely nothing more.

Crazy Lions win tonight huh?

Soundy wrote:

bclions16 wrote:In the past several teams have gone without a captain, and in this case the league is accepting the Canucks as a team without a captain, Luongo has absolutely nothing to do with it as far as the league is concerned. I say this because a team is allowed one captain and two alternates, or three alternates and no captain. The Canucks have named three alternates, AND a captain? So two choices:

a) The Canucks are cheating by having one more alternate than is allowed by the NHL, or;
b) The Canucks do not have a captain.

I very clearly and obviously know how to count alternates and captains better than AV. I also understand the rules better too!

I make some generalizations for humour, but there is no generalization when it comes to the FACT that by rule, Luongo is not the captain.

Perhaps you should be speaking to Mr. Bettman then, rather than posting your concerns here, since you obviously have a far better grasp of the rules than the league does. It's pretty clear, since they haven't stepped in yet, that they don't recognize the problem - it's up to you to open their eyes!

And as for Toppy, I've come to the conclusion that you don't actually have any thoughts of your own on anything, you exist simply to contradict and argue with everyone. If I was arguing against Luongo being Captain, I'm convinced you'd be all for it, at least in your posts. And since your reaction to this tidbit will no doubt be another personal attack along the lines of "nothing but sound, blah blah blah", I'll no longer be responding to you. Kthxbye.

Soundy...that post is killing me.

If there is anyone who won't see a shred of common sense in anyone else's posts it is you, Soundy. You are infamous for it. In fact when I take you on my fan mail fills my in box.

Why can't you in one post just address the comments in bclions16's posts on this topic instead of condescendingly tell him to go to Bettman.

It is not that you can't comment and give opposing views - you can. I am just trying to encourage you to address our comments.

Why don`t you tell me why my view of Luongo getting tired last year and how I felt he played too much is all bunk and how it was not him tired that led him to play less than stellar in the last games that would have got them to the playoffs. It appeared to me that the coach couldn`t rest him as Luongo seemed to be calling the shots on that and making it clear he 'd not be happy if he wasn't in every game.

The C has the potential to make it even worse and put more pressure on everyone to play him 80 plus games. That to me is bad news if they do.

TheLionKing wrote:Rules stipulate that Luongo can't wear a "C" on his jersey. What's to prevent him putting a "C" on his mask ?

It has indeed been added on to his mask.

Toppy Vann wrote: In fact when I take you on my fan mail fills my in box.

To quote the infamous 3rd Down......

Hi Solar 8)
Hi Cats Eyes 8)

Now that Luongo is the official Captain of the Canucks I wonder if it would have ANY effect on him resigning.. could he feel a bit more obligated to? I'm sure the direction and success of the team would be ahead of said captaincy but purrhaps this naming could mean something?