Skip to content

Watch Shawn Thornton own a Vancouver columnist

Jan 11, 2012, 8:42 AM EDT

Boston’s Shawn Thornton is a guy that’s never afraid to speak his mind. For that matter, neither is Vancouver columnist Tony Gallagher.

Our friends at CSNNE.com managed to bring the two together to discuss Thornton’s role in last Saturday’s shenanigans between the Canucks and Bruins. CSNNE.com’s Mike Felger was interviewing Gallagher to talk about Thornton wanting a piece of Dale Weise and Weise’s refusal to fight when he surprised Gallagher by bringing Thornton on to hash things out himself.

Things went about as smoothly as you’d figure they would with Thornton getting the upper hand on Gallagher’s arguments and even getting him to wonder why the Canucks are so hated when they’re not tough at all.

  1. rdurk86 - Jan 11, 2012 at 10:32 AM

    Gallagher quickly went from defending Weise for not fighting twice in one period (what a tragedy), to agreeing that Weise shouldn’t have shaken the gloves then backed off. The silence from Gallagher after Thornton throws out that he fought Boogaard who has 50 points and 5 inches on him, was priceless.

  2. madtolive5 - Jan 11, 2012 at 10:40 AM

    I love how he pretended not to hear the “7-1″ comment.

    • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM

      He also completely made up the “40 pounds” thing. Thornton is listed as being SEVEN pounds heavier than Weiss. And they’re the same height.

  3. salmon90 - Jan 11, 2012 at 10:42 AM

    All I saw was a columnist who didn’t even write about this game (let alone trash the Bruins) get sandbagged. All Gallagher was saying was Weise maybe shoudn’t have fought Horton (concussion issues) and that he shouldn’t have waved his gloves at Thornton – but at the same time Thornton shouldn’t be fighting a guy who has already had a long fight that period – a code that every tough guy knows. Hardly trashing anybody considering the columns that came out of Boston let alone that puke of a talk show host. Thornton ‘owned’ him by claiming he was beat up by 7 (yes 7) Canucks for a minute (1 whole minute!). It’s like a fishing story where the numbers keep going up and up. Then claimed he fought three different guys in a period…really Shawn? When was that? I actually do have a lot of respect for Thornton as a player and everyone knows he’s a killer as a fighter – I guess that’s what he wanted out of this. This is just beyond trashy though. Something you would see in UFC maybe. B’s fans will love it no doubt but I’m pretty sure our interpretations of class are way different.

    • madtolive5 - Jan 11, 2012 at 11:08 AM

      Thornton is on that show every single week. They have a segment with him and he is in studio.
      This isn’t sandbagging, Gallagher had an awful opinion and was called out for it.

      What is classy, defending yourself while a hack who is basically making up lies to you or trying to avenge yourself against someone who is punching you in the back of the head on a 6-1 and then seeing him back down after trying to “fake fight” and get a 5 minute major out of you?

      Oh wait Shawn has 40 pounds on him….

      • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:19 PM

        Since you guys have a lot of the answers, I’d like to find out how exactly Weise was punching him in the back of the head when he was off fighting Horton. Sure there’s a bunch of guys in there at first, and then there’s just as many Bruins a few seconds later. I guess lying at the bottom of that massive pile getting mostly facewashes was much more draining than Weise having to actually go one on one and trade punches with a guy who’s larger than Thornton.

        Before you go and get all upset, I’m just pointing out how it’s hardly a one sided story like is portrayed by the Boston media. I know some in Vancouver have portrayed it to our side as well, but I haven’t seen much of that from Boston. Granted, I don’t see all the local media so I assume there’s sports guys there with a logical view. I’ve seen some fans show measured and logical responses to arguments as well.

        It’s too bad as well that this is the only argument they can talk about, since they’ve clearly lost on the Marchand lowbridge front. They’re quite happy to push that away and still try and claim victory wherever else they can to help make them feel better about losing to a team that apparently has no toughness.

        And before you say it, I know Horton’s not a fighter as well but he’s hardly a guy who has no idea what he’s doing there either.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:41 PM

        @elvispocomo: We’ve already beaten the Marchand thing to death. Congrats on changing the subject.

      • madtolive5 - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM

        elvispocomo you make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

        It is simple, Thornton was jumped, he faced one of his “attackers” who tried to goad him into a penalty. Nobody in Boston cares about the 2 points. This was a meaningless game where the B’s lost the first line winger on a call which the NHL rescinded.

        If you are trying to make the atonement that Weise, who is a fighter FYI, didn’t punch Thornton then you are missing the point. He jumped on top of the pile, and then wimped out of a fight and a columnist tried to claim that Thornton was picking on Weise who apparently ranges in weight from 170-190 (really he weighs 10 more pounds then Thornton) !!!!!!

        Nobody in Boston cares about this game and most agree Marchand should be suspended (maybe not 5 games but 2-3), they care about how Vancouver disgraces the game.

        You guys are completely insane.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

        I know your reading comprehension isn’t that great but I’m asking about the Weise/Thronton incident so clearly being discussed here. Sure, I mention Marchand at the end, but anyone with any intelligence would realize it’s hardly changing the subject when I’m looking for direct responses to my previous statements.

        Kudo’s for avoiding the question though.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

        @elvis:

        A) You didn’t *ask* a question.
        B) Let’s try to answer what I think your question is anyway Weiss, obviously, was part of the scrum BEFORE Horton arrived. This falls into the “duh” department. And “Thornton was getting mostly facewashes”? You’re making stuff up like Gallagher did.
        C) And the media brandishes a really stupid stick most of the time. But what does that have to do with the actual play on the ice?

      • madtolive5 - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM

        Clearly you are so biased you cannot even watch the video and see what is happening. You have distorted the actually video in your brain. Watch and you can clearly see him throw punches at a guy who is being jumped by 5 other people. This is why horton grabbed him off the pile.

        It is so simple i’ll spell it out for you like you are a two year old. Weise did a chick bleep move. Thornton called him out for it and Weise pulled an even worse chicken bleep. He is scum and shouldn’t be defended by anyway.

        What is even worse is this yahoo blowhard tries to make one of the most stand up individuals in the NHL look like he was in the wrong.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 3:01 PM

        madtolive5, clearly it’s a majority of Boston fans still going on about this here (but I thought you were done with it?), so maybe us Canucks fans should let you have this small victory (like you’ve clearly let us have the regular season win versus the SC).

        Regardless of whether or not you answered my question about how Weise jumped Thornton and fought Hornton at the same time (maybe their names are so similar it was easy to get confused), what you’ll see if you read my posts as a whole is I’m always trying to point out there are two sides to everything, and no one team is innocent in these situation and all 30 have done dirty and illegal things.

        For instance, in this case you say Thornton was jumped, yet he clearly initiated the fight. If he was dumb enough to do so right in front of the Canucks bench, then he’d have to expect at least several Canucks would be the first to arrive. The Bruins certainly weren’t far behind so he was hardly on his own for as long as he claims.

        Maybe he was relying on our obvious lack of toughness, thinking everyone else would disappear so he could take on Burrows by himself. I did like how he made a lot of contact with Sedin, whose back was facing Thornton, in his hurry to get to Burrows, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he just didn’t see him because the Sedins are such non-threatening entities.

        You might try and say Burrows started it, what with the ferocity of that love tap to the ankle of Paille, but Thornton clearly escalated a situation where he should have been prepared for the outcome – especially since he’s quick to mention he’s been in lots of cases where he’s had to fight 2 or 3 times in a small time span so you’d think he’d be the Boy Scout of rough stuff (always be prepared!).

        The Canucks are hardly an innocent party – notice I said 30 teams above – but they’re hardly the villains you’d like them to be. Weise shouldn’t have shook his gloves, Rome shouldn’t have hit Horton late, Burrows shouldn’t have bit the finger in his mouth, etc, etc. But Marchand shouldn’t have lowbridged Salo, Peverly shouldn’t have slashed Bieksa, Boychuk shouldn’t have hit Raymond in a vulnerable position, etc, etc. Rats and thugs and saints and gentlemen are on all sides (it’s hockey after all) even if the two teams have different approaches in how they win games

        The Canucks can’t all be big meanies and little sissies at the same time (or even in the same argument), while the Bruins are just guys who play tough that cross the line now and again. I’m sure there’s a pretty good gray area, one which both teams (in fact almost all teams) are well within yet a lot of Bruins fans are happy to ignore.

      • rdurk86 - Jan 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM

        You’re right, Burrows whacking Paille on the back of the ankle on his way into the bench for the change didn’t start the fight, Thornton did.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM

        “Regardless of whether or not you answered my question about how Weise jumped Thornton and fought Hornton at the same time (maybe their names are so similar it was easy to get confused), what you’ll see if you read my posts as a whole is I’m always trying to point out there are two sides to everything, and no one team is innocent in these situation and all 30 have done dirty and illegal things.”

        You’re not just doing that. You’re making stuff up to suit your bias, and trolling.

      • madtolive5 - Jan 11, 2012 at 3:41 PM

        Are you stupid? Seriously.
        Watch the game. WATCH THE GAME.

        Burrows smacked Pallie as he is getting on the bench, Thornton went over to Burrows, yelled at him and slashed him on the side, Burrows took his stick and jammed it in Thornton neck. Then Then Thornton went after Burrows and then it was a 6-1. WATCH THE GAME. Weise throws punches at the back of THORNTON’S HEAD.

        The Nucks agitate and then dive to get on the PP because their PP is really really good.
        They disgrace the game.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 6:22 PM

        Just to satisfy you since you think I didn’t watch the video at all or I have my own biased view of it, I went back and watched it again.

        The scrum starts with Burrows then Thornton then Burrows using their sticks, and Thornton jumps over/through Sedin to get at Burrows. Once he does that, Malhotra and Bieksa jump in. Henrik is briefly on the side of the pile and Hodgson has his arm out towards the pile as someone’s stick comes up into the bench (you can argue he was preventing the stick from hitting players, but if you want to say he was involved, that’s your interpretation). Henrik then turns and sees players coming – Lapierre (#40) and Weise (#32) – and leaves for the bench once they’ve arrived. At that point there were 5 players in the scrum with Thornton, with Henrik not really having done anything and Hamhuis still standing closer to the Bruins bench as they are starting to arrive.

        From here is where I’m finding fault with your ‘accurate’ description of events. Lapierre is the player who jumps on top and he does throw some punches (the only clear ones I saw in the main scrum) at Thornton from behind. Chara and Lucic join at this point (two seconds after the initial scrum had become a 5 on 1). Horton also joins at the same time, grabbing Weise immediately, and they separate from the group to have their own fight. Corvo joins just after and Krejci stands near the scrum, not doing much until the pile starts to sort itself out.

        There isn’t anything of note in the main scrum after that, just people pulling each other off the pile. It’s pretty heated still, and Lucic was particularly upset and kept grabbing back at the pile (which is the only penalty I thought he was getting initially as the refs kept telling him particularly to stop, and should have been) doing so a few times more obviously than anyone else. To say anything was really that much worse one way or the other once things were even for numbers would be false.

        There’s about 5 seconds between the initial contact of Burrows with Paille and the start of the first scrum, and another 5 seconds before the Bruins get there to join in. The Horton/Weise fight lasts just over a full minute from that point and the scrum is almost cleared up by its end. Weise and Horton get fighting majors, Burrows and Thornton get slashing minors, Lucic and Thornton get roughing minors, and Burrows and Lapierre get 10 min misconducts. And there’s the game misconduct later rescinded for Lucic.

        Getting back to Weise, Thornton obviously wouldn’t know who it was unless he watched the reply; I’m not faulting him in any way, just noting his role in the scrum. Watching the replay it’s reasonably clear though, so I’d expect each of you to correctly identify a player you’re vilifying. I could go through this and provide all the screenshots and times in the videos and proof of the facts I’m trying to tell you, but I find when I clearly outline the facts I’ve been stating, people disappear. So I’ll let you go back a re-watch the video with your lack of bias to see if you can see the facts if you still have issue with my account of what happened.

        As for my opinion on the penalties out of the scrum, evening up the slashing minors and fighting majors is a no brainer. Thornton definitely escalates it all so roughing for that is hardly a travesty, and an argument can definitely be made for Lucic getting roughing as well since he was so aggressive even when things were calming down (as scrums do). I’m not as sure why they’d go with misconducts for Burrows and Lapierre, but that’s does have some affect on our lines for 10 minutes, so it’s hardly nothing, it just has the immediate visual impact of the 5 on 3. I could see them evening out one of those as a roughing (Lapierre most likely) or even both as they often do pull one guy from each side, but that’s the ref’s call and hardly something to fault the Canucks for.

        After all that, and each of you trying to point out just how wrong I was about Weise punching Thornton or even being an impact in the scrum (2 seconds? come on now), I think I’ll let you have your ‘victory’ since you clearly are opposed to any rational or logical debate. Enjoy the spoils, Bruins fans.

    • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM

      Yet another post from a hater who either does have or refuses to see all the facts.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:12 PM

        *doesn’t

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

        I see the ‘Nucks fans have me on speed-dial.

  4. pepper2011 - Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 AM

    We’re not the one who trashed our city, our player didn’t bite anyone, nor did our coach basically put a bounty on a players head. Yeah, I think we have a different interpretation of class. Remember what happened last time one of your coaches opened his mouth? I bet Bertuzzi and Moore do. And were the Sedin’s acting with class when they went on TV to introduce the vegetarian Alex Burrows? so classy, eh? Maybe it’s just the grease that oozes from “pump my tires” luongo.

    • t16rich - Jan 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      Mind you he hasnt played in a long time, but you should check your facts on the finger biter. The Bruins have on contract the inventor of NHL finger biting. Where do you think Burrows learned to bite fingers? From none other then the great Marc Savard. That man has 2 finger biting incidents and has been suspended for one of them. Thats why I laugh at Bruins fans who complain about Burrows doing that but forget there team is paying a guy who has done the exact same thing. TWICE!!!!! Dosnt justify it for Burrows, he is still a punk because of it. But like I said the Bruins fans selective memory on finger biters is funny to me. We really need a Stanley Cup rematch of this though.

      • pepper2011 - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:02 PM

        You should get your facts straight. Yes Savy was suspended in 03′ while a memeber of the thrashers. The carcillo biting incident is questionable at best. there is no real evidence and it is coming from the mouth of carcillo. C’mon. I Don’t know if he bit carcillo or not but watch the video, Savard was getting creamed by a goon, and would it honestly surprise you if Carcillo was actually trying to rip his teeth out? I mean we are talking about a guy who is useless; trying to get a very skilled player suspended. If Savy bit Carcillo shame on him, but what burrows did and who he did it to is an embarrassment. We may need a cup rematch but the canucks won’t make it that far, they won’t. They are soft, the way to beat them is very clear – the sharks blew it last year because Eager lost his cool. There is ZERO % chance they can make it past the Sharks (notice they loaded up on Tough D men, after watching the B’s shut them down) Blackhawks or Blues. It’s just not gonna happen. Add Nashville to that list if they can pick up someone who can score, and Detroit; why cause detroit is detroit and they will always compete. That being said- you have the most mentally fragile goalie in the league, that you can’t trade. You don’t get the calls in the playoffs you get in the regular season- the sooner the canucks realize that the sooner you’ll increase your chances.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:09 PM

        @pepper: Indeed. While Burrows bit Patrice Bergeron, who is a Lady Byng candidate every year.

      • t16rich - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

        You are right but I thought I would atleast point Savard out since you mention Bruins dont have a finger biter. I think who you do it to is irrelevant whether it be Tucker or Bergeron, it’s punk to bite fingers in this sport. If getting creamed out by goons is an excuse then Canucks would have bitten Charas hand off by now. Joking. But no one should bite. Just turtle like a normal pussy.

    • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM

      I do find it ironic Boston fans are still starting their posts with riots and biting. Whatever else you have to say, it shows your ignorance of Boston’s history*. Heck, we’re even pointing it out so you can stop doing it and make yourselves seem smarter, yet it happens in almost every post when you have nothing better to say. How can you honestly expect anyone to take anything you have to say seriously after doing so?

      *I’m speaking of riots in the last decade or so for the Patriots, Red Sox and Celtics where cars were burned, property damaged and even death occured – something that didn’t happen in Vancouver. And you guys might have forgotten about him since he (sadly) hasn’t played in so long, but Marc Savard has been suspended for biting and accused of another incident.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM

        Touche. But by the same token, how can Canucks fans expect to be taken seriously given the way they defend the BS antics of their team and pretend their team is squeaky clean?

      • dropthepuckeh - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

        Riots and finger biting are stupid. All of those championships are not. The parades are exhausting too! Do you guys have parades for your super smart regular season champs??

  5. pepper2011 - Jan 11, 2012 at 10:57 AM

    I love how you also focus on the fact that he said 7-1 instead of the actual 6-1. I guess he lost count; 14 arms 12 arms probably looked the same to him. Pretty sure his point was that Weise had no problem throwing punches at him when there were a bunch (you fill in the number, more than 5 – at that point does it matter) of people around him. weasels- the whole lot of em (malhorta is ok).

    • rdurk86 - Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM

      Ok, yes, there wasn’t 7 guys on top of him all at once, there was six to start, then Sedin stepped out of the scrum and onto the bench (SHOCKING), then I think Ballard came from mid ice and joined in. There was time where they had 7 guys on the ice. 6 or 7, either way, clearly a sign of a classy bunch of players…..

      • hystoracle - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

        That’s what happens when you start a fight at the other teams bench area. You can’t bemoan guys coming to the aid of their teammates and then criticize when they do. Which do you want?

        This Vancouver v. Boston thing is beyond old.. Just let both teams go out in the yard and get it out of their system. While these two teams and fans bitch and moan the rest of the league keeps playing hockey. Go on Springer and throw some chairs already.

      • rdurk86 - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

        Did you even watch the video of the whole thing??? Burrows taps Paille on the ankle to start it, then Thornton does it back to Burrows, and Burrows sticks his stick up towards Thornton’s neck. So all players should expect 1/3 of the team to jump them if they are anywhere near a bench when a scrum starts? Please continue with the rationalization of what happened. There’s a big difference between the team sticking up for someone, and a bunch of guys jumping another player. What imminent danger was Burrows in that he needed 6 or 7 guys, plus guys on the bench, to come to his defense?

    • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:31 PM

      It’s hard to see through all those painful facewashes he must have been receiving, not to mention Weise was punching him in the back of the head at the same time as fighting Horton, he must have been twice as tired as a result!

      • rdurk86 - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM

        How can any hockey fan, with a straight face, agree with how Weise handled the situation? Even if he never touched Thornton in the pileup, Weise is still the team’s fighter. Thornton wants someone to respond for what they pulled on him, and Weise is the guy for them. Instead of doing his job, what his role is, he fakes like he’s going to fight, then backs off and hides behind his teammates and the ref to draw an Unsportsmanlike. If you like that kind of stuff, I don’t even know what to say to you.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM

        I assume you mean Weise declining to fight Thornton? Feel free to show me where I’ve defended that. I’ve offered some reasons, but I think he would have been better to not indicate anything at all or go once he realized what happened.

        I would argue we don’t have a true fighter, but Weise, Lapierre, Bieksa and Kesler particularly can, as well as others. Thornton might not know that since it’s not like we play that often, but I haven’t blamed him for anything all along.

  6. blomfeld - Jan 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM

    “We’re Canucks and we’re tough so we’re going to kill you !”
    :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

    “Okay, but aren’t you missing your trainer ?”
    :(

    • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:35 PM

      No, no, you’ve got it all wrong, we apparently have no toughness at all, so it’d be like the original Nintendo Hockey where our team was all the skinny fast guys and the Bruins were all the big strong guys (maybe a couple mediums mixed in – oh and one skinny guy to approximate Marchand since he’s so short). Clearly all those guys with no toughness hardly add up to even one Bruins player (who are all about toughness) so even 7 on 1 shouldn’t be that hard to handle.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM

        If by “apparently”, you mean “definitely”, I agree.

  7. drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM

    What a total whiny homer columnist.

    • hystoracle - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM

      True. But in his defense, most columnists are homers to some extent regardless of which city’s paper they write for.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM

        True. Jack Edwards is the biggest homer in Boston (and that’s saying something).

        But it’s still worth calling out if you’re going to call out someone using made-up facts.

  8. drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 11:33 AM

    Love Thornton trying not to laugh incredulously.

  9. t16rich - Jan 11, 2012 at 11:48 AM

    Thornton is good stuff iin this. I have a question though. If everyone thinks the Canucks are such girly weasels, isnt 7 of them vs 1 fair? Especially considering He had Lucic and Chara come in after. That right there sounds like advantage Boston to me, so I dont know why all the whining about a 7 on 1. It got even quick. And arnt they a bunch of girls after all?

    • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:06 PM

      It really is classic gang behavior. People who won’t start anything 1 on 1. Instead, they wait until the odds are extremely lopsided in their favor. It’s the ultimate in cowardice.

      • ballistictrajectory - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:14 PM

        Fits the town.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

        Seems like there are players on Boston who heavily rely on their backup to come help them out of situations as well. *cough* Marchand *cough*

        Again, if you’re ready to throw out jabs, be ready to take some back – or were you thinking of throwing one and then ducking and hiding behind Chara anyone responded?

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

        @elvis: Find a single instance where the Bruins sent their whole line, or even most of their line, after a single player.

      • rdurk86 - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:49 PM

        Show me an example of a player on an opposing team wanting to throw down with a Bruin after a questionable hit or something, and the Bruin avoids the situation and backs off. I’ll listen to your argument if you can find that for me.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

        Agree with rduk. The Bruins are 3rd in the league in fights. This is not all Thornton or McQuaid. Marchand doesn’t duck fights either. He’s been in two this year (though it’s not easy to tell how many times he’s been challenged). He definitely doesn’t publicly wuss out the way Weiss did.

        Now two fights isn’t a lot. But guess how many the most similar player on the Canucks, Burrows, has?

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

        Zero.

  10. rdurk86 - Jan 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM

    I don’t expect anyone outside of the Boston/New England market to know, but Shawn makes an appearance every week they are in town on this show, so it wasn’t like they brought him on just to ambush the writer.

  11. comeonnowguys - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM

    The vid doesn’t work in Chrome.

    • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:05 PM

      Works for me in Chrome. Update your Flash player? Mine is 11.1.102.55

  12. comeonnowguys - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM

    Also, I thought Andy Rooney was dead, and not just retiring in Vancouver…

  13. ballistictrajectory - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:13 PM

    I’m surprised this is happening. Julien doesn’t let this stuff go very far. Although… I do recall seeing Claude absolutely ballistic (like climbing over the glass ballistic) about the Bruins during a playoff game with Montreal. I think it was when Zednick got clotheslined.

    Maybe the Canucks organization is the same at every level. As it stands now, Alex Burrows has a bullseye on his back. If they want to attach one to Marchand that would make things even. As previously stated: I can’t wait to see Burrows encounter Thornton away from the bench area. Can you see the turtle in this picture?

    Let’s get cellphone video of Chiarelli and Mike Gillis throwing down near the TD Garden dumpsters…

    On realignment: So now we need to wait to see if both of these teams make it through their respective conference finals to meet again to settle this. Realignment should address this. There needs to be a series of games (like the upcoming BOS v NYR set for the Eastern Conference lead. Likely to repeat as the Eastern Conference Finals). Let’s not forget that before Boston and Montreal, there were the Bruins and Rangers. Maybe if we played the Canucks 4 or 6 times a season we’d have something to get worked up about. Under the current configuration, we get nothing unless both teams make it to the finals.

    The Panthers have shown everyone they can put away an opponent that isn’t on their game. Don’t be surprised if they show up in the conference finals.

    Bieksa looked very classy near the end of the 3rd period, in the Vancouver end. He skillfully avoids drawing a penalty while rolling under an opponent, and then does an Avery. No need to push the guy while he’s still looking at the goal post. Yeah, Marchand might have done that, too, but Marchand wouldn’t hide behind Ballard if he got challenged.

    • hoovertower - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM

      Ballistic: On Realignment: One of the reasons this game (and its aftermath) are so heated is that they only play once a year – so in a sense that’s a good thing. I agree that it would be awesome if they could play more, but unfortunately the two cities are about as far away as they could possibly be, so any realignment would place them in different conferences. If they played more, things were definitely tone down a little bit. In this one-game configuration, things come to a boil really quickly, as we saw last week.

      Also adding to the boil: rats (on both teams), die-hard (and vocal) fans, stubborn columnists, and dirty plays. To say that only one team exhibits these would be pretty ignorant, I think.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

        Thank you.

    • rdurk86 - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:16 PM

      Burrows tried to turtle the other day, go back and watch after he tries to poke Thornton up high. Thornton grabs his shirt and Burrows starts flailing his head as if he got socked in the face, then turned away.

  14. davebabychreturns - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM

    Ugh, Tony Gallagher. This is the guy writing articles that make intelligent Vancouverites (shut up guys) cringe at least ten times a year.

    (Of course these days bloggers like Greg Wyshinski probably salivate every time Tony’s ramblings appear online, there aren’t many easier ways to produce an article than “look what this moron wrote”..)

    He probably wants to broaden his horizons a bit but Tony should stick to embarrassing himself in Vancouver, where he is at least a big fish in the small, scummy pond of local sports ‘journalism’ (not to impugn the good names of a couple of resident bloggers..

  15. haterzgonahate - Jan 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

    wow.. self righteous much? Tony Gallagher is like 100 years old..

    time to move on Boston.. your embarrassing yourselves with displays like this. ambushing a sports columnist? really? cause Vancouver is the only city with homer writers right? just brutal

    you won the cup.. everyone knows. and you can;t move on with some dignity after losing one regular season game to the very same opponent? your making the Canucks look like saints.

    the asterisk beside “2011 stanley cup champions” keeps getting bigger and bigger

    • davebabychreturns - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:06 PM

      Asterisk beside their championship? The team won with a demonstrably effective strategy (play suffocating defense, get a hall of fame calibre performance from your goaltender, tenderize your opponent to the extent that “playoff hockey” rules allow), yes the optics of one of their players’ father running the league’s Hockey Operations is terrible but there’s no question the better team won that series.

      (Could the Canucks have won if they were healthy? Maybe. But many of their best players – Henrik, Kesler, Ehrhoff – were injured before the series so that kind of line of thinking is just your standard “what if” BS.)

      So please.. I get that the back and forth after Saturday’s game has been acrimonious to say the least.. but let’s not get carried away and start saying things that are simply foolish.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM

        I’d only say there’s an asterisk because that’s the win they’ll be coming back to for years when luck doesn’t run their way in winning 3 games sevens in 4 rounds of playoffs every year.

        “Well, at least we have one, what does Vancouver have?”

        Great fallback argument when you have nothing else more intelligent to say, Boston.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM

        Before some Bruins fan says it, the “at least we have one” refers to the number of Stanley Cups the Bruins have won after nearly a 40 year drought – the previous coming in 71/72.

      • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:54 PM

        Great post davebabych.

        @elvis: Do both fanbases a favor and shut up.

      • comeonnowguys - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:57 PM

        You can’t actually think this, can you?

        Is the goal of the team entire season not to win the Stanley Cup? Is the goal of fandom not to root for your team to win the Stanley Cup.

        It’s not about President’s trophies, it’s not about Hart trophies. It’s about The Cup. In ten years, are you going to vividly remember a regular season game? Or are you going to remember watching your team either hoist the cup, or silently wait for the handshake while their opponents celebrate?

        Just because your team hasn’t won one… ever… does not minimize its importance over time.

      • rdurk86 - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:58 PM

        Wow, your a real historian of the game, thanks for that in depth analysis on when the Bruins last won the cup. A real hot sports take there.

        If the Bruins were lucky for game 7 wins, wasn’t Vancouver lucky on an OT game 7 win in the first round last year?

        You’re calling the fans unintelligent for using the 2011 cup as an excuse years down the road. That’s a bit of a stretch at this point. Why don’t you calm down and watch some of this season before worrying about what 2014 commenters are going to say.

    • 8man - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM

      Asterisk? What? Are you on dope? Sniffing glue? What aspect of their playoff run from last year is questionable? Three game 7 wins? A 4-0 sweep of the team that ousted them the previous year? A 23-8 goals advantage in the Finals? Their incredible play this year?

      Hey, the Bruins aren’t choir boys. They are a brutal, physical, nasty hockey team. But don’t think for a minute they didn’t earn that cup. And when push came to shove, they pushed and Vancouver backed away. Hideously in game 7, might I add, where it appeared as if the already punished Canucks had had their fill of what Boston was dispensing.

      • elvispocomo - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:52 PM

        See, you started with a logical and reasonable post (although odds are against winning the cup every year if you go through 3 game 7s on the way), but you couldn’t resist the dig in the end, using a word like hideously to overstate the situation as if the Canucks were cowards instead of injured or just outmatched on the night.

      • hystoracle - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM

        This year’s play has nothing to do with last year’s cup playoffs. Unless they have been using the Delorean again.

      • davebabychreturns - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM

        I’d say the odds of winning the cup when you have three game sevens in a playoff run are pretty damn good – it means you won at least two of them and got at least as far as the last possible game of the third round.

    • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 1:49 PM

      I see you missed this (accurate) response to a similar comment above:

      “madtolive5 – Jan 11, 2012 at 11:08 AM
      Thornton is on that show every single week. They have a segment with him and he is in studio.
      This isn’t sandbagging, Gallagher had an awful opinion and was called out for it.”

      But go ahead, keep making up your own storyline that has nothing to do with reality.

  16. pepper2011 - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:39 PM

    @elvis- a series is a series, not just one night. The canucks fans like to accuse the Bruins of being skill -less goons. As a hockey fan can you say that you honestly believe that? Yes Lucic is tough but he’s not Laraque or Nilan – guys who had one skill. He’s more along the lines of a kevin stevens or Cam Neely. No he’s not either of those guys yet, but he’s a 23 year old on the verge of having back to back 30 goal seasons. Guess what? Henrik has never done that! and daniel didn’t touch 30 goals until he was 26. Chara is not a goon, and Horton is not a goon. So really I don’t know who you (canucks fans) think is a goon on the Bruins. Thornton? not so much- he can fight and fight well but he is a darn good Hockey player. again, there aren’t too many goons that have double digit goal seasons. It really is time for Canadiens fans and Canucks fans to get off the Bruins are nothing but goons wagon and they were gifted a cup thing. This team is big, strong, deep and VERY talented. There is not another team in the league that can compare with the Bruins depth (maybe the rangers). Just because Lucic or Chara can beat up 95% of the league doesn’t mean they don’t have talent. Keep thinking that though and wonder why your one line and a player team keeps getting bounced. Also- Luck huh? so Beiska’s OT goal was pure skill huh? or Eager being an idiot was all talent. Yeah the Bruins had some luck but EVERY team that wins has to have some. Also Boston did not riot. Vancouver rioted. Yes, in Boston there were some people who may have partied a bit too much and yes there was a fatality (incredibly sad story- innocent victim shot pretty much for no reason by a policeman with a rubber bullet). You can’t tell me if you have won the cup there wouldn’t have been some celebratory meatheads finding an excuse to cause damage. There were NO riots when the Pats lost to the NYG and NO riots when the celts lost to LAL – and no riots when the Redsox lost to the NYY, just sayin.

    • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:43 PM

      Penalty shot goal by Thornton last night!

  17. spiciercheez - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM

    @ Elvis –

    I just wanted to say that you are just as whiny as your team who is a big bunch of babies. You can respond with some dumb argument but in reality, everyone around the league knows it and the fans do too. Quit trying to defend your team and all of their sally-like antics.

  18. bobwsc - Jan 11, 2012 at 2:55 PM

    has anything been said about the awesomeness of Thornton’s sports jacket?

    • drewsylvania - Jan 11, 2012 at 3:36 PM

      Was just thinking about that. Reminds me of the Joker.

  19. tmjm621 - Jan 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

    Is the video supposed to be here?? Can some one post a link to a working video cuz if its here i cant see it ha

  20. redrew - Jan 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

    Three points regarding the interview…
    1) Comcast states that Gallager was told before the interview that Thornton was in the studio
    2) Gallager claimed Thornton outweighed Weisse by 40 lbs, then 30 lbs, then 20 lbs…..reality 7 lbs
    3) Gallager admits Vancouver is not a tough team at all

    Conclusion: Gallager lied about the ambush journalism, Gallager doesn’t know sh*t about the roster he writes about….except that the team is viewed as a bunch of whining pussies by the rest of the league….He got that part right. Time to burn down the city again

  21. whatswellydoing - Jan 11, 2012 at 6:20 PM

    Ugh. I’m so sick of this. Gallagher is an idiot, Weise shouldn’t have goaded Thornton, Thornton shouldn’t have tried to fight a guy who already fought that period. This isn’t that complicated.

  22. canuckinamerica - Jan 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM

    Elvis. You shot yourself in the foot by insinuating Boston were “lucky” in winning 3 game 7’s. I would think anyone who knows their sports would say “that is a team that knows how to win the big ones”. Elvis…..leave the building.

  23. canuckinamerica - Jan 11, 2012 at 6:46 PM

    And might I add…..davebaych……you offer very insightful and unbiased comments here…….enjoy reading your posts.

  24. canuckinamerica - Jan 11, 2012 at 6:48 PM

    And yes ….I did spell davebaych wrong just to see if he is also good at picking up misspells.

  25. cshearing - Jan 12, 2012 at 8:49 AM

    The constant Vancouver hate on this board goes way over the top much of the time, but on one thing we can agree; Gallagher is a hack writer that knows little to nothing about hockey.

  26. dougcan - Jan 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM

    I am a Canucks fan that being said I love how Tony G undressed himself with a know it all attitude he so often presents that I can’t stand that being said if this article is correct http://eye-on-hockey.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/27694626/34324817 and hockeyfights.com did indeed determine that Mr Velvet has not once in his NHL career fought 3 times in a period or for that matter twice then let’s agree that neither of them handled the situation as honestly as they could have done.

    I still award the fight to Thornton!

Featured video

Caps' 'culture change' proving positive

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. J. Spezza (3130)
  2. E. Kane (2748)
  3. P. Datsyuk (2664)
  4. P. Stastny (2595)
  5. J. Drouin (2497)
  1. M. Gaborik (2447)
  2. V. Hedman (2362)
  3. E. Staal (2273)
  4. S. Varlamov (2221)
  5. J. Franzen (2102)