Skip to content

Vigneault confirms Sedin diagnosis: “Daniel obviously, as everyone knows, has got a concussion”

Mar 26, 2012, 5:39 PM EDT

daniel sedin 2

Vancouver Canucks head coach Alain Vigneault confirmed the obvious on Monday, stating that Daniel Sedin suffered a concussion on an elbow to the head from Chicago’s Duncan Keith.

“Daniel obviously, as everyone knows, has got a concussion,” Vigneault told “I’m not going to address this every day. He’s got a concussion and when we’ve got something more to say, we’ll say it.”

Vigneault was terse with reporters in explaining the situation and how he’d handle updates moving forward. One wonders if he’s been instructed to keep his comments to a minimum after subtly calling out referee Dan O’Halloran last week for his involvement in the Sedin-Keith affair. (O’Halloran was widely criticized for calling a two-minute minor when a major and/or game misconduct seemed more appropriate.)

As for Sedin, it’s unclear when he’ll return to action or if there’s a timetable for him getting back into the Canucks lineup. Earlier reports suggested he’d miss two weeks, which would essentially shelf him until the end of the regular season.

Vigneault’s curtness might also have to do with his makeshift lineup. The Canucks have really shuffled the deck in Sedin’s absence, moving Mason Raymond and Zack Kassian onto the top line to play with Daniel’s brother, Henrik. The result? Vancouver only scored six goals on its recently-completed four-game road trip and went 1-for-13 on the power play.

  1. kcprof926 - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:30 PM

    Why do I have trouble believing the Vancouver coach. Why not just say upper body? Sister will be on the ice for the first game of the playoffs.

    • kitshky - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:36 PM

      A – because you’re pathetically looking for something to find fault with, and B – because anyone who’s seen the hit knows that it’s obviously a concussion?

  2. loinstache - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM

    Oh you mean the Canucks weren’t holding out on Daniel until Keith was suspended? Because that’s what they do right? Too bad the other sister didn’t get his brain bashed lolfckinpansy. Also look at AV’s short comments, he must be too tired from complaining LOL


    • loinstache - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:36 PM

      I wrote that before I even saw kcp’s comments, soon as I saw it I actually had to laugh out loud.

    • kitshky - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM

      I realize I shouldnt even qualify your comment with a reply but I’m just curious … can you please name one case where Vancouver has ever done that? Nevermind trying to justify the logic or benefit Vancouver would get out of it.

      • loinstache - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:40 PM

      • kitshky - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:56 PM

        Well said …you’ve convinced us all.

  3. themohel - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:44 PM

    If O’Halloran (or his partner) calls a two minute penalty on Daniel for his shoulder to Keith’s head, maybe the whole thing is avoided?

    • kitshky - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:46 PM

      Ya never know eh …the only thing we do know that could have avoided this would be Keith not throwing an elbowing into the face of an unsuspecting player.

      • interiorfan - Mar 26, 2012 at 6:52 PM

        You mean this whole thing ISN’T Vancouvers fault. I’m sure the whole thing could have been avoided if only Daniel didn’t have his big, fat face right where Keith wanted to stick his elbow!

      • kitshky - Mar 26, 2012 at 7:00 PM

        Havent you heard, Daniels concussion is totally fake and Vancouver’s keeping him out of the lineup to give them a better chance at winning the Western Conference

        … and if it’s not its clearly because Daniel hit Keith earlier, or was it Kessler’s clip, no no I think it was because of Rome’s hit … or was that Torre’s hit on Seabrook? No I’m sorry I forgot, it’s because Vancouver is the only team to have players embelish penalties. Either way the real victim here is the Hawks and Keith.

      • themohel - Mar 26, 2012 at 7:12 PM

        Keith is the one at fault and got his suspension, but don’t try to take the stance that the Canucks play clean and never take cheap shots – it hurts your credibility

      • kitshky - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM

        Just curious .. how does my referencing notable infractions by the Canucks come across like me claiming the Canucks never cross the line?

        My point is (/continues to be) that it’s utterly ridiculous that Vancouver continues to be painted as pretty much the only team in the league that employs an agitator, (in contrast to almost every team) has players that have ever tried to embelish penalties, (in contrast to almost every team) and every time anything happens against Vancouver the fans are painted as whiners and the team as”deserving” of it.

        If you’re not someone that does that, and are just a fan that dislikes Vancouver because of a great rivalry… fair enough., but you’re seemingly rare.

  4. loinstache - Mar 26, 2012 at 7:31 PM

    Kitshky did you honestly just have my sarcastic comment go soaring over your head only to follow up with one of your own in the same tone? Because that’s crazy retarded.

    • ikillchicken - Mar 26, 2012 at 8:38 PM

      Are you being sarcastic? The scary thing is that I can’t tell which says a lot about just how absurd some of the comments you see from Chicago fans are.

    • kitshky - Mar 26, 2012 at 10:13 PM

      Absolutely, my bad. Which made your “…” comment make no sense to me whatsoever, but in my defense it took awhile to get where you were coming from even after you clarified it.

      @ikillchicken Exactly..

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1834)
  2. P. Kane (1536)
  3. M. Richards (1333)
  4. P. Datsyuk (1324)
  5. N. Backstrom (1192)