Kevin Biestra Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Very much can be said for Lou. Dan never had a team even close to the team we have now. Last night was a perfect example,,,GAA of 1 with a .950 save percentage. All he had to do was be decent and the numbers look great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Dan actually had a team VERY CLOSE to what we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Doctor Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 At least Schneider and Lack are less likely to pull a choke job against Chicago, and Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zing! Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 This is so false. Captain Kirk was already an All Star and adored by Canucks fans before the 94 cup run. Give your head a shake. He just didn't get the national appeal because he didn't play in Toronto, but BC fans loved him well before 1994. He led the team to highly respectable regular season finishes, and put up a wall against the Jets a couple of times in post-season performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugli Fruit Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 is shawn antoski your real name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snolan Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Although the Canucks team of the early 2000's was good, please don't try to tell me that they were anywhere as deep as the team of last season, because they weren't even close. Some seasons they didn't even win their division, so how could you possibly argue this? Perhaps for one season (02-03), but keep in mind the secondary scoring wasn't there. Canucks were perennially labeled as a one line team, and opponents took advantage of that in the playoffs. The Sedins are now much more consistent than Naslund/Bert ever were, and are superior in every way. Offensively, yes. Defensively, no way. Ohlund, Sopel, Baron and Malik can't even touch Hamhuis, Bieksa, Edler and Ballard. Throw in Jovo who was a huge defensive liability at times, and it exposes even more problems. Salo is a wash as he's still here, but again, his big value is offensive. STANLEY CUP FAVORITES? Which three years were those? The Canucks didn't even win their division during any of those years and lost to 2 straight Cup champs in round 1, both of which had deep lineups and the greatest goaltenders of that era, Roy and Hasek. You are truly deluded if you really think the Canucks were Cup favourites in either of those scenarios. It's really obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. 2003 was a bit easier for the Canucks, but they had issues with the Wild's transition game and the defense in that series was really, really bad. Not that it would matter anyway, the Wild seemed so great against the Canucks, but they only managed to score one measly goal on Giguere and the Ducks in the entire next series, so again, I dont' think the Canucks were anywhere close to a 'Cup Favourite' In 04 they finally did win their division, but Bert ended his own season prematurely, and Clouts tore out his ankle against Calgary. Funny thing though, out of those 4 seasons, 3 teams went on to the Finals and 2 won it all. Maybe the Canucks just weren't as good as you think they were, hmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get real canuck fans Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 What?! Dan actually had a team VERY CLOSE to what we have now. Naslund and Bertuzzi in their prime were pretty much the Sedins, as in two of the top 5 players in the NHL. The defence in the Cloutier years was also on par with the defense now. The Cloutier Canucks would have been Stanley Cup favorites for probably 3 straight years if not for the goaltending. All we needed was someone, I dunno, Tim Cheveldae level to make a serious run in the playoffs. The only advantage Luongo has with the lineup in front of him, as opposed to Cloutier's lineup, is the quality of the #2 center. [/quote Seen some very dense things on these boards, but comparing the team we have now to the Cloutier era is more than moronic. The last 4 years the Sedins are a +185 the last 4 years. Bert and Nazzy were a mighty +60 in their hayday over there best 4 years. Did Cloutiers team ever have a Selke finalist? Certianly no winner. No Canuck team had ever lead the league in goals for or goals against in any season ever until doing both last year. Canucks never finished higher than 6th overall until last year when they lead the league by 10 points. Yes Lou did was a major factor during the regular season, but any average NHL goalie would have led us to the Presidents trophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Oh boy... I didn't say the Cloutier Canucks WERE cup favorites. I said they probably would have been with a goaltender swap (obviously for a top guy). I do claim that the Naslund/Cloutier Canucks were roughly as deep as today's Canucks, goaltending excluded. You say this is false because they didn't win their division every year back then. Two things: 1. We have a VEZINA NOMINATED goaltender now, which we didn't back then, and that is part of the whole point. 2. Our division sucks now and is easy to win. Back then, we had to go neck and neck with a top team in Colorado in order to win the division. It was the toughest division in hockey at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Alexander Cody Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I still can't believe we had Kevin Weekes for one and a half seasons.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Brown Burrows Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Some of those goalies were decent but not on our team. You can back-up Luongo all you want but not everybody is going to be a fan of his so STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flapjacks Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 LUONGO!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Cloutier played fine in the regular season, his numbers were good. So the Canucks should have dominated in the regular season back then like they did last season, right? Don't kid yourself, they were a one-line team. The truth is that Naslund and Bertuzzi couldn't hold a candle to the great players of the early 2000's and even with Roy, Brodeur and Hasek on the Canucks, they still wouldn't have been Cup Favourites, they weren't deep enough. Compare the Canucks of that era to Dallas, Detroit or Colorado and it becomes apparent quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Cloutier played fine in the regular season, his numbers were good. So the Canucks should have dominated in the regular season back then like they did last season, right? Don't kid yourself, they were a one-line team. The truth is that Naslund and Bertuzzi couldn't hold a candle to the great players of the early 2000's and even with Roy, Brodeur and Hasek on the Canucks, they still wouldn't have been Cup Favourites, they weren't deep enough. Compare the Canucks of that era to Dallas, Detroit or Colorado and it becomes apparent quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tm085 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 to whoever compared naslund and bertuzzi to the sedins.....sorry but they weren't even close to the sedins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 to whoever compared naslund and bertuzzi to the sedins.....sorry but they weren't even close to the sedins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joecanada777 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The difference is the sedins do it year after year and a lindsay doesnt compare to an art ross Dont get me wrong wce was fun but their +/- was unacceptable and could never lead to a cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The difference is the sedins do it year after year and a lindsay doesnt compare to an art ross Dont get me wrong wce was fun but their +/- was unacceptable and could never lead to a cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrows/Kesler Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 We're lucky to even have luongo. And using the Cory Schnieder argument doesn't make sense because he hasn't had the pressure of being the #1 in Vancouver. Nobody can claim he is the answer because he hasn't had that shot yet. Sure he plays great as a backup but we still need to see if he can handle the pressure of being THE guy. here's a idea: they're both awesome and we should be thankful to have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The Sedins have now done it twice, not 'year after year.' And a Pearson / Lindsay doesn't compare to an Art Ross? Really? I would be interested in how the NHL players feel about that. On top of which, Forsberg beat Naslund for the Art Ross by 1 or 2 points that year, maybe 3. Anyway, I guess we agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.