oldnews Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 If Burrows hadn't scored in OT, then Burrows would have scored in double OT, game 7, 2011 vs Chicago. Burrows is clutch. The guy has scored 117 goals in the last four years, while earning a combined $6.525 million. What other player in the NHL can you say that about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted May 22, 2012 Author Share Posted May 22, 2012 I don't understand the point of these "what if" type questions. You could just as easily say, what if Toews didn't score that tying SH goal? Then it wouldn't have even got to OT and we would have been denied one of the most exciting moments in Canucks history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 so you/someone mentioned this in another thread and now we have a whole topic on it.. great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Appreciate your response. The point was contained in a question left at the bottom of the post. "did the Burrows goal give us an overinflated sense of where we really are? Are we really that close or did we simply cheat death and go on a nice run until the Bruins (and later the Kings) exposed us for who we are?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Appreciate your response. The point was contained in a question left at the bottom of the post. "did the Burrows goal give us an overinflated sense of where we really are? Are we really that close or did we simply cheat death and go on a nice run until the Bruins (and later the Kings) exposed us for who we are?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rawkdrummer Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 how do you spell hypothetical? like Bertuzzi said, "it is what it is" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
**Pavel4Life** Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Don't even want to entertain that thought. Then again bringing in Messier and his coach of choice Mike Keenen set off an interesting chain of events that's still paying dividends today. Messier in meant Linden out. Shipping out Linden gets us Bertuzzi, McCabe and Ruutu. Bertuzzi later lands us Luongo. While McCabe is flipped in a package that brings the team the pick used to draft Daniel Sedin. Thanks Mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmclean Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 What if you never made this stupid thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmylu1 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 AV would have been fired. That's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar baby watermelon Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 All in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Who gives a ****, we were never going to win the cup, and sucked the whole playoffs. We just got lucky to make it to the finals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dura_mater Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Where would we be today? Maybe some will say this is as pointless as all the 'Cody' threads that keep popping up. After all we DID go to the finals and nearly became champs. Then again, we were one shot away from it all being snuffed out. Our team DID carelessly put themselves in that position. So bear with me here. My point in making this post is to ask CDC to fairly evaluate our team. Are we a true Stanley Cup contender (a team that can make several runs to the final) or are we simply a regular season 'paper tiger' and just kidding ourselves? First AV......... That one goal saved his job. Surely AV would have been let go after 3 straight playoff losses to Chicago. Especially after blowing a 3-0 lead. If not, surely this year's first round exit against LA would have sealed his fate? And yet he'll most likely be back again. Luongo would have never redeemed himself by going toe to toe against Pekka Rinne in the Nashville series. He'd simply wear the goat horns for being terrible in games 4 and 5 vs Chicago. In addition to being on his belly when the OT winner was scored on him in game 6 after losing the starting job to Schneider. He'd be a guy who's never been past the 2nd round. .... He wouldn't get the free pass he got for his effort in games 1 and 2 vs LA this year (even though I thought he played fine). He'd be run out of town as a bum. Some would say this is happening regardless. We never would have seen the Ryan Kesler 'beast mode' where he beat Nashville all by himself. In addition, he wouldn't have got hurt in the 3rd round. So maybe this year we would have seen the real Ryan Kesler, then again maybe we did and should just get use to it? I could go on and on for each player but that would be far too long and really kind of pointless. Where would Mike Gillis stand? What kind of heat would he be getting for assebling a team that lost to Chicago 3 straight years and this year to LA? Would there be calls for his head as well? What would you do with him? Two president's trophies don't buy you that much good will do they? So I guess my question in closing is, did the Burrows goal give us an overinflated sense of where we really are? Are we really that close or did we simply cheat death and go on a nice run until the Bruins (and later the Kings) exposed us for who we are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 One thing humans tend to do to the underestimate the role of luck in human activity. The Canucks were lucky to get by Chicago. Certainly the 7th game could have gone either way. I agree with the OP that the fallout would have been a lot different if the Canucks had lost. Frankly, I think the team would have been a better team going into next year if the Canucks had lost. I agree that both AV and Luongo would be gone, and Kesler and Raymond and others would not be so worn down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realnucksfan2010 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLluvitorleaveit Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 No riot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canacks1970 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 AV would have been fired. That's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcticcanuck Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 ... then someone else would have scored. Your post makes it sound like if Burrows didn't score then no one on the Canucks would have, but how do you know Chicago would have won? I would say that the Canucks success in the regular season gives them a fair chance at winning the cup, but to win the cup you need a combination of luck and talent. The canucks have the talent but this year didn't have the luck. What if we faced the sharks in the first round instead of the Kings? What if L.A. wasn't healthy going into the playoffs and the Canucks were? You can ask what if until your face turns blue, but it doesn't change the outcome. I think a combination of injuries and underestimating their opponent was the cause of the Canucks demise. No one was looking at the team the Kings were going into the playoffs, they were looking at who they were over the scope of the season and for the Kings, they were a completely different team at the end than at the beginning. The picked up the right pieces going into the playoffs, combine that with the fact that they were healthy and gained a lot of confidence and momentum after the first 2 wins and you have a winning recipe. Anything can happen to change the dynamics of a team or a game- this year it wasn't in the cards for the Canucks, but that doesn't mean the team is crap and needs a rebuild, it just needs a tweak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjkaemingh Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 OP: AV would sure have been fired (at least by now), MG might be on this ice too. Our core may not be together anymore either. Some major trades would have happened. We (fans) certainly would have had a major shift of attitude or belief in the Canucks. 4 years of never past the second round would be considered a failure to most of us, especially with 2 presidents trophys. We would be just extra EXTRA critical on cdc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyfall Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 The point of this thread is that the Canucks were very,very close to an epic failure. AV would've been fired and his weaknesses would be greatly highlighted. Public opinion would've probably been shifted towards getting rid of AV. At that time: After the game 4 blowout against the Hawks, AV said "the adjustments we need to make are real simple". In game 5 the Canucks got blown out again. After the game 5 blowout (back to back blowouts), AV said immediately after the game that Luongo is his guy and will go into net in game 6. Sure that changed later but many ppl at the time were questioning this. I think this may have changed later because upper management put heat on him. Flashback to the beginning of the 2010-11 season and Gillis had a schedule to make Schneids start 25 games. This was not AV's schedule and at the beginning of that year AV said something to the effect of "this was Mike's schedule, not mine. I want to win so I'm letting Luongo start most of the games". Sure AV has changed but it seems like it's heavily due to upper management making go into a desired direction rather than him having good ideas himself and already subscribing to the proper direction. Some ppl think anti-AV ppl are delusional... and I admit, some of them are... but when you factor in major failures that were directly related to coaching how can you deny it? I'm all for loyalty and AV has done some great things but at the same time it seems like twice the work to get a guy to adapt his natural ways than find a guy who not only is on the same page as the rest of the team, but improves upon the vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Burrows is clutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.