Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

What If Burrows Never Scored In Game 7 Ot Vs Chicago 2011?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
88 replies to this topic

#61 Cody9

Cody9

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 08

Posted 22 May 2012 - 10:59 AM

Lots of "What If" and there will always be a lot of them year after year after year!  

As I digress:  What if we had kept Willie?  OMG, I sure hope he wins the CUP - he deserves it along with his team.  Especially I would want LA to win if they have to play the Rangers.  It would be slap in the face to Messier who deserves it for the joke he was the 3 years he played here.  What a waste of money - have you ever seen a more useless Canuck then him?

We need huge CHANGES;  we need PLAYOFF material PLAYERS here and until we get them, it'll continue to be: "NEXT year we will be BETTER".

WE NEED many more BURROWS.  Guys who play with their hearts and play big! I was at that game where he scored against Chicago and let me tell you we didn't even see the players shaking hands because we were all hugging and screaming until we left the building. We owe Alex a lot. I have more jerseys then I can count! When it comes PLAYOFF time, I always wear my #14 Jersey, and wear it proudly!

Edited by Cody9, 22 May 2012 - 11:06 AM.


#62 TRIPP3D

TRIPP3D

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 08

Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:08 AM

Posted Image

#63 Losing With Pride

Losing With Pride

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,763 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 06

Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:12 AM

What if Pavel Bure had a Robotic ACL and MCL

#64 Losing With Pride

Losing With Pride

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,763 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 06

Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:16 AM

What if St. Louis didn't match the David Backes offer sheet?

What if Jan Bulis hadn't piggy backed Hagman?



#65 ChrisCo!

ChrisCo!

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 09

Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:27 AM

What if Vancouver had won the Stanley Cup last year? What if he still let in the same 3 goals, but Vancouver ended up winning the game 4-3 and becoming Stanley Cup Champions? We would NOT have started Schneider for Game 3 of the LA Series.
Canucks record when I'm in attendance: 6-0-1

Canucks Fantasy Pool Overall Average Rank: 31st


#66 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,812 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 22 May 2012 - 12:04 PM

There wouldn't have been a riot and the team would have been quite different this past year - maybe we would have tried harder to get some new core players like Brown or Carter in LA.

Maybe if pigs had wings they'd fly.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

 

cdc-unavailable.jpg


#67 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,508 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 22 May 2012 - 01:20 PM

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.

I disagree. If you go back and watch game seven, the Canucks were clearly the better team, but for whatever reason, were unable to bury Chicago.

It was the Hawks who were lucky to even get to OT....

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 22 May 2012 - 01:20 PM.

Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#68 TotesMagotes

TotesMagotes

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,337 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 22 May 2012 - 01:32 PM

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.


The Canucks were LUCKY? It's the other way around. Please tell me you didn't watch the series, because anyone who watched would easily recognize the Canucks were the better team, they maybe got caught looking ahead to the next round and got caught off guard by a motivated Chicago team. But the Canucks were absolutely the better team and luck was not the reason they won.
Posted Image

#69 Not Alain Vigneault

Not Alain Vigneault

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,468 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 09

Posted 22 May 2012 - 01:36 PM

Well if Burrows never scored, the rebound would have came to him and he would have past it out Kesler or Hamhuis.

So....

#70 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,516 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 22 May 2012 - 01:45 PM

they maybe got caught looking ahead to the next round and got caught off guard by a motivated Chicago team.


Do true Stanley Cup contenders do this? Especially after the same opponent got the better of them the previous 2 years. Speaking of motivation. Where was the motivation to finish them off in games 4 and 5?

#71 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,516 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 22 May 2012 - 01:47 PM

Well if Burrows never scored, the rebound would have came to him and he would have past it out Kesler or Hamhuis.

So....


Probably what the real Alain Vigneault said to Gillis during his exit meeting last year. :)

#72 TotesMagotes

TotesMagotes

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,337 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 22 May 2012 - 02:07 PM

Do true Stanley Cup contenders do this? Especially after the same opponent got the better of them the previous 2 years. Speaking of motivation. Where was the motivation to finish them off in games 4 and 5?


You're talking as if the Canucks are the only team to ever do this. The Hawks were the better team in games 4, 5 and 6...But the Canucks played their hearts out in game 7 and won.... So what are you getting at exactly?

And to answer your question, ''do true stanley cup contenders do this?'' The answer is yes, considering the Canucks went to game 7 of the SCF that year and ''contended for the Stanley Cup'' and easily could've won. They weren't Stanley Cup favourites because they weren't a true contender, in fact it was because they were such a great contender that year is why they were favourites.

Confused at your logic there. :huh:
Posted Image

#73 skyfall

skyfall

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts
  • Joined: 16-November 09

Posted 22 May 2012 - 02:22 PM

I disagree. If you go back and watch game seven, the Canucks were clearly the better team, but for whatever reason, were unable to bury Chicago.

It was the Hawks who were lucky to even get to OT....


How come when the Canucks are clearly the better team they only win by 1 goal but Chicago was clearly the better team against the Canucks in game 4 and 5 of that series? Plus when the Hawks lost they hadn't lost by more than two goals that series so they were pretty much in every game during the series.

The thing that concerns me is that the Canucks rarely have games where their dominant effort is matched on the scoreboard. To me a championship team would be able to cream an opponent by 3+ goals a few times during the playoff run, esp in the earlier rounds.

Is it in fact that the talent is really weak or overrated and that the coach is maximizing the talent to "dominate" by 1 goal or is the talent being hindered and should really be vastly outscoring the other team?

To me the coach's job is get the output to match the work ethic and talent of the team relative to the other team. If they can slack off and can beat a weak team in a close game that's great. If they work really hard and can blow a weak team out of the water, that's great too. But if they work hard and stay in a close game how good are they really?

I also have noticed through all of the playoff runs since AV was in charge that only the game against San Jose with the penalty box flasher was there a huge stomping of the other team in the playoffs. That doesn't give me much comfort since the team does work really hard in most games just to stay close and loses almost all of the ones they slack off in.

#74 TotesMagotes

TotesMagotes

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,337 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 22 May 2012 - 02:35 PM

How come when the Canucks are clearly the better team they only win by 1 goal but Chicago was clearly the better team against the Canucks in game 4 and 5 of that series? Plus when the Hawks lost they hadn't lost by more than two goals that series so they were pretty much in every game during the series.

The thing that concerns me is that the Canucks rarely have games where their dominant effort is matched on the scoreboard. To me a championship team would be able to cream an opponent by 3+ goals a few times during the playoff run, esp in the earlier rounds.

Is it in fact that the talent is really weak or overrated and that the coach is maximizing the talent to "dominate" by 1 goal or is the talent being hindered and should really be vastly outscoring the other team?

To me the coach's job is get the output to match the work ethic and talent of the team relative to the other team. If they can slack off and can beat a weak team in a close game that's great. If they work really hard and can blow a weak team out of the water, that's great too. But if they work hard and stay in a close game how good are they really?

I also have noticed through all of the playoff runs since AV was in charge that only the game against San Jose with the penalty box flasher was there a huge stomping of the other team in the playoffs. That doesn't give me much comfort since the team does work really hard in most games just to stay close and loses almost all of the ones they slack off in.


You can't judge who is the better team in the playoffs by how lopsided the goal scoring is. I remember watching that entire series and i clearly remember the Canucks being the better team in at least 5 out of 7 games, sure they lost a few games but overall they were the better team.

All teams in the playoffs are hard to beat, they're there for a reason, just because a team has the edge over their opponent does not mean they will blow them outa the water by 4 or 5 goals. In the regular season that may be more common, but in the playoffs? Get real.

The Canucks did not necessarily dominate the Hawks, after all it went to 7 games. But the Canucks were the better team and i can say that pretty confidently. They were more physical, they had better goaltending, they had better puck possession and better scoring chances overall. Those stats in my opinion, carry much more weight when judging who the better team is rather than simply scoring goals (which the Canucks also had the edge obviously i might add). Especially when, like i said, in the playoffs not many teams get blown out.
Posted Image

#75 Ryan Murray

Ryan Murray

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,970 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 09

Posted 22 May 2012 - 02:44 PM

Yeah, I have thought about this many times. I would think the MG would have made some big acquisitions last summer (July 2011) then just getting guys like Sturm, Mancari... and this years trade deadline.

If it wasn't for Luongo's save earlier it could have all ended. Remember: it was Burrows who took a penalty in OT just before he scored. Had Sharp scored all the blame would go to Burrows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJQ3NWJplFc


Our team was lucky Luongo was there to bail us out. Sharp was supposed to be Raymond's man.

As if Raymond doesn't have enough trade speculation already.
Posted Image
Credit to Vintage Canuck

#76 SwedishCrowns

SwedishCrowns

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 12

Posted 22 May 2012 - 02:55 PM

What if your mother told you that you were adobted and your biological father was Scott Stevens?

#77 Losing With Pride

Losing With Pride

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,763 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 06

Posted 22 May 2012 - 03:29 PM

What if your mother told you that you were adobted and your biological father was Scott Stevens?


I would be suspended from school, from work and from hockey.

#78 gdcanucks02

gdcanucks02

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 11

Posted 22 May 2012 - 04:24 PM

then the game would have continued until someone else scored

#79 Fateless

Fateless

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 10

Posted 22 May 2012 - 04:42 PM

These threads bore me. Bring on July 1st already!

i1u6zif.gif


#80 Guest_gumballthechewy_*

Guest_gumballthechewy_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 22 May 2012 - 04:45 PM

Daniel woulda scored it than.


Kelser maybe too, he was on fire that year.

#81 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 22 May 2012 - 06:55 PM

Didn't Boston go to OT game 7 last year against Montreal just to barely squeeze out a win as well?

#82 gragnanifan1

gragnanifan1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 11

Posted 22 May 2012 - 07:52 PM

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


just chill chill just chill
Posted Image
credit goes to allons-y
Posted Image NHL 13 GM Connected -GM of the Hurricanes http://forum.canucks...ed-league-xbox/

#83 Hockey Fever

Hockey Fever

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,923 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 09

Posted 22 May 2012 - 08:07 PM

It doesn't really matter, the team just doesn't have the determination or willpower to bring the Cup home.

756ac80c-8542-42cd-b771-2d57edda5a59.jpg

NHL Wikipedia : Operates Major Ice Hockey League known for predetermining Stanley Cup winners and rampant corrupt officiating

"I would love for (the Canucks) to win the Stanley Cup because that would put to bed all the talk about 1994", he says facetiously".
Nathan Lafayette on hitting the post in game seven of the Stanley Cup.


#84 JasetheCanuck

JasetheCanuck

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 22 May 2012 - 08:33 PM

Burr would have been the target of trade rumours for the rest of his time in Van City.

tumblr_lxk4f2YfMc1qaosmto1_400.gif

 

 

 


#85 soshified

soshified

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,862 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 09

Posted 22 May 2012 - 09:53 PM

What if Henrik score in game 4 of the finals?
What if Luongo could pulled out another outstanding performance in game 7?
What if Rome didnt hit Horton?
What if Hamhuis didnt hit Lucic?
What if AV actually pulled Luongo in game 3?
What if our PP actually worked?
What if the calls were fair?
What if Canucks vs Tampa Bay instead of Boston?

Lots of What ifs.

Edited by soshified, 22 May 2012 - 09:54 PM.



 


#86 The Sedin's 6th Sense

The Sedin's 6th Sense

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,431 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 11

Posted 22 May 2012 - 09:56 PM

Kesler would've gone through 6 Hawks and Joel Quenvilles mustache to score the winner, he was possessed that night.


Posted Image




"You know what my favourite Super Bowl is? The next one."

- Tom Brady


#87 Tangelos

Tangelos

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,077 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 12

Posted 22 May 2012 - 10:21 PM

hmm well, we probably would have lost. Reporters/fans would have been on the teams ass for the next 6 months. Fans would continue being optimistic about the future, but of course we would end up losing in the first round again in 2012. At that point, fans would be mentally broken. core players such as kesler and edler would be traded. ticket sales and prices for the 2012-2013 season would drop substantially as fans start giving up on the team because they've been accustomed to failure.

But hey thank goodness burrows scored right!

Edited by 6OH!4, 22 May 2012 - 10:22 PM.

(Sig removed by mod)
Previously Doug The Thug Glatt


#88 skyfall

skyfall

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts
  • Joined: 16-November 09

Posted 23 May 2012 - 10:04 AM

You can't judge who is the better team in the playoffs by how lopsided the goal scoring is. I remember watching that entire series and i clearly remember the Canucks being the better team in at least 5 out of 7 games, sure they lost a few games but overall they were the better team.

All teams in the playoffs are hard to beat, they're there for a reason, just because a team has the edge over their opponent does not mean they will blow them outa the water by 4 or 5 goals. In the regular season that may be more common, but in the playoffs? Get real.

The Canucks did not necessarily dominate the Hawks, after all it went to 7 games. But the Canucks were the better team and i can say that pretty confidently. They were more physical, they had better goaltending, they had better puck possession and better scoring chances overall. Those stats in my opinion, carry much more weight when judging who the better team is rather than simply scoring goals (which the Canucks also had the edge obviously i might add). Especially when, like i said, in the playoffs not many teams get blown out.


To me it's simple.. the name of the game is to score more goals than the other team. That's actually my fundamental problem with the coaching philosophy. It takes up too much energy to try to physically dominate, play hard D and hang on to the puck but to be stuck on the perimeter and have low value chances.

If teams are hard to blow out in the playoffs, how come the Canucks got blown out multiple times but they only blow out teams a few times? The majority of the games the Canucks do put in great effort but if "dominating" is only winning by one goal then I question the strategy.

Other teams can physically dominate but they use that momentum to carry the offense. The Canucks will physically dominate at times to get puck possession and as a defensive strategy but they don't have much in terms of a fast break game.

I've heard Canucks players say you keep hitting because you never know when that will result in a turnover which can lead to a goal. I agree with that but what I would emphasize more is sharpening up on fast break skills, sniping, getting easy goals when they come and picking your spots. Over the years I've seen teams score easy goals on the Canucks. Sometimes it is weak goaltending but most other times it's seizing the opportunity. The Canucks aren't trained that way though.. they're trained to play it safe and keep to the outside so that these chances can't materialize.

There are very few games where I felt the Canucks really left it out there on the ice on offense. When they play 110% for 60 minutes that usually means they were solid defensively and had the puck a lot but not dominating on offense in a way where they have swagger. It's a methodical statistical edge they get but nothing that I feel is championship material.

For the amount of work the Canucks put in, they don't get a good output. My standards are Laker championship type standards. NBA ppl seem to get it... they said because the Lakers barely squeaked by lower seeded Denver, they are in trouble. Regular season record and division championships mean nothing. Being a champion is a whole another level. The coaching staff hasn't displayed that. If you're content with being blown out many times and working hard just to keep the game close with this team then I question how good the coaching really is or if the team is overrated and the coach really does maximize their weak talents to give them a chance to win.

#89 Losing With Pride

Losing With Pride

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,763 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 06

Posted 23 May 2012 - 10:17 AM

What if we had drafted Sergei Fedorov.

Mogilny Fedorov Bure




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.