Tortorella's Rant Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Correction, we wouldn't have been 2-0 up if Lu hadn't been playing for us. Go and watch these games again............I did, a few days ago. Our defence lost Hamhuis and it proceeded to steadily suck (probably due to accumulative injuries) while our offence/PP shut down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ukcanuckzfan Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 We felt on top of the world back then...Bruins looked down and out and then hell broke out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tm085 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 The problem with Luongo was that in the games we lost he didn't give us the slightest chance to win. Those games were over within minutes of Luongo giving up the first goal. Are you trying to say that if Luongo gives up 8 goals in a SCF game that the rest of the team is supposed to score 9? Luongo picked the worst time to pull his Jeckyll and Hyde routine. He was was brilliant in the three wins and complete and utter crap in the losses. Pitching a shutout every game is not realistic but we needed Luongo to match Tim Thomas's level of play in the four games we lost, if he did then maybe we would have won. I still believe it would have been better if Luongo crapped out in one of the first two games, maybe then we would've switched to Schneider the rest of the way and possibly gotten a better result. We might still have lost the Stanley Cup but I dont think we would've been embarrassed in the losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure1994Mclean Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Man, it's just our luck. We should have put those guys away, god knows if the roles were reversed and we were down 0-2 we would have been done for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tm085 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Man, it's just our luck. We should have put those guys away, god knows if the roles were reversed and we were down 0-2 we would have been done for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSS Corp. Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I miss the excitement and the Canucks fever in Vancouver last year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks.brad Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 and then it all came crashing down and lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Yes but at the same time in the games that we won he was basically the only reason we won them, especially those 2 shutouts. And come on dude...game over within minutes of Boston scoring the first goal? So once you go down 1-0 you just give up? I think not. Luongo is far from the biggest reason we lost that series, without him we don't even make it to game 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 a year ago today nathan horton went down, and the whole thing turned completely. i know it's not very rational or scientific, you can't back it up with stats, but in my view the outcomes of sport are so much more about intangibles than anything you can put on paper. i won't say i predicted anything when horton went down, but i distinctly recall feeling everything shift at that moment. the body language of the players and an intense gut feeling told me that, at least for that game, we were f-ed. by the time the game was over i had lost any confidence that we would see a canucks stanley cup. i didn't give up on it but all of a sudden i just didn't see it coming any more. i don't know how that kind of thing works but it fascinates me. even after torres' hit in the first round, same thing. the series turned but fortunately the boys pulled it together. once i heard the news schneider was in, i had the feeling there would be no upset after all. not that i thought he was the better goalie, but rather that switching it up like that could change the atmosphere and the flow. I still believe it did. despite losing that one i feel the momentum of the hawks was slowed and the nucks came back together. on paper, in the final they all should have been like games 1 and 2. not necessarily in the sense of vancouver winning, but they should have been close-fought games like that. tense, down to the wire and won by near margins. those two teams were so evenly matched, those blowouts never should have happened, and i feel now as much as i did then and in years before that there is something in the mix in vancouver that makes the team more vulnerable to breakdowns than it should be, more than other teams i think. is it the city, the fans, luongo, a.v.? i have no idea, and doubt it's any one single thing, but i'm certain it's there and i hope it doesn't last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.