TowelPower12 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Good points. What you have mentioned however is also a testament to his up and down playoff performance. His inconsistency has been staggering at times, to the point I think where the coach wouldn't know whether or not to change goalies from game to game. An example would be trying Schneider in games 4 and 6 in Boston during the SCF. That's hindsight for you anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 The only difference Schneider would have made is that the losses would have been closer games, what did we score 3 goals in 3 games in Boston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 With the plethora of injuries to the d and notably Kes and Hank up front this team would have needed a 24 year old rookie in Ken Dryden to beat this Boston team. Back then,Dryden had Lapointe,Savard,LaPerriere,Harper,Boucher and Murdoch. All were said to be healthy. Bieksa -hurt by a Peverly or Boychuck blatant ,heavy two hander to the back of the knee.No call. Hamhuis-out in game 2. Ehrhoff-shot up to play.Could not take a hit or deal a hit or he risked serious,further shoulder damage. Rome -out. Tanev,a rookie with zero goals is playing. Alberts-playing hurt alongside the rookie Tanev. Edler-two fingers broken from a Boston slash.Could barely hold his stick.No call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 That may be true but we'll never know. Maybe Schneider wouldv'e been able to hold the door closed long enough for us to get a flukey one against Thomas, then who knows how it might have played out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 If you have to win by fluke goals, then you don't deserve to win. The fact of the matter is it really didn't matter who was in net, the offence wasn't there and we were going to lose anyway. The score may have been more respectable but the result would have ultimately been the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watermelons Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 One of the keys to playoff success is luck though. If we scored a lucky one and that resulted in us winning one of the games we lost, well personally I wouldn't give a sh*t if we didn't deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kubrick Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Why? Who has done more for this team and organization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 There was zero offense in the finals and zero goaltending for four games. Who has ever won a Cup with a save percentage of .880? And that is with two shutouts, that's how bad his goaltending performance was. And don't even get me started on how bad the offense was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I'd be happy to have Lou's jersey on the rafters if he's in it. Bure has a better shot at the ROH and I'm not sure He will even get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Luongo's play was always supplemented by the quality of d men in front of him. That is true of almost any goalie -anywhere. The Canucks had one d man that was not injured and a rookie that has never scored an NHL goal left to play against Boston. Give up the hatred and smell the salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowelPower12 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 There was zero offense in the finals and zero goaltending for four games. Who has ever won a Cup with a save percentage of .880? And that is with two shutouts, that's how bad his goaltending performance was. And don't even get me started on how bad the offense was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 The only difference Schneider would have made is that the losses would have been closer games, what did we score 3 goals in 3 games in Boston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 When I think of that series all I remember was intimidation .breaking backs,slashing to injure and running Canucks to literally kill them. The Bruins were brutal thugs and yet the Canucks made one borderline hit on a Bruin and Rome served the longest suspension in NHL history. And that is why Gillis is seriously upsetting this fan by throwing Luo out and under the bus. Luo and this team(with an addition or three) in front of him would win a cup,given a SCF encore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canacks1970 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 When I think of that series all I remember was intimidation .breaking backs,slashing to injure and running Canucks to literally kill them. The Bruins were brutal thugs and yet the Canucks made one borderline hit on a Bruin and Rome served the longest suspension in NHL history. And that is why Gillis is seriously upsetting this fan by throwing Luo out and under the bus. Luo and this team(with an addition or three) in front of him would win a cup,given a SCF encore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Grant Fuhr won 2 of his cups with a GAA of 3.00 and 3.12, but then again look at the team he had in front of him lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Naslund in the latter portion of his career was not beneficial to the club? The guy was second in goals in his final three years, behind Daniel. And third in points for his final three years, behind the twins. C'mon, don't be biased now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 He's been a great Canuck, but no way should this guy have his number retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Funny, Mark Messier was 2nd, 2nd and 3rd in scoring for the Canucks (on a far worse team) during his three years here (despite significant injuries during years 2 and 3) and I don't see anybody defending him (and he didn't suffer through a 17 game goalless drought like Naslund did). C'mon, don't be biased now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowelPower12 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 The difference is keeping your team in it. If you're within a goal your team cam make a push. When you're down 5 it's already over. That was the difference between Lou and Thomas. Thomas kept the Bruins in every one of their losses to us. To the bitter end they still had a chance. We didn't in our losses. I wouldn't fault Lou the least bit had he kept us in the games we lost. Even still the bulk of the blame goes to injuries. But those numerous injuries left us with Lou as our only real hope. And he bounced between a Vezina nominee and a Cloutier impersonator. You won't win many games in the finals if you need to score 5 or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoobydooby Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 McLean: Strong community guy who played better when we needed him most. Still active in local hockey and business Luongo: Worse in the playoffs than the regular season. Won't even move his family to the city while he's playing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.