Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

1994 vs. 2011


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

Poll: Legends Against Future Legends (77 member(s) have cast votes)

If the 1994 Canucks played the 2011 Canucks who would win?

  1. 1994 Canucks (30 votes [38.96%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 38.96%

  2. 2011 Canucks (47 votes [61.04%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 61.04%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:53 AM

94 Goaltending was better than 2011 (not a ton aside from the games in Boston, but overall still better).

2011 Skaters were better than 94, more depth, more skill.

94 Wasn't as gritty and tough as Boston imo, so they wouldn't push us around and win the cup like people think Boston did.

And if you are comparing them as to how they did, the 94 team was way way healthier than the 2011 team, which made a huge difference in why we didn't win.


I would say 2011 for sure, More Skill, More Depth, Then IMO the also had Good enough grit and Goaltending to compete with that of the 94 Squad.


2011
Less heart, less toughness, less size, less clutch performers, too soft, wildly inconsistent goaltending.
1994 makes short work of this team.
  • 0

#62 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:02 AM

2011
Less heart, less toughness, less size, less clutch performers, too soft, wildly inconsistent goaltending.
1994 makes short work of this team.


It's hard to make a fair comparison when your basing your assesment of the 2011 team off the finals because of how injured we were.

Especially since when we were healthy, we had all those things you said we didn't and we were pretty much unstoppable.

If both teams are healthy, 2011 team for sure.
  • 0

zackass.png


#63 Pears

Pears

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,337 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:06 AM

2011
Less heart, less toughness, less size, less clutch performers, too soft, wildly inconsistent goaltending.
1994 makes short work of this team.

Healthy 2011 team = short work of any other teams

Healthy 2011 team vs 1994 team = major midget team against house league team

Edited by Steven Stamkos' Mullet, 12 November 2012 - 03:07 AM.

  • 0

In my eyes drouin is overrated he can score in the qmjhl but did nothing in last two gold medal games that canada lost. Fox will be better pro than him talk to me in five yrs

Gaudreau has one NHL goal whereas all your "prized" prospects have none.

   ryan kesler is going to the chicago blackhawks ...       quote me on it


#64 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,462 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:09 AM

Bure would have gave the "Mother of all Elbows" to each Canucks defender, lol.
Babych would have chopped down Kesler in front of the net.
Having McLean, without the 2-line pass would have been an extra passing defenseman, springing the '94 players with break-aways.
Momesso/Hunter/Antoski would have gooned the Sedins.
Linden was a complete player in his prime. Think Kesler, except bigger.

In terms of skills, it's arguable. The players on the 2011 team had better stats for the regular season, but the 94 team was able to raise their game in the post-season. Many, if not most, of the players on the 1994 run had better playoff stats than regular season.

Edited by Lancaster, 12 November 2012 - 05:09 AM.

  • 0

#65 Primus099

Primus099

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:14 AM

It's the Canucks so both teams would lose somehow the way things go for us
  • 0

#66 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:55 AM

It's hard to make a fair comparison when your basing your assesment of the 2011 team off the finals because of how injured we were.

Especially since when we were healthy, we had all those things you said we didn't and we were pretty much unstoppable.

If both teams are healthy, 2011 team for sure.


Even if the 2011 team were completely healthy I do not think they could compete with the 1994 team.
You say we were unstoppable and during the regular season that was quite true. During the playoffs however the only team we dominated were the Sharks and they were very injured on top of being notorious playoff chokers. Some might even say we were lucky to get through that series in 5 games, it might've turned out differently if not for the fortunate stanchion goal.
  • 1

#67 pimpcurtly

pimpcurtly

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,368 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:11 AM

Even if the 2011 team was completely healthy at the beginning of this series, they wouldn't have been by the end. That's how I look at it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#68 Ryan Murray

Ryan Murray

    Canucks Rookie

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

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:40 AM

Game 1

1994 (2) @ 2011 (3)

http://www.whatifspo...0484&teamfee=-1

Game 2

1994 (4) @ 2011 (3)

http://www.whatifspo...0502&teamfee=-1

Game 3

2011 (5) @ 1994 (2)

http://www.whatifspo...0505&teamfee=-1

Game 4

2011 (3) @ 1994 (4)

http://www.whatifspo...0506&teamfee=-1

Game 5

1994 (1) @ 2011 (3)

http://www.whatifspo...0508&teamfee=-1

Game 6

2011 (3) @ 1994 (1)

http://www.whatifspo...0513&teamfee=-1

Whatifsports says 2011 wins in 6 games.
  • 1
Posted Image
Credit to Vintage Canuck

#69 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 01:20 PM

Even if the 2011 team were completely healthy I do not think they could compete with the 1994 team.
You say we were unstoppable and during the regular season that was quite true. During the playoffs however the only team we dominated were the Sharks and they were very injured on top of being notorious playoff chokers. Some might even say we were lucky to get through that series in 5 games, it might've turned out differently if not for the fortunate stanchion goal.


The 94 Team didn't get through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs any easier than the 2011 team. I don't think that really proves anything.


When the 2011 team was healthy they were unstopppable, including in the playoffs. And I don't expect that to be any different again the 94 team.
  • 0

zackass.png


#70 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:23 PM

The 94 Team didn't get through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs any easier than the 2011 team. I don't think that really proves anything.


When the 2011 team was healthy they were unstopppable, including in the playoffs. And I don't expect that to be any different again the 94 team.


1994 finished off Dallas and Toronto in only 5 games, both teams seeded higher than the Canucks. '94 could also win numerous games in a row. After going down 3-1 to Calgary they went 11-2 en route to the final.

The 2011 team were unstoppable in the playoffs you say?
I seem to recall having a 3-0 series lead against 8th place Chicago, yes we won, in 7 games, in overtime... That could have easily become the worst choke job in league history and we were 1 goal away from that. Hardly unstoppable.
It took 6 games for Kesler to finish off Nashville, a team that has difficulty scoring at the best of times. We had the #1 ranked offense and defense, why did it take so long?
San Jose was our easy series and based on their track record and injury list, it probably should've been a sweep.
Boston...we were stopped.
And there you have it. Home ice advantage throughout the playoffs and it still went 25 games with us not winning.
  • 0

#71 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:36 PM

1994 finished off Dallas and Toronto in only 5 games, both teams seeded higher than the Canucks. '94 could also win numerous games in a row. After going down 3-1 to Calgary they went 11-2 en route to the final.

The 2011 team were unstoppable in the playoffs you say?
I seem to recall having a 3-0 series lead against 8th place Chicago, yes we won, in 7 games, in overtime... That could have easily become the worst choke job in league history and we were 1 goal away from that. Hardly unstoppable.
It took 6 games for Kesler to finish off Nashville, a team that has difficulty scoring at the best of times. We had the #1 ranked offense and defense, why did it take so long?
San Jose was our easy series and based on their track record and injury list, it probably should've been a sweep.
Boston...we were stopped.
And there you have it. Home ice advantage throughout the playoffs and it still went 25 games with us not winning.


Yes, when healthy they were unstoppable.

We almost choked. We were almost stopped. But we didn't choke, and we weren't stopped.

Why did it take 6 games for us to beat Nashville you ask? You are forgetting there are two teams on the ice. And with the way Nashville plays (which I shouldn't have to explain) It's not much of a surprise it took a little longer.

You don't give SJ enough credit, our wins were all (aside from game 2) one goal wins, they were probably harder for us than Toronto and Dallas were for the 94 back in 94.

When you compare the roster's it isn't all that close.

As I said if a healthy 2011 team played a healthy 94 team the 2011 team would surely win.
  • 1

zackass.png


#72 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:56 PM

Yes, when healthy they were unstoppable.

We almost choked. We were almost stopped. But we didn't choke, and we weren't stopped.

Why did it take 6 games for us to beat Nashville you ask? You are forgetting there are two teams on the ice. And with the way Nashville plays (which I shouldn't have to explain) It's not much of a surprise it took a little longer.

You don't give SJ enough credit, our wins were all (aside from game 2) one goal wins, they were probably harder for us than Toronto and Dallas were for the 94 back in 94.

When you compare the roster's it isn't all that close.

As I said if a healthy 2011 team played a healthy 94 team the 2011 team would surely win.


As far as I know the whole 2011 team was healthy against Chicago, we had the widest series lead possible and it came down to one goal wins the series. This team was definitely beatable and they were beaten. Maybe they would not have been so injured if they were bigger and tougher, '94 has them in this regard.
We will have to agree to disagree again, I believe '94 would have pounded them into submission and outscored them by a fair margin.
  • 0

#73 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,347 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:57 PM

Yes, when healthy they were unstoppable.

We almost choked. We were almost stopped. But we didn't choke, and we weren't stopped.

Why did it take 6 games for us to beat Nashville you ask? You are forgetting there are two teams on the ice. And with the way Nashville plays (which I shouldn't have to explain) It's not much of a surprise it took a little longer.

You don't give SJ enough credit, our wins were all (aside from game 2) one goal wins, they were probably harder for us than Toronto and Dallas were for the 94 back in 94.

When you compare the roster's it isn't all that close.

As I said if a healthy 2011 team played a healthy 94 team the 2011 team would surely win.


"unstoppable" is a term i would reserve for damn near sweeping everyone in convincing fashion. No almosts, or close calls. The Kings were unstoppable, Canucks caused some heart attacks with how close they came to an early exit.
  • 1

#74 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:17 PM

As far as I know the whole 2011 team was healthy against Chicago, we had the widest series lead possible and it came down to one goal wins the series. This team was definitely beatable and they were beaten. Maybe they would not have been so injured if they were bigger and tougher, '94 has them in this regard.
We will have to agree to disagree again, I believe '94 would have pounded them into submission and outscored them by a fair margin.


Well Chicago didn't win the series, so im not sure how we were beaten by them.

And it was a different era, that team was tough for sure but they weren't like Boston, they didn't beat teams with toughness.

The 2011 team has more skill, enough grit, the best goaltender we have ever had, a 1-2 punch at center we haven't had, and that the 94 team certaintly didn't have.


If you look at the two roster's both playoff runs aside (since that's what this is about who would win not there playoffs run's head to head). and you have to pick one to win. You look at the advantages.

- Goaltending is even.

- Offense, I would say 2011 for sure. 94 had Bure but 2011 has Sedins, Kesler + more scoring Depth.

- Defense, pretty close aswell, although personally I would give a slight edge to 2011.

- Special teams, 2011 that PP was dynamite, and PK was great aswell.

- Grit/Toughness, I would give the edge to 94 aswell, although I do think people greatly over play the whole us getting beat up by the Bruins thing.

- Intangables, I would say... I'll give 94 a slight edge, but I don't think it's a huge margain between the two.


At the end when you look at these things, just disecting team vs team. I would say 2011.

But we can just agree to disagree on this one.
  • 0

zackass.png


#75 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:19 PM

"unstoppable" is a term i would reserve for damn near sweeping everyone in convincing fashion. No almosts, or close calls. The Kings were unstoppable, Canucks caused some heart attacks with how close they came to an early exit.


Good point.

But niether did the 94 team.

My point was that when our team was healthy we were pretty dominant and like I just said to Riveria, Playoff runs aside (cause that's not really what this is about.)

When you look at the two teams, and assess who is better in every area, you have to look at how that 2011 was able to dominate in every category. Then you look at the rosters, and break down the depth and skill. I think it shows the 2011 team has an advantage in most areas.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 12 November 2012 - 09:20 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#76 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,347 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:14 PM

I would bet on the 94 team if the 11's had too use 90's equipment and reffing.
  • 0

#77 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,381 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:19 PM

2011 team has the skill, but 1994 had the heart and determination.

94 team wins it on heart.
  • 0

#78 Kamero89

Kamero89

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:26 PM

94, one reason. Luongo


Captain Kirk played far from great in the 4 losses. Granted he stole game 1.
  • 0

#79 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,381 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:29 PM

The 94 Team didn't get through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs any easier than the 2011 team. I don't think that really proves anything.


When the 2011 team was healthy they were unstopppable, including in the playoffs. And I don't expect that to be any different again the 94 team.


No they weren't. The beating formula for this team has been the same for a few years and it hasn't changed, injuries or not. Hammer on the Sedins and shut them down, then exploit the D. Do this and Luongo goes down faster than a hooker on Hastings.
  • 1

#80 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:48 PM

Captain Kirk played far from great in the 4 losses. Granted he stole game 1.


He might not have been great in the 4 losses you mentioned, true enough. Aside from game 3 (5-1 loss) when Bure was ejected from the game on a BS call, McLean never allowed a game to get out of hand unlike another Canucks goaltender of note...
  • 0

#81 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,381 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:00 PM

He might not have been great in the 4 losses you mentioned, true enough. Aside from game 3 (5-1 loss) when Bure was ejected from the game on a BS call, McLean never allowed a game to get out of hand unlike another Canucks goaltender of note...


Lets not forget the the 2011 Canucks almost folded in the first round against Chicago, and thats when they were healthy. Luongo threw away 2 games there as well., or are people still blaming those games on "injuries" as well?

Edited by zero-ONE-three, 12 November 2012 - 11:03 PM.

  • 1

#82 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:21 PM

Lets not forget the the 2011 Canucks almost folded in the first round against Chicago, and thats when they were healthy. Luongo threw away 2 games there as well., or are people still blaming those games on "injuries" as well?


Why do we complain about Luongo in those games.

If we won the series and he played amazing in game 7.


As for the other thing you said. Maybe unstoppable isn't the right word, more like unbeatable but either way we won when we were healthy, we battled through the obstacles of each series, and emerged victorious.

All the critizism of Luongo is really unfair (as usual). Yes he wasn't great in game 4 and 5. Was he the only one that played bad? Not a chance.

Then you think of all the great games he had where he came up huge. Games 1, 2, 3, & 7 vs Chicago, was Solid throughout the Nashville series, Great vs SJ except game 3, won us games 1, 2 and 5 in the finals.

But as I've said before it is again just the age old argument in Vancouver "When we win it's inspite of Lu, when we lose it is his fault" And that's an argument niether side will ever win.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 12 November 2012 - 11:22 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#83 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:25 PM

Lets not forget the the 2011 Canucks almost folded in the first round against Chicago, and thats when they were healthy. Luongo threw away 2 games there as well., or are people still blaming those games on "injuries" as well?


This is what I keep saying.
Who knows, maybe some guys on the team were injured from the beginning, but wouldn't that be a testament to how this team is not built properly for the playoffs?
  • 0

#84 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:32 PM

Why do we complain about Luongo in those games.

If we won the series and he played amazing in game 7.


As for the other thing you said. Maybe unstoppable isn't the right word, more like unbeatable but either way we won when we were healthy, we battled through the obstacles of each series, and emerged victorious.

All the critizism of Luongo is really unfair (as usual). Yes he wasn't great in game 4 and 5. Was he the only one that played bad? Not a chance.

Then you think of all the great games he had where he came up huge. Games 1, 2, 3, & 7 vs Chicago, was Solid throughout the Nashville series, Great vs SJ except game 3, won us games 1, 2 and 5 in the finals.

But as I've said before it is again just the age old argument in Vancouver "When we win it's inspite of Lu, when we lose it is his fault" And that's an argument niether side will ever win.


Luongo was very good in game 7 except for the last minute bellyflop shorthander he gave up which tied the game. That is all beside the point, that series should never ever have gone as far as it did.
Now what was the problem? Was our team injured? Was Luongo to blame for losing 2 games by himself? Or is this team not really built for playoffs and were actually quite lucky to make it as far as they did in 2011.
  • 0

#85 Watermelons

Watermelons

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,593 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:46 PM

I'd say 1994.

Although the goals scored might be close, I think the physical advantage the 1994 team has over the 2011 team is quite similar to the advantage Boston had over Vancouver. The 1994 guys were "tougher" than the 2011 guys without a doubt, and wouldn't get pushed around by anyone. It's likely that the 1994 team would have injured a few of the 2011 guys after a few games.
  • 0

tumblr_lv6jbk180f1r5jtugo1_250.gif  Kirby_eats_a_watermelon.gif 


#86 Raoul Duke

Raoul Duke

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,102 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

The more I think about how hypothetical this topic is, the less I care. Both were awesome runs. We'll never know who would win.

2011 hurt a hell of a lot more if that matters. Game 7 at home and lose 4-0? Nothing hurts more. NOTHING!

Well, besides the Pats 18-1 season in '07-'08. That hurt badly. And my Mariners winning 116 games in '01, and then losing in 5 to the Skanks in the ALCS.
  • 0

Kershaw_zps0cb5a848.jpg


#87 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:51 PM

Now what was the problem? Was our team injured? Was Luongo to blame for losing 2 games by himself? Or is this team not really built for playoffs and were actually quite lucky to make it as far as they did in 2011.


I think we lost the cup because a number of reason's: Injuries, overall Inconsistency.

This is the line-up we had for game 7. (Might be a bit off, I can't remember exactly, but im sure this is close)
** Means significant injuries.

Daniel - Henrik** - Burrows
Tamby - Kesler** - Higgins**
Torres - Lappy - Hansen
Bolduc - Manny** - Oreo

Edler** - Bieksa**
Ehrhoff** - Salo
Alberts - Tanev


- Look at that defense, not only are we missing our best defensemen (Hammer) our next best 3 have significant injuries.

- The 2nd line looks nothing like the 2nd line we are used to. (Raymond - Kesler - Sammuelsson)

- The 1-2 punch we had at center that was so great the entire season & Playoffs was desimated due to injuries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then of course we had some inconsistent play, most noteable Luongo, I'm not doubting it. He was our best player one game then had a bad game others. Although some of our defense also struggled at times, our offense came and went, our powerplay had it's moments but also had bad moments. Then of course Thomas was playing unreal, better than I have ever seen a goaltender play, and the defense game they played around him was very well thought out, there were no rebounds, not alot of chances in close, and they had players step up and play well when they needed it.

I think the #1 reason is injuries because that kind leads into everything else. (Scoring troubles, powerplay) Then of course you can't ignore the way Thomas and Boston played, then after that Luongo's tough nights in Boston.


But finally now that I have said all that I have to say: I don't think it is fair to blame Luongo for more than just those games in Boston, yes u can blame him and say he cost us those games. But you can't blame him for more than that, and certaintly not for the entire series, because in the other games he was our best player. And you certaintly can't dismiss the fact our PP was brutal and that we only scored 8 goals in 7 games.
  • 0

zackass.png


#88 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:58 PM

I think we lost the cup because a number of reason's: Injuries, overall Inconsistency.

This is the line-up we had for game 7. (Might be a bit off, I can't remember exactly, but im sure this is close)
** Means significant injuries.

Daniel - Henrik** - Burrows
Tamby - Kesler** - Higgins**
Torres - Lappy - Hansen
Bolduc - Manny** - Oreo

Edler** - Bieksa**
Ehrhoff** - Salo
Alberts - Tanev


- Look at that defense, not only are we missing our best defensemen (Hammer) our next best 3 have significant injuries.

- The 2nd line looks nothing like the 2nd line we are used to. (Raymond - Kesler - Sammuelsson)

- The 1-2 punch we had at center that was so great the entire season & Playoffs was desimated due to injuries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then of course we had some inconsistent play, most noteable Luongo, I'm not doubting it. He was our best player one game then had a bad game others. Although some of our defense also struggled at times, our offense came and went, our powerplay had it's moments but also had bad moments. Then of course Thomas was playing unreal, better than I have ever seen a goaltender play, and the defense game they played around him was very well thought out, there were no rebounds, not alot of chances in close, and they had players step up and play well when they needed it.

I think the #1 reason is injuries because that kind leads into everything else. (Scoring troubles, powerplay) Then of course you can't ignore the way Thomas and Boston played, then after that Luongo's tough nights in Boston.


But finally now that I have said all that I have to say: I don't think it is fair to blame Luongo for more than just those games in Boston, yes u can blame him and say he cost us those games. But you can't blame him for more than that, and certaintly not for the entire series, because in the other games he was our best player. And you certaintly can't dismiss the fact our PP was brutal and that we only scored 8 goals in 7 games.


I was mostly referring to the series against Chicago and our inability to finish teams off quickly in the playoffs. You do raise some good points though.
  • 0

#89 Grapefruits

Grapefruits

    Fruit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,381 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 08

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:59 PM

Luongo was very good in game 7 except for the last minute bellyflop shorthander he gave up which tied the game. That is all beside the point, that series should never ever have gone as far as it did.
Now what was the problem? Was our team injured? Was Luongo to blame for losing 2 games by himself? Or is this team not really built for playoffs and were actually quite lucky to make it as far as they did in 2011.


When Luongo loses, Luongo usually loses BIG. Before Schneider started playing a big role Luongo was getting pulled every 8 games or so and getting shelled in the process. He gets blown out far too often far too fast for the team to remain in the games.

When Luongo plays bad his positioning is poor and his lateral movement sucks. He fights the puck with his glove and flops far too easy. Teams no how to beat him with ease when he's off his game.

As far as this team goes, they just aren't built for the playoffs, they lack grit and toughness. Watching the Sedins get knocked around like rag dolls year after year in the playoffs gets laughable. I think it's time for this team to go out and get a true heavyweight. Someone that other players will think twice about before they take liberties with the team.

With Gino patrolling in 94, there was no chance of an opposing player taking liberties. Except that dirty ***** Messier on Linden at the end of game 6.

Edited by zero-ONE-three, 13 November 2012 - 12:00 AM.

  • 0

#90 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:24 AM

I was mostly referring to the series against Chicago and our inability to finish teams off quickly in the playoffs. You do raise some good points though.


Oh okay, well yeah Chicago then it's not injuries cause we were healthy at that point aside from Manny.

Pretty much just inconsistentcy, Luongo wasn't great but I don't think he was quite as bad as he was in Boston, I think it is fair to blame our defense almost as much or maybe just as much as Luongo.

In game 4:

- A minute in Hamhuis pinched up, then its a one on one Bieksa v Bickel, Bieksa was caught looking at the puck instead of taking the man, Bickel danced around him and Luongo was no help. I think the you could give alot of the blame to Luongo on that goal, but Bieksa certaintly has to take some blame too. Less than 2 mins in. 1-0 Hawks.

- It's 1-1 halfway through the 2nd we make a late change, Kane gains the line, cuts to the middle, Campbell is the man who joins the play he gets the puck in the solt, fires a good shot by Luongo. Campbell should have been covered by the winger coming back, Luongo might have a chance but it was a bad change & a subpar backcheck that left someone open who shouldn't have been. 2-1 Hawks

- The next shift, Edler loses a battle to Frolik, Daniel loses Keith, doesn't cover him like he should have, 3 forwards are caught in La-La land and Keith blasts one by Luongo, no chance for Lu IMO, that one is on the skaters. 3-1 Hawks.

- A bit later, Glass throws the puck away, Edler is caught puck watching and Bolland fires a nice shot by Luongo, maybe he could have got it, but I fault this one more on the skaters too. 4-1 Hawks, and the game is pretty much over.

Game 5:

- early in the game, Hossa is alowed to walk right down the middle with little to no pressure, everyone is caught puck watching, Hossa in a great spot fires a beauty by Luongo, No chance for Luongo on that one, 1-0 Hawks less than 5 mins in.

- The very next shift, they get the puck back to the point and Kieth lets a shot go that I don't think any goalie in the league can stop. I don't know who to blame, maybe we could have been a little more intense on getting the puck. But idk how Luongo can be faulted, a screen infront and a nearly perfect shot. Back to back goals and it's 2-0 Hawks.

- Later on in the 1st: Again Idk who to blame, Keith gets a one-timer off on the PP that is another laser beam, there was a screen infront and I don't think Lu saw it. Maybe someone could have tried to move Toews infront, other than that, Idk who to blame. 3-0 Hawks.

- A little later on in the period Sharp get's a breakaway and Lu makes a big save. 3-0 at the end of the 1st.

- Early in the 2nd Hossa isn't covered, he gets a breakaway and let's a shot go that Lu had no chance on. 4-0 Hawks. Game over.



So as I have illustrated, While Lu didn't help matter's, I don't think is play was nearly as bad as the Boston games, and not as bad as people think.

Here are the highlights so you can make your own judgements on the goals if you think mine aren't accurate.

Game 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-QCatFsUjU

Game 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaUAMlmuW4M

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 13 November 2012 - 12:25 AM.

  • 0

zackass.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.