Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Were the Canucks Simple not Good Enough to Win the Cup or


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

Most hockey fans know it takes more than just being an excellent team to win the cup. A lot of uncontrollable factors go into winning it all.

For the Canucks and their cup runs many of these factors have not gone their way, the main one being injuries. The teams they have lost to in the cup finals have ,on most part, been the healthier team.

The arguement about scoring, consistent goaltending, and team toughness will for ever haunt the Canucks ,but in all fairness the team has not been anywhere near 100% in their chances to win the cup.
By no means am I suggesting the other teams were 100%, but if they where 90% of health Van was at 60%. A lot of fans will say find a way to win injuries are just an excuse, but are they really is it possible to over come key injuries and win the cup when the competition is so close in todays NHL.

The factor of match ups is also something that is basically uncontrollable. The Canucks have finished first in their conference in their runs to the cup. This should be a good thing, but in the west the 8th placed teams are just as good as any team placing above them. The Canucks have the luck of never coming out of the first round without key injuries.

I could go on and on about; reffing, lucky bounces and rule changes in playoffs...ect, but I believe a healthier team in the finals and the canucks should have had their first cup. I know this going to turn into a arguement about team toughness and how if we had more of it there would less injuries, but that simple is not true. Then the arguement about team scoring and then inconsistent goaltending, but all would be fine if the team was heather in the cup finals. Key injuries are not excuses.

Edited by Vancanwincup, 29 January 2013 - 02:43 PM.

  • 0

#2 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:49 PM

No, key injuries are reasons. Quite frankly, no we weren't good enough to win the Cup...because if we were good enough to win the Cup, we'd won the Cup. Simple as that.
  • 4
Posted Image

View PostScott Hartnell, on 11 June 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.

#3 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:49 PM

Ugh...

Edited by MaximYapierre, 29 January 2013 - 02:50 PM.

  • 0
CANUCKS TILL I DIE

#4 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:51 PM

I can think of one controllable issue that needs to be addressed... but I'm sure that topic has been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as the topic of how injury-prone our team has been throughout our play-off shortcomings.

The funny thing is... the players who are experiencing these injury issues have, for the most part, been a complete variable crap-shoot. So why is our team experiencing sub-par conditioning? Because to call it luck only has a minute amount of merit, and chalking our lack of success strictly up to luck would be entirely shortsighted.

So again, why is it that our team is consistently battered and bruised and failing to fight back?

Why does this team play in a matter that results in more injuries than nearly any other team in the league? If we've had an adequate turnover of players, and it isn't the same ones getting injured for the most part, then why is it that this is consistently an issue with this team?
  • 1
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

http://forum.canucks...in-this-change/

#5 Alex the Great

Alex the Great

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,837 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 12

Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:51 PM

I dunno VanCanWinCup, CanVanWinCup?
  • 2

105uyog.jpg

 

Thanks to KhalifaWiz for the incredible sig!


#6 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:57 PM

*
POPULAR

No, key injuries are reasons. Quite frankly, no we weren't good enough to win the Cup...because if we were good enough to win the Cup, we'd won the Cup. Simple as that.

I disagree, I think they were good enough to win the cup. It came down to one game. If you didn't noticed the whole hockey world pegged the Canucks as villans. Like you said key injuries are reasons. A big factor was the Rome hit and while many argue that Rome was not an integral part of the Canucks it was definately the pivot point to what the Bruins used to rally back when all the momementum was against them. That hit was clean when Scott Stevens was using it to end careers all the way up to the other day when Stuart laid out Landeskog. The only time that hit was dirty was in the 2011 Stanley Cup finals. To deserve a 4 game suspension in the finals what would Stevens have had to do? or Dustin Brown? They ripped away Rome's dream and with it they demoralized the injured-ridden Canucks.

People talk as if Boston swept the Canucks in 4 outscoring them 10-0 in each of the games. If the Canucks could have maintained the momentum (ie the Horton hit never happened). My money is on Nucks in 4 or 5.

Edited by Aladeen, 29 January 2013 - 02:58 PM.

  • 6
Posted Image

#7 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,353 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:04 PM

I must not be feeling well...actually agree with Aladeen... :sick:

That hit on Horton was the turning point, if it didn't happen or if he wasn't injured, I believe the Canucks would have won the cup.
  • 3

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]

Posted Image


#8 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,520 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:09 PM

Considering all factors (injuries, reffing, suspensions, luck, player performance, etc) we were not good enough to win the cup. If some of those factors had gone in our favour, would we have been good enough? Quite possibly, we were certainly good enough to get all the way to game 7.

Not the answer you were looking for? Well, it's the one you get because it's all we have.
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#9 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:10 PM

*
POPULAR

The Canucks were good enough to beat Chicago. That series was a war and was one of the best series the Canucks have ever played.

The Canucks handily beat Nashville with Kesler carrying the team in his back. Even Barry Trotz stated it was one of the best athletic performances he'd ever witnessed.

The Canucks also took it to the Sharks.

Those three teams the Canucks were better than. However when it came to the Finals, it was a combination of being overpowered and victims of severely poor officiating. How Boychuk was never suspended is beyond me.

While people would like to blame Luongo for melting down in the Finals, the onus falls on the defense. Luongo was the main reason the team made it as far as they did. But the atypical Canucks fan hung him out to dry.

Without Hamhuis, the defense fell apart and were exposed as being far to passive to handle the Bruins onslaught. They were unable to clear the crease and keep it out of their own end. Even with Hamhuis, the Canucks were overmatched and lacked the push back to win. Yes there were injuries, but every team plays with injuries in the playoffs.

If the Canucks hope to make it back to the Finals they will need a better defense. What they have now will only get them into the playoffs. No further.

Edited by Canuck-a-nuck, 29 January 2013 - 03:11 PM.

  • 6
Posted Image

#10 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:12 PM

If the Canucks hope to make it back to the Finals they will need a better defense. What they have now will only get them into the playoffs. No further.


Well good, because the Finals are a part of the playoffs B)
  • 0
CANUCKS TILL I DIE

#11 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:20 PM

Well good, because the Finals are a part of the playoffs B)


Thanks tips. Great observation. The Finals are the hurdle the Canucks have never been able to pass, in case you didn't realize....
  • 0
Posted Image

#12 jono2009

jono2009

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 08

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:21 PM

Canucks were good enough. Rome hurt was the turning point in the series.
  • 0

#13 MJDDawg

MJDDawg

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 11

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:22 PM

The Canucks were good enough to beat Chicago. That series was a war and was one of the best series the Canucks have ever played.

The Canucks handily beat Nashville with Kesler carrying the team in his back. Even Barry Trotz stated it was one of the best athletic performances he'd ever witnessed.

The Canucks also took it to the Sharks.

Those three teams the Canucks were better than. However when it came to the Finals, it was a combination of being overpowered and victims of severely poor officiating. How Boychuk was never suspended is beyond me.

While people would like to blame Luongo for melting down in the Finals, the onus falls on the defense. Luongo was the main reason the team made it as far as they did. But the atypical Canucks fan hung him out to dry.

Without Hamhuis, the defense fell apart and were exposed as being far to passive to handle the Bruins onslaught. They were unable to clear the crease and keep it out of their own end. Even with Hamhuis, the Canucks were overmatched and lacked the push back to win. Yes there were injuries, but every team plays with injuries in the playoffs.

If the Canucks hope to make it back to the Finals they will need a better defense. What they have now will only get them into the playoffs. No further.


I don't agree that the Canucks were better than their opponents in those first 3 rounds.

Were they better than Chicago? Well, up 3 - 0, it took Burr in OT of game 7 to send us to round 2, so not sure we were markedly better overall.

Nashville was the Ryan Kesler show. Again, I'd say the series was at best even as Nashville was in every game, but Kes was the difference.

The Sharks series, I'd say we received some very good goaltending by Lou to beat them. The Sharks took it to us most of those games and the shorter series was not really indicative of the overall play.

I actually thought the team played really well early in the finals, but yes injuries, the Rome hit and leaky goaltending cost us. We were clearly outclassed in 3 of those games. I think momentum was huge in the series and the Rome hit along with Lui's famous "pumping tires" speech changed the momentum in a negative way for us.

Edited by MJDDawg, 29 January 2013 - 03:24 PM.

  • 0

1zchaix.jpg

 

 

Always vigilant and on the lookout for Tiger Singh,The Stork, Shamu101, Mangoes, Cucumbers, Proballhockeyplayer, Dal Colle, DontTradeEdler, RespectYourEdlers23, D.T.E. and...

 


#14 CanucksSayEh

CanucksSayEh

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 12

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:23 PM

They were good enough to win both Chicago series and the finals vs Boston, regardless of injuries.
  • 0

#15 smithers joe

smithers joe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,996 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:27 PM

us and every other team not called LA.
  • 0

#16 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,713 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:42 PM

If Hamhuis didn't get injured and Rome didn't do that hit, we most likely would have won.
  • 1

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#17 VicNuckleHead09

VicNuckleHead09

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:26 PM

Canucks were good enough. Rome Hamhuis hurt was the turning point in the series.


  • 0
Posted Image
"Louuuuuuuuuu!" - Last game Attended: Vancouver vs. Penguins
Email me

#18 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:28 PM

If we coulda, we woulda.
  • 0
Posted Image

#19 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:30 PM

Thanks tips. Great observation. The Finals are the hurdle the Canucks have never been able to pass, in case you didn't realize....


What? Not true.


/sarcasm
  • 0
CANUCKS TILL I DIE

#20 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,792 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:36 PM

Every year there are a number of teams "good enough" to win the cup. Then through a series of events based on hard work and plain old luck, one of them comes out on top.

For instance, Boston was "good enough" to win the cup in 2011, but they could have easily lost in the first round to the Canadiens in game 7 OT. Then maybe we would have won...but then again, we were in the same boat too. Had we both lost our first round, game 7 OT's, some other team would have won, so those teams could be considered "good enough".

That is why Gillis doesn't go crazy and "load up" for one year. He wants to ice a team that is "good enough" every year, and hope that at least one year they get the breaks and bounces needed to win it all.
  • 1
Posted Image

#21 MJDDawg

MJDDawg

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 11

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

Every year there are a number of teams "good enough" to win the cup. Then through a series of events based on hard work and plain old luck, one of them comes out on top.

For instance, Boston was "good enough" to win the cup in 2011, but they could have easily lost in the first round to the Canadiens in game 7 OT. Then maybe we would have won...but then again, we were in the same boat too. Had we both lost our first round, game 7 OT's, some other team would have won, so those teams could be considered "good enough".

That is why Gillis doesn't go crazy and "load up" for one year. He wants to ice a team that is "good enough" every year, and hope that at least one year they get the breaks and bounces needed to win it all.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEI8P9QoVr8
  • 0

1zchaix.jpg

 

 

Always vigilant and on the lookout for Tiger Singh,The Stork, Shamu101, Mangoes, Cucumbers, Proballhockeyplayer, Dal Colle, DontTradeEdler, RespectYourEdlers23, D.T.E. and...

 


#22 shazzam

shazzam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 07

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:52 PM

So Rome takes out Horton for the entire series in game 3 and we use that as an excuse?

Lets say McQuaid took out Daniel Sedin and we still lost. What would have been the excuse? We lost Daniel?


The turning point was when Hamhuis went down with an injury.
  • 1

#23 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:56 PM

I disagree, I think they were good enough to win the cup. It came down to one game. If you didn't noticed the whole hockey world pegged the Canucks as villans. Like you said key injuries are reasons. A big factor was the Rome hit and while many argue that Rome was not an integral part of the Canucks it was definately the pivot point to what the Bruins used to rally back when all the momementum was against them. That hit was clean when Scott Stevens was using it to end careers all the way up to the other day when Stuart laid out Landeskog. The only time that hit was dirty was in the 2011 Stanley Cup finals. To deserve a 4 game suspension in the finals what would Stevens have had to do? or Dustin Brown? They ripped away Rome's dream and with it they demoralized the injured-ridden Canucks.

People talk as if Boston swept the Canucks in 4 outscoring them 10-0 in each of the games. If the Canucks could have maintained the momentum (ie the Horton hit never happened). My money is on Nucks in 4 or 5.


I should have elaborated. Key injuries I feel were a huge part and a great reason as to why we weren't able to push the stone over top of the hill, to use a metaphor, alluding to the story of Sisyphus. The Rome incident was just enough of a monkey wrench to swing the emotional momentum...if that makes sense...that incident further villainized us, whether we like it or not...and I have to agree. If the Horton hit never happened, we'd won in at least 5. But my point was injuries aren't excuses as the OP tried to say, but legitimate reasons as to why it didn't get done.
  • 1
Posted Image

View PostScott Hartnell, on 11 June 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.

#24 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:35 PM

They were good enough to win both Chicago series and the finals vs Boston, regardless of injuries.

nope
  • 0
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#25 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,224 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:37 PM

If the Canucks hope to make it back to the Finals they will need a better defense. What they have now will only get them into the playoffs. No further.


Truer words have never been spoken. What this team desperately needs is a big ogre on defence. Someone along the lines of Craig Ludwig/Ken Daneyko for those who can remember that far back. A guy who's job description is to move bodies from in front of his own net and not turn pucks over.

Over all the defence here is too soft. While each of our defencemen are good at what they individually bring to the plate. We don't have enough in your face types.

Garrison = nice shot (apparently), no grit

Tanev = no 'in your face' to his game

Ballard = the 1 nice hip check per season is nice but no one is afraid of him.

Hamhuis = all around solid game. Opponents are more afraid of him making them look foolish rather than him flattening them.

Bieksa = he gets a check mark in the mean/orge department.

Edler = Uses his size well at times and isn't afraid to run guys over but that's not really his job description.

The defence is missing that one big mean nasty stay at home defenceman. You know, the kind you always see playing into June.
  • 1

#26 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:38 PM

I should have elaborated. Key injuries I feel were a huge part and a great reason as to why we weren't able to push the stone over top of the hill, to use a metaphor, alluding to the story of Sisyphus. The Rome incident was just enough of a monkey wrench to swing the emotional momentum...if that makes sense...that incident further villainized us, whether we like it or not...and I have to agree. If the Horton hit never happened, we'd won in at least 5. But my point was injuries aren't excuses as the OP tried to say, but legitimate reasons as to why it didn't get done.


It is the de facto reason.

Ive always found it interesting that BOTH players and rabid fans brush that major handicap to a team as an "excuse".

Its a good exercise for folks to research the Stanley Cup winners in the new NHL and injury reports for their run.

I drive my self mentally insane what other fates the team would encounter had those rosters been healthy in the past 3 seasons.
  • 0

Posted Image

Henrik breaking records.Kes approving.


#27 tas

tas

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,609 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 06

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:45 PM

the canucks lack collective will
  • 1

#28 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:35 PM

I can think of one controllable issue that needs to be addressed... but I'm sure that topic has been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as the topic of how injury-prone our team has been throughout our play-off shortcomings.

The funny thing is... the players who are experiencing these injury issues have, for the most part, been a complete variable crap-shoot. So why is our team experiencing sub-par conditioning? Because to call it luck only has a minute amount of merit, and chalking our lack of success strictly up to luck would be entirely shortsighted.

So again, why is it that our team is consistently battered and bruised and failing to fight back?

Why does this team play in a matter that results in more injuries than nearly any other team in the league? If we've had an adequate turnover of players, and it isn't the same ones getting injured for the most part, then why is it that this is consistently an issue with this team?

Which players' injuries do you chalk up to sub -par conditioning? and then tell me 'bad luck' has not followed this team when it comes to injuries during the playoffs.
  • 0

#29 Mookie Wilson

Mookie Wilson

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,011 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 09

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:43 PM

I don't agree that the Canucks were better than their opponents in those first 3 rounds.

Were they better than Chicago? Well, up 3 - 0, it took Burr in OT of game 7 to send us to round 2, so not sure we were markedly better overall.

Nashville was the Ryan Kesler show. Again, I'd say the series was at best even as Nashville was in every game, but Kes was the difference.

The Sharks series, I'd say we received some very good goaltending by Lou to beat them. The Sharks took it to us most of those games and the shorter series was not really indicative of the overall play.

I actually thought the team played really well early in the finals, but yes injuries, the Rome hit and leaky goaltending cost us. We were clearly outclassed in 3 of those games. I think momentum was huge in the series and the Rome hit along with Lui's famous "pumping tires" speech changed the momentum in a negative way for us.


Oh man, just wanna point out some ridiculous logic in this post.

So the Canucks didn't deserve to beat Chicago because they blew a 3-0 lead? The Canucks don't get credit for getting up 3-0 or for winnng game 7? If Chicago was the better team, why did they lose the first 3 games and then game 7?

Then you say the Canucks were lucky to beat Nashville because Kesler was ridiculous and lucky to beat SJ because Luongo played well. So the Canucks don't get credit for the performances of their own players? And if San Jose was better than us but for our goaltending, would you then argue that every playoff series won by a hot goalie was not a deserved victory for the victorious team?
  • 1

#30 Kass9

Kass9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:44 PM

Canucks were just decimated with injuries. Simple as that.
  • 0




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.