Vancanwincup Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Ugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex the Great Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I dunno VanCanWinCup, CanVanWinCup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I must not be feeling well...actually agree with Aladeen... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Well good, because the Finals are a part of the playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono2009 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Canucks were good enough. Rome hurt was the turning point in the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 They were good enough to win both Chicago series and the finals vs Boston, regardless of injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 us and every other team not called LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 If Hamhuis didn't get injured and Rome didn't do that hit, we most likely would have won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicNuckleHead09 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Canucks were good enough. Rome Hamhuis hurt was the turning point in the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 If we coulda, we woulda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkeeterHansen Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Thanks tips. Great observation. The Finals are the hurdle the Canucks have never been able to pass, in case you didn't realize.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.