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

[ButterBean]

So sick of the injury excuse year after year. Of course it's most likely the reason we lost but what does it say about our team if it happens year after year? Injuries are part of the game and of course we need luck when it comes to staying healthy in the playoffs. We need more size/toughness throught the ENTIRE lineup and that's why the Bruins/Kings won the Cup. They were able to stay healthy over a grueling NHL playoffs because they have guys with size who aren't easy to lean on and push around. As well as an almost perfect assortment of role players and SKILL/SIZE.

[Bodee]

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.

[Baggins]

We take too many injuries because we are too small to avoid them. Physicality and muscle go a long way to help win a war of attrition.

Add to that our lack of a couple of true game changers and you have all the answers you need. We had probably one in Kessler but he ran out of gas doing the physical side of it virtually alone.

[Baggins]

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

[D-Money]

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

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

I think without all the injuries that series goes to 7 games still but I don't think the bruins would have blown us out at all. It might have gone different in terms of the end result but essentially it came down to injuries. The canucks had most of the team injured where as the bruins had Lucic who had a boo boo toe and what's his name that came back from a shoulder injury.

Specifically in that finals series injuries killed this teams ability to compete how it was supposed to. You mix that with losing Rome and the antics of some players that just seemed to fuel the Bruins and you get one confident team with little to no injuries against a team torn apart with no confidence in itself.