MJDDawg 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...
shazzam Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc44 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 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...
nuckin_futz Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 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...
BedBeats™2.0 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 the canucks lack collective will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanwincup Posted January 30, 2013 Author Share Posted January 30, 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...
Mookie Wilson Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kass9 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Canucks were just decimated with injuries. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Canucks were good enough. Rome hurt was the turning point in the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sting Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Simply put the Canucks of 2010/11 were the best team in the league. They dominated every statistical category that year. The loss in the finals was a direct result of Bad luck. No Hamhuis, Samuelsson, Raymond, Rome, Malhotra. Combined with a devastating injury to Kesler was simply too much of a mountain to climb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BedBeats™2.0 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Simply put the Canucks of 2010/11 were the best team in the league. They dominated every statistical category that year. The loss in the finals was a direct result of Bad luck. No Hamhuis, Samuelsson, Raymond, Rome, Malhotra. Combined with a devastating injury to Kesler was simply too much of a mountain to climb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferlands_Head Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understand Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I hope we don't have to wait for another 17 years before we make it to the final again...let alone actually winning the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domyours Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Not only they're simply "not Good Enough", their effort on ice so far was just pathetic. Sorry to say but I think all they care about is only money, money, money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 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...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.