Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 11 votes

Luongo and the last stand


  • Please log in to reply
210 replies to this topic

#31 chrisbanks

chrisbanks

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 10 March 2013 - 11:52 PM

so you have a crystal ball and predict Luongo guaranteed lose game 6 if he started? retards here keeps bringing back we were up 3-0 in the series and it went to game 7.. well Luongo only started 6 games so technically he was 4-2 in the series.. i would hardly say he choked going up 3-0.. you can say all u want about the SCF at least he got us close with a chance to win it.. game 3 4 6 was terrible.. game 7 the whole team decided to sleep in.. you can say he's not a top 5 goalie.. nor is his cap top 5 in terms of goalie so what's your point? Luongo signed that long term deal also to help the Canucks.. i'm sure he woulda made the same amount of money if he was to sign a shorter term with a much higher cap hit.. but that would also handicap the canucks in terms of getting another player or 2 to make a run.. i can really care less which goalie we end up keeping now.. coz it's looking more and more like we'll be blowing up the team in a year or 2.. so whatever.

game 6 vs chicago where luongo came in because cory got injured at the time it was a tied game and luongo did his famous flop on his belly and do a snow angel act to let in the game winning goal ... if we wouldve just lost thoes 2 previous games luongo wouldntve lost his job for game 6 he lost it becasue he played terrible and got lit up it wasnt just a regular loss. crawfords GAA and save% were way better than luongo's in a series that went to game 7 OT Cory Crawford did more for his team then luongo did for the canucks.
  • 0

#32 Alex the Great

Alex the Great

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,836 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 12

Posted 10 March 2013 - 11:58 PM

At the people bringing up 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012 : It's not about what they did for us in the past, it's about what they have done for us lately and for CS, that's a whole lot of nothing.
  • 0

105uyog.jpg

 

Thanks to KhalifaWiz for the incredible sig!


#33 Bossy

Bossy

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:00 AM

At the people bringing up 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and 2012 : It's not about what they did for us in the past, it's about what they have done for us lately and for CS, that's a whole lot of nothing.


Luongo has done noteably worse than Schneider recently. Or did your forget his bellyflopping against Calgary and Detroit?
  • 0

#34 мцт вяздк чф

мцт вяздк чф

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,464 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:07 AM

luongo gets more support from me this year than any other year, he has handled this mess with class. and id rather see cory traded than roberto.
  • 2

KIM JONG UN'S FAVORITE HOCKEY TEAM ARE THE KELOWNA ROCKETS.

JOHN SHORTHOUSE'S VOICE REMINDS ME OF KERMIT THE FROG.


#35 fourminute

fourminute

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 13

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:09 AM

yeah but think about future think ahead don't be so shortsighted
  • 0
Posted Image

#36 мцт вяздк чф

мцт вяздк чф

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,464 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:15 AM

yeah but think about future think ahead don't be so shortsighted


I wouldn't give 2 craps about the future if it meant winning a cup this year.
  • 0

KIM JONG UN'S FAVORITE HOCKEY TEAM ARE THE KELOWNA ROCKETS.

JOHN SHORTHOUSE'S VOICE REMINDS ME OF KERMIT THE FROG.


#37 MrsCanuck

MrsCanuck

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,629 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:26 AM

If the team showed up for game 7, Luongo would have been the MVP. Perspective.
  • 4
Posted Image

#38 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,500 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:30 AM

alot of people would have been gone if we lost that one


IN hindsight, that could be seen as a lost opportunity! :bigblush:
  • 1

#39 MrsCanuck

MrsCanuck

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,629 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:33 AM

Hahahahahahahahahahahah


Goals Against Average (GAA) – 8.05

Goals Against Average in Vancouver – 0.67

Wins at Home 3-0

Wins in Boston 0-3

Save Percentage in Vancouver .979

Save Percentage in Boston .773

Goals Allowed in Vancouver 2

Goals Allowed in Boston 15

Pre game 7 stats. He SUCKED in BOS but the game was at home. I would have started Schneids after game 3 in BOS but Lu was solid at home. You didn't watch the same game as me if you think the fowards/ D were sh!tting their pants for game 7- they were terrified of losing.
  • 1
Posted Image

#40 Machine Gun Kelly

Machine Gun Kelly

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,502 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:42 AM

Putting 7uongo in net at this point is asking to lose. He's washed up. Might get a couple good games in during the regular season but he's been abysmal almost every other game. Starting him in the playoffs is basically surrendering.

Schneider is the starter now, Ro8erto is actively being shopped and is gone by draft day. Get over it.

Did you even watch the playoffs?

  • 0
Posted Image

#41 Captain-Canuck2562

Captain-Canuck2562

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 10

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:09 AM

I have been a Canuck fan for 37 years and for years I lived with mediorce goaltending and dreams of the Canucks playing for the stanley cup. Back in 2006/7, along comes Luongo and wow, singlehandly pushed our team into the playoffs and was a rock in the Dallas playoff series especially in one of the longest playoff game ever to involve the Canucks. Back then, Luongo was regarded as a superstar as he alone gave the Canucks a chance to win every night.

Flash forward to 2013, after the Canucks have made the playoffs every year except for one. After division titles and presidents trophies that apparently no one cares about. After Gillis played with his mind and made him captain then teared it off his jersey. After Luongo won a gold medal, the jennings trophy, and after taking us within one game of the stanley cup. The media and us fans wants to run him out of town. Remember, he didn't ask for a trade and only said he wouldn't mind being moved if it was best for the team. Yes later he said it was time to move on but at that time, he thought he had played his last game for the Canucks

Luongo did collapse against Chicago but at the end of the day, Luongo made the stop on Patrick sharp and we finally beat the black hawks. In the cup finals, our offence couldn't produce, yet we made it to the 7th game of the finals. Who do you think got us there, Luongo of course.

With all that history, Luongo now has to share playing time with Schneider and is now considered a back up. Schneider is very good but he's still an unproven starter that hasn't won many titles everywhere he's played. Schneider has been given the chance this year and clearly the last few games shows he's not ready yet. Stop with all the nonsense about playing into a rhythm, Cory has been a back up and has played very well with minimal games the last two years.

One thing i don't' understand is that Marty Brodeur still plays for the devils, Miller still plays for the Sabres, Cam Ward still plays for the hurricanes, and Fleury still plays for the penguins. These are all elite goaltenders that can and have had off years in their career. We have Luongo, why do we want to run the best goaltender we've had out of town?

One point many fans have forgotten in my opinion is that this is Luongo's team, the core guys developed through the years that Luongo has been here.

With the way the team is playing infront of Schneider and the way Cory has been playing (last year, he made every save look easy. He looked like he wasn't moving between post to post. This year he's flopping around and losing his post and angles) Its time to give Luongo the starting job and let him run with it.

Yes Luongo was ventilated in Detroit but he's had his shares of bad games. Its time the Canucks get off their 'Schnieds' and give Luongo one last stand to lead the team he's back stopped the last 7 years. The core group deserves one last chance to run with Luongo, a shot at the playoffs and the stanley cup.


This team needs some big changes but I agree with your Luongo stance. Luongo is still an elite goalie.
  • 0

#42 schneider

schneider

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:36 AM

Goals Against Average (GAA) – 8.05
Goals Against Average in Vancouver – 0.67
Wins at Home 3-0
Wins in Boston 0-3
Save Percentage in Vancouver .979
Save Percentage in Boston .773
Goals Allowed in Vancouver 2
Goals Allowed in Boston 15
Pre game 7 stats. He SUCKED in BOS but the game was at home. I would have started Schneids after game 3 in BOS but Lu was solid at home. You didn't watch the same game as me if you think the fowards/ D were sh!tting their pants for game 7- they were terrified of losing.


Hahahahahah how exactly does that mean he would win MVP? Let in 8 goals in a game, multiple meltdowns all through the playoffs, MVP of the playoffs bro1!!!11!

8.0 GAA, .773 SV %, that is terrible. Are you saying it's fine, since he played well in Vancouver? Jesus christ, bro

Edited by schneider, 11 March 2013 - 01:37 AM.

  • 1

#43 cmpunk

cmpunk

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:46 AM

Hahahahahah how exactly does that mean he would win MVP? Let in 8 goals in a game, multiple meltdowns all through the playoffs, MVP of the playoffs bro1!!!11!

8.0 GAA, .773 SV %, that is terrible. Are you saying it's fine, since he played well in Vancouver? Jesus christ, bro


Think about it this way dude. if Luongo was consistent only allowing 2 or 1 goals in the 7 games, we probably only would have 1 game tops.

Point being, Lu had to get 2 shutouts for 2 wins because they were 1-0 games. Lu could have only allowed 2 or 3 goals in the games in Boston, we maybe would have won 1 of those games but would have lost the 2 or 3 that we won at home if he allowed even 2 goals
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to Vintage Canuck

#44 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:51 AM

Our team was stacked? Then explain why we could only ever beat the buins by a single goal. Not to mention the disaster of our so called defence that's played in front of him lately.

Aside from game 6 vs Chicago in 2009, Lu is often the best player on the ice for us, even in a meltdown.


Because Tim Thomas was too goddamn good, that's why.
  • 0

#45 schneider

schneider

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:52 AM

Think about it this way dude. if Luongo was consistent only allowing 2 or 1 goals in the 7 games, we probably only would have 1 game tops.

Point being, Lu had to get 2 shutouts for 2 wins because they were 1-0 games. Lu could have only allowed 2 or 3 goals in the games in Boston, we maybe would have won 1 of those games but would have lost the 2 or 3 that we won at home if he allowed even 2 goals



"Think about it this way dude. if Luongo was consistent only allowing 2 or 1 goals in the 7 games, we probably only would have 1 game tops. "

What the hell does this sentence mean? Maybe if luongo didn't play like trash, he wouldn't be trash? Maybe we would have won the cup? No joke..

Seriously fix your grammar or sentence structure because I read your 2nd paragraph five times and I still can't understand what the hell you're talking about. He had to let in under 4 goals? What a task! Truly insurmountable for a so called "elite" goaltender. Seriously what on earth are you talking about? Before you cite our goals average too, go back to my first post, when your goalie lets in 4 goals in a period or what have you, the forwards aren't exactly motivated to go score a ton of goals because they're basically out of the game at that point, so that brings the goal average down quite a bit.
  • 0

#46 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:58 AM

well Schneider didn't exactly get it done in the series in game 6 now eh? so it wasn't exactly Luongo that dragged the series into game 7 when he didn't even have a chance to play in game 6


Luongo gave up the OT winner in game 6. He didn't start that game because he imploded in the previous 2.
  • 0

#47 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:03 AM

If the team showed up for game 7, Luongo would have been the MVP. Perspective.


Tim Thomas would've been MVP, win or lose.
  • 0

#48 DownUndaCanuck

DownUndaCanuck

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,187 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 07

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:04 AM

Marty and the like don't constantly have meltdowns in games, and let in 8 goals in the stanley cup finals, and do this multiple times in every playoff run.

This is so simple, how can you not understand? Whether or not you want Luongo gone, you must be able to understand the reason many people do. Stop acting like it makes no sense.


Ok firstly, we're not comparing Marty to Luongo anymore. Right now, it's Schneider or Luongo, and if any of you think Schneider is going to put up a performance better than Luongo did you're kidding yourself. This guy is proving to us first-hand right now that he is NOT an elite goalie in the NHL. Sure, he may be in 3 or 4 seasons, but right now this guy is bringing the team down. We give him the reigns and they're suddenly slumping harder than ever before. Don't blame our defence, Schneider has been consistently letting in bad goals at the worst time all season long.

If you think I'm being subjective, just look at the stats - the same Luongo playing behind the same defence has 0.5 GAA less than Schneider and simply much better stats than the kid, who is barely hovering over 0.500 hockey right now. Luongo is better than Schneider in every facet of the game right now and quite simply, he gives the Canucks a FAR better chance to win games.

edit : also pretty tired of this "He took us to the SCF game 7" BS. our team was stacked as hell then. If we didn't make it really deep or win the cup, then it's a disappointment, and it was.

He did the absolute furthest thing from putting the team on his back. He just managed to keep the number of meltdowns in net to a sustainable number to get us deep in the playoffs. (until the finals at least). that isn't even remotely the same as "him getting us to the stanley cup finals". almost any goalie would have "gotten us there" as well, with the team we had then.


Our team was stacked through the first 3 rounds, but Luongo was the one who dragged this sorry, injured and broken-down team to a Game 7. There's no doubting every player played a key part in our run, from Torres to Higgins to the Sedins to Kesler - everyone stepped up at certain parts, including Luongo in Game 7 against Chicago with Burrows. However, our entire team disappeared in that Boston series.

The two 1-0 shutouts pretty much say it all. When a team scores 8 goals in 7 games, how dare you blame the goalie. He shouldn't have to put up a shutout every game to win a series, but he almost did. No other goalie would have been able to have done what he did - say what you want about Thomas but he was playing behind the best defence in the league and a Norris winner, meanwhile Luongo had a terrible defensive unit of Ehrhoff, an injured Edler, Rome, Tanev, Ballard, Bieksa and Salo. This team left him out to dry in all of those games except Game 2, we should of lost the series 4-0 or 4-1 so thank the goalie for those extra wins.
  • 4
Posted Image

#49 cmpunk

cmpunk

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: 12-October 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:08 AM

"Think about it this way dude. if Luongo was consistent only allowing 2 or 1 goals in the 7 games, we probably only would have 1 game tops. "

What the hell does this sentence mean? Maybe if luongo didn't play like trash, he wouldn't be trash? Maybe we would have won the cup? No joke..

Seriously fix your grammar or sentence structure because I read your 2nd paragraph five times and I still can't understand what the hell you're talking about. He had to let in under 4 goals? What a task! Truly insurmountable for a so called "elite" goaltender. Seriously what on earth are you talking about? Before you cite our goals average too, go back to my first post, when your goalie lets in 4 goals in a period or what have you, the forwards aren't exactly motivated to go score a ton of goals because they're basically out of the game at that point, so that brings the goal average down quite a bit.


Yeah where was their motovation to score when Luongo got 2 shutouts? They still only scored 1 goal in each of those games so you explanation for lack of goal scoring is pretty retarded...Not surprised though your a moron if you can't understand what I mean after reading it 5 times....it is clear i am trying to argue with an idiot so I will stop

Edited by cmpunk, 11 March 2013 - 02:10 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to Vintage Canuck

#50 schneider

schneider

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:11 AM

Yeah where was their motovation to score when Luongo got 2 shutouts, they still only scored 1 goal in each of those games so you explanation for lack of goal scoring is pretty retarded...No surprised though your a moron if you can't understand what I mean after reading it 5 times....it is clear i am trying to argue with an idiot so I will stop


So you're saying that in 2 games they scored 1 goal, so that means that they will always be able to produce that? Holy christ, are you stupid bro. Do you know how sports work? You can play one game against a team and score 7 goals on them, and the next game score 0. You can't cite 2 games where we scored 1 and then say that every game we would only manage to score that, or that there's absolutely no chance we'd score more if Luongo didn't lose the game for us in the first period. Honestly are you this retarded?
  • 0

#51 schneider

schneider

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:17 AM

@Downundacanuck, did you not read the topic post? Obviously the marty comparison is my response to his own marty comparison... jesus...

You're saying that he had 2 shutouts in the playoffs, so therefore that negates his multiple meltdown games where he played like absolute garbage? That is exactly what I'm takling about, he is very INCONSISTENT. That is my response to the OP's post saying "NJ DOESN'T SELL OUT MARTY ETC", I'm saying he is incosistent as HELL, and that is the reason many people, including myself, want him out. That was my response to the OP, I was saying "Regardless of whether you want him or not, how can you not understand why people want him out"

You're talking about our goals total again, and let me point out yet again, that when a goalie lets in 4 soft goals to start out a game, or 8 goals, or what have you, the motivation to score is now gone, because the team is out of the game at that point. But even regardless of that, I never said that he lost the boston series for us. If he hadn't played like trash in many of the games, then we certainly would have won, there's no doubt. But never did I say it was 100% his fault.
  • 1

#52 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,921 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:00 AM

He could have had a GAA of 2 in the finals and we still would have lost.


Had he actually done that nobody could complain as he'd have given the team at least a chance each game. How many of our losses did Lou keep it close enough for a final push? Then count how many losses Thomas kept the Bruins in for a final push.

The biggest reason we lost to Boston was the number of injuries. But with all those injuries, our only real chance of winning was for Lou to match Thomas' performance. He didn't give us the same chance to win.
  • 2
Posted Image

#53 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,921 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:14 AM

Yeah where was their motovation to score when Luongo got 2 shutouts? They still only scored 1 goal in each of those games so you explanation for lack of goal scoring is pretty retarded...Not surprised though your a moron if you can't understand what I mean after reading it 5 times....it is clear i am trying to argue with an idiot so I will stop


Of course the other side is you're completely ignoring Thomas' performance. He kept his team in every loss. You can't say the same about Lou can you? Our lack of scoring was due to injuries and Thomas playing great every freakin' game. Lou on the other hand flipped between playing like Loungod and Loundog from game to game.

You see if you keep your team within one goal your team can make a push to tie the game. Then anything can happen in OT. You are at least given a chance. But when you have your team down four (or more) there's little point in making a push. The game is already over.
  • 1
Posted Image

#54 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,921 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:18 AM

The two 1-0 shutouts pretty much say it all. When a team scores 8 goals in 7 games, how dare you blame the goalie. He shouldn't have to put up a shutout every game to win a series, but he almost did. No other goalie would have been able to have done what he did - say what you want about Thomas but he was playing behind the best defence in the league and a Norris winner, meanwhile Luongo had a terrible defensive unit of Ehrhoff, an injured Edler, Rome, Tanev, Ballard, Bieksa and Salo. This team left him out to dry in all of those games except Game 2, we should of lost the series 4-0 or 4-1 so thank the goalie for those extra wins.


Completely ignoring the performance of the Vezina winner at the other end of the ice? You know, that guy that was named playoff MVP.
  • 1
Posted Image

#55 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:28 AM

Marty and the like don't constantly have meltdowns in games, and let in 8 goals in the stanley cup finals and do this multiple times in every playoff run.

This is so simple, how can you not understand? Whether or not you want Luongo gone, you must be able to understand the reason many people do. Stop acting like it makes no sense.

edit : also pretty tired of this "He took us to the SCF game 7" BS. our team was stacked as hell then. If we didn't make it really deep or win the cup, then it's a disappointment, and it was.

He did the absolute furthest thing from putting the team on his back. He just managed to keep the number of meltdowns in net to a sustainable number to get us deep in the playoffs. (until the finals at least). that isn't even remotely the same as "him getting us to the stanley cup finals". almost any goalie would have "gotten us there" as well, with the team we had then.


You know what I'M tired of? "He let in 8 goals in the Stanley Cup Final". Give it a break kid. You're responding to a man who's been a fan for 37 years; not a 12 year old. The Schneider bandwagon is finally leaving town and things will be normal once again.

Schneider is NOT an adequate starter for the Vancouver Canucks and he's preventing Luongo from playing.
  • 0

#56 DownUndaCanuck

DownUndaCanuck

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,187 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 07

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:29 AM

Completely ignoring the performance of the Vezina winner at the other end of the ice? You know, that guy that was named playoff MVP.


All due respect to Thomas but he was playing behind the best defence in the NHL. Anyone can play behind that stellar defence and look amazing - Thomas was already a great goaltender but playing with guys like Chara and co. in front of him made him seem God-like. Just look at what the defence is doing to Rask right now.

The key is - their goalies don't have to steal them games because the defence doesn't give up many opportunities. They simply play solid when chances go against them, which is rare at best. I don't remember one breakaway or even 2-on-1 that the Canucks earned in their entire playoff series against the Bruins, because their defence play a solid, stay-at-home, sit-back style and don't take stupid risks or pinch at bad times. Meanwhile the Canucks offered up 5 or 6 a game.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - the Canucks' defensive system is hopeless and will never win a Cup the way it's structured right now. Cup-winning defences are built around solid defence first, then chip in offence occasionally and most importantly - opportunistically. That's how L.A, Boston and Chicago won Cups. Their defences NEVER gambled, but when the opponents did their forwards jumped on these mistakes and capitalized.

Right now we rely on our defence to score goals which is down-right stupid. Cup-winning teams win cups with 4 scoring forward lines, maybe 1 or 2 offensive defencemen and 4 solid shutdown guys. You can have the best goalie in the world, but he's going to be ventilated every night if we have a defence that is trying to score goals and forgetting about shutting down the other team's forwards.
  • 1
Posted Image

#57 schneider

schneider

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:46 AM

You know what I'M tired of? "He let in 8 goals in the Stanley Cup Final". Give it a break kid. You're responding to a man who's been a fan for 37 years; not a 12 year old. The Schneider bandwagon is finally leaving town and things will be normal once again.

Schneider is NOT an adequate starter for the Vancouver Canucks and he's preventing Luongo from playing.


How can you be this stupid? "He carried the team to the scf" isn't true.

"He let in a ton of goals in important games and had numerous meltdowns throughout the playoffs" is. Do you think "reversing" my statement somehow fabricates an argument? It doesn't make sense the other way, moron.
  • 0

#58 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:55 AM

*
POPULAR

Great post OP.

Written with dignity. Too much dignity to query where our defence has been on some of Lu's bad nights. The game against Detroit was an example.

When you have a D that constantly gives up the puck, passes like the 3 blind mice and constantly collapses in on you and an offence that has needed upgrading for nearly 3 years, of course the goalie has to suffer.

Sometimes I think Lu is too classy, too quick to blame himself, too quick to pump the other guy's tyres and too self effacing in victory. But then that's why he will always be No 1 in my book.
  • 6
Kevin.jpg

#59 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:59 AM

Goals Against Average (GAA) – 8.05
Goals Against Average in Vancouver – 0.67
Wins at Home 3-0
Wins in Boston 0-3
Save Percentage in Vancouver .979
Save Percentage in Boston .773
Goals Allowed in Vancouver 2
Goals Allowed in Boston 15
Pre game 7 stats. He SUCKED in BOS but the game was at home. I would have started Schneids after game 3 in BOS but Lu was solid at home. You didn't watch the same game as me if you think the fowards/ D were sh!tting their pants for game 7- they were terrified of losing.


Now maybe you can do the same stats for D and offence against Boston?
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#60 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,921 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:53 AM

All due respect to Thomas but he was playing behind the best defence in the NHL. Anyone can play behind that stellar defence and look amazing - Thomas was already a great goaltender but playing with guys like Chara and co. in front of him made him seem God-like. Just look at what the defence is doing to Rask right now.

The key is - their goalies don't have to steal them games because the defence doesn't give up many opportunities. They simply play solid when chances go against them, which is rare at best. I don't remember one breakaway or even 2-on-1 that the Canucks earned in their entire playoff series against the Bruins, because their defence play a solid, stay-at-home, sit-back style and don't take stupid risks or pinch at bad times. Meanwhile the Canucks offered up 5 or 6 a game.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - the Canucks' defensive system is hopeless and will never win a Cup the way it's structured right now. Cup-winning defences are built around solid defence first, then chip in offence occasionally and most importantly - opportunistically. That's how L.A, Boston and Chicago won Cups. Their defences NEVER gambled, but when the opponents did their forwards jumped on these mistakes and capitalized.

Right now we rely on our defence to score goals which is down-right stupid. Cup-winning teams win cups with 4 scoring forward lines, maybe 1 or 2 offensive defencemen and 4 solid shutdown guys. You can have the best goalie in the world, but he's going to be ventilated every night if we have a defence that is trying to score goals and forgetting about shutting down the other team's forwards.


Boston has a good D, but best in the league? That could be a tough sell. You make it sound like Thomas was on a picnic. There were plenty of quality scoring chances and he was solid game after game.

During the '11 playoff run Bostons D put up 10g 44a while ours put up 14g 31a. I wouldn't class their D as non-offensive.
  • 1
Posted Image




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.