desiboynux4lifee******* Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Size is one of our biggest issues, Calgary beat us up and their not even a big team. Our guys looked intimidated by ferland and he's just a plug. And to show how weak we are Anaheim wasted Calgary who wasted us. this times 10000000000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLocke Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Don't worry, Booby Ryan can't even spell intensity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Pedan: Pretty much a goon. Played yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiangunner Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Size, grit, intensity, tenacity, truculence, we have needed these for 5 years now and has not been addressed. One of the reasons the bruins came back and beat us in the finals. Feel bad for the Sedins I can't think of another superstar(s) who has been so unprotected throughout his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 The reason we faltered after 2011 is that we changed the identity of the team from a skill/finesse/puck possession team. The Canucks went to game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals and then changed their identity because we lost to the Bruins with half the team injured. After trying to get bigger, the team has been messed up with no identity. Not a big, thrashing team. Not a skill team like the Blackhawks. If the Canucks hadn't tried to change what worked, we might've had more success since then. Canucks are just in limbo now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiangunner Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 The reason we faltered after 2011 is that we changed the identity of the team from a skill/finesse/puck possession team. The Canucks went to game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals and then changed their identity because we lost to the Bruins with half the team injured. After trying to get bigger, the team has been messed up with no identity. Not a big, thrashing team. Not a skill team like the Blackhawks. If the Canucks hadn't tried to change what worked, we might've had more success since then. Canucks are just in limbo now. We lost cause we had no plan B. Refs stopped calling penalties and the sedins were used as punching bags. If we had more toughness in the lineup it would have helped. Of course we lost for a bunch of reasons but all i'm saying is that the team has had a weakness in this department for a while and it has not been sufficiently addressed as was evident with Ferlund becoming "too relevant" in this years playoff exit of the nucks as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 I don't think that Calgary was that much bigger if at all. Intensity doesn't matter if energy is not used properly. The main difference to me was physicality and goal-tending. Not enough of our players were finishing checks. Next Playoffs the Sedins better include checking and physical play in their repertoire, or it will be another short Playoff run. Lead by example!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orcasfan Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 This thread is really going retro! Anaheim did not beat Calgary because they were "tougher" or "grittier". They soundly beat them because they were a much better team! They had more talented depth, who showed up. They had a solid and balanced D, who showed up. Calgary, on the other hand, was more evenly matched with Vancouver - they were both above average teams. The Canucks lost because their weak D was exposed, and did not contribute offensively. The Canucks depth forwards did not perform, unlike Calgary's. If Vancouver had won Game 1, they would probably have won the series. Game 1 could have been won with a more experienced coach. Of course, intensity is important. And so is talent and skill. Truculence and toughness is also helpful, but less important for a team's success than talent, skill and intensity throughout the line-up. Don't let the Vancouver sports media create this narrative! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiangunner Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 This thread is really going retro! Anaheim did not beat Calgary because they were "tougher" or "grittier". They soundly beat them because they were a much better team! They had more talented depth, who showed up. They had a solid and balanced D, who showed up. Calgary, on the other hand, was more evenly matched with Vancouver - they were both above average teams. The Canucks lost because their weak D was exposed, and did not contribute offensively. The Canucks depth forwards did not perform, unlike Calgary's. If Vancouver had won Game 1, they would probably have won the series. Game 1 could have been won with a more experienced coach. Of course, intensity is important. And so is talent and skill. Truculence and toughness is also helpful, but less important for a team's success than talent, skill and intensity throughout the line-up. Don't let the Vancouver sports media create this narrative! If you do not think that a lack of size/grit/toughness had no bearing in the canucks loss to the flames than you are disillusioned bud. The D was weak yes but canucks get rolled by guys like ferlund/marchand/dustin brown/Duncan freakin keith! without real pushback and it hurts the teams skill level and gives the opposition a leg up. It's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vdbg Nate Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 The reason we faltered after 2011 is that we changed the identity of the team from a skill/finesse/puck possession team. The Canucks went to game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals and then changed their identity because we lost to the Bruins with half the team injured. ------------------- There's a reason half our team was injured, we get bullied when we play a big team, yu can have lots of skill but if your intimidated by the other team your hesitant and won't use your skills as good as they could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Still not sold on Gaudreau types being an answer. He was only 'effective' in round two when Anaheim already made their statement in the series and let up. Game 1 and game 2 round two Gaudreau is the real Gaudreau imho. Just this little kid who was made totally irrelevant. As for his performance against this team in round one, esp. in the elimination game, well, that just indicates to me just how far away from the cup this team truly is. wtf? This is 100% why I'm glad we selected Virtanen over Ehlers and Nylander, even though eastern hype machines will no doubt be parading them around even more than Gaudreau has been. But at this point I don't really care about anything other than winning a cup. Regular season accomplishments means squat. If Shinkaruk or some other mini-me Robbie the Robot Hockey comes along and becomes a cup-winning playoff hero for the Canucks, bring it the hell on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Western Red Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Gotta add Pedan and Tryamkin to the kennels with Kass. Make them lean and hungry.We so need a beastly stay at home D. One of those two will come to fruit, not soon enough though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 The league is trending away from beastly stay at home D. It doesn't matter how beastly they are if they never have the puck. Then again, a guy like Seabrook and Weber sure are beastly. So is Chychrun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The reason we faltered after 2011 is that we changed the identity of the team from a skill/finesse/puck possession team. The Canucks went to game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals and then changed their identity because we lost to the Bruins with half the team injured. ------------------- There's a reason half our team was injured, we get bullied when we play a big team, yu can have lots of skill but if your intimidated by the other team your hesitant and won't use your skills as good as they could be. Funny because literally none of the injuries were due to "being bullied". Kesler had a groin problem, Hamhuis injured himself, Rome got himself suspended, etc. We were like Chicago that year, it was magical. Chicago is, again, back to the conference finals with a finesse team. Stanley Cup Winners: 2014 - Kings (size, goaltending, and defense) 2013 - Hawks (skill and speed) 2012 - Kings (size, goaltending, and defense) 2011 - Bruins (size, goaltending, and defense) 2010 - Hawks (skill and speed) 2009 - Pitts (skill) 2008 - Detroit (skill, puck possession, defense) 2007 - Anaheim (mix of size, skill, and defense) ...Hurricanes, Lightning, etc. We had a Hawks built team before and we ruined everything trying to be the Bruins. Now, we're neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Funny because literally none of the injuries were due to "being bullied". Kesler had a groin problem, Hamhuis injured himself, Rome got himself suspended, etc. We were like Chicago that year, it was magical. Chicago is, again, back to the conference finals with a finesse team. Stanley Cup Winners: 2014 - Kings (size, goaltending, and defense) 2013 - Hawks (skill and speed) 2012 - Kings (size, goaltending, and defense) 2011 - Bruins (size, goaltending, and defense) 2010 - Hawks (skill and speed) 2009 - Pitts (skill) 2008 - Detroit (skill, puck possession, defense) 2007 - Anaheim (mix of size, skill, and defense) ...Hurricanes, Lightning, etc. We had a Hawks built team before and we ruined everything trying to be the Bruins. Now, we're neither. We had a hawks team? I must have missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Funny because literally none of the injuries were due to "being bullied". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAkNUCKle sandwich Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 This topic makes me even more curious on how our big defenceman prospects in Tyramkin and Pedan turn out. Also keeping in mind, two smaller more offensive minded defenceman in J. Subban and Clendening. They could be superstars, or plugs. We just have to wait and see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlinkas wrister Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 The Canucks consider themselves a "puck possession team" so in theory they really don't need to be big but they should be faster and more intense when it counts (the playoffs). It's the real reason Calgary beat them imo, they were faster and harder on the puck in all 3 zones. That being said I would probably prefer the player with size and skill over a slightly better skilled player all day long because they can still be effective when the "rules" change in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefCon1 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Funny because literally none of the injuries were due to "being bullied". Kesler had a groin problem, Hamhuis injured himself, Rome got himself suspended, etc. We were like Chicago that year, it was magical. Chicago is, again, back to the conference finals with a finesse team. Stanley Cup Winners: 2014 - Kings (size, goaltending, and defense) 2013 - Hawks (skill and speed) 2012 - Kings (size, goaltending, and defense) 2011 - Bruins (size, goaltending, and defense) 2010 - Hawks (skill and speed) 2009 - Pitts (skill) 2008 - Detroit (skill, puck possession, defense) 2007 - Anaheim (mix of size, skill, and defense) ...Hurricanes, Lightning, etc. We had a Hawks built team before and we ruined everything trying to be the Bruins. Now, we're neither. I think we could become a mix of Hawks and Bruins team in the future Virtanen-Horvat-Bart McCann-Cassels-Kassian Matthias-Vey-Hansen Kennins-Gaunce-Dorsett Edler-Subban Trymakin-Tanev Pedan-Clendening Demko Markstrom Thats a mix of skilled/finesse along with size and intensity in other parts. If Pedan and Trymakin can become part of this team and fit in, then we wouldn't need to worry about Subban being small or soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefCon1 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 The Canucks consider themselves a "puck possession team" so in theory they really don't need to be big but they should be faster and more intense when it counts (the playoffs). It's the real reason Calgary beat them imo, they were faster and harder on the puck in all 3 zones. That being said I would probably prefer the player with size and skill over a slightly better skilled player all day long because they can still be effective when the "rules" change in the playoffs. I would say that I take Kane and Johnson in the playoffs over any other players right now and they don't have size. So in regular season and playoffs I'd rather have a Patrick Kane than someone like Jamie Benn or Ferland. I think having a mix of size and skill is better because speedsters like Kane, Johnson or Gudreau could change a game with a snipe or a dangle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.