[Discussion] Why Don't We Recreate 2011?

[hatedkid666]

Easier said than done

[rawkdrummer]

We lost too many of our D to injury and sadly Lu couldn't hold the fort

[Chris12345]

1 hour ago, luckylager said:

My sentiments exactly.

 

Because that team just wasn't good enough.

 

and riots

yea riots....just in case it wasn't bad enough.

[Chris12345]

1 hour ago, Riviera82 said:

Yes. That and the fact they never came close before or after that 1 season.

 

From my point of view that edition of the Canucks were not really built for the playoffs, and I say that because legitimate contenders in this day and age make more than a single deep run in their life-cycle. The problem as I see it is that too many of the Canucks premier players were at their best during the regular season and didn't have that "extra gear" consistently enough during the postseason. 

 

So yes, why dont we recreate 2011? Just this time do it with players who are at their best when the games mean the most.

Yea that's my gig too. Awesome regular season team....not a great post season team. I agree no extra gear and not much heart. Kesler was decent, that's about it. Torres was decent. Burrows maybe.

 

LA on the other hand....terrible regular season team and geat post season team.

[Chris12345]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Rather it be 2003

 

We were one win away from the cup and one goalie. I actually thought we had a chance in 2003.

[D-Money]

2 hours ago, luckylager said:

My sentiments exactly.

 

Because that team just wasn't good enough.

 

and riots

The team was definitely good enough. Injuries killed them. Especially went Hamhuis went down, who was far-and-away our #1 D-man.

 

Q: How would Boston had faired had Hamhuis been fine, but Chara was out?

A: We would have absolutely rolled them.

[D-Money]

As for recreating 2011...yeah, right.

 

In 40+ years, how many Art Ross and Selke winners have the Canucks had? Three. The 2011 had all 3 of those players, playing in their prime, along with the absolute best goaltender in franchise history in net. Good luck recreating that!

 

There isn't some magic formula. If you want to win, you need elite players, and lots of them. They are hard to get, so get them however you can (very difficult to acquire outside of drafting them though...and very difficult to find outside of top-3 picks). You can tailor the style to whatever fits the elite players you manage to secure, then fill the holes with complimentary guys to fit the key guys and their play style.

[ButterBean]

One thing I've noticed when I watch games live is that the play takes way too long to develop out of our own zone. Our defenders are too slow and we've been missing an Ehrhoff type player ever since. He could rush the puck up the ice on the rush(and had the wheels to recover) pass well, and get shots through tough angles. The Sedins are dangerous when they have that mobile, offensive defenseman playing with them and a sniper/net presence (kesler/burrows back in the day). 2011 teams was great but it was carried by a lethal PP. When we didn't get those regular season calls our team was outmatched 5 on 5 by a bigger, tougher Boston team. Add the Malhotra injury and Hamhuis injury and the rest is history. 

 

Benning has been making great moves lately. I think he has put together really solid depth at all forward positions in the future. Boeser/Petersson/Dahlen/Goldobin/Virtanen/Horvat/Gaudette/Lind/Gadjovich/Lockwood etc. We also have a franchise goalie  with Demko. Defensive prospects are decent but there aren't too many guys that catch your eye as a #1 defenseman. Only piece of the puzzle I believe is missing is a bonifide #1 defenseman who can play all situations. 

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, Riviera82 said:

That's right. Even Toews said that his Blackhawks were going to expose the Canucks for what they really were in that first round in 2011. They ended up losing as we all know but I think we were successfully exposed anyways. 

Canucks were exposed as a team that needed to have regular season officiating in the playoffs versus "no call" approach that increased until the finals where pretty much anything could go other than hip checks on Bruins.   Ultimately the strategy of turning the cheek and assuming the calls would eventually "go their way" simply was the wrong strategy.   

At the same time, if you get to Game 7 of the SCF you were an elite team and deserved to be there and anything can happen in a Game 7 so it could have been roll of the dice too.  

 

One ironic twist is how the Hawks have more recently been exposed for "what they really are" and many teams now seemingly can get to them and Nashville simply gave them no ability to mount any attack.   Funny how things go full circle.   Toews and his $10 million under 60 point contract will have to figure something out to avoid having others say same about him.

 

 

PS - if you are re-creating 2011, buy Amazon stock, sell RIM and bet anyone you can find for as much as you can that Donald Trump will be President and that Justin Trudeau will be PM and that former will tweet "alternate" facts daily and latter will give a terrorist killer $10 million.   

[DownUndaCanuck]

11 minutes ago, ButterBean said:

One thing I've noticed when I watch games live is that the play takes way too long to develop out of our own zone. Our defenders are too slow and we've been missing an Ehrhoff type player ever since. He could rush the puck up the ice on the rush(and had the wheels to recover) pass well, and get shots through tough angles. The Sedins are dangerous when they have that mobile, offensive defenseman playing with them and a sniper/net presence (kesler/burrows back in the day). 2011 teams was great but it was carried by a lethal PP. When we didn't get those regular season calls our team was outmatched 5 on 5 by a bigger, tougher Boston team. Add the Malhotra injury and Hamhuis injury and the rest is history. 

 

Benning has been making great moves lately. I think he has put together really solid depth at all forward positions in the future. Boeser/Petersson/Dahlen/Goldobin/Virtanen/Horvat/Gaudette/Lind/Gadjovich/Lockwood etc. We also have a franchise goalie  with Demko. Defensive prospects are decent but there aren't too many guys that catch your eye as a #1 defenseman. Only piece of the puzzle I believe is missing is a bonifide #1 defenseman who can play all situations. 

Exactly.

 

I love what he's done with the forwards. He's lucky he's got Demko developing nicely. What we've lacked since 2011 has really been Ehrhoff. He has IMO been the biggest, most important piece to the puzzle - a top pairing puck moving D-man for the powerplay. Watching Edler and Ehrhoff on the same pairing on the ice at the same time was fun to watch, and gave us plenty of options.

 

Juolevi is nice, but we need more. We can't just plug Juolevi with some shutdown defenceman and leave them as our top pairing. We need more decent puck movers to give us that flexibility In 2011 we had Edler and Ehrhoff both scoring at a 50 point pace. We had Bieksa who could not only pass the puck but score clutch goals. We had Sami Salo come back from injury who was an absolute weapon from the blueline, not as fast but a heck of a shot. We had Hamhuis who could skate really well and pass but not shoot too well. Ballard was a pretty damn good skating defenceman too.

 

Our current future looks like Juolevi, Hutton, Stecher, Tanev and Gudbranson for now. Chatfield, Brisebois, Subban and Pedan are in the pipeline but who knows if they'll be NHL regulars.

 

Juolevi is a good passer, skater and has a decent shot. He can do it all.

Hutton is a fantastic skater, good passer but can't really get that shot through and it isn't very hard.

Stecher is a great skater, has a brilliant shot and can pass nicely. Like what he can bring but being undrafted, who knows what is potential is really.

Tanev is getting slow, can't shoot, not a great passer.

Gudbranson isn't a great skater, can't shoot or pass very well.

Chatfield is a shutdown-first D-man, good skater but not a great passer or shooter and won't rack up many points.

Brisebois has some passing potential but I have my doubts as to whether he'll be good enough for the NHL.

Pedan is the same as Brisebois.

Subban has some real top-level shooting and passing and skating ability but again, he might not be able to make the NHL due to his defence on a consistent basis. I really hope we give him a good crack purely because of his offensive abilities.

 

So on the whole, we really need some quality on the blueline. Apart from Juolevi, our D-men are all 5th round picks or undrafted guys. Hutton, Stecher and Subban seem to have capped ceilings. We really need a Provorov/Werenski/Theodore-type player in this organization to complement Juolevi if we ever want that Edler/Ehrhoff/Salo 3-headed monster of offence from the blueline.

 

[BowtieCanuck]

I'd dare to say the team being shaped now could be better than the 2011 team IF Benning continues to do well in drafting. Dahlen is going to be seen as the steal of the decade IMO if he plays to his full potential.

[dorrcoq]

" there's been plenty of restructuring to try and make the team tougher"

 

Seriously, have you ever watched a Canuck game?  If they've been trying for 6 years to make the team tougher they have failed in an epic way.

[TheNewGM]

A treat to watch.. God we used to be good and exciting. I cried a little..

[JamesB]

 

3 hours ago, logic said:

noob. Raymond and Higgins were both legit middle 6 players on any team in the league during 10-11

 

3 hours ago, Grape said:

Hamhuis was an elite skater until recently, especially with his edge work, so I wouldn't say "even" Hamhuis could skate well.

Yes. Admittedly the 2010-11 Canucks were built around the Sedins and great goaltending (Luongo and Schneider won the Jennings award). Franchise level players are always the key to Stanley Cup runs. But you also need a lot of support from elsewhere in the lineup. Hammer was an excellent D in 2010-11 and Raymond and Higgins were very good complementary players. I still think that without the injuries to Hammer, Raymond, and Malhotra the Canucks win the Cup in 2011.

 

 

3 hours ago, ILL BILL NECRO said:

Speed, Skill and defenceman who can score? My god why has nobody thought of this before.... 

The sarcasm is a bit tough but not entirely unwarranted. The 2010-11 team was a very talented team. If we could replicate that team in the near future we could expect comparable success, and with good luck on the injury front maybe win a Cup.

 

The real question is whether it makes to sense to use the structure of a successful team from the past as a blueprint. I think the answer is no. It puts an unnecessary constraint on development. The key to Cup runs is franchise level players and elite players. (See http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/star-power-in-the-nhl-which-teams-have-it-and-how-much-does-it-take-to-win-the-cup )

 

And elite players are hard to get. If you have the opportunity to get one, you take it. So maybe you end up building a team around a Norris calibre D and Vezina level goal (LA in 2012 and 2014 or Boston in 2011). Maybe the team is built around a couple of star forwards (Pittsburgh in 2016 and 2017). Maybe the team is built around a Selke type two-way forward, a scoring forward, and an elite puck-moving D (Chicago in 2013 and 2015).

 

But the key to being a good GM is to have the imagination and flexibility to take advantage of the opportunities that are available and build around them. GMs who constrain themselves by trying to follow a  particular formula are less likely to be successful.

 

The Canucks will improve at some point in the next few years. But there is no guarantee they will build another Cup contender any time soon, or any time at all. If they do, it will be by making the most of whatever is available, which might mean a very different team from the 2010-11 team in terms of structure. But the biggest need is just getting franchise level players or at least elite players into the system. Pettersson might have franchise or elite potential. Goalies are always uncertain, but Demko may become elite. Possibly one or more other guys in the system might develop into elite or franchise players, but they would have to outperform their current trajectories to do it. Maybe Boeser and Dahlen a decent chance. Maybe Horvat reaches that level. But we need at least one more franchise type player and we should not get worked up about whether it is the next Karlsson, the next Chara, the next Toews, the next Kane, or whatever. Any of the above would be great. 

 

[JesseBlue]

We needed an Ehrhoff? He was available for cheap and no one tried to snag him including the canucks.

 

What we need is a great power play and game plans to shoot the puck on net, from the point, in the middle. Heck, get Jagr.

 

As someone already pointed. Easier said than done.

[kingofsurrey]

PVR'ed the 2011 game 7 so i would have it forever.

 

Never been able to rewatch the game... too painful.

 

I am still trying to forget 2011 -  maybe in another 20 years the pain will subside......

[Salacious Crumb]

36 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

PVR'ed the 2011 game 7 so i would have it forever.

 

Never been able to rewatch the game... too painful.

 

I am still trying to forget 2011 -  maybe in another 20 years the pain will subside......

'94 still hurts as much as 2011. The pain never really goes away, you just learn how to manage it. 

 

Being a Canucks fan is often like salving paper cuts with an onion rub.

[elvis15]

2 hours ago, D-Money said:

As for recreating 2011...yeah, right.

 

In 40+ years, how many Art Ross and Selke winners have the Canucks had? Three. The 2011 had all 3 of those players, playing in their prime, along with the absolute best goaltender in franchise history in net. Good luck recreating that!

 

There isn't some magic formula. If you want to win, you need elite players, and lots of them. They are hard to get, so get them however you can (very difficult to acquire outside of drafting them though...and very difficult to find outside of top-3 picks). You can tailor the style to whatever fits the elite players you manage to secure, then fill the holes with complimentary guys to fit the key guys and their play style.

Agreed but for different reasons.

 

Let's recreate the magic of 2011 with a team that finished 2nd to last (and 3rd to last the year before) because we're close. Well, no, we aren't close, we just have prospects people are high on. But other teams are high on their prospects as well, and until any of those prospects show significant signs of being able to be that at the NHL level we've basically got a nice piece of paper that says we should be close.

 

I'll wait until we have some actual results (like we've started to see with Horvat), thank you.

[DownUndaCanuck]

1 hour ago, JamesB said:

 

 

Yes. Admittedly the 2010-11 Canucks were built around the Sedins and great goaltending (Luongo and Schneider won the Jennings award). Franchise level players are always the key to Stanley Cup runs. But you also need a lot of support from elsewhere in the lineup. Hammer was an excellent D in 2010-11 and Raymond and Higgins were very good complementary players. I still think that without the injuries to Hammer, Raymond, and Malhotra the Canucks win the Cup in 2011.

 

 

The sarcasm is a bit tough but not entirely unwarranted. The 2010-11 team was a very talented team. If we could replicate that team in the near future we could expect comparable success, and with good luck on the injury front maybe win a Cup.

 

The real question is whether it makes to sense to use the structure of a successful team from the past as a blueprint. I think the answer is no. It puts an unnecessary constraint on development. The key to Cup runs is franchise level players and elite players. (See http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/star-power-in-the-nhl-which-teams-have-it-and-how-much-does-it-take-to-win-the-cup )

 

And elite players are hard to get. If you have the opportunity to get one, you take it. So maybe you end up building a team around a Norris calibre D and Vezina level goal (LA in 2012 and 2014 or Boston in 2011). Maybe the team is built around a couple of star forwards (Pittsburgh in 2016 and 2017). Maybe the team is built around a Selke type two-way forward, a scoring forward, and an elite puck-moving D (Chicago in 2013 and 2015).

 

But the key to being a good GM is to have the imagination and flexibility to take advantage of the opportunities that are available and build around them. GMs who constrain themselves by trying to follow a  particular formula are less likely to be successful.

 

The Canucks will improve at some point in the next few years. But there is no guarantee they will build another Cup contender any time soon, or any time at all. If they do, it will be by making the most of whatever is available, which might mean a very different team from the 2010-11 team in terms of structure. But the biggest need is just getting franchise level players or at least elite players into the system. Pettersson might have franchise or elite potential. Goalies are always uncertain, but Demko may become elite. Possibly one or more other guys in the system might develop into elite or franchise players, but they would have to outperform their current trajectories to do it. Maybe Boeser and Dahlen a decent chance. Maybe Horvat reaches that level. But we need at least one more franchise type player and we should not get worked up about whether it is the next Karlsson, the next Chara, the next Toews, the next Kane, or whatever. Any of the above would be great. 

 

Have to agree entirely with what you say there. The "perfect recipe" is hard to come by and really changes every single year. At the end of the day it's all about matchups and how one core matches up against another core, how one team's goalie matches up against another teams forwards etc. Last season Crosby and Malkin's offence was too good for the defence of the Nashville forwards, star defencemen and even Rinne. That's pretty much it. They're elite players who give their club a chance year in year out.

 

The likelihood of us getting a generational player is slim. We can see what Karlsson is doing over in Ottawa so who knows, Dahlin may do the same here if we get lucky and pick him. Otherwise, we have Horvat who is far from generational, Boeser who may become elite, Juolevi who is far from a generational defenceman and Pettersson who is the real wild-card and might end up the next Backstrom/Datsyuk if we're lucky, or be too skinny to ever produce consistently in the NHL.

 

Because of this, and because of the fact that we'll be having to go through Edmonton during the next decade to win a Cup, I think the Canucks need to focus particularly on depth and defence. We're not going to out-score the Oilers or future Leafs to win a Cup. If we can rely on good two-way forwards, offence from the D and a star goalie in Demko, we might have a chance.

 

JB has to start thinking about what the rest of the league looks like and will look like when we want to contend. Las Vegas is going to be a power-house. Edmonton are sorted for the next decade. Calgary will be peaking in 2-3 years then fade pretty quickly. San Jose is toast. Las Angeles are done. The Ducks defence is set for years but their forwards are ageing. It's hard to predict how to beat these teams in the future, but if I were JB that's how I would be thinking.

 

I'd follow the Canucks 2011 mould. That is, some nice skill up front, some very good two-way forwards who can try to shutdown the stars in the West and some skilled puck moving defencemen. Most importantly, if we're going to have any chance against the McDavids, Gaudreau's and Las Vegas, we need to score opportunistic goals on the powerplay. That's how the 2011 Canucks punished teams. They were far from perfect, but their special teams covered any holes they had.

 

To summarize, I think we'll match up nicely against the future Western powerhouses if we have:

 

1) Skill and speed up front, scoring depth (done)

2) Good two-way forwards who can defend (done - Pettersson, Horvat, Sutter, Granlund, Baertschi)

3) Point producers on the blueline, ideally 3 x 40 point producers (depends how Hutton and Stecher go but I think we need more)

4) Star goalie (possibly in Demko)

 

To be honest we're not that far off. Meanwhile the Oilers don't have much future forward depth but they do have very elite top end talent. They don't have great puck moving defencemen but do have some good shutdown guys (Larsson, Nurse etc.). They don't really have a star goalie, and they certainly lack good defensive forwards (although I think McDavid and Draisaitl will learn this on the fly the way Crosby and Malkin have).

[DownUndaCanuck]

1 hour ago, dorrcoq said:

" there's been plenty of restructuring to try and make the team tougher"

 

Seriously, have you ever watched a Canuck game?  If they've been trying for 6 years to make the team tougher they have failed in an epic way.

After we lost to the Bruins, the Canucks went into a spiral of getting rid of skill and trying to beef up to contend with tough teams.

 

1) Traded Ehrhoff away/didn't re-sign him to NYI

2) Traded away Shirokov

3) Traded away Samuelsson for David Booth

4) Traded for Sammy Phalsson

5) Traded Hodgson for Kassian

6) Asked for big Matthias in the Luongo deal

7) Signed Jason Garrison for toughness on the blueline

8) Traded a 3rd pick for Dorsett

9) Traded Forsling for Clendening

10) Traded Kassian for an even tougher, less skilled Prust

11) Traded Jensen for Etem

12) Traded McCann and picks for Gudbranson

13) Drafted Virtanen over just about every skilled future superstar

 

The list goes on and on. It started as soon as the Canucks were publically bullied in 2011 in Boston, but only now has JB realized this is not how you win cups anymore, and he's turning the page as of the last deadline deals, and even before that. 

 

Drafting Juolevi was the start of a move in the right direction by Benning and management, especially over Tkachuk. That moves tells me that JB knows he was wrong in the past, the Canucks were wrong to get away from their skilled 2011-selves and try and be something they're not. This team has an identity, and it's skilled Swedes and gritty Canadians. That's why I love the controversial statement. He's getting back to our successful identity, and it starts with a new Finnish all-round defenceman to replace one of this team's best in Salo. The next step - replacing the two best Swedish forwards this team has ever seen, and he's doing that with Dahlen, then Pettersson. That's why I love the Hansen and Burrows trades - he's moving away from grit and stone-hands and towards smaller, less physical but highly gifted forwards.

 

You can see with those trades and moves up there that the Canucks were trying to get tough, and in doing so over the years our goals for and powerplay plummetted to where they are now - bottom of the league. Now JB is doing the right thing by getting us skill and speed back, and we just need to continue it. 

 

I love the new identity JB is forming for our team because it's essentially the old identity all over again.

 

Now we just need a replacement for Ehrhoff and Edler and we're set again.