The difference between the Canucks and Stanley Cup winners

[The Colt 45s]

This season has been an eye opener. We have a lot of optimism. Our team is young, and this cadre of players will only get better.  

[RowdyCanuck]

9 hours ago, khay said:

lol that would have been nice but Bure would be suspended for an entire season if he pulled that elbow off in 2011 especially if it is against a Bruins player.

 

I do agree that if we had Linden and Bure instead of Sedins, we would have won the cup in 2011 without Bure needing to elbow anyone.

 

Ultimately, we did not win that year because the Sedins' one weakness was that they can be slowed down in the playoffs by the opposition's best checkers/defence. And as a result, they were decent and good at times but never great when needed in the playoffs and you need heroic efforts from your stars to win especially when almost half of your team is injured like it was in 2011 SCF. The playoff heroes rise above the challenge, the Sedins weren't able to raise their levels that's why we lost in 2011.

 

And to Luongo's credit, I think Luongo did rise above the challenge to get us 3 wins (2 shutout wins), which considering the injuries/suspension to defence was remarkable. If Sedins have one great game, we could have won the cup. If it were Bure and Linden, they would have delivered at least one great game needed to get us that cup.

 

One thing that I found interesting was how the Sedins feasted against the Sharks in the WCF but they were liability in the other 3 series. Henrik had 1G11A, 12 points and was a +4 in 5 games against the Sharks. I remember they matched up Douglas Murray who was too slow and Sedins were free to do whatever they wanted. Daniel had 6 points in that series too.

 

Against Chicago: 5 points and -4 for Henrik and 7 points and -2 for Daniel. 

Against Nashville: 4 points and -4 for Henrik and 3 points -6 for Daniel.

Against San Jose: 12 points and +4 for Henrik and 6 points and +4 for Daniel.

Against Boston: 1 point and -7 for Henrik and 4 points and -5 for Daniel.

 

Chicago did not match up Bolland in the first 3 games (http://www.nhl.com/stats/skaters?aggregate=0&reportType=game&dateFrom=2011-04-01&dateTo=2011-06-25&gameType=3&position=F&playerSearch=Dave Bolland&playerPlayedFor=franchise.11&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=points,goals,assists&page=0&pageSize=50).

 

And when Bolland returned (from injury) and was matched up against the Sedins, they got overwhelmed (http://www.nhl.com/stats/skaters?aggregate=0&reportType=game&dateFrom=2011-04-01&dateTo=2011-04-27&gameType=3&position=F&playerSearch=Sedin&playerPlayedFor=franchise.20&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=a_gameDate&page=0&pageSize=50).

 

San Jose did not have a great match up line that could slow the Sedins nor did they have a first pairing defence capable of stopping them. So they put their best firepower against Canucks best firepower and Canucks, led by the Sedins handled them easy. I remember the Sedin line keeping the puck in the offensive zone almost entirely against almost any line, including Thornton's line.

 

I think if Daniel wasn't injured and if we managed to get past the Kings in 2012, that was the year where the path to the cup was laid out right in front of us, with some favourable matchups for the Sedins to feast on.

 

We have not yet seen how the current core performs in the playoffs. We all know that EP and Hughes are competitors so I assume that if JB is able to ice a team anywhere close to 2009-2012 Canucks, that they will deliver. 

 

 

The playoffs are just like hockey in early and mid 2000's and the Sedins didn't do much during that time.....

im sorry but I can't remember any playoffs where the Sedins feasted on anyone.......they feasted during the regular season and the playoffs were never the Sedins friend ha 

they did play good against the Sharks but compare the Sedins to Toews and Kane and they don't stack up......see where I'm going with that?..... 

im sorry the Sedins were over rated and imho weren't true leaders......hank calling out Jake for a late hit could , you imagine what they said about Torres hit or kesler just being kes......

the Sedins played good against slower teams or teams that didn't take the body ......we built a team like the leafs before they did ha 

 

 

[khay]

1 hour ago, RowdyCanuck said:

The playoffs are just like hockey in early and mid 2000's and the Sedins didn't do much during that time.....

im sorry but I can't remember any playoffs where the Sedins feasted on anyone.......they feasted during the regular season and the playoffs were never the Sedins friend ha 

they did play good against the Sharks but compare the Sedins to Toews and Kane and they don't stack up......see where I'm going with that?..... 

im sorry the Sedins were over rated and imho weren't true leaders......hank calling out Jake for a late hit could , you imagine what they said about Torres hit or kesler just being kes......

the Sedins played good against slower teams or teams that didn't take the body ......we built a team like the leafs before they did ha 

 

 

Sedins weren't clutch performers like Kane in the playoffs that's why we don't have a cup. I don't disagree there but, I don't know what you are trying to say by stating the obvious there. If they were, we would have multiple cups by now.

 

About playoffs being no friends to the Sedins, I'm not so sure. I'll present Daniel's stats (too lazy to look up both Sedins).

 

2007: Against the Stars, it turned into a defensive series and Luongo won us that series. We got shutdown by Ducks, the eventual cup winner.  Overall 5 points in 12 games for Daniel.

2009: We swept the Blues with Daniel scoring 5 points in 4 games. It was a team win but Sedins did their job. We lost to Chicago. Daniel had 5 points in 6 but he was blanked in games 4 and 5.

2010: Daniel with 10 points in 6 games against the Kings and the Sedins led us to victory in that series. Against Chicago, 4 points in 6 games.

2011: Already wrote it up in my previous post. They feasted on the Sharks but underperformed in the rest of the series.

2012: Daniel was injured but he had 2 points in 2 games.

2013: We got swept by the Sharks. Daniel had 3 points in 4 games.

2015: Daniel had 4 points in 6 games.

 

So the stats show that they were about or slightly shy of PPG in the playoffs. That's about how they performed in the regular season over their careers. It's clear that they didn't go up a level in the playoffs, which was needed to win the cup. 

 

If your definition of a leader is someone that has an extra gear and becomes a clutch performer in the playoffs, then you are right, they weren't.

 

It was not the case of a team being too slow or not taking the body, they all did. It was just that the teams that beat us had players that were better than the Sedins in the playoffs. And in the playoffs, you go as far as your stars take you.   

 

I don't know of any incident where Sedins called out Jake, Torres, or Kesler. Calling out a teammate, that doesn't sound like the Sedins.

 

[ruilin96]

1 hour ago, RowdyCanuck said:

The playoffs are just like hockey in early and mid 2000's and the Sedins didn't do much during that time.....

im sorry but I can't remember any playoffs where the Sedins feasted on anyone.......they feasted during the regular season and the playoffs were never the Sedins friend ha 

they did play good against the Sharks but compare the Sedins to Toews and Kane and they don't stack up......see where I'm going with that?..... 

im sorry the Sedins were over rated and imho weren't true leaders......hank calling out Jake for a late hit could , you imagine what they said about Torres hit or kesler just being kes......

the Sedins played good against slower teams or teams that didn't take the body ......we built a team like the leafs before they did ha 

 

 

2010 first round vs the Kings, they did pretty well against them that year. Although, that series was Mikael Samuelsson's series. I thought that series was interesting as defense and Luongo was nowhere near their best (Luongo had a a sv percentage below 0.900) and yet we still won the series. We just out scored the opposing team with our fire power offense. Our defensive game was completely picked apart by the Blackhawks in Round 2.

[RowdyCanuck]

14 minutes ago, ruilin96 said:

2010 first round vs the Kings, they did pretty well against them that year. Although, that series was Mikael Samuelsson's series. I thought that series was interesting as defense and Luongo was nowhere near their best (Luongo had a a sv percentage below 0.900) and yet we still won the series. We just out scored the opposing team with our fire power offense. Our defensive game was completely picked apart by the Blackhawks in Round 2.

The whole time the Sedins were in Van , they never had a kesler beast like moment.....

just like the leafs now, we were built on soft skill..with guys like kesler picking up the slack......gillis tried to buck the odds when he should have traded the Sedins..... 

but it was worth a try and it didn't work.....

[RowdyCanuck]

31 minutes ago, khay said:

Sedins weren't clutch performers like Kane in the playoffs that's why we don't have a cup. I don't disagree there but, I don't know what you are trying to say by stating the obvious there. If they were, we would have multiple cups by now.

 

About playoffs being no friends to the Sedins, I'm not so sure. I'll present Daniel's stats (too lazy to look up both Sedins).

 

2007: Against the Stars, it turned into a defensive series and Luongo won us that series. We got shutdown by Ducks, the eventual cup winner.  Overall 5 points in 12 games for Daniel.

2009: We swept the Blues with Daniel scoring 5 points in 4 games. It was a team win but Sedins did their job. We lost to Chicago. Daniel had 5 points in 6 but he was blanked in games 4 and 5.

2010: Daniel with 10 points in 6 games against the Kings and the Sedins led us to victory in that series. Against Chicago, 4 points in 6 games.

2011: Already wrote it up in my previous post. They feasted on the Sharks but underperformed in the rest of the series.

2012: Daniel was injured but he had 2 points in 2 games.

2013: We got swept by the Sharks. Daniel had 3 points in 4 games.

2015: Daniel had 4 points in 6 games.

 

So the stats show that they were about or slightly shy of PPG in the playoffs. That's about how they performed in the regular season over their careers. It's clear that they didn't go up a level in the playoffs, which was needed to win the cup. 

 

If your definition of a leader is someone that has an extra gear and becomes a clutch performer in the playoffs, then you are right, they weren't.

 

It was not the case of a team being too slow or not taking the body, they all did. It was just that the teams that beat us had players that were better than the Sedins in the playoffs. And in the playoffs, you go as far as your stars take you.   

 

I don't know of any incident where Sedins called out Jake, Torres, or Kesler. Calling out a teammate, that doesn't sound like the Sedins.

 

When the Sedins had some of the best depth and team in the league to help pad their stats......

they never dragged us to the playoffs , the way petey and Hughes have been doing......

 

doesnt sound like them?.....think the flames or Boston team or management call out their own players?....no in the media unless they are calling out the whole team.....

https://nationalpost.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks-giving-suspended-jake-virtanen-some-tough-love

[ruilin96]

4 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:

The whole time the Sedins were in Van , they never had a kesler beast like moment.....

just like the leafs now, we were built on soft skill..with guys like kesler picking up the slack......gillis tried to buck the odds when he should have traded the Sedins..... 

but it was worth a try and it didn't work.....

Henrik had 12 points in 5 games during a Conference Final series against the Sharks. This is nothing short of a beast like moment. But I do get what you mean. I am also really curious at how Petey and Hughes will adapt if they eventually found their way into the playoffs. I have a feeling if we want to win the cup, it will likely be Bo, Miller and Marky leading the way. Other players like Toffoli, Pearson and in the future Podkolzin would be a major part of it as well.

[RowdyCanuck]

2 minutes ago, ruilin96 said:

Henrik had 12 points in 5 games during a Conference Final series against the Sharks. This is nothing short of a beast like moment. But I do get what you mean. I am also really curious at how Petey and Hughes will adapt if they eventually found their way into the playoffs. I have a feeling if we want to win the cup, it will likely be Bo, Miller and Marky leading the way. Other players like Toffoli, Pearson and in the future Podkolzin would be a major part of it as well.

One series and they where in van how long? Ha sorry I really don't like the Sedins ha

 

well petey has already shown push back in tight checking games and I love that......I'm not saying he has to fight but be like Crosby ......he gets even with stick work....

your right though we will only go as far as our gamers take us , Hughes and petey have shown pretty good so far and Miller is just a beast ha then add in Jake coming by along and bo and Pearson and TT and our top six looks good and tough but we still lack toughness , we need a guy that can fight and piss off the other team and it wouldn't hurt us if his in the box, look at reeves and E Kane......they fight and Knights win that trade off imho. 

also that's something we haven't had in some time.....

[c00kies]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2020 at 7:32 PM, NUCKER67 said:

Canucks were good enough to win in 2011, but the poor reffing and injuries made it difficult. It can depend on matchups leading to the SCF as well. The Canucks had a tough road that year.  

 

BOS - beating MTL, PHI, TB

VAN - beating CHI, NSH, SJ

 

I don`t think they`re too far from being a contending team again. I would prefer a better, more experienced coach. I`d also like Horvat to step up to another level and stand out as the leader. I think they should replace Baumgartner with a better D coach (Mitchell?). Maybe it`s just a matter of time, the stars on this team (Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser) are all still really young. Virtanen, Gaudette, MacEwen and Demko are also quite young. They need a little more experience and confidence. Hoping for playoffs to see what they`ve got, but next year should be a great team.

Honestly, 2012 would have probably been as close to a cake walk as you could get. The Devils in the finals, a lot of the contenders knocked out early. Coyotes in the WCF... the Kings had a great path despite being the 8th seed, and I truly think the Canucks would have had a Cup if it was the 2011 team.

[knucklehead91]

On 3/15/2020 at 3:11 PM, Dats hockey said:

Hmmm 2011 we had the best PK no? Our D was great that year

2nd best PK... unfortunately Boston had the #1 PK.

But yes our D was pretty damn good.... if only our D were healthy in the finals

[Ferlands_Head]

4 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said:

The playoffs are just like hockey in early and mid 2000's and the Sedins didn't do much during that time.....

im sorry but I can't remember any playoffs where the Sedins feasted on anyone.......they feasted during the regular season and the playoffs were never the Sedins friend ha 

they did play good against the Sharks but compare the Sedins to Toews and Kane and they don't stack up......see where I'm going with that?..... 

im sorry the Sedins were over rated and imho weren't true leaders......hank calling out Jake for a late hit could , you imagine what they said about Torres hit or kesler just being kes......

the Sedins played good against slower teams or teams that didn't take the body ......we built a team like the leafs before they did ha 

 

 

The Sedins need a successful PP to feast. They were most effective in the SJ series where our PP looked dominant. 

[MikeyD]

On 3/15/2020 at 4:10 PM, coastal.view said:

the nucks in 2011

had a lot of breaks go their way

 

they got to slay the dragon

 

kesler carried them against nashville

 

that bieksa goal against the sharks

 

even against boston, luongo got a couple of shut outs at home

 

maybe they did not get every break that might have helped

but they got a few

and getting past the hawks was extremely fortunate

They also had the absolute worst luck because half of their team was injured. Our defense was absolutely decimated, Kesler in his prime got injured, Raymond in his prime got injured, Hank and Danny got injured, etc. We lost so much of our skill over the course of those games. There wasn't one team in those playoffs we wouldn't have killed if our team was even 75% healthy. We owned the Sharks, we owned the Blackhawks the first 3 games, should have won game 6 and won game 7, Kesler literally beat Nashville himself and by Boston we had lost over half of our team due to injuries and suspensions. 

The difference between the Canucks and the teams that win the cup is simply the forecheck and amount of possession. Teams that are possession teams win the cup. Our team has a horrible forecheck most nights. In 2011 we were the best forechecking team in the league. Do you remember when Luongo absolutely stood on his head and stole game after game? Neither do I, because he didn't have to. The games where our forecheck lacked, we got lit up and yet we still won 3 series. 

Right now, we have Motte, Virtanen, Macewan and Miller who will hound the puck. That's pretty much it. That's not enough to wear down the other team, to force turnovers on a consistent basis, etc. 2011 had Glass, Higgins, Hansen, Kesler, Lappierre, Malhotra, Alberts, Torres, Burrows and Oreskovich that consistently put in the work to get the puck. 3 of those guys were in the top 6 at the time. We were an extremely gritty team but we also had a lot of skill. 

The Caps win a couple years ago had a similar makeup of the Canucks. 

St. Louis had less skill but a better forecheck.

 

You need depth for days or you need heart for days. Most cup winners have the strongest compete. We will need a few more Miller's on the team if we want to get to a cup. 

 

[Baggins]

On 3/15/2020 at 3:02 PM, Chris12345 said:

Game changers....I can only think of one. And I mean real game changers.

 

Like : "boys we aren't $%&$ing losing" game changers and I'm good enough to make it happen.

 

Some players have shown it from time to time. Kes, Hank, Danny, Trevor.

I'd say it had more to do with a lengthy window of opportunity with youth as the best players. By the time their stars came in they already had a lot in place and good depth from years of missing the playoffs. With Kane and Toews coming at the end of the rebuild they were virtually guaranteed a long window and multiple shots at the grail. Our shot came with the Sedins peaking and years of crappy drafting giving us poor depth and a small window.

[shiznak]

On 3/15/2020 at 8:36 PM, Duodenum said:

Still think we would've won in 2011 if not for the team being decimated by injuries. 

 

We had it the best team in the league that year and should've won the cup but the injury list was too long to overcome.

 

Kesler, Ehrhoff, Rome (suspended), Samuelsson, Malhotra, Higgins, Hamhuis...Edler/Raymond/Alberts injured in game 6. 

 

2 top 4 dmen + a 3rd in game 6. 2 top 6 forwards and a 3rd in game 6. 2 important bottom six guys playing hurt. 

 

All that and still took it to game 7. 

 

 

Hard to win a 7 game series, when you manage to score a combine 8 goals. 

Boston loss their top playoff scorer (at that time), from a late hit. Lucic, Krejci, and Seidenberg were also hampered by injuries throughout that series.
 

Never a fan of the “injuries” excuse. Injuries can happen at any point. It still doesn’t take away how poorly we performed that series. Kesler, Erhroff, Malhotra, Edler, Higgins, and Alberts all still played that series. 
 

The only real big loss was Hamhuis.

[EdgarM]

2 minutes ago, shiznak said:

Hard to win a 7 game series, when you manage to score a combine 8 goals. 

Boston loss their top playoff scorer (at that time), from a late hit. Lucic, Krejci, and Seidenberg were also hampered by injuries throughout that series.
 

Never a fan of the “injuries” excuse. Injuries can happen at any point. It still doesn’t take away how poorly we performed that series. Kesler, Erhroff, Malhotra, Edler, Higgins, and Alberts all still played that series. 
 

The only real big loss was Hamhuis.

I agree , they still had plenty of opportunities to win games we just never got any clutch play, especially from the Sedins. With the PP going like 3-35 , or something like that, we would have been successful if they scored anything like they did in the regular season on the PP. 

Playing through injuries is where the Warrior like mentality comes out and some players have it and others don't. 

Petey's last goal he scored on the breakaway ,coming out of the penalty box, is a prime example of 'Heroics" needed in the playoffs. Some players just know how to push themselves to that upper echelon to greatness.

[The Colt 45s]

6 hours ago, EdgarM said:

I agree , they still had plenty of opportunities to win games we just never got any clutch play, especially from the Sedins. With the PP going like 3-35 , or something like that, we would have been successful if they scored anything like they did in the regular season on the PP. 

Playing through injuries is where the Warrior like mentality comes out and some players have it and others don't. 

Petey's last goal he scored on the breakaway ,coming out of the penalty box, is a prime example of 'Heroics" needed in the playoffs. Some players just know how to push themselves to that upper echelon to greatness.

The Sedin's style of play faired-well playing against the Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado and Minnesotas back in those days--28 games a year.  Those teams were very weak on defence, and the constant cycle wore the other team down.  But having good O-zone draws, and having Salo and Erhoff on the points helped keep the dominance as much as a deep second line.  Often when it was 4-on-3 on overtime, the Sedins, Salo and Burr were lights out!  It was almost always a goal or many deadly chances.  So what am I saying?  I think we took advantage by using our dominance and the cards dealt to us. 

On problem came when the greater teams had the willingness to allow the Sedins have the halfboards, especially on the power play.  They would put some slight pressure but then collapse the box quickly, effectively zoning them out.  Using our strength against us--tactfully smart.

[iceman64]

The difference between the Nux and a Stanley Cup winner? Hmmm I still give it 3 years from now.. 

[Patel Bure]

Honestly,

 

I think the Canucks just need to continue growing as a team while gaining experience.   Our team has holes in it and is fragile because we are still developing.   I think we are in a similar situation to where we were in 2000-2001, and 2006-2007, in that, we are just exiting the ‘dark days’ and are showing signs of potential, but still have a ways to go.

 

I think the Canucks will get there as our young players continue to grow (on the team and within the system), while our placeholder/bad contracts come off the books.

Edited March 19, 2020 by DarkIndianRises

[wai_lai416]

most of the cup winners have a norris caliber defenseman that can play on both side of the ice.. physical yet capable of quartering a powerplay and score.. even though we have Hughes right now.. he's not exactly a doughty keith chara carlsson letang burns type of defenseman.. i'm not sure if he'll be able to withstand the physicality of the playoff when he gets there where the phsyical play will ramp up. Hughes will always be great offensively but he'll never be the 30mins a night guy in the playoff like those mentioned.. like those guys are actually intimidating at times to play against.

[The Colt 45s]

We don't like guacamole as much as winners do.  Sorry, I have been up all night working on the floor of the treatment center. Hope my humour amuses someone.