Sign in to follow this  
Where's Wellwood

[Article] Elliotte Friedman: “WE KNEW WE HAD SOMETHING” This is the story of how the greatest team in Vancouver Canucks history was built. In the words of the people who were there.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 5/31/2020 at 4:48 PM, Baggins said:

As bad as the reffing was the Canucks averaged 8:07 PP time per game while the Bruins averaged 6:37 per game. The B's outscored the best PP in the league 5-2 in the series. PP opportunities were 33 to 27 in the Canucks favor. Average shots per game were 35.1 to 32.1 in the Canucks favor (186 to 152). Hits were 260 to 227 in Vancouver's favor. So the Canucks overall out hit them, out shot them and had more PP's in the series yet lost. I don't believe for a second Daniel fighting Marchand would have made a difference. The difference in the series was health and goaltending. Thomas was great for 7 games, setting an NHL record for saves in a final, while Luongo was great for 3. Would Luongo have been better with a healthier D in front of him? Would the Nucks have been better at scoring sans all the injuries to Henrik, Kesler, Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, Edler, and even Hanhuis? That's where I believe the series loss is, not one incident between Daniel and Marchand. I've maintained all along injuries and Thomas gave the Bruins win. With an honorable mention to Chara for the job he did on Henrik (even though it was often illegal). He was on Henrik like a bad stink through the series.

I remember being livid at the time because it seemed like the Bruins would get the calls when the score was close, and then the Canucks would finally get their PPs late in the game when the game was beyond reach. I even remember thinking the refs were purposefully calling the game that way so they could point to the same stats you pointed to to justify calling a fair game. That series felt like a total fix at the time, but I wonder if I’d feel the same way if I re-watched it now. Too bad I have no desire to re-open those old wounds!

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that’s part of the healing; re-watch that Series and objectively examine the play and players. 
 

I wonder how many posters would come away with a different perspective? 
 

Would the twins, in particular, be viewed as perimeter players struggling against a physically dominant Bruins team that exploited their reluctance to go through the Chara-wall, etc? 
 

I think so. Once the emotion is out of the way, as it should be by now, go look for yourself at the games and that stretch of absolute domination by the Bruins. If you still feel as if the Canucks were the better team, that should be a surprise. 
 

Injuries and reffing can’t and don’t account for everything in the sport. It’s an excuse for losers, so they say. The Canucks lost that series because they refused to play inside the perimeter, plain and simple. Even the Bruins’ goalie knew to make certain they remained in fear. Sad way to go out. No respect. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Maybe that’s part of the healing; re-watch that Series and objectively examine the play and players. 
 

I wonder how many posters would come away with a different perspective? 
 

Would the twins, in particular, be viewed as perimeter players struggling against a physically dominant Bruins team that exploited their reluctance to go through the Chara-wall, etc? 
 

I think so. Once the emotion is out of the way, as it should be by now, go look for yourself at the games and that stretch of absolute domination by the Bruins. If you still feel as if the Canucks were the better team, that should be a surprise. 
 

Injuries and reffing can’t and don’t account for everything in the sport. It’s an excuse for losers, so they say. The Canucks lost that series because they refused to play inside the perimeter, plain and simple. Even the Bruins’ goalie knew to make certain they remained in fear. Sad way to go out. No respect. 

An example of what happens when there are really big defensive defensemen. Chara wasn't an offensive force but his size dominated down low. St Louis kind of copied that formula with huge defensemen that were not there to score but to dominate the boards, interfere with passes due to huge wingspans and clear the net. Even a declining Chara still can dominate although not like when he was younger, his offense fell off but his defense picked up. That is why all NHL teams look for huge men that can skate to play defense, offense is optional. Canucks could have two of those in Myers and more so in Tryamkin. The big Russian was leading his team in plus minus and minutes played the last 15 games they played and in the playoffs. Now St Louis had 4 of those guys, the Canucks could have two.

I just hope the fans remember the last time the team went small and skill thinking that was the new NHL only to waste a number of years readjusting to reality. The bigger team usually win the cup.

Edited by Lazurus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

An example of what happens when there are really big defensive defensemen. Chara wasn't an offensive force but his size dominated down low. St Louis kind of copied that formula with huge defensemen that were not there to score but to dominate the boards, interfere with passes due to huge wingspans and clear the net. Even a declining Chara still can dominate although not like when he was younger, his offense fell off but his defense picked up. That is why all NHL teams look for huge men that can skate to play defense, offense is optional. Canucks could have two of those in Myers and more so in Tryamkin. The big Russian was leading his team in plus minus and minutes played the last 15 games they played and in the playoffs. Now St Louis had 4 of those guys, the Canucks could have two.

I just hope the fans remember the last time the team went small and skill thinking that was the new NHL only to waste a number of years readjusting to reality. The bigger team usually win the cup.

Bart, Weber, etc, yes, lest we forget haha 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lazurus said:

An example of what happens when there are really big defensive defensemen. Chara wasn't an offensive force but his size dominated down low. St Louis kind of copied that formula with huge defensemen that were not there to score but to dominate the boards, interfere with passes due to huge wingspans and clear the net. Even a declining Chara still can dominate although not like when he was younger, his offense fell off but his defense picked up. That is why all NHL teams look for huge men that can skate to play defense, offense is optional. Canucks could have two of those in Myers and more so in Tryamkin. The big Russian was leading his team in plus minus and minutes played the last 15 games they played and in the playoffs. Now St Louis had 4 of those guys, the Canucks could have two.

I just hope the fans remember the last time the team went small and skill thinking that was the new NHL only to waste a number of years readjusting to reality. The bigger team usually win the cup.

The bigger team usually wins the cup?  Well yes recently St Louis and WSH have.  But then what about PIT and CHI?  Or the EDM Oilers or MTL dynasties?  Sometimes yes they come out on top as Boston did against Vancouver.  However I don’t think they dominated the play - rather Vancouver had that advantage- the single most biggest difference came down to goaltending both ways (play wise the ice tilted towards Boston although it was pretty even for the most part).   Thomas was otherworldly- a Hasek/Roy like performance.   Most saves in a final - check.  Most shots against check.  Best SP in 7 game final check.   And on the flip side Luongo was brilliant some games - mediocre or even bad others.  Yes they were the more physical team - but we were more disciplined and their penalty killing beat us too.  Those two things (their penalty killing and our crap PP) plus Thomas standing on his head were far more instrumental in their cup win then Chara and the Sedins wilting under pressure (which they absolutely did not - they just couldn’t finish them thanks to Thomas and their PK mostly).  I guess everyone has a different take on it. But that’s mine.  Luongo wasn’t like he was against Turco otherwise we’d have had a cup.  Still he wasn’t terrible either.  We lost.  I’ve been over it for eight years or so.   That said I still can’t stand watching Messier skating around with the cup so I get the first timers that won’t let it go. 

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, I'm Your Huckleberry said:

I remember being livid at the time because it seemed like the Bruins would get the calls when the score was close, and then the Canucks would finally get their PPs late in the game when the game was beyond reach. I even remember thinking the refs were purposefully calling the game that way so they could point to the same stats you pointed to to justify calling a fair game. That series felt like a total fix at the time, but I wonder if I’d feel the same way if I re-watched it now. Too bad I have no desire to re-open those old wounds!

It's tough not to have at least something of a biased view watching your favorite team particularly if you rarely, or never, watch games with opposing fans. Bruins fans felt the Canucks were dirty and got away with way too much. I watched one game with a friend that's a TO fan who was rooting for the Bruins as he hates the Nucks. He was going nuts on non-calls in favor of the Nucks while of course offering up crickets on non-calls for the B's. Tends to make you more aware of the two way street and fan bias for "your team". But I grew up with three older brothers way back among the original 6 and each of us had our own team. From the eldest it was Habs, Leafs, Hawks and me the Bruins (I was young and liked their Uni the best). But growing up with opposing fans really brought awareness to the two way street on calls and non-calls.

 

Needless to say, being hometown boys, the moment the Nucks joined the league all four of us were instantly die hard Nuck fans with differing O-6 team as our secondary. Because they were my brothers teams though I'd root for any team over the Leafs, Hawks or Habs. It was good natured brotherly rivalry in our household.

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2020 at 12:20 PM, -AJ- said:

I think the further away I get from the 2011 team, the more I realize how insanely dominant it was. To have the feeling going into literally every single game that you will very likely come out the victors is an insane feeling, but it was the honest truth. It didn't matter if we were going against the #2 team in the NHL, we were the favourites and as a fan, I was always confident we had a very good chance of winning.

We will have that feeling again one day.....hopefully, with a better outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/3/2020 at 11:15 PM, IBatch said:

The bigger team usually wins the cup?  Well yes recently St Louis and WSH have.  But then what about PIT and CHI?  Or the EDM Oilers or MTL dynasties?  Sometimes yes they come out on top as Boston did against Vancouver.  However I don’t think they dominated the play - rather Vancouver had that advantage- the single most biggest difference came down to goaltending both ways (play wise the ice tilted towards Boston although it was pretty even for the most part).   Thomas was otherworldly- a Hasek/Roy like performance.   Most saves in a final - check.  Most shots against check.  Best SP in 7 game final check.   And on the flip side Luongo was brilliant some games - mediocre or even bad others.  Yes they were the more physical team - but we were more disciplined and their penalty killing beat us too.  Those two things (their penalty killing and our crap PP) plus Thomas standing on his head were far more instrumental in their cup win then Chara and the Sedins wilting under pressure (which they absolutely did not - they just couldn’t finish them thanks to Thomas and their PK mostly).  I guess everyone has a different take on it. But that’s mine.  Luongo wasn’t like he was against Turco otherwise we’d have had a cup.  Still he wasn’t terrible either.  We lost.  I’ve been over it for eight years or so.   That said I still can’t stand watching Messier skating around with the cup so I get the first timers that won’t let it go. 

StLou, Wash, LA the Bruins were all overall large than their opponents, Pittsburgh and Chicago both have or had multiple HoFer's to make up the difference and they were not tiny either. Te dynasties? Montreal was one of the biggest teams with Hofer's ditto Edmonton. Even as far back as 94, the Canucks were one to the largest teams in the league with a big defence. Tampa has been trying to get bigger for the playoffs for a few years now and they are one of the best teams in the regular season, there is a lesson there, small is okay for the regular season but large counts in the playoffs.

Edited by Lazurus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

StLou, Wash, LA the Bruins were all overall large than their opponents, Pittsburgh and Chicago both have or had multiple HoFer's to make up the difference and they were not tiny either. Te dynasties? Montreal was one of the biggest teams with Hofer's ditto Edmonton. Even as far back as 94, the Canucks were one to the largest teams in the league with a big defence. Tampa has been trying to get bigger for the playoffs for a few years now and they are one of the best teams in the regular season, there is a lesson there, small is okay for the regular season but large counts in the playoffs.

Boston has been to the finals three times and won once...mostly on goaltending and great penalty killing in 2011.   Yes we’ve had some big teams, we were the bigger tougher team in 94 and lost.  The late 90’s were arguably our toughest teams ever and we sucked for the most part. 
 

LA won on Quicks back more then anything else.  Especially their first cup.  Wouldn’t call them particularly big sIze wise.   
 

I love me a big rough and tough team but can only think of three cups that had a lot to do with size and toughness.   PHI back to back (and take away Robinson and the Habs weren’t that big. The Bruins and PHI teams were tougher and rougher but couldn’t beat them) - and ANA lone cup against OTT.  
 

You hit the nail on the head with CHI and PIT - aside from PIT first Crosby cup those teams had barely any toughness or size .... CHI their first one had some, the next two pure skill based.   EDM wasn’t a big team... they were average for that time period but definitely had toughness couldn’t survive without some.    
 

Myers made our team average go up...add Tryamkin and don’t think many teams would be bigger then us if any - does that mean he’s the missing ingredient to playoff success?  
 

Id safely argue that the more skilled team usually wins the cup ... when it comes down to attrition depth is important too.   Goaltending would be included in the skill department and is way more important than anything else.    Roy proved that, as did Ranford (.936 sp EDMs last cup, one they said would never happen) as did Parent as did Quick and Thomas more recently.   
 

Again not saying I don’t want size as I do - but not size just for the sake of size.   Rather have a Williams, or Asham, or Domi, or Keane, or Walker way before a 6’4” pussycat like Pyatt wouldn’t you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Boston has been to the finals three times and won once...mostly on goaltending and great penalty killing in 2011.   Yes we’ve had some big teams, we were the bigger tougher team in 94 and lost.  The late 90’s were arguably our toughest teams ever and we sucked for the most part. 
 

LA won on Quicks back more then anything else.  Especially their first cup.  Wouldn’t call them particularly big sIze wise.   
 

I love me a big rough and tough team but can only think of three cups that had a lot to do with size and toughness.   PHI back to back (and take away Robinson and the Habs weren’t that big. The Bruins and PHI teams were tougher and rougher but couldn’t beat them) - and ANA lone cup against OTT.  
 

You hit the nail on the head with CHI and PIT - aside from PIT first Crosby cup those teams had barely any toughness or size .... CHI their first one had some, the next two pure skill based.   EDM wasn’t a big team... they were average for that time period but definitely had toughness couldn’t survive without some.    
 

Myers made our team average go up...add Tryamkin and don’t think many teams would be bigger then us if any - does that mean he’s the missing ingredient to playoff success?  
 

Id safely argue that the more skilled team usually wins the cup ... when it comes down to attrition depth is important too.   Goaltending would be included in the skill department and is way more important than anything else.    Roy proved that, as did Ranford (.936 sp EDMs last cup, one they said would never happen) as did Parent as did Quick and Thomas more recently.   
 

Again not saying I don’t want size as I do - but not size just for the sake of size.   Rather have a Williams, or Asham, or Domi, or Keane, or Walker way before a 6’4” pussycat like Pyatt wouldn’t you?

"The team that wins the Vezina, wins the playoffs" a quote from one of the greatest coaches, Scotty Bowman.

 

Boston, okay but Chara was playing half the game, they could rotate 5 guys on the other side:lol:

 

Just about all "predictors", guys that make predictions say the goalie is the "Stud". "They forgot to measure the size of his heart" or "not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog" But attrition mounts up and skill doesn't take much to become impeded.

 

That said Tryamkin would be better down low in the Canucks end than Stecher or Hughes, maybe even Tanev and getting close to Edler, not an offensive force but a monumental challenge to get by, ask McDavid. Sometimes it isn't a goal that wins a game, often times a combination of holding the ground, taking the puck away and intimidation and not always because of fights, a big hitter can turn heads, remember how many players were looking (heads on a swivel) around for Torres, he wasn't huge but his heart was and his hits. Once he got muzzled he was not as intimidating. On the other hand Lucic was a force, even though no one knew at the time he had a severe shoulder injury from the Hamhuis hip check.

 

Sometimes the number of shots isn't the whole story if they are perimeter shots. I remember in the last few seasons Canuck shots for were bolstered with dump ins on goalies from center ice or further, little trickle dump ins the goalie had to wait for.

 

Size is needed but skating is too and if the "role" is skill, then more brain and hands, but if it is just being big and nasty, well Odjick is a good example, scored more with Bure than in his whole previous career. Same with Ferland, Eriksson and other side kicks, play with the best and reap the rewards.

 

I like Greenway, he would be a great fit in Vancouver.

Edited by Lazurus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bieksa was asked about that team recently

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.