Ehhh, I don't particularly agree with that. I wasn't one of the folks who thought the Bruce bump would amount to making the playoffs though, that winning stretch did nothing to change my mind about where the team was at.
Demko was still covering a lot of warts, our defense was still pretty weak looking, we still had plenty of the habits we'd exhibited under Green. I recall several games where it'd take the Canucks a period or two to get going during which Demko would stand on his head to keep them in it. We also notably lost to teams we had no business losing to, the Detroit game in the second half stands out. It was also a season where were uncharacteristically healthy, at least regarding our most important players. Same could be said of this season thus far actually.
The only difference between last season's Miller and this one is that last season was a career season. He's a capable offensive player but the defensive miscues, giving up on plays, floating, poor passes, ect were all there last season too. Difference is more folks were willing to gloss over them because of said career year. He's a double edged sword and that's not new.
Pettersson's first half wasn't great, it took him a while to get going but once he did he looked like he has this season. I argued throughout the summer that we could probably get by just fine with 1-2 punch of Pettersson and Horvat. I argued we'd be better of trading him for picks, prospects, or to help address our D and that we'd be better off. I argued we'd be better of potentially taking a step or two back to take more steps forward going forward. I argued that we were probably at least four years out from contention and that Miller didn't fit our competitive timeline given he'd be 30 by the time his new deal kicked in. I argued we had enough talent up front that we could probably still be a fringe playoff team without Miller, and that an improved defense could mitigate some of any offense we'd lost. I stand by all of those arguments.