AfterMath35 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Shhhh, don't tell anyone this, but we overpaid them both. Fair enough, but who isnt getting overpaid these days? Its not just the Canucks overpaying for players, its happening all over the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Fluke?? They were a top team '93 and '92 but had a bad regular season in '94 They were still a great team compare the rosters of '94 & 2010 and it's hard to say which team was better Kirk MacLean definitely outperformed Roberto Captain Trevor and Pavel outperformed Henrik & Daniel in the Finals the '94 team was robbed by the refs in the finals watch game 7 and you will be yelling at the refs about non calls....watch game 6 and you will want to kick Messier's ass The NHL definitely wanted a NYR Champion Come to think of it we were screwed by the league and the refs in 2010 as well Bettman sucksWe had Dana Murzyn as a top-pairing defenseman in '94. 'nuff said. edit: Looking at those old rosters, one thing that should serve to solidify the 'rebuild' mentality here and now is that zero Canucks on the '94 and '11 finals teams were as old as the Sedins, Burrows, Bieksa, Miller and Vrbata are now. (Samuelsson and Salo were 33, but they were also essentially broken.) We are so into a rebuild phase now I don't know how you can argue otherwise. Change is coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Were you waiting for the end of Gillis’s tenure to publish the book? No. We thought the book would come out halfway through his tenure with the Canucks. This was the sad thing about it – had they won Game 7, the whole hockey world would have looked at what the Canucks were doing and said, ‘That’s the model.’ Because of one game, everybody said ‘Boston, that’s the model.’ They would have had a legacy and the book would’ve talked about it and how other people had picked up on it. This shows he planned to release it right after Vancouver won the SC, to take advantage of the anointment of Gillis as the greatest GM ever if it had happened. Then they lost, and Gillis started making bad reactionary moves in his last years, and the book turned out to be an apologist PR piece to try and rescue a few shreds of respectability for Gillis. Still looks like it would be worth it to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 They should rename this. The rise of the greatest team of all time in any sport and how the nhl robbed them of a cup by changing the rules of penalties during the scf. Much better title. I skimmed it, very interesting read. I'll read it once I'm not on mobile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 "The reason I say they were desperate is, Trevor Linden – he’s got no experience. If you’re really serious about winning, you don’t hire a guy who’s been selling glasses and elliptical machines for six years. You hire a guy who understands the president’s job today." Cant believe I read this far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 My recollection is that '94 was more a fluke run than anything. But it was a nicer story due to the underdog factor. A lot of Canuck fans act like we won in '94. No, but they did play right to the bitter end in '94. The Canucks all but mailed-in Game 7 in 2011. A non-event if there ever was one in this city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Did the Canucks change course after 2011? You wrote things changed after the Boston game in 2012. From then on, the league seemed to reflect Boston’s style more than Vancouver’s style. They (Vancouver) defied it for as long as they could and then they finally threw their hands up and said ‘look, we can’t win this way. We need to be on the power play six or seven times a game for this scheme to work the way it used to work. It’s not that way, so now we’ve got to adjust. I've been saying this since 2012. After that game the Bruins owner complained to the league about the number of penalties. The change (for the worse) in reffing was almost immediate and declined as the season went on. The Canucks struggled through the balance of the season and has since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 94 was the greatest 'team' in franchise history. 2011 had the most over achievers in one year. Terrible read... uh.. the '11 team was statistically the best team in the NHL in numerous categories some not just for that season but historically in the entire nhl.. it included 2 hart winners, a selke winner and a vezina finalist (should have won). The '94 team was not expect to do what they did in the playoffs.. the '11 was far and away the best team in the league for the entire season.. and the next season.. its not even close. I have lots of love for the '94 team but '11 was better ( a lot better) in every category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicCop Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It doesn't help that Bruce Dowbiggin is a hack of a journalist. I lived in Calgary a while (pre-Gillis era) and he never passed an opportunity to bash the Canucks, usually defying any obvious information and hockey knowledge to do so. The man is a Calgary homer who is trying to help his buddy Gillis fix his reputation so he can find another job. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicCop Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 uh.. the '11 team was statistically the best team in the NHL in numerous categories some not just for that season but historically in the entire nhl.. it included 2 hart winners, a selke winner and a vezina finalist (should have won). Only Hank won the Hart. He and Danny both won the Art Ross, back-to-back no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollieo Del Fuego Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Fluke?? They were a top team '93 and '92 but had a bad regular season in '94 They were still a great team compare the rosters of '94 & 2010 and it's hard to say which team was better Kirk MacLean definitely outperformed Roberto Captain Trevor and Pavel outperformed Henrik & Daniel in the Finals the '94 team was robbed by the refs in the finals watch game 7 and you will be yelling at the refs about non calls....watch game 6 and you will want to kick Messier's ass The NHL definitely wanted a NYR Champion Come to think of it we were screwed by the league and the refs in 2010 as well Bettman sucks We should all just be thankful we were allowed to win the presidents trophy... should be good enough for Canada...I still believe that to be the case we were not allowed to win the cup. So I have us booked with 2 cups now and working on our third! Dispute that Bet on man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 My recollection is that '94 was more a fluke run than anything. But it was a nicer story due to the underdog factor. A lot of Canuck fans act like we won in '94. How do you fluke your way through four best of sevens including two that went to seven games and coming back 3 games to 1 in a final? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Only Hank won the Hart. He and Danny both won the Art Ross, back-to-back no less. Danny won the Lindsay / Pearson. MVP as voted by players and he rightfully deserved the Hart over Corey Perry. Perry wasn't even nominated for the Lindsay.... Which is mind boggling how on earth he was even in the running for the heart, let alone the winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicCop Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Danny won the Lindsay / Pearson. MVP as voted by players and he rightfully deserved the Hart over Corey Perry. Perry wasn't even nominated for the Lindsay.... Which is mind boggling how on earth he was even in the running for the heart, let alone the winner. I agree totally. It's reason #3,762 why I hate anything remotely associated with Corey Perry. That being said, Danny didn't win the Hart trophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Does Dowbiggins book come in two ply? Blunt, yes....yes it does. With a hint of lavender for that all-day freshness. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 How do you fluke your way through four best of sevens including two that went to seven games and coming back 3 games to 1 in a final?How? I dunno. It was almost miraculous. But then again, most flukes appear that way. Oh wait, flukes appear like flatworms. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 uh.. the '11 team was statistically the best team in the NHL in numerous categories some not just for that season but historically in the entire nhl.. it included 2 hart winners, a selke winner and a vezina finalist (should have won). The '94 team was not expect to do what they did in the playoffs.. the '11 was far and away the best team in the league for the entire season.. and the next season.. its not even close. I have lots of love for the '94 team but '11 was better ( a lot better) in every category. Yes you are correct, the 2011 team was miles better statistically than the '94 team, in the regular season that is. The difference was that unlike '11, '94 had a collection of playoff performers, not just a group of guys who padded their stats against the Calgary's and Edmonton's of the world and rode those career seasons to a presidents trophy. '94 had guys like Linden, Bure, Courtnall, Ronning, McLean, Brown, just to name a few. All guys who were big contributers. '11 had Burrows who of course helped the Canucks survive the dragon, Kesler who went "beast mode" for one series in his whole career against the mighty Predators, Luongo who when he wasn't spectacular was imploding, and our leading scorers the Sedins with their combined 42 points and -20. Despite the great regular seasons, the division titles and presidents trophies, during the Gillis era the Canucks were a .500 hockey team in the playoffs. What does that mean? Great regular seasons are meaningless if your'e only average in the postseason. '94 was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-Hearted Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 My recollection is that '94 was more a fluke run than anything. But it was a nicer story due to the underdog factor. A lot of Canuck fans act like we won in '94. Yeah the 94 playoff run was a damn good ride but they were hardly a dominant team before or after that. It was a fluke/underdog story (and a damn good one). The "2011" team was one of the best teams in the league for about three years. They were no fluke. I think a lot of people are confusing '94 with '82. The '82 Canucks were definitely a Cinderella team that got hot at the right time and were helped by the surrounding upsets in the Campbell Conference. The '94 team was basically the same team that finished in first place in their division in the two seasons prior. They also defeated higher seeded teams in all previous rounds before the final. Had the Canucks not blown Game 4 when they were up 2-0 and Pavel had his penalty shot, Vancouver wins the Cup in six...at the Coliseum. Unfortunately, the '94 Canucks were disabled by player greed, Quinn stepping down and replaced by the inept Rick Ley, Jeff Brown creating team drama off the ice, and Quinn's horrible drafting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabatoge95 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 http://www.amazon.ca/Ice-Storm-Greatest-Vancouver-Canucks/dp/1771641312You can preview the book here if you click on "look inside." And by preview I mean read most of the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 How do you fluke your way through four best of sevens including two that went to seven games and coming back 3 games to 1 in a final? Refs, and Tim Thomas's flukey style of goaltending that nobody could figure out. He had what, 2-3 legitimate seasons? Also on the most defensive team in the league with the top 2 defensive defensemen in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.