What's happening with this team? The new core is learning to win by themselves

[Pete M]

The biggest factor in the Canucks not winning the 2011 SCF was the injury to Hamhuis in game 1. This loss broke the back of the Canucks.

[EdgarM]

1 minute ago, Pete M said:

The biggest factor in the Canucks not winning the 2001 SCF was the injury to Hamhuis in game 1. This loss broke the back of the Canucks.

 2001?  ummmmm............. The canucks won that game and the game after that though. ????????????

[wallstreetamigo]

12 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Well, we've only seen them score in that type of situation like 200 times, so sure.

 

Kind of sick of people not being able to see what the Sedins are now compared to what they used to be. Time catches up to players and past history from a players peak years is not an accurate reflection of what will happen now. When the Sedins have an ineffective game (more often now than it used to be) it is pretty much one or two good shifts and a bunch of cycling with no chances created and perimeter passing. No coach worth his salt would look at that and see the guys he should tap in a must score final two minutes. Situational awareness matters in coaching and is Desjardins biggest weakness.

 

If you need an example of an ineffective Sedin game when they needed to carry the team, look no further than game 7 of the SCF.

[aGENT]

All part of the transition to youth. Unfortunately, youth tends to lack consistency. Hence, largely, why we've struggled in the standings.

 

They've been playing far more like a bubble team than their record indicates IMO. And I expect they'll continue trending back that direction the further in to the season we get and as we get Hansen and Tanev back.

[Derp...]

Hockey is never really a "by themselves"type of game. Everyone wins together. That's the only way to do it. I think the good news is some of the younger players confidence is growing. They know they can play at this level, and succeed. That's a big mental wall, but one that when it comes down can really show a player's true colours. Confidence is so important.

[Pete M]

Just now, EdgarM said:

 2001?  ummmmm............. The canucks won that game and the game after that though. ????????????

Can't see the forest for the trees.

Losing their best Dman hurt; imagine playing the series with Hamhuis in the line up?

The games would have been different...you need four games to win. The Canucks would have had a better chance of winning four games.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 

Kind of sick of people not being able to see what the Sedins are now compared to what they used to be. Time catches up to players and past history from a players peak years is not an accurate reflection of what will happen now. When the Sedins have an ineffective game (more often now than it used to be) it is pretty much one or two good shifts and a bunch of cycling with no chances created and perimeter passing. No coach worth his salt would look at that and see the guys he should tap in a must score final two minutes. Situational awareness matters in coaching and is Desjardins biggest weakness.

 

If you need an example of an ineffective Sedin game when they needed to carry the team, look no further than game 7 of the SCF.

Let's cherry-pick the examples.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Let's cherry-pick the examples.

 

Yes because clearly that was not the most important game in Canucks history. 

 

The Sedins played for the PP but then did nothing when they actually got one. They don't get nearly enough responsibility for the Canucks losing that final. Luongo, injuries, secondary scoring, etc. All certainly factors but never mind secondary scoring. We had no primary scoring. What did we score 8 goals in 7 games? Your top players need to own that level of failure too.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

 

Yes because clearly that was not the most important game in Canucks history. 

Remember that time they didn't score?  See, they don't score.  Real sound. 

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Remember that time they didn't score?  See, they don't score.  Real sound. 

 

Yes, clearly what I said.

 

Win or lose I would watch Bo  play with his heart on his sleeve over the Sedins any day. Great quote from Bo the other day. Said he had the game in his stick and missed and that he lost sleep over that. Said next time he would make sure he would bury that chance then went out and got a 3 point game against Arizona.

 

When was the last time you heard a Sedin take that kind of personal responsibility? They just don't care if we win or lose to that same degree and actually never have. They don't have that sense of urgency to their game. That's just reality. And it is a HUGE reason we lost the SCF.

[SaintPatrick33]

4 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Remember that time they didn't score?  See, they don't score.  Real sound. 

 

What exactly are you trying to prove? As a user you named your profile "Kesler plays like a Canadian"? 

 

Rather than answering in sarcastic comments or questions I ask you prove to me that the Twins are "Clutch" players like Kane, Toews, or your former namesake, Kesler? 

 

Hello? The state of sound argument says hi!!!!???

 

[EdgarM]

2 minutes ago, Pete M said:

Can't see the forest for the trees.

Losing their best Dman hurt; imagine playing the series with Hamhuis in the line up?

The games would have been different...you need four games to win. The Canucks would have had a better chance of winning four games.

 

Hamhuis was not the leading goal scorer on the team and they had no problem winning the first 2 games without him. I think the Twins finished in the top 5 in scoring that year and had like 100pts each. More then a point per game average and yet they scored 1 goal each in 7 games in the final? Huh?

[Nucker 67]

Why are we talking about Kesler like he's some kind of hockey God. He's an arrogant a-hole who's only scored more than 26 goals once in his career. He's also 32, so I guess he'll be declining soon too.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 

Yes, clearly what I said.

Yes.  You linked the results of the 2011 final to the current season.  You implied that the result in that game was indicative of a trend. 

[EdgarM]

1 minute ago, NUCKER67 said:

Why are we talking about Kesler like he's some kind of hockey God. He's an arrogant a-hole who's only scored more than 26 goals once in his career. He's also 32, so I guess he'll be declining soon too.

 

Cause he is a proven playoff performer who once played for the Canucks.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Yes.  You linked the results of the 2011 final to the current season.  You implied that the result in that game was indicative of a trend. 

 

No, I said that when the Sedins are having an ineffective game they don't suddenly step it up in the final two minutes of games. Have their been times they have? Sure just like any other top player. Can you count on them to do it a lot of the time Ike a guy like Toews, etc.? Nope, not even close and only been getting worse the last several years.

 

8 total goals in 7 finals games is on your primary scorers, not your secondary ones.

[LaBamba]

22 minutes ago, IbanezRG said:

The silver lining in the big losing streak is that the team plays hard each and every night now no matter who we're facing, so inferior last place teams are cake walks to us and and easy points.

 

 

Where as top place teams like the hawks, we have a chance to beat, but they're still the hawks.

 

You'll learn a lot more about your team during a 9 game losing streak than a 9 game winning streak.

 

There is a lot of hockey left to be played. If you cherry pick certain sections of your season you'll come up with 3 different teams. 4-0 section makes us a playoff team. 0-9 streak makes us historically bad and since the losing streak we are a bubble team. If you mix them all together I say we are someplace in the back half of the bottom 10. Even if everyone plays out of their mind. Our lack of depth will catch up. If we have a injury to our top line, we are screwed going back to historically bad. 

[Pete M]

1 minute ago, EdgarM said:

 

Hamhuis was not the leading goal scorer on the team and they had no problem winning the first 2 games without him. I think the Twins finished in the top 5 in scoring that year and had like 100pts each. More then a point per game average and yet they scored 1 goal each in 7 games in the final? Huh?

All three games the Canucks won were nail bitters. One goal games.

Hamhuis is a dman (defends before he scores) and was a very good dman back then. Losing him hurt the team. 

He was a key player...losing him finally caught up to the Canucks.

I can't prove it...but if he was in the line up in SCF, the Canucks would have won the cup. I know, easy for me to say, but hard for me to prove.

Defence wins championships.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

Just now, NUCKER67 said:

Why are we talking about Kesler like he's some kind of hockey God. He's an arrogant a-hole who's only scored more than 26 goals once in his career. He's also 32, so I guess he'll be declining soon too.

He's a clown.  He was extremely fortunate to play in the Sedins' shadow.  Put him on another team and his career likely has even less offense.  The Sedins are hall of fame leaders that have never had serious help.  They played through injury in a final where the rulebook was disregarded.  Kesler will not be spoken of in the same breath.  But, if I had issues with my masculinity I would probably obsess about players that I perceive as tough.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

4 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

 

Cause he is a proven playoff performer who once played for the Canucks.

What about last year's playoffs?  Boom.  The one example win.  I think that's what we're doing here right?