Canucks leaders

[Viper007]

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Ok so now its because of bad "Luck"? That team on paper was built to win and dominated in the regular seasons with a few presidents cups to prove it. Did every team who didn't win the Cup have their Leaders "underperform" when they finally made it to the finals? I don't think anyone could say Linden DID NOT provide adequate leadership in 94 even though they lost. Even Bure did his job that year by providing 8 points in the 7 game series.

If the Sedins had provided their normal or even close to normal production in that series, I would not even be having this discussion with you,

Yes you need luck.  You need luck to be healthy.  You need some puck luck to go your way throughout the playoffs.  You need alot of things to go right to win a stanley cup.  That's why it's the hardest championship to win.  Again, Yes production wise I keep telling you that you're right, I don't disagree with you there.  But production is not leadership.  You need to get that in your head.  You keep saying that production = leadership and that isn't true.  Did they under-perform in the finals, production wise, I keep telling you yes.  Did they show bad leadership during the finals.  I would say no.  You don't know what goes behind closed doors in the dressing room and neither do I.  Do I hear any of the canucks' players who played with the Sedins' say they're bad leaders? Nope. Never.  In fact most of the former teammates have nothing to say but great things about the Sedins' and their leadership.  So by all means you can say that they underperformed in the finals.  So did most of the team.  

 

Since you keep bringing up production why aren't you blaming Kesler also?  He was our 41 goal guy.  He didn't come through either.  I can go on and on and name people who didn't come through.  They lost as a TEAM, they won as a team.  Blaming 2 guys for their leadership for losing the finals is foolish and delusional.

[EdgarM]

6 hours ago, alfstonker said:

Of course they should and many fans said as much at the time including me - just like I am saying it now about the team we are building. Softies are ok in the regular season but if they come up against a team say like Calgary or the Oilers and they suspect the Canucks can be bullied off their game (especially if the refs revert to their discretional rule book) they will go "raw meat" on us and that will be another run ended.

 

I always maintained that the Canucks were not basically "soft" but it comes down to what you are prepared to do to win. Players like Salo, Ehrhoff, Tambellini, Edler, Higgins, Oreskovich, Raymond, Tanev were all players the Bruins knew would never back their play. And then there was Burr, Manny, Lapierre, Hamhuis who had "a line" but were virtually no threat to the likes of Lucic, McQaid, Chara, Marchand, Horton, Seidenberg, Campbell, Thornton, Ference. and of course these guys made the likes of Bergeron, Krejci, Recchi, Ryder, Kelly, Seguin, Peverley feel they could bully us too because they always had their hard men to back them up.

 

This is what is not recognised about having a team with so many players who are not prepared to back their play. You find the players who are, are less inclined to play tough because they have no back up from the likes of the Sedins, Salo, Raymond, Ehrhoff, Edler, Oreskovich Tanev, Tambellini, or marginals like Lapierre, Higgins, Hamhuis. Go look at that series again and watch how many times absolute liberties were taken in the "scrums" even Thomas thought he was entitled to floor Henrik and hack Burrs leg off.

 

We were left with players who were game but generally outnumbered. Players like Hansen, Bieksa, Torres, Ballard, Alberts, Burr and Kesler.

 

That is why I said one player, a player who played fair but carried a "nuclear" threat like John Scott would have been a worthwhile investment at the trade deadline. He would have shut down McQuaid, Chara, Thornton and Lucic in the blink of an eye, the rest would have scuttled down their holes and we could all have got back to playing skilled hockey.

 

Whether we like it or not this is a "man's game" and the Canadian way is "back your play" It is only natural a team with so many players who were unable to or unwilling to "back their play" and fight for the right to play THEIR game would ultimately lack respect. We can go on and on all day long about what the Twins and the rest of that team were entitled to but the lasting image of that series in the mind's eye of most Canadians was Daniel Sedin being speed bagged by Marchand.

While many women probably looked at that and thought what a shame for the man in the beard - the men of Canada and indeed North America were standing at their TVs shouting "FFS banjo that little f-----r!!!"

 

The irony is and this is why I insist we build a team of players who "have a line" If the Canucks had, as a team, pitched in and started a line brawl once or twice where every man got involved, early in the series, the TV companies would probably have  insisted that the refs got back to calling the game properly and clamping down on the Boston intimidation.

Well said Alf that basically describes our downfall in 2011. This is why I am so excited to see the page ,in the next chapter of the Canucks saga, to turn already. It needs to start right from the Leaders all the way down to the goalie(yes like Thomas in 2011) to be successful.

See what leaders such as Bo, Guddy and Sutter can do to the culture of the team and see what happens.

[Baggins]

22 hours ago, EdgarM said:

Speaking of "special teams" the PP went 2-33 in the series. Not sure how you  define "leadership" then. I thought it was "lead by example" at least.

So you believe stars never get shutdown and getting shutdown equals being intimidated and poor leadership? Were that true what happened to Pittsburgh those years they didn't win the cup? Was Crosby suddenly a poor leader or was he intimidated? Shouldn't those magic leaders be winning every year?

 

The real problem with the Sedins game is it depends on neither size or speed. When refs stop enforcing the rules those are the very two things that can overcome it. The Bruins had size and speed.

 

We out shot and out hit the Bruins in game 7... and lost. You think the difference was the Sedins being intimidated and poor leaders. I think the difference was injuries and Thomas.

 

I don't buy for a minute the Sedins get intimidated.

[EdgarM]

22 hours ago, Baggins said:

So you believe stars never get shutdown and getting shutdown equals being intimidated and poor leadership? Were that true what happened to Pittsburgh those years they didn't win the cup? Was Crosby suddenly a poor leader or was he intimidated? Shouldn't those magic leaders be winning every year?

 

The real problem with the Sedins game is it depends on neither size or speed. When refs stop enforcing the rules those are the very two things that can overcome it. The Bruins had size and speed.

 

We out shot and out hit the Bruins in game 7... and lost. You think the difference was the Sedins being intimidated and poor leaders. I think the difference was injuries and Thomas.

 

I don't buy for a minute the Sedins get intimidated.

Do you think we still lose that series with the Sedins wearing "A"s and Bo or Linden wearing the "C"? I don't think that series was lost in game #7 it was lost after game #2 IMO.

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Do you think we still lose that series with the Sedins wearing "A"s and Bo or Linden wearing the "C"? I don't think that series was lost in game #7 it was lost after game #2 IMO.

I personally think letters are just formalities and the leadership doesn't really change no matter who you have wearing the letters. Leadership is an intangible and it generally takes more than a letter to get people to look up to you.

 

Even then, if you are the other team, you shut down who you perceive as a threat, letter or not.

[EdgarM]

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

I personally think letters are just formalities and the leadership doesn't really change no matter who you have wearing the letters. Leadership is an intangible and it generally takes more than a letter to get people to look up to you.

 

Even then, if you are the other team, you shut down who you perceive as a threat, letter or not.

I guess a lot of the time that is the case but I think there are exceptions to the rule. Players such as Linden,Lemieux,Yzerman,Sakic,Messier are a few examples of Captains who were exceptional. I think with some of these guys you couldn't just simply "shut them down".

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I guess a lot of the time that is the case but I think there are exceptions to the rule. Players such as Linden,Lemieux,Yzerman,Sakic,Messier are a few examples of Captains who were exceptional. I think with some of these guys you couldn't just simply "shut them down".

And I would most certainly argue that even if Lemieux and Gretzky were not donned the "C", they would still be leaders on their teams.... and still the targets the opposition would try and shut down.

[EdgarM]

6 minutes ago, The Lock said:

And I would most certainly argue that even if Lemieux and Gretzky were not donned the "C", they would still be leaders on their teams.... and still the targets the opposition would try and shut down.

You are correct in that they would be targeted, the other thing was their leadership skills and their teams were always behind them and played well without "!@#$@ the bed". I don't remember their teams having too many bad seasons they seem to be always competitive especially in the playoffs.

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, The Lock said:

I personally think letters are just formalities and the leadership doesn't really change no matter who you have wearing the letters. Leadership is an intangible and it generally takes more than a letter to get people to look up to you.

 

Even then, if you are the other team, you shut down who you perceive as a threat, letter or not.

I have a slighted dated but still current enough SN book outlined the 30 greatest hockey leaders all-time and one of those guys in particular backs up what your getting at.  Bobby Orr never captained in this league, but was considered the best player on one leg in the 76 Canada Cup outshining some pretty big names in Clarke and Esposito .... Great story line on each guy they honoured and Orr was in the top ten.  Beliveau was given the first spot, Messier 2, Howe 3, Gretzky 4 and so on with other greats Yzerman, Sakic listed in the top ten if course up for debate but they did a great job. They also did a blurb for each team and their greatest leaders ever and no surprise Linden had the honours for a Canuck with mentions to Smyle.   Interestingly aside from a Swede named Toomba, all these guys ( and gals, Wikenheiser and Cammie Granato made the cut) were North American, with Canadians getting by far the most representation. 

 

Maybe it's just what we are used to when we talk about Canadian hockey and leadership, but blocking a puck with your face, pushing back, not backing down no matter the odds etc inspires fans and players alike, and creates a culture where guys have your back and will do the same.  Broken ribs getting taped up so hard your teammates hear the screams before game seven makes your owwies feel less important no?

 

For me Bobby Clarke had those things in spades, his teammates would stand infront of a bus for him, because they knew he'd do the same.  That level of leadership hasn't been around since the Linden era, for a while it looked like maybe the WCE team was becoming Jovonoskis but they went a different direction.  

 

The Sedins have a Sakic like element but it's not my favourite leadership style.  Hopefully we try a different route next time, and the team is willing to do whatever it takes to protect each other and win games.  

[Gurn]

7 hours ago, IBatch said:

 Interestingly aside from a Swede named Toomba, all these guys ( and gals, Wikenheiser and Cammie Granato made the cut) were North American, with Canadians getting by far the most representation. 

 

Canadian/ North American publication catering to north American consumers; also not many overseas players were in the NHL until the last 25 years or so, and this can skew the results.

[Baggins]

15 hours ago, EdgarM said:

Do you think we still lose that series with the Sedins wearing "A"s and Bo or Linden wearing the "C"? I don't think that series was lost in game #7 it was lost after game #2 IMO.

Bo is nowhere near the level the Sedins or Kesler were at that time. You have him overrated. Did Linden wearing the C ever win us a cup? So the answer is very simple: If we had all the same injuries, yes we still lose that series. The letter wouldn't have changed a thing. With all the injuries our only real hope in that series was Lou playing like a Vezina goalie. He did in 3 games and played like playoff Cloutier in the other 4. Of course all those injuries didn't aid his cause either.

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, gurn said:

 

Canadian/ North American publication catering to north American consumers; also not many overseas players were in the NHL until the last 25 years or so, and this can skew the results.

It wasn't just for the NHL, and looking back a few Russians made the list too, Mikhalikov (red army captain) and the Minister of Sports (1970-90s guys).   But I see where your coming from.  Still it was a good read, and any list us up for debate.

[IBatch]

39 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Bo is nowhere near the level the Sedins or Kesler were at that time. You have him overrated. Did Linden wearing the C ever win us a cup? So the answer is very simple: If we had all the same injuries, yes we still lose that series. The letter wouldn't have changed a thing. With all the injuries our only real hope in that series was Lou playing like a Vezina goalie. He did in 3 games and played like playoff Cloutier in the other 4. Of course all those injuries didn't aid his cause either.

Awesome.  Lou and Cloutier.

[Kevin Biestra]

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

Bo is nowhere near the level the Sedins or Kesler were at that time. You have him overrated. Did Linden wearing the C ever win us a cup? So the answer is very simple: If we had all the same injuries, yes we still lose that series. The letter wouldn't have changed a thing. With all the injuries our only real hope in that series was Lou playing like a Vezina goalie. He did in 3 games and played like playoff Cloutier in the other 4. Of course all those injuries didn't aid his cause either.

+1 for the playoff Cloutier comparison in those four games, but Linden's leadership was absolutely Cup victory worthy.  The man is one of the best in league history at playing to the maximum of his abilities when it counts the most.