Was 2010-2011 a successful season?

[Brad Marchand]

It's everyone's choice to define what a successful season is. If winning the Cup is the only thing that makes any season successful, then only 99 seasons in the history of NHL hockey have been successful.

 

I would find it very hard to enjoy watching hockey if the criteria for success and failure was that strict. I had fun watching that team. If you want to consider them a failure and not worth the invested time, that's your decision to make.

[PhillipBlunt]

4 minutes ago, Slegr said:

If I recall correctly, it did result in a penalty, to Daniel Sedin for being a punching bag.

Great point. What was the actual penalty? Insulting an official by looking at him in hopes of them doing there job? If Daniel reacted and attacked the rat, I think he might have been suspended.

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, chon derry said:

82 wasn't  about what they did as a team to get to the SCF and was about other stronger teams getting knocked off,allowing them to get there. 94,  2011 were both hard fought playoff runs (HARD FOUGHT PLAYOFF RUNS !)  both SCF appearance's they deserved to be there. So to say that they weren't as successful as say the other 45 years that they never made it to the SCF is stupid!

Agreed on those runs, even the 80s team fought hard and deserved to be their because they beat their opponents ( literally beat on them too just as CHI).   Lucky for sure, I was too young to appreciate it the same way as the other two runs.  In 94 I was on cloud nine after Bure scored in OT game seven, right to the last couple minutes of game seven against the Rangers.   Got pretty excited when we best SJ too, I felt we were lucky to be that few ahead and was dreading them clawing back into the series if they won in OT but Bieksas floater knuckle ball stopped that in its tracks.   Wasn't happy we weren't playing TB as I thought we would win for sure.....was worried early when Horton was drilled and out of the series as I didn't want them to have anything to galvanize against us.  We stuck to our game hoping for and getting PPs by staying disciplined and it seemed to help given Thomas was doing a Hasek impression.   Sucked in the end of course 

[Tiger-Hearted]

8 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Or the fact that Andrew Ference didn't receive a penalty for the two handed slash to Bieksa's calves.

 

Marchand repeatedly rabbit punching Daniel Sedin resulted in no penalty.

 

The officiating in the NHL has been pathetic for decades now, but the complete lack of calls on actions with the intent to injure clearly showed a definite bias (most likely paid by Jacobs) that can't be merely explained away by the entire officiating staff being irretrievably stupid, and horrible at their jobs.

 

It's become accepted in the league that the officiating is a joke and most players/coaches/managers/owners seem resigned to this fact, instead of unanimously demanding that there be greater accountability thrust on the officials in the NHL.

Here's the thing. The Andrew Ferences and especially the Brad Marchands would never survive in the same hockey world with the likes of Clark Gillies, Dave Semenko, Barry Beck or Ron Delorme. Their faces and jaw bones would look like Bobby Orr's knees.

[mordekai]

YES if the owners made money. This is a business.

[PhillipBlunt]

Just now, Tiger-Hearted said:

Here's the thing. The Andrew Ferences and especially the Brad Marchands would never survive in the same hockey world with the likes of Clark Gillies, Dave Semenko, Barry Beck or Ron Delorme. Their faces and jaw bones would look like Bobby Orr's knees.

Ference and Marchand had Chara, Lucic, Boychuk, and Mcquaid. Massive players who played the game hard, to which the Canucks had no answer.

 

Surely, the Canucks were physically beat into submission. Bieksa, for all his awesome truculence over the years, wasn't about to spar with players he was giving up 30 - 60 lbs of weight to.

 

That being said, if the series was called evenly (which it definitely wasn't) the Canucks would have won. Hamhuis wouldn't have felt the need to shoulder press Lucic, the Sedins wouldn't have turned into perimeter players, and the Bruins would have spent half the series on the PK.

 

I digress, this team is now forming a new core, and management that has taken into consideration the need for players who can most definitely stand up for their team against most anyone in the league. A team that will boast some players with amazing offensive skill that won't be thrown to the lions wearing ribeye underwear.

[chon derry]

11 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Agreed on those runs, even the 80s team fought hard and deserved to be their because they beat their opponents ( literally beat on them too just as CHI).   Lucky for sure, I was too young to appreciate it the same way as the other two runs.  In 94 I was on cloud nine after Bure scored in OT game seven, right to the last couple minutes of game seven against the Rangers.   Got pretty excited when we best SJ too, I felt we were lucky to be that few ahead and was dreading them clawing back into the series if they won in OT but Bieksas floater knuckle ball stopped that in its tracks.   Wasn't happy we weren't playing TB as I thought we would win for sure.....was worried early when Horton was drilled and out of the series as I didn't want them to have anything to galvanize against us.  We stuck to our game hoping for and getting PPs by staying disciplined and it seemed to help given Thomas was doing a Hasek impression.   Sucked in the end of course 

the first run  82 was lope sided , within the next 2 seasons the oilers were defining what would transform into todays game, (faster pace), something they did do that the canucks failed to do in their 3 appearance's was getting back there the following year to win it ,after losing it in the previous  scf.  and become perennial . where there was a window ,it became a wall

[Nucks89]

7 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

The team was sunk when Manny got hit in the eye, never recovered from losing Bourdon, and when Hamhuis had a back injury. 

What happened to him was tragic. But it doesn't mean we should romanticize. He wasn't a top two, maybe even top three, type defenseman.

 

The team was sunk when a third line player got hit in the eye? Yikes...

 

Honestly, maybe that team just lacked heart & a killer instinct.

 

Let's be honest: this could've been a sweep had the B's got a few bounces in game 1 & 2.

 

It wasn't a success. They didn't win the cup. Burrows OT goal is a footnote. Ultimately, they got a worst draft position from that season.

 

 

[Nucks89]

Why are people defending Daniel Sedin for letting Marchand treat him like a rag doll? Seriously, what did Daniel have to lose from going ape you know what on him? After that moment, I knew it was over.

 

[thrago]

Not to sure why but I look fondly on the 94 team but with disgust at the 11 team.  Can't really explain it but I am waiting patiently for the next core to take over.

 

Actually I figured it out. I felt embarrassed for the 11 team in the way they acted, there lack of push back and there lack of effort in the Final. 

 

I would gladly watch the 94 run again but there is no way I will ever watch the 11 run again.

[48MPHSlapShot]

This thread is dumb. Of course it was a successful season. Best regular season in Canucks history, lead the league in almost every statistical category, Art Ross winner, Selke winner. Jennings winner. A ton of memories in both the regular season and the playoffs.

 

And that's not even mentioning how financially successful it was .

 

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

3 hours ago, Slegr said:

If I recall correctly, it did result in a penalty, to Daniel Sedin for being a punching bag.

Daniel was using his head to try and deliberately injure the hand of the rat.

 

If I was the ref, I would've given Daniel a match penalty for such a cheap move.

 

 

 

[Guest]

I wish I could give you a minus.  

 

What a dumb thread, don’t call yourself a fan.

[Nave]

It was the most successful season we've ever had. If Kesler and Hamhuis weren't injured, we would have won the cup. Not to mention Manny.

[BCNeil]

9 hours ago, Darius71 said:

If Chicago scored in 7th game OT in the first round I wonder how different the team would look today.  If they lost that series after being up 3-0, and after not being able to beat Chicago in the previous years, i betcha they would have blown it up back then.

I actually have a friend that refers to the Burrows OT goal, the way her refers to the day he met his ex wife.

 

At the time it was the greatest thing ever.  Only to be one of the worst things ever 5 years later.

 

But yeah.  One OT goal the other direction, we would have a completely different team today.

[Tiger-Hearted]

5 hours ago, NaveJoseph said:

It was the most successful season we've ever had. If Kesler and Hamhuis weren't injured, we would have won the cup. Not to mention Manny.

And if we had worn our thirds at home for Game 7 or our classic 40th anniversary whites in Boston for Game 6 with added names on the back.

[Riviera82]

In my opinion the Canucks of that year were a regular season juggernaut and nothing more. They continued to play regular season hockey into the playoffs and were so good that they didn't lose until the end, although they came painfully, embarrassingly close in the 1st round.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. That felt like a "Cinderella run" even though we were the favorites. Part of that is because we never won or even came close before or after during that era. Nice regular seasons but only 1 long run and no cups. Yes, all things considered, and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against Boston, that season was an overall failure.

[Riviera82]

12 hours ago, -AJ- said:

After Luongo had a shutout in game five and saved our butts in a 1-0 game? I doubt that would have gone over too well with most.

And somehow Game 6 was probably Luongo's worst of the series. The game was practically over before it started.

[Riviera82]

5 hours ago, BCNeil said:

I actually have a friend that refers to the Burrows OT goal, the way her refers to the day he met his ex wife.

 

At the time it was the greatest thing ever.  Only to be one of the worst things ever 5 years later.

 

But yeah.  One OT goal the other direction, we would have a completely different team today.

Who knows? Maybe if Chicago won in OT the necessary changes would've been made for the following year to get past LA and cruise to a Stanley Cup the way the Kings ended up doing. Oh well.

[oldnews]

I dunno

I just watched a few weeks of Olympics.

I saw an awful lot of people come second - or third......

I didn't see many people throwing their silver medals into the stands.

Most of them, correctly, realized it as an remarkable achievement. 

A few of them may have 'expected' to win gold - but in the real world it's quite often the case that Man makes plans, and God just laughs.

Losing is a part of winning, and vice versa.

 

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

But the mindselt that there's no difference between a game 7 loss - and missing the playoff entirely - is the mindset of someone that has never played for a Championship.

 

When the dust settles, not many people would have preferred not to be in the game at all.

And you had to win 15 playoff games to get there in the first place.

 

If being the highest scoring team in the NHL, giving up the fewest goals, having the best power play, and the best penalty kill - is part and parcel of a "failure" - I hope the team fails again very soon.   The last team to do that was the Habs of the 1970s dynasty, (in the pre-salary cap era.)

 

Anyhow, despite the loss I enjoyed watching all that great hockey.

There's more to it than the 16th win - or the entire show would be a complete waste of time for 30 teams every season.   That's not quite how I look at thngs.