I Believe We Would Have Won, If...

[DarthMelvin]

If Roose didn't poke the knights in game 1... he got on their nerves and on the Refs nerves.

[Nuxfanabroad]

4 minutes ago, DarthMelvin said:

If Roose didn't poke the knights in game 1... he got on their nerves and on the Refs nerves.

Yeah, but the books were balanced after EP's artistry is gm #2. We had 2 or 3 days sitting on our duff to map out the course from there.

[Devron]

10 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Thanks, & then consider(cos' it's sometimes fun to ponder these things), how the reactions would've been...

 

Say we still lose game # 3. Then Thatcher comes in & stands on his head, winning game 4, by a 3-1 score.

 

Suddenly Jacob(who presumably is then healthy & rested) is thinking..'Wow! I'd better pull up my socks & win game 5, cos Thatch was lights-out!'

 

THEN(here's the kicker)..what are the Vegans thinking, at that moment?! OMG..these guys don't have ONE 'tending-monster..they F***ing have TWO! Meanwhile, we got one drama queen pin-cushioned by De-Bore! & one other guy that might fly off the handle.

 

..ahh, it all could've happened

Haha! I like it! 
 

I was actually hoping that Marky wasn’t injured, that it was all a head game and Marky started game 7. Another back to back as I wasn’t sure how Demmer would do game 7 honestly with the back to back but he blew my mind. Anyways just to mess with Vegas they get to play a rested Markstrom. It wouldn’t have mattered either way as we barely left our end of the rink. Wouldn’t it have been sweet though and best part would have been to shut up that one poster always raving about Deboer. I hope Vegas beats Dallas and loses in the finals again haha
 

But damn that was fun. I missed Canucks hockey so much

[Silky mitts]

 

Powerplay failed us when we needed it the most. Bottom six like most of the year a non factor. The blown lead in game 4. 

[-DLC-]

10 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Reaves mostly was taking runs at Rooster instead of the rest of the team though.  That has value.

Not really.  He was doing stuff behind the play a lot and it was randomly selected...just didn't get "highlighted" because they only wanted him to be a superstar.  Went after Hughes too.  Big ugly thug.

 

I think we needed a day off in between...although, at the time, I thought the carry over of momentum was a good thing, clearly the guys were gassed.

 

Vegas was/is too...their game last night showed that the series played against us was a tough one.  When I watch other games there's nowhere NEAR the intensity  of our series.  Didn't "see" the game last night however...just listened to it.  Wanted to hear Vegas lose.

 

If Brock's shot was 2" higher might have changed the face of the game too.  Just was a hard fought playoffs and it caught up.  The guys can learn from it...how much of a grind it really is to get through.

 

Too fancy at times...keep it simple, get shots/rebounds/greasy goals.  Mix it up more, especially on the pp.  

[86Viking]

We would have won if...we had a competent Power Play coach who could have been more creative with a 5 min major PP we were given. At worst we should have scored 1 goal, for me 2 is the number in that situation. You need to make them pay for attempting to injure your teammate, we were flat and wasted that Prime opportuntity. Newell needs to go.

 

On top of that, ideally ya we would have started Demko in game 4, but Coach makes his decisions and I am not on board with what he chose to do in these playoffs in a couple instances. We should have added some fresh legs for game 7 on D and F imo.

 

In the end, Covid allowed us to have a chance to win to get into the playoffs and we did and our young core gained valuable playoff experience! Have fun GM JB trying to improve the roster this off season with a flat cap, your going to need to make some trades and likely walk away from a player or 2 you'd like to keep but if you do it might bite you in the butt for doing so!

[Nucker 67]

Watching the DAL-VGK game yesterday, it was apparent to me that the Canucks were in over their heads, and it's quite amazing they even took Vegas to 7 games. 

 

The Canucks need to get bigger and stronger. Right now it seems they've got a bunch of young skilled guys and a bunch of older vets. Where's the big, strong, aggressive players?  They're not there yet, they could barely get any shots on the Vegas net.

 

I'm okay with the Canucks being out. I would rather they leave the bubble after a gutsy 7 game series against the favourites that left their tanks empty, than a 4 game beat down from the Stars. These playoffs were a big success, they can build off this.

[Chickenspear]

I believe we would have won if Dorsett could still play  Miss that dude's energy and character. Instead we got 10 minutes for hugging, and 10 minutes for gamesmanship.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

27 minutes ago, Chickenspear said:

I believe we would have won if Dorsett could still play  Miss that dude's energy and character. Instead we got 10 minutes for hugging, and 10 minutes for gamesmanship.

Give me the Doomsday Device on the bench (Gino) any day instead.

 

Or a real Viking like Ohlund on the blueline.

Edited September 7, 2020 by NewbieCanuckFan

[Dazzle]

I think yesterday's Game 1 shows us how balanced Dallas and Las Vegas were. The shot totals overall were even at 20 something, which was not a game we had. We were constantly outplayed but the team showed tremendous heart.

[morgo]

I believe we would have won if we didn't have to play 5 games in 7 days to glorify a criminal.

[Googlie]

I dont think coaching was the problem, nor which goalie was in net.

 

To lose a series you need to lose 4 games.   We lost 4 games to Vegas, 3 by being shut out !! Our scoring - especially our powerplay -  dried up at a most inopportune time.  Bailey and MacEwen in place of any 2 of Sutter, Roussel and Gaudette might have produced the odd additional goal,  but given the top 6 inability to get on the scoresheet in 3 of the 4 losses to Vegas, its doubtful Mac or Bailey would have either. 

 

We just weren't good enough.   But still performed better than almost any of us would have thought back on August 1

 

Edited September 7, 2020 by Googlie

[Nuxfanabroad]

In summary: I have long not understood puck coaches' reluctance to use healthy depth. To me this was a prime example.

 

You take a big, rangy C like Graovac & put two speedsters on his W's, like Jake & Motte..you tellin' me that guy can't give you 2 effective(4th line) games of about 9-12 shifts? Rubbish, I say. Then, in game 7 you got Beagle & Sutter only having played 4-in-7. HUUge diff for their bodies, in their 30's.

 

Then apply that principle for Bailey, maybe spelling Brock & TT(mid-series). The basic concept is you're loading your lines with extra energy for the denouement(game 6 or 7) when everyone is wearing down. Mac & Bro LouiE could have also subbed for Rouss, Pearson types.

 

In an old restaurant gig, mgt(meetings) would explain how adversity/trouble can be shifted into opportunity. Decades later, this capitalistic-propaganda still washes over the brain! :^) After the rescheduling, Green shoulda' taken the whole gang in the room, & given the big us-vs-the-world, grand speech. "This is what we're gonna do boys..wear'em down with our youth & depth! Every key vet give me one game off, & you'll understand when this thing goes deep. When game 7 eventually arrives, we ROLL with the gm 6 St Loo lineup. We'll beat these arrogant b*stards with their own medicine! yada yada"

 

Was obvious the players gave every ounce of energy they had. Team(& situation) they were overmatched. Therefore, we required a boldness in strategy that the coach(es) were apparently not quite ready for yet.

 

So I conclude in saying I'm incredibly proud/pleased with what the players gave us. It's the coaches who I believe need to deeply reflect, & learn lessons moving forward. These arrogant, bully-b*stards were ripe for the picking, & I'll always believe we could have pulled it off!

 

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

...but then you see TBay, & none of this matters in the end. 'Cos who's gonna stop them sob's anyhow?

[The Colt 45s]

Depth was our issue, but it won't be our issue long term.  There is some hope in our pipeline. What this playoff taught us is that we can play with and win against the big teams.

However, size was an issue as much as Vegas's high pressure forecheck was.  Push back lacked at times.  There is a price that needs to be paid, and having someone who would have punished Vegas would have been nice.  I think we were completely spent in the end.  They laid it all on the table and tried.

Value of a learning experience must not be underestimated.  Think back to our 2011 playoffs.  Playing Chicago in the previous years helped us discover who we were.  We actualized in 2011.  Too bad we were also exposed in 2011 and it affected our subsequent runs. But this year our kids got a taste of what could be, and this team should be better for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IBatch]

On 9/6/2020 at 10:17 PM, Tre Mac said:

Well maybe if that GM you like to defend didn't have $6mil wasted in the press box this team might've had enough in the tank to win. I certainly believe that over the coach not using the bottom six(hint: They couldn't score enough and had zero possession.) enough or calling on Mac or Bailey to come in and play hero.  The vets held this team back and your boy Benning is going to have to work his ass off just from preventing this team from taking a step backwards.  Eriksson, Ferland and Sutter have no value yet will all be on the books next season.

 

Green earned his pay check after game 6 vs. St. Louis, if Willie or AV was still coaching the Nucks don't get by.  You posted in the game six thread that the Nucks were done, no mention of tapping the black aces to come in, they won that game btw.  Now you think that was a mistake by Green?  Couldn't disagree more.  We all saw the quality of hockey that was been played as a result of back to back and it wasn't good but notice Vegas had no issues starting Lehmer for game seven so I also don't buy that not starting Demko sooner would've changed the outcome - That's just 20/20 bs.  

 

Nucks sans Eriksson and Ferland lost to a better team that had $10million more in their line up.

Vegas had 20 more in the lineup given no state taxes.  Same team in Vancouver wouldn’t have Stone plus something else 

[yes we can nucks]

I believe fatigue was the biggest factor in losing game 7. But the game was winnable if we had just scored one during the 5 min major. That would've energized the boys. If we had potted two we would've won considering how Demko was shutting the door. And then that ahole Reaves wouldn't have gotten away with that cheap shot on Roussel. That would've been extra sweet.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

I totally agree about starting Demko in one of the back-to-backs also subbing in Loui and Zack, at a minimum.  Bailey and Graovac not so much, but whatever.  The point is you have to make effective use of your entire roster, and Green absolutely didn't.  I put it down to the old school "gotta go with who got you there" mentality, which always flies in the face injuries, dips in level of play, and other realities.  De Boer out-coached Green on this particular issue, no question.

But is it why we lost?  I don't think so.  The ice was tilted against us in a major way by their speed and system.  Fresh legs would have helped a bit but wouldn't change that fundamental fact.  In the end, we had to play the defend-and-counterattack style we did and the effort of constantly playing in our own end and having our break-outs ruined wore us out. 

Winning game 4 would have been huge, though, and I agree that was within reach.   There was a small opening for us to win this series and we just about squirmed through it.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Also agree that there was a coaching issue on the power play.  There are ways to counter their extreme pressure on the puck like playing the puck to the man on the goal line or around the boards to the half-wall on the other side.  They were constantly over-loading on one side and never had to turn and face one of our players with the puck behind their net while maintaining coverage.  There are reasons why Gretzky picked teams apart from down low.  I'm not necessarily saying put Petey in Miller or Bo's spots on the pp, just that the puck has to go through those positions more.

[MikeyD]

I think Green was a big reason as to why we lost. I truly believe we had the talent to out-play the Knights, especially because they lacked execution and we had elite goaltending. In some ways I tip my hat to Green for pulling out 7 games against Vegas, but it was clear as day that game 7 was going to go the way it did and due to his decision-making, we needed another miracle to pull out another win. 

Vegas transitionally offense is a great team, they have a great forecheck and they play well as a unit. We needed quick puck movement. In some games, we saw this and we had games like in games 3 and 4 where we actually had a lot of odd-man rushes. Now, with that said, did our team know what the hell to do on one? Absolutely not. But that falls on coaching. It seemed as if every entry (including and ESPECIALLY on our powerplay) lacked any kind of shape to it. Constantly you'd see 3 guys all skating in the same line every single rush. In the past 5 games I counted 3 intelligent attacks on our odd man rushes. That's awful. 

But let's not pretend we don't have puck moving defensemen. We do. But what we don't have is the balls to play them over slow movers like Edler or Fanta (who actually had a decent series defensively against Vegas, just offensively he didn't add anything). I think a lot of people are going to be surprised by talent like Rafferty next year (I will be pissed if he isn't given his rightful shot at the NHL) or even guys like Rathbone (who is still raw, but he can add to a team similarly to a young Krug). Vegas was overcommitting halfway through the series because they saw holes on puck movement and they constantly attacked that weakness. Green adjusted and played an extremely defensive system built on counter attacks. 

Problem with that is that he also didn't want his team playing a possession game. Possession wins games. The sooner coach realizes this, the better we'll be. This team has more than enough talent to be an elite possession team, we see it in probably 1/3 of the games we play. When we stop with the short line changing game, this team controls the game as good as the best of them. We saw it in games with the Blues, we saw it in game 4 on Minny. Green lost his swagger. He went from, "We are going out there to beat the other team, screw experience" to, "Well, hopefully we can just survive this team". You could see his confidence against the Blues and after game 2 in Vegas he had completely lost it. Had this team composed the same game plan against the Blues in game 6 as we did against Vegas we would have stood a much better chance at winning. Game 7 was an absolute lock to be a loss. You can't have that small of a % in possession and not be gassed. SUPER rookie mistake. I called it after the first period in game 4 because we've seen it all year that Green will resort to these tactics against certain teams. 

Now you can make the argument that it was the team, and that they just didn't play the right way. The reason I don't believe this, is because never at one point did Green utilize a time out to get his team back on track. Had I seen that style of play (the constant chip and changes with no forecheck), I would have been going full Tortz on them. You don't win games by staying fresh, you win games by having the puck on your stick. You gain the energy by not having to defend. You put in the work early so you don't have to put in twice the amount of work later. The only thing that wasn't predictable in this series is Demko's performance and his ability to steal what should have been 3 hockey games. Now you can claim Green's defensive structure prevented hemorrhaging and we could have been absolutely blown out, but I would have much preferred to see the team try to play the right way you need to win at a cup level and finding the errors in their mistakes than to play a style that unequivocally will never win you a cup. 

Now we can also make the argument that the team just didn't have anything left in the tank. To an extent, I absolutely agree with this. But why weren't there any changes made? The guys that we needed to keep in (the Petey's and the Quinn's of the team) weren't an issue for the gas tank. They played good enough to win and carry the team to the next round. What we didn't have the gas for was... our bottom six? Okay, so that's accurate. You had guys like Sutter, Roussel, Jake, etc. not being on their game. Alternatively you had no shows in guys like Pearson. 

Now this is my second biggest gripe (aside from teaching the team to play the right way) of Travis Green: he refuses to change up the lineup until it's out of complete desperation. We have guys that can be difference makers that aren't in our lineup. We have size (which many analysts said is where we got destroyed) in guys like Mac, Graovac, Bailey, we have speed in guys like Mac and Bailey, we have depth guys capable of scoring in guys like Mac, Graovac and Bailey and Rafferty. Guys like Eriksson, Sutter, Roussel and Pearson should have never played the amount of games that they were given. This team still had gas in the tank, you saw it after the Canucks got scored on. 

This team is constantly stuck on defensive guys who bring nothing else to the table. Now hey, if you're a defensive guy and you're doing it to an elite caliber I'll keep you in the lineup all day long. Guys like Motte is who you need in the lineup. I've been preaching his name since the moment we got him. Those guys win you hockey games. The guys that don't who are great defensively in their own end, but don't put in the work defensively (ie: the forecheck) in the offensive end. Guys like Sutter will keep the puck out of your net in your own end, but they're not gonna go retrieve a puck in the offensive end. Going 50% isn't gonna win you hockey games, and the fact that we constantly keep over-utilizing them is the reason why this team is so mind-numbingly inconsistent. We become consistent when those depth defensive guys put in their work in the offensive zone, but Travis Green isn't pushing that style of play on them often and it shows. Anybody recognize that when Sutter was being offensive, the team was doing great? And when he wasn't, the team wasn't? 

Can't be sending in one guy with no help. Can't be sending in no guys and awaiting another wave. You gotta do something about it.