Sign in to follow this  
Nuxfanabroad

I Believe We Would Have Won, If...

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 9/7/2020 at 8:43 AM, NUCKER67 said:

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.

Frankly it shows how much the d core needs a revamp. Dallas defense is fast and can move the puck quickly in transition. Dallas in general has speed throughout the lineup.

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we would have won if...

 

we had one more proven NHL caliber top-4 defenceman. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Silky mitts said:

Frankly it shows how much the d core needs a revamp. Dallas defense is fast and can move the puck quickly in transition. Dallas in general has speed throughout the lineup.

You're gonna love Rafferty and eventually Rathbone. :) 

Rafferty is NHL ready, Rathbone just needs to get his timing down offensively (gained through experience). Rathbone has the tools, he's just very risky offensively. Sometimes overly committed to that part of the game. But seeing as most of our forwards are responsible defensively it could work out really well. 

Also OJ's puck moving skills will hopefully be a great addition. I just wonder how he will be defensively. 

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2020 at 6:17 PM, Nuxfanabroad said:

Yeah, I believe we would have beat the Lost Vegans if we'd started using our depth(esp fwds) from game 3 onwards; as well as putting TD in net for gm 4.

I bet Thatcher would have won that game #4. His 3 game brilliance makes this a reasonable statement. The team played very well that tilt, offering more run support than he seemed to need.

 

numbered pts:

 

1- We could have been probably tied at two games, maybe even UP 3-1(after the wknd). & most likely had BOTH star goalies rarin' to go.

 

2- We should have asked for 1 game off from a list of guys(Sutter, Beagle, Rous, Pearson, Toff, Gaud) inserting Mac, LouiE, Graovac & Bailey, between games #3- #6.

This would have ensured all our 4 lines were fresh as daisies.

 

3- I tried to start discussion on these ideas in that late Aug thread, running into that good ol' wall of disagreement.

 

4- I like Green as a coach, agree with 85-90% of his work, thus far. But this was a mistake. I really HOPE the franchise learns here. But who knows when we'd ever have to go 5-in-7 again?! For a physically mammoth-taxing sport like PO-puck, in these conditions, it wasn't even a Fr*cking choice. You have to use some depth here.

 

They keep saying, "Well we want to be honest with our players, & see they're honest with themselves..yada, yada."

 

I say to the coaching staff. Take this approach too. Be honest. This was a mistake. Stop stroking the shoulder of marginal vets. Use your whole team.

I don't see how resting the players listed makes all four lines "fresh as daisies". With the exception of swapping Gauds and Louie I don't see where the actual improvement, or even status quo, is as the ones you suggest out would be as good or better at 80% than the ones replacing them at 100%. Plus the ones you named weren't exactly the ones carrying the team offensively. I honestly don't think it would have made a difference when most of our wins were largely due to goaltending while being outplayed and outshot. If anything, with the exception of a Louie/Gauds swap, we would be weakened both defensively and offensively. Thus making a loss more likely.

 

The real downfall in the series was that 5 minute PP where our top players, ones you're not even suggesting resting, just seemed out of gas and were looking for the perfect play rather than just setting up a screen and shooting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

You're gonna love Rafferty and eventually Rathbone. :) 

Rafferty is NHL ready, Rathbone just needs to get his timing down offensively (gained through experience). Rathbone has the tools, he's just very risky offensively. Sometimes overly committed to that part of the game. But seeing as most of our forwards are responsible defensively it could work out really well. 

Also OJ's puck moving skills will hopefully be a great addition. I just wonder how he will be defensively. 

I'm very high on Rathbone , excited to see him eventually join the roster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Silky mitts said:

I'm very high on Rathbone , excited to see him eventually join the roster. 

Me too. Reminds me a bit of a Makar-lite. Not as good raw talent wise, but the same kind of mind for offense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we would of won if Boeser doesnt get robbed by Lehner in game 7.. it would of been a completely different game.

We weren't that far off, and taking the SC favorites to Game 7 is no small feat.

 

While I do agree he should of started Demko in Game 4 nobody thought Demmer would be this good after not playing since March. Hindsight is 2020 and I can understand where Green came from to play Marky back to back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our PP wasn't so static and predictable, our vets were meaner and hungrier, and we checked enough to give Vegas less time and space in the Ozone. More youth experience, coaching changes, and less dead weight will fix these gaps. I still trust in Benning.

  • Burr 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Bailey 6'4", 215 lbs. Skates like the wind. What's Virtanen(for example) got in spades, that this bloke apparently doesn't?

 

We played the guy TWO games in Feb, for a total of 10:39 mins. How the Hell could we know what we have in this signing?!

 

Were the bottom-6 sooo sensational(besides Motte, who carried the rest), that we couldn't take a gander at size/speed like this?

Media goin' on & on what a grind this bubble-format PO was. How much more energy would the bottom 3 lines have had, had we inserted Big Mac, this guy & our 6'5" C, ghost named Graovac? Just cycle each guy & Louie in(1 or 2 games each) mid-series. Each time you take a different regular out.

 

Then if it goes to game 7, guess what. Half your fwds would have only endured a 4-in-7 sched. Imagine the psychological-advantage that offers throughout the lines. Gee, you might get more than 15 shots!

 

Or should coaches just stand there in a suit, opening the gate?

 

We squandered that series. It was there for the taking!

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The belief that subbing every 17th or 18th forward  on the depth chart into the lineup - who hadn't played a game in months - would have resulted in victory - sounds absurd to me.

 

I believe they would have won if Louis Domingue made better cookies.   No, made more cookies.  That was the key.  More cookies.

Er - why not throw the 3rd goalie in there as well if every other player on the roster "should" have played?

 

I believe they would have won if Miller and Sutter were healthy.  And Toffoli.  And Myers.  And Markstrom, Edler, Fantenburg....

 

Once the team was backed into a rookie and sophomore centering 2 of their lines....imo it was harm reduction/counterpunch time.  They did a great job of adjusting/gameplanning under the circumstances - but it was a tall order (that they came within one shot/6 minutes of pulling off).   They remained a tight unit - an experienced, solid defensive unit - messing with that 'could' have resulted in a game 5 instead of game 7 loss.  Pretentious prescriptions are easy stuff.   I don't think the team has anything to learn from CDC armchairs. 

 

 

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dallas is playing the way this team should have. I really don't think Dallas is that much of a better team than ours. Their defense is better, sure, but our offense and goaltending is better in my opinion. 

 

Nice to see Dallas willing to trade chances. As you can see, Vegas isn't very good at finishing. Good play along team but they can't hit the net to save their lives. They definitely play the right way though. 

 

Dallas is basically using our game 2 strategy and finding lots of success with it. Do the goalies need to be good? Yes. But we had that. What Dallas has that we don't is puck movement and a forecheck. 

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, oldnews said:

The belief that subbing every 17th or 18th forward  on the depth chart into the lineup - who hadn't played a game in months - would have resulted in victory - sounds absurd to me.

 

I believe they would have won if Louis Domingue made better cookies.   No, made more cookies.  That was the key.  More cookies.

Er - why not throw the 3rd goalie in there as well if every other player on the roster "should" have played?

 

I believe they would have won if Miller and Sutter were healthy.  And Toffoli.  And Myers.  And Markstrom, Edler, Fantenburg....

 

Once the team was backed into a rookie and sophomore centering 2 of their lines....imo it was harm reduction/counterpunch time.  They did a great job of adjusting/gameplanning under the circumstances - but it was a tall order (that they came within one shot/6 minutes of pulling off).   They remained a tight unit - an experienced, solid defensive unit - messing with that 'could' have resulted in a game 5 instead of game 7 loss.  Pretentious prescriptions are easy stuff.   I don't think the team has anything to learn from CDC armchairs. 

 

 

If the team were beaten up/worn down(after 2 tough series), no problem..even more reason to resort to young, rested(& sizeable) depth. Look how TD fared after having not played in months. Why must we assume the depth fwds were incapable? I trust JB found some good, affordable depth-blokes there, in summer 2019.

 

What one perceives as "pretentious", another may term as bold. Important to maintain a positive outlook, especially with such a young squad.

 

What no one can deny, is not knowing 100% how the team would've fared had they utilized more depth. My contention is they WOULD have done better. I have no problem if any CDC'er here begs to differ.

 

& it's not hindsight, as I'd suggested this tactic before game #3.

 

Don't know how they would've done vs Dallas. Then highly doubt they could rumble with TBay. Whatever the case, it pleases me to think this squad could well have(w/ better coaching) made it to the final-4. Be very cool to see the JTMiller #1 placed in the high 20's.

 

This series was a valuable lesson for our coaches. Use your depth.

  • Haha 1
  • Huggy Bear 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the turning point in a series was Reeves hit on Hughes, was that game 4, and we up a goal going into 3rd, or I messed up a lot :) ? Hard hit into boards, followed by hard dirty elbow into head, hard into glass. Hughes gets up, skates back, too late, they scored. IF Hughes dropped dead, RR would be ejected immediately, maybe even miss some games (last 2-3 games, we dropped dead few times, learned a lesson hard way). That's on refs no calls, similar to start of game #6 against big bad bruins, when they absolutely kill Mason Raymond (no call?), followed by criminal action by refs minutes later, sent off bad bruin and one of Sedins (who did nothing)... Beside that, playing 5 games in 7 nights (thanks to King James and Osaka...) did not help, Demko could start 1 game early (first back to back)... easy to be Monday morning QB. For me Canucks won Cup in 2011, and they won against Vegas. What was our season H2H with Dallas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2020 at 8:52 PM, King Heffy said:

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

Agreed.  the D core needs a revamp.  I really want to give the young guys we have in the prospect pool a good change.  when they are ready.

 

The F lines were a bit slow - especially on the bottom 2 lines.  Beagle looked better to me than Sutter (we need to keep one of them), he just needs some speed and size on his wings - Motte + ?...  , and Sutter could probably be moved.  The bottom 2 lines needed to take the forecheck to the knights, get the flow of the game going so the core can get on the ice in a better position, but were not able to match their intensity level - probably because they couldn't get there and couldn't win enough battles.  I am excited about the new players coming up Hog and Pod look great for a 3rd line (with Beagle?).

 

The real problem is LE.  the cap and the league is too tight to waste 6m in cap space and still compete for a cup.  So we transition over the next 2 years until we can get rid of that contract.  I would hope he could re-negotiate - all his major $ is paid already - and we could keep him at a good salary, as I don't mind what he can bring still, but not for 6m.

 

My only concern is that we sell Hog or Pod or Boeser for some quick term help - those players will be tough to find going forward???  probably??? .  I wasn't a fan of the TT trade as I don't think we can keep him (I AM a fan of it if we can find a way to keep him) and we gave up too much for a rental.  Madden would look better cap-wise right now - assuming he can play haha!  The core would have had a good playoff run without TT anyways, so if we can't keep him fine - but we need to avoid that kind of mistake again.  

 

Anyways, bit of a rant.  Defintiely the transition - the middle of the ice - was a huge problem and we need bigger and speedier bottom 6 and d.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, canucksnihilist said:

Agreed.  the D core needs a revamp.  I really want to give the young guys we have in the prospect pool a good change.  when they are ready.

 

The F lines were a bit slow - especially on the bottom 2 lines.  Beagle looked better to me than Sutter (we need to keep one of them), he just needs some speed and size on his wings - Motte + ?...  , and Sutter could probably be moved.  The bottom 2 lines needed to take the forecheck to the knights, get the flow of the game going so the core can get on the ice in a better position, but were not able to match their intensity level - probably because they couldn't get there and couldn't win enough battles.  I am excited about the new players coming up Hog and Pod look great for a 3rd line (with Beagle?).

 

The real problem is LE.  the cap and the league is too tight to waste 6m in cap space and still compete for a cup.  So we transition over the next 2 years until we can get rid of that contract.  I would hope he could re-negotiate - all his major $ is paid already - and we could keep him at a good salary, as I don't mind what he can bring still, but not for 6m.

 

My only concern is that we sell Hog or Pod or Boeser for some quick term help - those players will be tough to find going forward???  probably??? .  I wasn't a fan of the TT trade as I don't think we can keep him (I AM a fan of it if we can find a way to keep him) and we gave up too much for a rental.  Madden would look better cap-wise right now - assuming he can play haha!  The core would have had a good playoff run without TT anyways, so if we can't keep him fine - but we need to avoid that kind of mistake again.  

 

Anyways, bit of a rant.  Defintiely the transition - the middle of the ice - was a huge problem and we need bigger and speedier bottom 6 and d.   

Madden wouldn't help win battles; he hasn't put on nearly enough weight since his draft year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


For me, the turning point in a series was Reaves hit on Hughes, game 4, when we were up a goal going into 3rd. Before Vegas second goal, Reaves' hard hit on Hughes into boards, followed by hard dirty elbow into head, hard into glass. Hughes gets up, skates back, too late, they scored. IF Hughes dropped dead, RR would be ejected immediately, maybe even miss some games (last 2-3 games, we dropped dead few times, learned a lesson hard way). That's on refs no calls, similar to start of game #6 against big bad bruins, when they absolutely kill Mason Raymond (refs - crickets), followed by criminal action by refs minutes later, sent off bad bruin and one of Sedins (who did nothing, refused to fight)...

Beside that, playing 5 games in 7 nights (thanks to King James, Osaka and other NBA billionaires...) did not help, Demko could start 1 game early (first back to back)... easy to be Monday morning QB. For me Canucks won Cup in 2011, and they won against Vegas. That's all in MY books, don't care about batman's nhl, big biz nor media. 

What was our season H2H with Dallas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could have won if we had bigger stronger D who could move the puck out of the D zone better/faster; and if we had bigger wingers who hit hard and who didn't lose so many puck battles on the boards (especially in the D zone). 

 

We will never win the cup if we don't add more "truculence" to the lineup (we need to be able to go hit for hit with teams like Dallas, St Louis, Tampa Bay, Philly, Islanders, Boston, etc. - like the strong teams of years past in the Pacific Division). 

 

We also need more team speed (quicker/faster) like Colorado has.  Actually, I think, if Colorado could adds more truculence and better goaltending, they would be a stronger cup contender than the Canucks (as much as I hate to say it).  Having one of the best players in the world (if not the best), in Nathan MacKinnon, doesn't hurt.

  • Like 1
  • Burr 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Day off between all of the games.

2. If no day off, giving game 4 to Thatcher and win that game. That was a winnable game.

 

Series tied 2-2. And with Thatcher playing lights out, we may have won games 5 and 6 and take the series 4-2.

 

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

OP is delusional

Why thank you. I also dream of a more civilized, peaceful & grander world too(which of course is prob Mighty delusional). But I don't consider it a sin to visualize things that one believes is positive.

 

What neither of us know, is how we would've fared had we used depth, in that Apocalypse Now riverboat-ride of a 5-in-7. I was campaigning fairly hard, at the time.

 

Wish we coulda' found out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.