I Believe We Would Have Won, If...

[nucklehead]

if we'd had one more day off before game 7...June 1994

[canucksnihilist]

Size or speed on D?   Probably speed.  

[Nuxfanabroad]

On 9/9/2020 at 2:58 AM, MikeyD said:

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. 

 

On 9/8/2020 at 11:58 PM, Maniwaki Canuck said:

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.

Solid posts deserving a bump. Lots of good nuggets in there gents.

[Lazurus]

On 9/21/2020 at 7:05 AM, Nuxfanabroad said:

On 9/8/2020 at 5:58 PM, MikeyD said:

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. 

 

On 9/8/2020 at 2:58 PM, Maniwaki Canuck said:

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.

Solid posts deserving a bump. Lots of good nuggets in there gents

Some of Green's decisions could have been based on not losing his job, his next contract.

He was a lame duck coach, that is not to say bad but that is what they call coaches and GM's on their last year, in his case some decisions could have been based on not making any huge moves that could be blamed on him.

Look at the flak some coaches have taken over starting a backup over the starter, if it wasn't for the fact that even management has now determined Eriksson's contract is a disaster I am sure there would have been an internal backlash for sitting 6 million out.

 

Canucks got a gift, several of them actually. The team was going down in the standings, very quickly at the break, the NHL expanded from 16 to 24 teams in a playin round based on point percentages rather than win percentages, the 4 months off allowed them to be relatively all healthy, they were allowed to ice a team that was 10 mil over the cap for regular season playin games and they got some playoff game exposure.

 

Markstrom was outstanding stealing 3 or 4 games and Demko was stellar. Anytime a goalie stops 40 shots and the team either wins or loses by a goal the goalie was in the zone

[hudsonkid]

On 9/20/2020 at 4:06 PM, nucklehead said:

if we'd had one more day off before game 7...June 1994

I hope this is a joke. The reason we lost is because the NHL made sure the old codgers we were playing were well rested. They were done. If we played on the 13th we win.

[nucklehead]

9 hours ago, hudsonkid said:

I hope this is a joke. The reason we lost is because the NHL made sure the old codgers we were playing were well rested. They were done. If we played on the 13th we win.

quoting Pat Quinn, so no, no joke. 

[hudsonkid]

Wow. I didn't know Quinn said that. I remember my hair was on fire because of the extra day off. With that in mind, my opinion is Quinn was too concerned with the fatigue on his team without enough consideration to the train wreck that was occurring on the other side.

Edited September 24, 2020 by hudsonkid

[aliboy]

On 9/20/2020 at 3:06 PM, nucklehead said:

if we'd had one more day off before game 7...June 1994

If you mean against the Rangers, they were the one's who got the extra day off, we were ready to go the night before and would have won.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Dallas proving that signing old vets & relying on depth is no sin in this PO's.

 

Too much complaining about our vet contracts. Rather have our situation than $19,000,000(U$A tp) $poken for(Benn & Sequin), x eternity.

[Captain Canuck #12]

On 9/24/2020 at 7:40 AM, aliboy said:

If you mean against the Rangers, they were the one's who got the extra day off, we were ready to go the night before and would have won.

 I know the NHL obviously tries to do everything they can to keep us from winning, but how did they ever give the Rangers an extra day off between games 6 & 7 that we didn't get?!  I can't remember that one.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Captain Canuck #12

[Kevin Biestra]

25 minutes ago, Captain Canuck #12 said:

 I know the NHL obviously tries to do everything they can to keep us from winning, but how did they ever give the Rangers an extra day off between games 6 & 7 that we didn't get?!  I can't remember that one.

 

The extra day off was available for both teams but it definitely favored the Rangers.  They were composed of the Oilers dynasty team that was assembled 15 years earlier plus other old dogs like Steve Larmer and Jay Wells.  A bunch of their guys began their NHL career in 1980 or even the 1970s.  The Canucks were younger and had injuries where a day wasn't going to make any difference.

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Kevin Biestra

[IBatch]

7 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

The extra day off was available for both teams but it definitely favored the Rangers.  They were composed of the Oilers dynasty team that was assembled 15 years earlier plus other old dogs like Steve Larmer and Jay Wells.  A bunch of their guys began their NHL career in 1980 or even the 1970s.  The Canucks were younger and had injuries where a day wasn't going to make any difference.

 

Maybe it helped Linden ....   Ronnings wrist too.   But yes it for sure helped them more.   Can say after game six I felt we could beat the tar out of these guys in game 7, you could see we had cracked their spirits somewhat.   The Bure ejection game look like a pivotal point in the series - we were all over them up until that point and Bure was playing possessed.   Of course they ended up winning that game ... a huge “what if” moment.   Stupid rule didn’t last much longer after that either (automatic game if a high stick drew blood - guys would chew on their lips intentionally)....
 

   Game six.   Never felt closer to a cup then that.   Against Boston you could feel the wheels falling off throughout the series.   We didn’t have a game killer in Bure or a warrior like Linden - although Kesler did his best and did something special against NSH.
 

But yes - absolutely the league wanted NYR to win - and with 7 or so ex oilers leading the charge well into their 30’s it definitely made an in impact.   Game 7 in 94 was a nail biter from start to finish.  Right down to the very last face off (which we won and did get a shot attempt off too)....worst day as a fan ever.    That team was to this day the most deserved team I’ve seen lose a cup series.   Still considered the best final of the modern era (post expansion)...only two goals separated us.   And both teams had dominant games against each other. 
 

Edit:  The 94 Rangers cup team is a frequent flyer in “greatest teams of all-time”.   Usually in the low 20’s high teens.    Other teams to make the list since then - 2002 Detroit, 2001 COL, one of NJ’s cup teams .... since then only CHI half season president trophy cup team.    Hard to create a “great team” under the cap.    Most teams that made the list had multiple cups,  the 94 team was so stacked it made it with only one cup.   Curiously so did the 89 Flames team (and we almost beat them too # Otto kicked it in!).  

 

Sucks being a footnote in history as the bridesmaids - but that magical run is still talked about outside our fanbase as one of the best ever.   From “the Save” - arguably the most iconic ever - to Bure’s arrival - to Lindens heroics in game seven....it’s why THN picked the 94 team over the 2011 one as our greatest team ever.  Bieksa’s floater OT winner plays second fiddle to Burrows hand biting and Marchand rabbit punching and Vancouver burning as the memorable moments of 2011 - that and the “pumping tires” commentary outside our own fan-base.   It’s kind of sad. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by IBatch

[aliboy]

8 hours ago, Captain Canuck #12 said:

 I know the NHL obviously tries to do everything they can to keep us from winning, but how did they ever give the Rangers an extra day off between games 6 & 7 that we didn't get?!  I can't remember that one.

They got the extra day off because there was an event at MSG, so they had to put off game seven by one day, at least that's my recollection.

[Kevin Biestra]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Edit:  The 94 Rangers cup team is a frequent flyer in “greatest teams of all-time”.   Usually in the low 20’s high teens.    Other teams to make the list since then - 2002 Detroit, 2001 COL, one of NJ’s cup teams .... since then only CHI half season president trophy cup team.    Hard to create a “great team” under the cap.    Most teams that made the list had multiple cups,  the 94 team was so stacked it made it with only one cup.   Curiously so did the 89 Flames team (and we almost beat them too # Otto kicked it in!). 

 

As to those 1989 Flames, I have no problem seeing them on the list.  I think I cited them some time back as the best blueline ever assembled.  Ric Nattress as the 7th D.  MacInnis - Suter - McCrimmon - Macoun - Murzyn - Ramage - Nattress.

 

Either them in 1989 or else 1986 when they still had Reinhart to go with MacInnis and Suter but not the same support.  Gary Suter as your 3rd best offensive defenseman...  I guess the 70s Canadiens gave them a run.

 

And all the more reason for Mike Vernon to be in the Hall of Fame.  Caught Lanny at the very end and Fleury at the very beginning.  Rick Wamsley as one of the all time great backups.  That team had insane depth.

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Kevin Biestra

[-DLC-]

The team had recovery time and not 5 in 7 with two back to backs.  I know Vegas had the same schedule...but ours had been more gruelling pre series than theirs was.  Injuries were taking a toll and guys needed a bit of rest in between.

 

Also:  if Brock's shot was 2 inches higher.  I feel that would have changed things.....

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

As to those 1989 Flames, I have no problem seeing them on the list.  I think I cited them some time back as the best blueline ever assembled.  Ric Nattress as the 7th D.  MacInnis - Suter - McCrimmon - Macoun - Murzyn - Ramage - Nattress.

 

Either them in 1989 or else 1986 when they still had Reinhart to go with MacInnis and Suter but not the same support.  Gary Suter as your 3rd best offensive defenseman...  I guess the 70s Canadiens gave them a run.

 

And all the more reason for Mike Vernon to be in the Hall of Fame.  Caught Lanny at the very end and Fleury at the very beginning.  Rick Wamsley as one of the all time great backups.  That team had insane depth.

 

 

 

Me neither - and your probably be happy to know the 89 CAL is ranked ahead of the 94 NYR team in at least the credible lists I’ve seen.   Going up and trying to compete to those great Oilers team hammer and tong isn’t much different then the COL/DET teams of the mid to early 2000’s.   Often whomever lost won the cup or at least went to the final.    That 89 team was stacked.   

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

The team had recovery time and not 5 in 7 with two back to backs.  I know Vegas had the same schedule...but ours had been more gruelling pre series than theirs was.  Injuries were taking a toll and guys needed a bit of rest in between.

 

Also:  if Brock's shot was 2 inches higher.  I feel that would have changed things.....

Yep.   I never underrated Dallas this or last season - but do feel if we started with St Louis that we wouldn’t have run out of breath playing Vegas.   Losing Myers was huge too.   Regardless it was one heck of a ride that made up for everything inbetween 2011 and now for me.   Love this team. 

[oldnews]

On 9/8/2020 at 10:58 AM, MikeyD said:

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. 

I actually read that start to finish - but what I see are a few 'prescriptions' - 'play a possession' game, change the lineup, but I don't really see any engagement with what actually happened in the Vegas series.

 

First of all -  the one 'technical' point you make is the claim that what you perceive as poor execution, and entries, on odd man rushes - are 'on coaching.'    I have to fundamentally disagree with you on this - if you have to teach NHLers what to do on an odd man rush - they are not NHLers.  Period.  This is stuff you learn as fundamentals throughout your entire life, long before you ever arrive in the NHL - and it's true of every comparable sport - ie if you're playing in the NBA, you do not need to be taught how to execute a 2 on 1, period - you've been doing so years and years.  The story that 'you'd see all 3 guys skating in the same line every single rush' just doesn't represent - I think you'd need to elaborate on and evidence what you mean by this.

 

The claim that Green "didn't want his team playing a possession game" is downrigh odd.   First, you're pretending to speak for his state of mind, and second you appear to be deducing this from what you perceive as their gameplan.  "The sooner coaches realize possession wins games" is a one-liner that literally would go over the head of not a single coach in the NHL, and particularly Green.  Most of what is referred to as "possession" - is a misnomer - and the idea that Green didn't want his team to play to possess the puck - is as bizarre a claim as I've read in any criticism of him.  Gameplanning to reduce the chances they give up in the high danger and hard areas - is not the equivalent of 'not wanting to play a possession game.'

 

What you haven't really done - is notice the difference in the team's gameplanning - as the playoffs progressed.  It's a whole lot of 'prescription' with no teeth.  What actually happened - for example, between the St Louis series when the team was rolling - and the Vegas series, where there's a kernel of truth to what you're saying - they did make concessions - they were playing a relative 'harm reduction' style of hockey.   Why was that?  If you don't dig into the reality of that question, it's hard to take the prescriptions seriously.  We can pretend that a change in the lineup would have/could have/should have made the difference - but what is it the team was failing to do that a bottom six substitution would have solved? 

 

I don't think you've actually looked at the lineup - what was happening in the lineup - analyzed what was happening - and therefore don't really have any real prescriptions to offer - 'sub in an AHLer wadr is not a prescription to the 'possession' game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Canucklehead73]

Pretty obvious if you ask me...

 

Green played it too safe. Went too far into the defensive shell... you have to at least TRY to make a play and transition up the ice.

 

I'm sure the players realized Green gave up. Which is sad if you consider it a lesson learned by the team... "They are too good, why even try?"

 

Like a boxer just covering up and taking it for 10 rounds....

 

Eventually you are going to get tagged once or twice and if you do not even TRY to punch back...

 

Well even Ali couldn't pull off that kind of rope-a-dope...

[Nuxfanabroad]

4 minutes ago, Canucklehead73 said:

Pretty obvious if you ask me...

 

Green played it too safe. Went too far into the defensive shell... you have to at least TRY to make a play and transition up the ice.

 

I'm sure the players realized Green gave up. Which is sad if you consider it a lesson learned by the team... "They are too good, why even try?"

 

Like a boxer just covering up and taking it for 10 rounds....

 

Eventually you are going to get tagged once or twice and if you do not even TRY to punch back...

 

Well even Ali couldn't pull off that kind of rope-a-dope...

Indeed. Look at Zack MacEwen to further illustrate. Made a mistake vs StLoo & they score. *ss stapled to bench. Doesn't get in again for the whole F***ing PO's.

 

Once we get by the Blues, we're playing with house money. Furthest of any Cdn entry. Give ZM another chance?..'Course not!

 

Is it any wonder young energetic fwds like Gaudette, for example, go thru the WHOLE PO's with zilch for stats?!

Young guys were prob afraid to be in the off zone with the freakin puck on their stick. OMG! Gotta get it DEEEEEEP & get off quick!

 

Contrast Green's coaching afraid, with someone like the 'good guy' Bowness. A Kiviranta type will NEVER happen on our roster, with an*l, afraid coaching. Let's play to WIN, not play afraid of losing.