I Believe We Would Have Won, If...

[oldnews]

On 9/27/2020 at 1:45 PM, IBatch said:

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. 

That is true - and the difference with him in the lineup, vs Benn - was obvious and significant.

 

However, the Canucks won the Minnesota series - with two rookie D in the lineup in the elimination game.

They then also knocked off St Louis - in spite of a key injury to Myers.

 

If you ask most Canucks fans who've been around long enough to see them lose a Hamhuis in the SCF - as well as a host of other injuries to their blueline - and all the M.A.S.H. years since, I think most people would take a single injury to the blueline -and run with it.  The blueline is not why they lost the Vegas series.

 

So what was it?  Is it a fundamental fault in the build?  Was it Green's coaching.  Or are we missing some of the organic elements of what happened while getting abstracted into hypothetical space that explains little?

 

I think there has been a lot of smoke on this issue - some of it muddied by the comments of people like Friedman - who don't really know the team - and doesn't really know what happened between the period they were dominating St Louis, and being hemmed in their end of the ice for the vast majority of the Vegas series.  His storyline - of the need to chase goalposts, again, and 'overhaul' the blueline - is misleading, but seems to be getting parroted a lot on these boards.

 

I don't know why this remains such a blindspot - but the real challenges to the team that emerged - were what was happening in their forward group - not on the blueline.

 

1) top line - Miller was hobbled and forced to the wing.  EP played great, Boeser busted his ass - and that line still produced admirably, but two fundamental things were limiting them.  First, Miller is an 'elite' faceoff guy, so his inability to win the faceoffs he normally does, means a fair measure less 'possession' from the get go.  Second, Miller is the principal heavier presence on that line - he's by far the most effective forechecker, something the team as a whole started to lack towards the end of the Blues, start of the Vegas series.   Additionally, Miller was shooting the puck far less and looking instead to playmake - again because of his injury - and he did an admirable job - but when you combine that with Boeser also appearing to favour his wrist - and instead playing a hard areas game where he typically looks principally to find open spots to get his shot off.....the cumulative effect was a top line that was still good, but it wasn't quire creating the forecheck, puck pressure they need, nor did it have the weapons at it's disposal that it does when it's healthy.

 

2) Horvat's line relatively disappeared between the Blues and Vegas series.  In the Vegas series, Pearson produced next to nothing, and Toffoli was so badly hobbled that he was, unfortunately, a liability.  Did his best, but it was patently obvious that he was gutting it out to the point that Eriksson might have been as good or better an option.    Easy to hindsight - when a player of his quality/ability wants to play and appears able to, I'm not going to second guess their decisions.  Bottom line - the 2nd line was unable to create or sustain a forecheck, they wound up with horrible 'possession' numbers - they were beaten by a healthier opposition.  Symptomatic of the forward group in general - the puck pressure, the relentless pressure they applied to St Louis - they simply were unable to muster vs Vegas.  You can also note that as these problems overlap, the taxing of those remaining standing gets that much more to shoulder, and the team grew progressively more challenged to dictate pace at any point.

 

3)  Perhaps as critical as any other development imo - Gaudette wound up centering a line, and needed fundamental sheltering, particularly against that opponent = Gaudette's line was getting pinned constantly....Sutter on the wing / limping / lingering shoulder issues or whatever in fact were the issues - was absolutely inopportune in my opinion.  It's difficult enough to provide shelter for a line like that in the best of times, particularly when your priority is creating/providing the best conditions for EP's line - and Hughes.  Factor the first two realities - a top line with Miller on the wing, and a Horvat line that was in rope-a-dope - along with a rookie centering a necessary-to-shelter 3rd line - and I think it should become fairly clear why the team was not executing the kind of forecheck they had earlier, why they were unable to get in and hit Theodore and Schmidt with the regularity they hoped, why they weren't as able to separate Vegas from pucks inside their zone, why they didn't exert as much pressure in the neutral zone...For the most part, the only line that was rolling - was the 4th line - a dzone start, shutdown line....yeah, Motte and Beagle managed to produce some counterpunch points and forechecked effectively in the rarer opportunities they had to attack and forecheck in the ozone, but the point is the rest of the forward group. 

 

So, given the above 'underlying' realities - and a bit of misfortune that their biggest, most physical D was playing with one arm, limited them.  I was impressed nevertheless with how Myers handled guys like Tuch - but to the point - the harm reduction approach - the altered gameplanning - imo is impossible to understand outside the context of the above.   Add to these factors - the loss of their MVP goaltender - and a ridiculously compressed playoff schedule - and it's not hard to understand why they prioritized protecting Demko.

 

Trying to do so - as if Green 'didn't want to play a possession game' or as if the evidence was that the blueline was inadequate - whiffs imo on the role that the forward group as a whole plays in initiating that puck pressure up ice, in generating ozone 'possession', and also in playing effective defense.  I don't disagree with the strategy of limiting access to the hard areas and second chances, while 'planning' to rely on counterpunch scoring.  Sometimes your opponent carries the play, and these are critical 'harm reduction' defensive measures.  Would an AHL substitute have made the difference?    First of all - the problem was not the fourth line, or what winger was skating with Beagle and Motte.  Second, none of them were both healthy and NHL middle to top six centers.   I'm just not seeing much real engagement with the on-ice dynamic that emerged, or why it emerged - and that's not a pointed response to your post - it's just a general 'truth' imo.

Edited September 29, 2020 by oldnews

[-DLC-]

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. 

I think you are looking for blame here but bottom line is the lack of speed/pressure was not a coaching issue, the team was beat up and gassed...plain and simple.  They left it all on the ice the game prior and just didn't  have anything left in the tank.  Doesn't matter who would have been coaching...was just how it was. 

 

They still managed to "hang in" and almost take it and it was, indeed, a bit of rope a dope.  Green did a fantastic job. 

[coolboarder]

One of my biggest pet peeve is the what if scenario.   The bottom line is that we lost, there is no if we had done that differently.  It also teaches us one thing, the life will not give you something back to redeem things you screwed up in real life.  For example, saying wrong things to people that you love dearly resulted in split or life-altering action made that will not bring back to normal.     That is why we need to live one day at a time making right decision for your life at the right moment.  The same application for the game itself.  We lost in the series is like a death in life. If there is one redeeming quality about hockey season is that there will always be a new hope for a season and we learn whatever we made in the past for better in the future.  

Edited September 29, 2020 by coolboarder

[Nuxfanabroad]

27 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

One of my biggest pet peeve is the what if scenario.   The bottom line is that we lost, there is no if we had done that differently.  It also teaches us one thing, the life will not give you something back to redeem things you screwed up in real life.  For example, saying wrong things to people that you love dearly resulted in split or life-altering action made that will not bring back to normal.     That is why we need to live one day at a time making right decision for your life at the right moment.  The same application for the game itself.  We lost in the series is like a death in life. If there is one redeeming quality about hockey season is that there will always be a new hope for a season and we learn whatever we made in the past for better in the future.  

It's a discussion board.

 

We all like a particular sports team. We've all(mostly) been hoping, wishing for a Cup over these 5 decades; however long any fan here has been alive,(or living in BC) watching the game.

 

So whether people want to assess/analyze current, future &/or past makes no real difference to me. The 5-in-7 thread(I've been referencing) I felt was an interesting opportunity(unique scenario) where I was hoping we'd have more discourse over lineup approaches we should take.

 

Instead there were jokes like..lineup plan: Jacob, Marky,  then Markstrom! haha

 

For 40 days we tried to keep reeling out the same tired(beaten up AND tiring) lineup & gameplan.Therefore, I feel we wasted an opportunity at a top-4 advancement.

 

Within the context of our (lean) winning history, I feel it's a damn shame & worthwhile of honest, clear & cogent review.

[coolboarder]

25 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

It's a discussion board.

 

We all like a particular sports team. We've all(mostly) been hoping, wishing for a Cup over these 5 decades; however long any fan here has been alive,(or living in BC) watching the game.

 

So whether people want to assess/analyze current, future &/or past makes no real difference to me. The 5-in-7 thread(I've been referencing) I felt was an interesting opportunity(unique scenario) where I was hoping we'd have more discourse over lineup approaches we should take.

 

Instead there were jokes like..lineup plan: Jacob, Marky,  then Markstrom! haha

 

For 40 days we tried to keep reeling out the same tired(beaten up AND tiring) lineup & gameplan.Therefore, I feel we wasted an opportunity at a top-4 advancement.

 

Within the context of our (lean) winning history, I feel it's a damn shame & worthwhile of honest, clear & cogent review.

Those discussion on other topic is fine but what if like in this thread like if they were a prophet is one of my pet peeve like they know everything all about the said player forgetting that Demko was not playing like he was in the game 5-7 when Markstrom was injured in February-March stretch as one of an example of what if Green put him there in game 4.  

 

Line-up fantasy way before the game actually happens is fine but they tend to change their tune when they actually got what they wished for and didn't work most of the time and is disappointed in the result, taking it out to their players on the team as a scapegoat then making new line-up fantasy.\wishes hoping that it would work.  This is type of behavior on most fans who is disappointed in their performance that failed to meet their expectation.

[Nuxfanabroad]

18 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

Those discussion on other topic is fine but what if like in this thread like if they were a prophet is one of my pet peeve like they know everything all about the said player forgetting that Demko was not playing like he was in the game 5-7 when Markstrom was injured in February-March stretch as one of an example of what if Green put him there in game 4.  

 

Line-up fantasy way before the game actually happens is fine but they tend to change their tune when they actually got what they wished for and didn't work most of the time and is disappointed in the result, taking it out to their players on the team as a scapegoat then making new line-up fantasy.\wishes hoping that it would work.  This is type of behavior on most fans who is disappointed in their performance that failed to meet their expectation.

Well, good anyways if we have a variety of threads & opinions. In my view the players were dynamite & gave us their all. Unfortunately, felt it was the coaching that came up a little short.

[Nuxfanabroad]

TD in game #4 might have turned the tide!

[DarthMelvin]

....If our Power play was a bit more Powerful....

 

That drop pass...ugh

 

No one to skate the puck in with a - How-she goin?

 

Way to much passing.

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

On 9/29/2020 at 9:11 AM, Nuxfanabroad said:

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.

So there you go. I've been railing on about this for a flippin' half-yr.

 

Now today, even Zack's Mom is chiming in. Yup..this thread aged like a nice Cabernet.

 

This team of ours HAD a final-4 in them! It was there for the taking. LV were shooting blanks. Absolutely squandered.

 

If even an old hand like Bones were coaching them, they'd have been in the semis.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Sorry to bump another OLDIE, but this bears repeating.

 

Green doesn't coach passionate & inspired to WIN; he coaches afraid to lose.

 

Last Feb: In the post above ^ was commenting on Zack MacEwen's mismanagement. Even his Ma was angrily chiming in! Well there's another asset(of a rugged, great team-guy) that we've ABSO-f***-ingLUTEly squandered, so we can protect Dowling, Petan sweet, lil' worker bees.

[Bure2Win]

Can we pin this thread to the top of the boards and just continue to add to it through out the season, we sound be able to get to a least a few thousand pages........lol

Edited October 21, 2021 by Bure2Win