Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Where did the enthusiasm go ?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Great start to the game, really good 1st period, then it all came crashing down. That's concerning only being 4 games in. Are they tired? They look it. 

I agree, they do look gassed out there, seems they start a shift with energy then taper off quickly and skate like they got poo in their pants

 

Boys know they have dug themselves a wee bit of a hole, but i have faith they will turn it around.

 

Go Canucks Go

Link to post
Share on other sites

Markstrom, Tanev and Stecher were all very popular players in the locker room. It will take time for the team to get over with them no longer being here and get familiarize with their new teammates. Schmidt, Holtby and Hammonic are all great people as well, but it will take time for them to mix in with the group of guys. And for those of you who said Markstrom and Tanev mixed in well with the Flames. The Flames didn't lose 3 popular teammates in one off season; they lost Brodie and Hamonic, which aren't as big part to their lockerroom as Tanev, Markstrom and Stecher were to us. Their core is still there and they just added players. Similar to us last season, we have our core guys in the room and added Miller. Myers, Ferland and Benn.

 

The team is going through some identity change right now. We will soon see the enthusiasm once they get to know their new teammates more.

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

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

Are we the ones getting screwed?  Or the screwee?  :P

Isn’t that the same thing, the screwee gets screwed whereas the screwer does the screwing. I guess the answer to your question is yes, both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

lolok

 

 

Anyway, the only difference between this year and every other year since Benning's been at the helm is that there are expectations. We're at the point where we should be taking a legitimate step forward and with that comes pressure.

Why did you ‘lol’ here?    What he said was true.   We did almost win three rounds.   If you’re here to be a negative Nancy, then HF Canucks is probably the place to be for you.  Just saying.   
 

Progression isn’t always linear.   The Canucks missed the playoffs after their surprise 2nd round appearance in 2006-2007.   They then entered their most successful era afterwards.  
 

Same thing after the 1989 season where we almost upset Calgary.   We dipped a year later but then trended upwards towards 1994 afterwards.   
 

Even if the Canucks don’t live up to expectations this season, a lot of bad contracts will be coming off the books over the coming years.    Relax.

Edited by DarkIndianRises
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

lolok

 

 

Anyway, the only difference between this year and every other year since Benning's been at the helm is that there are expectations. We're at the point where we should be taking a legitimate step forward and with that comes pressure.

Pretty sure going from picking in the top 10 one year and making the playoffs the next year is considered a legitimate step forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Why did you ‘lol’ here?    What he said was true.   We did almost win three rounds.

Well first, I don't consider a 5-game wild-card, play-in, or whatever against the 10th place team in the conference a round.

 

And second, claiming we almost won the round vs Vegas is laughable considering we got obliterated. In my eyes, we won one proper round. And I'm not even saying that in a negative way; the Blues were the defending champs and we were a young, inexperienced team.

 

Just don't have time for ridiculous spin.

 

56 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

 If you’re here to be a negative Nancy, then HF Canucks is probably the place to be for you.  Just saying.

Why? Am I disturbing your echo chamber? People are allowed to have different opinions than you.

 

38 minutes ago, internationalhippy said:

Pretty sure going from picking in the top 10 one year and making the playoffs the next year is considered a legitimate step forward.

I'm talking about this season building on last season, not last season building on two seasons ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vegas series just summed up our season. We have a good offensive core group but rely too much on goaltending.

 

This season is weird since the goaltending is fine(despite us losing Marky) and our strengths(which have been our special teams) have been flat.

 

Last year our most consistent lines, being our 1st and 4th line, were great and so far this season they've been our two worst lines. Given the fact that those two lines make up our 1st unit PP and 1st unit PK it is a major problem.

 

Overall a weird start. Head scratching. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for the team, but I've only just looked at the schedule, and it's depressing the hell outta me.. 

 

lots of 3 - in - 4's, 3 in a row against the same team, playing only 6 teams, never leaving the country.. not to mention all the covid protocol.. I wonder if the boys aren't all that excited?? 

 

although I suppose that's the same for every team.. no excuses!! 

d00ca2b566bc9de100643c0b714278f9.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Well first, I don't consider a 5-game wild-card, play-in, or whatever against the 10th place team in the conference a round.

 

And second, claiming we almost won the round vs Vegas is laughable considering we got obliterated. In my eyes, we won one proper round. And I'm not even saying that in a negative way; the Blues were the defending champs and we were a young, inexperienced team.

 

Just don't have time for ridiculous spin.

 

Why? Am I disturbing your echo chamber? People are allowed to have different opinions than you.

 

I'm talking about this season building on last season, not last season building on two seasons ago.

Vegas beat us in a 7 game series.    Period.   Aggregate stats are irrelevant.    Duding that series, the Canucks defeated Vegas on 3 separate occasions from start to finish within a 60 minute time frame.   It’s just like tennis.   Even if someone loses a match 0-6, 7-6, 0-6, 7-6, 0-6, it’s still a 5 set match.   Aces, total games won, winners, and other aggregate stats don’t supersede the bottom line.  

 

The Canucks being swept by Vegas and losing in triple overtime in each game would have been a worse result. 
 

People are allowed to have different opinions, just like some people are allowed to believe that the color of Earth’s sky is brown I guess.

 

ps - beating St.Louis and then coming within a game of beating Vegas *is* almost getting to the 3rd round.  Minnesota has nothing to do with this.

 

 

Edited by DarkIndianRises
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think the changes have shaken the team as a group. Popular leaders who work their butts off leaving as a bunch is tough to take. These are times when our remaining leaders need to step up and unify the team off the ice. 

 

On the ice, it isn't unusual to take time to build chemistry with new key guys. Not to say all the bad plays and misses passes were to or from the newbies as I see it throughout our game, but it certainly doesn't help when these guys haven't meshed yet.

 

Think about the changes: New #1 (?) goalie, a #2 D in Schmidt, a #4? 5? D in Hamonic, and a top 6 in Hogs. Very little time to prepare. I can't say I'm surprised.

 

When the Blues looked brutal then came to win the cup, it showed me that anything can happen if it happens early enough in the season. We are still early, but with a shortened season it won't take long before the hill becomes very challenging to climb.

 

Get on it Canucks - you can doo eeeet!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, internationalhippy said:

We almost won 3 rounds of playoff hockey and we're technically still in the middle of the rebuild. That put a target on our back. Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal haven't been able to win 2 rounds and they're considered further along in their rebuild. Toronto can't even win 1 round. Winnipeg and Ottawa have gone to conference finals but they're rebuilding. We're gunna get used as a measuring stick, all 6 of those teams are gunna bring their A game.  Might even be a rebuild year for us, winnipeg ade the playoffs and got laine the next year

Somehow if you hide behind the wall called "rebuild" then it is ok for the team to suck. Is this the koolaid that's being passed around here? Are you on some 10 year rebuild plan or something? Because we haven't been competitive since 2014 in my books. And how do you go on to call a build that's "rebuilding" who trades for a 6mil Schmidt, signs 30 year old Hamonic, signs 6x5 Myers, Ferland, and was actually competitive last season? You dont, because we are not rebuilding. 

 

How do you manage to contradict yourself in the same paragraph? We are rebuilding, but is actually going on playoff runs? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our D has one player that was on it 2 years ago. The top 8 has 4 new players this year two of which are rookies. 
We lost the MVP of the last two years and nobody has stepped up yet. 
It takes a while to bring them together after such big changes and you never really know if it will work. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Vegas beat us in a 7 game series.    Period.   Aggregate stats are irrelevant.    Duding that series, the Canucks defeated Vegas on 3 separate occasions from start to finish within a 60 minute time frame.   It’s just like tennis.   Even if someone loses a match 0-6, 7-6, 0-6, 7-6, 0-6, it’s still a 5 set match.   Aces, total games won, winners, and other aggregate stats don’t supersede the bottom line.  

 

The Canucks being swept by Vegas and losing in triple overtime in each game would have been a worse result. 
 

People are allowed to have different opinions, just like some people are allowed to believe that the color of Earth’s sky is brown I guess.

 

ps - beating St.Louis and then coming within a game of beating Vegas *is* almost getting to the 3rd round.  Minnesota has nothing to do with this.

 

 

Okay, well if you want to look at getting to a game 7 only because the goalie put in an out-of-this-world outlier type performance that you can not expect to be replicated over any significant sample size as something to write home about, we can agree to disagree.

 

ps - the guy I quoted said "we almost won 3 rounds" so yes, he was counting Minnesota.

Edited by kanucks25
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Okay, well if you want to look at getting to a game 7 only because the goalie put in an out-of-this-world outlier type performance that you can not expect to be replicated over any significant sample size as something to write home about, we can agree to disagree.

 

ps - the guy I quoted said "we almost won 3 rounds" so yes, he was counting Minnesota.

Will concede the last point about Minnesota (I re-read the post that you were alluding to).
 

While our goalies played well for us, your comments inadvertently disrespect the Canucks players in front.  Canucks won Game 2 by a score of 5-2, and won game 6 by a score of 4-0.     
 

Furthermore, the Canucks altered their style of play when Markstrom went down.  They were deliberately giving up the possession battle as a way of maintaining position as a way of reducing high danger chances even if Vegas managed to get a higher number of shots.  The Canucks’ strategy would then be to burn Vegas with quick breakouts.    
 

Even in that 7th game, the score was 0-0 with around 10 minutes left in the 3rd.   (If I recall correctly, Vegas scores two empty net goals).

 

Vegas was undoubtedly a superior team to us but I just feel like your initial post severely undermined the Canucks’ effort in that series. Keep in mind that the Canucks are still a work in progress as a team (I see us being similar to where we were in 2006-2007.......with this year being our 2007-2008 season where we experience a slight dip).

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the bright side #1: this is only 4 games, and some teams are going to come together and start faster than others. Its going to be a crazy 4 month sprint.

On the bright side #2: If this continues, we will get a good shot at (Insert name of shiny new prospect here) in the draft this summer.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...