[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks @ Toronto Maple Laffs | February 8, 2021 | 4 p.m. PT | TVAS, SNP

[EddieVedder]

1 hour ago, Chris12345 said:

It's not a blame if I owned them I'd start at center.

 

Yes I think he told Gillis and Nonis what to do.  They own the team. I think they approve major signings ( mostly cash flow) and whether or not to rebuild. They pay the bills it's their call.

They own the team and ultimately they make calls.  But really, what do owners know about hockey, talent and the actual team aspect?  If i were owner id let the gm and prez handle hockey ops.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

The 1970s were something...

 

[rychicken]

6 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

The 1970s were something...

 

84/85 included a 13-2 loss

https://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/198410180PHI.html

Edited February 9, 2021 by rychicken

[EddieVedder]

1 hour ago, Phil_314 said:

Can't blame Schmidt for that kick out to Rielly, just bad luck that he happened to be there
Nice snipe by Petey, at least he's still scoring (and Miller almost had one too, late in the third)
Great to see them outshoot the Leafs, result just wasn't there

The bad
How do they give Matthews so much room for his goal?  On a team where Horvat's been so successful as the bumper, they should know that they can't just let him pivot back and get space, but they need to engage him.
Hughes just skated to a corner and got outmuscled to lose the puck... what was he thinking

Hughes gets outmuscled multiple times every game.  Not going to change.

Schmidt has been lousy all season and is playing like a total princess.

Its embarrassing how flat out wimpy our defense has become.  Miss the days of Jovo, Ohlund, Juice, Murray effin Baron, just wrecking anyone that came into our zone. 

[bree2]

1 hour ago, ruilin96 said:

As long as the ones who got it doesn't include Markstrom, Tanev, Leivo and Domingue

HA HA why not, they are not on our team anymore.  they play for a rival team. canuck fans really need to get over this

[-Vintage Canuck-]

7 minutes ago, rychicken said:

84/85 included a 13-2 loss

34 days later after that loss... Bill Laforge was fired.

[rychicken]

Just now, -Vintage Canuck- said:

34 days later after that loss... Bill Laforge was fired.

yeah - that's why this "slump" is nothing
 

[Nuxfanabroad]

16 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

34 days later after that loss... Bill Laforge was fired.

We threw down 'the gauntlet'!(was called that, wasn't it?)

 

edit: sometimes hard to remember things I tried to forget :^(

Edited February 9, 2021 by Nuxfanabroad

[-Vintage Canuck-]

3 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

We threw down 'the gauntlet'!(was called that, wasn't it?)

Unfortunately, the gauntlet ended Darcy Rota's career.

[ruilin96]

26 minutes ago, bree2 said:

HA HA why not, they are not on our team anymore.  they play for a rival team. canuck fans really need to get over this

20+ other players with covid should be enough to delay the games. Those boys (especially Markstrom and Tanev) had done everything for us, they deserve to have good health. The rest of the Flames can &^@# themselves though.

[sockeye]

48 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

There  is no proof Linden left because he want a full rebuild. There are also conflicting reporting that he wanted to trade futures for vets to go for another run. 

Stop making Linden the messiah until we hear it from the horses mouth.

I guess we have a difference of opinion on whose rumours you want to believe.  Sorry that I touched a nerve.  I never claimed that Linden was the messiah but he was the face of the Canucks for years and he represented the team well.  I doubt we'll ever hear the truth from Linden, Benning or Aquilini.  So, yeah I'm speculating.

 

The rumour I heard is that Benning (and Aquilini) and Linden wanted to go in different directions and Linden was supporting a rebuild when the Sedins retired; Benning wanted to continue his retool.  One thing is for certain, Benning and Linden were not on the same page or Linden would still be President. 

 

I never heard any rumour that Linden wanted to trade futures for vets to go for another run (I heard the opposite and Benning was the one who wanted to go for another run - that hasn't worked out so well).  I supported Benning for a long time but I'm sick and tired of this crap after being a fan for 50 effing years.  Enough picks lost, enough prospects traded, enough cap space wasted. That's not how good teams are built.

 

Anyway, I don't want to get into a back and forth banter.  Thanks for the reply.  Go Canucks!  

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

2 hours ago, Darius said:

We have been here before, As an old guy on this board i get the sense we need to calm things down.

 

This is all very similar to what happened about 30 years ago.  The period leading up to the Stanley Cup final 94 team started with the team taking a big step forward in 89. Rookie Linden plus a group of fantastic role players got the team to the playoffs and took the cup winning flames to 7 games.  That was the best the team had looked in 5 years.  Reminds me of how this current team took a step forward in the playoff bubble after 4 or 5 years of misery. We had our hopes up in both periods!

 

The Canucks then took two steps back in 90 and 91. 

 

The analogy here is that right now are like we were from 90 to 91. At the time, just like now, it was a disappointing period after getting our hopes up from making the playoffs and coming within a goal post of eliminating a stanley cup calibre team (Calgary).  The team also lost a key piece  in 90- Paul Reinhart . It felt like he left a big hole on the roster.  Reminds me of the holes  Tanev and Marky seem to have left now.

 

The coach was Bob McCammon.  He was even a Jack Adams runner up in 89.  In 91 the team was in a losing streak and there was one particular game where everyone knew McCammon would get canned.  The team played as hard as they could, they even outplayed the other team for the most part, but they lost and Bob got fired.  The team simply was not good enough. 

 

Pat Quinn took over.

 

In 91-92 Bure joined the team and Quinn started to rebuild the D and brought in the right mix of players.  After a couple years they eventually made it to game 7 of the 1994 stanley cup final.

 

What I learned from that period:

 

1) It wasnt McCammon's fault the team regressed  in the early 90s- the team needed more pieces. It wasnt clear until we got the better rosters (92-94) to compare what McCammon had to work with in retrospect. I get the same sense here - this isnt all on Green.

 

2)There was a 5 year period leading up to the 94 team where there were 1 step forward 2 steps back at some points. Important players came and went. I get the same sense here.  We moved forward now we are going to step back.  As in the early 90s this might be a pause before we jump ahead again.

 

We could draft a stud d man this year and eventually add Podz to the roster..., and whoever the GM is could make the 3 or 4 changes probably needed to put this team over the top in the next 2- 3 years.  It happened before it can happen again - we just need to zoom out a little.

 

I dont think Green survives beyond this year - but when its all said and done i think we will look back and see him as another stepping stone in the process where he will be the casualty of circumstance- the roster is still missing key pieces and some key pieces were moved - the same as it was in 91 when McCammon got canned.

 

Its all a process.  I think this roster has more to work with than what Quinn had to work with in 91.  

 

 

 

I so much appreciate posts like this. Thank you for your insight!

[AlwaysACanuckFan]

4 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

Tanev used to get injured, Markstrom got injured a couple times, did the team really have that hard of a time playing when those guys got hurt all the time... Sounds more like excuses coming from these guys

Sure a few buddies are gone from last season, but the players just have to suck it up like others have said and move on. 

[Maginator]

2 hours ago, Darius said:

We have been here before, As an old guy on this board i get the sense we need to calm things down.

 

This is all very similar to what happened about 30 years ago.  The period leading up to the Stanley Cup final 94 team started with the team taking a big step forward in 89. Rookie Linden plus a group of fantastic role players got the team to the playoffs and took the cup winning flames to 7 games.  That was the best the team had looked in 5 years.  Reminds me of how this current team took a step forward in the playoff bubble after 4 or 5 years of misery. We had our hopes up in both periods!

 

The Canucks then took two steps back in 90 and 91. 

 

The analogy here is that right now are like we were from 90 to 91. At the time, just like now, it was a disappointing period after getting our hopes up from making the playoffs and coming within a goal post of eliminating a stanley cup calibre team (Calgary).  The team also lost a key piece  in 90- Paul Reinhart . It felt like he left a big hole on the roster.  Reminds me of the holes  Tanev and Marky seem to have left now.

 

The coach was Bob McCammon.  He was even a Jack Adams runner up in 89.  In 91 the team was in a losing streak and there was one particular game where everyone knew McCammon would get canned.  The team played as hard as they could, they even outplayed the other team for the most part, but they lost and Bob got fired.  The team simply was not good enough. 

 

Pat Quinn took over.

 

In 91-92 Bure joined the team and Quinn started to rebuild the D and brought in the right mix of players.  After a couple years they eventually made it to game 7 of the 1994 stanley cup final.

 

What I learned from that period:

 

1) It wasnt McCammon's fault the team regressed  in the early 90s- the team needed more pieces. It wasnt clear until we got the better rosters (92-94) to compare what McCammon had to work with in retrospect. I get the same sense here - this isnt all on Green.

 

2)There was a 5 year period leading up to the 94 team where there were 1 step forward 2 steps back at some points. Important players came and went. I get the same sense here.  We moved forward now we are going to step back.  As in the early 90s this might be a pause before we jump ahead again.

 

We could draft a stud d man this year and eventually add Podz to the roster..., and whoever the GM is could make the 3 or 4 changes probably needed to put this team over the top in the next 2- 3 years.  It happened before it can happen again - we just need to zoom out a little.

 

I dont think Green survives beyond this year - but when its all said and done i think we will look back and see him as another stepping stone in the process where he will be the casualty of circumstance- the roster is still missing key pieces and some key pieces were moved - the same as it was in 91 when McCammon got canned.

 

Its all a process.  I think this roster has more to work with than what Quinn had to work with in 91.  

 

 

 

Good take. I wasnt around in 91.

 

I'm just curious, do you think firing Green in the right move? Obviously Quinn was a hell of a coach, but is there a suitable/comparable replacement for Green? Or do we roll with Green?

 

Cheers.

[bertuzzi44fan]

I think I'd take a one armed Alex Burrows at this point as coach. Better effort but still choking.

[ShawnAntoski]

3 hours ago, Darius said:

We have been here before, As an old guy on this board i get the sense we need to calm things down.

 

This is all very similar to what happened about 30 years ago.  The period leading up to the Stanley Cup final 94 team started with the team taking a big step forward in 89. Rookie Linden plus a group of fantastic role players got the team to the playoffs and took the cup winning flames to 7 games.  That was the best the team had looked in 5 years.  Reminds me of how this current team took a step forward in the playoff bubble after 4 or 5 years of misery. We had our hopes up in both periods!

 

The Canucks then took two steps back in 90 and 91. 

 

The analogy here is that right now are like we were from 90 to 91. At the time, just like now, it was a disappointing period after getting our hopes up from making the playoffs and coming within a goal post of eliminating a stanley cup calibre team (Calgary).  The team also lost a key piece  in 90- Paul Reinhart . It felt like he left a big hole on the roster.  Reminds me of the holes  Tanev and Marky seem to have left now.

 

The coach was Bob McCammon.  He was even a Jack Adams runner up in 89.  In 91 the team was in a losing streak and there was one particular game where everyone knew McCammon would get canned.  The team played as hard as they could, they even outplayed the other team for the most part, but they lost and Bob got fired.  The team simply was not good enough. 

 

Pat Quinn took over.

 

In 91-92 Bure joined the team and Quinn started to rebuild the D and brought in the right mix of players.  After a couple years they eventually made it to game 7 of the 1994 stanley cup final.

 

What I learned from that period:

 

1) It wasnt McCammon's fault the team regressed  in the early 90s- the team needed more pieces. It wasnt clear until we got the better rosters (92-94) to compare what McCammon had to work with in retrospect. I get the same sense here - this isnt all on Green.

 

2)There was a 5 year period leading up to the 94 team where there were 1 step forward 2 steps back at some points. Important players came and went. I get the same sense here.  We moved forward now we are going to step back.  As in the early 90s this might be a pause before we jump ahead again.

 

We could draft a stud d man this year and eventually add Podz to the roster..., and whoever the GM is could make the 3 or 4 changes probably needed to put this team over the top in the next 2- 3 years.  It happened before it can happen again - we just need to zoom out a little.

 

I dont think Green survives beyond this year - but when its all said and done i think we will look back and see him as another stepping stone in the process where he will be the casualty of circumstance- the roster is still missing key pieces and some key pieces were moved - the same as it was in 91 when McCammon got canned.

 

Its all a process.  I think this roster has more to work with than what Quinn had to work with in 91.  

 

 

 

I remember the 94 finals but reading this provided alot of context and thanks for taking the time to write it.  Perhaps one similarity I can add that might be similar to both periods is - Pods will be the Bure of this era (?); and the one trade that added alot of pieces was the trade with St Louis were got: Ronning, Courtney, Momesso and Dirk (if I remember correctly it was Quinn who made that trade).  

 

I miss those days of no cap were a team can build dynasties but despite the cap drama it does provide a more competitive league.   Possible to hear your opinion on how the league is now compared to those long forgotten days.

Edited February 9, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[Squamfan]

 

[Dazzle]

Green sucks as a coach. Let's just get that straightened out.

[N4ZZY]

3 hours ago, oldnews said:

then there would be no one else to credit then - 100% to his credit - when this core grows up - if this team were to win a Cup.

 

that - of course - would also be nonsense.

 

The reality is that Linden deserves credit, Gillis who acquired Horvat, deserves credit - this team is not 100% Benning built - Edler predated Benning as well, was drafted in the summer between the Burke and Nonis, who deserve credit, Green deserves credit, Ron Delorme deserves credit, Thomas Gradin deserves credit - and on and on - and vice versa.

That's true that no team is built singularly on one person or one management. But in Benning's tenure, he sure has made plenty of mistakes and miscalculated moves that has caused this team to be worse. We could have had Toffoli, if he didn't sign "foundational" player in Sutter. Or Beagle or Roussel. I get that he wanted vets, but at their price point and their term? Really? 

 

[DownUndaCanuck]

Don't see us coming back from 4 games below .500.