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

Toughness need not apply

Rate this topic


AlbertanNuckfan

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

It might be OK during the season but come the play off it would be delusional to think the game officials will save them

Come playoffs, determination, momentum, less injuries, a hot goalie, and pure luck's what's going to win a cup. Toughness don't mean much if any of those are in the other teams' favour.

 

Just look at the most recent teams who have won a cup. Tampa was a completely different team than St. Louis. St. Louis was a completely different team than Pittsburgh. Perhaps just as important, look at the teams who made it to the finals but were exited. There are so many teams who have made the finals that were rather unexpected. We see "tough teams" exited in the 1st round.

 

I just don't see the correlation between toughness and winning the cup. There's just too many other factors for this to be the case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Come playoffs, determination, momentum, less injuries, a hot goalie, and pure luck's what's going to win a cup. Toughness don't mean much if any of those are in the other teams' favour.

 

Just look at the most recent teams who have won a cup. Tampa was a completely different team than St. Louis. St. Louis was a completely different team than Pittsburgh. Perhaps just as important, look at the teams who made it to the finals but were exited. There are so many teams who have made the finals that were rather unexpected. We see "tough teams" exited in the 1st round.

 

I just don't see the correlation between toughness and winning the cup. There's just too many other factors for this to be the case.

 

Patrick Maroon says hello.   Also of the teams that have won or made the final four the last several years, have size as well.   PIT ... well if you have a Crosby and Malkin then yippee!   Most teams never get that.   St. Louis was a big heavy team run by Berube, one of the toughest guys ever to play the game.   Vegas ... lol totally abused us.   Only Myers and Motte could play with them.   Wilson in WSH, plus they were the biggest team that year.   We don't have Trotz, and we don't have Crosby/Malkin. Toughness for sure matters and will, same as size.   We lost the cup to that but it had more to do with Thomas so agree a hot goalie can do it too.   Maroon keeps getting passed around for a reason.  St. Louis, TB, TB and when EDM almost beat ANA and went to the conference final - guess who was on their team?   These guys matter more then your giving them credit for. 

 

Edit:  Of the cup winning teams since the lockout:   CAR/ANA/Boston/St Louis/LA/LA/WSH/TB/TB had "toughness" in their lineup.   In ANA and Boston's case it more of a tactic.   LA and TB big defense same with St. Louis.   That doesn't leave many teams out ... and one of CHI cups they had it too (first one). 

Edited by IBatch
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IBatch said:

Patrick Maroon says hello.   Also of the teams that have won or made the final four the last several years, have size as well.   PIT ... well if you have a Crosby and Malkin then yippee!   Most teams never get that.   St. Louis was a big heavy team run by Berube, one of the toughest guys ever to play the game.   Vegas ... lol totally abused us.   Only Myers and Motte could play with them.   Wilson in WSH, plus they were the biggest team that year.   We don't have Trotz, and we don't have Crosby/Malkin. Toughness for sure matters and will, same as size.   We lost the cup to that but it had more to do with Thomas so agree a hot goalie can do it too.   Maroon keeps getting passed around for a reason.  St. Louis, TB, TB and when EDM almost beat ANA and went to the conference final - guess who was on their team?   These guys matter more then your giving them credit for. 

I'm not saying no team that won the cup was tough. I'm saying I don't see the correlation between toughness and actually winning.

 

For example, if you look at that St. Louiis team, it was a deep team. If someone got injured, it didn't seem to matter. Same with Tampa Bay. These teams also played against a "tough" Dallas during their runs and Dallas had more momentum than a "tough Vegas" due to us making them crap their pants the series prior through a hot Demko.

 

Basically, Maroon says hi.... but he's not the reason why they won the cup, nor is Wilson the reason why Washington won the cup. Sure, those pieces would have helped, but do these teams not win without them if they still had the same momentum and luck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I'm not saying no team that won the cup was tough. I'm saying I don't see the correlation between toughness and actually winning.

 

For example, if you look at that St. Louiis team, it was a deep team. If someone got injured, it didn't seem to matter. Same with Tampa Bay. These teams also played against a "tough" Dallas during their runs and Dallas had more momentum than a "tough Vegas" due to us making them crap their pants the series prior through a hot Demko.

 

Basically, Maroon says hi.... but he's not the reason why they won the cup, nor is Wilson the reason why Washington won the cup. Sure, those pieces would have helped, but do these teams not win without them if they still had the same momentum and luck?

For sure ... but it matters ... see my edit above.    Toughness hasn't won a cup on its own since ANA and never has won a cup on its own including PHI.   Even EDM and NYI dynasties - in a much tougher era, had a lot of toughness in their lineups.   And PHI had a lot of skill too.   It does matter is all i'm saying.     And it's fair to say we don't have enough. 

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2021 at 2:19 PM, khay said:

For Zack, it's mostly on him for not improving his game. He's stagnated.

 

Gadjovich is on Green. He wants guys that can skate, well most guys that can skate are small guys.

 

Big guys that can skate fast are rare and when they do exist, they are expensive to acquire.

 

A very simplistic and distorted view on size and skating imho

 

Both were fringe AHL/NHL players

 

Go Canucks go 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

For sure ... but it matters ... see my edit above.    

We might have to agree to disagree on this then, since I think what we deem as being "tough teams" is likely fundamentally different. I personally don't see 1 tough guy on a team as meaning a team is a "tough team". I look at it more as a toughness by group. Perhaps that's our difference?

 

So sure, there's Maroon on St. Louis or Tampa Bay, for example, but that one guy alone's not going to make the team hard to play against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

Would it not be better to be “fired” and get all your money while dealing with health issues? It could have been an amicable move. 

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/clarke-claims-neilson-went-goofy-1.208862

 

I don't think that's the case here.  Keep in mind that he was a workaholic whose support network was mostly hockey people instead of family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/clarke-claims-neilson-went-goofy-1.208862

 

I don't think that's the case here.  Keep in mind that he was a workaholic whose support network was mostly hockey people instead of family.

Clarke was a jerk, the team worked around his diabetes when he was a player, but he couldn't do the same as Roger was going through treatment.

Then again, Clarke has always been a jerk, and a dirty player.

Just ask Kharlamov.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gurn said:

Clarke was a jerk, the team worked around his diabetes when he was a player, but he couldn't do the same as Roger was going through treatment.

Then again, Clarke has always been a jerk, and a dirty player.

Just ask Kharlamov.

 

I can't blame Clarke for 72 due to the politics at the time.  The Russians weren't just opponents, they were the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I can't blame Clarke for 72 due to the politics at the time.  The Russians weren't just opponents, they were the enemy.

Just shows he was a dirty cheater then, and a dirty low character guy with his treatment of Roger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...