| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest6816 |
Posted - 04/27/2010 : 17:47:53
Who is going to win the 2nd round series between the Chicago Blackhawks & the Vancouver Canucks? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| irvine |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 12:17:11
@ Slozo:
I also must point out that, you say
"and just because I predicted the Canucks to make the finals, doesn't mean I don't think that the Hawks were favoured in their series."
Well, if you projected (like many did) Vancouver making it to the finals, you had to of known they'd likely meet Chicago at some point on route to the Finals, versus the Eastern Conf. Champs.
At some point, especially if you feel Chicago is the better team, that Van vs CHI would have met at some point, which of course, they did, how can you still say it doesn't mean Chicago was the favorite.
Either way, whether you fealt CHI was the favorite over VAN or not, you still must have felt that Vancouver would win the series. As, everyone knew they'd meet at some point, (2nd round), if both teams won round 1 as they should have.
Irvine/prez. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 11:20:37
Slozo, I don't agree either. The prognostications were not just fans and hype - hockey analysts and people that report for a living were picking the Canucks to go far as well. In most eyes, a second round exit is a fail for the season.
The fact is that both Vancouver and Chicago are good teams, and had expectations to go beyond the second round this year - unfortunately they both met in that round and as only one team moves on the reality is that one team's season was going to end in failure - it was Vancouver this year. Had we beat Chicago, their fans would be going through the same post-mortem that we are now. Its just the way it goes in the playoffs.
Beans, the fact that we won the division 3 out of 4 years is irrelevant - we just happen to play in a weaker division that Chicago perhaps? Divisions don't matter in the playoffs, conference matchups matter more. We can win the division all we like, but as long as we meet a stronger opponent in the second round we'll still lose.
Had we lost to Chicago in a tight checking well played 7 game series, I might consider this to be less of a failure. As I said, its not so much that we lost to Chicago - they are a very good team and frankly, worthy of losing to. It is the manner in which we were outplayed and our glaring weaknesses exposed all at once (shaky goaltending with traffic, shallow defense, no secondary scoring when needed), and that we could not win at home after compiling the best road record in the regular season. It was these things that really make the season a fail IMO. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 06:01:06
I don't disagree Slozo, however most of us who have discussed this at length have also agreed that Vancouver was the better team 5 on 5 and that the biggest factor invovled in at least 3 of Chicago's wins was Vancouver's undisciplined play, virtually handing the Hawks those wins.
Although I agree completely that Chicago is a very good team on paper, so it Vancouver. One could call the Hawks a favorite as they were the higher seed, these teams were separated by 3 wins and 3 OT loss through the 82 game season. Not a huge margin at all!
In the end, a team that has won the Division 3 out of 4 years SHOULD be able to get out of the 2nd round at least once if not more. Vancouver hasn't. I would agree that against Chicago they were not expected to win and technically they were not bounced early. But I would not call the season a success. |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 04:30:52
So - after round 1, Vancouver beats a very good LA team, and looks great doing so. Chicago gets a similar scare from Nashville and makes the second round.
Both did not exit very early then. Fine.
Then they happen to meet in the second round, and the Chicago Blackhawks are the higher seed with home ice advantage. They are recognised as having earned that advantage.
Despite prognosticators like myself that had projected the Canucks into the finals (past "better" line-ups like San Jose and Chicago), they lost to the Hawks.
Did the Hawks upset the Canucks? No, that cannot be said - they are a very, very talented team that is easily one of the top 5 contenders for the cup, and were the slightly better team during the regular season, hence their home ice advantage. So no, the Hawks certainly weren't an upset.
If the Hawks weren't an upset . . . how could Vancouver bow out early? This suggests they lost to an inferior team - which they didn't (when I say "inferior", I mean on paper, perception-wise). You can't have it both ways . . . either Vancouver loses to an inferior team and bows out early - or, they lose to a superior team and unfortunately couldn't pull it off this year.
I think that's the way Canuck fans have to look at it.
And btw, you can't go by fan hopes and dreams as realistic expectations . . . and just because I predicted the Canucks to make the finals, doesn't mean I don't think that the Hawks were favoured in their series.
The playoffs is a guessing game, after all.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 01:12:54
Beans, while i clearly agree that we "bowed out early", i don't put a lot into "div winner". All that really does is supposedly give you a better seed, which, for the record, we took advantage of, and won our first round match-up. I fully agree that the statement is true more to the fact that the expectations of success were rampant here in Vancouver.
Irv....I was the one who brought up the similarities in Chi's and Van's stats (wins, gf, ga, etc) and after further looking, it's clear, Chi was the better team. Maybe the expectations were simply too high here? While only 3 wins in regulation separated them, there was also 6 more regulation losses by Van as well. This means Chi got a few more points from OTL's but that means they were "in" that more games than the Nucks. I'm certainly not here to say that losing round 2 was not bowing out early as i totally agree, with the expections around the Canucks, nothing short of the conference finals was acceptable!
As for the Luongo comments, true, he wasn't able to steal a series though i would say he was better as the first round series progressed and he was a huge factor in them eliminating a stubborn LA squad. Tell me this though, is Niemi stealing series? I would say not. It wasn't Niemi who i'd credit with the series MVP vs Vancouver even though he did play a huge part. Chicago was simply too deep and playing too well.
|
| irvine |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 17:05:06
@ Slozo:
I consider bowing out in the second round early, for Vancouver, simply because many (including you, if I recall correctly... I could be wrong), talking of them going all the way to the finals, if not the winning the Cup.
If they are expected by many to make the Finals, and they bow out in the second round, to me that's a very early exit.
The Canucks have won their division 3 of the past 4 years. They were near Chicago in GA/GF during the regular season. Infact, all stats were similar between the two teams. 3 Win seperation, doesn't speak one team better than the other to me. Equals, in my opinion.
For a team, rated as highly as the Canucks were going in, by many hockey professionals and forum members, exiting in Round 2 is early.
That's all I was saying, or referencing. I was more pointing to that, Luongo did not step up his game. And, I had seen that coming. I'm not trying to brag, believe me. I only do that to family members, and when money is involved. lol.
I just knew, Luongo could not step it up and steal a series. Which, he didn't.
Did he play horrible? Nope, not at all. But, did he step it up and shut down a team, to steal a few for his club? Certainly did not. In fact, he almost crumbled when the pressure of Byfuglien was added in front of the net. He looked lost. Like, he had no clue how to generate some space for him self, to see the puck.
Now, mind you. This will happen to any goalie. But, when it's night in, night out. You need to create some space your self. Any way you can. The D failed him there too, though. And, hence why were speaking of another shutdown D in VANCity.
Irvine/prez. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 11:01:51
What do you call a team that wins their division for 3 of the past 4 seasons and can't get out of the 2nd round of the playoffs??
Absolutely Vancouver bowed out early as they were touted to be a Finalist in the West or even the Cup!!
I do remember I picked Vancouver over LA but I don't recall bragging out it. I was wrong. What I was saying is that I knew Vancouver would NOT get to the West Finals as they simply are not a good enough team to win in the playoffs. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 10:54:18
quote:
Irv / nuxfan, the only problem i see with Volchenkov, at least as far at the Canucks "needs" are, is the lack of offensive production he brings to the table. Don't get me wrong, i'd love to have a serious shut down guy like him especially to replace / upgrade on Mitchell but at 5mil a year? I dunno, that's steep for a guy who doesn't contribute much at all at the other end of the ice. You start paying 5+ mil to a dman and i'd like to think you'd get a guy who puts up a few more points and / or contributes to the pp a bit? Then again, maybe that's what the going rate is for a top defensive dman?
Yes, agreed - Volchenkov would be a straight replacement for Mitchell, who has filled that shutdown/stay-at-home role for the last 3 years. I don't see him being an offensive threat. I see him playing 25-30 minutes a night on the PK and even strength against the opposing team top line. If I get 10 points from him in a year thats a bonus.
I think the going rate for that role is 4-4.5/year. We had Mitchell at 3.5, but he was probably going to get a raise. Volchenkov might be on the high side @ 5m/year, but thats his agent talking - we'll see what he gets on the market. I don't have time to research the pay for those sorts of defensemen - some names that come to mind are Reghyr, Staios, Barret Jackman, Scuderi, Komisarek, Gill.
Irvine, you are right that he flies under the radar a bit, but defensive defensemen usually do. It would be bad for Ottawa to lose him, but they've already hinted that they cannot sign him at 5M/year on a multi-year deal, so I suspect he's as good as gone.
quote:
nuxfan, did you mean 20-30 GOALS from Burrows and not points? If you meant points, your expectations are extremely low even if he were to be on the 3rd line! I still see him as a 20-25 goal guy without playing with the twins. Keep in mind, he scored 35 this year and 28 last year with just 4 of them (all this year) being on the pp. This guy scores 5 on 5 and has done it not just with the Sedin's although obviously a few more with them than not.
Yep, I meant 20-30 points, not goals. I don't have a lot of expectations from Burrows offensively, and his offensive output is night and day with the Sedin's vs without. You're right, he gets most of his points even strength or SH, but he gets almost all of them off Sedin passes - which is the way it goes for most players that play with them. I have no official stats to back that up, just what I see in regular play - if you have stats that show details of how he scored, I'd love to see them.
I think last year was an exceptional year for him, and if he plays regularly on a non-Sedin line next year we'll see 10-15 goals.
quote:
Bowing out in the second round is not "bowing out early", in my mind.
Slozo, as Alex pointed out, expectations were high this year for Vancouver, and another second round loss was not considered a step forward. Chicago proved to be the better team, and I think most hockey people had picked them to go to the cup. It was perhaps not that we lost to Chicago, but the manner in which we lost that makes the end of the season a disappointment. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 10:09:34
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Great comments all around but here's the thing Irvine - you stated some things very well, but here is where I disagree:
Bowing out in the second round is not "bowing out early", in my mind. It may be bowing out early when you are the 1st or second seed (see: New Jersey and Washington), but when Vancouver is playing (albeit on home ice) against a very highly rated Kings team and wins that round, then goes up against the higher seed, the third best team in the regular season, and takes them to 6 games . . . you can't call that "bowing out early".
Because as Beans pointed out - we have to temper our prognosis with what the expectations were to begin with.
My question to you, Beans - you bragged about correctly predicting Vancouver's early demise . . . but you failed to mention what your prediction was against LA? IF you had been right about LA winning, yes - THAT would have been bowing out early, IMHO. And Irvine - how is bowing out against Chicago "early"?
I did think Vancouver had a great chance at the final this year, but Luongo didn't step up; Willie Mitchell out really hurt, and other injuries to defence hurt; and Niemi, Toews and Byfuglien and the rest of the Hawks played very well. Not much more to say than that.
So no, I don't see this as a year where the Canucks bowed out early.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
<----------(brings the Canuck bandwagon to a screeching halt) "nuxfan, get the door"
(nuxfan opens the door yelling:) "SLOZO! C'mon aboard!!! Welcome!!!
All kidding aside, Slozo, i agree somewhat with what you say as in reality, the higher seed SHOULD go through most of the time. However, in Canuckland, or anywhere for that matter, when it's a seed that's not miles ahead of you (3 reg wins) and your GF/GA are similar, it's expected that you win some of those. Problem for us Canuckleheads is that it's been so long since we made the leap to the third round that expectations become higher. The Canucks can't expect a lower seed (Nash) to take out the Hawks for them like what happened for some teams in the east, they/we have to get better to the point that we can do it ourselves!!!
The home ice losses were like salt in the wound! Expectations were so high around here, especially after winning easily in game 1 and ALMOST winning game 2 as well that the collapse at home was twice as hard to take. It goes to show you how quick a series can change. Had we won game 2, who knows what would have happened?
Bottome line is this, if "we have to temper our prognosis with what the expectations were to begin with", then around here, we definitely "bowed out early"! Trust me, many Canucks fans EXPECTED" to win the cup this season! Me, i would have been satisfied in beating Chicago and losing to SJ, a team we always struggle with and taking that step into the conference final. Didn't happen, so be it........ I'll "EXPECT" it next year i suppose?
|
| n/a |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 08:35:14
Great comments all around but here's the thing Irvine - you stated some things very well, but here is where I disagree:
Bowing out in the second round is not "bowing out early", in my mind. It may be bowing out early when you are the 1st or second seed (see: New Jersey and Washington), but when Vancouver is playing (albeit on home ice) against a very highly rated Kings team and wins that round, then goes up against the higher seed, the third best team in the regular season, and takes them to 6 games . . . you can't call that "bowing out early".
Because as Beans pointed out - we have to temper our prognosis with what the expectations were to begin with.
My question to you, Beans - you bragged about correctly predicting Vancouver's early demise . . . but you failed to mention what your prediction was against LA? IF you had been right about LA winning, yes - THAT would have been bowing out early, IMHO. And Irvine - how is bowing out against Chicago "early"?
I did think Vancouver had a great chance at the final this year, but Luongo didn't step up; Willie Mitchell out really hurt, and other injuries to defence hurt; and Niemi, Toews and Byfuglien and the rest of the Hawks played very well. Not much more to say than that.
So no, I don't see this as a year where the Canucks bowed out early.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 07:17:40
Irv / nuxfan, the only problem i see with Volchenkov, at least as far at the Canucks "needs" are, is the lack of offensive production he brings to the table. Don't get me wrong, i'd love to have a serious shut down guy like him especially to replace / upgrade on Mitchell but at 5mil a year? I dunno, that's steep for a guy who doesn't contribute much at all at the other end of the ice. You start paying 5+ mil to a dman and i'd like to think you'd get a guy who puts up a few more points and / or contributes to the pp a bit? Then again, maybe that's what the going rate is for a top defensive dman?
nuxfan, did you mean 20-30 GOALS from Burrows and not points? If you meant points, your expectations are extremely low even if he were to be on the 3rd line! I still see him as a 20-25 goal guy without playing with the twins. Keep in mind, he scored 35 this year and 28 last year with just 4 of them (all this year) being on the pp. This guy scores 5 on 5 and has done it not just with the Sedin's although obviously a few more with them than not.
|
| irvine |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 04:27:34
Well, as an Ottawa Senators fan I certainly hope we do not lose Volchenkov.
Volchenkov to me, is one of the more underrated defensemen in the league. He gets very little to no recognition on hockey forums, sports websites, or the league. Mainly, because he does not put up points.
To me, that's fine. He's a defensive defensemen first and foremost.
Great shot blocker (top 10 in the league, year after year for the past 3-5), superb on the Penalty Kill, can eat up a ton of time, hard nosed, physical player.
You get your monies worth, with Volchenkov. He's not going to QB your PP, set up plays, or score you goals. But he's going to be highly consistent and shut down the other teams top line, night in and night out. (For the most part, can't all the time. Of course.)
But, for the Sens to lose Volchenkov, would be a huge hit to the team. He is our defensive core.
--
As for Burrow's staying, I agree. I was more or less just suggesting that, without playing on a line with the Sedin's, no one should expect similar output of production from him, as this season. (And, I'm guessing no one does.)
Samuelsson, I don't figure would fetch enough to be trade worthy anyways. He'll produce more for your team, that he'd fetch in a trade. Better keeping him anyways. I don't see him gaining you a whole lot, but keeping him, you could see a 20-25 goal season from him, more if playing line 1 with Henrik & Daniel.
Irvine/prez. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 00:01:10
Alex - agreed, Burrows is going nowhere. At 2M/year, I only expect 20-30 pts from him on the 2nd or 3rd line. His real strengths are PK and agitation, which he still does very well. I still wonder if he was injured during the playoffs, however this is the second year in a row where he hasn't really done much after the regular season ends. Keep him with Kesler, or put him on what would be a pretty nice 3rd line with Hansen and Johnson, or something like that.
Irvine - Kesler and Samuelsson are definitely staying. They've committed to Kesler as their 2nd line centre and he's a good fit there. He has chemistry with Burrows as you say (together they make one of the best PK duo out there), and something tells me he'll be a mainstay with Kesler at even strength. Samuelsson turned out to be an awesome pickup by Gillis - good shooter for the Sedins, strong on the puck. Had a very good playoffs despite the early exit, I think perhaps more than others thought he would. At 2.5/year for 2 more years, he's staying.
As for dmen - Foster is an interesting one, and would be a definite upgrade offensively speaking from anyone we currently have. He's had some bad luck, but returned with a vengence this year (he was up for the comeback kid trophy this year). He has some size and some skills. As I said before, I really think they'll make a run at Volchenkov - word is he's looking for 5M/year over several years. Mitchell was at 3.5, and I think you get an upgrade with Volchenkov - he's big and mean and plays big minutes.
There are a ton of other UFA defencemen out there, and the Canucks will have some money to spend. Paul Martin, Derek Morris, Toni Lydman, Joe Corvo, Dan Hamhuis, Jordan Leopold, Milan Jurcina, Andreas Lilja are a few that stood out. You also have to wonder about Scott Niedermayer or Sergei Gonchar - yes, on the downside of their careers, but still capable of playing big responsible minutes (and mentoring the younger team members). |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 23:28:08
Irv, i agree with most of what you say but i really don't think Burrows is going anywhere. He def won't get near to 35 goals without the twins but he and Kesler have had chemistry in the past and he could see time on the second unit. Myself, i don't think they lack secondary scoring as much as they lacked it when they needed it most (if that makes sense?). Kesler had his best year as a pro and didn't play first line mins or with the twins. He's a great anchor on that second unit. If they can find a guy to mesh with him and maybe Burrows, they'd be good. Obviously, Demitra wasn't the answer  .
Even if Burrows is dropped down to the 3rd line, at the price they have him, i don't think he'll be going anywhere.
The talk around town is the Canucks going after Kurtis Foster from the Lightning? He just finished playing on a one year deal following a brutal leg injury (broken femur which required surgery) and put up 42 points in 71 games. He's 6'5" and 225lbs and makes me think the Canucks are beginning their search of a body to play agains Byfuglien. I don't know a ton about him but he has yet to play a full season having only avg'd 57 games in three seasons with Minny (not including the season where he played 10 games before his leg injury). Are these other abbreviated seasons due to injury as well? I don't know?
While Foster might be a nice piece and a role player, they still need to upgrade the back end. If Mitchell is in fact done as a player and / or a Canuck and if Bieksa doesn't take a huge next step then they still need more. Salo, unfortunately, is prob here for another year until his contract is done and i don't expect any more from him than we've seen.
Question is, what defenceman is out there (available or maybe available without selling the farm) who may help the Canucks? |
| irvine |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 22:58:47
Nice post nuxfan.
I agree with you that, perhaps Vancouver need to change their secondary scoring around some. Let's face it, most of the secondary scoring did so, while playing with the Sedin's on the top line. Or, with Henrik, during Daniel's injury.
Without the Sedin's, their secondary scoring is almost nullified. With the exception of Kesler, and some from others, but near the level of Samuelsson and Burrows, during their top line minutes.
To me, Burrows is not capable of producing near the level he did this season, while playing second line, or third line minutes and with those linemates. He needs the Sedin's, sadly, the Sedin's don't need him. (well, sadly for Burrows.)
Burrows to me, is an expendable guy. He does not make or break any aspect of the team game, even the agitation.
Kesler is a guy you keep. Good second line Center. Great for the PK.
Samuelsson, well, I'd keep him around too. Samuelsson can produce some, goal scoring wise. Good for secondary scoring.
Defense -- Indeed Beans. Nail on the head here. They need an offensive threat back there. Salo, is a mix of defense and offense. But, does not really shine at either. He's just well rounded. Ehroff, isn't proven enough yet. He still needs some time, and will never be a top offensive d-man.
They could also stand to upgrade guys like O'brien. They need another shutdown D-man too. A big, physical guy, that does not play dumb, take penalty style of hockey.
Irvine/prez. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 21:19:37
quote:
I don't think secondary scoring is the issue at all. Sure, the 2nd line players did not step up, but they are more than capable.
Yeah, I know - that is the issue.
We were missing secondary scoring when we needed it the most. Vancouver fans know that the Sedins are going to be heavily defended during the playoffs, and they lose their effectiveness when they are unable to cycle and freewheel. They are not strong enough to physically fight off strong defenders, and don't play that sort of game anyway.
So, with that in mind, we need the secondary guys to step up. Burrows was absent. Kesler was absent (offensively; he was his usual awesome defensively). Demitra was absent. When the Hawks were all over the Sedin's and Samuelsson, they absolutely had to step up and did not.
The Canucks need real secondary scoring threats, so that when the Sedin's get covered well - and Chicago did a great job on them - others can chip in. Demitra is obviously gone next season. Burrows will still be around, but I have to say, he cannot be a regular-season-only performer. Kesler and Samuelsson will of course be back, but they need better players around them to succeed.
I agree of course that defense will need an upgrade. I think you sell Erhoff short, he is effective but needs to play his size more. Edler stepped it up this year, and at only 23 years old his best years are to come - he will be awesome, and I would guess that the Canucks are hoping he'll mature into that role. I think one of Bieksa/Salo will be gone next year to free up some cap room to sign another solid puck mover. And Mitchell is likely gone - I hope we pursue Volchenkov in his place.
quote:
Nuxfan, the prob with following the Chicago blueprint is that it's not easy to get a Toews/Kane type player, nevermind 2, without sucking for a few years AND drafting well! By the time these guys are at the age where you can aquire one realistically through trade, they're making a fortune!
I know, its likely not possible for the Canucks. They will never suck that badly, and therefore will not have high draft picks two years in a row - they will have to draft smart and trade well, or spend money on UFA's. Still, I think its the model that will be proven to succeed more often than not. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 14:16:31
I agree mostly with Beans here that the D is the main issue. I, personally, have no problem with AV.
Ehrhoff is good and had an excellent season, but we need more than that.
Nuxfan, the prob with following the Chicago blueprint is that it's not easy to get a Toews/Kane type player, nevermind 2, without sucking for a few years AND drafting well! By the time these guys are at the age where you can aquire one realistically through trade, they're making a fortune! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 13:43:27
I don't think secondary scoring is the issue at all. Sure, the 2nd line players did not step up, but they are more than capable.
The issue that Vancouver needs to solve is on defense.
Tell me any of the current final 4 teams that do not have at least on elite offensive/puck moving defensemen among their ranks?? Some have more than 1.
Who is Vancouver's?? Erhoff?? Granted I really like that guy, but he is not a go to player. They need a Kaberle, Green, Keith, Markov, Pronger, Boyle type player.
That is the missing link along with coaching. I can stand Vignault and I think he is unbelievably over rated. The teams lack of discipline in literally the past 2 seasons and 2 playoffs should be enough to move him out.
Vancouver will never win with Vignault at the Coach. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 12:06:42
Irvine:
quote:
Well, before the series began (in fact, before the playoffs began I believe) I posted about the Canucks dropping out of the playoffs, sooner rather than later.
I went as far as to list a couple of teams, including Chicago, that would be the ones to defeat them. It happened.
I also said that, to me, Luongo is not the type of goalie (yet anyways), that could steal a couple of games, or a series. And, here we are.
Luongo failed the Canucks during these playoffs. But, so did many others. Including Burrows. Who took some terrible penalties. But the list goes on.
I don't recall being the only one, who felt this way before the playoffs. I recall Beans agreeing, and being on board about the Canucks dropping out, and Luongo too. But, many people, said we were basically nuts...
Irvine, I agree - I even went as far as to start a thread regarding the reason that the Canucks would bow out early, with many different scapegoats options. In the end, I'd have to say it was a combination of 3:
- shaky Luongo - that series was not his best by far, and he was very jekyll and hyde
- no scoring depth
- mitchell-less defense (and salo-less and depth-less)
quote:
The Canucks are a team that do well during the regular season, win round 1 against the low seed (5/6/7/8), then bow out in the second round, when the competion gets tough. The reasons to me are still unclear, but I believe it's a little to do with discipline and perhaps, Luongo just not being able to carry the team.
I've stopped thinking that Luongo can carry this team single-handedly - nor do I think that he should be expected to do so. When we first got him we expected that of him, because we played a defensive style and didn't have a lot of scoring - but that has changed, and our team mentality should change with it. He is a very good goaltender, and one I'm glad that we have for the rest of his career, we could do much worse. However, we have to build a reliable and tough team around him as well. Luongo is paid well , but has a very reasonable cap hit of 5.25/year, giving Gillis lots of ability to field a better team in front of him.
Chicago should be a prototype for the type of team that Gillis should build - a few fast elite scorers (Kate/Toews/Hossa) surrounded by a few moderately priced depth players (Sharp/Byfuglien/Bolland), surrounded by 4-5 very solid checking/grinding players (Eager/Burish/etc). Add to that a bigger/grinding defense and a reliable goalie, and you will have success.
Vancouver has a few of those pieces in place now: scorers in Sedin's and Kesler, a few of the depth players in Samuelsson/Raymond/Burrows, and a few of the grinders in Hansen/Rypien/Hordichuk, and a reliable goalie in Luongo. The lack of defensive depth and strength was exposed by Chicago, and needs to be rectified. They also exposed our lack of scoring depth - they shut down the Sedins and all the secondary scoring went away with it.
Should be a busy offseason for Gillis. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 11:53:50
Beans:
quote:
OK, Nuxfan, like it or not, agree with it or not, Luongo has NEVER stepped up when it matter.
Don't tell me anything about the Olympics. Anyone who says that Luongo was the reason the Canadian's won the Gold was watching a completely different sport. He was average and that is not only my opinion but the opinion of most people.
I don't think anyone is saying Luongo was the reason that we won gold. However, he did win gold, and was good enough when it mattered, in the most pressure filled game of his (and likely everyone on the team) career. If you can't give credit for that, then I don't know what else to say. I would give credit to any goalie that backstopped a Canadian team to a gold medal, regardless of the team in front of them - simply because so many other goalies have not with similarly skilled teams in front of them.
quote:
A goal/team does not have to win for the team to be successful. However, it has to be relative. A team who has won the NW Division for 3 of the past 4 years but has not been past the 2nd round is not a success. A team that finished 8th and made it to the Cup final is a success.
Agreed - the team is a success. My point was that a goalie is simply one member of a team, and in order to win the cup - win 16 games in 4 rounds against 4 teams - the TEAM must be good. I'll grant you that most Stanley Cup winners since I can remember have had great goaltending, but they also had great teams that were able to bail out occasional bad goaltending as well. The goalie can be spectacular, but there is no way that a goalie is going to single-handedly win you 16 games over 4 rounds.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the 2010 Canucks season is a success - I was pretty open very early on that anything less than the conference finals was going to be viewed as a failure, and the way that they lost to Chicago just punctuates that. Was the failure solely due to Luongo having a bad series? Was it even the main reason? I'm sure we'll have a long summer of speculation to answer that question.
quote:
Bottom line, he has never proved that HE steps up when it counts. In fact, I would say more often than not he has his worst games when the most is on the line.
I believe that he has had both his best and worst moments when it mattered most.
Best:
- round 1 vs LA, where he stepped up with the series tied 2-2 and all things looking downhill. If he doesn't play like he did, Vancouver goes out in round 1
- round 1 vs Dallas in 2007. Game 1 with quad OT and 75-ish shots faced, in game 7 he was unconscious and won that game single-handedly against a very tight Dallas team. If he doesn't play like that, Vancouver goes out in round 1
- round 2 vs Anaheim in 2007, game 6. Although he lost that game in OT, it is regarded (at least in Vancouver) as one of his best performances as a professional ever.
- backstopping Canada to gold in 2010
Worst:
- 2009 playoffs vs Chicago, game 6. Obviously one of his worst outings ever, and was playoff ender
- 2010 playoffs vs Chicago, games 3/4/6 - all home games, all bad outings. Game 6 is playoff ending.
|
| Guest6816 |
Posted - 05/17/2010 : 19:48:10
Beans on that list only 1 of the goalkeepers has done well in the playoffs. Kipper can't stay stable for 1 roun without colapsing. But Lu did forget to show up in that series. |
| irvine |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 18:04:48
Well, before the series began (in fact, before the playoffs began I believe) I posted about the Canucks dropping out of the playoffs, sooner rather than later.
I went as far as to list a couple of teams, including Chicago, that would be the ones to defeat them. It happened.
I also said that, to me, Luongo is not the type of goalie (yet anyways), that could steal a couple of games, or a series. And, here we are.
Luongo failed the Canucks during these playoffs. But, so did many others. Including Burrows. Who took some terrible penalties. But the list goes on.
I don't recall being the only one, who felt this way before the playoffs. I recall Beans agreeing, and being on board about the Canucks dropping out, and Luongo too. But, many people, said we were basically nuts...
The Canucks are a team that do well during the regular season, win round 1 against the low seed (5/6/7/8), then bow out in the second round, when the competion gets tough. The reasons to me are still unclear, but I believe it's a little to do with discipline and perhaps, Luongo just not being able to carry the team.
Irvine/prez. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/14/2010 : 18:29:47
OK, Nuxfan, like it or not, agree with it or not, Luongo has NEVER stepped up when it matter.
Don't tell me anything about the Olympics. Anyone who says that Luongo was the reason the Canadian's won the Gold was watching a completely different sport. He was average and that is not only my opinion but the opinion of most people.
Finally, you want to look at some goalies that were vital to their teams success in the playoffs and one could argue quite confidently that they were the key to the team's success::
Roloson
Ward
Khabibulin
Kipprussof
Barrasso
Richter
Broduer
Belfour
Roy
Vernon
Fuhr
Smith
Hasek
Giguere
Should I keep going??
That's just off the top of my head since 1980. A goal/team does not have to win for the team to be successful. However, it has to be relative. A team who has won the NW Division for 3 of the past 4 years but has not been past the 2nd round is not a success. A team that finished 8th and made it to the Cup final is a success.
Maybe the Luongo has not heart statement was a little harsh, but if you look at my historic posts, I have defended Luongo many times.
Bottom line, he has never proved that HE steps up when it counts. In fact, I would say more often than not he has his worst games when the most is on the line.
The GOAT's always have their best games when the most is on the line. |
| Guest4988 |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 19:12:33
I have been reading the various comments about why Vancouver lost, but there have only been a few actually giving Chicago any credit for the series win. The Hawks have now beaten the Canucks in two straight playoff years because, quite simply, they are a better team !! They have more depth up front with three solid lines and a serviceable 4th line. On defence, the Canucks have nobody that can compare to Keith & Seabrook, plus Hjalmarsson is very under-rated. Campbell, even though still somewhat hurt, played fine, Sopel was again solid, especially in blocking shots and on PK and Hendry was serviceable as the 6th man. I know Vancouver had some injuries on D, but even if Mitchell was there ( and I think he's a solid defensive D-man), he doesn't play the same overall game as Keith & Seabrook. Remember that Mitchell played last year and Chicago won. In goal, for a rookie, Antii Niemi has been doing just fine. I know he allowed a few weak ones, but he also kept them in games quite often and outplayed Luongo overall. Roberto is a great goalie, but I think the team in front of him is not as good as some people think. I predict that they beat San Jose in 6 games too; they beat them 3-1 in the season series this year. It's time a few more Canuck fans to just admit that Chicago is a better team than Vancouver and give credit where credit is due. GO HAWKS GO !!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 15:55:36
quote:
Couldn't disagree with this more. How about Roy in 93 for the Canadiens. He was not only the BIGGEST reason, some would argue that he was the only reason. Or more recently Ward with Carolina. He was clearly the single BIGGEST reason. Or how about now with Halak. He single handedly slayed the two biggest giants in the East (yes still two rounds to go)
The only example I have that would come close to what I'm referring to would be the 2003 western conference finals between Anaheim and Minnesota, where Giguere allowed 1 goal over 4 games. Anaheim won that series while only scoring 9 goals, which is unreal - you don't win 4 games with 9 goals unless your goalie is singlehandedly winning your games.
The goalies you mention are all good goalies, all important to their teams for their respective runs - jury still out on Halak, we'll see how far they get. But THE DIFFERENCE maker in EVERY game won of EVERY round in the playoffs for their respective years? No. It has never been done IMO, and never will be. You need more than a hot goalie to win 4 games in 4 rounds in the playoffs. All the teams you mention had hot goalies, but had complete teams as well.
|
| leigh |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 15:04:42
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
.........Do you really think that the Canuck braintrust would sign him to a lifetime deal if they didn't think he had the heart to compete? There's a whole front-office of hockey professionals that collectively made the decision to give him the biggest contract in Canuck history and marry themselves to him for the rest of his career. Further, I suspect they're not alone as hockey teams go that would have been lining up to do the same thing - your Oilers included. I'm quite sure that his heart and desire are not under question in Vancouver. However, the distractions of being captain and the team that plays in front of him are.
I couldn't agree more with this.
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
....can you tell me when was the last time that a goalie was the single biggest difference in every game of 4 consecutive rounds of playoff hockey enroute to being Stanley Cup champs? Never?.....
Couldn't disagree with this more. How about Roy in 93 for the Canadiens. He was not only the BIGGEST reason, some would argue that he was the only reason. Or more recently Ward with Carolina. He was clearly the single BIGGEST reason. Or how about now with Halak. He single handedly slayed the two biggest giants in the East (yes still two rounds to go)
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 14:46:53
Beans, here's my take, FWIW............
First off, i DO believe Luongo can win the big one and i believe he proved that at the Olympics. I agree he didn't need to be brilliant but he did have to "win the big one" with the pressure of the nation as well as many of his hometown (Vancouver) fans in attendance. While he wasn't asked to be brilliant, he did make saves that we will never know if the goalies you named would have made? Fleury certainly didn't last night? My opinion is that he played well enough to win some games and well enough to keep his team in others and give them a chance to win. There were not many goals that you could look at and say "Luongo should have stopped that" as it was a terrible goal. That's all you can ask for in a goalie. Look at something else, that being Montreal. Halak is playing out of this world! BUT, would they be where they are if Gill, Gorges, Cammalleri, etc hadn't picked up their games? Not a chance in hell! The Canucks needed some secondary scoring and a couple of dmen to step their games up. The skaters are as much or more to blame than Luuuuuu.
Secondly, i'm a little surprised at your comments about him not having the heart to win (or desire). That's absurd. This guy was in tears last year when we lost in Chicago! Crying! From everything i've seen, heard, read, etc about Luongo, i'd venture to guess he wants to win more than ANY other player on that roster! Seriously, i know it's your opinion and you're entitled to that, but i couldn't disagree more.
Funny, i'm always sticking up for Luongo (well, most of the time) and yet i'm not even a huge fan myself. I do still consider him a top 5 goalie in the league when he's on his game and i have no prob with the contract the team gave him, but i just don't like some of his actions and some of the things he says. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 13:49:55
quote:
Broduer stopped the shots as well. The issue was Brodeur decided he would showcase to the world that he can handle the puck and he turned it over to the Americans, handed them the lead, and that was the end of his time.
It's all speculation, however I can confidently say that any of Canada's 'elite' goalies (Mason, Fleury, Mason, Roloson, Ward, Giguere) would have and could have done what Luongo did in those 4ish games. He just had to stop the pucks he is supposed to stop. He was not asked to be brilliant like Miller or Halak were in the Olympics.
Don't put credit where credit is not due. Luongo did performance to the standard he was expected to, but was far from brilliant and far from an deciding factor in the medals.
Canada's goaltending elite included Brodeur - Brodeur was not asked to be brilliant either, simply to play his game. Except for a shootout against Switzerland, his game was not good enough.
Beans, you have no idea what other goalies might or might not have done in that situation - no one does, the Olympics is a spectacle of game7 situations every time they play, and anything can happen. What we DO know is what Luongo did in that situation, and that was not lose. So, why don't you put credit where credit IS due? After Luongo went into the net, Canada didn't lose another game enroute to a gold medal - he performed as expected.
quote:
He was, however, expected to be brilliant for the Canucks and simply wasn't. And it's not the C on his chest but that blood pump inside of his chest. He can talk all he wants, but I don't belive he has the heart to win. Unlike other players, I don't believe he would give everything to win. He doesn't have it in his character. Messier would die to win. Yzerman would die to win. Luongo, does it really matter to him if he wins or not??
Jeez...I know you're a Canuck-hater, but really? Do you really think that the Canuck braintrust would sign him to a lifetime deal if they didn't think he had the heart to compete? There's a whole front-office of hockey professionals that collectively made the decision to give him the biggest contract in Canuck history and marry themselves to him for the rest of his career. Further, I suspect they're not alone as hockey teams go that would have been lining up to do the same thing - your Oilers included. I'm quite sure that his heart and desire are not under question in Vancouver. However, the distractions of being captain and the team that plays in front of him are.
Unlike forwards, that can make a positive difference in a game (ie, scoring goals), the job of the goalie is to minimize the negative differences. Beans, can you tell me when was the last time that a goalie was the single biggest difference in every game of 4 consecutive rounds of playoff hockey enroute to being Stanley Cup champs? Never? Thats right - because it takes a team to win a cup. Sometimes your goalie has to come up big for you (like games 5/6 of the LA series, and game 1 and 5 of the Chicago series, when Luongo was brilliant). But your goalie simply cannot do that every night, and should not be counted on to do that every night - it's inhuman. The Canucks playing in front of Luongo gave up too many PP's and 2-on-1's to an offensively-gifted team, and didn't move enough Chicago bodies out of the way to win over the length of the series, and didn't score enough goals. And they lost. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 12:52:44
Broduer stopped the shots as well. The issue was Brodeur decided he would showcase to the world that he can handle the puck and he turned it over to the Americans, handed them the lead, and that was the end of his time.
It's all speculation, however I can confidently say that any of Canada's 'elite' goalies (Mason, Fleury, Mason, Roloson, Ward, Giguere) would have and could have done what Luongo did in those 4ish games. He just had to stop the pucks he is supposed to stop. He was not asked to be brilliant like Miller or Halak were in the Olympics.
Don't put credit where credit is not due. Luongo did performance to the standard he was expected to, but was far from brilliant and far from an deciding factor in the medals.
He was, however, expected to be brilliant for the Canucks and simply wasn't. And it's not the C on his chest but that blood pump inside of his chest. He can talk all he wants, but I don't belive he has the heart to win. Unlike other players, I don't believe he would give everything to win. He doesn't have it in his character. Messier would die to win. Yzerman would die to win. Luongo, does it really matter to him if he wins or not?? |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 12:08:27
quote:
What did Luongo prove at the Olympics?? There was not a single game that one can say Canada would have lost if not for Luongo. He played average, at best. He did nothing spectacular to win the Gold. It was the skaters ahead of him that won the game.
That being said, he also did not lose the game. Nor do I think he lost any of the playoff games. Many of the goals scored on him were 2 on 1's, breakaways, or screened PP goals. I don't recall very many, if any, weak goals that one could pin on Luongo.
However, what would have could have been the difference in Vancouver if they had a Doughty/Keith/Neidermayer/Lidstrom/Green type player on the blue line and a Dwayne Roloson type goalie??
Are the better or worse off?? I personally say better.
In the Olympics, Luongo did what Brodeur did not - stopped shots and won games. You can argue all you like about "he had a great team in front of him" or "he didn't get challenged" all you like. Brodeur and Luongo had the same teams in front of them, and only one was able to win games.
Good goalies can have bad stretches, and mediocre goalies can have hot streaks. No goalie is good enough to steal series after series with such a decimated team in front of them.
As for a solid dman, we normally have one - Mitchell. Granted, not as complete as the ones you mention above (esp in the offensive department), but a very steady stay-at-home blueliner, and the Canucks #1 shutdown dman. The Canucks were never the same team after he went down - inconsistent, lots of blowout games, and ultimately not the playoff team that could have been. You just can't remove a defensive presence like him (25-30 minutes a game, #1 PK dman, plays against top forwards), and expect the rest of your corps to be able to fill in long term.
I suspected that Mitchell's absence would be felt in the playoffs (it was one of my "why will the canucks fail this year" options) - and was initially relieved when Edler seemed to step up his game. But ultimately, he could not sustain it, and no one could fill that hole well enough.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 11:51:06
What did Luongo prove at the Olympics?? There was not a single game that one can say Canada would have lost if not for Luongo. He played average, at best. He did nothing spectacular to win the Gold. It was the skaters ahead of him that won the game.
That being said, he also did not lose the game. Nor do I think he lost any of the playoff games. Many of the goals scored on him were 2 on 1's, breakaways, or screened PP goals. I don't recall very many, if any, weak goals that one could pin on Luongo.
However, what would have could have been the difference in Vancouver if they had a Doughty/Keith/Neidermayer/Lidstrom/Green type player on the blue line and a Dwayne Roloson type goalie??
Are the better or worse off?? I personally say better. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 08:45:39
Beans, i agree with you somewhat regarding the goaltending but at 5.5 for a guy like Luongo, i'm happy. Personally, i don't think he "can't" win the big one. He proved it at the Olympics and while some wanna claim "he was on the best team in the world", fine, but he played against some of the best as well. It was not a walk in the park.
The defense obviously has to improve and that to me is the biggest issue. THAT is the part that bugs me the most because it's exactly what they said last year after we lost. The d needed work!
Having a mediocre goalie and a stud or two on d works for some, but c'mon, look at what we've had here over the years! Vancouver has become known as the "goalie graveyard" for a reason! We had guys like Richard Brodeur in '82 and Kirk Maclean in '94 go on magical runs but they were playing far above their regular season level. Did they do this every year? Not necessarily. Will Halak have a mediocre season next year then catch fire in the playoffs again? Maybe, maybe not? He's not guaranteed to be a "playoff performer".
At 5.5mil cap hit, i'm willing to give Luongo a few more chances, but maybe that's because i don't put the blame on him and in fact i don't think he played all that bad. He's got some learning to do and i hope that he voluntariliy gives up the C (cuz i don't think Gillis or AV will strip it from him) and they put it on Kesler's sweater (not just for you either Beans ) and he can focus on being a goalie and not having the distractions of the captaincy.
Finally, and i think i've said this before, it's the salary cap era. There are a few exceptions but for the most part, teams have to suck (or perhaps luck out with some later round steals that pan out) for a few years before they can stockpile enough young (and affordable) talent to compete. It's exactly what the Blackhawks blueprint shows! You don't just wake up with Toews, Kane, Seabrook and guys like that on your roster after winning multiple cups! You have to struggle for a few years and get the high picks. You guys aren't getting Hall or Seguin because you did well.
I hold out hope that Hodgson back is ok and he becomes the player he looks like he could be. Throw in Jordan Shroeder and a developing Michael Grabner and you suddenly have that youth which in a couple of years will still be relatively low cap hits yet productive? I can see us signing a big name free agent (prob d) with money that'll be saved from Demitra's 4 mill coming off the books. Couple that with the twins and Kesler, Burrows, etc and i like the look of the future. Oh, and don't forget, while Luuuuu's cap hit might look like it's a lot, the Hawks have a similar paid goalie sitting on the bench and they're still playing? Hasn't seemed to cripple them in the least! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 08:20:18
Couple of Things:
1) I hope people are not going to hang their hopes on Luongo improving without the "C" because it's not going to happen. He is an amazing regular season player but he is average in big game situations. Some goalies step up for big games, other don't. He's part of the latter.
2) Leigh, nailed it. Although my top 3 reasons would be penalties, Vignault's inability to control his team, and the injuries to the defense. The Canucks could have battled through their other issues, but those 3 are pretty much impossible to overcome.
3) I think the comment that Vancouver beat themselves doesn't give enough credit to the Blackhawks. I think the more accurate statement would be the Canucks allowed Chicago to beat them.
Ultimately, I don't think that Vancouver could ice a better team. Unfortunately, I also don't think this team will win without support defensively and I also don't think they can win with Luongo. Bottom line, average teams need a brilliant goaltender. Brilliant teams need nothing more than an average goaltender. Look at Detroit for how long and never has that team won with an elite keeper.
I personally think that the $7 million a season on Luongo would be better served in getting an elite, top 5 in the league defensemen and have an average to slightly above average goalie. Goalies lose games but they rarely win them. You need solid skaters to win hockey and, unfortunately, all of Vancouvers are forwards.
No defenseman = No Cup |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 00:59:15
I agree with most of what Leigh said but i really think special teams decided this series, as they do in most playoff series. Vancouver at 5 on 5 was the better team for most of this series but their PK let them down in a huge way. It could have cost them the first round series vs LA and it pretty much DID cost them this one. Top off the poor PK with 2 or 3 shorthanded goals against and their special teams were beyond bad!
|
| Guest0935 |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 14:31:47
1st goal: Questionable pinch by O'Brien on Sopel and Wellwood letting Brouwer beat him to the net
2nd goal: Bieksa nonchalantly accepting (or not accepting) a pass in the neutral zone which leads to a Chicago 3 on 1
3rd goal: Demitra as the last man back on a PP tries to pass through Bolland. No dice. Shorthanded goal.
4th goal: Bieksa simply gives Kane a clear lane to the net
The Blackhawks didn't beat the Canucks. The Canucks simply beat themselves. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 10:05:29
Looks like I'm late to the funeral... a disappointing night for sure, and a disappointing end to a very entertaining series. The first period was close, but that game was over as soon as Edler left the ice hurt. Down Mitchell, Edler, and Sami with just one ball, that is not enough d against a team like the hawks. On no team in the NHL are Beiksa and SOB your 1-2 defense, and last night is why. 5 goals, all of them on breakaways or odd-man rushes, created by inexperience on defense. Its easy to blame Luongo for letting in 5 goals, but honestly, with the sorts of defensive gaffes in front of him and general weakness of the dmen, I didn't give him much chance.
Still, the series is longer than one game. I put some blame on Luongo, but not that much - the team as a whole played inconsistent hockey throughout. Game 1 and 5 were very strong outings team-wide, game 3/4/6 were complete mental failures by everyone - thats pretty jekyl and hyde. Luongo, as good as he is, is not god - he needs some help in front of him and didn't get enough of it. The Hawks are a strong offensive team, if you give them chances they will beat you.
Leigh, I agree with most of your assessments - I think there will be some changes in Van for the coming season.
- I hope they take the C away from Luongo, it has proven to be a failed experiment. He's seemed distracted all year long, and he just needs to get back to being a goaltender. The Canucks have plenty of leaders, pick another one (Kesler is the front runner in my mind, unless they sign Mitchell back, in which case it is him).
- I think AV might be gone - Leigh, you're right about discipline, he didn't seem to have control when he needed it most in games 3/4. We'll see what happens there.
- I hope we'll see some changes on d next year - I don't think SOB will be back, and we should consider trading one of Bieksa or Salo (in the last years of their contracts) - they are good dmen but made of glass. Erhoff is a keeper and they'll sign him longterm. Mitchell will be back if he's healthy. I would like the Canucks to make a run at Volchenkov, which would give a very steady and tough top-4.
Of note - it appears that Kesler and Burrows have both been playing with injuries. Burrows I'm not sure about, but Kesler sounds like he's had a bum shoulder since the playoffs started and will go under the knife in the offseason. Explains a lot about their play.
In the end, the Canucks were beat by a better and healthier team. Looking forward to next year.
I also agree that the Hawks were not that great at times. I think SJ will beat them in the conference finals. |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 09:22:01
And to add to that - I totally agree Leigh, the Blackhawks were not that great. For long periods of time, they had terrible defence, and the forwards were not particularly strong all the time on the boards or with defensive coverage (except for Byfuglien - definitely the star of the series).
Niemi play well, but not great. Defence was very so-so, with Seabrook playing very well near the end - but Keith was a bit of a disappointment.
LA was better IMHO.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest4780 |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 09:12:50
Sadly as a Canucks fan, i agree with all eight  |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 09:11:53
You Luongo haters were all right, and I was wrong - he is not a big game goalie, and I can surely put a large part (not all though) of the blame on his wide shoulders.
He is the captain, after all.
The defence and goaltending were a total bust for Vancouver, and at least the D has an excuse - they were killed by injuries. Salo couldn't skate last night, probably in a ton of pain from his . . . ugh, can't even think about it, makes me squeamish. Ehrhoff looked like he played hurt after the first period as well.
Many other injuries forced guys like Alberts in the game.
I hate the Canucks! I blame them for the fact that I am now out of contention in my playoff hockey pools . . .
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| leigh |
Posted - 05/12/2010 : 09:00:50
The Top 8 reasons why the Canucks lost the series....again (no doubt I'm pointing out the obvious)
1) Penalties - They took stupid penalties (for you bleeding hearts, yes they took a couple phantom calls but not enough to cost them the series) And then their penalty kill was BRUTAL! Worst I've seen in maybe a lifetime.
2) Goaltending - Luongo wasn't bad but he was barely average which doesn't cut it for the playoffs (lose the C, it's distracting) Niemi on the other hand was great!
3) Defense - The Canucks D were descimated before the series started, and were made to look foolish by the speedy and shifty Blackhawk forwards.The Blackhawk D were stellar at blocking shots and clearing the net - defense first fellas.
4) Byfuglien - This guy did his job perfectly; he scored goals and when he wasn't doing that he stood in front of the net and distracted everyone, the big man does it all - first star of the series!
5) Vigneault didn't have control of his team in the first 4 games (for those of you who don't get it, read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War")
6) Burrows and Kesler were virtually ineffective all series (this is their depth and their heart, without them leading by example the Canucks die)
7) The Hawks did an incredible job of shutting down Daniel and Henrik Sedin all series long. They broke up the cycle, kept them to the outside and didn't allow them to carry it into the zone for a large part of it. So effective that for the last - and biggest - game of the series you didn't even hear their names.
8) Blackhawks were a good team but they weren't great, shows you how bad the Canucks played. Ok it's not a reason, more of a general observation. |
|
|
