| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2011 : 15:12:40
|
Poll Question:
If the Stanley cup final matchup is Vancouver Vs. Philadelphia then who wins.
Go OILERS Go!!!
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 15:38:41
|
Vancouver is actually my #4 team in the NHL for the Cup. Here is my reasons.
If I was to look at the 4 odds on favorites for the Cup (at least in my opinion) they would be Vancouver, Detroit, Boston, and Philly. To me, those teams have the most sounds teams top to bottom and they have shown the most through the regular season to this point. There are some other outside teams that have cranked it up and are showing the skills to make moves like Chicago, San Jose, Tampa, and Pittsburgh but I digress.
So, if I am looking at BOS, PHI, VAN, and DET I would rank them in this way:
Forwards -
Vancouver and Detroit would be a tie at #1
Philly would be #3
Boston would be #4
Defense
Boston would be #1
Detroit would be #2
Philly would be #3
Vancouver would be #4
Goaltending
Boston would be #1
Vancouver would be a close #2
Detroit would be #3
Philly would be #4
Coaching
Detroit would be #1
Philly would be #2
Boston would be #3
Vancouver would be #4
Experience
Detroit would be #1
Philly would be #2(Cup final last year)
Boston and Vancounver would be tied at 3
So, at the end of the day, Detroit would be my pick for the Cup with goaltending being the only question mark. However, to look at this specific question, I take Philly. Better defense, far superior coaching, and the experience of being in the Finals last year compared to Van not getting out of the 2nd round in 15+ years.
Philly would beat Vancouver in my opinion. |
 |
|
|
Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
268 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 16:10:39
|
| I picked Philly and agree with Beans on his 4 but would add the Sharks to the mix in the west they are making they're presence felt down the stretch. I bet a guy at work that Detroit would go further in the playoffs than Vancouver .... so I gotta take Philly in this pole. |
|
|
|
sahis34
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
591 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 17:03:16
|
I think it will be Sharks vs. Sabres in the finals
Go OILERS Go!!! |
|
|
|
doublechamp7
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
278 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 19:47:43
|
If this was the actual machtup I would have to take Philly. I think the teams are very even but Phillys playoff experience puts them ahead
Bring back the Jets! |
|
|
|
@valanche
Rookie
Canada
240 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2011 : 21:29:28
|
both teams have the capability to go far in the playoffs but phillys goaltending is a major issue and vancouver still lacks any previous experience of a good run to make me believe that this year can be any different.
boston has an unparalleled goaltending/ defense combination in the east. i see boston coming out of the east this year to redeem last years painful loss to philly.
the west is up for grabs from any of san jose, detroit, chicago, and of course vancouver.
but to answer your question if philly meets vancouver i'd pick the canucks as i see defense and forwards matching up very equally but an edge goes to vancouver that has two goalies better than any of phillys
66 is > than 99 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 05:32:52
|
Well Beans, you are making the mistake of weighting all of those factors as equal. At least, in the figuring it out part it seems you did . . . and giving Philly better coaching than Vancouver seems totally pointless when deciding who would win, to me - the coach IMHO has almost nothing to do with the outcome at that point. With two even half decent coaches, there is no weight given by me to coaching.
Let's look at it this way: they both had to be good coaches to get them to the records they have, even with all the talent in their lineups.
On the other hand, things like goaltending are huge, and I would weight more heavily. Defence is also more important, I would say, than offence - it's a generalisation for the playoffs, but one that is usually true from what I have seen.
Then there are other factors you did not list that I would give some weight to . . . grit, power play, penalty kill, third line overall ability, forechecking. And . . . in some cases, you feel you have to put one team ahead of the other, when in fact many of the teams are quite even (say, in overall offense).
I am not trying to make a full-on attack, just saying that . . . it's a lot more complicated than listing teams 1-4 and tallying up the scores, that's all.
Oh yeah, the question . . . Vancouver vs Philly? I take Vancouver.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 08:45:08
|
Coaching doesn't have value in the playoffs?? You and I must be watching different sports. Granted, Halak played brilliant hockey last season, it was Matin's system and coaching that beat Washington. Might want to also try to come up with a different reason other than coaching that gave Philly the series against Boston after being down 3-0. What about those Canucks who had a line up that was better than Chicago top to bottom including that precious goaltending who had no answer for Quinville's coaching.
You can look back through the ages of the NHL playoffs and see countless times where a better team on the ice was beaten by a lesser team with a superior coach. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/06/2011 08:46:04 |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 10:25:54
|
Its a toss-up for me, and honestly too hard to call at this point.
The two teams stack up pretty evenly - right now, I give the edge to VAN in both goal and defense, but the edge to PHI for forwards. But that is today, a lot of questions will be answered in the first round of the playoffs that will ultimately tip the scale one way or the other.
- Experience - will PHI be able to capitalize on the experience of last year's run? One would have to think so.
- Goaltending, for both teams - can Luongo emerge as the stud playoff performer we all think he's capable of, or will he have yet another average post-season? Can the Bob/Boucher tandem really carry that team far - goaltending is PHI's biggest question mark all season long, and until VAN gets past round 2, we will question ours a little too. I think it will define either team in the post season this year.
- Defense - will Vancouver's defense be healthy? I think our post-season run greatly relies on Edler coming back. As much as I think we have a very deep and balanced defense, its still a hard slog without your #1 guy - he was absolutely awesome in the playoffs last year. If no Edler, then a very steep road to the cup. If Edler is back and strong, then I think we have very well balanced and deep group that competes with PHI.
- could the VAN forwards weather the onslaught of PHI's forwards? PHI has an amazing combination of talented physical forwards - Richards, Carter, Hartnell, Giroux, Versteeg, JVR - all those guys can punish physically and on the scoreboard on a regular basis. We really only have a couple like that (Kesler, maybe Burrows, Hansen, and Malhotra), the rest are either physical OR goalscorers. You know the intensity will be huge come finals time, certainly more than it is now.
I am obviously pretty biased towards the Canucks, but all season long the one team I've been worried about in the East has been PHI. They are the one team I think could beat any team in the west in a cup final.
Also - I think PHI would totally win for beards. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to seeing the patchy scruff thats going to emerge from Raymond, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, and Erhoff. After Luongo and Kesler, we get pretty shallow pretty fast  |
|
|
|
Guest5940
( )
|
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 12:06:30
|
| after the 7-0 game today, how could you argue for the flyers right now |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 12:27:00
|
| a few games does not a season make. PHI is better than today. |
|
|
|
Utemin
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
451 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 12:35:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
:
Forwards -
Vancouver and Detroit would be a tie at #1
Philly would be #3
Boston would be #4
Defense
Boston would be #1
Detroit would be #2
Philly would be #3
Vancouver would be #4
Goaltending
Boston would be #1
Vancouver would be a close #2
Detroit would be #3
Philly would be #4
Coaching
Detroit would be #1
Philly would be #2
Boston would be #3
Vancouver would be #4
Experience
Detroit would be #1
Philly would be #2(Cup final last year)
Boston and Vancounver would be tied at 3
Philly would beat Vancouver in my opinion.
Accurate post with a few correction I should make
Vancouver>Coaching then Boston
Boston #1 D then the rest tied
Boston> Philly forwards by a bit.
Vancouver= best fans
Nux Cup:)
Don't hate me because i'm Beautiful |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 13:32:01
|
Explain how Vacouver is better coached than Boston??
Explain how you can compare multiple Cup winners in the defensive cores of both Detroit and Philly compared to zero Cups in the Vancouver defensive group. How many Norris, Conn Smythes, and even Hart trophy's are in the defensive groups of Detroit and Philly. Not even close.
Fans?? WTF do the fans have to do with it??? Play in an empty building for all I care. Best team wins, and it's not Vancouver.
|
|
|
|
Go_Habs_Go
Rookie
157 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 15:09:37
|
Boston won't even go past the first round, because they will face the habs (and we all know that the bruins can't play hockey against montreal).
So Boston...no chance, but I agree that Detroit is a very good contender in the west, and will probably make it to the finals.
But to answer the question, in a Phily-Canucks final, I think the Flyers get the win, they are a playoff team, and have a lot more experience than the Canucks, who always seem to struggle in the first 2 rounds.
But guys, don't forget the Hawks ! They're on a roolll, and have Marian Hossa. This guy never misses a stanley cup final, he's a cheat code.
"Bon point Jacques!" - Benoît Brunet |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 18:18:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
What about those Canucks who had a line up that was better than Chicago top to bottom including that precious goaltending who had no answer for Quinville's coaching.
Where did THAT come from? From everything i've heard/read/seen said about the Chicago / Vancouver series from last year, was that the better team won. Yes, going in, goaltending was supposed to be our advantage, but that was it. Do you not remember the depleted defense we had??? How in the world anyone would call the Canucks better "top to bottom" is beyone me???
Personally, i think the coach has some impact but i'm more on Slozo's side here. It's not as critical as some think, of course, that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Guest4278
( )
|
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 18:20:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Utemin
Accurate post with a few correction I should make
Vancouver>Coaching then Boston
Boston #1 D then the rest tied
Boston> Philly forwards by a bit.
Vancouver= best fans
Nux Cup:)
Why would Boston's forwards be better than Philly's? I would argue that Philly's forward line up is better than Vancouver's. Philly's do not have a #1 or 2 or 3 line. They have 1a, 1b, 1c line. Boston's defense will be vulnerable unless the top 4 Dmen plays 28 mins each every game. In seven games that will be extremely exhausting. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 18:28:55
|
Well, I guess for now we will have to agree to disagree. I really have no desire to educate people on how important coaching is during the playoffs. If people can't see that a great team with a bad coach will almost always lose to an average team with a brilliant coach, there is nothing I can do about that. I guess if you look back on the past 20 years of hockey and notice that there is not a single name of a coach of a Cup winner or who went to a final that is not a top tier coach. I guess a guy like Craig MacTavish taking a group of players that looked like nothing more than AHLer's just the next season to the Cup final was about the players?? I guess Jacques Martin taking down both Pittsburgh and Washington had nothing to do with coaching??
Time will tell. I will very comfortably go on record to say that if Vancouver plays either Detroit or Chicago at any time in the playoffs, they will lose. Not because of players, because of coaches. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/06/2011 18:34:29 |
|
|
|
Guest4623
( )
|
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 19:52:26
|
| Vancouver well Lose to Chicago again for another Collapes and Philly r out in the 2nd Get over it .... |
|
|
|
Statman
Rookie
Canada
125 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 20:32:37
|
Interesting to see the haters bash on Vigneault.
Bad coach? Sure, all he has done in 5 years as a Canucks coach is win 4 division titles with an average win total close to 20 games over .500, and win one Coach of the Year award.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 21:31:12
|
And how many games past the 2nd round of the playoffs has Super Coach Vigneault led his team to??
Sheesh, we might be here for a while. Not sure if we have the smarts to count to zero.
There are various coaches through the times of the NHL that have shown great regular season skills but lack abilities in the playoffs. Vancouver has been the highest or one of the highest teams in the playoffs in PIM's which shows a lack of discipline. They have also been foiled for 2 consecutive years by a simple strategy of 'put Byfuglien in front of the net' which Vignault had not answer.
Mark my words, Vancouver will be outcoached in the playoffs this year. They will lose to a lesser team and Vignault will 'step down' in the offseason. |
|
|
|
Guest6036
( )
|
Posted - 03/06/2011 : 23:00:42
|
Please, stop saying that Jacques Martin's coaching was the main factor for Mtl playoffs run last year. Montreal has always played a defensive boring style for many years. It all depends on goaltending in Mtl. Think of Patrick Roy, Jose Theodore(beating first place Boston), and Halak last year. That was all with different coaches.
By the way, if Jacques Martin was such a great coach, tell me what happened to the Sens with all those superstars, and lets not talk about Florida...
|
|
|
|
Statman
Rookie
Canada
125 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 02:08:52
|
Beaten in the second round. That's pretty much all you got, Beans. I know that because it's all I've heard from you for the last year.
Here's a little hockey lesson for you; There's a difference between strategy and execution. Strategy has it's place and is an important part of the game, but it means nothing if the players can't execute. Vigneault didn't score a single goal in the playoffs, and I suppose you'd probably blame him for that, too. The Canucks got beat last year by a better team, but they've had one more year of roster tweaks and players getting more experienced and familiar with one another's game.
I say bring on Philly! (if they make it with their suspect goaltending, of course) |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 08:32:48
|
Ok Statman, I will play for a while. If you are handing out lessons, please educate me on:
1) Who's responsibility is it to ensure the hockey team is disciplined enough to not give the other team 5+ PP's during the average playoff game??
2) Who is responsible to ensure the strategy is executed upon??
3) Who is responsible for adjusting the strategy if it is not working. For example, what was the strategy in stopping Bufuglien last season???
4) Name me another coach who has won 4 out of 5 division titles an NOT made it out of the 2nd round??
5) Name me another coach who has won 4 out of 5 division titles, NOT made it out of the 2nd round, AND kept their job???
I am looking forward to the enlightenment that is about to occur. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 09:25:41
|
quote:
4) Name me another coach who has won 4 out of 5 division titles an NOT made it out of the 2nd round??
5) Name me another coach who has won 4 out of 5 division titles, NOT made it out of the 2nd round, AND kept their job???
The only other team I can think of (recently) in this situation is WSH - they have won their division for the last 3 years (and will possibly win it again this year), only to be turfed in the first or second round in all of those years. Bruce Boudreau is the coach, and he has not yet been fired.
The Canucks (and Capitals) woes are more than bad coaching - in fact, I don't think bad coaching really comes into play here. AV is certainly not the best coach in the league, but he is far from the worst as well. Team management is pretty smart, and if they didn't believe that AV was the coach to go with they would have cut him loose last year - they had the opportunity to do so. Instead, they extended him this year.
Have the Canucks lost in recent years because they were outcoached by the opposition? No. In 2 of those 3 years, they lost to the eventual Stanley Cup champion - simply put, they lost to better teams. No amount of coaching was going to get VAN past ANA in 2007, they simply were not good enough or big enough to compete. No amount of coaching was going to get VAN (with a heavily depleted defense) past a vastly superior CHI team last season. AV had no answer for Byfuglien because there was no answer on his team! VAN had no one large enough to move him out of the way, CHI knew it, and exploited it - enroute to defeating VAN, end of story.
I get that you appreciate coaching Beans, and certainly I'll agree that good coaching is important to a team's success. That being said, coaches only do so much - at the end of the day, the team on the ice has to have the skill and will to execute the plan and make it happen |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 09:59:51
|
Nux, I can appreciate your opinion and I don't disagree completely, however I find if very funny that people continue to dance around and make excuse for some very plainly viewed coaching issues. Again, please explain to me:
Who is responsible for the Canucks being one of the most penalized teams in the playoffs, year over year?? In '09 they averaged 19.1 PIM's per game and '10 they had 14.6 PIM's per game. The teams who win are normally 10 or less per game. Nothing like giving the opponent 7-10 PP's a game.
Who is responsible for strategy??? Sure, the Canucks were depleated last season, but that is not the reason they could not stop Byfulgien. The reason they could not stop Byfuglien is because they has a parade to the penalty box and gave Chicago every opportunity to stand Byfuglien in front of the net and Vancouver did nothing to stop him, either on the ice or by being more disciplined.
So yes, on the surface it is easy to say the Canucks lost to better teams and that might be true. However, the Canucks lack of discipline, lack of ability to change strategy, and lack of execution of strategy never gave them a chance to win in the first place. If Vancouver played the best hockey they could and still lost, we could agree. However, Vancouver did not play their best hockey, did they???
Let's take a look at Vancouver's performance in the past 5 seasons
2010 - 1st in the NW
Beat LA 4-2, Lost to Chicago 4-2.
2009 - 1st in the NW
Beat STL 4-0, Lost to Chicago 4-2
2008 - Missed Playoffs
2007- 1st in the NW
Beat Dallas 4-3, lost to Ana 4-1
2006 -Missed Playoffs
So, in 5 year, the 3 time division winning Canucks have not made it out of the 2 nd round and have a playoffs record of 17-17. Shouldn't a division winner be better than that??? I don't have the time to dig into it, but hasn't every division winner in the same period of time been better than that?? Maybe with the exception of Washington, who also have a garbage coach. Any others??? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 10:46:49
|
quote:
Who is responsible for the Canucks being one of the most penalized teams in the playoffs, year over year?? In '09 they averaged 19.1 PIM's per game and '10 they had 14.6 PIM's per game. The teams who win are normally 10 or less per game. Nothing like giving the opponent 7-10 PP's a game.
Being disciplined on the ice is a responsibility shared by both coach and players. The players have to be disciplined, and the coach has to be able to effectively punish undisciplined behaviour. Neither of those things happened last year, granted. The players were not disciplined, and the coach was punishing - although I would argue primarily because of lack of bodies (how do you punish SOB for taking bad penalties when he's your #2 dman?).
This summer, the Canucks had every opportunity to get rid of AV - many locally were calling for his head, not just you. In the end, the team decided to hole the players accountable instead - they got rid of SOB, and AV has done wonders this year with each of Alberts, Kesler, Burrows about maturing as players and people. To me that is the sign of a good coach, and AV has IMO done what is necessary to right the Canuck ship - we'll see how it pans out this year.
I do agree with you, if the Canucks fail to get out of round 2 this year, it is highly likely that AV will not be back next year.
quote:
Who is responsible for strategy??? Sure, the Canucks were depleated last season, but that is not the reason they could not stop Byfulgien. The reason they could not stop Byfuglien is because they has a parade to the penalty box and gave Chicago every opportunity to stand Byfuglien in front of the net and Vancouver did nothing to stop him, either on the ice or by being more disciplined.
Again, this is a shared responsibility - the coaches provide strategy, the players execute it. Sometimes, players do not execute - either they screw it up, or they come up against a better team that has an answer for everything they try.
And yes, their depletion (combined with lack of discipline) was a primary reason that VAN could not stop CHI last year - they would have had a hard time with this season's defensive core, but the top-4 blueline they managed to assemble was no match for CHI, period. No strategy was going to change that.
quote:
So, in 5 year, the 3 time division winning Canucks have not made it out of the 2 nd round and have a playoffs record of 17-17. Shouldn't a division winner be better than that??? I don't have the time to dig into it, but hasn't every division winner in the same period of time been better than that?? Maybe with the exception of Washington, who also have a garbage coach. Any others???
No, every division winnner has certainly not been better than that:
2010 Playoffs: 2 of 6 division winners made it past 2nd round
Vancouver: 6-6, eliminated in second round
Chicago: 16-6, won cup
San Jose: 8-7, eliminated in 3rd round
Washington: 1-4, eliminated in first round
New Jersey: 1-4, eliminated in first round
Buffalo: 2-4, eliminated in first round
2009 Playoffs: 2 of 6 made it past second round
Vancouver: 6-4, lost in second round
San Jose: 2-4, lost in first round
Detroit: 15-8, won cup
Boston: 7-4, lost in second round
Washington: 7-7, lost in second round
New Jersey: 3-4, lost in first round
2008 Playoffs: 2 of 6 past second round
Detroit: 15-6, won cup
San Jose: 6-7, lost in second round
Minnesota: 2-4, lost in first round
Montreal: 5-7, lost in second round
Pittsburg: 14-8, lost in cup final
Washington: 3-4, lost in first round
2007 Playoffs: 3 of 6 made it past second round
Detroit: 10-8, lost in 3rd round
Anaheim: 16-5, won cup
Vancouver: 5-7, lost second round
Buffalo: 9-7, lost in 3rd round
New Jersey: 5-6, lost in second round
Atlanta: 0-4, lost in first round
2006 Playoffs: 1 of 6 past second round
Detroit: 2-4, lost first round
Dallas: 1-4, lost first round
Calgary: 3-4, lost first round
Ottawa: 5-5, lost second round
Carolina: 16-9, won cup
New Jersey: 5-4, lost second round
So, over the last 5 years, division winners are batting 1 for 3 for making it past the second round, 10 out of 30. I guess division winners are not always playoff successes in any given year? |
|
|
|
Guest5052
( )
|
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 12:45:45
|
To answer the actual Q I think its a coin toss.
However, I think Philly has a much better chance of getting there. I dont really agree with the emphasis on coaching that has been placed. Sure it matters, alot. But I tend to think it matters in ways that cant always be seen by watching on TV. For example, i wouldnt say Wash was outcoached by Montreal. They shelled them, and with high quality chances, and Halak stood on his head, Mtl got timely goals and it just wasnt meant to be.
As an aside, i sometimes wondered if a team like the Sens were "too well coached" because they did well in the regular season playing a very tactical game but couldnt go up a gear in the playoffs.
In terms of the Canucks, there is kinda just something about them that says you doubt their calibre until they actually do it. On paper they have all the ingredients, but I'm just not sure I'd put my money on them.
Same for Boston. Very deep and solid team, but i am just not sure they have enough game breakers. I cant remember a team winning the cup in along time without a real star forward (no disrespect to Lucic, Begeron et al verygood but not stars per se)
Incidentally, I would put my money on Wsh to win the east (based on the odds, of course). |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 12:51:21
|
Interesting data Nuxfan! I like this kind of stuff.
I was going to debate Beans on why he only included the top four teams (points leaders currently) as "odds on favourties" to win the cup this year, because my initial impression was there were many teams who finished much lower in the standings and won the cup in recent years. In looking at the data though, my first impression was wrong.
In looking at the Stanley Cup results from the past ten seasons, in all but one case (Pittsburgh, who finished the 2008-09 season in 8th position overall, and won the cup the same year), the cup winner was one of the top four teams in overall regular season points.
There are certainly many examples where the President's Trophy winner faltered in the playoffs, and many examples where teams like the Sharks finished high but failed to get far in the playoffs, but for the most part, a team's regular season success had some bearing on how well they did in the playoffs, and it's usually a top four team (from the regular season) who wins the cup.
While logic dictates that the Canucks, Wings, Flyers and Bruins are the favourites to win the cup this year, it's rare for the points leader from the East to meet the points leader from the West in the Stanley Cup finals. (Which is what was presented at the beginning of this thread, which is a logical proposition.)
However, in the past ten NHL seasons, the Eastern points leader has met the Western points leader only once in the Stanley Cup finals. (In 2001, when Colorado beat New Jersey to win the cup.)
One thing which is not overly surprising is that the team which wins the Stanley Cup usually has more points than their finals opponent. The last two seasons were slight exceptions, but here's how it breaks down over the past ten NHL seasons (with each team's overall regular season points in brackets):
2009-2010: Chicago (3) beat Philadelphia (2)
2008-2009: Pittsburgh (8) beat Detroit (7)
2007-2008: Detroit (1) beat Pittsburgh (4)
2006-2007: Anaheim (3) beat Ottawa (9)
2005-2006: Carolina (3) beat Edmonton (14)
2003-2004: Tampa (2) beat Calgary (12)
2002-2003: New Jersey (4) beat Anaheim (10)
2001-2002: Detroit (1) beat Carolina (16)
2000-2001: Colorado (1) beat New Jersey (3)
1999-2000: New Jersey (4) beat Dallas (6)
By the time teams get to the Stanley Cup finals, it appears the favourite usually wins. (Or at least, the team with the most points in the regular season.) Maybe home ice advantage counts for something too.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 12:54:07
|
Nuxfan, well said, and thank you for saving me a lot of typing. Beans and i argued about all this last year following the Canucks elimination and i said similar things. It was made public and discussed greatly around here, that AV and his staff did preach discipline and that the team didn't respond. Yes, i guess this is the coaches prob but as you mentioned, the Canucks chose to stick with him and allow him to try to get through to them, which it seems he has? This is all part of growing and maturing as a player and it often comes with playoff experience. What's the saying...."you have to learn how to lose before you can learn how to win"? Perhaps this is what guys like Kesler, Burrows and Albert are beginning to understand?
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Let's take a look at Vancouver's performance in the past 5 seasons
2010 - 1st in the NW
Beat LA 4-2, Lost to Chicago 4-2.
2009 - 1st in the NW
Beat STL 4-0, Lost to Chicago 4-2
2008 - Missed Playoffs
2007- 1st in the NW
Beat Dallas 4-3, lost to Ana 4-1
2006 -Missed Playoffs
So, in 5 year, the 3 time division winning Canucks have not made it out of the 2 nd round and have a playoffs record of 17-17. Shouldn't a division winner be better than that??? I don't have the time to dig into it, but hasn't every division winner in the same period of time been better than that?? Maybe with the exception of Washington, who also have a garbage coach. Any others???
Beans, you do realize/remember that a division winner isn't necessarily a top 3 team in a conference rather they are "seeded" there as division winners. The examples you just gave, Anaheim and Chicago twice, are teams which finished ahead of the Canucks in the standings. Yes, the NW div was/is competetive but sometimes a team gets a higher seeding than perhaps they should? Even in 07 when Anaheim defeated Vancouver, the Canucks had won their first round matchup against a team that also finished higher than them in the standings!!!
|
|
|
|
Guest8623
( )
|
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 13:00:06
|
Coaching does make a huge difference, just take a look at New Jersey this year. Having said that, I think both coaches are in the top tier in the NHL, but give the edge undoubtedly to Philly in that aspect.
I also believe Vancouver would win that matchup though. I think goaltending would give Vancouver a chance to win every game, as Philly's goaltending can/will lose them games here and there. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 13:58:42
|
I love when I strike a nerve.....
Ok, firstly to Alex, if you wish to split hairs over two teams in the standings and finished 4 pts apart as one better than the other, be my guest. If you are comfortable that the team you cheer for rolls over in the playoffs and have not played to their potential one time in the past 5 season, good for you. I know I would be jacked about it.
To Nux, you are correct. Not every division winner goes past the 2nd round. Maybe I should have been more clear so let me explain. For a team to win multiple divisions it means they are not a flash in the pan. In the past 5 seasons, 6 teams have won more than one division title. Vancouver, Washington, and New Jersey have not gotten past the 2nd round where Detroit, Buffalo, and San Jose have all won more than 1 division title and made it at least to the 3rd round.
Jersey has changed their coach, San Jose failed two years in a row and change their coach to find success. Washington and Vancouver have not learned their lesson. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 14:45:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I love when I strike a nerve.....
Ok, firstly to Alex, if you wish to split hairs over two teams in the standings and finished 4 pts apart as one better than the other, be my guest. If you are comfortable that the team you cheer for rolls over in the playoffs and have not played to their potential one time in the past 5 season, good for you. I know I would be jacked about it.
Beans, not to worry, no nerves struck here. I kinda expected that reply. I mean, it was just the other day you claimed Vancouver should have beaten Chicago because they were a better team? You didn't answer me when i asked how you could claim that? Here's your quote.....
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
[What about those Canucks who had a line up that was better than Chicago top to bottom including that precious goaltending who had no answer for Quinville's coaching.
Not sure which Canucks team you're talking about, 2010 or 2009 but while you conveniently mentioned the small 4 point gap between them in 2009, there was a larger 9 point difference last season. 9 may not sound like a lot, but in the scheme of things, it's fairly significant. I fail to see how either of these two Canucks teams had a lineup that was "better than Chicago top to bottom.....". It was pretty much reported everywhere following those series that the better team won in both!
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2011 : 18:16:28
|
When I look at the Vancouver team last year, I would say that Vancouver was a better team than Chicago. I look at the forwards and see Vancouver very solid 1-9 and very solid 4th line. I look at Chicago and see 1-6 as solid and questionable after that. I see the Chicago defense as solid (Seabrook, Campbell, Keith and Hjarmlsson is top 4 just about anywhere). Vancouver, although depleted through injuries later, were reasonably solid 1-6. No real holes. Vancouver had goaltending in spades.
So yes, top to bottom, the sum of the parts I take Vancouver over Chicago. Chicago was a bit better defensively and comparable for forwards and behind in goaltending.
Would you disagree?? |
|
|
|
Guest4623
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 00:00:47
|
Agree or to Disagree i Dont see either Philly or Vancouver in the Final..
I wana see a Red wing's VS flames first round Match..
I wana see a chicago VS Canuck's
Love to see San jose and dallas
La and Yotes ........................................................................................... |
|
|
|
Guest4271
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 03:46:28
|
| none of the above.......Detroit is getting healthy, and Philly is in tough, as anyone can win the playoffs with a hot goalie, lundquist, miller, ward, thomas, take your pick etc. |
|
|
|
dummy101
Top Prospect
Canada
33 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 03:59:40
|
I don't think either will make the finals but I like Van in match up because they can exploit philly's weakness, slow D. Timmonen is the only one that can handle a fast forecheck.
If the ref's call Pronger for all violations ,like in the finals last year,he can't handle the speed.Once the ref's called his crap , Chi just dumped it to him ,went after him and watched his frustration take over,hehe.
Then we still have the fact they have NO goaltending. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 06:12:41
|
First off, great stats finding by nuxfan - I appreciated that, and it really was interesting for me.
According to those stats, the Stanley Cup winner is most assuredly going to be a division winner; but the other 5 division winners have a 50/50chance of getting knocked out in the first round.
To weigh in on last year's defeat by Chicago: injuries killed Vancouver, and so did mediocre goaltending. Both have nothing to do with the head coach.
Show me an all-star goalie, and I'll show you a HOF coach. And yes, I do think Bowman was the exception to this rule, as he was an exceptional coach.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 06:26:50
|
Hey Slozo, does that mean Babcock is also an exception to the rule?? He won the Cup with Osgood. What about Brian Murray making it to the Finals with Ray Emery?? What about Laviolette winning the Cup with a rookie Cam Ward or Quinville with a rookie Anti Niemi?? What about the Oilers making the finals behind an geriatric Dwayne Roloson?? Or That Laviolette guy again making the finals with Leighton??
Should I keep going or is the 6 of the 10 goalies in the past 5 years of Cup winners and finals enough??? More often than not, the goalies in the finals are not All Stars. And I am not talking about the fan voting in All Stars, I am talking about the actual 1st and 2nd team All Stars. The actual All Stars.
In fact, there has not been a Cup winning goalie who was also an All Star since 2003.
Show me a top teir Coach and you do not often find an All Star Goalie. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 07:31:51
|
Osgoode will make it to the HOF on his playoff record, watch.
Emery did not win the cup, but he got hot.
Cam Ward is, and has been, an all-star. Whether he was a rookie or not makes no difference . . . so was Patrick Roy when he won the cup first time.
Niemi is a pretty good goalie, and won the cup on a team with the best defence and offence.
Roloson has been an all-star goalie in the past, and has also never won the cup.
Leighton was/is a very average goalie (from what I can tell, he is still young) and like Chicago's goalie last year, played behind an amazing defence and offense.
With a crap goalie, you will never, ever be in the running for coach of the year. And Beans, it wasn't me who made this saying up - this comes from guys like Scotty Bowman (have heard him say this many times) and other serious hockey commentators . . . not sure if their opinion holds any water with you or not, but it is a generalisation that is pretty accepted in hockey management. Yes, like every generalisation, it doesn't fit every scenario . . . but the coach of the year isn't often the cup winning coach as you have attempted to link.
Give me a list of Adam's award nominees / winners, and list the goalie and their stats that year. THAT might be a better indication of what I am talking about.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
ryan93
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
996 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 07:58:40
|
The most recent Adams winners & their starting goaltender.
2009/10 Dave Tippett.....Ilya Bryzgalov
2008/09 Claude Julien.....Tim Thomas
2007/08 Bruce Boudreau.....Olaf Kolzig
2006/07 Alain Vigneault.....Roberto Luongo
2005/06 Lindy Ruff.....Ryan Miller/Martin Biron
2003/04 John Tortorella.....Nikolai Khabibulin
2002/03 Jacques Lemaire.....Dwayne Roloson/Manny Fernendez
2001/02 Bob Francis.....Sean Burke
2000/01 Bill Barber.....Roman Cechmanek
1999/00 Joel Quenneville.....Roman Turek
1998/99 Jacques Martin.....Damian Rhodes/Ron Tugnutt
1997/98 Pat Burns.....Byron Dafoe
etc. etc. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2011 : 08:29:02
|
Include nominees as well, and the goalie's GAA / wins / save %, and then you will have a clearer picture.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Vancouver or Philly 
