Around the League - LXVIII

[VanillaCoke]

Somebody get traded already !!!

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sure we know the game results, we also know that the NYR were pretty much in every game they lost as well and the SC run Canucks weren't.

This statement glosses over the wins. Unless you are also saying that the Canucks were not "in the games" they won?

 

[vanuck]

What I don't get is how CHI's 0-3 record without Bolland in the lineup that series gets discounted, while VAN not having Manny for virtually the entire ****ing postseason doesn't.

That "it" factor was a little something called health. Yup, we definitely lacked "it"...

 

[Hardyvan123]

This statement glosses over the wins. Unless you are also saying that the Canucks were not "in the games" they won?

That final series had a Jekyll/Hyde look to them looked great in the 4 wins but looked like a totally different team in the 4 losses.

Hey guys can disagree but the accusation of trolling is just really weak and watching the actual games might help some peoples memory here a bit.

We saw it again here this season with hat winning streak when it looked like the Canucks could hold off the aging core process then some injuries set in (which eventually happens to every team) and then the team looked totally lost down the stretch again.

 

[Hardyvan123]

lol @ Clarkson's intangibles. I can find a 500k player in the AHL that can do the same thing and probably put up more points. He's also 2nd worst on the Leafs in +/- for forwards and he's a winger!

Compared to Leino yes there is a big difference in what each player brings to the table and Calrkson has some track record in scoring goals.

Maybe he will turn out to be a bigger bust than Leino but it's unlikely IMO.

 

[Bleach Clean]

That final series had a Jekyll/Hyde look to them looked great in the 4 wins but looked like a totally different team in the 4 losses.

Right, but the point is that they "looked great" in their wins. Meaning, they looked great 3 times in that series. They looked really good in game #6 too, until Luongo happened. Did NYR look "great" 3 times in their series? Debatable.

I'd say they were full value in game #2, and in their game #4 victory. Game #1, LA took over the second half. Game #3, LA was in control. Game #5, it ended in OT, so I'll give them credit here. So even when we are giving full value to NYR in their 'good' losses, it still looks like 3 games a piece...

And if we account for the actual wins and losses, VAN was obviously much closer. 60 min away.

 

[Barney Gumble]

If you watch hockey you would know the skill set of the 2 players, one guy is pure finesse the other guy can play a heavy game but from your statement it sounds like you think the Leafs didn't make the playoffs simply because of Clarkson?

In the end, it might work out better for the Leafs that they didn't mortgage the future for trade deadline rentals but having Clarkson's cap hit (which put the Leafs right up to the cap limit all season long) removed any kind of flexability for Nonis to improve the team during the season.

Right, but the point is that they "looked great" in their wins. Meaning, they looked great 3 times in that series. They looked really good in game #6 too, until Luongo happened. Did NYR look "great" 3 times in their series? Debatable.

I'd say they were full value in game #2, and in their game #4 victory. Game #1, LA took over the second half. Game #3, LA was in control. Game #5, it ended in OT, so I'll give them credit here. So even when we are giving full value to NYR in their 'good' losses, it still looks like 3 games a piece...

And if we account for the actual wins and losses, VAN was obviously much closer. 60 min away.

I venture to guess that if the Rangers lost their best defenseman early on the series like the Canucks did (Hamhuis - a guy that normally doesn't get injured), there'd be a good chance the Rangers get swept in the series.

 

[mossey3535]

You know, AV could have just said "we were very close in both series" instead of saying his team that almost got swept was closer.

It was a dick move, and it totally glosses over some inane coaching decisions made during the series that he continues to refuse to take responsibility for.

The games the Canucks won they looked great. NYR didn't dominate any games and the first two in LA were close mostly because LA looked exhausted after the Chicago series.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

You know, AV could have just said "we were very close in both series" instead of saying his team that almost got swept was closer.

It was a dick move, and it totally glosses over some inane coaching decisions made during the series that he continues to refuse to take responsibility for.

The games the Canucks won they looked great. NYR didn't dominate any games and the first two in LA were close mostly because LA looked exhausted after the Chicago series.

What he said is not that big a deal is it...

Lets take a look at the quote in which he talks about 2011...

-On the last few games being what you didn’t do or needing better players, “I think we really put our best foot forward. For me, it’s my second opportunity to compete for the Cup, both were different. You might want to believe that going to game seven I was closer then but if I look at that experience, when we got to game seven I was playing with our 7-8-9 defensemen on our depth chart and just 1/3 of a second line and we had so many injuries that there wasn’t much left in the tank and the three games we played in Boston we had no chance and were blown out all three times, I look at this team here and this group, our best that we played was the game we lost 3-0 at home. Every game in their building we put it out on the ice and tried our best. We lost in five and it’s a tough loss and will haunt me and my group for some time now but I hope that we learn from this and we and management will work on putting a good team on the ice but every year is different. Next year’s team will be different and you need to go through the same process, it will be tough to make the playoffs and then you have to go one series at a time.â€

 

[mossey3535]

What he said is not that big a deal is it...

Lets take a look at the quote in which he talks about 2011...

-On the last few games being what you didn’t do or needing better players, “I think we really put our best foot forward. For me, it’s my second opportunity to compete for the Cup, both were different. You might want to believe that going to game seven I was closer then but if I look at that experience, when we got to game seven I was playing with our 7-8-9 defensemen on our depth chart and just 1/3 of a second line and we had so many injuries that there wasn’t much left in the tank and the three games we played in Boston we had no chance and were blown out all three times, I look at this team here and this group, our best that we played was the game we lost 3-0 at home. Every game in their building we put it out on the ice and tried our best. We lost in five and it’s a tough loss and will haunt me and my group for some time now but I hope that we learn from this and we and management will work on putting a good team on the ice but every year is different. Next year’s team will be different and you need to go through the same process, it will be tough to make the playoffs and then you have to go one series at a time.â€

They had no chance in Boston? So I guess he was powerless to change the course of the series despite being the head coach.

It says something about the Canucks that year that DESPITE being decimated by injuries we still took it to 7 games.

He pulls Luongo at the proper time in Game 3 and maybe we're not even talking about this. Or maybe we are. But it's still an insult to this team for him to say that IMO.

 

[Startel]

Am I the only one that didnt think they were really in all the games? didnt they get outshot 22-3 or something in the game they won? in the second half of games, obviously the score was close but its not like they were always knocking at the door but I guess an argument could be made for albeit a stretch for me

 

[WinterEmpire]

Am I the only one that didnt think they were really in all the games? didnt they get outshot 22-3 or something in the game they won? in the second half of games, obviously the score was close but its not like they were always knocking at the door but I guess an argument could be made for albeit a stretch for me

The had 3rd period leads in 2 of the games they lost, and took the Kings to a combined 5 OTs in the 3 of them.

That's pretty damn close no matter what happened in the game they won.

 

[mossey3535]

The had 3rd period leads in 2 of the games they lost, and took the Kings to a combined 5 OTs in the 3 of them.

That's pretty damn close no matter what happened in the game they won.

Yeah but it's not as close as actually winning three games and going to game 7 at least in my opinion. You can say all you want about possibilities, winning three games is concrete.

 

[ddawg1950]

Yeah but it's not as close as actually winning three games and going to game 7 at least in my opinion. You can say all you want about possibilities, winning three games is concrete.

Which is why I said Hardy's original assertion that the Canucks were "pretenders" was rubbish.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

They had no chance in Boston? So I guess he was powerless to change the course of the series despite being the head coach.

It says something about the Canucks that year that DESPITE being decimated by injuries we still took it to 7 games.

He pulls Luongo at the proper time in Game 3 and maybe we're not even talking about this. Or maybe we are. But it's still an insult to this team for him to say that IMO.

I think you are taking offence far to easily.

You are also discussing it like it is AV vs the 2011 Canucks, It may be hard for AV haters to admit, but 2011 AV and the 2011 Canucks are one

So when he says how badly they preformed in Boston, he could be looking at himself and saying, hey I did not do a good enough job in that series, to get the team over the line, but in this series I think we were closer...

Just because you disagree with how he views it, dose not make him a dick, nor was what he said that bad...

 

[Barney Gumble]

I think you are taking offence far to easily.

You are also discussing it like it is AV vs the 2011 Canucks, It may be hard for AV haters to admit, but 2011 AV and the 2011 Canucks are one

So when he says how badly they preformed in Boston, he could be looking at himself and saying, hey I did not do a good enough job in that series, to get the team over the line, but in this series I think we were closer...

Just because you disagree with how he views it, dose not make him a dick, nor was what he said that bad...

Might be my awful memory but I don't recall AV ever saying he didn't a good enough job personally then (nor do I think he should've).

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Might be my awful memory but I don't recall AV ever saying he didn't a good enough job personally then.

No he never said that publicly, straight up, I wonder if anyone has asked him about how well he thought he coached?

Fact is he never praised himself either... He has never brought up the issue nor has anyone brought it up in a media interview... the media constantly asks about players though...

But since his is such a good coach with a pretty good resent record, In the toughest league in the world, I believe I am safe to assume that he is honest enough to look for his own failings and try and improve on them...

 

[WinterEmpire]

Yeah but it's not as close as actually winning three games and going to game 7 at least in my opinion. You can say all you want about possibilities, winning three games is concrete.

I guess it depends on your definition. The Rangers had a better chance to win 4 games before the Canucks did. Both teams came up short in different ways

 

[Aphid Attraction]

I guess it depends on your definition. The Rangers had a better chance to win 4 games before the Canucks did. Both teams came up short in different ways

WTF are you saying, so classless, also stop kicking kittens...

The response to basically what AV said...

 

[racerjoe]

I guess it depends on your definition. The Rangers had a better chance to win 4 games before the Canucks did. Both teams came up short in different ways

They won one game, how on earth did they possibly have a chance win four at any point?

People forget who NY was playing. This was a team that seemed to play better when they were behind. Down 3 games in SJ, 2 game to ANA, and down a couple goals in game 7. LA had something like five of six games in the last two series where they were down 2-0, and another 4 where they were down 3-1. Saying you had the lead so we must be close is crap. They never had a real chance.

 

[Barney Gumble]

Another thing about the Kings....they win by wearing you down physically. The longer a series goes, the better their chances get. They don't particularly win by blowing you out of the arena with a ton of goals. Heck, they were *26th in the league* in scoring this past season - not that far off from our absolutely pathetic offense.

Of course the games will be relatively close - but that's LA's style. Like Ali's "rope a dope" strategy.

 

[WinterEmpire]

They won one game, how on earth did they possibly have a chance win four at any point?

People forget who NY was playing. This was a team that seemed to play better when they were behind. Down 3 games in SJ, 2 game to ANA, and down a couple goals in game 7. LA had something like five of six games in the last two series where they were down 2-0, and another 4 where they were down 3-1. Saying you had the lead so we must be close is crap. They never had a real chance.

Went to overtime in 3 games that they lost, how can you say they didn't have a chance? Hell in two of the overtime games they hit iron multiple times, you can't get closer than that.

4 of the 5 games they played the Rangers gave themselves a chance to win

Canucks only had a chance to win in 3 of 7, they were not even close in any of the games they lost.

 

[racerjoe]

Went to overtime in 3 games that they lost, how can you say they didn't have a chance? Hell in two of the overtime games they hit iron multiple times, you can't get closer than that.

4 of the 5 games they played the Rangers gave themselves a chance to win

Canucks only had a chance to win in 3 of 7, they were not even close in any of the games they lost.

So your argument is if they got at least three more bounces (how many did they get in the game they won where the puck stopped on the goal line?), even though in two they were out matched and classed big time?

I will put it this way, I think LA beats boston. I think boston walks around NYR.

If the Canucks got three more bounces I bet they win against Boston in six.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Reading the senators board about the huge haul they're about to get for spezza is rather amusing.

 

[Derp Kassian]

Reading the senators board about the huge haul they're about to get for spezza is rather amusing.

as they should, we should expect the same for Kesler too who's younger and does more heavy lifting. Spezza is still a PP assassin.