Av *implies* that the canucks would have won the cup if not for bad reffing

[fancouver]

that's what most canuck fans felt.

but at the end of the day, good teams find a way.

 

[StIllmatic]

I've gotten over it, but I will never forget the injustice done against us that year. If the series was called evenly, the Bruins would never have taken the liberties they took on our players knowing they would be fairly punished. We honestly had one of the most complete NHL teams in history that year. The fact that they didn't call penalties allowed the Boston to become the "Big Bad Bruins." The Rome hit, the Peverle tomahawk, Marchand punching Daniel, and Raymond's injury was some of the most ridiculous ******** I have ever seen. We have a right to whine. The league wide hate against the Canucks, ranging from media to officials, is completely unprofessional. Hard to support a league like this, but I can't help watching and supporting the team I love.

Excuse any mistakes, typed this out on my phone.

 

[Canucker]

Reasons why we didn't win the cup (in order)...

1) injuries
2) inept offense due to injuries
3) god awful reffing
4) poor coaching decisions
5) poor goaltending

 

[Royal Canuck]

We can't change the past, so why dwell on it?

 

[King of the ES*]

Reasons why we didn't win the cup (in order)...

1) injuries
2) inept offense due to injuries
3) god awful reffing
4) poor coaching decisions
5) poor goaltending

1) Boston was better than us.

The end.

 

[Verviticus]

that's what most canuck fans felt.

but at the end of the day, good teams find a way.

only because people retroactively call the winning team a good team

 

[Verviticus]

We can't change the past, so why dwell on it?

we can't change the present, or the future of the canucks either

 

[jgoud*]

You can basically call the canucks the 2011 Stanley cup winners since there was bad reffing

 

[Win One Before I Die]

the biggest thing was Hamhuis going down, it was all over after that

 

[gobi]

Didn't Hamhuis get hurt during that series? I believe that made a big difference.

 

[Win One Before I Die]

Didn't Hamhuis get hurt during that series? I believe that made a big difference.

game 2 i think

 

[PG Canuck]

apparently

all the blame should be on Gillis

They disappeared offensively in the SCF...how is Gillis to blame? They scored just fine the rest of the year. Gillis suppose to just pickup someone without anyone noticing for the SCF?

 

[Jack Tripper]

This. Put Hamhuis alone back in the lineup and I very much doubt we get scored on by the dozen, never mind a healthy Kesler. Boston won the series by virtue of risky gamble on the part of Julien, who took notice of Kesler's inability to skate, let alone play the shutdown role he was accustom to, and focused exclusively on the Sedins. It worked.

yeah, i'm a bit over hearing about the pp opportunities against the canucks in that year...the reffing was terrible but in many ways the canucks did themselves absolutely no favours with some of their antics, and also got some breaks along the way (ie the torres non-suspension for his headshot on seabrook in game 4 of the chicago series)

the hamhuis injury did much more to railroad the boston series than the rome suspension, as did the players that boston exploited who tried to play through serious injuries (ie kesler, ehrhoff)

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Reasons why we didn't win the cup (in order)...

1) injuries
2) inept offense due to injuries
3) god awful reffing
4) poor coaching decisions
5) poor goaltending

inconsistent. he was pretty close to flawless 3/7 of the time. sadly, he was pretty bad the other 4/7.


my silver lining, pie-in-the-sky take: it was bad. it was terrible. it smelled like a screw job coming all the way from the top. it reminded me of the '06 NBA finals, where another hated team (because of their owner) won the first two games of the finals, got ridiculously lopsided reffing, and were beaten by a then-feel-good story MVP who later turned out to be a villain. it took five long years to get back to the finals, but they did it. and their "chokey european superstar captain" mustered up one hell of a legendary performance to exact his revenge.

coincidentally, watching the 2011 NBA finals brought me down from the ledge after our finals in 2011. true story.

 

[CherryToke]

They disappeared offensively in the SCF...how is Gillis to blame? They scored just fine the rest of the year. Gillis suppose to just pickup someone without anyone noticing for the SCF?

yeah my bad.. this is the year before he went full Pejorative Slur.

 

[PG Canuck]

yeah my bad.. this is the year before he went full Pejorative Slur.

Was going to say....the year they went to the SCF, is the year that was arguably the best Canucks team assembled. Best team in Regular Season with the 1st ranked PP, 3rd ranked PK, 1st in GF, and 1st in GA. Topped off with a SCF appearance that went 7.

 

[MS]

yeah, i'm a bit over hearing about the pp opportunities against the canucks in that year...the reffing was terrible but in many ways the canucks did themselves absolutely no favours with some of their antics, and also got some breaks along the way (ie the torres non-suspension for his headshot on seabrook in game 4 of the chicago series)

That wasn't a 'break'.

The hit was 100% legal, and was identical to hits shown as legal on an NHL-produced video sent out to every team.

There was ZERO grounds for suspending Torres there. However, yeah, the media loved to portray it like we caught a break. Same with the Burrows bite.

 

[Jack Tripper]

That wasn't a 'break'.

The hit was 100% legal, and was identical to hits shown as legal on an NHL-produced video sent out to every team.

There was ZERO grounds for suspending Torres there. However, yeah, the media loved to portray it like we caught a break. Same with the Burrows bite.

i refer to it as a break because you could make the same argument for the rome hit that got him suspended for the remainder of the boston series...both were late hits that caused an injury to a star player in the pre-headshot rule nhl, which meant it was a lottery whether you'd get a suspension as a result of the hit or not

 

[thenextone]

I'm pretty sure we even got PPs in game 7, resulting in a SHG and back-breaker by Bergeron

Seeing Erhoff on the point was just painful...

There was some questionable refereeing, but the series was really lost when we lost Hamhuis. Tough break. I usually don't pile on the goalie (unless its Cloutier) but Luongo had a shot to etch his name in the history books - if he stole a game that the Canucks didn't deserve to be in. It never happened and the games we lost, we lost early.

 

[thenextone]

i refer to it as a break because you could make the same argument for the rome hit that got him suspended for the remainder of the boston series...both were late hits that caused an injury to a star player in the pre-headshot rule nhl, which meant it was a lottery whether you'd get a suspension as a result of the hit or not

We can thank Brian Burke for that unprecedented suspension. Always wondered how the NHL could remove Colin Campbell from the process because of conflict of interest, only to consult a guy who was basically fired from one of the teams.

 

[CherryToke]

Was going to say....the year they went to the SCF, is the year that was arguably the best Canucks team assembled. Best team in Regular Season with the 1st ranked PP, 3rd ranked PK, 1st in GF, and 1st in GA. Topped off with a SCF appearance that went 7.

94 team would have smoked them in the playoffs

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Was going to say....the year they went to the SCF, is the year that was arguably the best Canucks team assembled.

I don't think I'd say arguably.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

94 team would have smoked them in the playoffs

the '94 team in the finals vs. the '11 team in the finals? yeah, probably. linden with his indomitable will and never-say-die leadership, bure with his unflaggable confidence in his goal scoring ability, and when locked in mclean could play with anyone.

but if the '11 canucks had a healthy hamhuis and ehrhoff going into the finals? i doubt it. seemed like going against good skating d-men were the '94 canucks' achilles heel. and also i think that '94 team needed too much help from its PP to beat that '11 team when healthy. forget '10 stretch run sedins, '94 bure, '07 luongo, or even nashville series beastmode kesler. the most dominant performance i've ever seen in a canucks uniform is kesler and burrows killing 5 on 3s that spring. that was a thing of beauty.

 

[CherryToke]

the '94 team in the finals vs. the '11 team in the finals? yeah, probably. linden with his indomitable will and never-say-die leadership, bure with his unflaggable confidence in his goal scoring ability, and when locked in mclean could play with anyone.

but if the '11 canucks had a healthy hamhuis and ehrhoff going into the finals? i doubt it. seemed like going against good skating d-men were the '94 canucks' achilles heel. and also i think that '94 team needed too much help from its PP to beat that '11 team when healthy. forget '10 stretch run sedins, '94 bure, '07 luongo, or even nashville series beastmode kesler. the most dominant performance i've ever seen in a canucks uniform is kesler and burrows killing 5 on 3s that spring. that was a thing of beauty.

if both teams were healthy the 94 team would win IMO. that team had legit scoring depth and the best player.. that would be too much for the top heavy 11 team to handle. it's not really fair to compare pre cap and post cap teams though.

 

[vanuck]

Maybe it all goes back to the Burrows/Auger indecent...

Take away the smiley and this is probably accurate.