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

DennisReynolds

the implication
Dec 11, 2011
5,269
0
Vancouver actually had more powerplays then Boston in that series, but their powerplay vanished completely.

AV was a significant reason we lost that series, hes an arrogant ass who never owns up for anything.
Also he was a significant reason why we went to that series in the first place. Don't discredit him.
 

Lady Scarlet

Registered User
Sep 20, 2013
912
0
Northern BC
The one that was blatant in 2011 SCF was the "fork hook" by Boychuk on Raymond who never was in possession of the puck. It could have been called interference, hooking or boarding.

There was no penalty called and no supplementary discipline despite the fact it resulted in a broken vertebrae in Raymond's back and easily could have been a catastrophic injury instead of just a very serious injury. He was in a vulnerable position and Boychuk drove him into the boards.

Rome gets suspended for what was an otherwise legal check delivered a tick late on Horton who had been in possession of the puck. Raymond was never in possession of the puck.

Here is the video.



In this case it was as Rome was playing excellent hockey and the suspension messed up the pairings and the ice time allocations.

Thank you, WC, couldn't have said it better myself ;)
 

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,799
4,016
The one that was blatant in 2011 SCF was the "fork hook" by Boychuk on Raymond who never was in possession of the puck. It could have been called interference, hooking or boarding.

There was no penalty called and no supplementary discipline despite the fact it resulted in a broken vertebrae in Raymond's back and easily could have been a catastrophic injury instead of just a very serious injury. He was in a vulnerable position and Boychuk drove him into the boards.

Rome gets suspended for what was an otherwise legal check delivered a tick late on Horton who had been in possession of the puck. Raymond was never in possession of the puck.

Here is the video.



Our mistake was in not calling for a stretcher.
 

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,799
4,016
Vancouver actually had more powerplays then Boston in that series, but their powerplay vanished completely.

AV was a significant reason we lost that series, hes an arrogant ass who never owns up for anything.

I think when games were close or tied, the opposition got more PP's than we did for some reason. As was shown to be true in the 1st round.

I don't have to say it, it's a fact. lowest scoring team to make the finals in NHL history?

He meant when the team was at full health. No team has the depth to survive injuries like we had - not even the Bruins. Hence why luck is such a big part of winning.
 

Wilch

Unregistered User
Mar 29, 2010
12,224
487
THE CANUCKS DIDN'T WIN A SINGLE GAME!

I realize that it's very easy to blame anything but the players, which is the MO of a lot of Canuck fans, but, at some point, don't we need to point the finger at the players?

Or you know, we can look into the issue at hand closely and point the finger at the actual problems?

Unless you want to point to Mason Raymond's shattered spine, Rome sitting in the pressbox, Ehrhoff's separated shoulder, Hamhuis's broken hip, and etc?
 

CherryToke

Registered User
Oct 18, 2008
26,735
8,218
Coquitlam
I think when games were close or tied, the opposition got more PP's than we did for some reason. As was shown to be true in the 1st round.



He meant when the team was at full health. No team has the depth to survive injuries like we had - not even the Bruins. Hence why luck is such a big part of winning.

injuries had nothing to do with the fact that only 4 forwards were producing offense. that's not exactly scoring depth.
 
Feb 28, 2002
10,922
0
Abbotsford, BC
Visit site
Healthy Kesler and healthy Hamhuis makes a world of difference. Injuries are their biggest enemy. The Team cannot stay healthy, and in the final they just completely ran out of gas.

In game 7 specifically you could see they had nothing left. But all the points made for both arguments are valid. It is a combination of all those things.
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,954
24,118
I don't have to say it, it's a fact. lowest scoring team to make the finals in NHL history?

Go injure equivalent players that were hurt for us, and see how that team fairs. The fact we held our own and were able to go 7 speaks volume.
 

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,799
4,016
injuries had nothing to do with the fact that only 4 forwards were producing offense. that's not exactly scoring depth.

Well, more like 6 but they weren't scoring much *because* everyone else was injured.
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,954
24,118
agreed. it's pretty amazing how far they went with no scoring depth. Solid defense and goal tending.

All of our offense was injured, at least the important aspects of it was, so our defense and goaltending better have stepped up, which is questionable itself.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
injuries had nothing to do with the fact that only 4 forwards were producing offense. that's not exactly scoring depth.
The Canucks offence (tops in the NHL in the regular season) was generated from the back end and they were crippled.
 

CherryToke

Registered User
Oct 18, 2008
26,735
8,218
Coquitlam
from the forwards it was the Sedins/Kesler/Burrows doing everything. Once Kesler got injured the offense was finished. how can you guys pretend this team had scoring depth? :laugh:
 

Lonny Bohonos

Registered User
Apr 4, 2010
15,645
2,060
Middle East
from the forwards it was the Sedins/Kesler/Burrows doing everything. Once Kesler got injured the offense was finished. how can you guys pretend this team had scoring depth? :laugh:

Malhotras injury was far more of a problem than is usually discussed.

Moved Kesler from a offense first role to a do everything role.
 

RobertKron

Registered User
Sep 1, 2007
15,477
8,575
Malhotras injury was far more of a problem than is usually discussed.

Moved Kesler from a offense first role to a do everything role.

There cannot be more then one factor in the loss, and that factor's responsibility must be 100%, at a minimum. Anything else is simply unrealistic.
 

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,799
4,016
from the forwards it was the Sedins/Kesler/Burrows doing everything. Once Kesler got injured the offense was finished. how can you guys pretend this team had scoring depth? :laugh:

The 3rd line stepped up. But it wasn't enough because everyone else was hurting. We had no 4th line. You're forgetting that key guys like Malhotra, Samuelsson, Raymond and Hamhuis were out in the first place, 3 of them from Game 1 onward.
 

Knucklehead

Registered User
Oct 18, 2002
846
8
Fort Nelson,B.C.
This is pretty much it.

Something weird happened in February of that year onward. And you can see it statistically.

A great possession team should generate PPs and should have their opponents on the back seat. And this was true for the first 50 games of that year. But we ended up home and cooled out for the President's Trophy very early on, our playing style generated a lot of negative press, and the media in markets jealous of our success (Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary) really ran with that negative image.

And the PPs stopped. Every single night, for the last 30 games of that season and into the playoffs, we were dominating possession, dominating games ... and the other team was handed a PP advantage. Mugging the Sedins became the status quo and was never called. Constant rinky-dink calls against us.

We were a good enough team to deal with it and keep winning for a long time. When injuries hit against Boston, it was too much.

Really well put and I totally agree with everything you said
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad