Franchise Best: Vancouver Canucks 2010-11 Season

[LastWordArmy]

The Franchise Best Series comes to you to dive into the all-time best single season for every organization. This, of course, includes post-season results. Join us for a look back at some of the most memorable moments in each franchise’s history. Here is the Vancouver Canucks best season.

Franchise Best: Vancouver Canucks 2010-11 Season - Last Word on Hockey

Click to read more...

 

[strattonius]

Our best season - and also the season everyone wants to forget.

 

[Zombotron]

Vancouver did not win the President's Trophy in 2010.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Dwelling on the past serves no purpose.

Reliving tremendous memories followed by an extremely painful one does no one justice and is ultimately a counter productive exercise. I would rather have Scott Hartnell fart in my face rather than think about 2011.

Here’s the bottom line.

These are dark and stormy times to be a Canucks fan, but most of us are aged between 18-45......meaning that all/most of us will experience another Vancouver Canucks cup run atleast one more time in life......likely 2-3.

My advice to anyone reading this:

This is a marathon......not a sprint. Being a religious hockey (as most of are on here) requires you to accept the good with the bad. Don’t let this ownership or a management group get you down.

It’s not a question of IF we will rise again.....it’s a matter of WHEN.

2011 was nice, but maybe 2031 will be better no?

#GoCanucksGo

 

[Captain Bowie]

Yeah, the article gets off to an inaccurate start.

The Previous Season: The First of The Presidents Trophies and the Aftermath

The 2009-10 season for the Vancouver Canucks left a hollow feeling with both the fans and the team. Coming off a President’s Trophy win and with Henrik Sedin coming off an Art Ross winning year, they were poised to make a deep run in the playoffs, however that all came to a close in the second round. The Canucks lost 4-2 in a series against the eventual Stanley Cup-winning Chicago Blackhawks.

Wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't in such large, bold text. It was the following season the won the Prez again, not the previous season.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

I've been watching clips from the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 seasons lately...lots of good memories from those years as well, despite the endings.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Overall, the article is a pretty good events summary of the season. The records they broke, awards they won, who scored how much, ect... but doesn't really do any in-depth analysis. The SC Finals against Boston was the defining period of the whole season, and all it really did was summarize who won which games, and ultimately the series.

Maybe that's all you were going for, not trying to be overly critical.

 

[Timmer44]

I've been a Canucks fan a long time, and that season was the most fun to be a Canucks fan in their history. Closely followed by the peak WCE years.

We lost game 7, and the city collectively melted down, but it doesn't take away from what was an amazing season.

 

[Javaman]

Bah.

If the Canucks were as healthy as the Bruins were in that series, they would have easily won the one extra game it took to claim the Stanley Cup. Hell, a healthy Canucks squad might just have swept the Bruins. Screw the pundits.

If the Canucks had somehow manged to squeeze out one more victory in the SCF, they would likely be considered as the greatest team of their era. We'd be having serious discussions about whether the 2011 Canucks were as good as the Habs of the late 70s.

 

[Dissonance Jr]

Bah.

If the Canucks were as healthy as the Bruins were in that series, they would have easily won the one extra game it took to claim the Stanley Cup. Hell, a healthy Canucks squad might just have swept the Bruins. Screw the pundits.

If the Canucks had somehow manged to squeeze out one more victory in the SCF, they would likely be considered as the greatest team of their era. We'd be having serious discussions about whether the 2011 Canucks were as good as the Habs of the late 70s.

Yup. No one ever likes to talk about how much luck is involved in the playoffs, because it's not as exciting as pretending that one team "wanted it more" or that the Canucks lost because Daniel Sedin let Brad Marchand punch him in the face repeatedly. But luck and injuries were absolutely a factor, and we had crap luck. If Hamhuis times that hip check on Lucic a little better, maybe the entire series goes off differently and we're talking about that team as one of the best ever instead of cringing at the memory.

 

[Javaman]

Yup. No one ever likes to talk about how much luck is involved in the playoffs, because it's not as exciting as pretending that one team "wanted it more" or that the Canucks lost because Daniel Sedin let Brad Marchand punch him in the face repeatedly. But luck and injuries were absolutely a factor, and we had crap luck. If Hamhuis times that hip check on Lucic a little better, maybe the entire series goes off differently and we're talking about that team as one of the best ever instead of cringing at the memory.

Yeah well I'll add to it... if Tim Thomas had played in the SCF the way he played in the ECF, not only do the injury riddled Canucks win the Cup, one of the Sedins wins the Conn Smythe. Mildly bold hindsighted prediction

I force myself to tune out when someone starts explaining to me the lack of heart and grit is the real reason Boston beat the Canucks. Otherwise, I'll just totally lose it.

 

[EpochLink]

Game 7 of the SCF did not break me, Game 6 broke me.
All I asked was for one save, JUST ONE....and I ended up with goal after goal after heartbreaking goal.

My spirit was wrecked in game 6, I knew game 7 was a wash.

 

[Scumbag Frank]

 

[David Bruce Banner]

I've been a Canucks fan a long time, and that season was the most fun to be a Canucks fan in their history. Closely followed by the peak WCE years.

We lost game 7, and the city collectively melted down, but it doesn't take away from what was an amazing season.

I kind of preferred the ‘94 SC final team. Although I don’t think they were as good a team as the ‘11 team, I think they would have been a better matchup vs the Bruins.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

94 was sooo much better than 11.

 

[Shareefruck]

Dwelling on the past serves no purpose.

Reliving tremendous memories followed by an extremely painful one does no one justice and is ultimately a counter productive exercise. I would rather have Scott Hartnell fart in my face rather than think about 2011.

Here’s the bottom line.

These are dark and stormy times to be a Canucks fan, but most of us are aged between 18-45......meaning that all/most of us will experience another Vancouver Canucks cup run atleast one more time in life......likely 2-3.

My advice to anyone reading this:

This is a marathon......not a sprint. Being a religious hockey (as most of are on here) requires you to accept the good with the bad. Don’t let this ownership or a management group get you down.

It’s not a question of IF we will rise again.....it’s a matter of WHEN.

2011 was nice, but maybe 2031 will be better no?

#GoCanucksGo

That sounds nice, but in reality, it's not a mentality that makes a whole lot of sense, IMO.

Looking forward to the future when you have no impact on it either way is no more productive than dwelling on the past. If anything, it's less productive, because it's pie-in-the-sky thinking grounded in nothingness. You shouldn't forget about something or avoid enjoying and re-living it in your mind simply because it's associated with some pain. You should appreciate it all the same, as if it were the present.

Besides, negative feelings serve to enhance positive feelings when they happen and put everything in perspective, so that kind of makes the whole sentiment moot. If you don't let the current state of the team get you down, success down the road will only end up feeling less sweet.

Really, all of it should be embraced.

 

[VanJack]

I was never convinced those '10 - '11 Canuck teams were ever as good as their record. Those were were days of uneven divisional schedules, where teams played a whopping number of games in their own division. The old Northwest Division and Pacific Divisions were bad, with a capital 'B'. The Sedins and the Canucks feasted on some really awful teams in Edmonton, Calgary and Colorado. And other than the 2011 team, they always always seem to flop in the playoffs.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I was never convinced those '10 - '11 Canuck teams were ever as good as their record. Those were were days of uneven divisional schedules, where teams played a whopping number of games in their own division. The old Northwest Division and Pacific Divisions were bad, with a capital 'B'. The Sedins and the Canucks feasted on some really awful teams in Edmonton, Calgary and Colorado. And other than the 2011 team, they always always seem to flop in the playoffs.

Ugggh.....well you’re wrong.

The Canucks were cleaning up on ALL teams during 2010-2011/2011-2012. Even in 2012-2013 when they regressed, they had convincing records against non divisional opponents.

Give your head a shake.

And for the record, the Canucks would have beaten Boston had they not been injured. They also likely would have won the cup the following year had they not run into a sizzling LA King’s team.

 

[nucksflailtogether]

I think the Canucks almost blowing that first round series might have set them back. If they had finished off the sweep, they would have been more fresh, and probably could have won the Nashville series quicker, and so on. Perhaps the injury problem wouldn't have been as extreme as it was.

I went to game 5 of the San Jose series. Curiously, I was able to find upper bowl tickets for something around $200. I have to admit, the atmosphere at the game was not what I thought it was going to be. Maybe everybody was nervous, but people didn't seem that pumped until we won.

Either way, a spectacular season we can only hope to repeat one day.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I have very fond memories of this season, obviously up until the last few games of the SCF.

It really was the year of "ifs" and hypotheticals...
If one injury of Hamhuis, Kesler, or Malhotra was avoided, we might have won the Cup.
If Gillis had re-signed Willie Mitchell over making the Ballard trade, we might have won the Cup.
If Cory Schneider had started some of the games in Boston, we might have won the Cup.
Hell, even if Aaron Rome didn't get suspended, who knows how things would have changed? The Rome suspension had the adverse impact of throwing Ballard into the frying pan after he had sat so long, and AV was not a fan of his either.

 

[RobertKron]

I was never convinced those '10 - '11 Canuck teams were ever as good as their record. Those were were days of uneven divisional schedules, where teams played a whopping number of games in their own division. The old Northwest Division and Pacific Divisions were bad, with a capital 'B'. The Sedins and the Canucks feasted on some really awful teams in Edmonton, Calgary and Colorado. And other than the 2011 team, they always always seem to flop in the playoffs.

Seems about consistent.

 

[theoriginalBCF]

94 was sooo much better than 11.

I disagree. In 94, as fun as that was, they were not going to beat the Rangers. in 2011, the Canucks should've won the cup... but for those f***ing injuries, a goalie named Tim Thomas, and his .960 sv%

I mean we seem to forget that in 94, Kirk had 2 huge meltdown games in games 3 & 4 at home, with 5-1 and 4-2 losses. Kinda similar. That Canucks team in 94 was way too streaky and were the epitome of a team getting lucky and hot at the right time.

In 2011, that team was the shit! one of the best to never win a cup.

 

[Huggy43]

The 94 team:
are they an under achieving team (reg. season) or were they a fairytale run?

Imo they were a team who under achieved during the regular season but finally played up to standards (previous 2 seasons level) once the post season started.

 

[Josepho]

I was never convinced those '10 - '11 Canuck teams were ever as good as their record. Those were were days of uneven divisional schedules, where teams played a whopping number of games in their own division. The old Northwest Division and Pacific Divisions were bad, with a capital 'B'. The Sedins and the Canucks feasted on some really awful teams in Edmonton, Calgary and Colorado. And other than the 2011 team, they always always seem to flop in the playoffs.

They were still on pace for the most points in the league even if you took out their divisional games.

 

[theoriginalBCF]

... they always always seem to flop in the playoffs.

They ran into the closest thing to a Dynasty in the hawks, and I might agree about 2009. I think they should've beat the Hawks that year, but overall that team was just stellar! I think it is why people are unsure about Luongo because he was so spectacular... and he would have the most untimely meltdowns in the most untimely situations.

To me they lost the cup in game 4. 8-1, fair enough in game 3. But in game 4, they laid an egg that let the bruins back into the series. And that was the game that really hurt them.