Pre-Game Talk: GM 4: Vancouver Canucks @ San Jose Sharks - May 7 - 7:00PM PST - TSN
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
- Status
Canucker
Go Hawks!
Why bother? How much tinkering does AV need to do to find offense? He's had most of the season to mess with different line up combinations in order to find some chemistry and when he finds it, he just switches it up anyhow...No, just keep the Sedins together and play the hell out of their line and Kesler's line...let the season live or die by this core.
yoss
Registered User
- May 25, 2011
- 3,006
- 37
A comeback would be epic. I know I know, not likely at all and not expecting it. But San Jose has given up 3 game leads in a series before.
Do the Canucks roll over and die?
What repercussions to the look of this team will transpire if they get swept?
Don't go out like that boys. I stubbornly, naively and foolishly still hold on to a glimmer of hope. I mean not entirely, but whatever. It's happened before.
Just play hard, that's all I ask. One game at a time. Whatever happens happens.
Ideally...
but very possibly,
Anyways, Go Nucks!
Will probably stay away from this thread on game day unless things go well.
Do the Canucks roll over and die?
What repercussions to the look of this team will transpire if they get swept?
Don't go out like that boys. I stubbornly, naively and foolishly still hold on to a glimmer of hope. I mean not entirely, but whatever. It's happened before.
Just play hard, that's all I ask. One game at a time. Whatever happens happens.
Ideally...
but very possibly,
Anyways, Go Nucks!
Will probably stay away from this thread on game day unless things go well.
Henrik To Daniel
Registered User
The team was absolutely dominant in the regular season - one of the best teams in the history of the National Hockey League. There is no denying that.
Art Ross winners, Selkes, 40 goal scorers, great goaltending. The works.
Playoffs roll around and they face their arch rival - Chicago Blackhawks. A team that won the Cup the year before, but with different players because a lot of them had to be traded because of cap issues. But in the end, they knew they had to get it done and they did. But that's a different story.
At that point the Canucks were the laughing stock of the league when it came to the playoffs. Getting bounced by the same team two years in a row in embarrassing fashion. They had to win this one. They win the first three games and have the potential to sweep the team that had given them fits before. What do they do? Lose game 4. All fine and dandy because it was only one game. They still had two more opportunities to close the series. And did they? No.
It took them 7 games and OT to get the job done. This was a #1 seed facing a #8 seed. This was a team that was up 3-0 in the series and it ended up being 4-3. How do you justify that? People easily forget about losing those 3 games because in the end they won, but looking back now, wow. It really showed the mental fortitude of the team which clearly was not high. Alex Burrows single handedly saved AV his job as well as the rest of the core's.
The Nashville series was a weird one. They were a great defensive team with a world class goalie. Kesler turned on "beast mode" and finally decided to show up for a playoff series for the first time in his career. Luongo also played a great series. Though in the end, Canucks had the benefit of playing an inexperienced group.
Sharks series was their best series for sure and a personal favorite of mine. Sedins played the best series (offensively) of their careers, defense was good, Luongo stood on his head, a great series overall and I have no issues with this one.
Now onto the big cheese. The Boston series. Hopes were running high, the team was excited, the city was buzzing. Games 1 and 2 were won by the good guys, but in low scoring affairs. Game 3 rolls around and Canucks get obliterated. Not a problem because there was still Game 4, right? Nope. Another shelling.
That's okay, because now the boys were coming back home for Game 5 and what do they do? THEY WIN! YAY! Luongo gets a shutout, but how many goals do the Canucks score? A grand total of... wait for it... ONE! But who cares how many goals they scored, at least they won, right?
Game 6. Canucks can seal the deal and finally win the big one. Do they? Hell to the ****ing no, I tell you what. They get shelled AGAIN and the series is tied. Keep in mind that Boston was DOWN 2-0 in the series and at this point they have tied it up 3-3. Next game wins the Cup.
Biggest game in franchise history. The whole world is watching. The stars are aligned for a storybook ending. A team that has never won Lord Stanley in it's entire 40 years of pathetic existence. It just so happened that the team that was iced this year was the best regular season team in the franchise's history. They have a chance to seal it, at home, in front of their fans. In game 7.
What do they? Goose egg. Shutout. At home. Absolutely no heart. No emotion. Out classed, out played.
A total of 8 goals scored in 7 games by the regular season's best offense, best team. Luongo gets two shutouts and it's still not enough.
That team was lowest scoring team IN THE HISTORY OF THE STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS TO EVER MAKE THE STANLEY CUP FINAL.
Let me repeat that for you.
That team was lowest scoring team IN THE HISTORY OF THE STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS TO EVER MAKE THE STANLEY CUP FINAL.
I'm not going to go calculating stats, but it's been mentioned many times before.
You can put the blame on injuries all you want, but it's the playoffs. People play hurt all the time. Yzerman played on one leg and captained his team to the Cup. Canucks were hurt, but so were the Bruins.
They didn't deserve to be there, but they were there anyways. If that's not a fluke run, I don't know what is.
Art Ross winners, Selkes, 40 goal scorers, great goaltending. The works.
Playoffs roll around and they face their arch rival - Chicago Blackhawks. A team that won the Cup the year before, but with different players because a lot of them had to be traded because of cap issues. But in the end, they knew they had to get it done and they did. But that's a different story.
At that point the Canucks were the laughing stock of the league when it came to the playoffs. Getting bounced by the same team two years in a row in embarrassing fashion. They had to win this one. They win the first three games and have the potential to sweep the team that had given them fits before. What do they do? Lose game 4. All fine and dandy because it was only one game. They still had two more opportunities to close the series. And did they? No.
It took them 7 games and OT to get the job done. This was a #1 seed facing a #8 seed. This was a team that was up 3-0 in the series and it ended up being 4-3. How do you justify that? People easily forget about losing those 3 games because in the end they won, but looking back now, wow. It really showed the mental fortitude of the team which clearly was not high. Alex Burrows single handedly saved AV his job as well as the rest of the core's.
The Nashville series was a weird one. They were a great defensive team with a world class goalie. Kesler turned on "beast mode" and finally decided to show up for a playoff series for the first time in his career. Luongo also played a great series. Though in the end, Canucks had the benefit of playing an inexperienced group.
Sharks series was their best series for sure and a personal favorite of mine. Sedins played the best series (offensively) of their careers, defense was good, Luongo stood on his head, a great series overall and I have no issues with this one.
Now onto the big cheese. The Boston series. Hopes were running high, the team was excited, the city was buzzing. Games 1 and 2 were won by the good guys, but in low scoring affairs. Game 3 rolls around and Canucks get obliterated. Not a problem because there was still Game 4, right? Nope. Another shelling.
That's okay, because now the boys were coming back home for Game 5 and what do they do? THEY WIN! YAY! Luongo gets a shutout, but how many goals do the Canucks score? A grand total of... wait for it... ONE! But who cares how many goals they scored, at least they won, right?
Game 6. Canucks can seal the deal and finally win the big one. Do they? Hell to the ****ing no, I tell you what. They get shelled AGAIN and the series is tied. Keep in mind that Boston was DOWN 2-0 in the series and at this point they have tied it up 3-3. Next game wins the Cup.
Biggest game in franchise history. The whole world is watching. The stars are aligned for a storybook ending. A team that has never won Lord Stanley in it's entire 40 years of pathetic existence. It just so happened that the team that was iced this year was the best regular season team in the franchise's history. They have a chance to seal it, at home, in front of their fans. In game 7.
What do they? Goose egg. Shutout. At home. Absolutely no heart. No emotion. Out classed, out played.
A total of 8 goals scored in 7 games by the regular season's best offense, best team. Luongo gets two shutouts and it's still not enough.
That team was lowest scoring team IN THE HISTORY OF THE STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS TO EVER MAKE THE STANLEY CUP FINAL.
Let me repeat that for you.
That team was lowest scoring team IN THE HISTORY OF THE STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS TO EVER MAKE THE STANLEY CUP FINAL.
I'm not going to go calculating stats, but it's been mentioned many times before.
You can put the blame on injuries all you want, but it's the playoffs. People play hurt all the time. Yzerman played on one leg and captained his team to the Cup. Canucks were hurt, but so were the Bruins.
They didn't deserve to be there, but they were there anyways. If that's not a fluke run, I don't know what is.
Derp Kassian
Registered User
Making the cup finals was no fluke, going 7 games was. let me make that clear for you
MAKING THE CUP FINALS WAS NO FlUKE, GOING 7 GAMES WAS.
NoShowWilly
Registered User
their line is doing nothing. every other line gets ****ed with for not producing. They get one **** goal and they are safe? Neither of them shoot. They aren't generating anything. They are completely solved by San Jose.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
Patrick Sharp was about 6 inches away from eliminating us in an embarrassing first round collapse. That's how close it was.
Eddy Punch Clock
Jack Adams 2028
A shake up to the core does not have to mean a complete blow up. And I'm not suggesting trading the Sedins... they'd prove to be just about as hard to trade as Luongo anyways. I'd prefer keeping them around for the second line in a season or two personally; but it's going to take some of the assests we currently have to help build another top line for the future. I lkie the idea of using Edler to significantly move up in the draft.
Just changing coaches and expecting better results is not going to work with this team.
Anyways, at the end of the day the Canucks want to sell tickets. Coming back next season with the exact same core isn't going to help that imo.
I don't care about their embellishing. It's the officiating that needs to be called out. We are down 3-0. There is nothing to lose now. Let those refs have it. I haven't been here for the day. Did anyone call them out? There is embellishing by players where it would be hard for the ref to tell if it really hurt or not, but the embellishing in this series is so incredibly obvious that it means that the officials are just looking for the slightest reason to call a penalty on the canucks in this series. We haven't been that great in this series, but we sure as hell don't need to be screwed over by the refs as well. No doubt in my mind that the officials are biased in this series.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
It wasn't a "fluke", it required some luck...and in most cases, teams don't get to the finals without some luck. If that's the case, the Bruins fluked their way into the finals by being ridiculously healthy (only missing Savard) and having the refs and Colin Campbell/Mike Murphy help carry them through the Tampa series.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
The last time we were certain AV was going to be fired and there would be changes Alex Burrows came up huge with a GWG against Carolina. Reverse sweep?
yoss
Registered User
- May 25, 2011
- 3,006
- 37
I agree Bieksa should take some accountability for the teams play, but on the other hand I don't disagree with what he's said. Or what people have quoted in this thread at least.
I have rarely been that pissed off about reffing before. Just like wow, what? How the **** do you make and miss calls like that in the playoffs with so much on the line. Make the weakest calls against Nucks yet miss the obvious and blatant penalties by Sharks? Why does this team always get **** on? That's what it feels like sometimes.
I have rarely been that pissed off about reffing before. Just like wow, what? How the **** do you make and miss calls like that in the playoffs with so much on the line. Make the weakest calls against Nucks yet miss the obvious and blatant penalties by Sharks? Why does this team always get **** on? That's what it feels like sometimes.
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
that's funny.. Burrows is due to go on a goal scoring rampage and complete the save AV's ass hat trick.
NoShowWilly
Registered User
No one has so split up the top two playmakers and hope that they can make someone else produce. Kesler needs a playmaking winger. Attempt Daniel with him.
NuxFan09
Registered User
I still don't know if I'm convinced that the run was a fluke but I will say that the part I bolded still bugs me the most and spoke the loudest of what this team is really made of, or not made of. Most pundits agree: Maybe the most embarrassing showing by a Stanley Cup finalist in history. It's no coincidence that following that game and that series, the Canucks have won a grand total of ONE playoff game and have looked absolutely demoralized, disinterested and just plain crappy.
Scrap this core already. They are DONE.
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 16,659
- 15,690
The team gets **** on because they brought it upon themselves.
Whether people like it or not, this team is hated by teams, fans, media and apparently the refs. No one likes them.
They had a reputation for diving, etc. which was both true and not true. They tried to "reform" but it's essentially boy who cried wolf at that point. It's done; your imagine is already made in one light.
It is what it is and not much they can do besides get rid of the players that are the cause (which is essentially the core players).
This team made its bed with losing the first two games at home. Whether they got screwed by refs in game 3 is a moot point.
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
Agreed. How close were the Bruins to losing against Montreal? One bad bounce in OT and they would have been gone in the first round, and this a year after being the 3rd team in NHL history to lose a series aftee being up 3-0. Then they would have been the "laughing stock of the league."
That's just how fine the line is between winning and losing in the playoffs.
yoss
Registered User
- May 25, 2011
- 3,006
- 37
I don't disagree that they brought this 0-3 hole on themselves, however having to play against both the Sharks and bad reffing is not fair. That Hamhuis "penalty" puts them 5 on 3 last night. That missed call on the Sharks that WAS a penalty would have put us 5 on 3. Could have changed the whole complexion of the game.
Whatever, what's done is done. Blaming the refs is never the way to go, but they DID leave their mark on the game last night, though the game of course was ultimately lost by the Canucks.
I was taking a look at the roster for one of the SJ games (the 7-3 victory) in 2011, and our current roster really should be around the nearly the same strength as that one.
Players gone:
Ehrhoff, Rome, Salo, Tambellini, Torres, Oreskovich, Hodgson.
Players added:
Garrison, Roy, Sestito, Kassian, Corrado, Alberts, Weise.
Garrison and Alberts should cancel out Salo and Rome. Ehrhoff was a big loss, but he missed part of the series and the team was scoring lots without him in that series anyway.
Hodgson was a bit player as a rookie during the series. Torres would be nice to have around, but overall, the replacement forwards should be better than the ones we lost.
San Jose added some good players since then, but were actually better in the regular season that year.
So the problem seems to be that most of the existing players from that 2010-11 roster seem to have gotten much worse. I can't think of a single skater who is actually playing even up to the same level they did during the SJ series in 2011.
They're not old enough to have all declined due to aging, so I think most of the problem is attributable to coaching and the systems the team plays. Combined with "gripping the stick" too tightly due to past playoff struggles perhaps.
Players gone:
Ehrhoff, Rome, Salo, Tambellini, Torres, Oreskovich, Hodgson.
Players added:
Garrison, Roy, Sestito, Kassian, Corrado, Alberts, Weise.
Garrison and Alberts should cancel out Salo and Rome. Ehrhoff was a big loss, but he missed part of the series and the team was scoring lots without him in that series anyway.
Hodgson was a bit player as a rookie during the series. Torres would be nice to have around, but overall, the replacement forwards should be better than the ones we lost.
San Jose added some good players since then, but were actually better in the regular season that year.
So the problem seems to be that most of the existing players from that 2010-11 roster seem to have gotten much worse. I can't think of a single skater who is actually playing even up to the same level they did during the SJ series in 2011.
They're not old enough to have all declined due to aging, so I think most of the problem is attributable to coaching and the systems the team plays. Combined with "gripping the stick" too tightly due to past playoff struggles perhaps.
- Status
