Sorry I didn't understand your post. I don't believe you understand what the definition of cherry picking is. You might want to google it.
Canucks window was from 2009 to 2013. I am giving a 3 year sample size they didn't have much scoring in the playoffs. Four out of those playoffs twice they didn't make it out of 1st round and twice they didn't make it out out 2nd round. Canucks were no match for the Hawks Kings and Sharks so I am pointed out their weaknesses in those seasons . So such a large sample size and I am providing for my argument.
I am cheering picking? Lol, you don't know how to argue so you use the same term than I am using on you. But the difference is I am using a large sample size and you're using one small sample size in 2011
I am done, please learn how to argue.
You, this Canucks1096 is making good points. I can't argue with him so let me say I don't want to talk about Gillis and switch to focus on Benning.
Have a great night. Time to get some sleep.
You frame two rounds in 2012 and 2013 as two years which while true is disingenuous, you're framing them in a way to intentionally make it seem like a longer sample size than it really is. Why do the other years not matter? From 2009-2012 we were a premiere team in the NHL. 2013 was the year Gillis said the team was done and needed to be rebuilt (obviously he was right). So you're including a year where it would have been an absolutely massive Benning-tier blunder to trade for a top line player in your deceptive sample. Also keep in mind we lost to the eventual cup champions 3 years in a row. What's the difference in losing to the cup champions in the first round, the third round, or the finals? From a business standpoint there is a difference in revenue, but in terms of team quality there is none.
You cherry picked by cutting out 4 rounds of hockey that don't benefit your fantasy, but add in a single round in a year where it would have been undeniably a massive blunder to bring in a top line player to support your argument that we needed a top line player. Do you understand why nobody respects your posts or takes your so called "arguments" seriously?
The truth is that behind your claims that you're using a large sample size, the only sample that seems to matter to people like you is one single game at the end of 2011. 16/16 wins = good, 15/16 wins = literally awful, loser can't build a winning team.
I hope you enjoy the hockey we have now, it's small minded thinking and tunneling on insignificant perceived errors, building them up to be massive blunders in your head, that led us to this point. You can't look at the process, you can't look at the strategy, you can't look at performance. You're the worst type of stat watching fan, the level 2 thinker who can't take a step beyond to try to understand how things work. You're the type of fan that no matter how good a player is playing, if he goes through a cold stretch of hot goalies and posts you'll say "well, he doesn't have the will to win, he doesn't want the puck on his stick when the game is on the line, he can't put the biscuit in the basket, get rid of him!".
The Canucks went to 7 games in the SCF against Tim Thomas making prime Hasek look like Cloutier while outright missing their #3 C, #2 RW, #1 D, not to mention the slew of injuries our team suffered and played through. That's how good the team Gillis built was. We didn't even need our full roster to compete with the very healthy Bruins for 7 games. I'll google cherry picking, why don't you google "context". You "arguments" seem to lack any.
/GettyImages-89369815-56a6d9f55f9b58b7d0e51c98.jpg)
