Series won and lost in a single moment

[streitz]

i’m not convinced a goalie other than, say, patrick roy could have played better than tabaracci did in games 1-4. so imo essensa would have done better in games 4-7, as anyone would have (and i ride for backup bob, he was underratedly good), but i don’t think he wins three of four to start so a moot point.

upthread, someone suggested that paddock started tabaracci instead of essensa bc essensa was up for a new contract and they wanted to keep it low. seems insane, but with that org you never know. they were in the period btw cutting salary on hawerchuk and giving away selanne/selling the team.

The brass knew the jets were leaving within 5 years with expanding salaries. From the 1990 series onward the goal of the jets was to market the team as much as possible while being run as cheaply as possible.

 

[Tarantula]

And he did it twice, also at 2008.



That Elli goals didn't turn around the series, but opened some mental locks there was on in the Game6.

Somebody has to do something... "okay, let's put it in behind the red line."

I'm still wondering how both of those attempts went in, because I don't remember any other "behind the red line" Lidström attempts from regular season or playoffs he ever tried. It was those two attemps in a most meaningful time of a playoff run and both in.

Lemaire crosses the red line.......... dejuvu all over again.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

While I agree with the basic premise of your post, I'm not sure how Cloutier not letting in that goal (and presumably the Canucks beat Detroit) would have changed the course of Canucks history for the following few years.

Because I think that there are times in a team's development that are watershed moments. Times where, if things had worked out differently for a young core, they may have believed more deeply in themselves and made more of themselves. Or times where, if the team had just won that ONE game, than their GM would have augmented their team with the right personnel instead of panicking and making dumb moves.

I don't have a lot of time right this second to analyze it from every angle, but suppose that the Canucks beat the Red Wings and then either give a good fight in the 2nd round or make it to the Conference Finals.
Maybe with that pedigree, they don't choke on the last day of 2003 and now Naslund is an Art Ross winner and maybe that's the year that we make it to the Finals. It was there for the plucking with all of the upsets.

And it wouldn't take too many changes for Bertuzzi not to have suckered Moore and Cloutier not to get hurt in round 1 in 2004 (butterfly wings and all that).

Of course I'm merely postulating, but I do think that that goal was a lot bigger than a lot of people think.

 

[The Panther]

I remember watching that game one of the '92 Finals, and the face-off with 20 seconds or whatever left. I was 15 or 16, and my thought at that moment was, 'Why is Keenan leaving Mario Lemieux completely wide open at the left point in a tie game with 20 seconds left?'

 

[nucksflailtogether]

Because I think that there are times in a team's development that are watershed moments. Times where, if things had worked out differently for a young core, they may have believed more deeply in themselves and made more of themselves. Or times where, if the team had just won that ONE game, than their GM would have augmented their team with the right personnel instead of panicking and making dumb moves.

I don't have a lot of time right this second to analyze it from every angle, but suppose that the Canucks beat the Red Wings and then either give a good fight in the 2nd round or make it to the Conference Finals.
Maybe with that pedigree, they don't choke on the last day of 2003 and now Naslund is an Art Ross winner and maybe that's the year that we make it to the Finals. It was there for the plucking with all of the upsets.

And it wouldn't take too many changes for Bertuzzi not to have suckered Moore and Cloutier not to get hurt in round 1 in 2004 (butterfly wings and all that).

Of course I'm merely postulating, but I do think that that goal was a lot bigger than a lot of people think.

Good point. Same could maybe be said about the 09' team. Blow game 4 in chicago, lost momentum and lose the next two. If they advance, maybe they upset the wings or at least make it close. Then the next year Lu carries a lot more confidence into that chi series, and maybe they pull through into San Jose. If they make it to the finals, I don't like philly's chances. Of course, they finally make it through in 2011, but the Hawks got in their heads again and perhaps tired them out in that round 1 leading to more injuries (pure speculation)

Maybe that last minute game 4 loss in 09 really means more than just one loss...

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Good point. Same could maybe be said about the 09' team. Blow game 4 in chicago, lost momentum and lose the next two. If they advance, maybe they upset the wings or at least make it close. Then the next year Lu carries a lot more confidence into that chi series, and maybe they pull through into San Jose. If they make it to the finals, I don't like philly's chances. Of course, they finally make it through in 2011, but the Hawks got in their heads again and perhaps tired them out in that round 1 leading to more injuries (pure speculation)

Maybe that last minute game 4 loss in 09 really means more than just one loss...

Totally agree. In fact, I considered referring to that precise moment as well but figured that it would make the scope of the post too broad.

 

[streitz]

I don't have a lot of time right this second to analyze it from every angle, but suppose that the Canucks beat the Red Wings and then either give a good fight in the 2nd round or make it to the Conference Finals.
Maybe with that pedigree, they don't choke on the last day of 2003 and now Naslund is an Art Ross winner and maybe that's the year that we make it to the Finals. It was there for the plucking with all of the upsets.

The WCE years weren't strong teams for the canucks, they had no depth and Naslund and especially Bertuzzi were always weak in the playoffs.


The only years I'd say the canucks 'choked' was during the 92 and 93 playoffs where I felt both years they should of beaten the Oilers and Kings. Maybe the 95 playoffs aswell, I think that was the year they got swept by a mediocre Hawks team.

 

[nucksflailtogether]

The WCE years weren't strong teams for the canucks, they had no depth and Naslund and especially Bertuzzi were always weak in the playoffs.


The only years I'd say the canucks 'choked' was during the 92 and 93 playoffs where I felt both years they should of beaten the Oilers and Kings. Maybe the 95 playoffs aswell, I think that was the year they got swept by a mediocre Hawks team.

Yep, the Canucks always seem to be on the wrong side of the big moment. Whether or not they are outplaying the other team, we always seem to have something major go against us. That would apply to teams like St. Louis. Had a goal go in on Turek from centre ice in game 7...game set match.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

The WCE years weren't strong teams for the canucks, they had no depth and Naslund and especially Bertuzzi were always weak in the playoffs.


The only years I'd say the canucks 'choked' was during the 92 and 93 playoffs where I felt both years they should of beaten the Oilers and Kings. Maybe the 95 playoffs aswell, I think that was the year they got swept by a mediocre Hawks team.

See I think that's something that history remembers due to our results, and I don't think it had to be that way. The Canucks had a really good and really underrated D at that time. Goaltending and offensive depth were our primary problems. But it was a somewhat weak time for the league too. (Speaking of 2003 and 2004 particularly). I think the WCE Canucks could have been something if things had broken their way at the right time.