The 2006 Carolina Hurricanes

[tarheelhockey]

Later came out that it was a flu issue that he tried to play through. I think after they went back to Ward a second time, that was a replacement.

That’s correct.

Gerber had no business playing the first 2 games against Montreal. While he was out of the lineup, Ward won the next two series and created a “goalie controversy” scenario.

When Gerber came back he actually played very well at first, relieving Ward in two bad losses and then posting a shutout of his own. His season ended when he played one bad period in Game 5 against Buffalo... got the hook... Ward slams the door in relief and the Canes rally for a huge win. After that, Ward never gave up the crease again.

It was a very weird situation, with little situational flukes creating a totally unplanned series of changes.

 

[DaveG]

two questions for people who followed closely:

was gerber hurt, or was he replaced?

same with vasicek, i know he was hurt for a lot of the year, but he basically didn't play between the first and fourth rounds. was he reinjured or did he just lose his spot in the lineup to andrew ladd?

Very very sick to start the playoffs. Like to the point that they had no business putting him in net to start the Montreal series, and he very quickly got benched as a result. He was better by the time the Buffalo series came around but Ward was on so much of a roll that they only went back to Gerber a couple times in that series when they needed to shift momentum.

Vasicek, I seem to remember him being banged up and Ladd really starting to come in to his own in time for the playoffs. They tended to rotate the two with Ladd getting the majority of those games.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

They were a very good team, but got really lucky that year.

-Sens losing Hasek(eliminating a potential threat)
-Buffalo's D injuries
-Roloson getting injured game 1

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i asked about gerber and vasi because i've seen the argument made by canes fans that we shouldn't talk about the injuries to buffalo or montreal because carolina had injuries to erik cole + their starting goalie + their leading scorer from the year before.

that seems pretty disingenuous being that the latter two were replaced in the lineup by superior players. at least by the last two rounds, gerber was relegated to backup duties and vasicek got in every third game when they pulled out chad larose.

 

[quoipourquoi]

They were a very good team, but got really lucky that year.

-Sens losing Hasek(eliminating a potential threat)
-Buffalo's D injuries
-Roloson getting injured game 1

I mean... is it considered luck if there was like a 50-50 chance of that happening?

It’s not like the Hurricanes were realistically going to play the 1st (Ottawa) and 4th (Buffalo) seeds anyway as the #2. Assuming all three of them advance to Round 2, it would have required the #6 Rangers beating the #3 Devils to have opened the door for the Hurricanes playing both Ottawa and Buffalo. The Devils swept the Rangers, meaning Carolina could only play one of Ottawa/Buffalo.

 

[Svechhammer]

They also were probably only the third most talented team in that conference and had no right beating a Buffalo team that was without 4 of their 6 defensemen by the end of the series.

15 seasons later and the tears are still as salty as ever

 

[Eye of Ra]

Was not Niclas Wallin a big part of the succes?

 

[tarheelhockey]

i asked about gerber and vasi because i've seen the argument made by canes fans that we shouldn't talk about the injuries to buffalo or montreal because carolina had injuries to erik cole + their starting goalie + their leading scorer from the year before.

that seems pretty disingenuous being that the latter two were replaced in the lineup by superior players. at least by the last two rounds, gerber was relegated to backup duties and vasicek got in every third game when they pulled out chad larose.

It's just a weird thing to say "you got lucky your depth players turned out to be really good".

That's not getting lucky, that's... being really good.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's just a weird thing to say "you got lucky your depth players turned out to be really good".

That's not getting lucky, that's... being really good.

no no that's the point. that team was very very good. that team was "erik cole got hurt and it didn't matter" good.

but it's not, "that team was even better than they were because of these two players who used to be your starter and leading scorer two years ago only they were hurt. can you imagine if they were healhty?" you can agree that's a disingenuous argument, right?

 

[tarheelhockey]

no no that's the point. that team was very very good. that team was "erik cole got hurt and it didn't matter" good.

but it's not, "that team was even better than they were because of these two players who used to be your starter and leading scorer two years ago only they were hurt. can you imagine if they were healhty?" you can agree that's a disingenuous argument, right?

In the case of Gerber, yes it's disingenuous to say they would have been better with him in the lineup. In the case of Cole, I don't see how it's even an argument... they would definitely have been better with him.

In Gerber's case, I said somewhere upthread that it's hard to argue that losing Gerber was a negative, given the performance that Ward put on. But I think the argument against the '06 Canes often takes it too far, framing them as being lucky that Ward came out of left field, rather than having to ride with Gerber. The problem with that argument is that's largely based on Gerber's being half-dead in net during the Montreal series, creating memories that he was just bad rather than sick. He was a legitimate #1 at the time, and it's not hard to imagine them going deep with him in net.

I guess what it comes down to is there's a tendency to focus on the lucky breaks which handicapped their opponents, while ignoring the potentially devastating unlucky breaks which might have handicapped the Canes if they were a shallower team.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

In the case of Gerber, yes it's disingenuous to say they would have been better with him in the lineup. In the case of Cole, I don't see how it's even an argument... they would definitely have been better with him.

In Gerber's case, I said somewhere upthread that it's hard to argue that losing Gerber was a negative, given the performance that Ward put on. But I think the argument against the '06 Canes often takes it too far, framing them as being lucky that Ward came out of left field, rather than having to ride with Gerber. The problem with that argument is that's largely based on Gerber's being half-dead in net during the Montreal series, creating memories that he was just bad rather than sick. He was a legitimate #1 at the time, and it's not hard to imagine them going deep with him in net.

I guess what it comes down to is there's a tendency to focus on the lucky breaks which handicapped their opponents, while ignoring the potentially devastating unlucky breaks which might have handicapped the Canes if they were a shallower team.

cole, of course absolutely they would have been better with him. the fact that they kept rolling without him shows how deep that team was up front, which when we look back is (along with their crazy hot powerplay) what made that run special.

it's the other two where i think that's just really reaching. i get the impulse to go there, because people are always talkign about koivu and roloson and omg buffalo's entire blueline, but "our leading scorer from the previous season," which i saw on a main board thread this week, but forget which one, is just dishonest.