Your unpopular playoff retrospective opinion

[Dr Salt]

Well lets be real, the COVID slip happened and we cant do anything to change it

yeah the best normal east teams get realigned by the irony of the Canes and Bolts going it it in 2021 saved the isles from being embarrassed to Carolina in the conference finals.

We can't change it! I presented a hypothetical as one for a reason!

 

[JaegerDice]

I have several unpopular opinions:

1) The 2011 Canucks are somehow the most overrated team of the cap era, despite never even winning the cup.

2) Until the NYR this season, neither the New York Rangers nor the Montreal Canadiens have ever been legitimate cup contenders in the cap era. Yes, they won some series, they made it to the ECF and SCF in some cases. But none of the powerhouses or even the 2nd tier of great teams in the West had any fear of facing either of them.

3) The playoff performance that Toews got/gets the most crap for is actually his best performance. In 2013, whether by bad luck or rumored wrist injury, Toews had a 4% sh% in the playoffs. So he wasn't scoring goals at his usual rate, or the rate anybody would like out of a 1C. Despite this, he dominated every shift he was on the ice against top competition. He had a team-best 64.97(!!!) xGF%, team-best 62.51 CF%, team-best 64.33 SF%, and an absolutely ludicrous team-best 71.05 GF%. Corey Crawford deserved the Conn Smythe that year regardless, but Toews was unquestionably their best forward and was better in every way than 2010 other than sh%.

 

[NyQuil]

2) Until the NYR this season, neither the New York Rangers nor the Montreal Canadiens have ever been legitimate cup contenders in the cap era. Yes, they won some series, they made it to the ECF and SCF in some cases. But none of the powerhouses or even the 2nd tier of great teams in the West had any fear of facing either of them.

Is this really controversial? I bet fans of those teams would probably agree.

 

[SImpelton]

I have several unpopular opinions:

1) The 2011 Canucks are somehow the most overrated team of the cap era, despite never even winning the cup.

Bruins fan here. I completely disagree. Talking trash about the Canucks doesn't do justice to the Bruins in 2011. There's something to be said for giving credit to your opponent.

The Canucks were the best team in hockey on paper that year and came as close as dammit to winning. It was a pure battle of attrition out there and it's not fair to say that the Canucks were soft any more than it's fair to say that the bruins were unskilled. you have to have a certain amount of skill AND toughness to even BE in the Finals.

Let's be clear what happened here. For all the stats you can stat me only 1 game wasn't decided by who had home ice, and that was game 7. what that tells me is that the Canucks, for all they got literally manhandled in Boston, were good enough to handle business in Vancouver. And that tells me that whatever else you can say about the Canucks, they ABSOLUTELY BELONGED in that finals.

Now some very obvious things that embarrassed the Canucks happened in those Finals. the Bruins wore down the Canucks physically and mentally and managed to completely take away their biggest strength as a team, their dominant power play.

Even with that setback though it took Tim Thomas standing on his head in the most important game he ever played in his life and a couple random bounces to really seal the win. The canucks could absolutely have won that series. The Bruins just played to a more complete strategy.

 

[Miri]

I dont think anyone expected Montreal to make it into SCF couple of years back, beating Vegas in the "WCF" or whatever to call it that year, in the process.
Or maybe it was just me

 

[BonMorrison]

The Preds would've stomped the Sens if they managed to beat the Pens in 2017 and that will forever haunt me.

 

[Whoshattenkirkshoes]

The Lightning would havepushed a close game 7 in 2022 if the AVS didn't breeze through back up goalies and get insane rest.

Because the AVS have fun players everyone says their cup winning roster is the best ever when Tampa's roster was right there.

Bolts didn't get enough credit for winning 11 straight series

 

[I am not exposed]

The Stanley Cup winner is not the best team that year. The Presidents Trophy winner is.

 

[I am not exposed]

I have several unpopular opinions:

1) The 2011 Canucks are somehow the most overrated team of the cap era, despite never even winning the cup.

2) Until the NYR this season, neither the New York Rangers nor the Montreal Canadiens have ever been legitimate cup contenders in the cap era. Yes, they won some series, they made it to the ECF and SCF in some cases. But none of the powerhouses or even the 2nd tier of great teams in the West had any fear of facing either of them.

3) The playoff performance that Toews got/gets the most crap for is actually his best performance. In 2013, whether by bad luck or rumored wrist injury, Toews had a 4% sh% in the playoffs. So he wasn't scoring goals at his usual rate, or the rate anybody would like out of a 1C. Despite this, he dominated every shift he was on the ice against top competition. He had a team-best 64.97(!!!) xGF%, team-best 62.51 CF%, team-best 64.33 SF%, and an absolutely ludicrous team-best 71.05 GF%. Corey Crawford deserved the Conn Smythe that year regardless, but Toews was unquestionably their best forward and was better in every way than 2010 other than sh%.

You misunderstood the thread? Most people don't think Rangers or Habs were legitimate cup contenders. Especially Montreal. That is a very popular opinion.

 

[Osakahaus]

The Preds would've stomped the Sens if they managed to beat the Pens in 2017 and that will forever haunt me.

Ottawa probably wins that series also. They were pretty solid at the very least. Someone did say that RyJo was injured during that

 

[Benedict Kovalchuk]

Always thought the outrage towards Burrows biting the finger was totally contrived and stupid. If your finger finds its way into a stranger's mouth, it's going to get bit and you deserve it.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

Always thought the outrage towards Burrows biting the finger was totally contrived and stupid. If your finger finds its way into a stranger's mouth, it's going to get bit and you deserve it.

It was embellishment, that would have backfired if it wasn't media darling vs villian.

At least PB deserved some of that media, unlike Toews, who is/was a sack of wet flour.

 

[Prairie Habs]

Nah, that’s not an unpopular take, just an incorrect one. Habs were a poor team propped up by good team structure and great goaltending.

They won due to structure and goaltending? So how they played and the personnel on the ice? Isn't that how most teams do it?

Or are you crediting everything to the amazing coaching of DD (who didn’t even coach in the 3rd round) and forgetting that goalies are also part of the team?

If a goalie is important enough to get a poor team to the cup finals, then I guess when a team with a subpar goalie has success it must just be a fluke and they didn't earn their success. Sucks any Avs wins don't count because they don't have solid enough goaltending.

 

[Avsfan1921]

They won due to structure and goaltending? So how they played and the personnel on the ice? Isn't that how most teams do it?

Or are you crediting everything to the amazing coaching of DD (who didn’t even coach in the 3rd round) and forgetting that goalies are also part of the team?

If a goalie is important enough to get a poor team to the cup finals, then I guess when a team with a subpar goalie has success it must just be a fluke and they didn't earn their success. Sucks any Avs wins don't count because they don't have solid enough goaltending.

Almost! Just remove the bolded and you’ll be more accurate.

Then replace “how they played” with “how price played” and end the paragraph, you’ll be a whole lot more accurate.

Then delete the other two paragraphs and you’ll be 100% accurate.

 

[Prairie Habs]

Almost! Just remove the bolded and you’ll be more accurate.

Then replace “how they played” with “how price played” and end the paragraph, you’ll be a whole lot more accurate.

Then delete the other two paragraphs and you’ll be 100% accurate.

So winning because of how you play is a bad thing now? How did the Avs win the cup if it wasn't a result of how they played? Just luck I guess?

I know I'm asking a lot of someone who doesn't realize that goalies are members of the teams they play for.

 

[Avsfan1921]

So winning because of how you play is a bad thing now? How did the Avs win the cup if it wasn't a result of how they played? Just luck I guess?

I know I'm asking a lot of someone who doesn't realize that goalies are members of the teams they play for.

As someone who has a goalie nicknamed “fourgiev” on their team I am well aware that goaltenders are indeed part of the team.

I didn’t say it was a bad thing that they were able to ride price to the finals, au contraire, I gave them props as that was the only way they make it, by playing good defensively (team structure) and great goaltending (goaltending) hence my sentence of “ a poor team propped up by good team structure and great goaltending.” that you did not like.

In hindsight I probably should have phrased it as “ a team of less skill than the vast majority of the league propped up by good team structure and great goaltending”instead of “a poor team propped up by good team structure and great goaltending“ to avoid confusion like this, because as a team, they were solid defensively and they bought in to the commitment.

 

[Prairie Habs]

As someone who has a goalie nicknamed “fourgiev” on their team I am well aware that goaltenders are indeed part of the team.

I didn’t say it was a bad thing that they were able to ride price to the finals, au contraire, I gave them props as that was the only way they make it, by playing good defensively (team structure) and great goaltending (goaltending) hence my sentence of “ a poor team propped up by good team structure and great goaltending.” that you did not like.

In hindsight I probably should have phrased it as “ a team of less skill than the vast majority of the league propped up by good team structure and great goaltending”instead of “a poor team propped up by good team structure and great goaltending“ to avoid confusion like this, because as a team, they were solid defensively and they bought in to the commitment.

We weren't less skilled than the vast majority of the league. Less than the other playoff teams? Sure, probably. The league in general? No.

You still seem to think your two statements should be interchangeable, though, which they aren't. Every team team tries to use their strengths to make up for their weaknesses. If you are a poor team your strengths won't be enough. Poor teams don't make the cup finals.

 

[Avsfan1921]

We weren't less skilled than the vast majority of the league. Less than the other playoff teams? Sure, probably. The league in general? No.

You still seem to think your two statements should be interchangeable, though, which they aren't. Every team team tries to use their strengths to make up for their weaknesses. If you are a poor team your strengths won't be enough. Poor teams don't make the cup finals.

No, I maintain the league in general. They are interchangeable under certain circumstances, like when it’s accurate.

I believe this was the year of the “North division”? The weakest division in the league that year. A division where they finished with 8 more losses than wins. Where they finished 18th in point standings, playing only teams in the weakest division in hockey. They were an inferior team compared to the majority of the league but they did get in even though they didn’t belong, and they did come together at the right time and they did ride a hot goalie for a magical run. I’d put the arbitrary numbers at 75% goaltending and 25% team structure, imo, that allowed them to reach the finals. For context, the previous year they were 24th overall and the year after 32nd when playing in their normal division. This was not a good hockey club overall when compared to its peers.

 

[YukonCornelius]

If you don't want your fingers to get bit perhaps you shouldn't stick them in someone's mouth. A thought.

Lol sure. That whole Canucks team was full of cowards though, so no surprise.

 

[Prairie Habs]

No, I maintain the league in general. They are interchangeable under certain circumstances, like when it’s accurate.

I believe this was the year of the “North division”? The weakest division in the league that year. A division where they finished with 8 more losses than wins. Where they finished 18th in point standings, playing only teams in the weakest division in hockey. They were an inferior team compared to the majority of the league but they did get in even though they didn’t belong, and they did come together at the right time and they did ride a hot goalie for a magical run. I’d put the arbitrary numbers at 75% goaltending and 25% team structure, imo, that allowed them to reach the finals. For context, the previous year they were 24th overall and the year after 32nd when playing in their normal division. This was not a good hockey club overall when compared to its peers.

If the divisions nevet played eachother then you know the north was the worst division how? If you want to look for a bad division how about the west? 12 of 15 western conference teams made the playoffs the year prior, all 3 that missed ended up in the west division. Add in a terrible Arizona team, and the other 4 teams all had a free ticket to the playoffs.

The west division only played 6 games outside their division all season, and they were in a losing series to a team you think was bad.

You keep harping on Montreal having lost more games than they won that year, but thats only because they couldn't win in the 3on3. They lost like their first 10 or 11 OT games, which completely skewed it. When they were in the playoffs and OT games were decided by hockey rather than gimmicks they won 5 out of 6 OT games.

Your "argument" about them being in last the next season is completely meaningless. The lost a ton of key pieces from their run and then set the NHL record for man games lost to injury. There were games were there were only 2 or 3 guys on the ice who played in the playoffs the year before.

 

[Avsfan1921]

If the divisions nevet played eachother then you know the north was the worst division how? If you want to look for a bad division how about the west? 12 of 15 western conference teams made the playoffs the year prior, all 3 that missed ended up in the west division. Add in a terrible Arizona team, and the other 4 teams all had a free ticket to the playoffs.

The west division only played 6 games outside their division all season, and they were in a losing series to a team you think was bad.

You keep harping on Montreal having lost more games than they won that year, but thats only because they couldn't win in the 3on3. They lost like their first 10 or 11 OT games, which completely skewed it. When they were in the playoffs and OT games were decided by hockey rather than gimmicks they won 5 out of 6 OT games.

Your "argument" about them being in last the next season is completely meaningless. The lost a ton of key pieces from their run and then set the NHL record for man games lost to injury. There were games were there were only 2 or 3 guys on the ice who played in the playoffs the year before.

You are correct that the next year, and hell even the previous, don’t mean a lot it’s a pure context to help show that the division and playing the same teams over and over are added benefits to a team that finished with 8 more losses than wins. Hence the “for context” text that starts the sentence.

All teams play the same format in overtime last I looked. If they can’t win the game then the other alternative is that they lost it, so by my measure they lost 8 more than they won, under the exact same structure all other teams play.

The north is widely regarded as the weakest of that year. I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise. In fact I’m not even trying to convince you of my argument, you clearly think otherwise.

So let’s try a different approach: I’ve spent some time arguing my interpretation of why they were not a good team, with points that haven’t been rebutted successfully by multiple people, all mtl fans, so why not explain why you think they were an above average team, above average meaning that they were a top 50% team that year? What were the driving factors that pushed them to the finals in your opinion?

 

[End on a Hinote]

The hardest clip to watch of the 2011 playoffs as a Canucks fan is not from the Game 7 final, or rewatching us lose our 3-2 series lead, or any moment of the SCF for that matter.

It's watching OT of the BOS-MTL first round game 7.

If Montreal won that game in OT, the Canucks don't play the B's, who were probably the only team that could have beaten the Canucks that year....

 

[Prairie Habs]

You are correct that the next year, and hell even the previous, don’t mean a lot it’s a pure context to help show that the division and playing the same teams over and over are added benefits to a team that finished with 8 more losses than wins. Hence the “for context” text that starts the sentence.

All teams play the same format in overtime last I looked. If they can’t win the game then the other alternative is that they lost it, so by my measure they lost 8 more than they won, under the exact same structure all other teams play.

The north is widely regarded as the weakest of that year. I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise. In fact I’m not even trying to convince you of my argument, you clearly think otherwise.

So let’s try a different approach: I’ve spent some time arguing my interpretation of why they were not a good team, with points that haven’t been rebutted successfully by multiple people, all mtl fans, so why not explain why you think they were an above average team, above average meaning that they were a top 50% team that year? What were the driving factors that pushed them to the finals in your opinion?

Good team defense, physical, great goalie. Teams don't get to the cup finals by accident. Thinking they are a bottom half team because they lost a bunch of shoot outs is silly. It doesn't matter if every team has the same rules. If the rule was that OT games in the regular season were decided by a coin toss everyone would have the same rules, but it wouldn't be helpful in determining the better team. The 3on3 and the shootout is maybe slightly better than the coin toss, but not by much. There's a reason we don't have them in the playoffs.

 

[Avsfan1921]

Good team defense, physical, great goalie. Teams don't get to the cup finals by accident. Thinking they are a bottom half team because they lost a bunch of shoot outs is silly. It doesn't matter if every team has the same rules. If the rule was that OT games in the regular season were decided by a coin toss everyone would have the same rules, but it wouldn't be helpful in determining the better team. The 3on3 and the shootout is maybe slightly better than the coin toss, but not by much. There's a reason we don't have them in the playoffs.

So…. Team structure and goaltending as I said, but with physicality! Man, I shouldn’t have wasted my time with this debate, I fell for the bait hard…..

After a full evening of arguing all you have to add is…… physicality. But they weren’t a poor team. Or rather, physicality tips the scale and earned them their finals appearance. They did have that. Good night.

Edit because I can’t help myself:
You want reasons why they were not good in regular season but then say “they don’t count” because they don’t apply in the playoffs. Learn to separate. When you ask someone why they were a poor regular season team, I am going to use things that apply to the regular season. Don’t shift goalposts like you have all night. You waste my time as well as yours. Peace out.

 

[Prairie Habs]

So…. Team structure and goaltending as I said, but with physicality! Man, I shouldn’t have wasted my time with this debate, I fell for the bait hard…..

After a full evening of arguing all you have to add is…… physicality. But they weren’t a poor team. Or rather, physicality tips the scale and earned them their finals appearance. They did have that. Good night.

Edit because I can’t help myself:
You want reasons why they were not good in regular season but then say “they don’t count” because they don’t apply in the playoffs. Learn to separate. When you ask someone why they were a poor regular season team, I am going to use things that apply to the regular season. Don’t shift goalposts like you have all night. You waste my time as well as yours. Peace out.

It's not my fault you don't understand that there's more to being a good team than offensive skill. You don't have to get all pissy just because your argument doesn't hold any water.