Your unpopular playoff retrospective opinion

[Avsfan1921]

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.

Again, I’d say their record is fairly indicative, especially considering the division they played in, but it appears you’d rather counter everything with“nuh-uh” and move goalposts when you ask me to explain my view.At this point I could say they wear red uni’s and you’d argue with it.

Edit: Not just “nuh-uh”, but physicality, to be fair.

 

[thegazelle]

This will not be a popular opinion, but I have always thought that for a player to be considered historically great in the NHL and remembered as such, he HAS to perform in the playoffs and step it up when the pressure is high.

I know what the implications of my next sentence means, but I do firmly believe this. No player, past or present, can be considered one of the league's greats, if they wilt and wither in the playoffs. Regular season records and milestones don't mean a thing if a player can't achieve and elevate his game in the playoffs, contributing to overall team success.

We in general as a society have accepted mediocrity to the point where performing when it doesn't necessarily count should earn one brownie points or some sort of qualified recognition. Some players, even in the hall of fame, have had decent to good regular season stats and contributions but zero playoff success.

Setting regular season records doesn't mean a thing, when one can do so when the stakes are not high.

My daughter plays piano competitively and has won her decent share of trophies and medals. I recently talked with her about playing under pressure and she thrives on it. Even in the situations where she bombed a piece at a music festival - later on in the day she is scheduled again at another time and wins first place. She told me it is just having to suck up the bad experience, put it behind you and move ahead. She has known so many musicians who can ace pieces in practice, but when it is competition time, they struggle. It is all mental, it is no doubt nerves, but as with any craft, sport or competitive event, the best competitors are the ones who can tune out the noise, learn from their mistakes but not let the mistakes dominate their mind and headspace, and pull up the internal fortitude to plow ahead despite anxiety, fear, trepidation and even intimidation.

While not necessarily at championship time, I remember things like when Brett Favre played the day after his father died. Most people would be a mess, and understandably so. But he had a masterclass performance, and it is no wonder he ultimately was a Super Bowl champion.

We see in the NHL playoffs often players who may be average during the regular season, but just appear out of nowhere, willing themselves and their teams to success in the playoffs. To me, these are the best NHL players, not the ones who have great regular season campaigns and even set records and milestones in the regular season. Ultimately, fans will judge players on playoff success, and one can look at it this way - when it comes down to it, no team ultimately cares about just winning the President's Trophy.

 

[Lindys Lazy Eye]

Looking at past years playoffs, what opinions do you hold that don’t seem to have a ton of support?

I’ll go first of course

Dustin Brown was the true MVP of LA’s 2012 cup run and should have taken the Smythe. Quick was amazing, Kopitar spectacular, but throughout those playoffs Dustin demonstrated to the rest of the team that it was theirs to win. I pretty much expected it.. but still felt a bit jaded on his behalf when they handed it to Quick.

If the Devils took one of the OT playoff games, we would have taken the series.

 

[Prairie Habs]

Again, I’d say their record is fairly indicative, especially considering the division they played in, but it appears you’d rather counter everything with“nuh-uh” and move goalposts when you ask me to explain my view.At this point I could say they wear red uni’s and you’d argue with it.

Edit: Not just “nuh-uh”, but physicality, to be fair.

There was also that thing where they went to the Stanley cup finals. But let's not let the actual reality of what happened get in the way of things. It's fine if you think that we should disregard playoff results when determining how good a team was in a given season (mod)

 

[Gabrielor]

The 05-06 Sabres win the cup if healthy.

 

[patnyrnyg]

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%.

on #2, not sure how you can say that about 2014 when 3 of the games in the finals went to OT.

But, you will find MANY Rangers fans who agree with you. You have to realize the mentality of most Rangers fans is quite shall we say moronic. This team could win their next 10 games, and you will still have fans complaining that they didnt REALLY dominate anything. They will point out every "break" that went their way, explain how they could have, should have lost each of these 16 games, then cherry-pick certain stats to point out how they were "lucky", Basically, Rangers fans expect them to win every game by at least 5 goals. Furthermore, they need to score at least 2 goals before the first tv time-out and have a 3-goal lead sometime in the first period. Once they get the 3-goal lead, the other team should never get any close than 2 goals throughout the game. The PP should operate at about a 75% success rate. The PK can give up a goal maybe once every 5 games, but no more than that. Mainly because they should rarely if ever take a penatly to begin with. The opponent should never have an odd-man rush and if they do, it means the dman caught out of position sucks. They should never turn the puck over. Every entry into the offensive zone should result in multiple HDSC. I could go on, but you get the point.


As far as 2014, I remember as we were approaching the play-offs Rangers fans saying they could never beat Philadelphia, or Boston in a 7-game series. One particular site, you would have thought the Flyers had peak Legion of Doom playing for them. Then, they won the series and people were complaining, that if it took 7 games to beat the flyers, they will never beat the bruins. Well, when the Bruins lost to Montreal, I had a field day. Being a complete a--hole saying things like, "It is nice to come back from 3-1 (against pens) and get to conf finals. But this is the end, they are never going to beat the Bruins...." Then, when they beat Montreal kept doing the same thing, "Yeah, big deal. They are going to get killed by the Bruins when they play...." Had they beaten kings, would have continued.

 

[Tawnos]

The Rangers beat the Blackhawks in 2014 if they were the WCF winners.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Losing Michael Sauer cost the Rangers the cup in 2012 (and possibly 2014 and/or 2015). Biggest mistake the Rangers made in those years was not re-signing Anton Stralman.

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

Also I need to circle back to this because it's bothering me



Dude. if it was a split second decision that split second happened a good TWO SECONDS AFTER HORTON RELEASED THE PUCK.

Nevermind the fact that Rome LEFT HIS FEET to deliver the hit.

Nevermind the fact that Rome was looking right at Horton the whole way into the hit so there's no way to claim he somehoow didn't see Horton right in front of him.

Nevermind that Rome left his defensive position and gave up a shot on goal by Lucic in making the hit at all

Never even mind that Rome had to CHANGE DIRECTION to make the hit in the first place.

Nor even the fact that Rome changed direction AFTER Horton was in the motion to release the pass.



no I'm sure it was all just fine.

It was 0.7 seconds. A good 0.2 seconds late. They timed it multiple times. It's a fraction of a second late.

 

[nbwingsfan]

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.

The Bruins in 2011 were IMO the absolute peak playoff team of the cap era.

So much leadership on that roster and they played every game to their identity. Never let anything get in their head and just went out and bullied their way to a Cup.

It was beautiful.

Do I think Vancouver had a shot at winning had they been healthy? Absolutely, but that Bruins team was a force

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

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%.

2011 Canucks dominated in pretty much every stat in the regular season. Great offensively, great defensively, great on the PP, great on the PK. They just had literally over half the team be injured by the time the finals rolled around. 7 of their top 9 forwards were injured with serious injuries and 4 out of 6 dmen were either playing with broken bones or required surgeries in the offseason.

The only forwards that weren't injured by the time the playoffs ended were Burrows and Hansen in their top 9. Both Sedins had serious back injuries (videos of them were shown pre-game getting numbing agents placed into their backs so they can play), Kesler had the obvious groin injury from the Sharks series, Raymond got his back literally broken by a Bruin. Samuelsson was probably our third best scorer and he was out long before, Malhotra was our key shut down two-way player and he was out.

The 2011 Canucks were stacked, the 2012 Canucks were stacked but lost Daniel Sedin from the Keith elbow. In 2013 they decided to blow the team up prematurely for some reason.

The only reason they didn't win the cup was because of Tim Thomas, despite having one of the most depleted lineups in comparison to their regular season team in recent memory. They were a phenomenal team who had 117 points in the regular season, a full 10 points over the next best team in the league whilst coasting in the final month to rest players and manage energy for the playoffs.

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

Anyways as for my take:

Playoff experience is the most overrated and overanalyzed thing in playoff hockey. The only reason it's mentioned is because statistically a team that wins doesn't win out of the blue, they gradually get better and naturally gain playoff experience as the team gets better and improves over every offseason and trade deadline.

It's just extremely rare a team comes out of the blue and surprises. There are just as many examples of teams randomly going far in the playoffs as teams that have loads of experience absolutely failing expectations.

 

[JaegerDice]

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.

2011 Canucks dominated in pretty much every stat in the regular season. Great offensively, great defensively, great on the PP, great on the PK. They just had literally over half the team be injured by the time the finals rolled around. 7 of their top 9 forwards were injured with serious injuries and 4 out of 6 dmen were either playing with broken bones or required surgeries in the offseason.

The only forwards that weren't injured by the time the playoffs ended were Burrows and Hansen in their top 9. Both Sedins had serious back injuries (videos of them were shown pre-game getting numbing agents placed into their backs so they can play), Kesler had the obvious groin injury from the Sharks series, Raymond got his back literally broken by a Bruin. Samuelsson was probably our third best scorer and he was out long before, Malhotra was our key shut down two-way player and he was out.

The 2011 Canucks were stacked, the 2012 Canucks were stacked but lost Daniel Sedin from the Keith elbow. In 2013 they decided to blow the team up prematurely for some reason.

The only reason they didn't win the cup was because of Tim Thomas, despite having one of the most depleted lineups in comparison to their regular season team in recent memory. They were a phenomenal team who had 117 points in the regular season, a full 10 points over the next best team in the league whilst coasting in the final month to rest players and manage energy for the playoffs.

As I said, overrated. Many people have this perception of the 2011 Canucks as juggernauts when there's no actual statistical support for it. In truth, they were a glass cannon carried predominantly by great goaltending.

In the 2011 regular season at 5v5, the Canucks had:

2.55 GF/60, good for 4th in the league, and 1.94 GA/60, good for 2nd in the league. Both excellent on the surface. A mirage.

In terms of driving play and creating chances at 5v5, the Canucks were good, not great. They produced 31.41 SF/60 (9th in the league) and 2.34 xGF/60 (11th in the league).

What took them from good to great was the fact that they had solid-to-high 5v5 sh% throughout the lineup. Which is great if you can keep it up. Unfortunately, luck was not on their side in the playoffs, as they went from 7 regulars with a sh% over 9% to 4, and 11 regulars with a sh% over 7 to 5. Basically, it was taking them rouhgly 40-50% more shots as a team to score, and their team wasn't exactly elite at generating shots. Uh oh.

Their PP was excellent. They generated a ton of attempts, shots and chances, and they lead the league in powerplay goals. The problem with leaning on a great PP, of course, is that it requires the refs to put you in that position and going up against a great PK game after game can significantly reduce your offensive output. If you run into a team that essentially forces you to beat them 5v5 by shutting down your PP... uh oh.

Defense is a different story. Their great 5v5 GA numbers were driven almost entirely by Luongo and his .932 sv% at even strength, good for 4th best in the league. In front of Luongo the Canucks were incredibly mediocre, allowing:

34.1 Shots against/60 (10th best), and 2.33 xGA/60 (20th!!! best).

Their PK was similarly poor, allowing 50.87 SA/60 (18th!!! best) and 6.48 xGA/60 (17th!!! best). Who bailed this keystone cops act out? Luongo of course. His .903 SV% was the best shorthanded SV% in the league. Thanks to him, they had the 'best' PK of the season. Better hope he never falters.... uh oh, he dropped to .879% on the PK and the Canucks sank from best in the league on the PK to 10th best out of 16 teams in GA/60 on the PK in the playoffs.

When their PP failed them, their 5v5 sh% dried up and their HOF goalie couldn't plug the holes anymore, the inevitable happened. They went from feasting on a weak division to playing great teams every round and ultimately the damn broke.

Now all that said, they still deserved to be in the Finals, simply by virtue of beating 3 teams to get there. But they certainly weren't a juggernaut, and are not even the best team of the cap era to not win a cup or lose in the finals. They were a good team with clear flaws, but people remember them as some indomitable force. There's good reason they damn near lost in the first round, and ultimately failed to win it all. And it wasn't injuries.

Oh, and for the record, it's not like the team that did beat them was the 2008 Red Wings or something. The 2011 Bruins are not exactly in consideration for the best cup winner of the cap era either.

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

As I said, overrated. Many people have this perception of the 2011 Canucks as juggernauts when there's no actual statistical support for it. In truth, they were a glass cannon carried predominantly by great goaltending.

In the 2011 regular season at 5v5, the Canucks had:

2.55 GF/60, good for 4th in the league, and 1.94 GA/60, good for 2nd in the league. Both excellent on the surface. A mirage.

In terms of driving play and creating chances at 5v5, the Canucks were good, not great. They produced 31.41 SF/60 (9th in the league) and 2.34 xGF/60 (11th in the league).

What took them from good to great was the fact that they had solid-to-high 5v5 sh% throughout the lineup. Which is great if you can keep it up. Unfortunately, luck was not on their side in the playoffs, as they went from 7 regulars with a sh% over 9% to 4, and 11 regulars with a sh% over 7 to 5.

Their PP was excellent. They generated a ton of attempts, shots and chances, and they lead the league in powerplay goals. The problem with leaning on a great PP, of course, is that it requires the refs to put you in that position and going up against a great PK game after game can significantly reduce your offensive output. If you run into a team that essentially forces you to beat them 5v5... uh oh.

Defense is a different story. Their great 5v5 GA numbers were driven almost entirely by Luongo and his .932 sv% at even strength, good for 4th best in the league. In front of Luongo the Canucks were incredibly mediocre, allowing:

34.1 Shots against/60 (10th best), and 2.33 xGA/60 (20th!!! best).

Their PK was similarly poor, allowing 50.87 SA/60 (18th!!! best) and 6.48 xGA/60 (17th!!! best). Who bailed this keystone cops act out? Luongo of course. His .903 SV% was the best shorthanded SV% in the league. Thanks to him, they had the 'best' PK of the season. Better hope he never falters.... uh oh, he dropped to .879% on the PK and the Canucks sank from best in the league on the PK to 10th best out of 16 teams in GA/60 on the PK.

When their PP failed them, their 5v5 sh% dried up and their HOF goalie couldn't plug the holes anymore, the inevitable happened. They went from feasting on a weak division to playing great teams every round and ultimately the damn broke.

Now all that said, they still deserved to be in the Finals, simply by virtue of beating 3 teams to get there. But they certainly weren't a juggernaut, and are not even the best team of the cap era to not win a cup or lose in the finals. They were a good team with clear flaws, but people remember them as some indomitable force. There's good reason they damn near lost in the first round, and ultimately failed to win it all. And it wasn't injuries.

Oh, and for the record, it's not like the team that did beat them was the 2008 Red Wings or something. They're not exactly in consideration for the best cup winner of the cap era either.

I have a question for you: what team when broken down overanalytically would you not find similar stats? You're not going to be top 3 in the league in every advanced stat. It's all dependent on play style, in which in turn, the Canucks style of play pointed this out in multiple ways and can break all of these things down with an eye test.

They didn't need to be a rush team. They were a defense first (good for playoffs) counter-attacking team with a temperament to block shots and give their goaltenders the best chance to make saves. It's why both Luongo and Schneider were both dominant in their save %'s. The defense was willing to give up shots, but the right shots to give up. They took away half the net and forced you to shoot around them. That's intelligent hockey and was primary in their success in net. Not only that but it generated high danger transitions, in which on the PK they were one of the league's best in shorthanded goals for. Critiquing a pk for being top (or top 2, can't remember if it was the pk or pp that was top, the other was 2nd) in the league is weird. However they did it worked, obviously. Breaking it down further is pedantic.

They didn't need to generate many chances because they played safe, effective hockey and they had the stars to burn you at will. The Sedins put up such high shooting percentages because they passed up standard goal scoring opportunities for higher danger chances. Kesler had an elite wrist shot up until he got injured. Other lines had the speed to generate breakaways. They cycled heavy and opted for higher danger chances as a whole that year.

They also ran into great defensive teams and goaltenders in the playoffs. The best playoff performance ever by a goaltender at the time, Tim Thomas ruined their powerplay singlehandedly, despite a plethora of high danger chances. Chicago had franchise level defense (and offense as well, let's be honest they were stacked), Nashville had an elite top of their game Pekka Rinne in his prime. San Jose had Niemi who had the 2nd best year of his career and Tim Thomas did Tim Thomas. All 4 of those teams were great teams. Boston ironically, in my opinion was the weakest of them all, but they were the beneficiary of an absolutely broken down Canucks team.

I don't know how you can make the claim that goaltending shit the bed when 4 out of their top 6 dmen were injured, and 5 out of their top 7 couldn't play (Rome got hit with the worst suspension in finals history). They had 2 defenders play the full length of the playoffs, and one of them was on a broken finger during the finals. Bieksa was the only top 4 defenseman not with a significant injury. Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Salo, Edler, all top 4 and our 6th in Alberts were injured. Rome suspended. Of course your defense and goaltending is going to suck. They didn't suck during the regular season. The save % proved this.

Cherry picking advanced stats to prove they weren't a great team is easy.

Show me a team that doesn't have perfect advanced stats during the regular season and in the post season.

 

[JohnnyBerts]

2013 Bruins might have beat the Hawks if Bergeron was healthy.

 

[JaegerDice]

I have a question for you: what team when broken down overanalytically would you not find similar stats? You're not going to be top 3 in the league in every advanced stat.

I mean, I can go through every team in the league since 2008, fairly easily. I stuck to the comparison between 2011 Canucks and the other teams in 2011. If you want me to compare the Canucks numbers to every team that has played since 2008 and where they rank among those hundreds of teams, I can do that.

They didn't need to be a rush team. They were a defense first (good for playoffs) counter-attacking team with a temperament to block shots and give their goaltenders the best chance to make saves. It's why both Luongo and Schneider were both dominant in their save %'s. The defense was willing to give up shots, but the right shots to give up. They took away half the net and forced you to shoot around them. That's intelligent hockey and was primary in their success in net. Not only that but it generated high danger transitions, in which on the PK they were one of the league's best in shorthanded goals for. Critiquing a pk for being top (or top 2, can't remember if it was the pk or pp that was top, the other was 2nd) in the league is weird. However they did it worked, obviously. Breaking it down further is pedantic.

Wow, where to start.

The Vancouver Canucks were not a defense first team, as evidenced by the fact that the team in front of Luongo was mediocre-to-poor in any measurable of defense. Luongo and Schnieder were not great because of the players in front of them, they were great because they were great goaltenders, as both proved when they moved on from the team.

The Canucks were not one of the best shorthanded goals-for teams in the league, and the fact you think so speaks the apocrypha surrounding this team. Short-handed they generated 0.49 GF/60 short-handed, good for 24th in the league. They spent the 4th most time of any team on the PK, and got 4 4v5 goals, which had them tied with 4 teams in the bottom 3rd of the league for SH goals. They spent the most time short-handed of any team in the playoffs and managed 1 4v5 goal. They did, however, score 9 goals in the RS when the other team pulled their goalie and played 5 on 6, so that's something.

The problem with your assertion is that it didn't work. Once Luongo failed to deliver top-of-the-league goaltending, the whole PK came down like a house of cards. They went from 'best' in the league, to 9th out of 16 teams in PK%. So maybe that system had some clear flaws, hmm? Like allowing way too many shots and chances, and relying entirely too much on a goalie to bail out the PKers?

They didn't need to generate many chances because they played safe, effective hockey and they had the stars to burn you at will. The Sedins put up such high shooting percentages because they passed up standard goal scoring opportunities for higher danger chances. Kesler had an elite wrist shot up until he got injured. Other lines had the speed to generate breakaways. They cycled heavy and opted for higher danger chances as a whole that year.

But they weren't playing 'safe'. When you look at the expected goals created vs expected goals given up, they were 18th in the league out of 30 for xGF% (50.16). They were barely creating more than they gave up. They were given opponents a chance for every chance they created and relied on better goal-tending to bail them out. If their sh% was a result of their system of shot selection, it wouldn't have evaporated in the playoffs. The truth is that sh% is not controllable, which is why shot and chance VOLUME is what predicts success. The Canucks never generated elite volume, they relied on high sh% and then crumbled when they regressed.

They also ran into great defensive teams and goaltenders in the playoffs. The best playoff performance ever by a goaltender at the time, Tim Thomas ruined their powerplay singlehandedly, despite a plethora of high danger chances. Chicago had franchise level defense (and offense as well, let's be honest they were stacked), Nashville had an elite top of their game Pekka Rinne in his prime. San Jose had Niemi who had the 2nd best year of his career and Tim Thomas did Tim Thomas. All 4 of those teams were great teams. Boston ironically, in my opinion was the weakest of them all, but they were the beneficiary of an absolutely broken down Canucks team.

Every team runs into great teams in the playoffs. I don't see how 'if the Canucks had run into weaker teams they would have done better' is a compelling argument. The only team in the cap era that faced only easy opponents was the 2012 Kings. And then they made up for it in 2014, when they faced the toughest guantlet of teams that any team has faced on the way to a cup.

I don't know how you can make the claim that goaltending shit the bed when 4 out of their top 6 dmen were injured, and 5 out of their top 7 couldn't play (Rome got hit with the worst suspension in finals history). They had 2 defenders play the full length of the playoffs, and one of them was on a broken finger during the finals. Bieksa was the only top 4 defenseman not with a significant injury. Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Salo, Edler, all top 4 and our 6th in Alberts were injured. Rome suspended. Of course your defense and goaltending is going to suck. They didn't suck during the regular season. The save % proved this.

I don't recall claiming Luongo 'shit the bed'. I simply said he could no longer plug the holes that he had plugged all regular season.

I acknowledge injuries happened to the Canucks, as they do to most any team that makes it to the finals. I simply said that their injuries were not the cause of their loss. If the suspension of Aaron ****ing Rome was the death knell for your team, spoiler, your team wasn't that great.

My point is simply that their defensive game was mediocre to poor in the regular season with a healthy roster, by pretty much any measure. The fact that it got WORSE doesn't magically make their healthy roster elite.

SV% is a goalie stat, not a team stat. Luongo carried his team as long as he could.

Cherry picking advanced stats to prove they weren't a great team is easy.

Show me a team that doesn't have perfect advanced stats during the regular season and in the post season.

Nobody has perfect stats. I can show you several teams with better stats in both the regular season and the playoffs, both raw and relative to the other teams that season. Just let me know if you want to see them.

 

[JaegerDice]

2013 Bruins might have beat the Hawks if Bergeron was healthy.

Only if Julien changed his deployment. Injured or healthy, he wasn't getting ice time against Toews, and it was the Bickell-Toews-Kane line undressing Chara that was making the difference, not what Bergeron was doing against Sharp-Handzus-Hossa.

 

[The Moops]

If Matt Cooke doesn't torpedo Tyson Barrie's knee in 2014, Avs go to the WCF at least. Varly was living rent free in the Hawks heads

 

[The Moops]

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

What the Bolts did for 3 years was incredible, and likely won't be replicated for a long time.

That being said, the Avs were a team of destiny and were not going to be denied that year. Kuemper played with one eye, and we had to sweep the Oilers with our backup, and they still only lost 4 games

 

[Whoshattenkirkshoes]

What the Bolts did for 3 years was incredible, and likely won't be replicated for a long time.

That being said, the Avs were a team of destiny and were not going to be denied that year. Kuemper played with one eye, and we had to sweep the Oilers with our backup.

Not taking away anything from your run or the amazing team you had. Although you do have to admit you guys were the more rested/healthier team in the playoffs. Three straight SC finals for the Bolts, they had nothing left. (that's a shit load of hockey)

I just think it's short sighted when everyone mentions how good that Avs team was and doesn't mention the Bolts who went to three straight finals.

 

[The Moops]

Not taking away anything from your run or the amazing team you had. Although you do have to admit you guys were the more rested/healthier team in the playoffs. Three straight SC finals for the Bolts, they had nothing left. (that's a shit load of hockey)

I just think it's short sighted when everyone mentions how good that Avs team was and doesn't mention the Bolts who went to three straight finals.

It would have been a closer match-up in the first 2 runs you had to the SCF sure. But I'm not sure it would have effected the outcome. Hard to say

 

[Windy River]

If the Devils took one of the OT playoff games, we would have taken the series.

For sure. I think everyone is already aware of this fact.

 

[Lindys Lazy Eye]

For sure. I think everyone is already aware of this fact.

You'd be surprised

 

[saffronleaf]

Also I need to circle back to this because it's bothering me



Dude. if it was a split second decision that split second happened a good TWO SECONDS AFTER HORTON RELEASED THE PUCK.

Nevermind the fact that Rome LEFT HIS FEET to deliver the hit.

Nevermind the fact that Rome was looking right at Horton the whole way into the hit so there's no way to claim he somehoow didn't see Horton right in front of him.

Nevermind that Rome left his defensive position and gave up a shot on goal by Lucic in making the hit at all

Never even mind that Rome had to CHANGE DIRECTION to make the hit in the first place.

Nor even the fact that Rome changed direction AFTER Horton was in the motion to release the pass.



no I'm sure it was all just fine.

keep your head up, kid. caught admiring a pass. this ain't junior.

 

[Vancouver_2010]

As long as the Sedins is our leader, we do not have a chance to win the cup at all, might get closed but its always a fridge too far.