Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.....

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Farhan Lalji

Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.....

Post by Farhan Lalji » Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:24 am

Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.....

Prevent them from ever becoming a Stanley Cup Champion unless they overcome this somehow.

Case in point - Last year after the Canucks clinched the Presidents' Trophy (after defeating LA if I recall correctly), they lost back-to-back games against the last place Oilers and literally did not show up to play. Although most did not see it as too big a deal at the time ( myself included), I couldn't help but wonder if the 2008 version of the Red Wings would have done something like that.

Then - the playoffs hit. The Canucks got off to a 3-0 lead against Chicago and then took "breathers" for the next 2 games...and got spanked. After hard fought games in Game 6 and 7, the Canucks were able to squeak out a victory.

Up next was Nashville. The Canucks won Game 1 and should have won Game 2......but gave up a goal in almost the last minute...and lost to a more determined Nashville team. After winning games 3 and 4, we saw yet another drop off in level by the Canucks. It wasn't a severe drop off but it was a drop off nonetheless....and Nashville took full advantage. Instead of finishing it in 5, the Canucks did it in 6.

Up next - San Jose. Canucks smoked the Sharks in both games at home. Here is what I found funny however. For the next 3 games, I truly believe that we were outplayed by the Sharks....and that the Sharks deserved more than just 1 game from us. In so many of these games, it almost seemed like the Canucks didn't fully show up to play.....but the Sharks simply couldn't take advantage due to the fact that they themselves were a mentally feeble team. The Canucks' 3 quick power play goals in Game 4, combined with their late period heroics in Game 5, was evidence of this in my opinion.

Then - came the Boston series. I truly believe that if it wasn't for Thomas, the Canucks would smoked the Bruins in the first two games. Nonetheless - the Canucks managed to win. Then came Game 3.....and in true Canuck fashion, it was time for a breather. After falling behind in the 2nd period, the Canucks decided to give up and focus on Game 4......only this time, the consequences would be drastic.

Instead of the score being 4-1 or 5-1 as it should have been, the Canucks and Luongo completely threw in the towel and gave up 3-4 extremely easy goals....making the final score 8-1. This gave the Bruins some major confidence. In the next game, despite a better effort, the Bruins managed to throttle us as well.

Game 5 then came and the Canucks came away with a solid hard earned victory (despite being the victim of arguably one of the worst biased officiating in NHL history in this game). Then came Game 6. For the first 7 minutes - the Canucks came out hard....and were ridiculously close to making it 1-0. Unfortunately - Luongo let in a bad goal.....and then it happened again. The Canucks threw in the towel. Lucic made in 2-0 and you could almost tell that the Canucks were thinking about Game 7.

Game 7 came.....and despite the Canucks outplaying the Bruins (atleast in my opinion), a few unlucky bounces here and there cost us the game and the Cup. At the end of the series - the Bruins looked fresh while the Canucks looked extremely battered and weary.


LONG STORY SHORT - I think the Canucks' have a severe tendency to only play when they have to.....or when something is on the line.

Most of the time....they get away with it. Why? Because - they're insanely talented. Those other times however, like in Game 7 against Boston for instance, they do not...and despite a valiant effort, do NOT win.

Now - I'm looking at how they've done this season, and I'm seeing similar patterns. Losses to Anaheim, Columbus, and Carolina. What about that 5-1 loss to Chicago? You don't think it had anything to do with the following thought process? "Oh - we beat Chicago last year. We finally overcame them. We kicked their ass 6-2 earlier this season. We no longer have anything to prove to them. They're just another team now." What about that loss to Nashville a little while ago when we were up by 2 goals?......and then decided to mail it in?

With the exception our loss to Calgary the other day (which just so happened to be right before the mini Christmas break), the Canucks have done exceptionally well against the division........quite possibly because there is a little more on the line....and hence, more motivation to "rise up" against bottom feeders. The Canucks have also done quite well against the elite teams in the league this year. My biggest concern with the Canucks is that a lot of their losses aren't due to the fact that they lost to a better team.....but due to the fact that they failed to show up......due to them not taking the moment seriously enough.

Now - are ALL of the Canucks' losses because of this? Absolutely not. Just a disturbingly high number of them.

If the Canucks aren't careful.....and rid themselves of this bad habit, then it will bite them in the ass once again when the playoffs hit......as it has the last 3 years. 2009 - Up 2-1 against Chicago in the series with a minute or so left in the game. What happened? Boom. 2010 - Up 2-0 nothing in Game 2 against Chicago. What happened? Boom.

Happens once you are forgiven. Twice? Forgiven again. 3 times or more however, and it's a pattern.....a pattern of which is very telling.

ESQ
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2577
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by ESQ » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:41 am

Farhan Lalji wrote: Case in point - Last year after the Canucks clinched the Presidents' Trophy (after defeating LA if I recall correctly), they lost back-to-back games against the last place Oilers and literally did not show up to play. Although most did not see it as too big a deal at the time ( myself included), I couldn't help but wonder if the 2008 version of the Red Wings would have done something like that.
I was all prepped to rebut this by pointing to the Red WIngs taking a breather from the All-Star Game, but that actually happened in 09, not 08, when 4 or 5 Red Wings took part. So maybe you're on to something.

But in terms of a "pattern," I think you need to give more credit to the Hawks play rather than pin it on the Canucks. They were a year removed from being Cup champions, have a bevy of all-stars, and were firing on all cylinders in games 4-7.

To continue the Detroit comparison, I think you need to go back to when they were on the cusp of dynasty, 1995. The first-seed Red Wings were swept by the fifth-seed Devils in the finals. Without Luongo, the Canucks could have very easily been swept. Two years later, the Wings win back-to-back Championships, with most of the key players from the 1995 team a couple years wiser. They lost a couple HOFers in Coffey and Ciccarelli, added Shanahan and Larionov.

Farhan Lalji

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Farhan Lalji » Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:22 pm

ESQ wrote:
Farhan Lalji wrote: Case in point - Last year after the Canucks clinched the Presidents' Trophy (after defeating LA if I recall correctly), they lost back-to-back games against the last place Oilers and literally did not show up to play. Although most did not see it as too big a deal at the time ( myself included), I couldn't help but wonder if the 2008 version of the Red Wings would have done something like that.
I was all prepped to rebut this by pointing to the Red WIngs taking a breather from the All-Star Game, but that actually happened in 09, not 08, when 4 or 5 Red Wings took part. So maybe you're on to something.

But in terms of a "pattern," I think you need to give more credit to the Hawks play rather than pin it on the Canucks. They were a year removed from being Cup champions, have a bevy of all-stars, and were firing on all cylinders in games 4-7.

To continue the Detroit comparison, I think you need to go back to when they were on the cusp of dynasty, 1995. The first-seed Red Wings were swept by the fifth-seed Devils in the finals. Without Luongo, the Canucks could have very easily been swept. Two years later, the Wings win back-to-back Championships, with most of the key players from the 1995 team a couple years wiser. They lost a couple HOFers in Coffey and Ciccarelli, added Shanahan and Larionov.
Don't get me wrong - Even the elite teams will have a stinker every now and then....even against the bad teams. Those great Detroit teams from yester-year had those types of games as well. With the Canucks though, it just seems like they 'pick and choose' a lot more often......and their 'pick and choose' mentality often translates into the playoffs.

The Hawks definitely deserve some credit, but I feel that the Canucks were the better team in 2009.....and simply pissed away the series. In Game 1 of that series, the Canucks almost squandered a 3-0 lead. In Game 4, the Canucks gave up a goal within the last 2 minutes. In Game 6, the Canucks gave up goals almost seconds/minutes after taking any type of lead. Yes - the Hawks deserve credit, but the Canucks showed a disturbingly low mental resolve in that series.

In 2010 - yes.....the Hawks were the better team....BUT....the Canucks had them on the ropes and failed to capitalize....and then gave up. After blowing out the Hawks in Game 1 and taking a quick 2-0 lead in Game 2, the Canucks sat back and played "not to lose." After the Hawks came back and won 4-2, the Canucks' spirits were destroyed and they got thrashed in the next two games. The only reason why WE won Game 5 in that series is because Chicago themselves took the night off.

As far as the Detroit comparison goes - I don't think it had much to do with the Wings' core getting wiser....as much as it did with them bringing in a few grittier players (even if some overall skill was sacrificed), combined with their younger players (i.e. Lapointe, McCarty, Draper, Lidstrom, etc.) taking the next level. Those Wings teams from both 1995 and 1996 were insanely talented, but lost to the Devils and Avs due to being out-gritted and out worked.

As far as the Canucks from the finals go, I don't think it's fair to play the "what if" game. Without Thomas, Boston may not have won. With a healthy Kesler, 2nd line, and 4 of our top 6 'D', maybe we would have won in 6 games. It goes both ways. "What if" Schneider played in Games 3 and 6?

One of my pet peeves of the Vancouver/Boston series analysis, is that a lot of irrelevant statistics were spewed in an effort to show that the Bruins destroyed us in a 7 game sweep. Here is my response to that:

1) Tennis analogy - It's like a game of tennis: Each game and each set is different and in many ways, is unrelated to the previous game or previous set. Case in point - let's say two players are playing a set. One guy wins all of his service games at love (or in blow out fashion) while the opponent wins all of his services game in hard fought 'deuce' games. The set goes to a tie breaker....where the guy that won all of his service games at love, wins the tie breaker in a blowout (7-0). So - the final set score being 7-6....the only relevant statistic.

Is it relevant if one guy won all of his service games at love while the other guy barely pulled off victories? Is it relevant if one guy had 16 aces while the other guy only had 3? Is first serve percentage really relevant? My answer to this is 'no', 'no', and 'no'. The only "stat" that matters was the series/set score.....which in this case, was 7-6.

So that's how I see the Boston/Vancouver series. Who cares if we were outscored 23-8? Or 21-4 in the finals 5 games. Or if Boston held the lead during the games 85-90% of the time. Ultimately - the only thing that matters is that the Bruins won the series in SEVEN games. It is not relevant that their PK outscored our PP......or that we actually shut Boston out TWICE in the series......or that we actually outshot and outhit the Bruins throughout the series.....or that our face-off percentage was almost dead even.

Anyway - that's my rant for the day, lol.

User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by dhabums » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:52 pm

Farhan,

My guess is when you played connect the dots as a kid you didn't realize you were supposed to connect them numerical order. Something tells me you still don't.

Farhan Lalji

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Farhan Lalji » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:48 pm

dhabums wrote:Farhan,

My guess is when you played connect the dots as a kid you didn't realize you were supposed to connect them numerical order. Something tells me you still don't.
Well thank you for that lovely criticism good sir.

....Is there something specific that you didn't like about my post?

I would greatly appreciate it if a wise man such as yourself could enlighten me. :)

User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
Posts: 6762
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Meds » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:04 pm

If you actually watched the Chicago series from last spring you wouldn't be saying that the Canucks took a breather. Rumor from HW was that the flu had hit the room pretty hard, and their play on the ice backed that up. Qualifying that as a "breather" is asinine.

They did have a couple of off games against Nashville, but puck luck and Pekke Rinne were huge factors.

They waved goodbye to San Jose in 5 games.

I don't even want to get into the Boston series because not only were the Canucks beat up, the officiating was lousy, and our coaching staff inept.

There were no intentional "breathers" taken. Quit reading too much into things.

User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by dhabums » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:56 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:
dhabums wrote:Farhan,

My guess is when you played connect the dots as a kid you didn't realize you were supposed to connect them numerical order. Something tells me you still don't.
Well thank you for that lovely criticism good sir.

....Is there something specific that you didn't like about my post?

I would greatly appreciate it if a wise man such as yourself could enlighten me. :)
Your entire post is fantastic garbage that no doubt would dazzle a drunk guy at the bar happy for conversation with anyone. Your leaps from the meaningless Oiler losses to the Hawks series to the Bruins series is one big sack of shit. It's like you aren't even aware there are TWO teams playing. Kind of like your ludicrous trade ideas.

But do keep it up, the board is awfully slow these days.

Farhan Lalji

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:00 am

dhabums wrote:
Your entire post is fantastic garbage that no doubt would dazzle a drunk guy at the bar happy for conversation with anyone. Your leaps from the meaningless Oiler losses to the Hawks series to the Bruins series is one big sack of shit. It's like you aren't even aware there are TWO teams playing. Kind of like your ludicrous trade ideas.

But do keep it up, the board is awfully slow these days.
I'll say a few things:

I DID acknowledge the fact that not all Canuck losses are due to their own undoing. Obviously - the Canucks have lost MANY times where they were simply outplayed (despite the Canucks putting forth a solid effort). However - if you're telling me that many of the Canucks losses are NOT due to the fact that they simply do not put forth a 100% effort, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

How many times do you need to see it? 3 street losses to the Hawks when up 3-0? Last minute goals given up on more than one occasion? (i.e. Chicago Game 7, Nashville Game 2, etc.). A lowered effort against Nashville in Game 5? Major lapses against Boston at TD Gardens during the finals? (and no - I'm not taking anything away from Boston....they played exceptionally well....but you can't tell me that our effort in the 3rd period of Game 3, and our effort after giving up the first goal in Game 6 wasn't a bit suspicious).

Even this year.....YES - the Canucks are doing quite well and YES.....the Canucks have lost games despite putting forth a valiant effort.....but how do you explain THREE losses to the likes of Carolina, Columbus, and Anaheim this season? How do explain back to back losses against Carolina and Columbus?

Maybe this is where we will "agree to disagree", but I'm seeing a pattern here.

But again - that's just me. Obviously - there are times that the Canucks lose despite having played well......but I see what I see.
Last edited by Farhan Lalji on Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Farhan Lalji

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:13 am

Meds wrote:If you actually watched the Chicago series from last spring you wouldn't be saying that the Canucks took a breather. Rumor from HW was that the flu had hit the room pretty hard, and their play on the ice backed that up. Qualifying that as a "breather" is asinine.

They did have a couple of off games against Nashville, but puck luck and Pekke Rinne were huge factors.

They waved goodbye to San Jose in 5 games.

I don't even want to get into the Boston series because not only were the Canucks beat up, the officiating was lousy, and our coaching staff inept.

There were no intentional "breathers" taken. Quit reading too much into things.
To be honest, I had completely forgotten about the 'flu' during the Chicago series. Still though - there is a part of me that questions the legitamacy of that. How can a team look fairly impressive during Game 3, and then look so meek in Games 4 and 5...to only then look quite impressive in Games 6 and 7? If that's a flu bug, then it's one of the shortest flu bugs that I have ever seen.

What wast the excuse against Nashville in Game 2? (last minute goal). What about their effort in Game 5 of that series? Again - I'm not taking anything anyway from the opponent.....but I just feel that the Canucks' efforts during those games/moments were slightly lowered due to them thinking that they could just 'coast' and win. Even against Chicago in Game 7.....is it just coincidence that the Canucks frequently give up last minute goals when it matters most?

I also don't believe that the Canucks take intentional breathers......but I DO feel that there's a subconscious part of them that sometimes refuses to give it their all.....when the situation doesn't really call for it.

Those losses to Carolina and Columbus back to back from earlier this season.....that's not the stuff of champions.

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8354
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Island Nucklehead » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:48 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote: I also don't believe that the Canucks take intentional breathers......but I DO feel that there's a subconscious part of them that sometimes refuses to give it their all.....when the situation doesn't really call for it.

Those losses to Carolina and Columbus back to back from earlier this season.....that's not the stuff of champions.
We're back to this mental fragility crap from last season, are we? Don't you think a team that comes within 60 minutes of a Cup probably isn't as fragile as you suggest? Wouldn't they accept defeat when guys like Kesler, integral to their success, go down with serious injuries? That's a load of horse-dung.

As far as "stuff of champions"... Boston is 0-2 vs Carolina this year. They've also lost to Winnipeg and been shut out by Colorado. Chicago has been shutout by Carolina and allowed 9 goals to Edmonton. These are the past two cup champions, and obviously they have bad games.

Every team gets hammered every now and then. It's not an easy league and if you don't bring your A game you will get anally pumped. The notion that the Canucks are the only ones that have bad games because they're fragile and nobody else goes through these games is utter garbage.

Farhan Lalji

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:04 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote: I

We're back to this mental fragility crap from last season, are we? Don't you think a team that comes within 60 minutes of a Cup probably isn't as fragile as you suggest? Wouldn't they accept defeat when guys like Kesler, integral to their success, go down with serious injuries? That's a load of horse-dung.
I mentioned the fact that our entire 2nd line, along with 4 of our top 6 defensemen, were completely decimated by serious injuries.....but their efforts in Game 3 and Game 6 was atrocious. Yes - the Bruins deserve credit, but I also believe that the Canucks compete level in both of those games was questionable. And yes - it is entirely possible for a team that lacks in the mental toughness department to get to Game 7 of a Stanley Cup......provided that they're insanely talented (as was the case of the Canucks).
As far as "stuff of champions"... Boston is 0-2 vs Carolina this year. They've also lost to Winnipeg and been shut out by Colorado. Chicago has been shutout by Carolina and allowed 9 goals to Edmonton. These are the past two cup champions, and obviously they have bad games.
Boston's losses to Carolina came early in the season when they were experiencing cup hang-over (i.e. before their 10 game winning streak). Winnipeg is seeded 8th in the Conference and a loss to them isn't too big a deal.

Either you have reading comprehension problems or I have not expressed myself clearly enough. I am not saying or implying that a good team should never lose to a bad team. Even a bad team in this league can play extraordinarily well and defeat a good team that is playing fairly well. I can't comment as to whether this was the case with Boston or Chicago....since I do not follow them.

I can only comment on what I see from the Canucks. In my opinion, those back to back losses to Carolina and Columbus were red flags...indications that a team will only show up when the situation really calls for it. The loss to Calgary before the Christmas break was also a red flag in my opinion....a team that was seemingly more focused on the Christmas holiday rather than the opponent in front of them.

-Blowing a 3-0 series lead to Chicago last year was a major red flag (and yes - I know there were 'flu bug' rumors going around but I don't completely buy it....as their performance in Games 6 and 7 were a complete 180. Can a team really recover from a flu that fast?).

-Not finishing Nashville quicker and sooner than they should have (i.e. last minute goal in Game 2, a lackluster effort in Game 5) was also a red flag for me. And again - I'm not taking anything away from Nashville, but I honestly believe that the Canucks could have and should have 'finished them off' sooner.

-And again: The Boston series....squandering a 2-0 series lead.

-Even just a few days ago, against Calgary.......why the complete no-show? Was it really because their minds were elsewhere, and that they were looking forward to the Christmas break?



Every team gets hammered every now and then. It's not an easy league and if you don't bring your A game you will get anally pumped. The notion that the Canucks are the only ones that have bad games because they're fragile and nobody else goes through these games is utter garbage.
[/quote]

The notion....lol. What notion? I never once said or implied that the Canucks are the only ones that have bad games. All great teams have bad games...whether it's against good teams or bad teams. All I am saying is that a lot of the Canucks losses this year (to the bad teams) have been where the Canucks simply didn't play anywhere near their abilities.....for whatever reason. Those losses to Carolina, Columbus, Anaheim, and Calgary wasn't because those teams played particularly well....but more due to the fact that the Canucks played far below their capability.

I really don't know what to say at this point. You either see it or you don't. 4 goals given up in the first period against Boston in the first 10 minutes of the game in Game 6.

In my opinion - unless the Canucks work on this area, they will still find it difficult to finish teams off in the playoffs when they have an opponent on the ropes....and will ultimately expend more energy than they should have.

FYI - I believe that the San Jose Sharks are another team that are just as "fragile" as the Canucks in the mental toughness department. Is it any coincidence that both the Canucks are Sharks are one of few teams in NHL history to almost blow a 3-0 series lead? Is it any coincidence that the Sharks themselves gave up a last minute goal to the Canucks in Game 5 last year?....or that the Sharks gave up 3 super quick power play goals in Game 4?

Really.
Last edited by Farhan Lalji on Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Potatoe1 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:57 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:
I can only comment on what I see from the Canucks. In my opinion, those back to back losses to Carolina and Columbus were red flags...indications that a team will only show up when the situation really calls for it. The loss to Calgary before the Christmas break was also a red flag in my opinion....a team that was seemingly more focused on the Christmas holiday rather than the opponent in front of them.
The Canucks record against non-playoff teams has been incredible over that past season and a half.

We have just been absolutely shit kicking the Flames, Oilers, Jackets, Av's and every other bottom feeder in this conference.


FYI - I believe that the San Jose Sharks are another team that are just as "fragile" as the Canucks in the mental toughness department. Is it any coincidence that both the Canucks are Sharks are one of few teams in NHL history to almost blow a 3-0 series lead?
The Canucks didn't actually blow their 3-0 lead as they came back to win their series.

That would be in contrast to the Boston bruins who a year before winning the cup, lost to the flyers after taking a 3-0 lead.

You are all over the place in this thread Kaupil, although I agree that having to fly across the country and play 4 extra games, contributed to them fading late in the series against Boston.

Farhan Lalji

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:12 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
The Canucks record against non-playoff teams has been incredible over that past season and a half.

We have just been absolutely shit kicking the Flames, Oilers, Jackets, Av's and every other bottom feeder in this conference.
I don't know if I mentioned this in this thread or not (I think I did?), but I do admit and recognize that the Canucks' play within the division is exceptional. Not just this year....but for the last few years. But again - that actually ties into my point. The reason why the Canucks' record against divisional opponents is because there is a little more on the line (as opposed to when playing a weaker team in another division).



The Canucks didn't actually blow their 3-0 lead as they came back to win their series.

That would be in contrast to the Boston bruins who a year before winning the cup, lost to the flyers after taking a 3-0 lead.
I realize that....no need to nitpick, lol. The fact of the matter is that both the Sharks and Canucks are one of a handful teams to lose 3 games in a row after being up by 3 games....and I don't think that's just coincidence.

But anyways - I consider a team like Chicago to be VERY strong in the mental toughness department (just in case anyone was wondering as to who I actually thought was a "mentally tough" team, lol).
You are all over the place in this thread Kaupil, although I agree that having to fly across the country and play 4 extra games, contributed to them fading late in the series against Boston.
That, and the fact that our entire 2nd line was completely decimated by injury....along with 4 of our top 6 'D'.

Still - injuries and travel aside - how do you justify their performance in Game 6?......after such a brilliant performance in Game 5? Do mentally tough teams really give up 4 goals within the first 10 minutes...in Game 6 of a Stanley Cup Final? (regardless of how well the other team in playing)

The score in Game 3 should have been 4-1 or 5-1.....but we see how the Canucks (and Luongo) COMPLETELY threw in the towel in the last half of that 3rd period....making the score 8-1....which in effect, gave the Bruins massive confidence.

I honestly don't think my comments in this thread are that far off base. :hmmm:

User avatar
dhabums
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by dhabums » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:16 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:
To be honest, I had completely forgotten about the 'flu' during the Chicago series.
Putting "flu" in "quotes" doesn't make the "flu" and less "significant". Your honesty is appreciated. Now if you have forgotten "that" "big" "piece" of "information", then "maybe" you've glossed over "many" more.

Farhan Lalji

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - Canucks' penchant for "breathers" will.

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:23 pm

dhabums wrote:
Farhan Lalji wrote:
To be honest, I had completely forgotten about the 'flu' during the Chicago series.
Putting "flu" in "quotes" doesn't make the "flu" and less "significant". Your honesty is appreciated. Now if you have forgotten "that" "big" "piece" of "information", then "maybe" you've glossed over "many" more.
I put 'flu' in quotations because a part of me still doesn't believe that this was entirely the case. If there was infact, a flu bug going around, then that has to rank as one of the fastest recoveries in the history of human kind. After insipid performances in Games 4 and 5, the Canucks actually played quite well in Game 6.....and Chicago was lucky to win. I actually thought that Canucks dominated the Hawks in both Games 6 and 7.

Was that near last minute goal that the Canucks gave up in Game 7 of that series a direct result of the flu? :roll:

Post Reply