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

User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2922
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

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

Post by Aaronp18 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:34 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote: 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:
These are elite level athletes with 24/7 health care when required.

They come back from severe injuries weeks if not months earlier than the normal person. Why is it so hard to believe that they can recover from the common flu a few days faster then the normal person?

It's fairly well documented how closely everything from sleep habits to food intake is monitored with this group which likely means not only are their bodies in tip top physical shape but their immune systems likely are as well.

It's probably more surprising, to me anyways, that some players got sick at all at that time of the season!

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 4:40 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote: Was that near last minute goal that the Canucks gave up in Game 7 of that series a direct result of the flu? :roll:
It was the Canucks taking a breather, obviously.

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 4:58 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:
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).



You can slice it and dice it how ever you like, but the Canucks record against non-playoff teams is excellent.

I don't have the numbers in front of me but I believe they have the best record in the game against non-playoff clubs. I recall reading that their record against bad teams the past 120 or so games is like .750 or .800.




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.
Again, the Bruins lost 4 in a row after being up by 3 what does that say?

Are last years champ and runner up both mentally weak?
Still - injuries and travel aside - how do you justify their performance in Game 6?......after such a brilliant performance in Game 5?
Injuries, travel, and absolutely deplorable goaltending.

Luongo just killed us in game 6.

Is the whole team "fragile" because our goal shit the bed?



I honestly don't think my comments in this thread are that far off base.
I think you're just rambling.

Waffle
CC Veteran
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:38 am

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

Post by Waffle » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:34 pm

Farhan I enjoy reading your comments. I too get really miffed for some unexplainable reason when the Canucks seem to take a night off against teams they should beat. I don’t know about the last few years, but I did see some information posted about how they did against the bottom dwellers last year, and I will post it here.

Of interest, this article did this evaluation of the Canucks, but didn’t do the same type of evaluation for any other team, and challenged people reading the article to do it for their team and post the results. There are no posted comments as far as I can see. Either no one reads the hockey writers blog (which may be quite understandable, ha ha) or records for play off teams were similar to the Canucks record so not worth posting. I recall someone from the great New York Yankees teams years ago saying that their forumula to stay on top was to win 75% of games against the bottom teams and at least 50% of games against the top teams they played.

However, the article does have a point. The unbalanced schedule may be of more benefit to some teams than others, IF they can take advantage of it.

From: http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-2011-20 ... r-success/

"NHL 2011-2012: Is Your Team Scheduled for Success?

The Canucks, finishing 1st overall last season, played 28 games against the Western Conference other top 7 playoff teams. In those 28 games they had 15 wins and 13 losses. In the 4 games against each team they split every home-and-away series 2-wins and 2-losses except against San Jose against whom they had 3-wins and 1-loss. Not a dominant performance by any means. Against the bottom 7 non-playoff teams they had 36 games. They had more games within their Conference against non-playoff teams because the Canucks played in the worst division in the Conference and maybe the League. That means the Canucks were fortunate in playing 6 games each against the Edmonton Oilers (30th place), the Colorado Avalanche (29th place), the Minnesota Wild (21st place) and the Calgary Flames (17th place). In those 36 games they had 28 wins and 8 losses. But how did the Canucks perform against the best and the worst in the East?

Last year the Vancouver Canucks played 18 regular season games against Eastern Conference opponents. Against the top 8 playoff teams the Canucks had 2 wins and 7 losses. Totally dominated by the elite of the East! Against the bottom 7 non-playoff teams the Canucks had 9 wins and 0 losses. Again their success appears to be as bottom feeders.

So across the League the Canucks had 17 wins and 20 losses against the top-level playoff competition in a total of 37 games. In the other 45 games, they played against bottom level non-playoff opponents winning 37 games and losing 8 games. Could an argument be made that the Canucks’ President’s Trophy was a result of this unbalanced schedule? And what about other regular season accomplishments? Scoring goals or goals against? Can any individual or team awards can be questioned when those accomplishments were while playing against lesser opponents more often than not over the course of the season? With due respect to Edmonton and Colorado what team wouldn’t want 12 games against the 29th and 30th place teams?"

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15221
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

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

Post by Hockey Widow » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:37 pm

It wasn't the flu from what I recall but a virus from they suspect food. Some sort of food poising or food sickness. It was something that started on the road from what they believe was contaminated food that was eaten in the dressing room. I don't k now if they ever really tracked it down but that was what was suspected at the time.

And no, it wasn't thought to be deliberate so no conspiracy, just that over half the players were shitting and vomiting after eating dressing room food after a game. So there you have it. Some of the players were so dehydrated they were on drips between periods. It took 2-4 days to clear in the affected players. And I believe it. Though it had nothing to do with the game 6 loss or game 7 needing OT. It did impact on games 3-4. There were players in game 3 and 4 that were puking on the bench.

So it was never thought to be the flu but a food born virus.
The only HW the Canucks need

Farhan Lalji

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

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:00 pm

Waffle wrote:Farhan I enjoy reading your comments.

So across the League the Canucks had 17 wins and 20 losses against the top-level playoff competition in a total of 37 games. In the other 45 games, they played against bottom level non-playoff opponents winning 37 games and losing 8 games. Could an argument be made that the Canucks’ President’s Trophy was a result of this unbalanced schedule? And what about other regular season accomplishments? Scoring goals or goals against? Can any individual or team awards can be questioned when those accomplishments were while playing against lesser opponents more often than not over the course of the season? With due respect to Edmonton and Colorado what team wouldn’t want 12 games against the 29th and 30th place teams?"
Hey Waffle,

First off, thanks!

Secondly - Those are some very interesting stats....and I was actually completely oblivious to the fact that our stats against bottom feeders was THAT good. Wow. Our record against elite teams in the East is also fairly disturbing. I wonder how other elite teams "stack up" in terms of their record against elite and non-elite teams? Very interesting stuff.

With that in mind - I guess a lot of things do make sense (i.e. the Sedins' lowered impact during the post-season, etc.).

Farhan Lalji

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

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:03 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:It wasn't the flu from what I recall but a virus from they suspect food. Some sort of food poising or food sickness. It was something that started on the road from what they believe was contaminated food that was eaten in the dressing room.
Hey HW,

Thanks for sharing that. That would actually make a lot more sense in my opinion....given our fairly quick recovery time. If that truly was the case, then I do take back my comments (i.e. Canucks taking it easy in Games 4 and 5). However - After Game 7, if I recall correctly, guys like Bieksa and the Sedin twins were talking about how they shouldn't have let up and let Chicago get up from the map (which implied to me that the Canucks had in fact, relaxed).

Interesting nonetheless.

Farhan Lalji

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

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:13 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:[

You can slice it and dice it how ever you like, but the Canucks record against non-playoff teams is excellent.

I don't have the numbers in front of me but I believe they have the best record in the game against non-playoff clubs. I recall reading that their record against bad teams the past 120 or so games is like .750 or .800.
After looking at Waffle's stats and link, I will have to agree.

Again, the Bruins lost 4 in a row after being up by 3 what does that say?

Bruins are an extremely tough, defensively sound team, that can also score prolificly. Maybe I'm wrong here but I think the Bruins are mentally weak in certain areas as well (I say 'certain areas' because they are ridiculously strong in other aspects of mental toughness). I think the Bruins' horrid special teams (outside of playing us) was a result of their attitude/mentality rather than ability.

Bruins almost gave up a similar goal at the start of Game 6 against us....to the goal that was scored on them in Game 5 by Lapierre. Bruins' late goal to Torres + Bruins' giving up OT goal in first 15 seconds to Burrows = bad signs.

Bruins were also up 3-0 against the Flyers in that series.....AND 3-0 in Game 7....and still lost.
Are last years champ and runner up both mentally weak?
In many aspects, both teams are mentally tough. In other aspects however, I think both teams are a little weak, yes. A team like Chicago destroys both teams in the mental prowess department in my opinion.

Injuries, travel, and absolutely deplorable goaltending.

Luongo just killed us in game 6.

Is the whole team "fragile" because our goal shit the bed?
Not really. Originally - I would have used the 'fragility' argument due to the fact that the number one offense in the league only generated 8 goals against Bruins (brilliance from Tim Thomas or not). However - after analyzing the stats that Waffle presented, I have admittedly changed my view.


I think you're just rambling.
Fair enough. lol.

Farhan Lalji

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

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:15 pm

Aaronp18 wrote: Why is it so hard to believe that they can recover from the common flu a few days faster then the normal person?
Hey Aaron,

All good points. I think HW's analysis explains it all. Monitoring or not, the flu is the flu. As it turns out however, it may have been food poisoning anyways.

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 6:18 pm

Waffle wrote: However, the article does have a point. The unbalanced schedule may be of more benefit to some teams than others, IF they can take advantage of it.
That article is the type of garbage that fuels the media. It is either insincere, obtuse, or just totally stupid to use the year end standings to judge quality of opposition throughout the season. We played Colorado when they were in fact AHEAD of us. We played Calgary when they were hottest team in the league. Etc. While I am sure it is possible that this effect works both ways, clearly no attempt was made to show either way.

Never mind the 450 other variables necessary to actually provide something statistically useful. Not much surprise that this was written by a Bruins fan. Funny how that works.

Farhan Lalji

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

Post by Farhan Lalji » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:30 pm

dhabums wrote: Not much surprise that this was written by a Bruins fan. Funny how that works.
Agreed.

Even if that Bruins fan wrote that article to discredit the Canucks, the fact of the matter is that we still made the Stanley Cup Finals and took 3 games off of his beloved team.

Bottom feeding teams or not, we still took care of business. The Canucks can't control who their opponents are. We dominated almost every statistical category in the regular season, and defeated 3 very good teams in Chicago, Nashville, and San Jose.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15221
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

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

Post by Hockey Widow » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:04 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:It wasn't the flu from what I recall but a virus from they suspect food. Some sort of food poising or food sickness. It was something that started on the road from what they believe was contaminated food that was eaten in the dressing room.
Hey HW,

Thanks for sharing that. That would actually make a lot more sense in my opinion....given our fairly quick recovery time. If that truly was the case, then I do take back my comments (i.e. Canucks taking it easy in Games 4 and 5). However - After Game 7, if I recall correctly, guys like Bieksa and the Sedin twins were talking about how they shouldn't have let up and let Chicago get up from the map (which implied to me that the Canucks had in fact, relaxed).

Interesting nonetheless.

Yes, it was actually after game 3 in Chicago that the players started getting ill. They suspected the food right away because of how it impacted players. If you recall there were also serious concerns about unauthorized people being allowed to enter the Canucks dressing room after games. It started a little conspiracy theory at the time but was quickly quashed by the Canucks. In any event there was definitely something that happened after game 3.

A friend of mine was with the team during the playoffs, as a fan, and he had some inside dope. He was texting me about the players just barfing all over the place. Which was more why the Canucks were concerned about unauthorized people being in the dressing room than any conspiracy. My friend predicted that games 4 and 5 would be bad games for the Canucks as some of the players could not hold anything down for 2-3 days and were literally puking and shitting all day.

These things happen and yes some of the players talked about letting up after being up 3-0 and it may have been part of it. But that some of the players were quick sick is also a reality.

When we beat St. Louis 4-0 their entire team was sick. As with the Canucks no one on the Blues used that as an excuse. Lets face it, no one wants excuses. We expect our athletes to be super human. But we also have to give credit to Chicago for making a series out of it and taking it to Ot a game 7. I think a number of factors were in play at once but if the players don't get sick I doubt it goes 7 games. We may not have swept the Hawks but I doubt it goes 7.

And I still think if relatively healthy, or conversely if the Bruins had to deal with the extent of injuries we had, we win the cup. Not an excuse just a reality IMHO. We were devastated with serious injuries and the Bruins were relatively healthy, in comparison. So thems is the breaks in the playoffs. Things happen. Some you overcome, sone you don't and some you can't. Could we have still beat the Bruins with all the injuries? I think we had a decent chance at it but in the end they were healthier and got great goaltending when they needed it. They also scored timely goals and our PP dried up. But give me that series over again with a healthy team and I like our chances.

It's so easy to look at the final outcome and say we choked, or we don't have the players to get it done when I think the reality is that we do have the players to get it done and the outcome cannot be looked at in isolation. You have to ask why? And part of the why is health and injuries. They are not being offered up as excuses. But as part of the why. There are other reasons too. AV IMHO, made some bad line up choices in the finals given the extent of injuries. As well, Boston played a great series and had the better goaltending. But this is a Bruins team that almost got knocked off round one, beat up on a decimated Philly team and gave up a lot of goals to Tampa. They were beatable.

Officiating was part of it but not as much as we might want to think. Everyone knows the finals get called differently and when we did get PP we didn't score. We were not intimidated as some might like to think. Boston won and deserved it given all the variables. But give me that series again and give me a relatively healthy team and I say we win. No sour grapes. I'm so over it. I was when people started to riot. It put the game into perspective for me.

My point in this long ramble is that we don't need a significant make over or a major change. Tweaks are all we need. We are close, so close and I would rather be the Canucks than most other teams. I like our chances any given night and I like our chances come the playoffs. If we get beat again this year then I start to question if we have the right mix. This year anything but a Cup will be a failure and I start to look at dumping a Ballard, retiring a Salo and making some moves.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Corb
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:18 am

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

Post by Corb » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:19 pm

Excellent post HW.

I agree that given all the circumstances the better team won. I still can't watch highlights though..... :look:


..............................
Happy New Year All

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 7:23 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:
dhabums wrote: Not much surprise that this was written by a Bruins fan. Funny how that works.
Agreed.

Even if that Bruins fan wrote that article to discredit the Canucks, the fact of the matter is that we still made the Stanley Cup Finals and took 3 games off of his beloved team.

Bottom feeding teams or not, we still took care of business. The Canucks can't control who their opponents are. We dominated almost every statistical category in the regular season, and defeated 3 very good teams in Chicago, Nashville, and San Jose.
As easy as our division was, we also had a better record against the Pacific than any Pacific team. Same goes for the Central.

BTW, Boston was 8-7-3 vs the West last year. Dazzling. Lucky for them they are in the east I guess. Excuse my math, but that means they wouldn't have made the playoffs. OMG, the Bruins are a fraud!!!

Waffle
CC Veteran
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:38 am

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

Post by Waffle » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:29 am

And Boston was 3, 6, and 2 against the playoff teams in the West last year, and 5, 1, and 1 against the non play off teams.

Not much different than the Canucks record.

Post Reply