Are the Sedins on the Decline?

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

Moderator: Referees

Are the Sedins on the decline?

No, they're fine, just in a slump
35
74%
Yes, we're doomed
5
11%
No sure, still too early to say
7
15%
 
Total votes : 47

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby Aaronp18 » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:01 am

Tiger wrote:Of course its relevant.It shows how effective the twins were at 5 on 5 hockey . and if you think about it.. Just how effective were the twins on the power play ?


The twins were fairly effective. The first unit amassed 53 points on the PP in last years playoffs.

As far as Kesler goes I think he's been doing the same thing this year. He missed some off-season training and the first portion of the season so there is no point in going for personal accolades, it wasn't going to happen and it's been there done that!

He also has some wingers that seem to fit very well with his style of game. The Amex line will be one fine piece of ass in the playoffs, just wait :thumbs:

Kesler also doesn't have to be responsible for shutting down the oppositions best this year either. Pahlsson has proven that he can handle that duty, which should free up Kesler et al. to help even more so with the secondary scoring throughout the playoffs.

Like Coco said, we may get beat, there's a certain amount of luck required for a long playoff run and a bounce here or there could have our playoffs go in one direction or the other. I know we will see our best hockey from the boys in the playoffs that is going to make them tough as hell to beat.
User avatar
Aaronp18
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby coco_canuck » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:04 pm

nuckster wrote:But jeesus man, they look rather putrid right now, to the point where ya got to wonder ??? Traditionally, I 've always heard it said that it was ON to be on a roll prior to entering the playoffs... i dunno.


Although I think a lot of the hot/cold streak talk ahead of the playoffs is overemphasized, but all things being equal, it would be nice if the team ramped things up and head into the playoffs in a positive trajectory. I don't think they need to go in a 10 game streak of solid play necessarily, but at least a handful of good games would set them up fairly nicely.

The thing is, they don't need to be on a 20 game steak of solid games before the playoffs, so there was no pressure for them to leave it all on the ice.

Would you be as worried if you see 4-6 solid games from them before the playoffs?

nuckster wrote:Back to the Sedins: I don't think my eyes are deceiving me with what I'm seeing - they haven't really looked like 'first-line' material for awhile now. I find it frustrating watching them cause they're like 'limp dicks' being pushed around out there with little or no finish (that conjures up a weird ...never mind). Well i guess the piece that i can safelyu own is that i don't feel confident right now... nothing I've seen for quite awhile is instilling confidence.... but maybe Aaron is right and I'm being a frikin whining silly ninny?? :? Time will tell.


I don't disagree that the twins have been invincible on more than a few nights the past month or so, but it's not a sufficient enough sample to get too down on them.

As HW said in her post a few days ago, this team is finding it difficult to conjure up motivation and intensity a this stage of the season. I'd wager that the lack of intensity and hunger are the root causes of the Twins poor play. We've seen nothing from the Twins the past 7 years that would suggest pro-longed inconsistency, a precipitous drop in ability, or a lack of desire.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby Meds » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:26 pm

Aaronp18 wrote:As far as Kesler goes I think he's been doing the same thing this year. He missed some off-season training and the first portion of the season so there is no point in going for personal accolades, it wasn't going to happen and it's been there done that!

He also has some wingers that seem to fit very well with his style of game. The Amex line will be one fine piece of ass in the playoffs, just wait :thumbs:

Kesler also doesn't have to be responsible for shutting down the oppositions best this year either. Pahlsson has proven that he can handle that duty, which should free up Kesler et al. to help even more so with the secondary scoring throughout the playoffs.


The AMEX line is indeed a built for the playoffs style of line. However, Kesler needs to learn to distribute the puck a bit more. It's barely an exaggeration to say that those three guys could light up an opponent for 3 or 4 goals a night if Kesler simply thought pass more often. As soon as he touches the puck defensemen position themselves to eliminate either a shot or a drive to the net. I've seen several occassions in a single game where Kesler has had Booth or Higgins wide open on the far wing and has elected to drive the net or shoot rather than make a fairly easy pass to a guy who has a much better chance of getting a shot to the net, let alone beat the netminder for a goal. Granted, it is pretty much power-forward 101 to drive hard and put the puck at the net, but one of the best PF forwards we've ever seen was a guy who did just that, but also was a deft passer. Kes is at the point where he is ready to take another step. Pahlsson is here now and will relieve Kesler of some of his defensive repsonsibilities, Kesler now needs to go from being that great two-way forward and start incorporating a more offensive mindset to his game. It will pay dividends.

As it is, their energy, speed, and strength, already wear defenders down when they attack the net every shift. If the AMEX line grows to become even two-and-a-half dimensional (who cares about 3D :P ), defenders will be very hard pressed to contain them.
Last edited by Meds on Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby donlever » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:26 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
Although I think a lot of the hot/cold streak talk ahead of the playoffs is overemphasized...


All this stuff is cliches generated by those outside of the game or reserved for answers to media generated questions.

"You can't turn it off and on..."

"You have to be hot going into the post season.."

Hell, a decade ago we were the hottest thing in the league for 3 1/2 months and literally on fire going into the post season, won the first two in Detroit only to have reality set in and get our ass kicked all the way to the golf course...

This is now an experienced, veteran team who as recently as 10 months ago were in the midst of post season battles.

They don't need cliches.

They need the fricking playoffs to start.

Well except for 1 guy...

:P
A different goddamn hockey talk messageboard!
User avatar
donlever
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby coco_canuck » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:30 pm

donlever wrote:
Potatoe1 wrote: Er, wait didn't we just..... Ahh never mind...


...unfortunately it's not never mind. The fact we didn't win and that they did not score (no one did of course) and were on the minus side of the ledger (how one couldn't be while being outscored the way we were) is now used in the anti-Sedin debate.


I know you guys get this, but remember Henrik whiffing on the bouncing pass from behind the goal with an entire side of the net open and Thomas looking the other way very early in the 1st in game six?

With the Canucks coming of the euphoria of winning game 5, if Henrik scores that early goal, in a series where the team who scored first won every game, the series may have been over in 6.

This isn't about clinging to "what ifs," it just goes to show how close the Canucks were to winning the Cup.

If they were so close to winning it last year, with a depleted roster, how can any one rationally argue that the twins do not have what it takes, or have never had what it takes, to win the cup?

It's logically impossible to make that argument.

Why is then that people still make that argument?

Pardon me for being condescending, but you have to be pretty fucking stupid to make that argument.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby Strangelove » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:35 pm

Coco, prepare yourself buddy, one of said morons are gonna come on here and say "choke". :look:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby coco_canuck » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:37 pm

donlever wrote:Well except for 1 guy...


Fortunately, the other guy is chomping at the bit.

Strangelove wrote:Coco, prepare yourself buddy, one of said morons are gonna come on here and say "choke". :look:


Didn't he retire?
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby Meds » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:02 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
donlever wrote:
Potatoe1 wrote: Er, wait didn't we just..... Ahh never mind...


...unfortunately it's not never mind. The fact we didn't win and that they did not score (no one did of course) and were on the minus side of the ledger (how one couldn't be while being outscored the way we were) is now used in the anti-Sedin debate.

If they were so close to winning it last year, with a depleted roster, how can any one rationally argue that the twins do not have what it takes, or have never had what it takes, to win the cup?

It's logically impossible to make that argument.

Why is then that people still make that argument?

Pardon me for being condescending, but you have to be pretty fucking stupid to make that argument.


Seeing as logic relies on rational speculation based on assumption, precedent, and evidence, the argument can be made, and it is equally stupid to dismiss anyone who makes that argument as stupid.

Last year's Canuck team had incredible depth. People have been drawing comparisson's between it and the championship Detroit Red Wing's teams from the last decade plus. Steve Yzerman took his team to the Stanley Cup on one good knee, the guy could barely walk, he then helped Mario Lemieux, who had a bad back and one good hip, lead Team Canada to an Olympic gold medal, and while that team was incredibly stacked, they were playing against a stacked Team USA.....who had home-ice advantage. Team USA had some injuries, but they were not being lead by a pair of guys that should have been on crutches or in wheelchairs.

None of the teams Vancouver faced in the playoffs last year were remotely as stacked as Team USA. Neither were the Canucks close to being as stacked as Team Canada. But at the end of the day Vancouver was being lead by an NHL All-Star captain who was beat up and playing hurt, had some injuries throughout the supporting cast, and ultimately came one win short of a Stanley Cup.

The Sedin's did not have what it takes last year. They had what it takes to get 15 wins. They have what it takes to get to the final, no question. They have what it takes to get to game 7 of the final. But they have not proven, and there is no reason to simply assume, that they have what it takes to win, especially in light of some of the games we have seen them squander during regular season play, and also when one takes into account the number of times they didn't show up against Nashville and Chicago (last year and in previous years).

I do believe they have the skill necessary to win, I do believe they want it. But there is still some question about the level of desire, and that only remains because we have seen what the "true greats" have gone through and what they have done to get that 16th win. There is some luck involved, but last year the Sedin's let themselves get bullied and pushed around and ultimately held to the outside and made ineffective, they did this without any kind of push back. They had no emotional response on the ice, Henrik was hurting pretty bad, so were others, and luck goes hand-in-hand with injuries, both in severity and quantity. But there are many names on that Stanley Cup that have gotten there by playing and pushing THROUGH some of the same adversary that the Sedin's faced last year.

Moreover, after leaving Vancouver following game 2, the Sedin lead Canucks didn't even have to win, what was now, a 5 game series in order to take it all home. They lost 4 of 5 games.

Nothing is written in stone until it has been proven.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby coco_canuck » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:23 pm

Meds wrote:Seeing as logic relies on rational speculation based on assumption, precedent, and evidence, the argument can be made, and it is equally stupid to dismiss anyone who makes that argument as stupid.


Hardly.

On pure logic and semantical form, then yes, it may be equally stupid to dismiss it.

But there is also such a thing as prudence, and weighing the rationality and comparative value of the competing argument.

I don't think you would agree that the Twins do not have what it takes to take their team deep in the playoffs, and that what this whole discussion arose from.

The cup example was just one piece of evidence dispelling the ludicrous statement of the Sedins being unable to take their team deep in the playoffs.

But I'll continue debating this issue with you.

Meds wrote:The Sedin's did not have what it takes last year. They had what it takes to get 15 wins. They have what it takes to get to the final, no question. They have what it takes to get to game 7 of the final. But they have not proven, and there is no reason to simply assume, that they have what it takes to win, especially in light of some of the games we have seen them squander during regular season play, and also when one takes into account the number of times they didn't show up against Nashville and Chicago (last year and in previous years).


First of all, not every leader of a cup winning team has had a Yzermaneque performance to lead his team to the cup, and it's not a necessary comparison.

Second, it's a far greater stretch to say the Sedins are unable to win 16 games when they won 15, than say they that by virtue of getting that close, they prove that they have it in them to win 1 more fucking game.

The onus is on your argument to provide clear, compelling and near certain evidence that the Sedins cannot, and will not ever win 16 playoff games.

Does that guarantee that they will?

No, and no one has guaranteed any certainties.

Meds wrote:Nothing is written in stone until it has been proven.


If you want to have that as the rational basis of an argument, then everyone that hasn't won 16 playoff games is simply unable to win the cup, and have never had it within in them to do so.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby Meds » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:42 pm

coco_canuck wrote:Hardly.

On pure logic and semantical form, then yes, it may be equally stupid to dismiss it.

But there is also such a thing as prudence, and weighing the rationality and comparative value of the competing argument.

I don't think you would agree that the Twins do not have what it takes to take their team deep in the playoffs, and that what this whole discussion arose from.


I said as much, you quoted it after you wrote this.

Coco wrote:First of all, not every leader of a cup winning team has had a Yzermaneque performance to lead his team to the cup, and it's not a necessary comparison.

Second, it's a far greater stretch to say the Sedins are unable to win 16 games when they won 15, than say they that by virtue of getting that close, they prove that they have it in them to win 1 more fucking game.

The onus is on your argument to provide clear, compelling and near certain evidence that the Sedins cannot, and will not ever win 16 playoff games.


I think the onus is at least as much on the argument that they can as it is on that they cannot. To date, the clear, compelling, and ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN evidence is that they have not. As with any hypothesis, it must be proven.....one way or the other, and when you've run several experiments (4 playoff appearances as the "goto top line") and all of them have resulted in "failures". The evidence actually starts to point to the "cannot" side of the argument. They have gotten closer, but still have not gotten it done.

Coco wrote:Does that guarantee that they will?

No, and no one has guaranteed any certainties.


True that.

Coco wrote:If you want to have that as the rational basis of an argument, then everyone that hasn't won 16 playoff games is simply unable to win the cup, and have never had it within in them to do so.


Well, if you are talking about current players than the answer is still speculative and suffers from the afore mentioned lack of a guarantee. If you are talking about retired players who never won it, then the evidence is empirical and the answer is no, they did not have what it took. Because hockey is a team sport, it is very hard to truly assess a player in this light, and ultimately the facts speak about 20 individuals and their abilty to function cohesively and succeed as a team. By that token, the Sedin's absolutely do not have what it takes as they are but two pieces, albeit important ones, in a puzzle, and therefore cannot be judged by overall result and simply by individual contributions and the quality, timing, and quantity of those contributions.

Obviously I'm playing the devil's advocate here with you Coco, I do think the Sedin's have what it takes to do it, at least so far as skill and ability goes. My point is that you cannot simply dismiss an argument as stupid when your own argument has as little or less solid ground to stand on. Being able to see both sides of an argument, and accept them both, as valid in light of evidence at hand and observable data, is rather important to any debate. Outright dismissal without concrete, undeniable proof, is shortsighted.

And you don't usually strike me as being short-sighted.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby Per » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:34 pm

coco_canuck wrote:I don't disagree that the twins have been invincible on more than a few nights the past month or so, but it's not a sufficient enough sample to get too down on them.

Actually, if the twins really were invincible, we wouldn't have this thread. :?
User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby donlever » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:37 pm

Per wrote:
coco_canuck wrote:I don't disagree that the twins have been invincible on more than a few nights the past month or so, but it's not a sufficient enough sample to get too down on them.

Actually, if the twins really were invincible, we wouldn't have this thread. :?


Ha!

Remember.

This is Vancouver, don't count your chickens Per.
A different goddamn hockey talk messageboard!
User avatar
donlever
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby mathonwy » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:07 pm

meds argues like a scientist and coco argues like a lawyer.

Who knew Canuck talk could be so interesting.

Sure beats doing real work. :) :) :)

So, who here is actually accomplishing anything at work these days? lol.
User avatar
mathonwy
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2103
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby Meds » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:35 pm

mathonwy wrote:meds argues like a scientist and coco argues like a lawyer.

Who knew Canuck talk could be so interesting.

Sure beats doing real work. :) :) :)

So, who here is actually accomplishing anything at work these days? lol.


Yeah, and lawyers are all about ifs, buts, and loop holes. :P

Well I don't actually start work for another hour and a half.....so I'm exempt. :P
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Are the Sedins on the Decline?

Postby coco_canuck » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:47 pm

Meds wrote:Obviously I'm playing the devil's advocate here with you Coco, I do think the Sedin's have what it takes to do it, at least so far as skill and ability goes. My point is that you cannot simply dismiss an argument as stupid when your own argument has as little or less solid ground to stand on. Being able to see both sides of an argument, and accept them both, as valid in light of evidence at hand and observable data, is rather important to any debate. Outright dismissal without concrete, undeniable proof, is shortsighted.


No, I still stand by what I said.

I wanted to start from this point to make my direction clear, because the side I'm arguing from does have more solid ground, and is a much more cohesive argument.

Meds wrote:I think the onus is at least as much on the argument that they can as it is on that they cannot. To date, the clear, compelling, and ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN evidence is that they have not. As with any hypothesis, it must be proven.....one way or the other, and when you've run several experiments (4 playoff appearances as the "goto top line") and all of them have resulted in "failures". The evidence actually starts to point to the "cannot" side of the argument. They have gotten closer, but still have not gotten it done.


That's a regressive way of looking at their performances for a number of reasons.

First one being that if you look at the "batting average" of playoff appearances and stanley cup wins, you'll see that players "fail" in the playoffs more than they "succeed" with success and failure being measured strictly in winning the cup.

I'd wager that in the past 20 years, every single star player has failed in more playoff appearances than they have succeeded.

Secondly, the twins relative failures are measured in 3 second round exits and a loss in the Stanley Cup final in their 4 playoff appearances as the star players on this team. So in each playoff year, they've been amongst the the top 2-8 teams standing.

So in terms of their potential future success, they're constantly in the top 25% of the league come playoff time. In terms of probability alone, the more you rounds you win, and the more appearances you have, the better your chances of winning the cup.

So they're showing that their chances of getting it done are improving by regularly winning at least one round and last year moving all the way to the final game of the season.

As you said yourself, they're getting closer. So if they're continually growing, and inching closer to their ultimate goal, then it's rather short-sighted to say they cannot get it done and have never had it within in them to win, because that presupposes an imaginary ceiling that cannot be bypassed regardless of any possible improvements.

To say something is impossible, when it's clear it's not impossible, is pretty stupid in my mind.

Meds wrote:Because hockey is a team sport, it is very hard to truly assess a player in this light, and ultimately the facts speak about 20 individuals and their abilty to function cohesively and succeed as a team. By that token, the Sedin's absolutely do not have what it takes as they are but two pieces, albeit important ones, in a puzzle, and therefore cannot be judged by overall result and simply by individual contributions and the quality, timing, and quantity of those contributions.


Agreed, but I don't see how that works against my argument, if you're intending it as a point of emphasis for your own position against mine.

The context of my initial post was directed at those who say the twins cannot be a part of a team that goes deep, let alone win the cup. Not debating whether they're good enough to play superman.

The aforementioned Yzerman struggled through very similar criticism from fans and media questioning his desire, heart and ability to lead his team to a cup. First it was he can't take them deep, then when the Wings lost in 95, the talk was that Yzerman couldn't win the cup.

We all know how foolish those comments turned out to be.

The other factor that strengthens this side of the ledger is the pure ability, character and individual accomplishments of the Twins. Between them they have a Hart, a Lindsey, and two Art-Ross trophies.

We're talking about elite level players who are on one of the best teams in the league and they've had moderate to good playoff success individually and with their teams.

Isn't it more irrational to question the success ceiling of two of the best players in the league who are clearly dedicated and motivated to win the cup, than saying they have the ability to possibly win the cup?

And the biggest distinction being made by me is that it is POSSIBLE the Twins can do it while the other says it's IMPOSSIBLE. If it's difficult to ascertain certainties, then why is an assumed certainty a similarly just and rational argument?
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests