The Switch and the plan

[Strangelove]

I pity the fool who thinks 100 President's Trophies is even close to the value of just one Stanley Cup.

[Meds]

I pity the fool who thinks 100 President's Trophies is even close to the value of just one Stanley Cup.

Well you see B.A.....errr.....Doc.....

I am of two minds on this issue. To the die-hard, fanatical, NHL enthusiast, who lives and breathes this league, drinks and pisses the kool-aid, and hangs his total self-worth on the success and failures of his team, then you are absolutely right, and there is part of me that subscribes to that.

On the other hand, the rational, collected and self-confident individual would look at 100 banners hanging from the rafters, each one representing the team that proved they were the best in the league for 82 games, time and again, and be like, yeah, that's amazing, way more history and success here than that group of perpetual middle-of-the-pack has-beens who pulled a miracle out of their ass and won a single Stanley Cup after squeaking into the playoffs.

It's so bloody hard, and this razor's edge is really not much fun to live on.

Right now my team has won a single President's Trophy and no Stanley Cups. I too want a Stanley Cup more than another President's trophy, but I'm not going to dismiss last year as a failure just because we came a single win shy of a Stanley Cup. Especially when I consider that any team other than Boston would have been lucky to take us to game 6, and the Bruin's would have been done in 4 if not for a choke artist in our crease and the NHL's complete inability to call a fair game.

[donlever]

We didn't fail last season. It was a hell of a year.

We did, however, fail to win the Cup last post season.

Bragging or living on the laurels of the former (not saying you are Meds) will only serve to further fuel the angst felt towards the Canucks fan base.

In this scenario they would be correct.

[Meds]

We didn't fail last season. It was a hell of a year.

We did, however, fail to win the Cup last post season.

Bragging or living on the laurels of the former (not saying you are Meds) will only serve to further fuel the angst felt towards the Canucks fan base.

Know a few Habs fans do ya?

Or are they Oilerites.....

[Strangelove]

I pity the fool who thinks 100 President's Trophies is even close to the value of just one Stanley Cup.

To the die-hard, fanatical, NHL enthusiast, who lives and breathes this league, drinks and pisses the kool-aid, and hangs his total self-worth on the success and failures of his team, then you are absolutely right, and there is part of me that subscribes to that.

THAT is you.

On the other hand, the rational, collected and self-confident individual would look at 100 banners hanging from the rafters, each one representing the team that proved they were the best in the league for 82 games, time and again, and be like, yeah, that's amazing, way more history and success here than that group of perpetual middle-of-the-pack has-beens who pulled a miracle out of their ass and won a single Stanley Cup after squeaking into the playoffs.

THAT is you in denial.

[porp]

I dunno meds - a SC ring means you at least made the pinnacle of your career. You've reached the peak. There's no higher distinction.

That's like discovering a new way of saving a particular kind of medical emergency in a really clever and easy way. And then get that technique named after you and have it be practiced for hundreds of years. Ok, totally exaggerating here.

Versus: discovering many different marginally but statistically effective ways of getting rid of liver spots and warts and other old-age-related epidermal discolouration in outpatient settings and having them all published be in low impact journals that are referenced in field medical manuals for the next 20* years.

I dunno, productivity is nice, but home runs feel better and outsiders are more impressed by home runs moreso than consistency.

[Strangelove]

Listen yo if ya gots-ta-know I’s be givin da blow-by-blow. Fo sho bro! Zombie act? Dey’ll let it go, and undergo a morphio! No more lyin-low & tipsy-toe, they’ll go to-and-fro & toe-to-toe, whoopin ev’ry so-and-so in Chick-ah-go!

Yep, told yas...

[donlever]

Yep, told yas...

Indeed.

The best part about last nights game (perhaps even better than Luongos stellar play) was the fact that the big bad Hawks actually appeared somewhat tentative around us. I said it earlier but no one wanted anything to do with Kass or even Weise (both of them took pucks hard at Crawford with no response from Hawk players) and Keith actually looked timid out there during the scrums.

Who woulda thunk it?

We shall be pushed about no more..

Good call my Doctor.

[Topper]

I think the idea of an intensity switch, cruise/foot to the floor button or a coast to the playoff plan is horseshit.

This is a professional sports organization with professional players who have spent their entire lives competing. Coasting for weeks is not in the bloodline.

There may be an off day here or there, consistency is the main difference between NHL players, and fatigue is also a factor.

As I left for holidays a month ago, the team was commenting on the upcoming stretch of 7 games over 11 nights (6 on the road).

I am really not surprised the team has slumped a bit, but even with the slump, looser points have been accumulating.

When did the coaching staff unleash the guys for post whistle scrums?

Vancouver, despite what folks around here say, is a tough team to play against. They finish their checks. Their offence is based upon a strong physical forecheck and pinching defensemen hitting opponents wingers on the half boards to keep the puck in the offensive zone. It was the same last year throughout the playoffs. The big change I have seen since I have been back (last 11min of the 3rd vs Chi) is the involvement in post whistle scums. A shove here, a face wash there, a hack to the ankles everywhere. When did that start?

That is a change in team discipline that can only come from the coaching staff letting the players go for it and it wouldn't surprise me, pure speculation here, if it came about at the request of the leadership group (C and A's) of the players.

[Larry Goodenough]

Blake Price was on radio at lunch. I tuned in in mid-sentence.

I did not hear how he got the info, but he says he has direct info from a "highly successful, current coach" who said something to the effect he has been watching Vancouver play and it's clear to that coach that Vancouver is coasting at about 70% and they should be the team to beat in the West?

Anyone else hear this or can they give the info credit?

[Farhan Lalji]

I pity the fool who thinks 100 President's Trophies is even close to the value of just one Stanley Cup.

On the other hand, the rational, collected and self-confident individual would look at 100 banners hanging from the rafters, each one representing the team that proved they were the best in the league for 82 games, time and again, and be like, yeah, that's amazing, way more history and success here than that group of perpetual middle-of-the-pack has-beens who pulled a miracle out of their ass and won a single Stanley Cup after squeaking into the playoffs. Im not going to dismiss last year as a failure just because we came a single win shy of a Stanley Cup. Especially when I consider that any team other than Boston would have been lucky to take us to game 6, and the Bruin's would have been done in 4 if not for a choke artist in our crease and the NHL's complete inability to call a fair game.

Doc and Meds are both correct in my opinion. The only statement I take issue with is Meds assessment of the Boston series. Keep in mind that Luongo was VERY good in the 3 wins that we got. Yes - he was inconsistent as fuck, but the team in front didn't exactly help him out (although many of our top core was decimated with injury). As much as I don't want to admit it, Boston deserves credit as well.

Tim Thomas prevented them from getting blown out in games 1 and 2, while Boston's positional play combined with their bottom 6 forwards and top 4 defensemen stepping up BIG TIME were also major factors from Game 3 onwards. Id even go as far as saying that both of these were bigger factors than Boston's so-called physical dominance (which I think was overrated seeing as how the Canucks outhit Boston in 4-5 of the 7 games played).

Game 7 was called completely down the middle and the healthier team won.

[Larry Goodenough]

I pity the fool who thinks 100 President's Trophies is even close to the value of just one Stanley Cup.

On the other hand, the rational, collected and self-confident individual would look at 100 banners hanging from the rafters, each one representing the team that proved they were the best in the league for 82 games, time and again, and be like, yeah, that's amazing, way more history and success here than that group of perpetual middle-of-the-pack has-beens who pulled a miracle out of their ass and won a single Stanley Cup after squeaking into the playoffs. Im not going to dismiss last year as a failure just because we came a single win shy of a Stanley Cup. Especially when I consider that any team other than Boston would have been lucky to take us to game 6, and the Bruin's would have been done in 4 if not for a choke artist in our crease and the NHL's complete inability to call a fair game.

Doc and Meds are both correct in my opinion. The only statement I take issue with is Meds assessment of the Boston series. Keep in mind that Luongo was VERY good in the 3 wins that we got. Yes - he was inconsistent as fuck, but the team in front didn't exactly help him out (although many of our top core was decimated with injury). As much as I don't want to admit it, Boston deserves credit as well.

Tim Thomas prevented them from getting blown out in games 1 and 2, while Boston's positional play combined with their bottom 6 forwards and top 4 defensemen stepping up BIG TIME were also major factors from Game 3 onwards. Id even go as far as saying that both of these were bigger factors than Boston's so-called physical dominance (which I think was overrated seeing as how the Canucks outhit Boston in 4-5 of the 7 games played).

Game 7 was called completely down the middle and the healthier team won.

I know this is simplified, but...

Thomas gave up 5 or more goals 4 times against Tampa Bay. Luongo gave up 5 or more goals twice against Boston.

The main difference between Luongo's finals and Thomas' semi-finals was Boston was able to score 6 goals in one of those games in which Thomas blew up.

So one goalie was bailed out by his team and the other wasn't. That's the difference between perceived hero and perceived goat.

[Cornuck]

So one goalie was bailed out by his team and the other wasn't. That's the difference between perceived hero and perceived goat.

It can't be that simple.....can it?

[wienerdog]

So one goalie was bailed out by his team and the other wasn't. That's the difference between perceived hero and perceived goat.

Haha, toss that one to Mondi, Larry. He's in a cage getting mauled by a coco-tiger in another thread and could use something to chew on.

[Topper]

I am concerned about the lack of production from the top six in recent games and specifically from the top line, Daniel included prior to his injury.

I can see some reasons for it, but the concern is that these players have not adjusted their games to also include offence in what has been a change in the way the team has played.

There is no longer an aggressive two or sometimes three man forecheck forcing turnovers and backed up by pinching defenders gobbling up those turn overs. Seems they had enough of the odd man rushes that will happen when you play that style.

Instead it is Jaque LeMaire hockey. One man forecheck, though that one man has a green light to be very aggressive, force the opposition to make as many passes as possible to cross their blue line, bottle up the neutral zone and attack at your own blue line forcing either ill timed shoot ins or forewards carrying the play wide. Make the best of opportunities and win a low scoring defensive struggle while frustrating the bejesus out of your opponent.

Ho fucking hum for us fans to watch, but effective in the short haul.

The Sedin cycle game relies heavily on the points as an outlet and as a way of getting the puck to the net. That is not happening in the current style. Everyone is backing off. In this scenario, what has been effective is the guys willing to do the grunt work. Higgins, Booth, Raymond, Hansen, Samme and to some extent, Kassian. Guys willing to move the puck to the net on their own. Guys who do not require short pass deception to open space.

It is frustrating to watch a team that is used to imposing its offensive will on the game suddenly sit back and play a Wild/Devil game. Offence now comes in solo or duo quick bursts off neutral zone turnovers. The fact the are doing so successfully is good and it opens up another difficulty to opponents plans (which Vancouver do they play tonight?). It also shows an incredible amount of discipline in a system and faith in the coaches.

It is a style of play that has given them a chance to rest some horses Salo/Bieksa/Hank.

It still bothers me that the top players have been unable to use their skills to generate turnovers and chances. Last night, despite what the commentators and scoreboard said, I thought the second line was the most effective and willing to impose their will on the play.

I am not a fan of this reactionary hockey, I much prefer a team going out and dominating the opponent and making the opponent adjust and hope for mistakes.