R4G7 - Game 7 - Wednesday - 7pm

[ClamRussel]

This run doesn't even compare to '94...not even close. The finals then was an all out war. This time it was like we ran out of steam and were running on fumes. Look at the Bruins after the final game, they don't even look worn out. I'm sure our boys gave it all they had but they simply just didn't have enough unfortunately. Turning point was the injury to Hamhuis. With that hip check the bottom just fell out. What a pathetic way to lose the grip on win 16. They had it...and just let it slip away.

[Cookie La Rue]

I'm dissappointed, embarrassed and sad (esp. after this mess in the streets).....take care you all, maybe 'til next season, maybe.

What once was a dream turned into a nightmare in all aspects (again.) I think i'm calling a good psychiatrist now...

[Cornuck]

I can't imagine a worse game 7 in the Finals.

A few comments:

After the first goal, the team collapsed. You could almost hear them say. "Here we go again!" - and they were right. It was over when it was 1-0. From there, it was a matter of running out the clock - for both teams.

After watching the battles of the first 6 games, game 7 did a 180 and presented us with Disney on Ice. I still can't figure that one out. The Bruins had no interest with the 'between the whistle crap' - and that was fine with the Canucks.

Luongo? I'm done with him. He's a very good goalie, but for 3 years in a row, he's had serious breakdowns. Too bad we have him for another decade.

Sedins? Talented? Hell yeah! Warriors? Nope. Their game is too easy focus on in the playoffs. They're not fast enough to make space, so they get boxed in and they're done.

Kesler? Best Canuck, but I'm guessing he was having some injury problems - or maybe he just got tired of doing it all himself.

The D was deep all season, but not deep enough for the playoffs. Watching a one-handed Edler play last night was sad. Ballard? Do we now have a $4 million dollar spectator?

The rest of the team played their roles with varying degrees of success.

In the end, I guess this was a learning experience, but I expect we'll see the same thing next year.

Why we lost:

[Puck]

And so it ends. It was quite a ride. It hurts more than '94, I think. In that year they battled hard in a good game seven; they still had enough gas to get close. And in the end, while we hoped they'd win the series we were definitely the underdogs (and had to fight back just to get to game seven). This time, we were favoured and we won the first two. It was painful to be dismantled in game seven on home ice.

Going in to last night there was some question as to who was the better team. Clearly in overall stats Boston was ahead, but we'd managed to win all our home games. In the end, Boston proved they were the better team in the series. Don't bother pointing blame at the core, or anybody. Boston's team outplayed ours. In the end, as Jim Robson pointed out, their depth was better. They were better down the middle: goal, defense and centre. We had a lot of success in these playoffs by winning face-offs and controlling the puck; particularly on specialty teams. But in the final, Boston out-drew us in the circle - this strongly affected our power-play and our penalty-kill. And even though Thomas allowed only 8 goals in 7 games, it was partly the quality of chances that their team-D allowed that were the biggest problem.

'94's team caught lightning in a bottle, the 2011 team is out-right good. Yes, it would have been nice to seize the opportunity and as Pat Quinn said "Legitimize the Franchise", but they didn't. The Sedins have shown they can learn from mistakes, let's see if they can take another step next year. Unlike '94, there's no reason to think they won't get another shot.

[Todd Bersnoozi]

I was comparing the 94 team with this current one with a bud. He said this team has more skill, but the 94 team had more character. I think he's right, 94 team had a bunch of character guys like Babych, Diduck, T.Hunter, Linden, Gelinas, Courts, Gus Adams, Cliffy, Serge, etc.

forwards: current team has more high end skill (sedins, kesler); but 94 team had more depth, grit/character, but it had a true sniper as well in Pavel
defence: current team probably has a slight edge. it's younger, more skilled but 94 was more experienced
goaltending: got to give the edge to Cpt Kirk. He stood on his head, didn't get lit up and rarely let in a bad goal.

[ClamRussel]

Kesler? Best Canuck, but I'm guessing he was having some injury problems - or maybe he just got tired of doing it all himself.

Perhaps thats part of the problem. Ever notice him banging his stick on the ice? ...how he always wants the puck? The guy is a bit of a puckhog and, while his shot has become lethal, needs to learn to use his linemates better. His passing is a tad weak and he only seems to dish it when he runs out of options for himself. Perhaps thats why he makes such a good trigger man for the Sedins on the PP. A center needs to distribute the puck to be a part of an effective trio. Maybe he is better suited to the wing afterall.

[ClamRussel]

I was comparing the 94 team with this current one with a bud. He said this team has more skill, but the 94 team had more character. I think he's right, 94 team had a bunch of character guys like Babych, Diduck, T.Hunter, Linden, Gelinas, Courts, Gus Adams, Cliffy, Serge, etc.

forwards: current team has more high end skill (sedins, kesler); but 94 team had more depth, grit/character, but it had a true sniper as well in Pavel
defence: current team probably has a slight edge. it's younger, more skilled but 94 was more experienced
goaltending: got to give the edge to Cpt Kirk. He stood on his head, didn't get lit up and rarely let in a bad goal.

WAY more character, they had a spine. Don't forget Antoski......plus high end QB in Jeff Brown....experience in Craven.

I do think you're over-romanticizing McLean a bit at Luongo's expense....he put in some HUGE performances and made huge saves but he also allowed clunkers...and although he didn't have the breakdowns Lu did the bottom line is (just ask Fuhr) he lost 4 times in the finals. He allowed 3 goals in game 7. Luongo had some huge games in this year's playoff run and has been very solid. We tend to have very short memories when it comes to the good things Roberto does.

Bottom line mate, the Canucks scored only EIGHT goals in 7 playoff games. You can't pin that on your netminder. Major FAIL. Only 2 PP goals on 32 opportunities. Another FAIL. We scored a goal for each time our team stood there & allowed Marchand to punch our Art Ross winner in the face. TOTAL FAIL.

[woodhog]

I do think you're over-romanticizing McLean a bit at Luongo's expense....he put in some HUGE performances and made huge saves but he also allowed clunkers...and although he didn't have the breakdowns Lu did the bottom line is (just ask Fuhr) he lost 4 times in the finals. He allowed 3 goals in game 7. Luongo had some huge games in this year's playoff run and has been very solid. We tend to have very short memories when it comes to the good things Roberto does.

Bottom line mate, the Canucks scored only EIGHT goals in 7 playoff games. You can't pin that on your netminder.

Nice attempt to defend Luongo but it just doesn't fly. Yes, he played very well in several games but the bottom line is, when it really counted, he was a MAJOR FAIL.

The rest of the team failed too but who knows what the outcome of game 7 would have been if Lou had played as well as Thomas. If he had kept it scoreless and boosted the team with some huge saves a la Thomas, maybe we'd be getting ready for a parade instead of doing a post mortem.

Luongo, when interviewed after the final loss said that the playoffs was tough physically and even tougher mentally.
He proved that point with his playoff meltdowns each of the last 3 years. He lacks the mental toughness required.

It's nice having a really good regular season goalie who is a contender for the Vezina. The reality is that you usually need a really confident, mentally tough goalie who is a Conn Smyth contender to win the Cup. Lou was none of those things.

I'm not trying to put the entire blame on the goalie, as we were obviously lacking in several other departments as well.
Just saying that Luongo had two chances to come up big and he didn't do it.

[Tiger]

Kinda simple really.. our 3 top paid players all sucked in game 7... I don't expect the Sedins to learn anything or play any different.. They've done the same in every playoffs for the past 5 years.. ended up the worst line +/- .. of all 4 lines..
Its sad when the top forward is a guy that barely made the team.. Hansen .. and when the best line is the 3rd line..
Clam said:

Perhaps thats part of the problem. Ever notice him banging his stick on the ice? ...how he always wants the puck? The guy is a bit of a puckhog and, while his shot has become lethal, needs to learn to use his linemates better. His passing is a tad weak and he only seems to dish it when he runs out of options for himself. Perhaps thats why he makes such a good trigger man for the Sedins on the PP. A center needs to distribute the puck to be a part of an effective trio. Maybe he is better suited to the wing afterall.

Agree Clam .. but who was he going to pass to? Raymond with the worst shot on the team? I noticed when they put Burrows on Kesler line he passed to him a lot .. and the line worked..Maybe a healthy Samuelsson would have made the difference?
At the end of the day ( and playoffs ) Kesler line was second best on Canucks .. just behind the 3rd line.. and ended with a plus / minus of .. 0 .

Erhoff was a disaster most of the playoffs . Edler looked bad in a few games, Bieksa and Hamhuis were tops..Salo was steady most of the playoffs.. Rome was a + player until suspended.. the rookie Tanev played well and ended up at 0 not bad in 5 games with the Nucks losing 4 of them..

Last bich .. Luongo.. the highest paid of all the Canucks and not a clutch goaltender. I'd rather see us keep Scneider .. and see if any team has a fool enoough GM to take over that costly contract.
Bahhhhhhh 40 f*ing years of frustration ..

[Puck]

Tiger,

While I agree with you that the top line wasn't good enough in game seven, I think you're over-simplifying things again with your analysis of the lines. The third line was the best? They often had the most jump, but that's their role. Take a look at the stats (sorry about the formatting):

33 C HENRIK SEDIN 25 3 19 22 -11 16 2 0 1 46 6.5
22 L DANIEL SEDIN 25 9 11 20 -9 32 5 0 2 99 9.1
17 C RYAN KESLER 25 7 12 19 0 47 4 0 2 76 9.2
14 L ALEXANDRE BURROWS 25 9 8 17 0 34 1 1 2 62 14.5
5 D CHRISTIAN EHRHOFF 23 2 10 12 -13 16 1 0 0 50 4.0
23 D ALEXANDER EDLER 25 2 9 11 -4 8 0 0 0 58 3.4
3 D KEVIN BIEKSA 25 5 5 10 6 51 1 0 1 47 10.6
36 R JANNIK HANSEN 25 3 6 9 7 18 0 0 0 50 6.0
20 L CHRIS HIGGINS 25 4 4 8 1 2 1 0 3 49 8.2
21 L MASON RAYMOND 24 2 6 8 -1 6 0 0 0 57 3.5
13 L RAFFI TORRES 23 3 4 7 2 28 0 0 1 20 15.0

That sure looks like the top line was the top line to me. Yeah, there are issues with the Sedins +/-, but the team was blown out 7-2 and 4-0 (x3). With the time they spend on the ice, it's not all that surprising. I believe the Sedins do learn something from each year. I don't know if they are ever going to get the level of playoff success we'd love, but I'll hold out hope.

For those who wonder if Kesler had enough support, that seems to show up in the stats too. Raymond, although he skated hard and was effective on the fore-check, was a third of a point per game.

You have to wonder if just one of two things had happened: stronger goaltending in game 7, or one or two less key injuries, if we would have won it.

[Tiger]

Puck, the Sedins had the worst +/- on the team.. most of their points came on the PP not 5 on 5.. and they sucked.. How bad were they? check out the last game both were on the ice for all 4 goals against.. They don't play well against any of the tough physical teams.. Did well for 2 , 3 games against Chicago until Bolland came back .. then sucked . Good games against San Jose but San Jose is not a tough physical team.. Nearly lost the Chi series because of their poor defensive play.. and did lose the Stanley .. between the Sedin's and Luongo .. take your pick ..

[Cornuck]

Re: The Sedins:

How would Gretzky have done in the playoffs if his team didn't have an effective deterrent. If we had even Rypien to smack a few heads, things might have changed. But we Zero deterrent and most of the team actually bent over and took in the mistaken idea that they were helping the team.

[Puck]

Tiger, I may have mis-stated my point. They were not good enough, no, but they still scored way more points than anybody other than Kesler. While they may not have done what we hoped, we sure as hell would have been bounced in the first round without them. That's all I was saying with respect to "our 3rd line was our best".

As for deterrents: the team strategy was to hurt the opposition on the power-play. Unfortunately, this failed on 2 counts: 1) The Bruins got away with a boatload of garbage behaviour - to me, I think all that crap between whistles made the NHL look completely second-class this year; and 2) Our power-play was mostly ineffective except against San Jose and perhaps early in the Chicago series.

How do we address this? Who the hell knows. I don't think Kesler+Burrows+??? would be a number one line unless ??? is a bona fide star. Kesler is great, but I still believe his strength is playing a 2-way game and as a power-play sniper. We have to find a way to get the Sedins to be able to adjust to playoff-level defense, because I think we need them for that 82-game part of the year that leads to the playoffs. Maybe that means adding a power-forward to the #1 line?

[Puck]

Re: The Sedins:

How would Gretzky have done in the playoffs if his team didn't have an effective deterrent.

This is an interesting parallel. Gretz really shone in space, too. Do you think he would have fared as well in the dead-puck era? He sure as hell didn't get pounded in the head after the whistle by guys like Marchand.

[ClamRussel]

I do think you're over-romanticizing McLean a bit at Luongo's expense....he put in some HUGE performances and made huge saves but he also allowed clunkers...and although he didn't have the breakdowns Lu did the bottom line is (just ask Fuhr) he lost 4 times in the finals. He allowed 3 goals in game 7. Luongo had some huge games in this year's playoff run and has been very solid. We tend to have very short memories when it comes to the good things Roberto does.

Bottom line mate, the Canucks scored only EIGHT goals in 7 playoff games. You can't pin that on your netminder.

Nice attempt to defend Luongo but it just doesn't fly. Yes, he played very well in several games but the bottom line is, when it really counted, he was a MAJOR FAIL.

The rest of the team failed too but who knows what the outcome of game 7 would have been if Lou had played as well as Thomas. If he had kept it scoreless and boosted the team with some huge saves a la Thomas, maybe we'd be getting ready for a parade instead of doing a post mortem.

Luongo, when interviewed after the final loss said that the playoffs was tough physically and even tougher mentally.
He proved that point with his playoff meltdowns each of the last 3 years. He lacks the mental toughness required.

It's nice having a really good regular season goalie who is a contender for the Vezina. The reality is that you usually need a really confident, mentally tough goalie who is a Conn Smyth contender to win the Cup. Lou was none of those things.

I'm not trying to put the entire blame on the goalie, as we were obviously lacking in several other departments as well.
Just saying that Luongo had two chances to come up big and he didn't do it.

Spare me Woodhog, its no attempt to defend Lu. He deserves his lumps agreed. What I am annoyed by is the "fans" or critics who jump all over him as if this team deserved to win or something....but it was Luongo who let everyone down. Pathetic really. He is just one of several players who didn't deliver the goods. He provided good enough goaltending for us to win the Cup but with the complete lack of offence from this squad he would have had to stand on his head to pull this through. He certainly didn't do that so thats obviously not good enough. He did find a way to win 15 and pull in 4 shutouts, sound evidence he doesn't deserve the level of heat he's receiving. You're last point is definitely true but the Sedins & Kesler also had 2 chances and shit the bed completely.