dbr wrote:
Honestly I find that a little disconcerting.
I mean I expected this team to make the playoffs because I didn't think the injury bug would bite them this hard, but given it has the fact that they are struggling to secure a spot should not be a shocker.
We have watched a team on a steady decline since 2011. Having a piss poor NW division in 2012 helped us back our way into the President's Trophy for a second consecutive year. St. Louis and New York helped us out big time by choking their way through the last week. Then we were gone in 5 games to the Kings. Blame injuries all you want but the bottom line is that this team had its chance in 2011 and they didn't execute, 2012's regular season success simply prolonged the eventual suffering. At this point injuries are not the biggest problem, they have just made it easier to see the real problems.
There have been a myriad of things that have contributed to this teams sharp decline. On the ice/behind the bench I would say the following.....
1. Bad luck on the injury front, both in the timing and the individuals in question.
2. A change in league philosophy and on-ice officiating.
3. A coach that couldn't adjust and neutered his players making the team appear gutless.
4. Players that can't adjust their own games to an evolving league that has figured them out.
5. Players that can't shake off the mind-job that Vigneault and Co. did regarding playing between the whistles.
6. Too many square pegs in round holes.
In the office(s).....
7. A GM who mortgaged the future for a shot at the Cup (although any GM worth his salt would do this).
8. A GM who should have made sweeping changes to the scouting staff after reviewing their record.
9. Below average managerial assessment of in-house talent.
10. A lockout and cap rollback that limited player movement once it was apparent that change was necessary.
11. Too many NTC's handed out (ties in with #3).
12. Failure to
quickly recognize the change in league philosophy and on-ice officiating was here to stay.
I think that most of these problems can be addressed rather quickly. The ones that I am afraid will hang around are 4, 6, and 9, thanks in part to reason number 11.
I'm sure RoyalDude will say something about how we now have no talent to replace here, but I left that out intentionally because going back to Nonis' time as GM the Canucks were giving up some young assets and picks in order to contend, and no matter how you try and spin it in 2011 that all paid off. There was not a single team that was as good as the Canucks in 2010-11. We owned the league like few teams have before (well since there were more than 28 teams), and earned a trip to the finals.
And I know I'll get tarred and feathered here, but if you are even half-way objective it was obvious that as soon as the Canucks knocked San Jose out in the conference final there was a major shift in officiating that handed the Eastern Conference to Boston. Obviously money and TV ratings played a part, who doesn't love a SCF that has one of the original six teams involved, but nobody can argue that Tampa vs Vancouver would have been a much more high-flying, high-scoring, and entertaining brand of hockey to watch. The Bolts just wouldn't have drawn the same number of viewers. I also think that Burrows incident with Auger played a big part at that juncture.