Luongo - yes or no?

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

Moderator: Referees

If you were GM, what would you do?

Offer Luongo a long term contract - with a NTA if he wants it.
30
94%
Offer him a one year extension.
0
No votes
Trade him - ASAP - he'll be leaving next summer anyways.
1
3%
Trade him at the deadline.
0
No votes
Play him all year and let him walk next year.
0
No votes
Some other option (explain).
1
3%
 
Total votes: 32

User avatar
Grizzly
MVP
MVP
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Dawson Creek

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by Grizzly »

Lou is a one of kind goaltender ... there are alot of average goaltenders, there are some good goaltenders but there are few exceptional goaltenders ...

Goaltenders are ALWAYS a key to winning a Stanley Cup. I think we would be taking a step backwards by developing our youth, bringing in experience like Sundin and then pulling the basin plug so all our efforts go down the drain ...

... with all due respect to Dan Cloutier ... do we remember that playoff series against Detroit (sigh!) ... I thought that was to be the year. We seemed to have all the parts ........ but goaltending.

Grizz
User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by the toucan kid »

That's a whole lot of posting going on before anyone has even bothered to define what 'mental fragility' even is...

Are we implying that the guys would go in and have a good cry during the intermission? That the crowd was too loud for them to remember the system?
Kel
MVP
MVP
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:26 pm

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by Kel »

Grizzly wrote:Lou is a one of kind goaltender ... there are alot of average goaltenders, there are some good goaltenders but there are few exceptional goaltenders ...

Goaltenders are ALWAYS a key to winning a Stanley Cup. I think we would be taking a step backwards by developing our youth, bringing in experience like Sundin and then pulling the basin plug so all our efforts go down the drain ...

... with all due respect to Dan Cloutier ... do we remember that playoff series against Detroit (sigh!) ... I thought that was to be the year. We seemed to have all the parts ........ but goaltending.

Grizz
That was certainty not the year. The Canucks were the hottest team in the second half of the season and only managed to clinch the 8th seed. The year where they should have done better was the following, when they "choked" and lost the division title, took 7 games to beat St Louis and lost to a lower-seeded Wild team. You can argue they were a contender for the one after that too, but I'm not sure as Bertuzzi was missing due to the infamous "incident".
dr.dork
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by dr.dork »

Farhan Lalji wrote:
dr.dork wrote:
Perhaps you and Sid think a shrink is required. I think we need better players, especially young ones. We're way behind Detroit on both current skill level and prospects, so I don't think we have a legitimate shot in the next while (unless we get really lucky with trades, prospects, and puck luck).
So - just so I'm clear with what you're saying....

-Blowing a 3-0 against Chicago in game 1 was not a sign of mental fragility
-Blowing a 2-0 lead against Chicago in game 2 was a not a sign of mental fragility
-Blowing a 1-0 lead with less than two minutes left against in game 4 was not a sign of mental fragility.
-Blowing 3 consecutive one goal leads in game 6 (to the point where the Hawks were scoring within MINUTES to tie up the game) was not a sign of mental fragility.
-Allowing 3 goals in the last 7 minutes or so in game 6 was NOT a sign of mental fragility.

ALL of the above, can be 100% attributed to the fact that Chicago was simply a more talented team......a more talented team of which, that did not even lead the Canucks in atleast 1/3rd of the overall time.

I'll leave the immature name-calling and classless behaviour on your end, but seriously........... :?
- Chicago coming back from a 3-0 deficit was not a sign of a better team ?
- Chicago coming back from a 2-0 lead was not a sign of a better team ?

Yadda yadda yadda. It depends on your point of view and definition of "mental fragility". If "mental fragility" is defined as "the other team was better", then fine. Chicago had more points in the regular season, they were hot going into the playoffs, and they were simply superior to us. All teams go through hot streaks and cold streaks throughout the year. It isn't all mental fragility. You could argue that we folded like a cheap tent and played horribly (mental fragility) but I could argue that Chicago had more talent and made us look bad.

I don't know what you're talking about wrt classless behavoir, but if you can't take someone dissecting your arguments then don't post arguments that don't make any sense. Boo hoo.
User avatar
Sid Dithers
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Surrey, B.C.

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by Sid Dithers »

dr.dork wrote:Sid, you were harping on the lack of talent on the Canucks all year, so I can't see how you can then claim they choked. It is completely inconsistent.
Sure, I think the Canucks lacked sufficient talent on their roster this year. Nothing indicated to me that they were going to be a good team. In the end, they over-achieved. Good on them.

Yes, Chicago was a better team, but that's not to say the Canucks didn't cough up furballs along the way. If the Canucks were good enough to score first in most games, and then proceed to build a series of multi-goal leads (as Farhan has now pointed out), what happened after that? They're suddenly not good enough to compete with Chicago even though they've got the lead? That doesn't add up. They built leads, and then coughed them up when Chicago came at them. Maybe the Canucks weren't good enough, and maybe they couldn't handle the heat. No reason to think both weren't factors. But the manner in which Chicago would just come back and score when the Canucks had leads was alarming to say the least. And as leader of the squad, AV had little idea of how to stop it. And as a veteran team, the Canucks coming unglued like they did tells a pretty sad story.
AraChniD iS stoOpiDz!
User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by the toucan kid »

Sure, I think the Canucks lacked sufficient talent on their roster this year. Nothing indicated to me that they were going to be a good team. In the end, they over-achieved. Good on them.
Oh come on, that's a bit much. Is it so hard to admit that they were better than you thought they were? I'm willing to admit they weren't as good as I thought they were.
User avatar
Sid Dithers
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Surrey, B.C.

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by Sid Dithers »

the toucan kid wrote:
Sure, I think the Canucks lacked sufficient talent on their roster this year. Nothing indicated to me that they were going to be a good team. In the end, they over-achieved. Good on them.
Oh come on, that's a bit much. Is it so hard to admit that they were better than you thought they were? I'm willing to admit they weren't as good as I thought they were.
No it isn't a bit much. I'll stand by what I said, thank you.
AraChniD iS stoOpiDz!
dr.dork
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by dr.dork »

Sid Dithers wrote: But the manner in which Chicago would just come back and score when the Canucks had leads was alarming to say the least. And as leader of the squad, AV had little idea of how to stop it. And as a veteran team, the Canucks coming unglued like they did tells a pretty sad story.
I'm not saying it wasn't alarming I just don't agree with this "mentally fragile" excuse. Chicago was faster and they hit us more and harder. Maybe they just wore us out physically.

What gets me is if you believe the problem is mainly mental fragility the solution is mental. But in reality we need to upgrade our talent level and get both bigger and faster.
Farhan Lalji

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by Farhan Lalji »

dr.dork wrote:
Sid Dithers wrote: But the manner in which Chicago would just come back and score when the Canucks had leads was alarming to say the least. And as leader of the squad, AV had little idea of how to stop it. And as a veteran team, the Canucks coming unglued like they did tells a pretty sad story.
I'm not saying it wasn't alarming I just don't agree with this "mentally fragile" excuse. Chicago was faster and they hit us more and harder. Maybe they just wore us out physically.

What gets me is if you believe the problem is mainly mental fragility the solution is mental. But in reality we need to upgrade our talent level and get both bigger and faster.
I see what you're saying, but you don't find it even the LEAST bit odd that the Canucks were giving up these goals after they were up?....or on multiple times, during the final few minutes of the game?

I also think that there are other ways to win, even if you aren't the most talented team out there. Talent wise - we were as good as any team out there (or any team that has made the cup in prior years such as the Edmonton Oilers of 2006, Calgary Flames of 04, etc., etc.).

I think the Canucks' biggest problems however, was that they didn't have any major strengths to their game that they could build around (i.e. speed).

In my opinion, the Canucks don't necessarily need more talent (although that would be nice obviously). What they need, are more team strengths.....even if by creating these team strengths, you are depleting other areas of your game. So- the overall talent level wouldn't be effected. It would be a zero-sum game.

Maybe this off-season - add a few more guys of the Bernier/Rypien "ilk" (and get rid of guys like Raymond, Wellwood, etc) and build a team of energy/grit, OR get rid of guys like Pyatt and Sundin, and bring in more guys that can skate fast....and build a team of speed.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by Island Nucklehead »

I think it's pretty foolish to say you want to build a team of fast players, by that logic Chicago should have gotten rid of Byfuglien... and he was one of the guys that we had no answer for.

I like the fact that Gilils is trying to create a BALANCED team. Chris Chelios isn't fast, Franzen and and Holmstrom don't exactly tear up the ice surface either. If you build a team for speed and no grit, teams like Anaheim will beat the piss out of them in a 7 game series. If you create the opposite, you get burned. It's about having the right balance.

Detroit is so good because they are a balanced team. You could argue they're weak in the net, but when it counts Osgood has been fantastic. There are no weaknesses on that team. Same as Pittsburgh, they don't go out and get a guy like Bill Guerin or Brooks Orpik to build a speed game with Crosby and Malkin, they get the guys that will give them an element of grit to balance with the skill.

It's obvious we need to get faster, but that doesn't mean we need to gut the lineup of every player that lacks an overdrive switch.
Farhan Lalji

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by Farhan Lalji »

Island Nucklehead wrote:I think it's pretty foolish to say you want to build a team of fast players, by that logic Chicago should have gotten rid of Byfuglien... and he was one of the guys that we had no answer for.

I like the fact that Gilils is trying to create a BALANCED team. Chris Chelios isn't fast, Franzen and and Holmstrom don't exactly tear up the ice surface either. If you build a team for speed and no grit, teams like Anaheim will beat the piss out of them in a 7 game series. If you create the opposite, you get burned. It's about having the right balance.

Detroit is so good because they are a balanced team. You could argue they're weak in the net, but when it counts Osgood has been fantastic. There are no weaknesses on that team. Same as Pittsburgh, they don't go out and get a guy like Bill Guerin or Brooks Orpik to build a speed game with Crosby and Malkin, they get the guys that will give them an element of grit to balance with the skill.

It's obvious we need to get faster, but that doesn't mean we need to gut the lineup of every player that lacks an overdrive switch.
Good lord. :?

I didn't *literally* mean that you should get rid of EVERY SINGLE physical player if building a team of speed and vice-versa. I'll try and do a better job of explaining myself next time (since it's apparently necessary :hmmm: -), but I also expect posters on here to be able to infer and use intuition beyond what a typical 15 year can do. :thumbs:

So no - by that "logic" - Chicago shouldn't have gotten rid of Byfuglien....certainly not in my world.

At the same time however - a team that tries to be a "jack-of-all-trades-balanced" team, and does not have the talent level of a Detroit, will often find themselves without a competitive advantage of sorts...and as a result, won't be able to successfully impose a certain strength on an opposition (as we saw with the Canucks these past playoffs). In our case, an over-reliance on Luongo, combined with no other strength to dominate the opposition, caused Luongo to burn out.

Look at the Calgary Flames from 2004: This team was an example of a team that WASN'T a power house team like Detroit or Colorado (or whoever the top teams were at that time), but instead, FOCUSED their strengths on team defense, extremely play, and good team size.

Was the team completely devoid of speed? No. They had their select speedsters.
Was the team completely devoid of offense? No...but it wasn't exactly a strong point of theirs. The team "accepted" this weakness of theirs in favour of catering towards building a power house defense....which was backed a power house goalie.

Ironically enough, after the 2005-2006 season, when the Flames actually *did* become a more balanced team (i.e. greater offense, at the expense of their defense), the Flames actually regressed. In their effort to become a more balanced team, it took away from their bread and butter. In recent years, Calgary has continued to decline as their toughness, defense, and subsequent goaltending (derived from a lack of defensive focus) have been sacrificed in an effort to be a more "balanced" team (without having the infrastructure or 'youthful' talent stepping up, to warrant such a style).
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by Island Nucklehead »

Again, pre-lockout. The Flames clutched, grabbed slashed and whacked their way to the finals. You can't do that in the new NHL, and the post-lockout Flames have been learning that.

Your world is a tough one to live in Farhan. You want to develop an OVERBEARING strength and try to use it to limit the weakness. Short of turning into Pittsburgh's Crosby-Malkin show (and I don't think we're going to suck that long to make that happen, forget the fact that Crosby is a once in a blue moon player), looking at the teams that are left they are all quite BALANCED.

Detroit is the ultimate example, Chicago is extremely well balanced, and Carolina certainly doesn't have an explosive trait other than lights-out goaltending and solid team play.

I can certainly agree that reliance on one player won't get you far, see the Canucks with Luongo or Capitals and Ovechkin, so it should go without saying there needs to be some team depth. I just don't like the idea of foregoing one are of the game to create your supposed dominant other area.
User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by the toucan kid »

I can certainly agree that reliance on one player won't get you far, see the Canucks with Luongo or Capitals and Ovechkin, so it should go without saying there needs to be some team depth. I just don't like the idea of foregoing one are of the game to create your supposed dominant other area.
Washington is a fairly deep squad, just fairly green on the backend. They're going up, we're not.
User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8392
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by Island Nucklehead »

Who knows where Washington is going if they can't sort out their goaltending. At fourth in the league and with 50 wins, I'm not sure how much better they can get. I take the point about playoff experience, but the point is that even as fantastic as Ovechkin was, they were nearly taken out by the Rangers and layed a complete egg in the final game against the Pens.
User avatar
DavidPratt_
MVP
MVP
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:55 pm
Location: Yaletown
Contact:

Re: Luongo - yes or no?

Post by DavidPratt_ »

Everyone knows how I feel about this kids...

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6257

DP
VANCOUVER'S SEXIEST BROADCASTER AND COUGAR HUNTER

*OPINIONS EXRESSED ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR, AND THEY DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF ©BELL MEDIA*

WATCH THE DAVID PRATT SHOW W/BRO JAKE 6-10 AM, M-F ON THE TEAM 1040
Post Reply