Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

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

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Puck
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Puck »

Ok, we managed to knock off the number 2 seed in 5 games. Deceptive? I'd say so. While I love the fact that the Canucks managed to end it in five, I'm trying to look at the series objectively. A few thoughts follow.

Positives:
Scored a good number of goals, kept goals against quite low.
After a brutal start, did very well on the PK.
Good on the PP but this was skewed by all the 5-on-3 goals.
Despite CBC's assessment of Thornton's play as dominant, kept his points down fairly well.
Closed out the series on the first try.
Although out-shot badly, perhaps not badly out-chanced in the last two games - e.g. a dangerous chance by the brothers goes narrowly-wide (no shot counted) vs. a harmless shot without traffic on Lu.
Entire team playing with emotion and heart.

Negatives:
Gave up the first goal in first three(?) games.
Nice finish to game three to get back to within a goal, but give SJ credit on that one as the better team.
Game four we probably lose if the Sharks don't begin lining up for the box in the second period.
Too many shots given up in games four and five.
Hemmed-in and not able to attack for long stretches of game five (and others).
Very little scoring outside top line.
Gave up some bad goals... some of this Lu, some of it not (see Ballard's short-stop skills and Edler's stumble) - having said this, perhaps that's the only way you can score on this team?
Fourth line not used in the second half of game five.
Won the series in a misleading fashion.

I'm a glass-half-full guy, so don't accuse me of being negative after a win. I want to know moving forward what we take from this victory. Please add your thoughts.
Farhan Lalji

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Farhan Lalji »

Puck wrote: I'm a glass-half-full guy, so don't accuse me of being negative after a win.
Unfortunately, a few posters on here WILL accuse you of being negative. You see, in the world of posters such as Madcombinepilot, it's unacceptable to critique and provide recommendations during these festive times. If you choose to do this, then you are simply a man who is not living his dreams......and instead, are criticising those that are (i.e. the Vancouver Canucks). Perhaps I, a 30 year old who owns his own LLC and is looking for hotels to stay in at Boston and/or Tampa Bay, and has watched games such as the 2010 Men's Hockey Gold Medal Olympic game in person.....lower bowl, is living a very unfulfilled life!

I highly recommend that you DO present us with your thoughts and recommendations. It's what hardcore fans do. It's what message boards are designed for!

Just be prepared however for what might come. :roll:
Farhan Lalji

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Farhan Lalji »

As far as what was learned from this series goes, I don't think the Canucks really learned anything signficant......as much as they simply became tougher as a team. Unlike San Jose, the Canucks continuously stepped up when it mattered most. I think this series went to show that a team can be outplayed, but can still emerge victorious provided that they "cash in" when it matters. The fact of the matter is that San Jose didn't capitalize on their power play opportunities very often.....whereas the Canucks, on almost all crucial times, did. The Canucks PK was also excellent.

The Canucks' best players were their best players when it mattered most (unlike San Jose), and we also got the key contributions from our role players.

Throughout these playoffs, I think the Canucks have also become mentally tougher as a team. I will admit that up until recent, I thought of them as a talented yet mentally fragile bunch.......much like San Jose. However - throughout this whole ordeal, they have proven that they've "stepped up" significantly in this regard.

Ironically enough - I think the praises that Wellwood was singing towards San Jose a few months ago (when he criticised the Canucks), fit the Vancouver Canucks to a tee (i.e. the Canucks have matured as a team through some tough past experiences and have become a lot stronger for it).
User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Linden Is God »

Hey Farhan, I thought you said you gave up on the Canucks before the year started? ;)
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:
Farhan Lalji

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Farhan Lalji »

Linden Is God wrote:Hey Farhan, I thought you said you gave up on the Canucks before the year started? ;)
I will always be a Canucks fan for life, but I had originally intended to not be a hardcore fan for the coming year.....more of a passive observer that tuned in every now and then (sort of like what I do with the BC Lions). Losing to Chicago for a 2nd straight year was weighing heavily on my mind. Along with that, I was thinking about pursuing some other personal endeavors (which would have been a huge time commitment on my part).

After the Raffi Torres signing however, I decided to give one final year of being a HARDCORE fan. Regardless of what happens in the Cup, this will be my last year as a hardcore fan.


p.s.__________FYI: I change my mind quite a bit. Before the 2010 Olympics, I also "seriously considered" cheering on Team Sweden due to a possible Markus Naslund appearance (along with a Dion Phaneuf appearance for Canada). As the day drew close however, I realized that I wouldn't have cheered Team Sweden in a million years. :lol:
Last edited by Farhan Lalji on Thu May 26, 2011 12:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
dr.dork
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by dr.dork »

Positives: We won.
We didn't lose.
Hockey gods were on our side (pray it stays that way). Cases in point, (1) Bieksa's goal (2) puck hopping over
Wellwood's stick on the cross ice pass (where Wellwood tried to onetime it).
Lou played very very well. Made a mistake on the second goal, but it was a 2-0... he made the incorrect
gamble and it didn't pay off.
Hopefully we heal up, and Kesler's issue was only a cramp. That is what it looked like to me, because he
skated hard at times after he returned and seemed to be hurting at other times.

Negatives:
In one of the intermissions they were talking about Canucks from the '94 series that are still fit. Why the hell
didn't anyone mention Linden ? He is the fittest of the whole bunch and probably fitter (physically) now than he
was in '94.

Yes, my negative had nothing to do with the game.

By the way, why does everyone always whine about being criticized about their criticisms ? If someone critiques your criticism it doesn't mean they are ganging up on you or attacking you for being negative. Maybe they just think you are wrong.
User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 14969
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Cornuck »

I learned that we can still win after being badly outshot.
I learned that the hockey gods are lightening up a little.
I learned that San Jose played hard and lost - to me, they have shaken the 'choke' title.
I learned that drinking heavily every other night makes me gain weight.
I learned that we have a great core on this team.
I learned that even the refs can't ruin hockey.
I learned that depth wins.
Doc: "BTW, Donny was right, you're smug."
Joe Rockhead
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:19 pm
Location: North Delta

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Joe Rockhead »

Any team that advances this far is going to have a long list of positives.

The posters here did a fine job of pointing these out.

The fact is unless every game is a shutout with zero shots against there will be negatives.

To me the biggest positive is the play of the Sedins and Bieksa.

The biggest negative (outside of the refs)is Lou.

The positives by far out weighed the negatives. I feel the Canucks are going to win the cup.
Don Cherry for P.M.
User avatar
Puck
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Puck »

No one is curious/concerned about how much time we spent under pressure and out-shot? Are we saying that's just a symptom of the fact that it's a long playoffs and we won't be at our best the whole time, or did SJ discover something they could attack?
Joe Rockhead
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:19 pm
Location: North Delta

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Joe Rockhead »

I keep thinking back to the time the Canucks blew the Minnesota series when the Canucks out played the Mild and lost.

San Jose is a great team. IMO better than Boston or TB.

They were the hottest team in the second half and finished second in the West.

A team like that is going to get shots,chances and put alot of pressure on.

I think it says alot about our team that we still won. In five!
Don Cherry for P.M.
Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Fred »

Certainly the patience they showed in the Nashville game surprised me but was the best route to follow I'm wondering if Boston make it will they have the patience to do the same with Boston. I don't think the twins will get the same space as they did with SJ. But over all the positive is the formulae Gillis used to build his team on seems to be the right one and that was done last summer. It's a shame Malhotra is not around because I think he was an intrinsic part of Gillis plan
cheers
Farhan Lalji

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Farhan Lalji »

dr.dork wrote: He is the fittest of the whole bunch and probably fitter (physically) now than he
was in '94.

Yes, my negative had nothing to do with the game.

By the way, why does everyone always whine about being criticized about their criticisms ? If someone critiques your criticism it doesn't mean they are ganging up on you or attacking you for being negative. Maybe they just think you are wrong.
re: Linden - I HIGHLY doubt it.

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism......if it's warranted, justifiable, and non-personal. However - when someone makes a statement such as, "Some of you people need to strive, knee jerk react, micro-armchair analyize and look to your own bloody dreams and goals instead of putting so much effort into 30 OTHER guys lifelong dreams".....and they are quoting/critiquing your posts in a multiple ongoing dialogue, then I do consider a statement like that to be personal......since a statement like that makes assumptions about someone's personal life.

I own my own LLC and am proud to say that I don't need a job.....and am proud to say that I will be watching one of the Stanley Cup games live from either Boston or Tampa Bay. At the age of 30, I have very much lived and fulfilled a lot of my dreams. Unfortunately, unlike others perhaps, I do not have the luxury of leaching off the riches of my Saskatchewan forefathers.....and do not get to hang out with Mark Messier at bars. I had to earn all of my blessings.

Criticism is also unwarranted if there is no basis for it. There is a Japanese term called 'Kaizen'........which means "continuous improvement." It's a philosophy that stresses that fact that ALL things can be improved or bolstered regardless of the successfulness of a situation. This is a Vancouver Canucks message board. People are expected to express ideas and opinions......regardless of whether we are winning or not. I love the Canucks....a lot....which is why I am here. When I see something that can be improved, I comment on it. Not because I don't "appreciate" the situation at hand (i.e. Canucks going to the Cup), but because I know that if certain areas can be better.....then our chances of winning are even greater. Period!

So in conclusion - If there is a situation where I am being attacked by someone, on a "philosophy" that is completely non-applicable to me, and others "support" his post by providing encouragement, then of course I will be a little confused and pissed off....and will defend myself.
User avatar
Tiger
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Tiger »

Good topic Puck.. so this is what I noticed and an opinion ( opinions are like arseholes - everyones got one .. some shittier than others ) :)

1 .. given time and space the twins are Stars.. SJ gave enough..
2.. Lou can give up 1 bad goal a game and still win a game for the team
3.. 4th line is weak overall
4.. Kesler is a warrior.. more guts than a chicago meat packing plant
5.. Torres played an essential physical part .. his hits were awesome
6.. Salo still is a top 4 dman.. Bieksa and Hamhuis top 2.. Edler not so much :(
7.. Hansen maybe the unsung hero? 3rd line was great..
8.. Hockey Gods smiled on the Canucks.. game 4 and 5 could have gone either way.. San Jose outplayed us..

This series MVP.. H Sedin.. overall 3 series MVP Kesler..
" If you cant beat them in the alley - you can't beat them on the ice
dr.dork
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by dr.dork »

Farhan Lalji wrote:
dr.dork wrote: He is the fittest of the whole bunch and probably fitter (physically) now than he
was in '94.

Yes, my negative had nothing to do with the game.

By the way, why does everyone always whine about being criticized about their criticisms ? If someone critiques your criticism it doesn't mean they are ganging up on you or attacking you for being negative. Maybe they just think you are wrong.
re: Linden - I HIGHLY doubt it.
It depends on how you define fitness, but he rode the Whistler Gran Fondo in just over 3.5 hours. He probably couldn't have done that in '94. But it was strange that he wasn't mentioned in the intermission.
Farhan Lalji

Re: Breaking down the SJ series: what was learned?

Post by Farhan Lalji »

Tiger wrote:Good topic Puck.. so this is what I noticed and an opinion ( opinions are like arseholes - everyones got one .. some shittier than others ) :)

1 .. given time and space the twins are Stars.. SJ gave enough..
2.. Lou can give up 1 bad goal a game and still win a game for the team
3.. 4th line is weak overall
4.. Kesler is a warrior.. more guts than a chicago meat packing plant
5.. Torres played an essential physical part .. his hits were awesome
6.. Salo still is a top 4 dman.. Bieksa and Hamhuis top 2.. Edler not so much :(
7.. Hansen maybe the unsung hero? 3rd line was great..
8.. Hockey Gods smiled on the Canucks.. game 4 and 5 could have gone either way.. San Jose outplayed us..

This series MVP.. H Sedin.. overall 3 series MVP Kesler..
Good post. I will comment on some of your points.

1) The twins were exceptional against San Jose, but I'd still like to see them produce more consistently when playing against a team (in the playoffs) that have a legit shut down center and a top tier defensive pairing. Obviously, point totals would be lower in this instance, but I don't think it's acceptable to be almost COMPLETELY nullified....on a consistent basis. This was why I was critical of the twins during the first two rounds.

2) He can, but why would we want that?.....or accept that as fans? Why settle for a "slightly better version of Chris Osgood" when we've SEEN what Luongo can do? A bad goal per game has potential to completely deflate a team.....as we saw in Game 5 against Chicago. Don't settle for anything but excellence in life. I want Luongo to play at the level of what we saw last game on a more frequent basis.

I completely agree with the rest of your points. On that last point however, San Jose may have outplayed us......but the Canucks outplayed San Jose when it mattered most. It was almost a complete role reversal from our 2009 series against Chicago. I think the Canucks showed great mental toughness and San Jose were the ones that looked mentally fragile.
Post Reply