Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535
Obviously injuries were a factor. But I look at it more like 'why are we using injuries as an excuse when we did almost nothing to compensate for them'.
Like Ehrhoff. How is making him the main triggerman on the first PP unit when he has a bum shoulder putting him in a situation to succeed? Better yet, let's have a dude with broken fingers feeding him the puck on the other point.
In the meantime, you've got two healthy offensive-minded defencemen put out there with a 2nd unit that looked terrible because it had no natural center organizing it.
IF we had done everything humanly possible to cover the deficiencies of our injured players, I would be all over the injury bandwagon.
|
Yes that is a very good point. I think the coaches should've used the players better. Having said that then, do you play Alberts and Tanev 20+ minutes because of the injuries?
Edit: I do want to add, even to this day AV pissed me off exponentially by screwing with Ballard and messing him over. MG got Ballard just for this type of a situation, and as you said, Ballard may have made a difference had he been used properly. His Pairing with Bieksa just absolutely blew me away...
I agree about the PP and compensating 100%. I also think though it is impossible to not say that the players you need the most to win the ultimate prize were unable to perform at the level they could've. It prevented Vancouver from being the team they were.
In fact by your logic, you are saying that the Canucks lesser players should've been able to perform at a higher level than the Canucks better players. Really in that situation AV is saying an Edler with a broken finger is better than a Tanev who is healthy.
Who's to say he's right and your wrong or vice versa.
I comepletely agree though that AV was incapable of adjusting to the play and did nothing to help his players.