View Single Post
Old
03-18-2013, 07:24 PM
  #82
garbageteam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just another pawn View Post
I posted this in the GDT. I became a Canucks fan in 98, during the period where the upper bowl of GM Place was nearly empty as many fans fled the cluster**** of the Messier-Keenan era. In 98 (yeah, not in the past decade), we iced a lineup of...

Naslund-Messier-Mogilny
May-Scatchard/Zezel- Muckalt
Schaefer-York/Gagner-Klatt
Brashear-Hendrickson-Strudwick

Our D was ****, and we had Sean Burke in the pipes. Pretty much 1 has-been line featuring a good young player, 1 AHL line, and 2 ECHL lines.

So it looks bad right now, but damn, it could be a hell of a lot worse.
Ignoring the bottom 9, that top line looked downright frightening on paper. Funny how reality vs perception is so different. If you showed any non-Canucks fan a lineup of Naslund, Messier and Mogilny they'd probably ask whether they combined for 250 or 300 points. Of course, the year before that they had Pavel Bure too. What could have been..

From an offense corps POV, yeah the lineup looks pretty brutal. Definitely worse than anything we had in the first half of the decade before the sudden collapse of the Naslund/Bertuzzi duopoly. But the 07-08 team was so painful to watch I actually stopped caring about the Canucks for some seasons afterwards. 10 year fan, dropped the team because the offense was just that pathetic and anemic. So no, two back to back Art Ross winners on your team who are still clearly in their prime in no way means it is the worst offensive lineup, not by a country mile, no matter how awful the rest of the bottom 9 look on paper. This is still a playoff team. The 07-08 line belonged nowhere near a playoff spot even though they were two points away (thank you Lu)

garbageteam is offline   Reply With Quote