HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

The Best Team in the West is...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2010, 01:14 PM
  #51
ahmon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,220
vCash: 500
Personally, I think chicago with their unloading this offseason has become a bit underrated. I know they lost a lot of depth.

But thats still a team with a very proven core. Once they make the playoffs, they are still one of the scariest teams out there.

ahmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2010, 01:20 PM
  #52
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmon View Post
Personally, I think chicago with their unloading this offseason has become a bit underrated. I know they lost a lot of depth.

But thats still a team with a very proven core. Once they make the playoffs, they are still one of the scariest teams out there.
I agree... in fact, I'm only willing to assume that we've only caught up and nothing more if we meet them in the playoffs again. The Hawks are still going to be tough.

I don't think we're unquestionably going to be better than the Hawks, even now. We have the pieces to be if everything goes right, though.

Shareefruck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2010, 03:51 PM
  #53
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
I agree... in fact, I'm only willing to assume that we've only caught up and nothing more if we meet them in the playoffs again. The Hawks are still going to be tough.

I don't think we're unquestionably going to be better than the Hawks, even now. We have the pieces to be if everything goes right, though.
They are still a good team but you look at the scoreboard vs chi and it very unlikely it goes past 5 games with the canucks winning...ie based on who scored for Chi.we dont know who will step up secondary scoring wise for the hawks this year...but they lost alot of their goals and more importantly their evenstrength scoring.As well as shift after shift of 4 solid lines........up until game 6 we were outscoring hawks 2-1
evenstrength 10g-5g....and if our pk is better then they dont advance.

crazyforhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2010, 05:47 PM
  #54
Hawksfan12*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyforhockey View Post
They are still a good team but you look at the scoreboard vs chi and it very unlikely it goes past 5 games with the canucks winning...ie based on who scored for Chi.we dont know who will step up secondary scoring wise for the hawks this year...but they lost alot of their goals and more importantly their evenstrength scoring.As well as shift after shift of 4 solid lines........up until game 6 we were outscoring hawks 2-1
evenstrength 10g-5g....and if our pk is better then they dont advance.
Our replacements will score some goals, you know?

Hawksfan12* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2010, 09:02 PM
  #55
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyforhockey View Post
They are still a good team but you look at the scoreboard vs chi and it very unlikely it goes past 5 games with the canucks winning...ie based on who scored for Chi.we dont know who will step up secondary scoring wise for the hawks this year...but they lost alot of their goals and more importantly their evenstrength scoring.As well as shift after shift of 4 solid lines........up until game 6 we were outscoring hawks 2-1
evenstrength 10g-5g....and if our pk is better then they dont advance
.
I disagree-- and that's a pretty skewed stat considering that we blew them out in two of the games where they very obviously took their foot off the gas pedal.

Had they took us seriously from start to finish like they did against the Sharks, I'm convinced we would have been swept.

On paper it's clear that we've significantly closed the gap, but I still think it's ridiculous to immediately claim that we're probably going to be able to beat them without too much trouble if we meet them in the playoffs again-- I still think it's very close.

Shareefruck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2010, 09:23 PM
  #56
Connecticut
Registered User
 
Connecticut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
I disagree-- and that's a pretty skewed stat considering that we blew them out in two of the games where they very obviously took their foot off the gas pedal.

Had they took us seriously from start to finish like they did against the Sharks, I'm convinced we would have been swept.

On paper it's clear that we've significantly closed the gap, but I still think it's ridiculous to immediately claim that we're probably going to be able to beat them without too much trouble if we meet them in the playoffs again-- I still think it's very close.
I agree with the end of your post -- I think that if Turco can play reasonably well, and at least a few of their new 3/4th liners like Stalberg or Skille can contribute, then a Chicago-Vancouver series would be far from easy. However, this idea that the Hawks "didn't take us seriously" in any playoff game last season is completely absurd. There is no team that doesn't take an opponent seriously in the second round of the Stanley Cup playoffs. You can not play your best, you can be taken off your game, but this idea that they weren't trying or took the Canucks lightly could not possibly be more wrong. The Hawks were playing with fire last year against Vancouver -- they were the better team in the end, especially by the time Edler got injured it became no contest -- but one bad bounce in Game 2 and they would have gone down 2-0 heading on the road and it would have been very difficult to come back from.

Connecticut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 12:20 PM
  #57
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawksfan12 View Post
Our replacements will score some goals, you know?
Agree the talent offensively wont be an issue its grit and Buffy in playoffs that killed Vancouver as for skill wise they were dead even , Hawks are good but not close to intimidating like last year that way , will be a different mindset there now .

bbud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 01:10 PM
  #58
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud View Post
Agree the talent offensively wont be an issue its grit and Buffy in playoffs that killed Vancouver as for skill wise they were dead even , Hawks are good but not close to intimidating like last year that way , will be a different mindset there now .
Yeah all of Buff, Ladd, Versteeg, Eager, and even Burrish gave us lots of problems with their physical and overall chirpy and annoying play while also scoring on us.

I do love some of their depth signings though.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 01:24 PM
  #59
Rob Zepp
Registered User
 
Rob Zepp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmon View Post
Personally, I think chicago with their unloading this offseason has become a bit underrated. I know they lost a lot of depth.

But thats still a team with a very proven core. Once they make the playoffs, they are still one of the scariest teams out there.
Particularly in their own end once their top four are not on the ice....it could be a gong show and Turco will need to be perptually out of his net trying to help. Entertaining it will be for certain.

Rob Zepp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 01:28 PM
  #60
ahmon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Zepp View Post
Particularly in their own end once their top four are not on the ice....it could be a gong show and Turco will need to be perptually out of his net trying to help. Entertaining it will be for certain.
You could have said that last year. And the only gong show was in front of our net.

Look, I hate the hawks, but I don't see why we have to put them down to make us look better?

ahmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 05:11 PM
  #61
Awesomesauce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenrikSedinFan View Post
I think the Wings have the better team overall. More size, a true number 1 d-man who can eat huge minutes and control a game. I'd give the edge in depth to the Wings up front and the D is pretty even. We have one big edge and that's in goal. They have the coaching edge, experience, less travel.

I tell you what, if the Canucks finish ahead of the Wings during the season(in both position and points) I will donate whatever I have to so I can have a sig and put whatever you want in it. You don't even have to risk anything that's how confident I am that the Wings are the class of the west.
How about we just leave it at a gentleman's bet, I am not much for gloating. We just happen to disagree here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
I think you're overlooking Jiri Hudler here. Hudler's last 3 season's in the NHL before he headed to the KHL-

'06-07 - 15G, 10A, 25P
'07-08 - 13G, 29A, 42P
'08-09 - 23G, 34A, 57P

That 57 points was playing 13:39 a night primarily from the 3rd line and with PP time - ridiculous production.

Hudler gives the Wings the depth to overcome the inevitable injuries to some of their older forwards and should help get the PP back to elite status.

------

As for best in the West I think it'll come down to health, as it does almost every year. I wouldn't be surprised to see any of Detroit, Vancouver, Chicago or San Jose take the conference. If I had to pick 1 team, it would be the Canucks. Vancouver's record over the last couple years when the defense has been healthy has been as good as any in the league and I expect the defense to remain relatively healthy compared to year's past.
I thought of him shortly after I posted, yes hes a somewhat nice addition but I think his point totals are a little inflated simply because he was a power play specialist for the leagues #1 power play in the only year that he really produced anything significant. Hes a smallish center and I think in general kind of overrated (pretty typical for Detroit). But yes I think he will make a small impact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falconator View Post
Anyone who discounts Detroit is fooling themselves, just because our players had career years last year doesn't suddenly make them a sure thing! Detroit has a very talented team and the stats prove that...that said, we also have a good team but we've proved nothing in the last three years. Detroits won a Cup.
Why artificially choose the last 3 years as the time frame of relevence? 3 years ago the Canucks were simply not the same team, they missed the playoffs. No player is ever a sure thing regardless of what they have done and how long they have done it for, but I still haven't heard anyone come up with any reason why any of the Canucks are unlikely to repeat their offensive production. I can understand an argument against the Sedins dropping a bit but its not like anyone elses numbers were so gaudy that they likely to drop.

On the other hand I can make a strong argument for a drop off in Detroit, particularity from 3 years ago.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Falconator View Post
Datsyuk's numbers may have dipped last year but he scored 97 and 97 the two years previous, he's played a lot of hockey over the last three years. 70+97+97=264 points.
I don't want to get started on Datsyuk because it inevitably leads to me statistically ripping him to shreds and a bunch of people calling me a hater. Suffice to say that while I think Datsyuk is the most entertaining player in the league to me, hes also the most overrated. I don't expect him start significantly increasing his production with a loss of support from the back end (a HUGE issue for a puck control player like Datsyuk).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falconator View Post
Our man Henrik has 270 points, pretty much a wash. Same goes with Zetterberg 235 and Daniel Sedin 241 it's when you look deeper into the line-up you'll find the similarities.
Henrik is great, love him. The fact that he isn't considered Detroits best forward just baffles me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falconator View Post
Kesler > Filppula
Burrows < Fransen
Samuelsson = Holmstrom
Raymond = Bertuzzi (give me a break Raymond scored 25 goals ONCE in his career) Hudler!
Ehrhoff < Lidstrom
Edler = Rafalski
Hamhuis = Kronwall
Ballard > Stuart
Malhotra = Cleary

Anyways you get the picture, one could argue either way. But they are very good teams.
Sorry but this list is delusional,
Raymond > Bertuzzi
Edler > Rafalski
Hamhuis > Kronwall
Ballard > Stuart
Malhotra > Cleary

When you start looking deeper then this it actually gets worse for Detroit. The only position that Detroit has an edge in is the #1 D man spot and Lidstrom is slipping.

This is all just the Detroit mystique at work.

Awesomesauce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 07:20 PM
  #62
Rob Zepp
Registered User
 
Rob Zepp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmon View Post
You could have said that last year. And the only gong show was in front of our net.

Look, I hate the hawks, but I don't see why we have to put them down to make us look better?
Not sure who "us" is and I am not putting the Hawks down at all. They will be a good team this year but a shadow of the one that they had last year. No matter how brave a face that organization wants to put on the situation, they will take a step back this year and certainly do not enter this season as the best team on paper let alone likely on the ice.

Chicago is likely behind SJ, Det, Van and perhaps one or two more. They will compete hard and are good bet to make playoffs and give some teams a hard time but they are no longer the team that entered the playoffs last season.

Rob Zepp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 07:33 PM
  #63
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connecticut View Post
I agree with the end of your post -- I think that if Turco can play reasonably well, and at least a few of their new 3/4th liners like Stalberg or Skille can contribute, then a Chicago-Vancouver series would be far from easy. However, this idea that the Hawks "didn't take us seriously" in any playoff game last season is completely absurd. There is no team that doesn't take an opponent seriously in the second round of the Stanley Cup playoffs. You can not play your best, you can be taken off your game, but this idea that they weren't trying or took the Canucks lightly could not possibly be more wrong. The Hawks were playing with fire last year against Vancouver -- they were the better team in the end, especially by the time Edler got injured it became no contest -- but one bad bounce in Game 2 and they would have gone down 2-0 heading on the road and it would have been very difficult to come back from.
I'm not saying they didn't try against us, but I'm not convinced that it's a coincidence that the two games we beat them in were blowouts or that either of those outcomes were indicative of the two teams' abilities.

The Hawks didn't have a consistently great effort against us-- whenever they turned it on, we couldn't keep up with them (although it's not like they blew us out every time), and whenever they let up, we made them pay. That pretty much sums up the series as far as I'm concerned. I don't buy this "we had the skill to beat them, we just played poorly!" argument that alot of people have.

Shareefruck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 08:41 PM
  #64
Connecticut
Registered User
 
Connecticut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
I'm not saying they didn't try against us, but I'm not convinced that it's a coincidence that the two games we beat them in were blowouts or that either of those outcomes were indicative of the two teams' abilities.

The Hawks didn't have a consistently great effort against us-- whenever they turned it on, we couldn't keep up with them (although it's not like they blew us out every time), and whenever they let up, we made them pay. That pretty much sums up the series as far as I'm concerned. I don't buy this "we had the skill to beat them, we just played poorly!" argument that alot of people have.
That's fair enough. I do think the evidence supports that they were the better team. I just don't think by all that much, and that the series (both years) could easily have gone either way. What's unfair to the Canucks is to present it as if the Hawks weren't really trying, but when they decided to actually try they outclassed the Canucks. Fact of the matter is they were dominated in long stretches and it wasn't on because they didn't care. In the end maybe the better team won, but that doesn't always happen, especially when two teams are closely matched. I think you could make a pretty good case that if Luongo had been in peak form we would have been "good enough" to beat the Hawks -- but I think the argument is pointless, because he wasn't and so we weren't. Better luck next time I guess.

Connecticut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2010, 09:26 PM
  #65
ahmon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Zepp View Post
Not sure who "us" is and I am not putting the Hawks down at all. They will be a good team this year but a shadow of the one that they had last year. No matter how brave a face that organization wants to put on the situation, they will take a step back this year and certainly do not enter this season as the best team on paper let alone likely on the ice.

Chicago is likely behind SJ, Det, Van and perhaps one or two more. They will compete hard and are good bet to make playoffs and give some teams a hard time but they are no longer the team that entered the playoffs last season.
I disagree, even with a weaker team, I still have them over SJ.

And "us" is the canucks team, If you didn't know.

ahmon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 12:16 AM
  #66
Falconator
Registered User
 
Falconator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomesauce View Post
Sorry but this list is delusional,
Raymond = Hudler ???
Edler > Rafalski
Hamhuis > Kronwall
Ballard > Stuart
Malhotra > Cleary
Torres = Bertuzzi ???

When you start looking deeper then this it actually gets worse for Detroit. The only position that Detroit has an edge in is the #1 D man spot and Lidstrom is slipping.

This is all just the Detroit mystique at work.
Hey I hope you're 100% correct, I don't know about the above being "delusional" but again you could argue either way I suppose? I just think they are still a good team and should not be discounted is all. It'll be interesting to see how the season series goes! I say two games a piece.

Falconator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 12:35 AM
  #67
unifiedtheory
Registered User
 
unifiedtheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomesauce View Post
A healthy wings team barely made it past Phoenix in the first round, and then got crushed by San Jose in the second. That same San Jose team went on to get crushed by Chicago.

A seriously injured Vancouver team took that Chicago team to 6 games and at times dominated them.

There are a grand total of 2 players on Detroit that aren't badly overrated, Lidstrom (who has lost a step), and Franzen who is unlikely to continue to perform like he has in the playoffs with the increased dependency on him.

Predicting Detroit over Vancouver this year isn't very rational.
Well, cancel the season, the Canucks are Cup champions.

unifiedtheory is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2010, 12:58 AM
  #68
Awesomesauce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unifiedtheory View Post
Well, cancel the season, the Canucks are Cup champions.
Well this is just a juvenile post, where did I even say that the Canucks were my favorites for the cup, much less runaways? The Canucks being better then the Red Wings doesn't really say anything about how I think the Canucks stack up to the rest of the league.

Awesomesauce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.