I think we could have beaten any team in the East except for Boston and maybe Pittsburgh, even with the injuries. Boston was the worst matchup for us, they were bigger at every position and had the hot goalie going.
Out of the teams since the lockout to lose the Finals, I figure we were better than most.
Edmonton, they were scrappy and fun to root for but we would've clobbered them (Torres vs Torres would have been awesome!)
Ottawa was really good, with Alfie, Spezza, Heatley, Hossa, Chara, Fisher and the rest. They could've given us a real run for our money. Sure they only won one game in the Finals but Anaheim was a real powerhouse, I'd say they are about even.
The losers of those Pittsburgh/Detroit slugfests were really strong, I think either of them would have been a super tough time for us playing like they were.
Philly, the year they lost to Chicago, I think we were the better of those two teams for sure. Even in-Boston Lu would be better than Leighton, right?
So even just going back to the previous lockout, that team's only clearly superior to two of the runners-up. Just because it's the best Canucks team of all time doesn't mean it's anything special among Cup finalists.
Personally I think that the team that lost to Calgary the year before the lockout was just as good, if Bertuzzi hadn't been suspended and Cloutier not been hurt that would've been us in the Finals, guaranteed, and we would have shown those sunbelt bums who's boss.
Last edited by Smokey McCanucks: 11-02-2012 at 04:12 AM.
It is still too soon to evaluate this series for some Canuck fans.
The Canucks got beat up. If this league persued excellence in officiating and did not meddle in enforcement, the series would have been unrecognizabley different. This lack of level playing field has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the American bettor. This is why hockey is viewed as an unholy union of roller derby and scripted wrestling.
Rant said, the 2010 team needed only reinforcements at the deadline to be the best Canuck team ever.