HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Post-cup run Canucks parallel with Post-cup run Flames?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-17-2013, 10:49 AM
  #1
Liloldadyo*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 46
vCash: 500
Post-cup run Canucks parallel with Post-cup run Flames?

I mean there is obvious differences (one was a cup favourite one was a cinderella story) but the Flames were the top of the NW afterwards for a while so it isn't moot.

What I'm seeing is two teams that after their cup run couldn't make it out of the first round, went in year in and year out with the same core expecting to do better. The flames, by the time they realized it wasn't going to work their core was too aged/not good enough to continue to acquire new peices and keep the train running. I see the same thing happening with the Canucks, although not as severe. If they have another early playoff exit this year and DON'T make some big core changes they'll soon plummet to the bottom like the Flames have.

Opinions?

Liloldadyo* is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 10:50 AM
  #2
CRDragon
\_(シ)_/
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,680
vCash: 500
lol. good try but no.

CRDragon is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 10:52 AM
  #3
Liloldadyo*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 46
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRDragon View Post
lol. good try but no.
Care to rebute?

Liloldadyo* is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 10:57 AM
  #4
madmike77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,768
vCash: 500
I don't know. The Flames never had the kind of talent the Canucks have.

The Flames were built around a couple of great talents, but had a lot of fast skaters with little scoring ability who could really tie up opposing forwards - under the pre-2004 rules anyway. Once the rules changed the team couldn't really play the same suffocating style they used during their Cup run.

I'd say the Canucks are on the cusp of decline. They've got a year or two left as a decent contender and then the rebuild will begin in earnest. It's not really a big deal. It's what every team goes through eventually.

Detroit is really the only one who has avoided it in recent years, but that's not a recipe most teams can follow (and many conveniently forget how awful pre-Yzerman Detroit was - one of the laughing stocks of the 80s).

madmike77 is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 10:58 AM
  #5
CRDragon
\_(シ)_/
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liloldadyo View Post
Care to rebute?
I don't care, because I find it ridiculous to compare the two franchise post cup run.

CRDragon is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 10:59 AM
  #6
nik-
Registered User
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 909
vCash: 500
All I know is that it will probably sting less as a Flames fan, because, while that team was fun to watch, it was never really talented. Having a legit top team for a stretch and not winning would be worse.

nik- is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:00 AM
  #7
WonderTwinsUnite
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Delta, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,645
vCash: 500
Calgary was/is a wasteland for young up and comers, though. The Canucks have several young forwards ready to grow with the team.

WonderTwinsUnite is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:02 AM
  #8
thekernel
Registered User
 
thekernel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,456
vCash: 500
i'd give them another 2 first round exits before comparisons are warranted...

thekernel is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:03 AM
  #9
Todds Chiropractory
Registered User
 
Todds Chiropractory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,389
vCash: 500
We have far more depth throughout our lineup than the flames had, we still have a very strong "30 and under" defense core. And a much stronger prospect pool than the mid 2000's flames. We will be fine.

Todds Chiropractory is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:04 AM
  #10
committedindian86
Flip The Switch
 
committedindian86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 4,038
vCash: 500
For Vancouver it will depend on them drafting and developing talent. It's what set Detroit head and shoulders above the other organizations. The Canucks got no favors from the Chicago Wolves who are the absolute worst at developing talent at the AHL level, they only care about winning.

committedindian86 is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:12 AM
  #11
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,812
vCash: 355
Vancouver's core of players is much more skilled than that Flames team was. Having said that, I see a lot of similarities.

InfinityIggy is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:22 AM
  #12
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liloldadyo View Post
I mean there is obvious differences (one was a cup favourite one was a cinderella story) but the Flames were the top of the NW afterwards for a while so it isn't moot.

What I'm seeing is two teams that after their cup run couldn't make it out of the first round, went in year in and year out with the same core expecting to do better. The flames, by the time they realized it wasn't going to work their core was too aged/not good enough to continue to acquire new peices and keep the train running. I see the same thing happening with the Canucks, although not as severe. If they have another early playoff exit this year and DON'T make some big core changes they'll soon plummet to the bottom like the Flames have.

Opinions?
The Flames also drafted exceptionally poorly. After Dion Phaneuf, their first round picks in the following 5 years were: Kris Chucko, Matt Pelech, Leland Irving, Mikael Backlund and Greg Nemisz. Their 2nd and 3rd round picks were not much better. Out of the 2005 and 2006 drafts they got a total of 58 NHL games from 16 players, and 37 of those games were fro Brandon Sutter - the GM's nephew. In comparison, the Canucks have only had 1 truly horrible draft year - 2007, the Patrick White draft and that was a pretty weak draft class. It's too early to evaluate the draft years immediately following the Canucks 2011 cup run, but it looks to be much better - Jensen, Corrado, Gaunce, Horvat Shinkaruk.

Secondly, the Flames best skater was a Right Winger - and after a decade of trying, they never managed to find a centre who was really worthy of Jerome Iginla. They basically squandered years of Iginla's career because rather than a true #1 centre, they had a revolving door of #2's.
The Canucks offense doesn't all go through 1 guy. Daniel and Henrik have each led the league in scoring, and Kesler has had a 40 goal season.

The Flames defense was built around Phaneuff and Regehr with little depth beyond them. When they were traded they didn't get prime value and were never really replaced. The Canucks defense has always been at least 4 deep and has managed to replace Ohlund, Mitchell, Ehrhoff and Salo with Edler, Garrison, Hamhuis and Bieksa. They also have Tanev and Corrado now in the mix.

While the Canucks DO NOT have clear replacements for the Sedins in their system, they do have some guys who project to be top line forwards.

LeftCoast is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:25 AM
  #13
eliostar
Registered User
 
eliostar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,066
vCash: 500
That Stanley cup run by Vancouver was an aberration, or whatever you call it. All the other seasons will tell you the real story.

eliostar is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:34 AM
  #14
InfinityIggy
Inflammatory Poster
 
InfinityIggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,812
vCash: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
The Flames also drafted exceptionally poorly. After Dion Phaneuf, their first round picks in the following 5 years were: Kris Chucko, Matt Pelech, Leland Irving, Mikael Backlund and Greg Nemisz. Their 2nd and 3rd round picks were not much better. Out of the 2005 and 2006 drafts they got a total of 58 NHL games from 16 players, and 37 of those games were fro Brandon Sutter - the GM's nephew. In comparison, the Canucks have only had 1 truly horrible draft year - 2007, the Patrick White draft and that was a pretty weak draft class. It's too early to evaluate the draft years immediately following the Canucks 2011 cup run, but it looks to be much better - Jensen, Corrado, Gaunce, Horvat Shinkaruk.

Secondly, the Flames best skater was a Right Winger - and after a decade of trying, they never managed to find a centre who was really worthy of Jerome Iginla. They basically squandered years of Iginla's career because rather than a true #1 centre, they had a revolving door of #2's.
The Canucks offense doesn't all go through 1 guy. Daniel and Henrik have each led the league in scoring, and Kesler has had a 40 goal season.

The Flames defense was built around Phaneuff and Regehr with little depth beyond them. When they were traded they didn't get prime value and were never really replaced. The Canucks defense has always been at least 4 deep and has managed to replace Ohlund, Mitchell, Ehrhoff and Salo with Edler, Garrison, Hamhuis and Bieksa. They also have Tanev and Corrado now in the mix.

While the Canucks DO NOT have clear replacements for the Sedins in their system, they do have some guys who project to be top line forwards.

InfinityIggy is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:36 AM
  #15
Nash
Registered User
 
Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liloldadyo View Post
I mean there is obvious differences (one was a cup favourite one was a cinderella story) but the Flames were the top of the NW afterwards for a while so it isn't moot.

What I'm seeing is two teams that after their cup run couldn't make it out of the first round, went in year in and year out with the same core expecting to do better. The flames, by the time they realized it wasn't going to work their core was too aged/not good enough to continue to acquire new peices and keep the train running. I see the same thing happening with the Canucks, although not as severe. If they have another early playoff exit this year and DON'T make some big core changes they'll soon plummet to the bottom like the Flames have.

Opinions?
You are right that a president's trophy winner with top 3 numbers in GF, GA, PP, and PK all in the same season is not similar to an 8 seed cinderella story.

You are wrong about everything else. The Flames won the division for one season following the lockout. They were not the top of the NW division for a while afterwards. Most of their playoff appearances have been as the 7 or 8 seed. They had one season with a winning percentage over .600 at .628 when they won the division. The Canucks have only had 2 seasons in the past 10 years that they dipped below .600.

The Flames problem wasn't just about acquiring new pieces, it was about having the right pieces to begin with. Langkow or Conroy as your number one center?

Nash is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:41 AM
  #16
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,148
vCash: 500
Other than the fact that both teams play in Western Canada there are really no similarities. The Canucks may or may not need to go through a rebuild at some time but they are in no way in the same position as the Flames who were never a top team and were built around two players. It makes for a nice thread to bash the team but other than not really relevant.

vanwest is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:42 AM
  #17
Liloldadyo*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 46
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash View Post
You are right that a president's trophy winner with top 3 numbers in GF, GA, PP, and PK all in the same season is not similar to an 8 seed cinderella story.

You are wrong about everything else. The Flames won the division for one season following the lockout. They were not the top of the NW division for a while afterwards. Most of their playoff appearances have been as the 7 or 8 seed. They had one season with a winning percentage over .600 at .628 when they won the division. The Canucks have only had 2 seasons in the past 10 years that they dipped below .600.

The Flames problem wasn't just about acquiring new pieces, it was about having the right pieces to begin with. Langkow or Conroy as your number one center?
All of these are true but it doesn't change the fact that Vancouver seems to be too afraid to move some of their aging core pieces. Trying year in and year out to do the same thing isn't going to work if it didn't work before, the rest of the NHL is evolving. This new division is going to be a brutal awakening for the Canucks, who may just be having a golf tournament with Phoenix and Calgary next offseason.

Liloldadyo* is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:44 AM
  #18
ARSix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,311
vCash: 500
This remains a pretty silly comparison. The makeup, talent level, and relative success of the two teams is completely different.

As far as two straight first round exits, well, the first was a loss in a series of competitive, close games to the eventual Cup champions (who massacred basically everyone in those playoffs), while missing the team's leading scorer in Daniel Sedin. As to the second, there aren't really any excuses when you get swept.

That being said, the team's had one bad playoff loss to what was a pretty damned good Sharks team in that postseason. Let's not write the team off yet. The Canucks won their division last year despite an insanely low goals-for total resulting from injury issues severe enough to put Andrew Ebbett in the 2C slot for a quarter of the season or more and saw Keith Ballard playing regular top 9 forward minutes. It takes a pretty good core to have a successful regular season under those circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liloldadyo View Post
All of these are true but it doesn't change the fact that Vancouver seems to be too afraid to move some of their aging core pieces. Trying year in and year out to do the same thing isn't going to work if it didn't work before, the rest of the NHL is evolving. This new division is going to be a brutal awakening for the Canucks, who may just be having a golf tournament with Phoenix and Calgary next offseason.
Which aging core pieces would you move? The Sedins are still productive and can't be moved anyway, they have linked NMC's and if they're not playing in Vancouver they'll be in the SEL. The GM just unsuccessfully tried to move the aging starting goalie for a full year, so Luongo's out of the discussion. What other core pieces are "aging"? Bieksa? I'm okay with trading Bieksa, but he's not THAT old. Burrows? Sure, but unless you're getting back an asset, what's the point? Kesler, Garrison and Edler are still in their prime - they're not "aging" yet by any means. So who do you move?

The Canucks made some solid steps this year to re-stock the cupboard. The defense isn't over the hill and won't be for at least 3-4 years. If Kesler's broken, the Canucks are broken, otherwise they're not near the cliff yet. The "same thing they did before" was successful in the regular season, and success in the playoffs is as much luck and injuries as anything else. What it comes down to is that you should absolutely do exactly what you've been doing if doing something else would likely produce worse results.

EDIT: Also, for your "miss the playoffs" prediction to come true, the Canucks would need to be beaten by Edmonton.

Edmonton.


Last edited by ARSix: 07-17-2013 at 11:52 AM.
ARSix is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:45 AM
  #19
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liloldadyo View Post
All of these are true but it doesn't change the fact that Vancouver seems to be too afraid to move some of their aging core pieces. Trying year in and year out to do the same thing isn't going to work if it didn't work before, the rest of the NHL is evolving. This new division is going to be a brutal awakening for the Canucks, who may just be having a golf tournament with Phoenix and Calgary next offseason.
Considering how well we played outside of our own division I think the new division will help the Canucks. Essentially winning their old division by Christmas every year meant the team was not prepared going into the playoffs. I'm glad that we will now be in a dogfight with some good teams. It's exactly what Vancouver needs.

vanwest is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:48 AM
  #20
Liloldadyo*
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 46
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Considering how well we played outside of our own division I think the new division will help the Canucks. Essentially winning their old division by Christmas every year meant the team was not prepared going into the playoffs. I'm glad that we will now be in a dogfight with some good teams. It's exactly what Vancouver needs.
Yep you guys played pretty good against LA and SJ in the last two playoffs.

Liloldadyo* is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:49 AM
  #21
TheStroker
Registered User
 
TheStroker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: USA
Country: Norway
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRDragon View Post
I don't care, because I find it ridiculous to compare the two franchise post cup run.
Then don't come in this thread . According to the OP, that's exactly what this thread is about.

The Flames were only really at the top of the NW for 1 season, in 05/06. They won the division that year and secured home ice advantage. For the next 3 years when they did make the playoffs, they never secured homeice ever again. A couple of those seasons, they got in on the 7th and 8th spots. The Canucks on the other hand have won the division every year since '06. They have won 2 presidents trophies. They have had much stronger defence, coaching, and forward depth. The only area the Flames really had the advantage over them might have been goaltending. But Luongo was also nominated for the Vezina a couple times and has a Hart nomination. So really its a wash for that.

IMO Vancouver in on the same trend downwards, but its up to their management to handle the situation properly. The Flames held on to Iginla for way to long. The return for Regehr was dreadful. A lot of the pieces the Flames lost didn't garner much return. Trading Phaneuf should have garnered a nice return with young building blocks to build from. Instead, they got TO's garbage and all they have left to show is Matt Stajan. It's up to the Canucks management to not only recognize when the time to rebuild/retool is, but also to make sure they get a good return. The Canucks still have a couple season to get to that point, but make no mistake, it's coming. Hopefully Gillis handles it better then Sutter did.


Last edited by TheStroker: 07-17-2013 at 11:54 AM.
TheStroker is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:49 AM
  #22
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,670
vCash: 50
The Sedins aren't really tradeable so it is a moot point but there is some similarity to the trajectories of the two franchises after their cup runs.

worraps is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:50 AM
  #23
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liloldadyo View Post
Yep you guys played pretty good against LA and SJ in the last two playoffs.
Exactly my point.

vanwest is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:52 AM
  #24
canuckster19
Former CDC Mod
 
canuckster19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gothenburg Sweden
Country: Canada
Posts: 765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liloldadyo View Post
All of these are true but it doesn't change the fact that Vancouver seems to be too afraid to move some of their aging core pieces. Trying year in and year out to do the same thing isn't going to work if it didn't work before, the rest of the NHL is evolving. This new division is going to be a brutal awakening for the Canucks, who may just be having a golf tournament with Phoenix and Calgary next offseason.
Dallas and Phoenix aren't scary teams IMO and 6 more games against Californian teams makes a huge difference right?

Considering the vast majority of games are played outside the division, I highly doubt there are going to be any rude awakenings from within.

canuckster19 is offline  
Old
07-17-2013, 11:53 AM
  #25
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,202
vCash: 500
Vancouver, like Calgary, is in the same situation as any team that far west. It's tough to get competitive, but when you do, you'll hang on with all you've got.

Boston, Philly, the Rangers, these teams don't have to "rebuild" in the traditional sense. They have plenty of money, and can easily attract pretty much any player they want. Teams like Vancouver or Calgary, while they may have money, do not have the same options.

Who has Vancouver been able to get over the years? An old Messier. An even older Sundin. Hamhuis and Garrison, guys that went home to BC to play. While there are many good players from BC, you have to be able to get them. Calgary? They've gotten a few players, and pretty much all of them have had to be given NTC's or NMC's to go there, even if they're not that good.

So it's tough to attract players up into Vancouver and Calgary(and any team too far west). Trades usually open up a hole to fill one, so that's one step forward and one step back, unless you get lucky. Look where Calgary hasn't been as successful, and that's at the draft table. Vancouver was able to draft guys like the Sedin's and Kesler, who have been the core of the team for years.

Where Vancouver lucked out is when they were able to draft the Sedin's. They did so before the really good Naslund/Bertuzzi years. So when they transitioned away from Naslund/Bertuzzi/etc, they had two former top 3 picks all ready to go, with years of experience already under their belts. They don't have that luxury this time around as the Sedin's get older.

Most teams in the league know they will have to go through a rebuilding process at some point, and that that process will usually take a few years. So you end up with teams like Calgary, who probably hang onto hope for a few too many years, because you don't want to get rid of a franchise icon, and you have to at least make it look like you're trying to be competitive in order to justify keeping him around. Also, I think every GM knows that just because you rebuild an organization, it does not guarantee the ultimate success.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:03 AM.

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.