Was thinking back to that series. Canucks were PT winners and flat out dominant. They had both 2-0 and 3-2 leads in the series. But lost the series somehow. Yes there were injuries, yes Luongo wasn't great in Boston. But I think all those aside they should have won in 6 or 7.
They were the favorite and perhaps you could argue the Sharks were the odds favorite over the Pens, but the Pens were hot entering the playoffs. I don't think the Bruins were in the same realm as last years Pens in terms of hotness entering the PO.
So was it just a terrible stylistic matchup for the Canucks? Because they should have been the first team since the Habs in '93 to bring the cup to Canada. The Calgary and Edmonton series both have their controversies.
The Calgary goal in game 6 that was not reviewed and the starting goalie for the Oilers going down to injury in game 1. But Canucks didn't have any real controversy on those lines.
Several reasons - first and foremost (in my view) was the Malhotra eye injury. The Canucks were deployed in an extreme way (Malhotra soaking up defensive zone matchups, which allowed Kesler and Sedin to split time in the offensize zone). With Malhotra out this deployment strategy was undermined, which led to worse GA/GF, PP conversion in addition to greater wear and tear for Kes and Hank who were hobbling in the finals.
Luongo choked as well, the offense was completely putrid and at the end of the day they were beaten by a relatively healthy team.
I don't even think it was that so much. The OP says "Luongo was bad in Boston", but overlooks that Vancouver in those loses wasn't only bad, but badly out played.
Vancouver barely eeked out the wins they did get, while being absolutely slaughtered in their losses. In a way I guess it's easy for one to "ignore" the losses, but what they do tell is that despite how good Vancouver was (and they were a very good team), that Boston was simply much better.
I've been looking for trouble... but trouble hasn't been cooperating!
1. Injuries (Kesler, Malhotra, Hamhuis, Samuelsson, Higgins, Edler and Raymond)
2. The Referees stopped calling interference, obstruction and roughing penalties they'd been calling all year.
3. Tim Thomas outplayed Roberto Luongo
4. The Bruins were really good about clearing out the front of their net. Canucks got no rebounds or second chances.
A crazy number of injuries to key players, a big part of Vancouver's game (powerplay) was taken away because the refs put their whistles away in the finals, Tim Thomas played out of his mind that year, Luongo's mentality.
Fire Benning. Fire Linden. Fire Desjardins. Hire competent people.
Boston was a good team in their own right. Vancouver wasn't at their best, with injuries making it tougher to perform to expectations. Tim Thomas was the best player on the ice.
Winning a Cup involves some luck. Players getting hot at just the right time, or cooling down. Injuries. They aren't excuses, it just is what it is. Every team has to deal with these problems, but you can't choose when it happens. Given the circumstances, Boston was the better team.
__________________ You're a curious one, aren't you?
Bruins lost Horton and Savard (from earlier in the year though).
Savard was a non-factor ahead of time while the Bruins only lost Horton in game three. Meanwhile the Canucks were practically limping into the finals and proceeded to get even more injured. Easily the most injured team I've ever seen in the finals, just look at their putrid game seven lineup. If Boston had those same injuries they'd have lost in less than seven.