HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

How did the Canucks lose in 2011?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-04-2017, 01:39 PM
  #26
roflstomper
I don't row.
 
roflstomper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 2,559
vCash: 500
This has been talked to to death. That whole series needs it's own subforum.

Vancouver lost in part to:
-injuries to key players (Malhotra) that they had to play through ( Kesler etc.)
-losing Hamhuis when he went low and got trucked by Lucic hurt majorly.
-losing Aaron Rome to a suspension hurt a little.
-not getting timely goaltending.
-giving the Bruins reasons to wake up (biting Bergeron, Rome hit).
-not starting Schneider in game 6 (biggest mistake of all).

Bruins won in part to:
-Having the best defenseman in the world.
-Having the best goalie in the world.
-Crazy depth at center despite not having their 100 point centerman and losing their top line winger.
-The" letting them play" philosophy helped the Bruins get under the Canucks skin and frustrate them offensively.


The physicality of the Bruins is overstated looking back but it was a huge factor considering the physical state of the Canucks. Bruins played lights out at home and only needed to win one game on the road. It's actually a testament to how good both teams were that the Bruins did what they did at home and an injured and abused Canucks team won three at their place. The Bruins getting that first goal in game 7 I think really mentally hurt the Canucks because they knew getting 2 on Thomas probably wasn't going to happen.

Vancouver was a great team and would have obviously been a very worthy champion and oddly enough probably would have been talked about as one of the stronger cup winners since the lockout.

roflstomper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 01:40 PM
  #27
Josepho
Jayson Megna
 
Josepho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,002
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Josepho
Winning the Stanley Cup is not, and never will be, an exact science.

There are so many random variables (injuries, PDO, etc.) that went wrong for the Canucks in that finals series. Some people call them excuses, but they are legitimately valid reasons.

The Canucks are a top 5 team in the history of the cap era. Luck just wasn't on their side.

Josepho is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 01:40 PM
  #28
mint
213-129-26
 
mint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,259
vCash: 1400
Quote:
Originally Posted by stax View Post
Impartial refs/NHL (A. Rome)
T Thomas
Injuries

Simple as that.
Canucks had 33 Powerplays to Boston's 27.

mint is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 01:44 PM
  #29
mint
213-129-26
 
mint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,259
vCash: 1400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benedict Kovalchuk View Post
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.
The Canucks were very top heavy while the Bruins had more depth throughout their lineup. I disagree with this.

mint is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 01:44 PM
  #30
BeautBabeC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
Boston was allowed to do whatever they wanted. Remember Raymond suffered a broken behind the play for no reason without even getting a whistle.

BeautBabeC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 01:46 PM
  #31
mint
213-129-26
 
mint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,259
vCash: 1400
Quote:
Originally Posted by illpucks View Post
Schneider got a win in game 5. If Schneider played games 5,6,7 surely the Canucks could have won 2 of 3...right?
Not true. Luongo won game 5 and shut out Boston. He was pretty much the main reason they won any of the games they did win.

mint is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 01:50 PM
  #32
SmoggyTwinkles
Registered User
 
SmoggyTwinkles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mint View Post
Canucks had 33 Powerplays to Boston's 27.
That doesn't mean anything though. The Bruins were allowed to get away with stuff they shouldn't have. The Canucks many times should have been on the PP which would have changed momentum or stopped the Bruins momentum but the refs just let almost everything go and allowed the Bruins to get more and more aggressive and run away with it.

That's just what I remember taking away from that series and I wanted the Canucks to lose soooooo bad, I loved that series but there was certainly a feeling of unfairness for the Canucks that I thought was pretty obvious.

SmoggyTwinkles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 01:50 PM
  #33
Benedict Kovalchuk
Kovalchuk: A spy?
 
Benedict Kovalchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: CASCADIA NOW
Country: Malta
Posts: 5,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mint View Post
The Canucks were very top heavy while the Bruins had more depth throughout their lineup. I disagree with this.
Okay? Canucks were more top heavy for sure, but this comment of yours doesn't really have much to with what I said. Canucks were severely injured up and down the lineup. Being top-heavy doesn't really factor into it too much when you are heavily injured pretty much everywhere.

Benedict Kovalchuk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 01:55 PM
  #34
Hockeyfan2390
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 5,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by illpucks View Post
Schneider got a win in game 5. If Schneider played games 5,6,7 surely the Canucks could have won 2 of 3...right?
Luongo played Game 5.

Hockeyfan2390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:06 PM
  #35
FrozenJagrt
Registered User
 
FrozenJagrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,240
vCash: 500
They were mentally weak against a team of bullies and a hot goaltender. Perfect storm.

FrozenJagrt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:11 PM
  #36
Rey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,170
vCash: 500
It's just Vancouver's luck. I don't think they'll ever win the cup. My typical thoughts throughout their journey: Past the 1st round? No problem. Past the second round? Expected. Third round? Welp, pretty luck there? Finals? With the Canuck's luck, this is were we lose. First two games? Wow, we actually have a shot? The Collapse? It was bound to happen. Not only was there a feeling that the Canucks would never win it because of their history of curses but also the fact that there seem to be a trend. The Four year(Approximately) trend, where a Canadian team would make it and lose. Edmonton, Calgary, and Ottawa all went through the same fate.

As a Vancouver fan, it was pretty heartbreaking but not surprising at all. It really doesn't help with that it seem cheap and unfair at the end but then we'd be whiners. Like literally, You couldn't make this stuff. Our players would get punched in the face and get penalties for it. Nothing made sense anymore, the Canucks were bullies throughout the playoffs but got out bullied in the Finals. That's it. Boston's Defense and Tim Thomas shut the whole offense down. The Twins were scared, and the guys that weren't were broken and torn from the SJ/Chicago/Nashville series's. Luongo choked like he was suppose to in round 1 of the playoffs but instead they decided to give everyone hope that year, just to crush it. Everything thing that was a weakness for the Canucks came into effect and they had no answer. It was a completely disaster, to the point were I believe a Canuck's writer, seemed so surprised, of the outcome that he suggested that the Canucks decided to throw the Finals so they wouldn't have to pay for the cup celebration and the taxes that came along with it. When it was all over and done, All i could picture is Todd Bertuzzi flipping his Finger and saying his famous quote "It is, what it is". and it just took just that, to end Naslund/Bertuzzi's era here, just like how that Finals ended the Twins era. Well..from competitive to pretenders. Honestly, had Kesler/Luongo/Twins weren't as emotional, they could have easily could have been like SJ, were they have a chance every year but they just crumbled.


Last edited by Rey: 03-04-2017 at 02:24 PM.
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:12 PM
  #37
DS7
Registered User
 
DS7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mint View Post
Canucks had 33 Powerplays to Boston's 27.
Technically true. But there were instances where the nucks got a PP and the second someone touched a bruins player 20 seconds later we got an offsetting penalty, back to 4 on 4

DS7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:18 PM
  #38
Mpasta
Registered User
 
Mpasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stax View Post
Impartial refs/NHL (A. Rome)
T Thomas
Injuries

Simple as that.
I don't think that word means what you think it means

Mpasta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:18 PM
  #39
BruinLVGA
Registered User
 
BruinLVGA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,302
vCash: 500
The reason? The Bruins outscored the Canucks 23-8. The Canucks did very well to hang on for 7 games, it should have been over much sooner.

BruinLVGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:19 PM
  #40
Bmessy
Registered User
 
Bmessy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: East Boston, MA
Posts: 2,075
vCash: 500
Playing into the hands of the Bruins. The Bruins thrived off of Burrows' antics and the Sedins passivity. The hatred benefited the Bruins. That team thrived off of it
Tim Thomas
Injuries
All VAN's wins were by one goal. People overlooked the fact that the B's were in every game in their losses. The Canucks were not even close to winning in their losses. Luongo got chased multiple times. Atleast 2 maybe even 3

Bmessy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:29 PM
  #41
uTurris
We the True North
 
uTurris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,507
vCash: 500
Because Boston got away with way............................................... .. too much. Yet they gave suspensions to all the other teams in the NHL. I mean Chara got away with almost killing Pacioretty. They shouldn't have gotten past the first round anyway that year.

Also I like to think of the curse of Raffi Torres. All teams he started the season with lost when they got deep.

But Vancouver should've won the cup in 2011. Only time Boston even deserved to make the finals was in 2013 when they lost to Chicago.

But it's interesting to think about the Canucks if they did win in 2011. I think most of that roster plus Luongo, Kesler, Vigneault and Gillis would've still been there to this very day. Only ones that leave would be due to salary. I think they'd be still making the playoffs to this day.

If Boston lost they would've tried to find ways to improve for the next year and make the finals the next year.

uTurris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:30 PM
  #42
Halakitlikethat
Registered User
 
Halakitlikethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Prince George BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 970
vCash: 500
Kesler getting hurt was a big loss because he carried them the whole playoffs. I know he didn't miss any games but he was clearly hurt and hasn't really been the same since either.

I still think they beat Tampa if the would've beat Boston though.

Halakitlikethat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:31 PM
  #43
Dr Robot
Registered User
 
Dr Robot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 577
vCash: 562
Luongo threw 2 shutouts and a 2-3 overtime win. The canucks scored a grand total of 8 goals the entire 7 game series. Luongo did get chased a couple times but the fact that the canucks had 0 goals in a few of those blowouts makes it inconsequential. The Sedins didn't show up and Kesler who was absolutely fantastic vrs (chicago?) was injured which severely limited their offense. If its the year im thinking of when Vancouver played Chicago, it was Kesler going into overdrive that won them the series. As things went on he fell off a cliff hard then later it was revealed he had a torn groin which made a lot of sense for how much he was struggling. Thomas was fantastic the whole series and the momentum shifted to the Bruins which allowed for some of those blowouts but if anyone has to shoulder the blame its the Sedins not being able to carry the offense without Kesler. Everyone was tired of how hard vancouver fans were pumping Luongos tires the whole season which led to some people blaming Lou for choking but it was absolutely not on his shoulders.

Dr Robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:34 PM
  #44
McRpro
NHL hockey = garbage
 
McRpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,012
vCash: 500
No way were the Hockey Gods going to allow a team that employed Kesler, Burrows and Lapierre to win a cup.

McRpro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:35 PM
  #45
NeoCanuck
Our Shark Overlords
 
NeoCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Vancouver B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,419
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NeoCanuck Send a message via MSN to NeoCanuck
Quote:
Originally Posted by roflstomper View Post
This has been talked to to death. That whole series needs it's own subforum.

Vancouver lost in part to:
-injuries to key players (Malhotra) that they had to play through ( Kesler etc.)
-losing Hamhuis when he went low and got trucked by Lucic hurt majorly.
-losing Aaron Rome to a suspension hurt a little.
-not getting timely goaltending.
-giving the Bruins reasons to wake up (biting Bergeron, Rome hit).
-not starting Schneider in game 6 (biggest mistake of all).

Bruins won in part to:
-Having the best defenseman in the world.
-Having the best goalie in the world.
-Crazy depth at center despite not having their 100 point centerman and losing their top line winger.
-The" letting them play" philosophy helped the Bruins get under the Canucks skin and frustrate them offensively.


The physicality of the Bruins is overstated looking back but it was a huge factor considering the physical state of the Canucks. Bruins played lights out at home and only needed to win one game on the road. It's actually a testament to how good both teams were that the Bruins did what they did at home and an injured and abused Canucks team won three at their place. The Bruins getting that first goal in game 7 I think really mentally hurt the Canucks because they knew getting 2 on Thomas probably wasn't going to happen.

Vancouver was a great team and would have obviously been a very worthy champion and oddly enough probably would have been talked about as one of the stronger cup winners since the lockout.
Just sticky this every time a Canucks/2011 thread like this pops up. Written by a Bostonian as well. Well written and un-bias from the normal Affleck type ego. Well done.

NeoCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:36 PM
  #46
Dylonus
Registered User
 
Dylonus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 11,670
vCash: 500
The Sedins choked. Only 5 points between the two of them in the entire series. Hell, Henrik had just a goal; that's it.

If they actually showed up, the Canucks win that series.

Dylonus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:39 PM
  #47
who_me?
Registered User
 
who_me?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,518
vCash: 500

who_me? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:40 PM
  #48
Lieutenant Bookman
Registered User
 
Lieutenant Bookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 79
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by illpucks View Post
yes Luongo wasn't great in Boston
Well that's putting it quite mildly

Lieutenant Bookman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:42 PM
  #49
b in vancouver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabresfan129103 View Post
Tim Thomas is the reason. He had probably the greatest post season performance by a goaltender is the history of the sport.
Truthfully - Vancouver never challenged Thomas that much in the Finals. Luongo was much more of a factor in Vancouver's three wins than Thomas in the whole series. (rematch it if you don't believe - he was good but there's only a few big saves and no more than you'd expect) There were only three close games and Luongo out-duelled Thomas in all three. The other four games were blowouts that, although Luongo never looked good, neither did anyone on Vancouver as they were out-classed.

After game 2 I think Vancouver started believing their own press.
Vancouver was a team that lived by it's p.p. but Boston had an amazing pk and laid the groundwork for how to stop them. They wouldn't let the Sedins play catch in the cycle game as Chara would just lean into whichever one had the puck so the other couldn't just pass it back to him. Bergeron shut them down.
Relentless puck pursuit and finishing their checks. As the series wore on Vancouver just started shying away, coughing up the puck and losing nearly every one on one battle and loose puck. - If you forget about all the talk and the cheap stuff , injuries or fake 'Thomas stole the series' headlines - Boston just rolled four lines that were strong on the puck and aggressive and came at them wave after wave.
The Merlot line of Campbell, Paille, Thornton pinned both the Sedin and Kesler lines in their zone a few times - and if your 4th line can do that - your other lines are running rampant.

Boston was simply the better team. A well oiled machine. They were much deeper, and as much as people were oohing and awing about the Canucks, they still only had one dominant line which is tough when Bergeron and Chara are on the other side.

You can look at the Pens vs. Bruins series two years later and see how Boston was able to win it.

b in vancouver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 02:44 PM
  #50
Random Bruins Fan
Certified Poster
 
Random Bruins Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Spooner Street
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFunnyWobbl View Post
In four of the seven games, Boston scored more goals then Vancouver
that is an understatement.

Also: Boston outscored Vancouver on Vancouver's own powerplay, better health, vastly better goaltending, Vancouver played dumb they should have skated away and not got involved in the scrumbs they just gave a much tougher Boston team energy.

Random Bruins Fan 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 01:32 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.