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, 11:17 PM
  #101
ChrisK97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
8 goals in 7 games.

The fact they even were up 3-2 given their scoring was a freaking miracle.

That said, did Boston seem to play less physical in Vancouver as opposed to home?

ChrisK97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 11:28 PM
  #102
VictoriaJetsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 500
I lived in Vancouver in 2011 and it was a wild time.

One overlooked reason was because of Round 1 against Chicago. Almost blowing a 3-0 series lead really put them through the ringer mentally and physical. If they had won in four or five maybe there is more in the tank for later rounds.

The nucks were talented but not particularly big and strong. They needed every ounce of rest they could get.

VictoriaJetsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2017, 11:55 PM
  #103
SillyRabbit
Trix Are For Kids
 
SillyRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
One point i'd like to make is that the Bruins got away with a LOT of extra and over the top physical play in that series.

The Canucks bread and butter of the 2011 season was their PP (#1 in the league).

They intentionally turned the other cheek whenever the Bruins initiated over-the-top physical contact because they wanted to maintain their discipline and draw penalties.

The referees decided however, to let a lot of physical play go. And because of this, the Bruins gained an advantage because they could push the Canucks around without any consequences. This allowed them to physically gain possession on many different plays, break up numerous Canuck plays, and mess with the Canuck players after whistles without any fear of being penalized.

The Canucks showed an incredible amount of discipline not fighting back (which some people have interpreted as cowardice), but the bottom line is that the Bruins got away with a LOT of things that had normally been penalties throughout the playoffs up until that point.

I understand the sentiment of "playoff hockey" and "letting them play," but since that wasn't how things were called for the majority of the season and playoffs, it definitely threw the Canucks off and gave the Bruins an advantage that worked extremely well with her play style.

SillyRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2017, 12:19 AM
  #104
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tampere, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 13,610
vCash: 500
Brad Marchand happened.

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2017, 01:38 AM
  #105
sketch22
Registered User
 
sketch22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SillyRabbit View Post
I understand the sentiment of "playoff hockey" and "letting them play," but since that wasn't how things were called for the majority of the season and playoffs, it definitely threw the Canucks off and gave the Bruins an advantage that worked extremely well with her play style.
Did you ever consider that it might be Vancouver's fault that the refs stopped calling penalties? That a team that dived their way thru the first 2 rounds of the playoffs might find themselves on the wrong side of the calls at some point? That having a GM who whined to the press about the Refs not doing their jobs after his team blew a 3-0 series lead might effect what happens in the future?

That team deserved exactly what they got and I for one applaud the officials for letting the players decide the outcome of that series.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SillyRabbit View Post
The Canucks showed an incredible amount of discipline not fighting back (which some people have interpreted as cowardice)
Standing there and letting someone punch you in the face while you whine to the ref for a penalty isn't discipline and it shouldn't be rewarded. The Nucks weren't just Innocent players being mauled by the other team. Go back and watch those games again and you will see them staring down the refs in those situations and campaigning for calls. If you want to see how an actual disciplined team handled that same situation go and watch the SCF from 2 years later. When the whistle blew the Hawks went to the bench. They didn't engage the Bruins or allow them the opportunity to get physical and no one called them cowards or weak.

sketch22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2017, 05:42 AM
  #106
the edler
Cory Schneider fan
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,677
vCash: 500
A lot of injuries and a suspension, plus the Sedins being too easily bullied.

When Rome threw that hit momentum totally swung. And he also got suspended 4 games, effectively the whole series, from an already crippled defense.

People forget that the exact same thing happened in the first round against the Blackhawks. Canucks had it all under control then in game 3 Torres throws a typical idiot head shot on Seabrook and from then on in the series Duncan Keith goes beast mode and almost wins the series for his team.

I've seen another poster on this board post once too that Aaron Rome also functioned as Henrik Sedin's bodyguard, or perhaps both Sedin's bodyguard, on the ice. Don't know if that's true but it could be.

I remember Henrik being visibly upset with the suspension. That was a dumb, dumb hit by Rome but I think 1 or 2 games would have been more appropriate.

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2017, 05:46 AM
  #107
the edler
Cory Schneider fan
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sketch22 View Post
That team deserved exactly what they got and I for one applaud the officials for letting the players decide the outcome of that series.
Yeah, why even have referees? Let the players decide everything.

Or even better, let Mark Messier decide everything from the press box.

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2017, 01:58 PM
  #108
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,784
vCash: 500
many many reasons. most already stated, one huge one not mentioned yet.

already stated, but with a few notes here and there:

- boston's excellent defense (i mean, they were excellent; totally kept the canucks to the outside, which was great for tim thomas' stats but tbh i don't think he had to work that hard; chara was magnificent, and was maybe the only person in the world with the reach, strength, and defensive smarts to handle the sedins' short pass cycle game)

- injuries (the huge one isn't even hamhuis who was obviously our best defenseman, or kesler, or manny malhotra, or even henrik and his shoulder; ehrhoff couldn't shoot, and he was the shooter on our PP, which consequently dried up)

- refs (rome gets suspended on a borderline play, boychuk does not, marchand barely penalized, thomas and others not penalized, etc.)

but here's the one not yet mentioned: alain vigneault was a very successful, but limited coach. the sedin zone starts thing threw away home ice and was basically just mechanically dumping the sedins onto the ice in the offensive zone, allowing julien to put out chara/seidenberg and bergeron's line to catch them every time. they won the first three home games by the absolute skin of their necks. the entire series, the canucks only had the lead for 32 minutes and 42 seconds. and obviously boston killed it at home, which makes giving away the home ice advantage they played so hard all year for even more foolish.

the other thing about the zone starts is the sedins' offensive zone shifts are actually the toughest ones for them. when they started in the defensive or neutral zones, they absorb less punishment than in their long offensive zone sets, which are basically 45 seconds-to-1.5 minutes of cycling and taking hits from some very big bruins in order to keep the puck moving along the boards. at that point in the playoffs, it was unnecessary wear and tear from a line that was more than capable of creating chances off the rush.

but more importantly, for whatever reason (i'm guessing preparation) this team was just not good at adjusting on the fly. this was especially true of the defense, which was managed by bowness, but notice that in game three rome gets thrown out in the first period. team subsequently falls apart when the d pairs get mixed up. bieksa was especially bad in that respect.

ditto game 6, when boychuk rides raymond into the boards and ends his season at the beginning of the game. the canucks end up having a nightmare of a first period, looking like chickens with their heads cut off.

it's almost like the entire game plan was for every defenseman to play only with his regular partner, and every line was only prepared to play as a unit. which is kind of indicative of AV's zone starts strategy too: even when you know it's not going to work and that you better get your two MVP/scoring champs away from the chara because he's eating them for lunch, you still stick with the same strategy hoping for a different result the next shift.

and the same goes for the team's "discipline." the refs put away their whistles; it was clear for everyone to see that you're not going to get the penalty. maybe best not to let them keep facewashing or punching you without pushing back at all.

and this also probably can be extended to keeping luongo in the game for all eight goals in game 3, which boggled the mind.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2017, 02:24 PM
  #109
tony d
Irish Spring Soap
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 57,563
vCash: 500
Hamhuis got injured and Thomas played out of his mind.

__________________


Celebrating 10 yrs. at hfboards today. Thanks everyone for making the past decade so memorable. Here's to 10 more years.
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2017, 05:30 PM
  #110
PurpleMouse
Registered User
 
PurpleMouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharasLazyWrister View Post
I still fail to understand the refereeing argument.

The minimum the Bruins won any game by was four goals.
I think that's true for games 3, 4, and 6 but not 7. You have to remember that one thing that happens early in game can totally alter everything that happens after.

And this series was a perfect storm in terms of penalties affecting a game because you had one team whose success was above average in terms of reliance and another team whose success was WELL below average in terms of reliance on PP. Interestingly enough, too, that might explain the "character" of the teams. People perceive diving so negatively and honourless and simply think a team that dives a lot is trash and one that doesn't "plays the game the right way" but you'd probably find teams that score a lot on the PP dive more, because they have a lot more to gain from it. Why would Boston risk taking a diving penalty when the reward of their PP scoring was highly unlikely?

I've never looked for film of the whole game except for a half-hearted effort just now, but I remember there was one play in the first period of game 7 where a Canuck was slashed with a prime goal mouth chance, and no call. I think stuff like that, combined with the no penalty game against Tampa in game 7, really make people ask questions about the officiating in that year's playoffs.

Also the Rome thing was a bit weird because if I recall the rational the NHL gave was that it was a late ht causing injury. Which Chara's on Pacioretty was also, obviously, yet no suspension. But that likely doesn't reflect a team bias, but rather a star bias.. don't think anyone years after is arguing that not having Rome cost the Canucks the series!

Boston was certainly GOOD that year- you have to be to be in that position even if everything is going in your favour.... but I always looked at that team as a perfect storm as having a lot of going right inc some suspect happenings, I think inferior to their 2013 team and perhaps even by a wide margin.

PurpleMouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2017, 08:11 PM
  #111
CharasLazyWrister
GrumpyMilton
 
CharasLazyWrister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 8,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleMouse View Post
I think that's true for games 3, 4, and 6 but not 7. You have to remember that one thing that happens early in game can totally alter everything that happens after.

And this series was a perfect storm in terms of penalties affecting a game because you had one team whose success was above average in terms of reliance and another team whose success was WELL below average in terms of reliance on PP. Interestingly enough, too, that might explain the "character" of the teams. People perceive diving so negatively and honourless and simply think a team that dives a lot is trash and one that doesn't "plays the game the right way" but you'd probably find teams that score a lot on the PP dive more, because they have a lot more to gain from it. Why would Boston risk taking a diving penalty when the reward of their PP scoring was highly unlikely?

I've never looked for film of the whole game except for a half-hearted effort just now, but I remember there was one play in the first period of game 7 where a Canuck was slashed with a prime goal mouth chance, and no call. I think stuff like that, combined with the no penalty game against Tampa in game 7, really make people ask questions about the officiating in that year's playoffs.

Also the Rome thing was a bit weird because if I recall the rational the NHL gave was that it was a late ht causing injury. Which Chara's on Pacioretty was also, obviously, yet no suspension. But that likely doesn't reflect a team bias, but rather a star bias.. don't think anyone years after is arguing that not having Rome cost the Canucks the series!

Boston was certainly GOOD that year- you have to be to be in that position even if everything is going in your favour.... but I always looked at that team as a perfect storm as having a lot of going right inc some suspect happenings, I think inferior to their 2013 team and perhaps even by a wide margin.
Every Lightning and Bruins fan at the time was marveling at how awesome it was that there was a penalty-free game 7. You could have called MAYBE one or two penalties that game. Both teams were being extremely careful to not commit a penalty.

The fact that it's getting twisted that the refereeing was somehow favoring the Bruins, the team that relied less on the man advantage, is a real shame if you watched and appreciated that game at the time. It's being fit into a very convenient agenda at this point.

The Rome hit was also to the head.

And, in conclusion...all you're saying is the refereeing COULD have contributed to the Bruins winning game 7. Great. You're not even arguing based on a series...just a single game, in which the Bruins still won 4-0. If the Canucks couldn't score even strength, they didn't deserve to win anything. That's not on the referees...that's on them.

CharasLazyWrister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2017, 08:40 PM
  #112
PurpleMouse
Registered User
 
PurpleMouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharasLazyWrister View Post
Every Lightning and Bruins fan at the time was marveling at how awesome it was that there was a penalty-free game 7. You could have called MAYBE one or two penalties that game. Both teams were being extremely careful to not commit a penalty.

The fact that it's getting twisted that the refereeing was somehow favoring the Bruins, the team that relied less on the man advantage, is a real shame if you watched and appreciated that game at the time. It's being fit into a very convenient agenda at this point.
It was an awesome game, I don't disagree. But if there's no penalties in a game where you could have called a few that obviously benefits the team that has the inferior PP. It's not to suggest that the league said "hey let's make Boston win" but rather than a mandate for much more laxed officiating benefits them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharasLazyWrister View Post
The Rome hit was also to the head.
Sure.. but as I recall, and again correct me if I'm wrong here, the reasoning given for the length of suspension was it was late causing injury. You can debate what the rules should be, or what the hit was, but by that criteria, it makes zero sense Chara didn't get suspended for a signfiicant amount of time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CharasLazyWrister View Post
And, in conclusion...all you're saying is the refereeing COULD have contributed to the Bruins winning game 7. Great. You're not even arguing based on a series...just a single game, in which the Bruins still won 4-0.
A single game that was the deciding game for the championship. When it got to game seven it was, in fact, a one game series. If I was pointing out something that hapepend in a single game of the series against Philly, that Boston swept, that would be different.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CharasLazyWrister View Post
If the Canucks couldn't score even strength, they didn't deserve to win anything. That's not on the referees...that's on them.
Isn't this just you forming an opinion of how the game "should" be played based on a definition that conveniently benefits your team? You could just easily say the Bruins didn't deserve to win because they had such a bad power play. If the series was filled with special teams and the Canucks won, wold you be saying "Well, if the Bruins can't ice a power play that hits 15%, they don't deserve to win anything?"

And also, the entire contention people are making is the Canucks weren't scoring those even strength goals because of the infractions that the Bruins were getting away with.

PurpleMouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 12:46 AM
  #113
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,425
vCash: 500
For starters, the biggest reason perhaps is Tim Thomas, who was good in all 7 games of the final, even when he lost. That's your Conn Smythe guy for a reason.

I had predicted Boston would win, even after they went down 2-0 because I just thought Vancouver was soft. I know I've irked Nucks fans before for saying that but there was some ugly moments in that series where the Bruins just laid them out like they were toys. Thomas of all people - a goalie - landing a big bodycheck on Sedin (Daniel?) and Brad Marchand at the end of Game 6 leaving his mark and using Henrik (?) as a punching bag while no Canuck player came to his defense. It was just ugly. Semenko would never let that happen to Gretzky. Ever. Heck, even Paul Coffey would have stepped in and he wasn't a fighter. This was just one of those moments where you knew the Canucks weren't winning Game 7. Or at least I was. The Sedins were invisible this series as well.

I don't know, I just thought they were a soft team compared to the battle-tested Bruins. Who, by the way, had 103 points themselves. They were not just along for the ride, they had won their division by 7 points and they had come off a horrible collapse in the 2010 playoffs. Look at the names on the 2011 Bruins and tell me that these aren't guys you want to go to war with:

Lucic, Marchand, Chara, Bergeron, Recchi, Krejci, Shawn Thornton (did a lot physically that year). Not to mention the way Thomas was playing at that point in hi career. They were certainly not short on heart. It bugs you a bit that they had a rookie in Tyler Seguin that they eventually let go, but either way you slice it, this team was capable of winning and two years later nearly beat the Blackhawks.

Throw in the fact that neither of Vancouver's stars played like they should and the fact Luongo was awful in the games he lost but good in the games he won and you have a recipe for disaster. They nearly blew a 3-0 series lead against Chicago.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 01:12 AM
  #114
ChrisK97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
I thought those 2011 Bruins were somewhat like our generation's equivalent of the Broad Street Bullies (Goalie doing superman stuff, offense that isn't star-studded but did its job just enough, stacked with agitators and dudes you didn't want to play against), though not totally over the edge as those Flyers teams.

Not just Vancouver- it seemed like they also got away with some of that little agitating/annoying/pesky stuff against Tampa Bay/Montreal, whom you could argue were soft in their own right.

While battle-tested, I didn't think they were going to beat Vancouver because they had played too many playoff games- 2 seven-game series, which once upon a time had been a recipe for disaster in early rounds (1993 Leafs, 2001 Avalanche). When they got to game 7, I thought the Bruins were playing with fire given they were playing so many games outside the Philly sweep. But they did a hell of a job holding up all spring and game 7.

You could make an argument they should have made 3 straight Cup Finals had then-unkown Braden Holtby not shockingly held his own against Thomas in between the 2011 Cup run and the 2013 near-Cup run.

OTOH, we'd be calling those Bruins massive underachievers had they lost one of those game 7s and they had no Cups to show for their 2009-2014 run of contention. Imagine if they lost game 6 of the 2013 SCF the way they did without that 2011 Cup to fall back on.


Last edited by ChrisK97: 03-06-2017 at 01:25 AM.
ChrisK97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 01:20 AM
  #115
ChrisK97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
Another thing I remember about those Canucks is that Chicago sportswriters absolutely HATED that team even moreso than some on HFBoards:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/06/...ineless-thugs/

ChrisK97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 03:04 AM
  #116
Dr Black
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
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.
Quote:
They only scored 8 goals in 7 games, while Boston scored 23 goals.
The fact that it was a 7 game series really flatters the Canucks. Games 6 and 7 were not even close. When it matter the most, the Bruins were the dominate team. The Canucks had an awesome run up til game 5 of the final, but they just ran out of gas at the end.

Dr Black is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 05:44 AM
  #117
feffan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Malmö
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,658
vCash: 500
I will always think of Canucks - Bruins a bit off like Red Wings - Penguins 09. Had those match ups been played in one of the first three rounds, I think the Canucks/Red Wings would have won quite easily. But unlucky injuries to just the wrong players quickly changed the dynamics of the match ups.

Add unlucky circumstances regarding mariginals from decisions by refs/leauge, wich spurred greater conspiracy theroies but really just was businnes as usual.
But if the usual schedule had been kept and therefore en extra week of rest for the Red Wings before the SC in 09 and I think they beat the Penguins in 6 or less games. But it was an good business decision for the leauge.
The reffing not "letting the teams play it out" in 11 and itīs the Bruins getting frustrated and thrown of their game, instead of the Canucks getting frustrated and thrown of their game. But that is something referees does sometimes in the SC when the pressure is to much. They stop refering, afraid to do a bad call. Nothing special for that year, but I think it had more conqsequence that year because the two approaches those teams had to the game was so completley different.

Marchand punching Sedin over and over is probably the most symbolic of this. If Marchand gets sent to the box there, it sends an completley different signal to both teams. As the referee didnīt blow the wistle there Daniel Sedin was seen as the ridicilous one. But had Marchand been sent to the box Sedin would have been seen as the strong one. Withstanding the antics and rightfully being rewarded for it. Instead of "Cry-Baby Sister Sedin" it would be "Wreckless Unmature Marchand".

And that doesnīt affect just the players involved, that affects players on the bench too.

Quotes from after the game in an ESPN article:
"And Daniel Sedin stood there and kept taking punch after punch after punch. Did Sedin wonder how many punches it would take for Marchand to get a penalty?

"Maybe after the fifth. But I took six. What can I do?" said Sedin, clearly agitated after being Marchand's punching bag in the third period.

An emotional Sedin said something afterward to referee Kelly Sutherland.

"I asked him why he didn't call the penalty. He said he was going to," Sedin said.

Marchand just shrugged off the moment.

"It was just heat of the moment, that stuff happens," the rookie said after Game 6."

Why did Marchand keep punching him then?

"Because I felt like it," Marchand said."


Incidents like that turned that series around. That was in game 6, but small incidents accured all around that made the Bruins get momentum. Had the whistle been blown as the rest of the year, the first three rounds (and problaby 2 first games of the final) included I think the Canucks would have taken home the Cup.

Anyone whoīs played any level of sports now the psychology of getting momentum when you get away with being a pest and playing a bit over the line, or if you think you are being robbed of obvious PP-time. Itīs not just as easy as taking away the 2 minutes PP. It changes the dynamics of whole games and series.

feffan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 12:49 PM
  #118
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,784
vCash: 500
two things here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I had predicted Boston would win, even after they went down 2-0 because I just thought Vancouver was soft. I know I've irked Nucks fans before for saying that but there was some ugly moments in that series where the Bruins just laid them out like they were toys. Thomas of all people - a goalie - landing a big bodycheck on Sedin (Daniel?) and Brad Marchand at the end of Game 6 leaving his mark and using Henrik (?) as a punching bag while no Canuck player came to his defense. It was just ugly. Semenko would never let that happen to Gretzky. Ever. Heck, even Paul Coffey would have stepped in and he wasn't a fighter. This was just one of those moments where you knew the Canucks weren't winning Game 7.
watch victor oreskovich (#38) in this video. big young fourth line plug whose role is to forecheck and get his nose dirty, 6'3" and 235 lbs, does absolutely nothing. keith ballard, whom vigneault refused to play for two whole years, is the only one on the ice who goes after marchand. as a totally overmatched ballard fights mcquaid, who is a very big scary dude, oreskovich is just standing there holding the elbow of chris kelly's jersey. not coincidentally, oreskovich only played two more NHL games in his career.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Shawn Thornton (did a lot physically that year).
a very underrated turn of events. in game 3, julien takes seguin out of the lineup and inserts thornton. after rome basically ended horton's career, and horton had been phenomenal during that playoffs on a line with krejci and lucic, the fourth line of thornton - campbell - paille becomes a major force with thornton's swagger really helping to set the tone. before the horton injury, the fourth line was averaging 5-7 minutes a game. after, it was a solid 10-12 minute line, which helped the bruins outlast the completely gassed canucks.

meanwhile, the canucks' fourth line was ridiculously bad and borderline unplayable: manny malhotra with one working eye, and some combination of tanner glass, oreskovich, alex bolduc, and jeff tambellini (who was elevated to the second line after raymond got injured). glass and oreskovich played about 7 minutes a game, which is flattering for them because their icetime was padded by garbage time during blowouts. in game one, bolduc, tambellini, and oreskovich got about 2 minutes each.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 01:02 PM
  #119
76ftw
24
 
76ftw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Yugoslavia
Posts: 10,764
vCash: 2307
The refs really did let the Bruins get away with a lot of **** in those playoffs.

76ftw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 01:07 PM
  #120
Siludin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,604
vCash: 500
To me, the biggest problem of all was Colin Campbell's son playing for the Bruins. Colin Campbell was the chief disciplinarian in the NHL during those finals. I've written about this before. Although they say he had an interim in place for the finals to avoid "biases", let's be honest about how this league works. After the Nathan Horton hit, his "interim" consulted with Brian Burke, an "independent" (who had also been fired by Vancouver, and who had also been fined for tampering with Vancouver's players) to determine on the suspension for Aaron Rome (out for the series). Johnny Boychuk delivered that dirty hit to Mason Raymond a couple games later but wasn't suspended at all. Dark era for NHL discipline for sure.

Siludin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 01:18 PM
  #121
GMR
Registered User
 
GMR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
They lost because the Leafs didn't beat the Bruins in the first round. Otherwise, we'd see a Canucks vs. Leafs final, where Vancouver takes it.

Riot still happens, but there's more kissing and less violence.

GMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 02:26 PM
  #122
Siludin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMR View Post
They lost because the Leafs didn't beat the Bruins in the first round. Otherwise, we'd see a Canucks vs. Leafs final, where Vancouver takes it.

Riot still happens, but there's more kissing and less violence.
Wrong year

Siludin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 02:32 PM
  #123
GarbageGoal
Clint Bobski GOAT
 
GarbageGoal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: RI
Country: United States
Posts: 18,321
vCash: 500
It's nice to know this series still gets under a lot of people's skin, obviously.

Thomas was amazing and the Canucks poked the bear. The refs let the teams play hockey and the Canucks couldn't deal with that. Any road team deserves tremendous credit for walking into another team's building in a Game 7 when they haven't won all year and beating them in almost anti-climactic fashion, yet amazingly people still act like the Bruins were somehow undeserving.

GarbageGoal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 02:37 PM
  #124
GMR
Registered User
 
GMR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siludin View Post
Wrong year
Oh yeah. That was 2013.

Then I agree with everyone else. They were too soft. Should have brought Gino Odjick and Sergio Momesso out of retirement for that series.

GMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2017, 11:51 PM
  #125
ChrisK97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarbageGoal View Post
It's nice to know this series still gets under a lot of people's skin, obviously.

Thomas was amazing and the Canucks poked the bear. The refs let the teams play hockey and the Canucks couldn't deal with that. Any road team deserves tremendous credit for walking into another team's building in a Game 7 when they haven't won all year and beating them in almost anti-climactic fashion, yet amazingly people still act like the Bruins were somehow undeserving.

I don't think they were undeserving.

I thought that the B's were playing with fire all playoffs given they played a ton of playoff games, including two game 7's in the East- which usually if you have 2 such long playoff series early, it catched up later. I mean, they flirted with game 7 disaster twice and had to come back from 0-2 deficits twice.

I thought they were gonna run out of gas, but props to them for not running out of said gas.

ChrisK97 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 04:31 AM.

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.