Reality Check for "Team of Destiny"
by javaball on May 15, 2009 1:59 AM PDT
18 comments
After days of feeling sad, angry and depressed about the Canucks' 2nd round playoff exit, which is like a nightmare that you wish you would wake up from, I finally came to my senses today,
The epiphany came to me when I was watching Red Wings coach Mike Babcock's press conference after their Game 7 win over the Ducks. "People that have won know what it takes to win. They don't give in, they just keep coming. ...There're lots of teams that are home for the playoffs, they think they are close, but they don't know. Because until you measure players at this time of the year, you don't know if you are close at all."
During their end-of-season press conference, Mike Gillis said that the Canucks should have won the series and Vigneault said he felt the Canucks were the 'team of desitny". If only they had had a few breaks, they would have won.
No, not even close, gentlemen. As hard as it is to swallow, the Canucks do not yet have what it takes to win the Stanley Cup. Many of their weaknesses have been exposed in the playoffs. There is nowhere to hide. Everything is magnified. Their lack of discipline, lack of speed, skill and scoring touch, and more importantly, their lack of composure and determination at the most crucial times.
No doubt the Canucks are a good team, but they'll have to be much better to win the Cup. I'd even venture to say that if the core players remain the same next year, they won't get further into the playoffs.
2 recs |
18 comments
Email
Print
Comments
One thing I think is total bullshit
is the idea that you need to win before you can “know what it takes to win”. Exhibit A: the Blackhawks. Babcock was trying to cover for the fact that his squad came perilously close to losing to an eight-seed. Pssst Mike I have a secret for you: your team has more talent, and that’s the biggest reason you won.
Really, everybody knows what it takes to win: scoring more goals than your opponent. I know everybody likes to think the playoffs are some mystical purer form of uberhockey, but they’re still the exact same rules. Maybe there’s more hitting and louder crowds.
The big difference between the regular and post seasons is that in these short series, luck becomes a much bigger factor. I mean, the goal that ultimately sent the canucks home was a deflection off Edler. Bad breaks are very real, and with such little margin for error in a best-of-seven, they can play a huge part.
Did the Canucks show a lack of discipline against the Blackhawks? Maybe a little. But the nucks took more penalties than the hawks in only three of the six games, so it’s not like that was a pandemic.
Speed, skill, and scoring? The nucks put up 19 goals in six games against a good, veteran goalie and talented defense. Not too shabby.
Determination? Did you not see them fight back from a 3-1 deficit in game six? (Personally, I think every team in the playoffs is just about as determined as all the others. Seriously, these guys work all year to get to here—there’s so much pride involved I have a hard time believing any of them are significantly more or less determined to get that trophy.) I don’t see how you can declare a lack of determination without being on the bench and in the dressing room.
One thing you’re right about is that the Canucks lacked composure in game 6. This was mostly among the defensemen; there were a few plays they could have made that woulda changed the outcome of the game. But it’s a huge logical jump from “they weren’t composed” to “they aren’t composed”. What evidence do you have that lack of composure is a chronic problem among the Canucks? One game does not define a group of players.
Will the Canucks win the Cup next year? Probably not—teams, as a rule, don’t win the Cup. Could Gillis improve the roster a bit? Sure. But the “core” that the Canucks have is really really good. They just happened to lose to another really really good team. We’re going to need to see a lot more evidence before we declare the Canucks a team of weak-willed, anxious, untalented losers, as opposed to a team that—like 28 other teams—happened to lose.
by passive_voice on May 15, 2009 9:44 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Penalties: The Canucks were the second most penalized team in the playoffs, and the third in the regular season. The players knew it was a big problem, but they just couldn’t help themselves. They often took penalties out of desperation, to make up for their lack of speed and skill, e.g., the hooking penalty to Mitchell in Game 6.
Determination: The Canucks generated some rush down 3-1 in Game 6. It was more desperation than determination. They scored first and had the lead in all but one game in the series, but the Hawks scored the last goal in all games and won 4 out of 6. How do you explain that?
Composure: Time and again, the Hawks score 2 or 3 goals against the Canucks in a matter of minutes. It would not have happened if the Canucks had kept their composure. In Game 4, after the Hawks scored on Mitchell’s giveaway with 2 minutes left, it only took them another 2 minutes to score the winning goal in OT. You could see it coming.
In the battle of the strong, victory goes to the brave.
by javaball on May 15, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
penalties: yeah, the canucks were heavily penalized throughout the regular season (hey look! a division championship banner!) and the playoffs. But in the series they lost, it’s not like there was a huge difference between Canucks and Hawks penalties—the canucks took 35 minors, the hawks 33. a few of the nucks penalties were that obnoxious puck-over-glass rule. also, the penalties that truly did the canucks in (in game 6) were by and large pretty fucking weak.
determination: you wanna explain to me just what the difference is between “determination” and “desperation”. isn’t desperation basically being determined not to lose? convince me there’s a distinction.
composure: totally agree, the canucks didn’t look terribly composed. but my point is that there’s a big difference between “were not composed over the course of like 2 games” and “are not and will never be composed, and can be counted on to fuck everything up evermore”.
by passive_voice on May 15, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They scored first and had the lead in all but one game in the series, but the Hawks scored the last goal in all games and won 4 out of 6. How do you explain that?
Some combination of the hawks being talented, the canucks defense having a bad game or two, and coincidence. what does it matter if you give up the last goal if you win anyway? One thing I’m pretty sure of is that it wasn’t a result of like Kesler or Mitchell sitting on the bench saying “well boys, we’ve got a 2-0 lead. let’s stop playing hard.”
by passive_voice on May 15, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Penalties: Weak calls and no-calls happen to all teams. The bottom line is the Canucks took too many penalties in both the 1st and 2nd round, their PK players were worn out and it cost them in the end.
Composure: The Canucks tend to lose composure when the opposing team generates a rush and crashes the net. It is not just against the Blackhawks. In game 4 against the Blues, they blew 2-goal lead in the second period and if the Blues 3rd goal had not been disallowed (talking about controversial calls), the Blues would have won that game.
Determination: The Canucks overcame many adversities to even make it to the playoffs. They have shown a lot of heart and character. There is no doubt about that. That’s what made me a Canucks fan. But, it’s also why their 2nd round loss feels like such a tragedy. The Canucks beat the Hawks in their last two games in the regular season, outscoring them 11-3. And yet in the playoffs, when it mattered the most, the team as a whole failed to come through.
In the battle of the strong, victory goes to the brave.
by javaball on May 15, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the penalty-killer fatigue thing is a good point, although they did have that, what, 9-day break between series?
and i totally agree that the canucks weren’t composed. i just have a hard time believing that the nucks are a nervous wreck of a team, and if they actually do have troubles holding leads, isn’t that more on the coach than on the core players?
as for “coming through when it counts”—it was two games. if the islanders played the wings 20 times, they’d probably win two games in a row somewhere in there. or if you flip a coin 20 times, you’ll probably get consecutive tails at least once. over the course of two games, especially between similarly talented teams, shit happens—sometimes the coin comes up tails, and sometimes good teams just lose.
by passive_voice on May 15, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The D looked like a bunch of nervous wrecks in their own zone a lot of the time, IMO
by Sean Zandberg on May 15, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said it after game 1that blowing a 3-goal lead to the Hawks was not a smart move, even though the Canucks won that game. In the Hawks minds I think they believed 100% that they could overcome any lead after that. Perhaps the Canucks lost some confidence in their ability to hold leads for the remainder of the series. That is what it looked like to me.
by Sean Zandberg on May 15, 2009 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I think composure is a big deal. The Hawks showed that. I don’t think it’s something you can teach. It doesn’t come from the coach, not from the GM, it just comes from the core of that group.
What “it” is, look at the final four. Hawks have that “we don’t belong here” coupled with just raw skill to create their “it”. I think Carolina is somewhat similar. Detroit and Pittsburgh have the best of both words: they know they belong their because they have superior talent.
Vancouver will never be a Detroit or Pittsburgh (well, ok maybe they can be the latter if they go through a few years of sucking). But they need to find that “it” for themselves otherwise they’ll never punch through.
Gillis, above all us, really does need to stick to his character them like he did with Hodgson. That will create a good framework.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on May 15, 2009 11:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
*best of both worlds…
ugh, fucking Fridays…
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on May 15, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah composure's a big deal
but i’m not sure one series—really, just a few games in one series—shows an endemic lack of composure.
the point i was trying to make was that the nature of the playoffs is such that you only have a few games’ worth of evidence to judge, because if you lose you stop playing. it’s true that against the hawks the canucks weren’t very good, they weren’t very composed, etc. but i think it’s a huge leap in logic to go from “weren’t” (over a small, small sample size) to “aren’t” (that is, “will never be”).
what i saw in the hawks-nucks series was essentially this:
two good teams split the first four games of a series, leaving essentially a best-of-three. the hawks played better than the canucks over the final two games, and so they won.
i just don’t see how you can look at that situation and say “team’s gotta get blown up”.
by passive_voice on May 15, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t blow the team up over it. Just add some more character guys. Then again, the team could get blown up due to cap or UFA reasons anyway.
by Sean Zandberg on May 15, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the Hawks defense hadn’t made the mistake in the first game, they would most likely have won the series 4-1. So it’s not simply a best-of-three series loss. The Canucks lost composure and confidence because the Hawks simply outskated, outplayed and perhaps outcoached them. The Hawks are learning and getting better as the games/series continue, but the Canucks are getting worse.
The Canucks are a good team, and they can perhaps make the playoffs next year with the current core. But, if the measure of success is winning the Cup, as Mike Gillis stated, then he should consider rebuild, IMO, simply because the current team is not going to get there.
In the battle of the strong, victory goes to the brave.
by javaball on May 16, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree. The current core can get us there. Just don’t include Ohlund or Bieksa in that core, haha. Actually I’m being serious. We fell apart in our own zone too much.
by Sean Zandberg on May 16, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was quite unhappy with Mitchell’s performance in the playoffs, both on and off the ice. Taking penalties and making mistakes at the worst possible times, leading to the opposing team’s goals. And why was he running his mouth about Kane? It was almost poetic justice that Kane beat him and scored the tying-goal on the wrap-around in Game 6.
Mitchell is considered one of the core players, but I can’t say I have confidence in him getting the job done. And if you leave out Ohlund and Bieksa, the defense core is already half gone. So again, I say it is time to rebuild.
In the battle of the strong, victory goes to the brave.
by javaball on May 16, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok but Bieksa may not be traded. Then it’s Beesuk, Edler, Salo, Mitchell, maybe OB for starters. Not bad. Mitchell isn’t going anywhere.
Just add another top 4 and bango. I disagree on the rebuild if you mean “start over”.
I hope Mitchell learned his lesson. He’s better than that and was a rock all season long until…
by Sean Zandberg on May 16, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree on mitchell being bad on the ice and really stupid off it; hopefully he can keep his mouth shut in the future and focus on shutting guys down, which he’s very capable of.
i won’t be too upset to see matty o walk (and if somebody’ll take sami off our hands, i’d be down for that as well). i definitely would like to see our blueline get faster (and meaner).
but i just don’t see how you can look at a team whose best players are all 32-and-under, that tore up the last third of the season, and that won six playoff games, and think “gotta rebuild”.
until luongo signs on the dotted line in montreal in july 2010, we’ve gotta be in win-now mode.
by passive_voice on May 16, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow The Misconduct
 |
 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
