Quote:
Originally posted by Filo
ummmm bob. i don't know what canucs u've been folowing in the past. but the canucks have a history of starting real shitty then picking it up after the all star break.
|
i'm not sure which 3 seasons it was, (either last season and the 2 before, or every season except last season) they were always hot for the first 10-15 games... but yea, they do usually pick up after the all star break (which is pretty much when it's safe to say "too little too late"...
what will always plague the canucks is their location. they have the furthest location of an NHL team from the rest of the pack. there's been countless instances where they've had to play in new york, florida, minnesota, dallas, all over the eastern seabord, and then have a home game the day after, or 2 days after... that gives them little to no time to recouperate. and with the depletion of canadian teams, and the rise of eastern/central US teams, it's tightening their schedule more and more every season.
another stat. that the canucks have always struggled with is their 2nd period performance. it has almost NEVER been as productive as the other 2 periods... kinda like their seasonal play, they start off with a bang, get cocky/lazy and let their guard down, then panic at the last minute...
and... prior to mark crawford heading the bench for the canucks, vancouver has never had a steady lineup. general management seldomly puts any faith in their players. they give them 1/2 a season to *woo* them, and if they don't, they're cut. shipped off to pakistan to make CCM helmets. the trading scene for the canucks has gotten them nowhere in the past 5 years, but it seems to be improving. all i gotta say is... greg adams, cliff ronning, trevor linden, maybe bure (except for the whole KGB thing and his constant whining with injuries and disliking for the team), and probably a few other names not on the top of my head... were the biggest mistakes the canucks ever made when they traded those players. i'm not even gonna begin with the messier acquisition ...the canucks roster from 92-94 had great chemistry together. and then they went and flushed it all down the drain because they wanted fresh players full of life. but what good is that if you won't even keep them long enough to learn each other's names?
the past 2 seasons, or since whenever crawford assumed a permanent stay out here, the canucks have established a lineup, and strengthened it by keeping it stable. not wiping out a roster every 2 weeks. they'll do well this year, and maybe even be a cup contender in the next 2-3 years IF they stay on track with their players.
it has been proven that the NHL is a "you get what you pay for" league. new york, new jersey, dallas, detroit, and colorado have proven it. if you want the cup, you have to have the bucks to buy all the top dollar players. the fact that vancouver's GM is not the wealthiest dude in north america is why we've struggled over the past few years. we try to bring in the big names, but we can't keep them for too long or we'll go bankrupt. so you have to get rid of them, and before you know it, you've got a team full of guys who don't even know each other and can't play together... we have a pretty low budget team now, but as you can see, they've been playing together for a while now, and they've gotten to learn how to communicate almost perfectly on ice... although this may make them a better team, it's still not gonna make them the best, cuz there's always gonna be those other teams out there that can afford to keep the top players for long enough amounts of time to blend into the team and win them a cup...
ahh this is a mess...
Nov 25, 02
