After that 8-0 beat down, I knew they weren't winning the cup. Yes it still hurts but '94 hurts more because I believed all the way through game 7.
- Marwood

Really? They were a 7 seed in 94 that had some really big upsets to get to the finals. How could you believe in a Canuck team that was down 3-1 in the final and not believe in a Canuck team that was up 3-2 in a final with a better team?

I can understand it because I’m a cynical person generally but that seems backwards to me.

In ‘94 you believed they could come back from anything, and they nearly did. In ‘11 you held your breath expecting them to crumble (which the nearly did in each round), and ultimately did. Still, as Leftgemdestroyer said, ‘11 the more talented team.
- 1970vintage

Again, that’s because Canuck history has made us cynical bastards.

Really? They were a 7 seed in 94 that had some really big upsets to get to the finals. How could you believe in a Canuck team that was down 3-1 in the final and not believe in a Canuck team that was up 3-2 in a final with a better team?

I can understand it because I’m a cynical person generally but that seems backwards to me.
- bloatedmosquito

Because he’s an idiot


Joking Marpile but even after they lost games 3 & 4 I still believed they were the better team in 2011. When they won game 5 I thought there’s no way they would lose two in a row, they were injured but I believed they’d steal a game.

It was 8-1
- Pacificgem

That changes everything.

Again, that’s because Canuck history has made us cynical bastards.
- bloatedmosquito

I don’t think so. Half way through the season I was sure this was the year. They were so good. Scoring first, scoring more, holding leads etc.

But then the playoffs, losing leads, being up 3-0 on Chi and having to come back to win game 7, back and forth with Nashville, the goals from behind the goal line, bouncing in etc. it just felt wrong.

That changes everything.
- Marwood

It means they got beat by seven goals not eight

In ‘94 you believed they could come back from anything, and they nearly did. In ‘11 you held your breath expecting them to crumble (which the nearly did in each round), and ultimately did. Still, as Leftgemdestroyer said, ‘11 the more talented team.
- 1970vintage

Not disagreeing with that. As you said, the '94 team seemed heroically invincible.

Really? They were a 7 seed in 94 that had some really big upsets to get to the finals. How could you believe in a Canuck team that was down 3-1 in the final and not believe in a Canuck team that was up 3-2 in a final with a better team?

I can understand it because I’m a cynical person generally but that seems backwards to me.
- bloatedmosquito

Just how it felt to me.

I don’t think so. Half way through the season I was sure this was the year. They were so good. Scoring first, scoring more, holding leads etc.

But then the playoffs, losing leads, being up 3-0 on Chi and having to come back to win game 7, back and forth with Nashville, the goals from behind the goal line, bouncing in etc. it just felt wrong.
- 1970vintage

It means they got beat by seven goals not eight
- Pacificgem

Kind of like dying from a heart attack or a stroke.
What year did you quit junior hockey?

Kind of like dying from a heart attack or a stroke.
What year did you quit junior hockey?
- Marwood

I never quit, you can’t play junior forever, there’s age limitations.

You don't get beaten 8-0 in the SCF and go on to be the champ.When the Canucks won, they were close games when the Bruins won they humiliated the Canucks. Injuries are a horse-sh*t excuse.
- Marwood

Kesler & Burrows both had bum shoulders.
Get some facts for a change those are key players. Lui did crap the bed though.

Lots of excuses for a team that got beat down.

As pointed out earlier they scored 8 goals in 7 games. Doesn't sound too talented to me.

The whole strategy of turn the other cheek that they employed to great success during the regular season went out the window when the refs put the whistles away (as they do in the post season, not some grand conspiracy to fck the Canucks). They never adjusted.
- CubanBuffet

Just opened a ‘15 Mission Hill “Vista’s Edge” Cab Franc - part of their terroir series - above the reserve wines, single vineyard source, but not to the Oculus etc standard. High $20’s restaurant cost, maybe low $30’s. Very good, still way too young, thankfully I have one more.

I don’t think so. Half way through the season I was sure this was the year. They were so good. Scoring first, scoring more, holding leads etc.

But then the playoffs, losing leads, being up 3-0 on Chi and having to come back to win game 7, back and forth with Nashville, the goals from behind the goal line, bouncing in etc. it just felt wrong.
- 1970vintage

Sure but I wonder how much of hindsight is giving you that perspective.

The city was jacked because everyone knew this was theirs to lose and after Chi they looked unstoppable. You and Marwood must have been the only two in the entire province who thought they would choke in the finals. I think that’s one of the reasons for the riots. The shock of it was too much to comprehend for most fans.

Sure but I wonder how much of hindsight is giving you that perspective.

The city was jacked because everyone knew this was theirs to lose and after Chi they looked unstoppable. You and Marwood must have been the only two in the entire province who thought they would choke in the finals. I think that’s one of the reasons for the riots. The shock of it was too much to comprehend for most fans.
- bloatedmosquito

I kept trying to believe and something would always get in the way. By the second period of game 7 I was deflated. I didn’t even know about the riots until about 9 pm when we turned the news on. But in ‘94 I believed they could overcome the Rangers. Right until the final buzzer, then you just had to tip your hat. Also riots that year after game 6 (a win) I think?

I kept trying to believe and something would always get in the way. By the second period of game 7 I was deflated. I didn’t even know about the riots until about 9 pm when we turned the news on. But in ‘94 I believed they could overcome the Rangers. Right until the final buzzer, then you just had to tip your hat. Also riots that year after game 6 (a win) I think?
- 1970vintage

I was at game 7 and I agree, by the second intermission, we all knew it was over. But before that everyone in my section (since the Chi series) was positive we were going to see this franchise’s first cup. It was never a doubt until the second intermission of game seven. Twenty lousy minutes to rationalize the inevitable.

Just opened a ‘15 Mission Hill “Vista’s Edge” Cab Franc - part of their terroir series - above the reserve wines, single vineyard source, but not to the Oculus etc standard. High $20’s restaurant cost, maybe low $30’s. Very good, still way too young, thankfully I have one more.
- 1970vintage

I actually like young reds. I don’t think they necessarily get better as they age, just different. For sure they gain complexity, but they lose fruitiness, freshness and structure. I try and hold a few back and have a few on release.

Lots of excuses for a team that got beat down.

As pointed out earlier they scored 8 goals in 7 games. Doesn't sound too talented to me.
- VANTEL

I think it's more appropriate to classify them as reasons they lost, rather than excuses. There were quite a number of factors that prevented them from winning, even though they were the better team.

- The Canucks were unable to overcome serious injuries to many key players. Hamhuis was out, Samuelsson was out, Malhotra was out, Kesler had a torn groin and torn hip labrum, one of the Sedins (Henrik?)was playing with a broken finger, the other had a rib injury or something, Burrows was playing with a shoulder injury, Erhoff had a shoulder injury that required post-season surgery, Higgins had a broken foot, Mason Raymond had a vertebrae compression fracture in the first period of game 6, Edler broke two fingers in game 6 but played in game 7, Alberts and Salo were also playing hurt, etc. etc.

- With the exception of Nathan Horton, the Bruins had no major injuries

- A team that was built to win in the no-obstruction era and completely dominated all season, struggled to adapt when obstruction was no longer called. There was no reason to expect the rules would be changed so dramatically for the final.

- The Canucks best depth defenceman was removed from the series due to a highly questionable suspension.

- Boychuk didn't even get a 2 minute minor when he drove Mason Raymond (who did not have the puck) 15 feet into the boards and fractured his spine

- Thomas did a good job of stopping the first shot from outside and had full confidence the Canucks would never get to any rebounds.

- Luongo kept giving the Bruins momentum by letting in soft goals. He was one of their star players yet failed to make any difference in the series.

I was at game 7 and I agree, by the second intermission, we all knew it was over. But before that everyone in my section (since the Chi series) was positive we were going to see this franchise’s first cup. It was never a doubt until the second intermission of game seven. Twenty lousy minutes to rationalize the inevitable.
- bloatedmosquito

It’s just so hard to win it now, their best chances were in the 90’s or from 2000 to 2011. You could build a core through trading more so than now, it can’t still be done, Ryan O’Reilly, but it’s certainly not as prevalent. You gotta be really good on the draft floor.

I think it's more appropriate to classify them as reasons they lost, rather than excuses. There were quite a number of factors that prevented them from winning, even though they were the better team.

- The Canucks were unable to overcome serious injuries to many key players. Hamhuis was out, Samuelsson was out, Malhotra was out, Kesler had a torn groin and torn hip labrum, one of the Sedins (Henrik?)was playing with a broken finger, the other had a rib injury or something, Burrows was playing with a shoulder injury, Erhoff had a shoulder injury that required post-season surgery, Higgins had a broken foot, Mason Raymond had a vertebrae compression fracture in the first period of game 6, Edler broke two fingers in game 6 but played in game 7, Alberts and Salo were also playing hurt, etc. etc.

- With the exception of Nathan Horton, the Bruins had no major injuries

- A team that was built to win in the no-obstruction era and completely dominated all season, struggled to adapt when obstruction was no longer called. There was no reason to expect the rules would be changed so dramatically for the final.

- The Canucks best depth defenceman was removed from the series due to a highly questionable suspension.

- Boychuk didn't even get a 2 minute minor when he drove Mason Raymond (who did not have the puck) 15 feet into the boards and fractured his spine

- Thomas did a good job of stopping the first shot from outside and had full confidence the Canucks would never get to any rebounds.

- Luongo kept giving the Bruins momentum by letting in soft goals. He was one of their star players yet failed to make any difference in the series.
- YeOldTimer

I think the biggest reasons they lost are

Bruins scored 23 goals in the series Canucks scored 8

Bruind beat up Canucks , Canucks took a beat down

Boston had solid goal tending Canucks didn't

Boston adapted to playoff style Canucks didn't .

I actually like young reds. I don’t think they necessarily get better as they age, just different. For sure they gain complexity, but they lose fruitiness, freshness and structure. I try and hold a few back and have a few on release.
- CubanBuffet

I have had the great fortune to taste a lot of really great mature wines. Back to the 1940’s, great houses. I appreciate both, but I really enjoy experiencing the evolution. I think wines from newer regions like BC don’t get the credit for their ability to age, when the quality is high to begin with anyway. I think most great wines are drunk too early (it’s a financial and cultural thing), and some are left too long (The Brits mostly)

I have had the great fortune to taste a lot of really great mature wines. Back to the 1940’s, great houses. I appreciate both, but I really enjoy experiencing the evolution. I think wines from newer regions like BC don’t get the credit for their ability to age, when the quality is high to begin with anyway. I think most great wines are drunk too early (it’s a financial and cultural thing), and some are left too long (The Brits mostly)
- 1970vintage

I don’t disagree with any of that. The Okanagan is just discovering the art of making ageable wines, it’s not easy, and you have to balance that with the fact that it has to at least be drinkable on release, because the vast majority of customers are cracking it within a few days of buying it.

I think the biggest reasons they lost are

Bruins scored 23 goals in the series Canucks scored 8

Bruind beat up Canucks , Canucks took a beat down

Boston had solid goal tending Canucks didn't

Boston adapted to playoff style Canucks didn't .
- VANTEL

I think the biggest reasons they lost are

Bruins scored 23 goals in the series Canucks scored 8

Bruind beat up Canucks , Canucks took a beat down

Boston had solid goal tending Canucks didn't

Boston adapted to playoff style Canucks didn't .
- VANTEL

Bruins scoring 23 goals is a result, not a reason.

We could want the Canucks to be tougher, but they were already beaten up and severely injured before they even got to the final so it's not practical to expect them to go toe to toe with a bigger, tougher team. The only viable strategy was to beat them on the power play. But they didn't get the number of power plays they should have and certainly didn't capitalize on them when they did.

Luongo stunk. If you have to pick a single goat for the Canucks I'd say it's him more so than Aaron Rome.

It's easy to say in hindsight that the Bruins were better able to play the 'playoff style', but this was the no-obstruction era. There wasn't supposed to be two completely different sets of rules. Sure we expect it now after the Bruins were allowed to set the precedent, but at the time it was ..." WTF ?!?!?!?!?".