| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 10:16:32
The Canucks have so far registered at least a point for 17 straight games (they are 14-0-3 in that span). The last time they lost a game in regulation was Dec 5, I almost cannot remember that far back... Its been a fair while since we've seen a streak this long of this nature.
The NHL record for that sort of streak is 35 games - held by the 79/80 Flyers, who had a streak of 25-0-10, which is pretty impressive. Its early days yet - the Canucks are now half-way there - but it got me thinking about whether or not they can match it, the way they're playing it seems inconceivable that they will lose a game in regulation ever again 
Will the Canucks match or beat that record this season? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest7694 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 16:24:13
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
guest0851 - there is no hopping on the bandwagon, I've been riding this bandwagon all year long. Its a poll, nothing more. And I would hardly call 17 games with a point a "little hot streak". Who said anything about Shneider?
Apparently my Beans impression needs a bit more work. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 15:59:28
quote:
Originally posted by ryan93
haha no i hadn't seen that interview with Torts. And while they were definitely playing one last night against the Canucks, i still wouldn't say the Rangers are a true trap team.
A rash of injuries in the first half of the season has pretty well forced the Rangers to play a strong defensive system. Vinny Prospal hasn't played yet this season, Ryan Callahan has been out for a while now, Marian Gaborik missed some time, Erik Christensen is out, Alex Frolov is out for the season, Chris Drury missed the first 30 games, offensive d-man Michael Rozsival was out twice this season with injuries, etc.
I haven't seen the Rangers much either, including missing last nights game. But, having Gaborik in one of my pools, and seeing his paltry point total, they must be playing some sort of defensive system!!! |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 14:45:41
haha no i hadn't seen that interview with Torts. And while they were definitely playing one last night against the Canucks, i still wouldn't say the Rangers are a true trap team.
A rash of injuries in the first half of the season has pretty well forced the Rangers to play a strong defensive system. Vinny Prospal hasn't played yet this season, Ryan Callahan has been out for a while now, Marian Gaborik missed some time, Erik Christensen is out, Alex Frolov is out for the season, Chris Drury missed the first 30 games, offensive d-man Michael Rozsival was out twice this season with injuries, etc. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 14:43:35
I'm not about to say that Burrows has become a saint, because he hasn't. I mean, he, and even Kesler, still does do some yapping, etc but a lot of the stuff after the whistle has gone from their games. A lot, not all in case anyone wants to nitpick EXACTLY what i said!
This particular incident, assuming it's intentional which is debatable, while in the heat of the battle, steps across the line. At least it does my line! Stay away from my package is my number 1 rule, unless you're female of course! 
If i'm Staal, i'm getting revenge and i'm not talking about the slash he threw Burrows way. He likely regretted that after recieveing a penalty for it and giving the Canucks PP a chance in a close game, but i'd be remembering that for the next time i faced Burrows (and i assume that's next year?).
I'd be mildly surprised to see it garner a suspension however. I actually had to watch it a few times and even wait for the slo-mo to get a better look at it and it's hard to determine intent. Being Burrows, naturally you assume it was.
As far as Burrows being a top 6 forward, i cannot argue that. On any other team, it's unlikely he'd be on the top line and most likely on most teams 3rd line as an energy guy / checker. He's been fortunate enough to "click" with the Sedin's and it's helped his career. I don't see him getting the 35 goals he scored last year anywhere else (unless he was traded to Pittsburgh where he could possibly play on the first line i suppose, seeing as the guys Crosby plays with aren't exactly Peter Forsberg clones). I can only imagine that this was brought up during contract talks and had something to do with his salary being what a lot of people thought was a little low at 2mil.
|
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 14:14:02
OMG!!! I apologize, I went and looked up Burrows on Wikepedia and it stated that:
"The following year, he was voted in a Canadian poll as the country's greatest ball hockey player.[57]"
He wasn't being malicious, he's just a great 'ball' hockey player, I get it now!! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 14:07:51
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
I'll reply the same way the radio host did and that's to say that yes, that was a dirty thing to do, but if you've watched Burrows all year, you'd realize, unlike years past, these little incidents are few and far between.
yep, thats pretty much what I would have said. This might be the first such incident this year.
I don't even think he meant to do it - just the heat of the battle and he hit him where he should not have. It would have warranted a penalty for sure if the ref had seen it, but it wasn't malicious intent.
...uhhh, maybe I am being a bit picky, and I mean no personal offense, but, I would think anytime someone sacks someone else with a foreign object, it would HAVE to be called malicious intent, on principle alone, if for no other reason... 
What a missed opportunity!!! Avery could have challenged Burrows to a fight after that, they both could have chick-slapped each other into comas, and the game would have been improved, just like that!!!
Oh well, there's always next time, because even though you guys may think he's a 'kinder, gentler'(a reference to the other Bush, for our older posters), Burrows, there will most likely be a next time. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 14:03:33
quote:
Burrows, on the other hand, is really a marginal top 6 forward who has the huge benefit of playing most of his time with the Twins. Put Torres up there and he would do the same thing. If Burrows is not acting like a tool, he brings little else to the table.
Unfortunatly, that is not the case. There is a myth that all the sedin's need is a pylon on their line to complete it, but the reality is that very few players have actually shown real chemistry with them. Trust me, the Canucks have tried pretty much every forward on a line with the Sedin's at one point or another, however only a few have shown any real chemistry - Anson Carter, and now Burrows.
I agree that Burrows is a marginal top-6 at best, and would probably not have the same success on another team. But he has chemistry with the Sedin's when others don't, and that makes him valuable. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 12:43:28
Burrows is a dirt bag and has always been a dirt bag. Although this 'incident' is an extreme example of what he has done this season he has still been a tool, only to a lesser degree.
No rationale can explain that action. Who cares if he has been a reasonably good boy up to this point. That was careless and most importantly, premeditated. It's not like he slipped and his stick landed in Staal's junk. He knowingly did that.
A suspension should be coming for that.
On a side note, Kesler I actually agree is not the meatball he once was. I think he has realized his actual hockey skills are more than suitable enough to be an extremely effectively player without acting like a tool and he is far more dangerous of a player when he is not in the penalty box. As it sits he is on pace for 30 fewer PIM's than last year.
Burrows, on the other hand, is really a marginal top 6 forward who has the huge benefit of playing most of his time with the Twins. Put Torres up there and he would do the same thing. If Burrows is not acting like a tool, he brings little else to the table. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 11:50:18
quote:
I'll reply the same way the radio host did and that's to say that yes, that was a dirty thing to do, but if you've watched Burrows all year, you'd realize, unlike years past, these little incidents are few and far between.
yep, thats pretty much what I would have said. This might be the first such incident this year.
I don't even think he meant to do it - just the heat of the battle and he hit him where he should not have. It would have warranted a penalty for sure if the ref had seen it, but it wasn't malicious intent. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 11:17:41
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked
My only negative point if I may,
Why does Burrows have to be the crap-for-brains player that he is?
I watched the highlights this AM and saw his package re-adjuster he did to Marc Staal, and the subsequent penalty he drew from the deserved, in my opinion, retaliation that his cowardly move warranted.
I've always liked the Sedins and their uncanny intuitiveness together, I am warming to Kesler as this season continues, and then there is Burrows....ugh!
FER......funny thing, i heard a caller to the local radio station here last night, who if not for the fact he said he's a Canucks fan, i'd have thought was you or Beans, who said something very similar! I'll reply the same way the radio host did and that's to say that yes, that was a dirty thing to do, but if you've watched Burrows all year, you'd realize, unlike years past, these little incidents are few and far between. Much like Kesler, he's changed his ways (just maybe not quite as much as Kes at this point?). I didn't see the incident you speak of nor had the radio guy so i won't get into an opinion on it but if it's like you say then yes, this is the type of thing that gets him bad knocks against him. I, as a fan, hope it's more of a one off thing than him returning to his old ways but like i said, if you see him enough, you'll notice he usually avoids the post whistle scrums and such. It's clear that Kesler's not the only one that management spoke to in the offseason! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 10:19:51
Beans my friend, it's like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it? T.O. supporters just have to step in it every time. 
On to the actual topic, rather than another derailment by offended Leaf fans.
To the Canuckleheads, nicely done, You do have the team to support today. An impressive run and they look very, very good.
I am not much of a fan although I am starting to warm to the idea of them being the Canadian team to cheer for, since as has already been pointed out, my Oilers have no business even thinking of playoff hockey for a couple more years, and I couldn't agree more.
My only negative point if I may,
Why does Burrows have to be the crap-for-brains player that he is?
I watched the highlights this AM and saw his package re-adjuster he did to Marc Staal, and the subsequent penalty he drew from the deserved, in my opinion, retaliation that his cowardly move warranted.
I've always liked the Sedins and their uncanny intuitiveness together, I am warming to Kesler as this season continues, and then there is Burrows....ugh!
Oh well, I am sure you fans are fine without my support and I do honestly hope the Canucks continue their winning ways, a cup back in Western Canada anywhere, is always a good thing!
To save you the search:
Careful, it may make you cringe!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7eLPPUaL18 |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 09:47:49
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9052
"Often, in today's NHL, a team will play the overtime to 'not lose' rather than 'try to win." Hopefully that makes sense."
BEANS: I believe you have this backwards. A team might play more defensively thru O/T now to get to the shoot out if they are better in the shoot out. But the point of 4 on 4 O/T and shoot out now, is for an EXTRA point. Thus Logic tells me tat the playing to 'not lose' would only apply when there is something to lose. Like before when you didn't get any points for an O/T loss.
"And no, they won't get there anyways. I think they play Toronto so which will be a for sure loss for the Canucks. I mean, doesn't everyone know the Leafs are on their way to the Cup final?? They are a way better team than perceived. There is currently a parade in the planning stages down Younge Street. Vancouver has no chance to compete against that!!"
You are an angry hateful man. your jokes about the Leafs planning the parade route are so lame and repetitive. Are you telling me you wouldn't like to see the Oilers win 4 in a row?
To the rest of you: I despise the Canucks! more than any other team. But I Have to give them credit. They have won 2 for every one they've lost. That is incredible whether it's 2011 or 1950. Good Luck going forward.
Peace
T-RAV
Yes, I can honestly say I do not want to see the Oilers win 4 in a row. I would rather see them play 4 very competative, entertaining game and lose each of them.
They are not good enough yet. Even with the "B+" level prosects they have, they are not good enough tomorrow either. They need a true offensive centre (preferrably a large guy), they need a true shutdown defensemen, they need at least one more puck moving defensemen with an offensive focus, and they need another legitimate goalie with #1 potential.
I want them to get the #1 overall draft pick this year. So, yes, I want to see them play hard, entertain, and lose. I don't want to have a team that is a flash in the pan. I would like to see a team get built to sustain success over a longer term.
Ultimately, I do not want the Oilers to turn into the Leafs.  |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 09:25:47
quote:
Ryan, did you see Torts' comments prior to the game when asked about what they had to do to win? They showed him on the highlites here and his last quote was "we're not gonna win a game like this 1-0".
It was a good defensive game, both goalies played very well. Schneider's first regulation loss this season, and even then only one goal, he looked stellar. I think the Rangers might have blocked 50 or 60 shots on top of the ones we got on net...
I have to say though, I don't see the Rangers much, and was dissapointed that they've become a trap team! I haven't seen a good ol' trap system since the early 00 Wild. IMO it makes for some pretty boring hockey. Have they been playing the trap for long this year? |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 09:21:46
quote:
Good stats, but not what i (and Beans) were discussing. From '83/'84 - '05/'06 there was no shootout. I'm not 100% sure of this, but Beans did mention that for some time (not sure if it was the whole time i just listed up till the shootout came in?) a team losing in OT would recieve NO points?
SO, the question is, at least i think it is, what team holds the record for longest unbeaten streak from the time the OT was introduce, up until the shootout came about (when a pt was awarded for a shootout or OT loss). Again, i'm not sure, at some point the rules may have changed and awarded an OT loser a pt? Not sure, and too tired to look it up
You are correct, from 03/04 until the shootout, if a team lost in OT there was no point awarded.
The stat you're looking for will be difficult to find. Even for my stats I had to grep through individual seasons and particular teams. |
| ToXXiK1 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 08:46:28
I don't think you'll ever see that record beat. I'm starting to think it'd be a hard sell to beat the 17 straight by Van, in todays game, that's an awesone feat. Good one onya Nuckleheads!!
"Hockey is a man's game. The team with the most real men wins.” - Brian Burke |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 08:32:05
quote:
Originally posted by ryan93
What'd i tell you nux :)
Ryan, did you see Torts' comments prior to the game when asked about what they had to do to win? They showed him on the highlites here and his last quote was "we're not gonna win a game like this 1-0".
Little did he know...... |
| Guest9052 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 05:54:07
"Often, in today's NHL, a team will play the overtime to 'not lose' rather than 'try to win." Hopefully that makes sense."
BEANS: I believe you have this backwards. A team might play more defensively thru O/T now to get to the shoot out if they are better in the shoot out. But the point of 4 on 4 O/T and shoot out now, is for an EXTRA point. Thus Logic tells me tat the playing to 'not lose' would only apply when there is something to lose. Like before when you didn't get any points for an O/T loss.
"And no, they won't get there anyways. I think they play Toronto so which will be a for sure loss for the Canucks. I mean, doesn't everyone know the Leafs are on their way to the Cup final?? They are a way better team than perceived. There is currently a parade in the planning stages down Younge Street. Vancouver has no chance to compete against that!!"
You are an angry hateful man. your jokes about the Leafs planning the parade route are so lame and repetitive. Are you telling me you wouldn't like to see the Oilers win 4 in a row?
To the rest of you: I despise the Canucks! more than any other team. But I Have to give them credit. They have won 2 for every one they've lost. That is incredible whether it's 2011 or 1950. Good Luck going forward.
Peace
T-RAV |
| Guest6816 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 05:41:43
To bad they lost last night I am a huge NUX fan. |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 01/14/2011 : 04:37:48
Yes prior to the lockout the losing team in OT still was awarded a point...i can't remember what year the OTL stat came into affect though.
What'd i tell you nux :) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 23:44:55
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Does anyone know who had the longest streak of gain a point in a game from 83/84 until the shoot out was introduced???
I believe it would have to be the 05/06 Red Wings. Between March 9 and April 17 of 2006, they had a 20 game stretch where they were 17-0-3. Other notables:
- 2008/09 Sharks, who went 12-0-3 Nov 11 thru Dec 17
- 2006/07 Sabres, who started that season 11-0-1.
- 2007/08 Red Wings, 10-0-2 from Nov 24 thru Dec 19
- 2008/09 Bruins, who went 10-0-0 from Nov 1 thru 22
I think the Canucks will be second place in that regard, since the lockout at 14-0-3. Not bad company
Good stats, but not what i (and Beans) were discussing. From '83/'84 - '05/'06 there was no shootout. I'm not 100% sure of this, but Beans did mention that for some time (not sure if it was the whole time i just listed up till the shootout came in?) a team losing in OT would recieve NO points?
SO, the question is, at least i think it is, what team holds the record for longest unbeaten streak from the time the OT was introduce, up until the shootout came about (when a pt was awarded for a shootout or OT loss). Again, i'm not sure, at some point the rules may have changed and awarded an OT loser a pt? Not sure, and too tired to look it up..... |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 20:24:28
well, if the Canucks manage to get points in 17 out of every 18 games, I think we'll have to construct a permanent parade route soon  |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 20:00:59
Does this mean that the parade route is cancelled, or just postponed?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 19:03:02
quote:
nuxfan, i'm not putting tonights blame on you.....unless they spiral into a ten game losing streak!
Perhaps I'll start a thread - then it definitely won't happen.
Beans - even I can't make the Oil win the cup... |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 19:01:52
quote:
Does anyone know who had the longest streak of gain a point in a game from 83/84 until the shoot out was introduced???
I believe it would have to be the 05/06 Red Wings. Between March 9 and April 17 of 2006, they had a 20 game stretch where they were 17-0-3. Other notables:
- 2008/09 Sharks, who went 12-0-3 Nov 11 thru Dec 17
- 2006/07 Sabres, who started that season 11-0-1.
- 2007/08 Red Wings, 10-0-2 from Nov 24 thru Dec 19
- 2008/09 Bruins, who went 10-0-0 from Nov 1 thru 22
I think the Canucks will be second place in that regard, since the lockout at 14-0-3. Not bad company |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 18:57:25
17 straight wins is awesome, but that prob include OT and shootouts, no? I'd be really interested in that time where no points were awarded for OT losses!
nuxfan, i'm not putting tonights blame on you.....unless they spiral into a ten game losing streak! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 18:55:12
It's a difficult stat to find.
I did find that in 92-93 the Penguins went 18 games (17 wins and one tie) for the longest undefeated streak in history. The 17 wins were also consecutive for the longest winning streak in history.
Can't seem to find the longest streak of gaining at least one point since the OT system started.
But it is irrelevant, the Canucks were shutout by the Rangers. Speaking of the Rangers, now there is a team(along with Dallas and Atlanta) who are better than expected.
Hey Nuxfan, would you mind creating a thread about the Oilers winning the Stanley Cup??? Just sayin. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 18:38:49
from nuxfan only this afternoon:
quote:
ha! now that i've posted this poll, it would not surprise me to see them lose tonight...
call me kreskin...  |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 18:01:09
That'd be an interesting number to know considering OT losers got nothing! Anything around 12+ straight games would be pretty impressive.
BTW, so far Lundqvist is shutting the Canucks out 1-0 with approx 14mins left in the 3rd (and Wolski with the only goal). |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 17:48:31
Alex, the NHL didn't have overtime until the 83/84 season so you are correct. The two teams tied at the end of the game in 79/80 would each get a point. That, I did not know. I thought the NHL had the 5 minute overtime in the 70's. For all those people who don't think I ever think I am wrong, this one is for you.
I was wrong.
That being said, since the 83/84 until the shootout was introduced the losing team in overtime got zero points. Technically, a team today could lose 35 consecutive games in overtime or a shootout and tie the record. Huge difference. But the point is moot as when the Flyers gained that record there was no overtime.
Does anyone know who had the longest streak of gain a point in a game from 83/84 until the shoot out was introduced??? |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 17:29:46
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0851
See this is why people like me have a right to criticize people like you. As soon as the (enter any Canadian team name here except the Oilers) get on a small hot streak, everyone immediately jumps on the bandwagon.
Anyone?
You serious? Not only are we regular Canucks fans on this site NOT bandwagoners, i don't see how you can even say this from what nuxfan posted as this poll? Too bad it wasn't a neutral fan who posted it i suppose? Bandwagon? Lol.....
Beans, correct me if i'm wrong, but in 79/80, there was no OT nor shootouts. So, when Philly set their record, they got a point for any game which was tied at the end of regulation, same as the Canucks today, no? In reality, this is not an "unbeaten" streak. There's already been i believe at least 3 games in this streak that they lost in either a shootout, or OT. These, in another thread, are clearly "losses" to you. So, i disagree that the strike wouldn't be as impressive or have an asterik beside it or anything like that because if the rules were the same as in 79/80, those "losses" would be ties like the Flyers got.
Slozo, i think the parade route's already been planned. The maps from a few years back are still out there. Pretty sure the route is still the same. |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 17:04:35
There goes another Canuck fan, planning the parade route . . . when will you get it through your heads that the Stanley Cup isn't won in January?!?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 16:11:11
guest0851 - there is no hopping on the bandwagon, I've been riding this bandwagon all year long. Its a poll, nothing more. And I would hardly call 17 games with a point a "little hot streak". Who said anything about Shneider?
Beans - yes, I too worry about the little teams more than the big ones, the Canucks have a way of losing when you least expect it. Our last loss was to STL on Dec 5, go figure. It would not surprise me in the least if we lost this streak to someone like EDM or CAL. |
| Mario 66 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 15:59:15
Lol Beans and we begin another riot in another thread. Soon every thread will be dominated by leaf lovers & bashers. I think this has as much chance of happening as did crosby catching gretzky earlier in the season. It is great story to talk about and almost a quater of the season straight registering points in very impressive beyond that the countdown to when they lose in regulation is on.
Lemieux owns Gretzky |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 15:50:01
I think even if the Canucks get some kind of record it will not match any previous record. Reason being is the shoot out. Even if a team does not make it to the shoot out, the change in the game has changed the way OT is played.
Often, in today's NHL, a team will play the overtime to 'not lose' rather than 'try to win." Hopefully that makes sense.
So even if Vancouver does break the record, it's like a wind-aided 100 m dash. It's record, but not nearly as impressive.
And no, they won't get there anyways. I think they play Toronto so which will be a for sure loss for the Canucks. I mean, doesn't everyone know the Leafs are on their way to the Cup final?? They are a way better team than perceived. There is currently a parade in the planning stages down Younge Street. Vancouver has no chance to compete against that!! |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 13:50:06
I think the Canucks are on a bit more than a "little hot streak". 17 games is better than 1/5th of the season, approaching 1/4. And through 42 games they are 1st in the entire NHL, still only 8 regulation losses! |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 13:44:43
That always seems to be the way, huh! In all seriousness though, no i can't imagine the Canucks (or any team for that matter) being able to match the 35 game streak the Flyers put together.
17 games with a point is very impressive though, especially with the parity there is in the game today. I'd like to see them keep the streak going for now, so here's hoping for a Rangers win tonight in OT or a shootout!! |
| Guest0851 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 13:41:17
See this is why people like me have a right to criticize people like you. As soon as the (enter any Canadian team name here except the Oilers) get on a small hot streak, everyone immediately jumps on the bandwagon. As soon as the leafs start winning people think they might have a chance at a decent season - utterly outrageous. And when Cory Schneider plays well you Canucks fans think that he should start two games in a row. Unbelievable. My s*** smells like roses.
Anyone?
But seriously no. It would be fun to see as breakin records always is, but that's just so many games. Not saying they dont have a shot but it's unlikely. By the way when your pitcher is throwing a no hitter, you aren't supposed to say anything about it. I'm not overly superstitious but just saying. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 12:23:52
I voted yes just to be the optimist. I agree that this would be difficult, but they don't have to win every game, just get a point - in fact they could lose every game so long as it went to OT. It would be awesome to do this - esp considering I have tix to the DAL game in Feb where they wouldbreak the record :-) |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 12:02:32
ha! now that i've posted this poll, it would not surprise me to see them lose tonight... |
| ryan93 |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 11:38:57
I answered no...they are losing tonight nux |
|
|
