Dispelling myths

It is a presumed axiom that the Vancouver Canucks are ‘nothing’ without goaltender Roberto Luongo.

(Believe me, listening to Toronto sports radio and being exposed to the Toronto media writ large, most of whom never actually watch the Canucks, is testament to this. The familiar refrain is that the Canucks are only competitive because of Luongo; that they are, essentially, a one man team.)

I think this is a preposterous assertion, for a number of reasons.

1. Even if you want to entertain the ‘one man team’ nonsense, in the post-lockout NHL most teams are dependent on one or two highly-paid ‘star’ players. In this sense, similar sentiments can be expressed about many teams. Where are the Penguins without Crosby? Where are the Sharks without Thornton? Where are the Lightning without Lecavellier?

The only difference, perhaps, is that a goalie, unlike a position player, has arguably more of an ability to single-handedly prevent losses and garner wins. Be that as it may, however, this does not make the Canucks a ‘bad team’ because they have such a goalie. The fact they chose to invest $6.75 million per year in Luongo does not mean the rest of the team, as a matter of course, ‘sucks’.

2. One can easily identify, if s/he cares to actually watch the Canucks, a number of gifted players on the team.

The Sedin brothers, for instance. As much as many people would like to think they are one person, we are talking about two players, both of whom contributed around 80 points last year and are on pace to do it again. They also have a remarkable ability to dominate shifts when they are on their game. (Take a moment next time you watch the Canucks and try to account for how much time the Sedins spend in their own end of the rink.)

Also, a resurgent Markus Naslund. Now that Naslund has thankfully rediscovered his scoring touch, he is a potent offensive contributor, on any team in this league.

Finally, the Canucks have among the strongest defensive corps in the NHL. Find me a team that would not want and could not use the likes of Willie Mitchell, Sami Salo, Lukas Krajicek, Alex Edler, or Mattias Ohlund.

Say what you like about the greatness of Luongo (I certainly do) but do not lose sight of the fact the rest of the Canucks should not be taken lightly.

3. An example of 2, is the Canucks’ play in the absence of Luongo. To be sure, back-up Curtis Sanford has only started in three games. But, he is 3-0.

4. The Canucks are the 7th highest scoring team in the Western Conference. Not exactly the 1980s Edmonton Oilers, I admit, but not exactly a team that, beyond the goalie, is a bunch of plumbers and jobbers filling up ice-time. Make no mistake, this is a team that is much-improved offensively since last year.

Strangely, the team is comprised of roughly the same players. The difference? As any Canucks fan would tell you last year, the only reason the Canucks were such a low-scoring team was because of the inexplicable absence of offence from Markus Naslund and Brendan Morrison.

With both of these players reasonably back on track offensively, the Canucks are right where they should be. A team back-stopped by one of the best (if not the best) goalies in the league and can score enough to make the opposition have to be very good to win on any given night.

Perhaps the naysayers might want to pay more attention to the games, rather than joining in with the kind of cursory analysis of this team that suggests nothing more than ignorance.


11 Responses to “Dispelling myths”

  1. 1 Anonymous December 7, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Wow, two lengthy and thought-out blog posts in one day (here and on Pearls). Our tax dollars at work, hey?! 😉

    (ps – I am, of course, just giving you a hard time)

  2. 2 Paul December 7, 2007 at 1:28 pm

    I agree with what you are saying. I would say that the Canucks line up on par with the Avalanche, Wild, this years edition of the Blues, Dallas, Nashville and maybe San Jose without Roberto Luongo.

    As last night proved, they are a good team, just Luongo brings them to the elite level. I can live with that.

  3. 3 Emmett Macfarlane December 7, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    I agree people can fall into a trap when they make the Canucks are only good because of Luongo argument. But he does change their potential playoff chances from a probable first round exit to a likely contender for at least the conference final.

    If they only had an “average” goalie between the pipes, this team would never have a legit shot at winning the Cup. Much like, dare I say, the 1986 or 1993 Montreal Canadiens…

  4. 4 RJ December 7, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Yeah, but Emmett, that proposition is precisely what rankles me.

    Why, for instance, do people not then say, similarly, that San Jose without Thornton, Pittsburgh without Crosby, Philly without Briere, Minnesota without Gaborik, Colorado without Sakic, Carolina without Staal, New Jersey without Brodeur, etc., are not very good or, at least, only average teams?

    The argument that X team without Y player is a much diminished team is patently obvious in terms of its application to *most* teams. So, then, what’s the point of making it?

    The only people satisfied–or, perhaps, that should be satisfied–with that type of simplistic, inane analysis are knuckleheads like Nick Kypreos.

  5. 5 Emmett Macfarlane December 7, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    First, I think a lot of people DO say New Jersey would not be good without Brodeur, or Pittsburgh without Crosby…

    But I think there is a difference between saying a team is no good without a single player, versus pointing out that playoff chances depend on good goaltending. Luongo is a great goalie, and he gives the Canucks a legit shot at a Cup. Just as Pittsburgh will never go far in the playoffs with Fleury.

    I wouldn’t go as far to say the Canucks are a bad team minus Luongo. But I don’t see how you can disagree with the playoff component of the argument, particularly as it relates to goaltending.

  6. 6 Paul December 11, 2007 at 3:56 am

    Dan Murphy said it better.

  7. 7 RJ December 11, 2007 at 11:33 am

    Haha, doesn’t it appear eerily similar?

  8. 8 Paul December 12, 2007 at 10:32 pm


    Awesome, have a look. Brings back memories of me going to hockey games.

  9. 9 ceiling fan with light kit June 4, 2013 at 4:38 am

    There may be a simpler solution than installing central heating and air.
    Wobbling and vibrating place significant stress on many parts of the fan and
    will ultimately shorten its life. Also check the minimum clearance from the
    mounting point to the closest wall surface.

  1. 1 I Hart Luongo « The Vancouver Viewpoint Trackback on January 4, 2008 at 12:37 pm
  2. 2 I Hart Luongo at citylimits.ca Trackback on January 4, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: