When can the 2023 team be considered legit?

[DownUndaCanuck]

I think when we beat some of the top teams. I know we've looked good but have we even beaten a top-5 or top-10 team yet? We're racking up points against lower half teams and looked good for sure, but we'll be considered a real threat when we beat those decent playoff teams. I'm not counting Edmonton because they've played like garbage against everyone.

[Diamonds]

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I think when we beat some of the top teams. I know we've looked good but have we even beaten a top-5 or top-10 team yet? We're racking up points against lower half teams and looked good for sure, but we'll be considered a real threat when we beat those decent playoff teams. I'm not counting Edmonton because they've played like garbage against everyone.

Florida is arguably a top-5 (or at least top-10) team we beat, but they're having a slow start to the season and were without 2 of their top 3 defensemen.

[IBatch]

16 hours ago, -AJ- said:

If we're at .600 or higher on Jan 1, I'll start to believe we have a shot, but even that isn't much of a cushion. You need to be a good team to make the playoffs in today's NHL. No more 40 loss teams in the playoffs like the 80s.

That's a little odd thinking though.   The league was smaller.  So of course teams below .500 even, we're going to get a round in.   Maybe two.    And there is a much smaller gap today, between a good team and a "contender".    Look at MTL a few years ago.   NYI a making it to the final four a couple times recently.   St. louis finally winning a cup.   Sure there were also bad teams, but was WNP really that bad?  Or Vancouver even.   Now points are scewed as well.  3 x 3 OT, loser points etc.    90 points used to mean a good team.  Like 100 is today.
 

Nobody new what the other was making in the 80's either, so it's not like teams could load up.   That didn't start until after salary disclosure.   Weaker markets had a chance with the lotto as well.    Now they don't.   32 teams versus 21.   It's simple math.  Now teams use AHL players to balance their books.    Imagine if the fourth line was fired, and 11 teams were given the boot.    Expansion really did a number on the NHL's quality.   Scouring Europe helped bridge that for awhile.    But they even went past that.  24 teams would have been ideal.   It's taken decades to get back to where things used to be.   Believe it or not.   17 year vet Gartner's speed record (imagine what he could do at 23-24!) took McDavid to beat .. and well a dozen NHLers also did a 13.5 second lap during the event or in the qualifier (they used to make them qualify for fastest skater) including Hedican.   Take the redline out.   The 2000's were simply bad.  
 

1981 was actually the high water mark too, for scoring.   The 70's also get forgotten.   Bringing the WHA best back into the league, plus the guys just starting out made for a special decade.    The 90's stars had a hard time or couldn't keep up with them, and well the 90's stars owned the 2000's record books.    

 

[Huggy Bear]

17 hours ago, WHL rocks said:

After the quarter mark of the season. So after 20 games if we're top 3 in our division we're legit. 

 

Plus if we can get rid of Garland's contract and get another top 4 RHD. That would be a big step in the right direction.

 

Another top 4 RHD would significantly raise the  expectations for this team. 

Agree. Another legit top 4D is key. Garland or Beau are likely traded to make space first.
 

If we can’t find a top 4D that fits the age of our core, then target a vet like Tanev.

 

Bear and/or Kessel for depth would also help

Edited November 1, 2023 by Huggy Bear

[Heretic]

It's a process...

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Heretic said:

It's a process...

 

Are we a good team over there?

 

[Jess]

32 minutes ago, IBatch said:

That's a little odd thinking though.   The league was smaller.  So of course teams below .500 even, we're going to get a round in.   Maybe two.    And there is a much smaller gap today, between a good team and a "contender".    Look at MTL a few years ago.   NYI a making it to the final four a couple times recently.   St. louis finally winning a cup.   Sure there were also bad teams, but was WNP really that bad?  Or Vancouver even.   Now points are scewed as well.  3 x 3 OT, loser points etc.    90 points used to mean a good team.  Like 100 is today.
 

Nobody new what the other was making in the 80's either, so it's not like teams could load up.   That didn't start until after salary disclosure.   Weaker markets had a chance with the lotto as well.    Now they don't.   32 teams versus 21.   It's simple math.  Now teams use AHL players to balance their books.    Imagine if the fourth line was fired, and 11 teams were given the boot.    Expansion really did a number on the NHL's quality.   Scouring Europe helped bridge that for awhile.    But they even went past that.  24 teams would have been ideal.   It's taken decades to get back to where things used to be.   Believe it or not.   17 year vet Gartner's speed record (imagine what he could do at 23-24!) took McDavid to beat .. and well a dozen NHLers also did a 13.5 second lap during the event or in the qualifier (they used to make them qualify for fastest skater) including Hedican.   Take the redline out.   The 2000's were simply bad.  
 

1981 was actually the high water mark too, for scoring.   The 70's also get forgotten.   Bringing the WHA best back into the league, plus the guys just starting out made for a special decade.    The 90's stars had a hard time or couldn't keep up with them, and well the 90's stars owned the 2000's record books.    

 

 

Of course it's because the league was smaller, but it's still the reality that 16 of 21 teams made it and 16th of 21 teams was the 24th percentile. Equivalent placement in a 32-team league would be 24th place. It's definitely far harder to make the playoffs in today's NHL. The gap is much tighter and the bar is much higher. Imagine if only 11 or 12 teams made the playoffs in the 80s. That would be the equivalent.

[Jess]

7 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I think when we beat some of the top teams. I know we've looked good but have we even beaten a top-5 or top-10 team yet? We're racking up points against lower half teams and looked good for sure, but we'll be considered a real threat when we beat those decent playoff teams. I'm not counting Edmonton because they've played like garbage against everyone.

 

Yeah, it's really good that we're beating bottom feeding teams and even mid-tier teams. Even if we lose to top-end teams, that suggests that we might be a 10-15 or so ranked team in the NHL. Some bigger tests akin to the Rangers coming up soon: The Stars this Sat on Nov 4 and the Leafs in Toronto next Sat on Nov 11.

[DownUndaCanuck]

14 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

 

Yeah, it's really good that we're beating bottom feeding teams and even mid-tier teams. Even if we lose to top-end teams, that suggests that we might be a 10-15 or so ranked team in the NHL. Some bigger tests akin to the Rangers coming up soon: The Stars this Sat on Nov 4 and the Leafs in Toronto next Sat on Nov 11.

 

Dallas game is bigger than it seems, we need to prove we can contend in our own division. An OTL to the Rangers at the end of a back to back with bad refereeing isn't great but I take that as a win almost. A win against an injured Panthers team is meh. Beating up the dreadful Oilers doesn't count. Dallas are a good Western conference playoff team and we have to prove we can roll with their 4 lines. The Leafs aren't too important but a nice measuring stick, we won't see them in the playoffs. We've got to start circling all the Vegas games though and even the Kings and maybe Kraken games too.

[OldFaithfulcap]

Waiting for them to fail is doing well for everyone.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

 

Of course it's because the league was smaller, but it's still the reality that 16 of 21 teams made it and 16th of 21 teams was the 24th percentile. Equivalent placement in a 32-team league would be 24th place. It's definitely far harder to make the playoffs in today's NHL. The gap is much tighter and the bar is much higher. Imagine if only 11 or 12 teams made the playoffs in the 80s. That would be the equivalent.

You bet.  Difference is things weren't that simple either back then.   WHA just added four teams to the fold (and folded), the Flyers hockey was still around but also disbanded, and the next crop of guys coming up behind Lafleur, Clark, Potvin, Dionne (who was actually amazing from start to finish) was a class worthy of supplanting them.   I'm actually for the play-ins coming back.   Because I don't like a league as much that has to wait 5-11 years during their down cycles, and fans to see a playoff game.   It wasn't like that for me, and absolutely appreciated that.   We got spoiled going from the Linden era, to WCE era to Sedin era with not much between (although the Keenan era was and is still the darkest chapter ... would be like blowing up the Sedin team after we traded for Luongo really).   AJ your an awesome poster so don't want to get into it with you at all, just saying maybe consider that those teams that weren't so good, that made the playoffs, also did something like MTL just did as the 21st  play-in.   Because they did.   There also really bad teams (NJ).   Just like SJ is right now.    For me anyways, parity wasn't a thing that was ever mentioned back then so also get that.   The "contenders" today,  can't load up the same way.    The middle part extends well past 15-16 though.    That's been evident since the mid-late 2000's, right through to today.    St. Louis actually had better teams on paper then the one that won a cup.   Twice that I re-call.    Parity is a thing.   And it's for sure cap related.   We haven't had a rivalry like  DET-COL since the cap came in either.

 

Of course it's far harder.   We are saying the same thing.    But to suggest that some of those teams who had 40 losses weren't good teams (maybe I misunderstood) is just as silly as to say St. Louis wasn't a good team either.   Or our 94 team for that matter.   Of course they were both good.     Think the league would make more money, and be better served with a system where 2/3 made the show.   Make for a lot of surprising storylines.   Just like in the 80's.   And fans won't have to wait until they are in their late teens or early 20's to actually watch a couple home games either. 

[kilgore]

Legit or Legit

 

Legit as in this season? ie. making the playoffs. And maybe even winning a round?  A 23/24 top performing team?

 

or Legit as in a team to be respected around the league as one of the contenders each season.?

 

Because we have a long way to go to be the latter.

 

The former is a good first step. But we haven't even accomplished that with this new group.

 

There is promise there. Still after years of gutting the farm by Benning and co. and forcing buyouts, it will be difficult to sustain whatever success we have this season. It will take a lot of management talent, and a dose of good luck thrown in. Like Kuzmenko falling into our lap,  cap darlings like Giuseppe developing late, and putting the brakes on trading away too many high draft picks just to keep buttressing the core.

 

I think for me, the very first time I'll consider the team making beginning strides to be legit league wide, is twenty games into next season, having a similar great start. After this season where we never dip to .500 or below, at least for long, make the playoffs, and go down fighting.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by kilgore

[24K]

US Thanksgiving.

[Kevin Biestra]

57 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Think the league would make more money, and be better served with a system where 2/3 made the show.   Make for a lot of surprising storylines.   Just like in the 80's.   And fans won't have to wait until they are in their late teens or early 20's to actually watch a couple home games either. 

 

Yeah the 80s had some great stuff aside from the Canucks 1982 run.  The 1982 Miracle on Manchester with LA and Edmonton.  The Devils in 1988 where Patrik Sundstrom had his 8 point game and led them to the semifinal.  John Garrett coming in as the backup and getting the Nordiques to round three in 1982 as well...came kind of close to having a Brodeur vs. Garrett Stanley Cup final.  Minnesota had a Cinderella run to the final as well in 1981 (and 1991 when the league structure was pretty much the same).  In 1991 the North Stars were 27-39-14 in the regular season...but enjoyed the Brian Propp effect...acquire Brian Propp and you go right to the final that year (1980, 1990, 1991).

[JayDangles]

I would say you have to wait until the mid way mark before calling the team legit. If we are top 2 in the division we are legit.

Right now we have only done 1 back to back. Only had 1 road trip. Only had 2 games against division rivals. 

We are only 8 points up and a lot can change if the team loses 3 in a row.

 

Give it time though, the boys are playing the right way and that should keep translating into more wins. We want to be somewhere around 24-12-4 by the 40 game mark and that will tell us everything. 

[CanucksJay]

20 hours ago, WHL rocks said:

After the quarter mark of the season. So after 20 games if we're top 3 in our division we're legit. 

 

Plus if we can get rid of Garland's contract and get another top 4 RHD. That would be a big step in the right direction.

 

Another top 4 RHD would significantly raise the  expectations for this team. 

I personally think Garland has played better than Beau this season.  I always notice Garland for trying to make things happen.  Also, if it's easier to shed Beau's contract, we should do that instead. I feel like Garland is a driver while Beau is more of a passenger.

 

I'm hoping management chooses to keep Garland over Beau.  Best if we can trade both though.

[WHL rocks]

3 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

I personally think Garland has played better than Beau this season.  I always notice Garland for trying to make things happen.  Also, if it's easier to shed Beau's contract, we should do that instead. I feel like Garland is a driver while Beau is more of a passenger.

 

I'm hoping management chooses to keep Garland over Beau.  Best if we can trade both though.

I agree with the highlighted part of you're post. 

 

Best if we can trade both.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by WHL rocks

[CanucksJay]

I think they are legit already

 

This team is different from the first half of last year. It's night and day.   They not only continued the momentum after RT took over but they've actually improved from that through more practice time.

 

It took Hakstol a full season of losing in Seattle for the players to understand his system and play much better the following year.  

 

We knew the Canucks had much better talent than Seattle but with a good coach and having the time to learn the system, I think we are definitely legit.

We've had RT since Jan 22 2023.  That's 9.5 months they've had to learn RTs system along with training camp and we are seeing the fruits of it now.

 

 

[IBatch]

42 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Yeah the 80s had some great stuff aside from the Canucks 1982 run.  The 1982 Miracle on Manchester with LA and Edmonton.  The Devils in 1988 where Patrik Sundstrom had his 8 point game and led them to the semifinal.  John Garrett coming in as the backup and getting the Nordiques to round three in 1982 as well...came kind of close to having a Brodeur vs. Garrett Stanley Cup final.  Minnesota had a Cinderella run to the final as well in 1981 (and 1991 when the league structure was pretty much the same).  In 1991 the North Stars were 27-39-14 in the regular season...but enjoyed the Brian Propp effect...acquire Brian Propp and you go right to the final that year (1980, 1990, 1991).

You know it.  And it wasn't like our team was just a fluke either.   We were figuring it out (7-0?)  before the coaching change, starting to heat up.   After the coaching change (a suspended coach oh my!!)  Nielson ran through some very good teams and we were the hottest team going into the playoffs.   Including MTL.   Who hadn't lost in 26 or so games up until they played us, and we did it in their arena.    Nords and MTL rivalry make the Maltby incident look like a minor penalty.  When it peaked it was chaos.  

 

Edit: Not the Mike Keane was anything like Propp, but he also did it too!  So did Claude Lemuiex.   Those guys.   Just make sure you had them on your team and you're going to a final and or winning a cup. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by IBatch

[Kevin Biestra]

14 minutes ago, IBatch said:

You know it.  And it wasn't like our team was just a fluke either.   We were figuring it out (7-0?)  before the coaching change, starting to heat up.   After the coaching change (a suspended coach oh my!!)  Nielson ran through some very good teams and we were the hottest team going into the playoffs.   Including MTL.   Who hadn't lost in 26 or so games up until they played us, and we did it in their arena.    Nords and MTL rivalry make the Maltby incident look like a minor penalty.  When it peaked it was chaos.  

 

Edit: Not the Mike Keane was anything like Propp, but he also did it too!  So did Claude Lemuiex.   Those guys.   Just make sure you had them on your team and you're going to a final and or winning a cup. 

 

Yeah Propp was a fair bit like Linden.  Ramped it up when it counted the most.  Also returned immediately to the lineup after the Chelios hit in the 1989 playoffs that knocked him out and would have ended some careers...and (sound like someone else) was in on both of the Flyers' goals in the game where Montreal finally eliminated them.  Made the 1987 Canada Cup team too.  Propp played for four teams and the only one that didn't go to the final immediately upon acquiring him was the Whalers and, well, nobody was getting the Whalers to the final.

[IBatch]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Yeah Propp was a fair bit like Linden.  Ramped it up when it counted the most.  Also returned immediately to the lineup after the Chelios hit in the 1989 playoffs that knocked him out and would have ended some careers...and (sound like someone else) was in on both of the Flyers' goals in the game where Montreal finally eliminated them.  Made the 1987 Canada Cup team too.  Propp played for four teams and the only one that didn't go to the final immediately upon acquiring him was the Whalers and, well, nobody was getting the Whalers to the final.

Don't mind going over history, the part that rubs me the wrong way is when it's completely different, or not even close, or just stat looking, to  what actually occurred.   Like saying players are in way better shape now, and well good old Tochett comes in and calls the entire team out for not being in shape.   Could have "told you that for free". 

 

 

[Dr. Crossbar]

This is an interesting question to me because there are established patterns of responses/dialogue around this type of topic that you can swap out in other similar threads. It happens every year just the question is framed differently.

 

For example, a lot of the responses in this thread are already very similar, nearly identical to those in the Hronek thread from the offseason in that one of the big questions surrounding Hronek was ... on many levels ... Is Hronek legit?

 

And then the discussion took a similar turn with questions of ... How many games do we give Hronek before he's legit and worth what we gave up?

 

It's interesting because the answers in this thread about the team being legit are similar.

 

So far about the team being legit ... we have some saying it will be years before we can consider this team legit while others say we need a full season. And then we have the game benchmarks ... 20 games ... 40 games ... we need to get into the playoffs to be legit ... and also next year, etc.

 

These can all be all applied to the Hronek thread as well. Much of those were said in that thread.

 

Some also say we need to beat top teams to be legit while some say Hronek needs to anchor his own top line to be legit. 

 

The thing for me is - my response - is also similar to what I said in the Hronek thread. 

 

Aside from the injury that we as fans did have to wait and see on, which was valid ...

 

Hronek didn't all of a sudden become legit. He was already legit when the deal went down. He was already legit in Detroit. There wasn't going to be some benchmark he needed to hit ... He's been legit right out of the gate this season.

 

So, in answering the question about when will the team be legit ... we are already legit right now. It's right in front of our eyes.

 

This isn't the same team. It's much better. The signs are all there ... carrying momentum from last season, higher standards, accountability, the offseason acquisitions (including bonafide backup), culture change, new captain, better depth and compete, improved defense, training camp, our great start, our goal differential, the chemistry Hughes/Hronek ... we could go on and on.

 

I'm not saying we're where we need to be and all is solved - there needs to be more improvements - but I just don't think we're suddenly going to become legit when it's happening in the here and now. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Dr. Crossbar

[John.Tallhouse]

When they make playoffs, it’s been fun so far but it can go away with one bad week. If we’re one of the first few teams to lock down a playoff spot. I’ll truly believe.

 

But also hoping for dumb luck 

[cripplereh]

20 game mark for sure as by then usually teams have an injury or two.

[Mikeyman109]

I am waiting to see what we look like against the contenders. The real contenders not the oilers who i kept shaking my head when people said they were the favorites.

I want to see how we compete with Vegas, Colorado, Dallas is up next after the Sharks. When we play Carolina Boston. Those are going to be measuring stick games. We all want to make the playoffs. We should in this division as some teams are fading already. If we win tonight we are 10 points clear of the flames and if Edmonton loses to Dallas we are 10 clear of them as well. The real test i when we have some of those teams on the schedule and can not only compete but win enough games to keep us up in the Standings.