Vancouver Canucks Big on Excuses, Not So Much on Winning

Recently, I mentioned that Jim Hughson’s biased commentary for the Vancouver Canucks was taking away from the games.

Well, at least we don’t have to worry about that anymore because the Canucks are finished.

And you know who’s to blame? Everybody else.

CBC's duo of Hughson and Craig Simpson ruined the last five minutes of the game going on and on about the Canucks injury woes as the reason why they lost.

“It started with the Willie Mitchell injury,” said Hughson.

I barfed a little when he said that.

You know when it really started?

When the Blackhawks realized they’re a much better team than the Canucks.

“The Salo injury, Edler leaving this game,” Simpson pipes in.

Oh really? There’s nothing the Sedin’s or Kesler or Burrows could do to offset the amount of goals going into the back of their net?

It’s called being overrated. And the main victim was Mike Gillis.

There’s three people to blame for the Canucks embarrassing exit again this post-season—Gillis, Alain Vigneault and Roberto Luongo.

Gillis failed to do anything at the deadline and thought his team was great as is.

Anything look familiar last night? It was pretty much the exact same team being beaten again exactly one year later.

What would you expect?

Vigneault. Wow.

Sami Salo could hardly stand on two legs last night and Vigneault throws him in the game anyway.

Obviously, Salo wanted to play, but it was a huge mistake. If Vigneault had half a clue, he would have noticed that Salo couldn’t skate the length of himself.

Why would he put him in the same game as Patrick Kane or Jonathan Toews?

The Hawks cruised around Salo all night, and Vigneault needs to take heat for that.

Actually, he needs to be fired…today.

And “Luuuu” turned into “Ayyyy” pretty quickly as Canucks fans turned on Roberto Luongo on a dime, and began to mock him in the third period.

Rightfully so.

The Canucks let in 21 goals in four losses in this series. That’s actually mind-boggling. Who did Luongo have to blame? Obviously, the team. He is the “Captain” after all.

“I don’t know why we played the way we did” said Luongo.

I can imagine that a lot of the Canucks are wondering why Luongo played like he did as well. He defined “fighting the puck.”

The captain then referred to turnovers as the main reason for the loss. If the game wasn't at 3-1 with the Canucks pushing for a goal, the turnovers wouldn't have happened.

Obviously, at the end of the game there needed to be desperation from Vancouver to get a goal. They didn't, and the turnovers that Luongo eluded to ended up behind him pretty fast.

Hawks 5-1 in the blink of an eye.

When David Bolland scored short-handed in the second period, the Canucks were finished. But I could have stopped that shot with Sears catalogs strapped to my shins.

The Canucks needed a save or two, Luongo gave them none.

Email: [e-mail]