#17...Damn Canucks..."Good Times Bad Times..."

On my way home tonight from the game, I was listening to Dark Star on WCCO talking with Kevin Falness, Wild Radio Czar, and he posed this question to the listening audience, and one I'll pose to the 6 people (I'll give myself some credit here) who read this:
Did Minnesota just lose this, or did Vancouver beat them?
At first glance you could say that they mean the exact same thing, and it's just a way to word it so it doesn't sound as bad as it really was...but it wasn't bad. For the most part I felt the Wild drove the play, aside from when Pavol Demitra and the Sedins (hereby redubbed "Larry, Daryl and Daryl") gained control for a decent amount of time here and there. Now, not to sound like a complete kool-aid drinking Wild apologist, but Vancouver's first two goals were janky bounces; Demitra's goal was a deflection of Marek Zidlicky's stick, and someone got enough stick on Steve Bernier's goal to handcuff Niklas Backstrom; one or both could have as easily swatted aside.
But that's hockey, right? Curtis Sanford could have gotten all of Mikko Koivu's slapshot one our first goal, or Kim Johnsson's pass to a clearly tired and trailing Koivu on the penalty kill could have bounced off or over his stick as well. So its a wash; which means that Daniel Sedin scored, when it meant most, at a tie score to give the 'Nucks the lead, and ultimately the win. In the end it doesn't matter if you drive the play, its the score at the end of 60 minutes.
Now, about this scoring thing...
Have we bought into the idea that we can't score without Marian Gaborik to the point that we just can't score? I agree that it is true to an extent, Gaborik is a goal scorer, and it helps that you have someone on your team that is capable of 40 goals, providing he is healthy (and happy.) However, because he is out, that shouldn't be an excuse for ripping guys like Pierre-Marc Bouchard, Brent Burns (no matter what position he is playing at,) James Sheppard, etc. for not stepping up and producing. Enough of this "asterisk" bit; "look at what Minnesota has done without Marian Gaborik" crap- every single one of these guys are capable of putting the puck in the net, because they have done it at every level they have played at, and this team cannot move out of Gaborik's shadow if they don't do that. It's like unintentional leverage!
(Conversely speaking, the knowledge that they may only muster 1-2 goals a game brings about more detail to the defensive side of the puck, which can go a long way in itself.)
Minnesota has to shoot more, plain and simple. Enough of looking off decent-to-prime scoring chances in favor of making the highlight pass, and just shoot the damn biscuit. This is a reoccuring problem, a mindset, where these guys feel like unless the perfect pass is made that they can't score. JUST SHOOT THE PUCK! Shots = goals, but they also equal rebounds, out of position goalies and defenders, and more scoring chances. You can't score if you don't shoot- although Koivu's goal in Pittsburgh says otherwise.
But you can't have the opposing center knock in the puck every time.