Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 21:51:03 GMT -5
Woooo Habs! We built this city! We built this city on suck and fail! (*cries softly in a corner, railing at imaginary hockey sticks*)
|
|
|
|
Post by SensitiveSethPutnam on May 29, 2014 22:27:19 GMT -5
Woooo Habs! We built this city! We built this city on suck and fail! (*cries softly in a corner, railing at imaginary hockey sticks*) Tokarski played one hell of a series for you guys. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 23:36:38 GMT -5
Yeah, but the Rangers were everywhere they needed to be in their own zone. Ah well. I like the Rangers too. I like everyone! Except the fucking Flames.
|
|
|
|
Post by SensitiveSethPutnam on May 30, 2014 8:02:00 GMT -5
Yeah, but the Rangers were everywhere they needed to be in their own zone. Ah well. I like the Rangers too. I like everyone! Except the fucking Flames. You are so polite, it's as if you were Canadian or something. I work with a guy from Calgary. He's a Blackhawks fan. Why does everyone hate the Flames? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 9:27:39 GMT -5
I just hate Calgary, even though there are some great people there, including my brother. I lived there for a year when I was 25 and it was just the worst place to be poor and trying to raise a family. The politics are really conservative, for the most part, and there are far too many fake scrotums dangling on the tailgates of trucks (trucknutz is the brand name). Also my ex-girlfriend was a Flames fan, though I am TOTALLY OVER THAT (*weeps gently, gently*)
I also dislike the Canucks, not because I dislike Vancouver so much as I find the team really boring and whiny. Also the riot (though in fairness the main rioters probably weren't actual fans--some people just want an excuse to burn stuff).
|
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619 
|
Post by Pear on Jun 1, 2014 21:30:01 GMT -5
Not much time left in regulation. Tied. Game 7. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
|
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jun 1, 2014 21:46:35 GMT -5
GAME 7 OVERTIME. OHHHHHH SHIT.
|
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jun 1, 2014 22:13:09 GMT -5
Fuck. Good series, Kings. How amazing is winning 3 game sevens on the road? Pretty amazing.
Also, very happy this went to seven. After four, the Hawks looked like they were dead, but they found their fire, and we got some fantastic hockey over these last few games (especially that 8-minute stretch in Game 5 OT).
But Rangers, please destroy them.
|
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jun 1, 2014 23:27:26 GMT -5
Who do you have winning the SCF? Most people are probably going with the Kings, but I'll be bold here and go Rangers in 7. King Henrik will win the series for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by SensitiveSethPutnam on Jun 2, 2014 8:28:37 GMT -5
Obviously I want the Rangers to take this, but I'd be a big fat homer if I said they weren't the clear underdogs here. There's been this narrative over the past few years about how the Western Conference is so much better than the Eastern that they may as well be two different leagues. So I want the Rangers to win not only because I'm a huge fan, but because I want to squash this Western superiority thing once and for all.
Rangers in 2.
|
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jun 2, 2014 12:21:35 GMT -5
Obviously I want the Rangers to take this, but I'd be a big fat homer if I said they weren't the clear underdogs here. There's been this narrative over the past few years about how the Western Conference is so much better than the Eastern that they may as well be two different leagues. So I want the Rangers to win not only because I'm a huge fan, but because I want to squash this Western superiority thing once and for all. Rangers in 2. Anyone writing the Rangers off--and people were already doing so before the Hawks-Kings series even started--is foolish. Neither the Hawks nor the Kings would blow by the Rangers. This is NHL playoff hockey. They're in the final for a reason, and if Lundqvist continues to play the way he's been playing, he can win a series, especially if Quick plays the way he did in the Hawks series (and for that matter, the rest of the playoffs). Here's an excellent summation of Jonathan Quick: Of course, Quick IS very clutch, which is huge. I, too, would like it if that conference superiority thing was squashed; this isn't the NBA, where a sub-.500 team makes it into the playoffs. Rangers in 3, with Alain Vigneault scoring the OT winner from a redirect off of John Tortorella's face. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 13:32:52 GMT -5
I'm not saying this because the Kings beat my team last night, but Daryl Sutter looks like a villain from a movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 13:50:43 GMT -5
I'm not saying this because the Kings beat my team last night, but Daryl Sutter looks like a villain from a movie. I disagree  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 13:59:54 GMT -5
Obviously I want the Rangers to take this, but I'd be a big fat homer if I said they weren't the clear underdogs here. There's been this narrative over the past few years about how the Western Conference is so much better than the Eastern that they may as well be two different leagues. So I want the Rangers to win not only because I'm a huge fan, but because I want to squash this Western superiority thing once and for all. Rangers in 2. Anyone writing the Rangers off--and people were already doing so before the Hawks-Kings series even started--is foolish. Neither the Hawks nor the Kings would blow by the Rangers. This is NHL playoff hockey. They're in the final for a reason, and if Lundqvist continues to play the way he's been playing, he can win a series, especially if Quick plays the way he did in the Hawks series (and for that matter, the rest of the playoffs). Here's an excellent summation of Jonathan Quick: Of course, Quick IS very clutch, which is huge. I, too, would like it if that conference superiority thing was squashed; this isn't the NBA, where a sub-.500 team makes it into the playoffs. Rangers in 3, with Alain Vigneault scoring the OT winner from a redirect off of John Tortorella's face. That tweet is idiotic. Quick and Lundqvist are borderline identical when it comes to career and post season stats. Lundqvist is a 2.26 GAA and .920 save percentage for regular season. Quick is 2.28 and .915. Postseason is HL: 2.23 and .922. Quick is: 2.27 and .922 Quick didn't even play that bad against the hawks. It was either Hawks earning those goals or lucky bounces. He wasn't letting in easy goals, that has pretty much been the majority of the postseason for him(aside from the first 3 sharks games). He has made all the right plays, but the goals that go in there is just nothing he or any other goalie could do about. HL couldn't have stopped a puck that bounced up off the ice in the last second or one that deflected and curved. Also, Quick has nearly 100 more save attempts this postseason than HL, but has only played 1 more game. He is still one of the best goalies in the league, not an average one. |
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jun 2, 2014 16:37:19 GMT -5
That tweet is idiotic. Quick and Lundqvist are borderline identical when it comes to career and post season stats. Lundqvist is a 2.26 GAA and .920 save percentage for regular season. Quick is 2.28 and .915.
Postseason is HL: 2.23 and .922. Quick is: 2.27 and .922
Quick didn't even play that bad against the hawks. It was either Hawks earning those goals or lucky bounces. He wasn't letting in easy goals, that has pretty much been the majority of the postseason for him(aside from the first 3 sharks games). He has made all the right plays, but the goals that go in there is just nothing he or any other goalie could do about. HL couldn't have stopped a puck that bounced up off the ice in the last second or one that deflected and curved. Also, Quick has nearly 100 more save attempts this postseason than HL, but has only played 1 more game. He is still one of the best goalies in the league, not an average one. Is it really that idiotic? Right now, I'm not talking about their careers as a whole, even though I'd still consider HL on top because much of Quick's reputation/stats comes from that amazing 2012 Cup run. He was unstoppable there. I don't think that makes him better than Lundqvist, though, but at least I can see your argument here. As for the tweet, on the other hand, is it really a stretch to say that he's inconsistent these playoffs, which is exactly what the tweet is saying? Lundqvist these playoffs: .928, 2.03 Quick these playoffs: .906, 2.86 Pretty huge difference there. Quick just hasn't been that good, and at a certain point, you have to stop chalking it up to lucky bounces. Both he and Crawford were very average in this series with flashes of brilliance. Nothing more, and not the mark of one of the best goaltenders in the league. He very nearly cost the team a first round exit with his play against the Sharks, and although he's improved, he's also been wildly inconsistent, as clutch as he can be. He's faced adversity in a fantastic Hawks offense, but Lundqvist gave up three goals in games 5-7 against the Pens offense. I just don't see how anyone would pick Quick over Lundqvist--or even place them at an equal standing--going into these finals. Go back to 2012? Sure. Career as a whole? I can maybe see that. But not these playoffs. Quick can turn it up a notch and I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm sticking with Lundqvist. If there's one thing I don't agree with in that tweet, it's probably the "slightly above average" part. I'd take away the 'slightly'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 16:59:45 GMT -5
Is it really that idiotic? Right now, I'm not talking about their careers as a whole, even though I'd still consider HL on top because much of Quick's reputation/stats comes from that amazing 2012 Cup run. He was unstoppable there. I don't think that makes him better than Lundqvist, though, but at least I can see your argument here. As for the tweet, on the other hand, is it really a stretch to say that he's inconsistent these playoffs, which is exactly what the tweet is saying? Lundqvist these playoffs: .928, 2.03 Quick these playoffs: .906, 2.86 Pretty huge difference there. Quick just hasn't been that good, and at a certain point, you have to stop chalking it up to lucky bounces. Both he and Crawford were very average in this series with flashes of brilliance. Nothing more, and not the mark of one of the best goaltenders in the league. He very nearly cost the team a first round exit with his play against the Sharks, and although he's improved, he's also been wildly inconsistent, as clutch as he can be. He's faced adversity in a fantastic Hawks offense, but Lundqvist gave up three goals in games 5-7 against the Pens offense. I just don't see how anyone would pick Quick over Lundqvist--or even place them at an equal standing--going into these finals. Go back to 2012? Sure. Career as a whole? I can maybe see that. But not these playoffs. Quick can turn it up a notch and I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm sticking with Lundqvist. If there's one thing I don't agree with in that tweet, it's probably the "slightly above average" part. I'd take away the 'slightly'. It isn't just lucky bounces, it has been the quality of the other teams offense as well. Also the pens offense wasn't that great this post season(Crosby I think only had like two goals). Quick hasn't been his best but I wouldn't say he has been average either. He's made the stops he could make. The others were not just lucky bounces, but the other team just getting the best looks and beating the kings D especially in the hawks series. The key is that he hasn't let in many easy goals. He hasn't played as well as Henrik, but to think he is an average goalie is absurd. Despite being a 5-4 game I would say each goalie played their best game last night. Hell the best shot on either goal was the one that hit the post, not any that went in. He has similar stats to fleury's postseason this year, but quick has still played miles better than him. That tweet also wasn't talking about right now. They brought in his contract. Acting like Quick is an average goalie all around. Which is the absurd part. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 18:36:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SensitiveSethPutnam on Jun 2, 2014 18:37:16 GMT -5
Is it really that idiotic? Right now, I'm not talking about their careers as a whole, even though I'd still consider HL on top because much of Quick's reputation/stats comes from that amazing 2012 Cup run. He was unstoppable there. I don't think that makes him better than Lundqvist, though, but at least I can see your argument here. As for the tweet, on the other hand, is it really a stretch to say that he's inconsistent these playoffs, which is exactly what the tweet is saying? Lundqvist these playoffs: .928, 2.03 Quick these playoffs: .906, 2.86 Pretty huge difference there. Quick just hasn't been that good, and at a certain point, you have to stop chalking it up to lucky bounces. Both he and Crawford were very average in this series with flashes of brilliance. Nothing more, and not the mark of one of the best goaltenders in the league. He very nearly cost the team a first round exit with his play against the Sharks, and although he's improved, he's also been wildly inconsistent, as clutch as he can be. He's faced adversity in a fantastic Hawks offense, but Lundqvist gave up three goals in games 5-7 against the Pens offense. I just don't see how anyone would pick Quick over Lundqvist--or even place them at an equal standing--going into these finals. Go back to 2012? Sure. Career as a whole? I can maybe see that. But not these playoffs. Quick can turn it up a notch and I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm sticking with Lundqvist. If there's one thing I don't agree with in that tweet, it's probably the "slightly above average" part. I'd take away the 'slightly'. It isn't just lucky bounces, it has been the quality of the other teams offense as well. Also the pens offense wasn't that great this post season(Crosby I think only had like two goals). Quick hasn't been his best but I wouldn't say he has been average either. He's made the stops he could make. The others were not just lucky bounces, but the other team just getting the best looks and beating the kings D especially in the hawks series. The key is that he hasn't let in many easy goals. He hasn't played as well as Henrik, but to think he is an average goalie is absurd. Despite being a 5-4 game I would say each goalie played their best game last night. Hell the best shot on either goal was the one that hit the post, not any that went in. He has similar stats to fleury's postseason this year, but quick has still played miles better than him. That tweet also wasn't talking about right now. They brought in his contract. Acting like Quick is an average goalie all around. Which is the absurd part. Quick comparisons aside, couldn't the fact that Crosby only had like two goals be due to the play of lundqvist and the rangers defense, rather than just going through a cold streak? It doesn't seem entirely fair to say the other teams offense kind of sucked, when lundqvist was a big part of them sucking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 18:42:43 GMT -5
It isn't just lucky bounces, it has been the quality of the other teams offense as well. Also the pens offense wasn't that great this post season(Crosby I think only had like two goals). Quick hasn't been his best but I wouldn't say he has been average either. He's made the stops he could make. The others were not just lucky bounces, but the other team just getting the best looks and beating the kings D especially in the hawks series. The key is that he hasn't let in many easy goals. He hasn't played as well as Henrik, but to think he is an average goalie is absurd. Despite being a 5-4 game I would say each goalie played their best game last night. Hell the best shot on either goal was the one that hit the post, not any that went in. He has similar stats to fleury's postseason this year, but quick has still played miles better than him. That tweet also wasn't talking about right now. They brought in his contract. Acting like Quick is an average goalie all around. Which is the absurd part. Quick comparisons aside, couldn't the fact that Crosby only had like two goals be due to the play of lundqvist and the rangers defense, rather than just going through a cold streak? It doesn't seem entirely fair to say the other teams offense kind of sucked, when lundqvist was a big part of them sucking. Because Crosby also sucked in the blue jackets series? The pens offense was not itself in the playoffs. Pens are just not a great team, good, but they have no depth, and are for the past few postseasons have not lived up to their regular season form. |
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jun 3, 2014 19:42:45 GMT -5
Quick comparisons aside, couldn't the fact that Crosby only had like two goals be due to the play of lundqvist and the rangers defense, rather than just going through a cold streak? It doesn't seem entirely fair to say the other teams offense kind of sucked, when lundqvist was a big part of them sucking. Because Crosby also sucked in the blue jackets series? The pens offense was not itself in the playoffs. Pens are just not a great team, good, but they have no depth, and are for the past few postseasons have not lived up to their regular season form. Well, I still think you have to give Lundqvist more credit than that. The Pens offense may not have been itself, but they're a good enough team to close out a series when they're up 3-1. 3 goals in 3 games with people like Crosby and Malkin has to be due in part to the other team's defense, even if your players are struggling. Pens players are good enough to break out; everyone has bad stretches. I mean, Patrick Kane couldn't be found for the first four games of our series, but then he broke out in game 5 and went on a tear.
"Have not lived up to their regular season form" can just as easily apply to the Sharks, and look what happened in the first three games of the LA series. Then, Quick held them to two goals--including a shutout--in the final three games. The Sharks offense was not very good there, but if Quick wasn't on his game, LA would've been sent packing. You have to give credit to Quick and the Kings defense there, just like you have to give credit to Lundqvist and the Rangers defense in the Pens series. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 19:54:36 GMT -5
Because Crosby also sucked in the blue jackets series? The pens offense was not itself in the playoffs. Pens are just not a great team, good, but they have no depth, and are for the past few postseasons have not lived up to their regular season form. Well, I still think you have to give Lundqvist more credit than that. The Pens offense may not have been itself, but they're a good enough team to close out a series when they're up 3-1. 3 goals in 3 games with people like Crosby and Malkin has to be due in part to the other team's defense, even if your players are struggling. Pens players are good enough to break out; everyone has bad stretches. I mean, Patrick Kane couldn't be found for the first four games of our series, but then he broke out in game 5 and went on a tear.
"Have not lived up to their regular season form" can just as easily apply to the Sharks, and look what happened in the first three games of the LA series. Then, Quick held them to two goals--including a shutout--in the final three games. The Sharks offense was not very good there, but if Quick wasn't on his game, LA would've been sent packing. You have to give credit to Quick and the Kings defense there, just like you have to give credit to Lundqvist and the Rangers defense in the Pens series. I'm not saying Lundqvist or the Rangers didn't play good, just saying that the Rangers faced an easier path to the finals than the Kings did. I don't think anyone would want to face Sharks, Ducks, Blackhawks over Flyers, Pens, Montreal(without price), is all I'm saying. Henrik has played very well, just that I'm still confident in Quick despite the iffy stats because he still played admirable in all three series. He isn't the 2012 quick where he is stopping everything, but outside of the first three SJ games I haven't had any major qualms with his play, they are winning after all. |
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jun 4, 2014 9:49:12 GMT -5
Well, I still think you have to give Lundqvist more credit than that. The Pens offense may not have been itself, but they're a good enough team to close out a series when they're up 3-1. 3 goals in 3 games with people like Crosby and Malkin has to be due in part to the other team's defense, even if your players are struggling. Pens players are good enough to break out; everyone has bad stretches. I mean, Patrick Kane couldn't be found for the first four games of our series, but then he broke out in game 5 and went on a tear.
"Have not lived up to their regular season form" can just as easily apply to the Sharks, and look what happened in the first three games of the LA series. Then, Quick held them to two goals--including a shutout--in the final three games. The Sharks offense was not very good there, but if Quick wasn't on his game, LA would've been sent packing. You have to give credit to Quick and the Kings defense there, just like you have to give credit to Lundqvist and the Rangers defense in the Pens series. I'm not saying Lundqvist or the Rangers didn't play good, just saying that the Rangers faced an easier path to the finals than the Kings did. I don't think anyone would want to face Sharks, Ducks, Blackhawks over Flyers, Pens, Montreal(without price), is all I'm saying. Henrik has played very well, just that I'm still confident in Quick despite the iffy stats because he still played admirable in all three series. He isn't the 2012 quick where he is stopping everything, but outside of the first three SJ games I haven't had any major qualms with his play, they are winning after all. Fair enough. Here's to hoping both teams are at the top of their games this series. Should be a fun one. Good luck! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 19:57:45 GMT -5
Hey, kings D it would be nice if you remembered what the D stood for. Won the Jennings trophy and there has been like how many breakaway chances?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 20:42:03 GMT -5
Drew Doughtys goal.... so beautiful   |
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jun 4, 2014 21:54:23 GMT -5
Whoa, crazy final 30 seconds of regulation. Rangers with yet another breakaway, Kings with an excellent chance at the other end, but amazing saves on both ends.
Also, Rangers, without Lundqvist, that shot disparity in the third period would kill you any time. Pick it up, guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 21:58:04 GMT -5
Whoa, crazy final 30 seconds of regulation. Rangers with yet another breakaway, Kings with an excellent chance at the other end, but amazing saves on both ends. Also, Rangers, without Lundqvist, that shot disparity in the third period would kill you any time. Pick it up, guys. Actually, the rangers D has been pretty damn good, yeah the kings have lots of shots, but not that many good looks. Pretty much blocking anything that Lundqvist could possibly struggle with. |
|
Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619
|
Post by Pear on Jun 4, 2014 22:17:39 GMT -5
Whoa, crazy final 30 seconds of regulation. Rangers with yet another breakaway, Kings with an excellent chance at the other end, but amazing saves on both ends. Also, Rangers, without Lundqvist, that shot disparity in the third period would kill you any time. Pick it up, guys. Actually, the rangers D has been pretty damn good, yeah the kings have lots of shots, but not that many good looks. Pretty much blocking anything that Lundqvist could possibly struggle with. Well, that pretty damn good defense just fucked up big time at the end. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 22:22:50 GMT -5
Actually, the rangers D has been pretty damn good, yeah the kings have lots of shots, but not that many good looks. Pretty much blocking anything that Lundqvist could possibly struggle with. Well, that pretty damn good defense just fucked up big time at the end. Yep, let them down there, but hey Pearson almost gifted them a turnover before that, they were just paying it back. |
|
|
|
Post by SensitiveSethPutnam on Jun 5, 2014 9:38:10 GMT -5
I'm sure Girardi feels like shit. I don't think we'll be swept, but I think our best chances of winning the series are gone now that we lost game one. That Doughty goal was a thing of beauty, I couldn't even be mad about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 0:02:50 GMT -5
|
|
