Toggle sidebar

Around the League Thread part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
lumbergh said:
You're right about that. I can't think of a good compelling story line for the Kings that national broadcasters can really push. Kopitar is not the dominant player he was 10 years ago. Dustin Brown riding off into the sunset? Meh. Doughty is out for the season. Hard to push Danault's defensive game. Byfield could be a budding star, but he isn't even playing right now.

You can't blame the play-by-play, color commentators, or studio for focusing on McDavid and Draisaitl compared to a team of nobodies.
Click to expand...
Troy Stecher 2g 2a. There is your Kings storyline TNT and ESPN!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lumbergh and Bandit
Bandit said:
I like Campbell and Muzzin obviously but I really want the Leafs to choke. Seems like they might finally have what it takes to win a round this year though.
Click to expand...

I’d like them to, but after beating the lightning…
 
So many here were obsessed with the Wild, they were supposedly so tough and physical and built for the playoffs, yikes! Who will they all blame now that Fleury is just holding the door open tonight?
 
Herby said:
So many here were obsessed with the Wild, they were supposedly so tough and physical and built for the playoffs, yikes! Who will they all blame now that Fleury is just holding the door open tonight?
Click to expand...
They are a bad matchup for the Kings but not a true juggernaut
 
Herby said:
So many here were obsessed with the Wild, they were supposedly so tough and physical and built for the playoffs, yikes! Who will they all blame now that Fleury is just holding the door open tonight?
Click to expand...

I mean, are the Blues not?

I didn't get to watch that series as much as I would have liked but what I did see reminded me of the Kings-Blues
 
Raccoon Jesus said:
I mean, are the Blues not?

I didn't get to watch that series as much as I would have liked but what I did see reminded me of the Kings-Blues
Click to expand...

No, the Blues are a skilled team. Four point-per-game players (Thomas, Tarasenko, Kyrou, Buchnevich), another player who scored at a 75 point pace (Schenn). Barbashev, ROR, Perron and Saad are there 6-7-8-9 scorers, yeah nice problem to have.

But many insisted the Wild and their toughness and size were "built for the playoffs". An archaic way of thinking that you can only win with certain types of players or teams, which is proven false most post-seasons but comes back strong as a myth every spring.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lumbergh
Herby said:
No, the Blues are a skilled team. Four point-per-game players (Thomas, Tarasenko, Kyrou, Buchnevich), another player who scored at a 75 point pace (Schenn). Barbashev, ROR, Perron and Saad are there 6-7-8-9 scorers, yeah nice problem to have.

But many insisted the Wild and their toughness and size were "built for the playoffs". An archaic way of thinking that you can only win with certain types of players or teams, which is proven false most post-seasons but comes back strong as a myth every spring.
Click to expand...

Oh don't get me wrong, I wouldn't say they're not skilled, but I also wouldn't draw them up as very different from the Wild. I just think they're the 'real' version of what the Wild WANT to be. ONE of those teams had to be eliminated, I just think they're similar. We'll see how the STL-COL series turns out though!

Edit: I agree with you there's not 'one' type of way to win. The Wild just weren't good enough, full stop. Blues are a little like the Caps Cup team, just huge with a lot of talent, can beat you in a number of ways, which is important. I guess my point is the Wild exiting to a better team that can beat them at their own game isn't proof that 'big hockey' is dead either
 
Last edited:
Herby said:
But many insisted the Wild and their toughness and size were "built for the playoffs". An archaic way of thinking that you can only win with certain types of players or teams, which is proven false most post-seasons but comes back strong as a myth every spring.
Click to expand...
This seems like a disingenuous argument to diminish one general outlook so you can prop up your love of raw skill.

"Built for the playoffs" simply suggests that during a war of attrition, a team will have the advantage, especially the longer playoffs go. And since refs let a lot of things go, you generally can't depend on special teams to save you.

That's not to say it's the only way to win.
 
Herby said:
So many here were obsessed with the Wild, they were supposedly so tough and physical and built for the playoffs, yikes! Who will they all blame now that Fleury is just holding the door open tonight?
Click to expand...

that was a tough first round matchup, both teams pretty evenly matched IMO.

I wonder if Hull went blues last night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fivehole32
King'sPawn said:
This seems like a disingenuous argument to diminish one general outlook so you can prop up your love of raw skill.

"Built for the playoffs" simply suggests that during a war of attrition, a team will have the advantage, especially the longer playoffs go. And since refs let a lot of things go, you generally can't depend on special teams to save you.

That's not to say it's the only way to win.
Click to expand...

It is just a reply to the many posts here made over the years parroting things like

"Mike Richards was more important to the Kings championships than Anze Kopitar", or

"I'll take Turcotte over Zegras because he's a more of a big game playoff type player. TZ's style won't translate to those games"

"(Insert gritty team) is built for the playoffs" and then said team inevitably loses to more skilled team.

Comments are pretty ridiculous if you ask me (do you agree?) but they are said here so many times because people just believe that stuff.

I also did not say you win with just pure skill. you obviously need more than high end players, especially in a league with a cap where you can't build super teams. But they are the most important part of success and it's not even close. All the teams who were dominant since the lockout will feature multiple Hall of Fame players, those players are the reasons they won those cups. Crosby, Toews, Kopitar, Kane, Doughty, Hedman, Kucherov etc. The gritty players that people fawn over and say are the real reason the team won would be well into their summers without the star players above them.

Also, stuff is not let go anymore, the league said it was directing its officials to call more penalties in then playoffs to open things up and that has been the case. And it places an even more important emphasis on being able to score and having skilled players.

Here are the goal totals for each winning team so far in these playoffs

5-5-4-5-5-5

4-5-7-7-5

5-5-5-7-4-4

4-5-6-3-5

1-2-4-4-3

4-6-8-4-4-5

4-6-5-5-5-5

7-2-7-5

Sutter's comments about it being a 3-2 league are not true anymore, the emphasis is on skill, so yes when people make comments about a 21 year old high skilled player "not translating to the playoffs" they deserve to be called out. Plenty of players who play like him are thriving in the league.

Raccoon Jesus said:
Oh don't get me wrong, I wouldn't say they're not skilled, but I also wouldn't draw them up as very different from the Wild. I just think they're the 'real' version of what the Wild WANT to be. ONE of those teams had to be eliminated, I just think they're similar. We'll see how the STL-COL series turns out though!

Edit: I agree with you there's not 'one' type of way to win. The Wild just weren't good enough, full stop. Blues are a little like the Caps Cup team, just huge with a lot of talent, can beat you in a number of ways, which is important. I guess my point is the Wild exiting to a better team that can beat them at their own game isn't proof that 'big hockey' is dead either
Click to expand...

The Blues do play a solid all-around game to go a long with their scoring. My point was, they are here because they have the best scoring depth 1-9 in the entire league (maybe other than Fla). In the modern NHL where the goal is to build a Top 9 of 3 scoring lines they have done it better than most. I don't think they beat Colorado because Colorado's high end talent will be to much to handle but they have a very deep team. Minnesota didn't have the scoring depth to match and had more useless players in their lineup than St. Louis did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo, Rumpelstiltskin, Raccoon Jesus and 1 other person
Malkin is such an enigma. He goes full passenger most games when Crosby is in the lineup. When Crosby is out and he is the top dog, he drives the play. So weird considering he has been in the league for a while, that is a posture a rookie or second year player takes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo
WHOneedsSOX said:
Carter has been pretty bad this series. He got walked by so easily by Trouba on his goal last game.
Click to expand...
I agree Carter has been horrid defensively. But I expect him to step up.

fivehole32 said:
Malkin is such an enigma. He goes full passenger most games when Crosby is in the lineup. When Crosby is out and he is the top dog, he drives the play. So weird considering he has been in the league for a while, that is a posture a rookie or second year player takes.
Click to expand...
like when Kempe stepped up as LA's second line center when Carter was out. I thought we were set for when Carter got back haha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom