Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL: We Really Like It, We Want Moar Playoffs!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sharks bottom 6 is what cost them. They're too top heavy. Gomez????? Lol. Wingels? Desjardins? Shepard? Burish is the only decent bottom sixer
 
Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski, and Boyle all free agents next summer. Sharks could have a big fire sale this summer or at the deadline if they wanted to go in that direction.
 
Clowe Knows Best said:
Sharks bottom 6 is what cost them. They're too top heavy. Gomez????? Lol. Wingels? Desjardins? Shepard? Burish is the only decent bottom sixer
Click to expand...

Gomez. Who in their right mind considers Gomez to be an ingredient that you need?
He skates so nicely. Smiles so widely. Such a waste of a roster spot.
 
I think Quick is quite good. I don't think he is as good as Henrik, but the whole Kings team just plays really well when it counts.
 
You have to give the Sharks credit. They played like a desperate team and were in the Kings' zone almost the entire last 10 minutes. They pushed hard, compare that to us when we're down 2-1 and we can barely muster a shot on goal, let alone a quality chance.

Quick is a ****ing monster in the playoffs. Say what you will about him and the comparisons to Hank, but he absolutely steps up to an unbelievable level in the playoffs. He doesn't give up weak goals and have off nights. He is possessed it seems. He just won't lose.
 
well if quick continues this playoff run and does win another cup especially in back to back years it will be hard for me to say he is not as good if not better than henrik. i know henrik doesn't get much offense but still.
 
Drewbackatu said:
You can certainly make a good case for Quick as the #1 goalie off of the past two playoff years.
Click to expand...

30theking said:
well if quick continues this playoff run and does win another cup especially in back to back years it will be hard for me to say he is not as good if not better than henrik. i know henrik doesn't get much offense but still.
Click to expand...

agree with both. hence why i dont like quick :laugh:
 
30theking said:
well if quick continues this playoff run and does win another cup especially in back to back years it will be hard for me to say he is not as good if not better than henrik. i know henrik doesn't get much offense but still.
Click to expand...

The way I see it Quick is a better playoff goaltender than Hank but an inferior regular season goaltender. Quick's team plays so much better in front of him than the Rangers play in front of Hank though so its a tough comparison to make. He was barely challenged tonight though. 2-3 great saves while Hank has to make at least 5 a game to keep the Rangers in it.
 
Glen Sathers Cigar said:
You have to give the Sharks credit. They played like a desperate team and were in the Kings' zone almost the entire last 10 minutes. They pushed hard, compare that to us when we're down 2-1 and we can barely muster a shot on goal, let alone a quality chance.

Quick is a ****ing monster in the playoffs. Say what you will about him and the comparisons to Hank, but he absolutely steps up to an unbelievable level in the playoffs. He doesn't give up weak goals and have off nights. He is possessed it seems. He just won't lose.
Click to expand...

He's more athletic and active than Hank is. We'd be splitting hairs picking the better goalie presently but going forward, you have to take Quick.
 
my guess is the Rangers will pay out of their shoes for Dan Boyle, deluded by his post season point totals. Another player that is closed to being done and would've been better to be acquired many years earlier.
 
Doctor King Schultz said:
The way I see it Quick is a better playoff goaltender than Hank but an inferior regular season goaltender. Quick's team plays so much better in front of him than the Rangers play in front of Hank though so its a tough comparison to make. He was barely challenged tonight though. 2-3 great saves while Hank has to make at least 5 a game to keep the Rangers in it.
Click to expand...

He made a lot more than 2-3 great saves tonite. However, in all honesty, the Kings defense is a heck of a lot better than our defense is with or without Staal!
 
I'm a huge Quick fan, but the true test comes next year when his new contract kicks in and fine if their young guys need raises. LA will lose some of their depth and it will be interesting to see how they respond
 
Drewbackatu said:
He made a lot more than 2-3 great saves tonite. However, in all honesty, the Kings defense is a heck of a lot better than our defense is with or without Staal!
Click to expand...

I must not have been watching close enough then because I only recall the slide across the crease in the first, the similar move in the other direction in the 2nd right before the 1st Kings goal, and then the crazy save on Pavelski in the third.
 
the only team left i can really root for is detroit. they remind of the spurs in basketball. fundamental teams that keep churning along no matter the age of the players.
 
Kershaw said:
my guess is the Rangers will pay out of their shoes for Dan Boyle, deluded by his post season point totals. Another player that is closed to being done and would've been better to be acquired many years earlier.
Click to expand...

Exactly right about when any team, including the Rangers, should have pursued Dan Boyle.
Years earlier, exactly. The Rangers going for Dan Boyle now would be hiring on past achievements. Is he going to now push you over the hump, is he now going to be so valuable that you just have to have him?
The answer is NO, of course he is not. He has no tight-woven history with the players around him, no roots in a new organization, no grounding that anchors that success. What a great opportunity to land a big fat expensive letdown.

I'm good with the Nash deal, love it. But I hope the Rangers understand that you do no recreate history just because you want to. You don't grab a player who has had success, simply relocate and replicate.
That would be the height of arrogance and lazy thinking, and absolute proof that you do not have a ****ing clue about anything.
The Rangers have pulled enough of that stuff over the last few decades to make most sensible people laugh at them.
 
trilobyte said:
Exactly right about when any team, including the Rangers, should have pursued Dan Boyle.
Years earlier, exactly. The Rangers going for Dan Boyle now would be hiring on past achievements. Is he going to now push you over the hump, is he now going to be so valuable that you just have to have him?
The answer is NO, of course he is not. He has no tight-woven history with the players around him, no roots in a new organization, no grounding that anchors that success. What a great opportunity to land a big fat expensive letdown.

I'm good with the Nash deal, love it. But I hope the Rangers understand that you do no recreate history just because you want to. You don't grab a player who has had success, simply relocate and replicate.
That would be the height of arrogance and lazy thinking, and absolute proof that you do not have a ****ing clue about anything.
The Rangers have pulled enough of that stuff over the last few decades to make most sensible people laugh at them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Dan Boyle at ES right now is playing at the level of a bottom pair defenseman. Still a lethal PP guy though.
 
I don't hate the Kings, just not a big fan of the thought of a repeat. I'd be fine with either the Wings/Hawks winning it all

Oh and lollerblades at the name/avatar/sig ^
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom