Toggle sidebar

Playoff All-Star Teams

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
I will go back through my notes...but Kopitar is a lock. Doughty is a lock. I think Jeff Carter probably belongs too if memory serves as well...
 
Hawkey Town 18 said:
I did not at all agree with his selection, but still tough to leave the Conn Smythe winner off
Click to expand...

He's in consideration. But he certainly was not deserving of the Conn Smythe. It was a very superficial gift, I felt. He'd be on the fringes of this team, with respect to his performance.
 
I think the Kings sweep the forwards for the 2014 team. Keith was good enough to be on it as far as I'm concerned. McDonough was good but I don't think he stood out any more than some others.

Williams -- Kopitar -- Gaborik/Carter
Doughty -- Keith

I guess Quick for goalie. I think Lundqvist was better until the Finals where Quick went into Conn Smythe mode.
 
Sprague Cleghorn said:
I'd replace Toews with Johnson, and maybe Perry for Kane. They both tied for the scoring lead.
Click to expand...

i typed that before kane iced it. yeah, two point game to take the cup: kane over perry, even if he didn't do anything else in the finals.

i can't do johnson over toews when johnson did so little in the finals and toews stole the WCF from the ducks.

seventieslord said:
Johnson Toews Kane
Keith Hedman
Bishop

Bishop wasn't spectacular himself, but he had a better playoff than Crosgord.
Click to expand...

crawford was great in games 4, 5, and 6. this year, that was enough. and while i'm pretty disappointed in stamkos right now for not getting it done, if crawford hadn't been on like he was, stammer might have written himself a huge legacy the last two games. he had the chances.

and also, aren't these more meaningful if we use real positions instead of three forwards?
 
Do positions matter for forwards?

If so...

Palat-Johnson-Kucherov
Hedman-Keith
Uhh...Lundqvist?

2nd team
Killorn-Toews-Kane
Stralman-Seabrook
Damn, still no one good...uhh...Holtby? Andersen? I don't know...
 
Mike Farkas said:
Do positions matter for forwards?

If so...

Palat-Johnson-Kucherov
Hedman-Keith
Uhh...Lundqvist?

2nd team
Killorn-Toews-Kane
Stralman-Seabrook
Damn, still no one good...uhh...Holtby? Andersen? I don't know...
Click to expand...

Can't agree with that triplets line getting the entire 1st team. They went silent as soon as they had to play a Western Conference opponent.

Toews is 1st team C. A little quiet offensively in the finals, but was still excellent defensively. Johnson was totally ineffective in the final and was hardly the defensive presence Toews was throughout.

RW is close. Neither Kucherov or Kane had a great final. Kane finally broke through in Game 6 though so I'd give him the slight edge. Somebody mentioned Perry. He put up a nice stat line but was a no-show (besides selfish penalties) when the chips were down against Chicago. That removes him from consideration for me.

LW. Gotta go with Palat I suppose. Saad has an argument though. Pretty weak year at this position.

D is obviously Keith and Hedman.

G. Speaking of weak... Crawford was the one who got it done amongst the inconsistent trio of him, Bishop, and Lundqvist so I'll go with him. Andersen was flat out terrible in the last half of the Chicago series so he's out. It honestly could have been Holtby, but you just can't take a guy who lost in Round 2 unless he was lights out ridiculous, which Holtby wasn't.
 
Mike Farkas said:
Do positions matter for forwards?

If so...

Palat-Johnson-Kucherov
Hedman-Keith
Uhh...Lundqvist?

2nd team
Killorn-Toews-Kane
Stralman-Seabrook
Damn, still no one good...uhh...Holtby? Andersen? I don't know...
Click to expand...

???

If F positions don't matter:

Johnson - Toews - Kane
Hedman - Keith

Crawford

If F positions do matter:

Killorn - Toews - Kane
Hedman - Keith

Crawford
 
Last edited:
For the record, Toews and Kane could easily be first teamers for me. It's very close. Johnson obviously got hurt down the stretch, but coming into the Final, he was a virtual lock for the Conn Smythe. They were all very good defensively throughout. Johnson didn't get bad because they played a west team (as if the Blackhawks play like other west teams...), they just died on the vine. It had little to do with Chicago or their style or anything like that. He got dinged up, it happens...same with Kucherov and Bish...
 
Mike Farkas said:
For the record, Toews and Kane could easily be first teamers for me. It's very close. Johnson obviously got hurt down the stretch, but coming into the Final, he was a virtual lock for the Conn Smythe. They were all very good defensively throughout. Johnson didn't get bad because they played a west team (as if the Blackhawks play like other west teams...), they just died on the vine. It had little to do with Chicago or their style or anything like that. He got dinged up, it happens...same with Kucherov and Bish...
Click to expand...

Johnson really hadnt done that much since Game 2 of the ECF. Don't care enough to research but I believe he racked up most of his points before Game 3 of the ECF.
 
Perhaps, I'm not a big "points or no points" guy, I rarely have any idea of stat totals...I just judge on positive impact shifts in my own estimation when talking about these kinds of things. Johnson was so impactful for 75% of the playoffs (prior to his injury) that he could get by on fumes for a few games and still be highly regarded. Because they don't get there without him. And none of the Blackhawks were amazing in the Final - except Keith - to really substantially over take him, in my opinion...

So that's how it shook out. I honestly sat there and thought about each position and thought, "who had the biggest impact at LW in these playoffs...?" kicked around a few names and then put one down, same for C and RW...after I was done I looked at it went, "ah crap, it's that line..." it was not at all intentional...in fact, I'd prefer that I didn't do that, but that's just how it worked out in my head...
 
When this thread first started we did it where F positions mattered, but it just ended up leaving out too many of the best players, so we switched it so it can be 3 of any F position.

For this year I think I'd go with the following:

Keith, Hedman, are absolute locks

Toews isn't nearly as much of a no-brainer as the above 3, but I have him a small step above the other F's.

Last 2 spots should go to some combination of Kane/Kucherov/Johnson. I'm obviously biased, but Kane being on the winning team does matter when it's close like this, so I'll take him. Kucherov was better than Johnson in the Finals, but Johnson was huge in the early rounds, so I think I'll go with:

Johnson - Toews - Kane

Keith - Hedman

Crawford/Lundqvist


EDIT: I'd probably take Johnson over Kane also (if there was only 2 spots)


EDIT 2: Need to take a closer look at Crawford vs. Lundqvist
 
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe said:
I think Lundqvist played the best of the conference finalist goalies.

Both Bishop and Crawford let in bad goals at bad times.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about it before, but I'd definitely be willing to take a closer look at Lundqvist as a contender for the goalie spot. Crawford was great in the 4 wins Chicago had in the Finals, but you're correct, he let in some softies in the 2 losses. He also got pulled in Round 1 and only registered 1 win in that series.
 
Of no relevant note: NHL playoffs wins leaders each had 13 a piece in this postseason. Last time that happened was '07 Giguere/Emery each won 13, in context, that's not close to 16.
 
Anyway, for me, Toews, Keith, Hedman, and Lundqvist are definite.

Hard to choose between 2 of Kucherov, Johnson, and Kane for the other 2 forwards.
 
Mike Farkas said:
Do positions matter for forwards?

If so...

Palat-Johnson-Kucherov
Hedman-Keith
Uhh...Lundqvist?

2nd team
Killorn-Toews-Kane
Stralman-Seabrook
Damn, still no one good...uhh...Holtby? Andersen? I don't know...
Click to expand...

actually, you're right, I'd take Lundqvist's performance over either of the finalists.
 
Johnson - Toews - Kane
Hedman - Keith

Crawford

Bishop was too inconsistent for me. So was Crawford but overall he was better, especially in the Final.
 
I think Holtby faced enough shots to warrant some consideration here, especially given how these playoffs started with Scott Darling taking over for Crawford.
 
quoipourquoi said:
I think Holtby faced enough shots to warrant some consideration here, especially given how these playoffs started with Scott Darling taking over for Crawford.
Click to expand...

Right, Holtby was really good too. Better than Crawford and Bishop definitely. Better than Lundqvist? I'm not so sure.

I think that if we're EVER going to include players who aren't on the finalists, it should be goal this year, since Bishop and Crawford were, at some point, considering the weakness of their respective teams.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
Right, Holtby was really good too. Better than Crawford and Bishop definitely. Better than Lundqvist? I'm not so sure.

I think that if we're EVER going to include players who aren't on the finalists, it should be goal this year, since Bishop and Crawford were, at some point, considering the weakness of their respective teams.
Click to expand...

I'm on board with giving it to Lundqvist, but as far as Holtby is concerned I find it really difficult to select a player from a team that only won 1 round. It may not be entirely fair sometimes, but I think the 4 Conference Finalists are all I'm really willing to consider for these.


EDIT: We also have Halak on the 2010 team
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom